The use of electric motors in carrier seems to be more of an emotional issue than I ever would have imagined, as evidenced by my announcement that I was planning to allow electrics and glow motors to compete together in Sportsman and 15 profile at the Fly-In next year. I believe that electric carrier is coming and that it might actually bring some new fliers in to the event. So with some trepidation I have opened a thread to discussion electric carrier. Anyting related from rules to building can be brought up as far as I am concerned. What say you.

As I've said countless times before, mixing electric into established piston events is just plain wrong, for countless reasons.

When Class I and Profile Carrier were added, they weren't muscled into Class II, they were launched as separate classes off to the side.  Result: the Class II flyers kept flying Class II and added the new events.  Plus, guys who didn't want to mess with .65's got into Class I and Profile.

Profile and 15 Carrier are there to provide a simple entry point and a low budget event for those who don't want the expense and complexity of the bigger Scale classes.  There will be nothing cheap or simple about the small number of electric models that come in and decimate these events. 

If the electricutioners didn't know that they have killer equipment in hand, they wouldn't be campaigning for this change.  What I foresee is somebody blowing out 15 and Sportman at The Brodak in 2011 and killing the events forever.  One more question: How can a person who creates a winning electric carrier plane have the nerve to enter Sportsman Class?

It they want to start up electric carrier, run separate electric events.  I won't oppose that. 

As somebody who has actually invested money and time in all four piston classes, my word is a lot more valid than that a casual comment from an outsider.

To paraphrase Roger Penske: "Everybody has an opinion, but the Car Owners have the opinion that matters."

It's a lot easier to get rid of contestants than it is to get them back.

Separate event OK, Mix with glow not OK

What Bob said. 

15 Profile is a speed limit event. Therefore electrics can't offer any real advantage for high speed. Many fliers in 15 routinely hit the 70 mph limit, Paul Smith for one. The advantage , if any is in low speed perhaps, but as one who has tried electrics in carrier I can testify that it is not really an advantage. It is hard to control the rpm, much harder than a glow engine. The tuning is very different but both take a lot of work to get things right for slow flight. And both require lots of practice to get good low speed times. Landing is of course the same for both. The only thing that seems easier is to reverse prop direction so that torque helps with line tension. You don't have to find  a left hand crank. The other advantage is you don't have to have your motor reworked, or do it yourself if you are capable. Electric prices are going down, while glow is getting harder to find. Today you can put a competetive plane together with electric cheaper than you can glow.
In the other classes to go as fast as glow is hard with the weight limits set by the NCS.
I flown carrier for over 20 years and although I have been into electrics only for  a year, but I really don't see why under the current rules they can't fly with glows'

Paul,
I resent your comment that I am including electrics in 15 and sportsman so I can win. I seldom fly 15 and never have flown sportsman.

Since there seems to be no comments except to question my motives I consider this subject closed.

I am going to fly my Electric RC now

"As somebody who has actually invested money and time in all four piston classes, my word is a lot more valid than that a casual comment from an outsider." If that is the case, perhaps someone who has competed in the piston classes and who has also competed in four electric classes might have an even more valid comment than one who knows nothing about electrics from experience. Allow me to correct some of the errors in fact that have been presented here and to present some opinions about the future of the events.

The electric carrier events started with Skyray, since these rules were owned by Sig and didn't need to go through a long process to come up with something to try. The Skyray rules, which combine electric and gas in the same event, have been very successful in that the scores for electric and gas Skyray have been basically the same: Sometime electric wins, sometime gas wins, just depending on how well the contestants fly that day and how well their particular Skyray works in the weather conditions of the day. Perhaps the reasons both types of power result in similar scores is the fact that Skyray, like .15, is a speed limit event. Also, the airplane (with sliders not allowed) doesn't fly all that well, so six minute low speeds aren't likely and reasonable battery weights will allow people to finish the low speed most of the time. The same result has happened with the .15 electric rules as published by the NCS: The electrics and gas models are competing with no one being dominant. We have electric and gas competing at the Nats and at Phoenix and the competition is hot every year, but electric has shown no advantage over gas. Each has its adherents and they are happy to compete against each other.

