<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi All,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">My second attempt to join in on this
discussion. Most of the discussion thus far (and for good reason),
is centered around the cost of the equipment and cost comparisons to glow.
Eric's note below and some others also point to the development stage
of the technology too. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Having flown Tony's Partner only once
(but watched it fly quite a bit), and having seen just a few other electric
pattern planes (Jason's, and Billy Meadows'), the flying advantage of the
electric was enough to make me want to get one going, regardless of the
learning curve. From my perception, the pilot does feel the difference
between the glow and electric setups regarding less vibration. The
plane is going to be easier to setup for a constant speed envelope, where
there is less of a "gap" between slow and full-throttle horizontal
velocity. With the narrowed speed envelope, it MUST be a tad easier
to setup the plane as the "one" setup has a smaller velocity
range to work and be consistent in.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I'm just trying to stir up another side
of the discussion. I hope that some of the folks who have more of
the "flying" experience with the electric 2M setup will relay
their experience, and describe to us the piloting differences, trim differences,
etc.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks All,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Jim W.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Grow Pattern"
<pattern4u@comcast.net></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: discussion-request@nsrca.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">06/01/2005 01:08 AM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
discussion@nsrca.org</font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><discussion@nsrca.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: Glow Engine Vs. Electric Engine
for 2 m' pattern plane</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">John,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"> I think
that you might agree that what appears to be working for "sponsored"
pilots may not yet be that realistic for those who spend their own hard
earned dollars on the hobby. </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">I really don't feel that electric is that
viable yet. Not from a technology point of view, but much more of a durability
and reliability point of view. I note that the pioneers are starting to
use less amps/volts in the motors to get more longevity out of not just
the motors but also the controllers and the battery packs. (A few
months ago you did not hear this type of statement.)</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">I also note that it feels like and may well
be true, that you have to know a lot more about the limits of electric
motors and the associated equipment to be successful and safe. I contact
many of the "electric" suppliers and find it very hard to get
definitive answers on what I should and should not do as regards the set-ups
and the limits.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Where this leads me is that I am currently
on the side of caution with this stuff because you can use up a very large
amount of money before you realize that you have not gone the right route.
With glow most of us can sort out the enthusiast vs. the zealot vs. the
professional user of the equipment. With electric I can't.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">I read about the rave reviews of how well
a certain system performs and then I get the flow of private e-mails with
more factual and less glowing (No joke intended) realities of the set-up.
In most cases I can't print what I am sent but it does concern me that
when I tried to emulate the top system of the day it was both expensive
beyond my expectations and did not perform all that well.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">It was not enough to put me off pattern,
but I had been a beginner it might easily have sent me away.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Regards,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Eric.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>----- Original Message ----- </font>
<br><font size=3><b>From:</b> </font><a href=mailto:johnferrell@earthlink.net><font size=3 color=blue><u>John
Ferrell</u></font></a><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3><b>To:</b> </font><a href=mailto:discussion@nsrca.org><font size=3 color=blue><u>discussion@nsrca.org</u></font></a><font size=3>
</font>
<br><font size=3><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:04 PM</font>
<br><font size=3><b>Subject:</b> Re: Glow Engine Vs. Electric Engine for
2 m' pattern plane</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Sometimes you drink what you can afford...</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>John Ferrell </font><font size=3 color=blue><u><br>
</u></font><a href=http://dixienc.us/><font size=3 color=blue><u>http://DixieNC.US</u></font></a>
<br><font size=3>----- Original Message ----- </font>
<br><font size=3><b>From:</b> </font><a href=mailto:joddino@socal.rr.com><font size=3 color=blue><u>J.Oddino</u></font></a><font size=3>
</font>
<br><font size=3><b>To:</b> </font><a href=mailto:discussion@nsrca.org><font size=3 color=blue><u>discussion@nsrca.org</u></font></a><font size=3>
</font>
<br><font size=3><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 31, 2005 12:03 PM</font>
<br><font size=3><b>Subject:</b> Re: Glow Engine Vs. Electric Engine for
2 m' pattern plane</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">If electric works better it will dominate
even if it costs more. Remember, life is too short to drink cheap
beer.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Jim O</font>
<br><font size=3>----- Original Message ----- </font>
<br><font size=3><b>From:</b> </font><a href=mailto:Tom.Koenig@actewagl.com.au><font size=3 color=blue><u>Koenig,
Tom</u></font></a><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3><b>To:</b> </font><a href=mailto:discussion@nsrca.org><font size=3 color=blue><u>discussion@nsrca.org</u></font></a><font size=3>
</font>
<br><font size=3><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, May 29, 2005 3:54 PM</font>
<br><font size=3><b>Subject:</b> Glow Engine Vs. Electric Engine for 2
m' pattern plane</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=blue face="Comic Sans MS">Ed and others</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3 color=blue face="Comic Sans MS">I'm not so sure it is
such a silly comparison for people outside of the US, where costs can be
considerable in the fuel department. Our figures indicate that at we would
be at 'break even' point if we get 100 flights a pack. Anything more and
its gravy. We are not including things like I/C engine rebuilds etc either.
We simply treated the packs as 'fuel' in our estimations. Like anything,
maintenance and correct installation is an issue/learning curve...and done
properly I can see Electric making economic rationale.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3 color=blue face="Comic Sans MS">Now if anyone can just
give us more info on how it actually 'feels' to fly the FAI pattern?</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3 color=blue face="Comic Sans MS">Anyone...please????</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3 color=blue face="Comic Sans MS">best regards</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3 color=blue face="Comic Sans MS">Tom</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma">-----Original Message-----<b><br>
From:</b> discussion-request@nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Ed Alt<b><br>
Sent:</b> Monday, 30 May 2005 8:39 AM<b><br>
To:</b> discussion@nsrca.org<b><br>
Subject:</b> [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Glow Engine Vs.
Electric Engine for 2 m' pattern plane<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Yes and you need to figure out the jump in
your electric bill. Getting silly isn't it? It's a 2:1 comparison,
assuming the batteries last, which apparently, they don't.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Ed</font>
<br><font size=3>----- Original Message ----- </font>
<br><font size=3><b>From:</b> </font><a href=mailto:natpenton@centurytel.net><font size=3 color=blue><u>Nat
Penton</u></font></a><font size=3> </font>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td width=100% bgcolor=white><font size=3>************************************************************************<br>
*PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may<br>
be confidential. If received in error, please delete all <br>
copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or <br>
dissemination of this email or its attachments is <br>
prohibited without the consent of the sender.<br>
<br>
WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep<br>
outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty <br>
is given that this email or its attachments are virus free. <br>
Before opening or using attachments, please check for <br>
viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any <br>
affected attachments.<br>
<br>
Any views expressed in this message are those of the <br>
individual sender, except where the sender expressly,<br>
and with authority, states them to be the views of the <br>
organisation.<br>
************************************************************************</font></table>
<br>
<br>