The NCS came up with a set of electric rules for the AMA classes. The charge to the committee that wrote them was to prepare rules that would not give electric a scoring advantage over gas, but to try to make it reasonably close. After three years of competition with electrics the results suggest that the rules have accomplished this. Electric carrier has not shown any advantage over gas. They are different, each with virtues and vices, but the electric scores are not better.

I have been working very hard to make electric work in all three classes. So far, I have found that gas gives better high speeds, better low speeds, and better reliability than electric. The better controllability of the electrics for low speed does not exist, as John mentioned. My gas stuff is all easier to fly than the electrics because it has better controllability and reliability. Electrics quit, and they fail to respond properly, and things fail because we push them hard in order to get close to the high speeds we want. The left hand rotation that some prefer has not been an advantage to me. As I mentioned in the past, I do not use reverse rotation in any of my gas engines and I don't miss it. I do not find it an advantage. For electric, sometimes the motors have so much torque (and low top rpm limits) that a very large prop is needed, a disadvantage that can be partly compensated for with reverse rotation. If you can find a decent pusher prop in the right size, that is.

I confess that I don't understand the advantage Joe mentioned, about electrics being able to increase speed to regain line tension without jumping backwards. I find my gas stuff is more controllable in all situations in low speed than the electrics.

All of us who have been working the electric for the AMA know that they do not perform as well as the gas classes, so to say that we are doing this because we have killer equipment is simply nonsense. I don't need "killer equipment" to win. I already have that, and it is gas powered. If I spent more time on gas and less on electric I would score even better in the standard events. And to say that John will put in electric .15 at Brodak so he can win the event is not only nonsense but an insult.

Many observers believe that the glow engine is dying out and electric is about all that will be left in a few years. Visit any R/C field and you can see evidence of that. Electric motors outsell gas by a large factor. So when somebody comes along to our contests to watch, and says he used to fly control line many years ago, but now just flies R/C, he may be talking about electric. So if I can show him how to get into carrier by building an airplane like he used to, and by putting in electric power like he is using now in R/C, he might be interested. And getting a few more people interested in Carrier is what this is all about. People watch us flying carrier, and they seem to be more interested in the electric ones than the gas ones. For some people, electric advantages of lower noise and less greasy mess are important and may make the difference between being able to participate or not.

Some people seem to worry about their competitor outspending them to beat them. Sorry, that's already true with gas. The glow engines needed for the top of competition usually cost hundreds more than most people want to spend. The electric motor I am working with in Profile, however, costs less than $80. It seems to have as good performance as more expensive motors in the same size and weight, at least close enough that I have found no reason to spend more. Performance is limited by the properties of materials (resistivity of copper, strength or magnets) and these are pretty much fixed, with little change expected. So improvements in motors are not going to be coming fast. We hope for improvements in batteries, too, but other than steadily decreasing cost, this has been pretty slow. We have quite a ways to go before the batteries are light enough to make electric performance equal to gas performance. The batteries are not cheap, at perhaps $100 for a Profile battery right now, but the fuel cost and battery cost over the battery lifetime are pretty similar. The electronics on board run between $60 and $120, so the electric propulsion system at $200 or so per Profile airplane, not counting "fuel" (battery) is pretty reasonable. (You still have to buy a battery charger and will probably buy other support equipment, but considering all the ground equipment we have for glow already, this is not likely to be very different.)

Joe Just is working to save carrier with his postal contests that might get new blood into the sport. I don't know if this will work or not, but I very much applaud him for trying and wish him all the success in the world. Those of us working with electric carrier are taking a different approach, trying to bring in new people to participate in the sport as well as give the experienced carrier fliers a new challenge which we believe they will find to be a lot of fun.

Electric carrier has shown no scoring advantage over gas carrier over the last four years of competition. My experience has shown me conclusively that electric has no advantage but rather is at a disadvantage to gas. But I find it to be more fun, and am willing to take a hit in score to have fun. Most of the contests I fly in have either combined gas and electric already, or have separate classes (Nats and Phoenix, for two examples that have separate classes.) It works both ways, but combining the events has an advantage, especially for local contests where participation is limited, of allowing the few electric fliers to join in, work on developing their stuff, and to show the way to the future. Having a separate set of rules for electric, as we do unofficially now but could have as separate AMA events in the future, and allowing contests to combine the events if they choose or separate them if participation warrants it, is one reasonable solution. But the idea of not flying in a contest because they allow electrics to compete against gas is not based on a rational evaluation of the competing technologies. The present rules work. Gas equipment will not be obsoleted, but the two can compete with each other.

Pete

I mentioned the "slack line" probnlem as a favor to one that does not have computer access.  His comment was basically that when one has slack lines on a gas carrier plane one must back up quickly to get the slack out of the lines.  He feels that  electric control to the throtle eliminates this problem and there fore electric has an advantage because signals down the slack lines is not impeeded.  If he is wrong in his assumtions make it clear here so I can pass it on.  

The gentleman does compete in Carrier by the way in Profile, Class 1 and in .15.  He wishes to remain unknown. He is a past member of the NCS.

Joe

The only differnces are:

1.  No chance of the engine "flaming out" during throttle jockeying.

2.  Left hand rotation (with the huge advantage during hovering) available at no extra cost.

3. Unlimited power compared to piston engines with displacement limits, suction fuel systems, and other performance-hinderin rules.

Exactly what is an "electric 15"?

Maybe you should target Class II.  There are fewer people to defend it.

The only differnces are:

1.  No chance of the engine "flaming out" during throttle jockeying.

2.  Left hand rotation (with the huge advantage during hovering) available at no extra cost.

3. Unlimited power compared to piston engines with displacement limits, suction fuel systems, and other performance-hinderin rules.

Exactly what is an "electric 15"?

Maybe you should target Class II.  There are fewer people to defend it.

Have you not read anything that has been posted here? I thought Pete and Bob did a very good job at explaining everything that you just posted.  It amazes me that everyone wonders why carrier is dying!  It is simple, its the negative attitude of some people that turn potential pilots away.

I was against the whole electric thing because I didn't know anything about them but having had it explained to me and reading it on here i think I have a pretty good understanding of it and have no problem with it joining glow planes.

David

Wether true or not, it is the perception that electric is superior and incompatible with gas that is the issue. Separate classes would eliminate that as an excuse for not participating. Why not acknowledge that and have two classes?

Pete, Bob
Thank you for your input, as two fliers with a great deal of experience with electric carrier models I think your comments hold a great deal of weight. It is interesting to me that most often the people against electrics are those that have not tried to build one or those that don't fly the event.
John

Paul
I have read many of your posts about Electric power in Navy Carrier.

I am the supplier of the electronics (U/Tronics Control) that all of the electric NC fliers use.  I will make you an offer, promise to build one electric powered Navy Carrier model an I will furnish my E-NC Special control unit to you FREE.  Just send me your mailing address and agree to try it your self.

Clancy

The problem is not the controls - it's the MOTOR.

The challenge of navy Carrier event is get an ENGINE to give high power, then go down to idle and back up again without quitting.  You can do this with a stock RC engine, but it probably won't be fast enough to win.  The winners get top HP and still don't quit at idle (usually).  

An electric motor can go all the way down to zero RPM, or even go backwards to stop the model, with no risk of quitting.  That's why piston & electric don't mix.  

It has nothing to do with your controls.  As always, you have a right to use a 2-line control system with the lines upsized enough to develop the strength of 3.  Except in 15 Class, where the rule is simply (3) .012' x 52' lines.

Paul,
I follow your bashing of electrics in all the various areas of this forum. Have you ever tried an electric? didnt think so. they are NOT a solve all problem solution!
My understanding of carrier is that the objective is to fly fast for a score, fly slow for a score, and then land in a precise location. I was not aware that bonus points were allowed for knowing how to run an engine,,,
The PURPOSE of Carrier is to replicate aircraft carrier operations. You perhaps need to learn more about the rules for the event,, regarding electrics. and once again, perhaps listen to those that actually know from experience what they are talking about regarding electric.
To those that have posted long, well written thought provoking answers, I dip my hat to your efforts. This kind of controversy and negativity is exaclty why I decided not to waste my time trying to learn carrier. No One could answer my questions without turning it into a political rules debate.

One parting shot, after watching carrier (?) at the regionals, it would seem to me that making  another class, or several , of carrier will certainly allow more trophys , for the few people that already participate. Learn from the past, NEW events, and classes, are not likely the answer to bolster entry. POSITIVE support of those who may express and interest will.

PS there were a few people that eventually attempted to help me with my question, to them, i thank you

Carrier is by nature a racing event in that you time the high speed and your low speed is dependent on your skill on hanging on the prop. Knowing that carrier is a racing type event the motor plays a big part in how fast you can fly. So combining electric and glow into one event is not a good idea for a racing type event. It works in Scale because we do not care about how fast the model flies.

Also remember that the engine displacement restriction limits how much power you can apply to the model for glow, but for electric there no limitations on battery and motor selection.

Unless you are willing to apply a maximum speed for high speed MPH combining electric and glow is not a good idea since you time the high speed runs.

OK, one more time (and it probably won't be the last).

The subject here is 15 carrier, There are current NCS rules for electrics that put the profile and Class I and II in separate classes from glow powered airplanes.

15 carrier is a speed limit class so once you have hit 70mph you gain no further advantage. Even if a 15 carrier plane had "unlimited power" it would not be a benefit above 70 mph.

Yes, there is no limit to the motor or battery BUT THERE IS A WEIGHT LIMIT. This weight limit effectively puts a maximum on how much power you can carry on the airplane. Electric batteries are heavy. You can go really fast but you will run out of power before you complete a good low speed portion of the flight. The current (and for that matter foreseeable future) technology for batteries are maxed out for the amount of power  for a set weight. The 15 carrier plane I have flown for the last 3 years is very close to the max weight. I approach the 70 mph limit but I'm not quite there yet. Even at that I have to be very mindful of the time I take between high, low and landing portions to have enough battery to complete a flight ( I try and take 2 laps high to low and 1 lap after low to land). When I recharge the batteries the charger tells me exactly how much power it took out of the battery to complete the flight. From this data I know I am on the edge of the capabilities of the power source (battery). I know this from actual experience over many flights not a guess.

In a glow powered airplane I can add a larger fuel tank and have "unlimited" power to complete the flight.

It still comes down to being able to fly the airplane well, not having "unlimited power".

Paul hitting 70 and making complete flight is not easy certainly not as easy as putting a Nelson 15 on a plane . The 2.5 lb limit is not much for a plane stong enough for carrier with enough battery. Go back and read what Pete and Bob have said.

Doc,
You are probably correct, here is my summary.

A month ago or so when I announced my intent to mix electric and glow at the Brodak Fly-In, in the unofficial events, I never foresaw the reaction that ensued. Quite frankly it surprised me. Carrier has not been a growing area of competitive CL modeling and we seem to be slowly losing people. Many have pointed to the 60 degree rule as what killed carrier, but I personally reject that idea. That rule was added back in the late 70’s. People that couldn’t or wouldn’t fly the event because of that rule left a long time ago. I didn’t enter carrier until 1990 and there were a lot more people flying the event then than today. Now it seems as some say electric will kill the event. I think the opposite is true. I think electric will add life as it is doing in scale and stunt.

 If you want to be a top carrier flyer you must go fast and go very slow. To go fast and still have the ability to go very slow is certainly not trivial, it takes work and skill. Most of the top glow fliers have engines that have been re-worked and/or modified. They have spent years perfecting their planes, and years practicing.

You simply are not going to go very fast with a stock RC engine, muffler and 10%. One reason entries at Brodak’s have grown is because most fliers are not trying to build and fly world beaters. They fly stock RC engines, use muffler and 10% fuel. Most are casual or beginner carrier fliers.  In 15 all but one or two fliers even get close to the 70 MPH limit, and one that does Gary Hull, does not accept any trophies. The scores are all very competitive in 15 and Sportsman. Landing and complete flights normally determine the winners.

I don’t see electric as changing that. Yes, you can do the same thing as many have done in glow, and it will take years to get there just like it would with a glow engine. But you don’t have to. Electric can be built just like most of the glow planes flying today at Brodak’s. They don’t have to be world champion models just because they are electric. The flier that isn’t an engine expert can get his model to do the carrier pattern easier. He can concentrate on flying, learning how to hang the plane and land on a small deck. To me this has the potential to bring in modelers that don’t want to spend time getting the glow motor to perform, but still want a reliable model to fly. And hopefully, some of these new fliers will move on to make carrier their primary event.  I think this is why you see the use of electric power increasing in scale and stunt. I was personally frustrated by bad engine runs in stunt and scale last year myself. In 2011 I see an electric stunter in the back of my truck, right next to the electric scale models.  I hope that many of the people that come to the fly-in may see an electric carrier plane in their future.

This whole issue reduces itself to the question: How do you determine a meaningful equivalency when competing with differing technologies? The whole history of motorsport has shown that finding the right answer is next to impossible. Imagine being part of the Unlimited Rubber Power fraternity when Maxwell Bassett showed up with his gas model. We know how that turned out.

In so far as I can tell, the fact that the performance of a nominal .15 glow Carrier model and the performance of a nominal 2.5 pound "15" eCarrier model are roughly the same is just an accident of nature. There does not appear to be anything grounded in sound engineering logic that allows for a comparison. There will always be a perception tainting the results that one technology has an inherent advantage over the other.

ePower appears to have a strong future and people seem to enjoy taking up the challenge, but when power & speed figure in the result, don't mix it with IC power.

Bob

I was skeptical of the weight limit myself until I tried putting a few models together. It really seems to work to balance the scales between electric and glow. Whether or not this is sound engineering I can not say, I am not an engineer, but it seems to me that strong experimental evidence is meaningful.

The logic behind the rules is sound in my view, and until we apply them and find problems, if any, I don't think they should be dismissed without any specific problems identified. To date they seem to be working.

Dave,
I don't think they are online anywhere yet. They were published in the NCS Newsletter. Here is an excerpt.

, unlimited power,

Paul,
I still dont get it, please explain to me how you get unlimeted power out of an electric motor and battery that is weight limited? as has been explained, getting enough battery to complete the flight is a challange,, boosting power, decreases duration, simple equation,, I HAVE worked with electrics, trust me there isnt any free lunch on this. besides, why would any COMPETATIVE person try to obtain higher than the max speed,, 70mph, because you KNOW it will sacrifice low speed performance to get there. not to mention it will take MORE battery to do it,, so unlimited power is a figment of your imagination, power is definetly limited,, MOST definitly

A 2.5 pound overall weight limit is not a power limit, it's just a weight limit.
.1525 cubic inches is a power limit.

I have conceded that he's already changed the rules. I'm just trying to avoid a flyaway disaster triggered by doubling the mass, allowing limitless power and keeping an already-marginal pull test combined with undersize lines (even for a decent .15).

70 MPH is not a speed limit. It's a speed score limit. You need to do 75 actual to average 70 from a standing start and there is nothing to keep a plane from going A LOT faster.

Perhaps you would like to have unlimited electric power with no minimum line size, any kind of fish line, and no pull test at all? If a 40-ounce electric plane with a motor equal to a Rossi 40 flys off the line busts something, we can reference this posting.

John,

Thanks for both the rules and the line analysis.

Dave

By the way Paul, 3 .012 lines can handle 57lbs, and 2 .015 lines 59 pounds. A 2.5 lb model at 20G is 50lbs pull test. Most of the times 15's are being pulled at 15G, given the typical weights are about 1.5lbs.