News:


  • March 28, 2024, 04:17:46 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference  (Read 7080 times)

Offline Miotch

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« on: March 28, 2023, 07:51:50 AM »
I've never had an electric C/L plane.  At first, they didn't exist.  Then, as they developed, I just figured they were too expensive and I'd spent my entire life (attempting) to master the internal combustions, from Cox .049, through a Stalker .61/Enya .56.

I love engines.  And I understand them.  Not saying I'm good at them, because I sometimes struggle with starting one, fuel delivery, having a working battery, etc. etc.  But I like most things about them.

What I don't like is the fuel (although I like the smell of a running engine with castor because it reminds me of happiness when I was a kid), sometimes fighting fuel delivery, having to buy fuel and, of course, the mess and using fuel-proof paints (which wasn't a problem when I was a kid, or single).

I have no idea what it would cost from scratch to build a battery-powered system for a .40-.60 sized ship, but I just assume (maybe wrongly) that it is more than I've ever paid for an engine.

Have any of you done both, or converted from one system to another ??  Any particular advantages from your experience ??  And why do you prefer your choice ??

Battery seems cleaner and easier to get consistent runs, but I'm not even sure about that, because other than seeing a few at a local contest, I've zero experience with them.

Offline Perry Rose

  • Go vote, it's so easy dead people do it all the time.
  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1654
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2023, 08:26:28 AM »
Go to Brodak.com and search the electric components and price them and compare the same plane with an engine. For me the deal breaker is the short battery life. But electric in cold weather or noise problem areas is ideal.
I may be wrong but I doubt it.
I wouldn't take her to a dog fight even if she had a chance to win.
The worst part of growing old is remembering when you were young.

Online fred cesquim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • Fred Cesquim Aeromodelos
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2023, 08:41:01 AM »
I have completely converted to E-power about 5 years ago ( ok, i still have some IC engines for vintage projects)
here´s my thoughts on that. E power is more expensive to start, but in the short period start to be cheaper than glow. How so? to start you have to purchase> engine, ESC, Timer, Programer, charger and battery x IC engine and glow. A well cared battery lasts about 20 gallons of glow. ( do the math). Glow engines requires some maintenance on bearings and piston/liner/rings/glow plugs. E-engines just require change of inexpensive bearings after a long time ( never had a change yet). When you already have a e-set up you cut the cost of the charger and programmer for the next plane an the cost of a new engine/esc/timer is about the same of a good IC engine. so now you have equal cost ant the battery cost x glow is very interesting.
other points to consider: steady working, no suprises, no noise, no pollution and no plane deterioration by fuel/vibration, plus a lot of adjust you can do to the timer.
you can go from the field to a date without that smell and concentrate only into the flight not worrying about the IC engine shenanigans and field naigbours complaint about noise.
what is the main point to decide to go e-power or stay IC is what you expect from your day at the field: are you flying aiming to compete or just realxing? if you´re aiming to competition, then e-power will improve your flight very fast due to the dependability, no slack lines, no burp, no dead engine and a lot of power supply on the critical points of the pattern ( just check how many fliers are e-power on competitions), i developed my flying skills in the last 5 years more than on the previous 20.
if you just want to enjoy the day and fly occasionally stick with glow, still gives a thrill and works good
i still have some models built for IC on the bench for sentimental reasons, still enjoy IC flights but for daily practice, e-power beats by far.

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2023, 09:02:41 AM »
... E power is more expensive to start, but in the short period start to be cheaper than glow. ...

I was going to disagree with this, because I looked into pricing in 2020 or so and the long-term costs of slime power and electric were about equal.  You spent less up front for slime power, but then you had to buy fuel.  You still have to buy batteries, but a battery costs less than 100 tanks of fuel, so you come out ahead there.

Now -- I think you're right.  As of 2015, the short-term cost of slime was actually quite low, because eBay was awash in good engines.  As long as eBay has a supply of slightly used 46LA and 25LA engines -- with or without "crashed once" trainer noses attached -- we're good for those.

But fuel prices have risen faster than battery prices, and fuel is getting harder to find.  so -- yes.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2023, 09:04:11 AM »
As to my personal tradeoff -- I love the noise and smell of slime-powered airplanes.  But I also love the quiet swoosh of electric, and with the consistency of electric I can concentrate on flying better, rather than overcoming this engine run.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Dennis Nunes

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 363
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2023, 09:11:30 AM »
...I have no idea what it would cost from scratch to build a battery-powered system for a .40-.60 sized ship, but I just assume (maybe wrongly) that it is more than I've ever paid for an engine.

Have any of you done both, or converted from one system to another ??  Any particular advantages from your experience ??  And why do you prefer your choice ??

Battery seems cleaner and easier to get consistent runs, but I'm not even sure about that, because other than seeing a few at a local contest, I've zero experience with them.

Hi Miotch,

You might find some helpful information in an article I wrote about "Turning to the Darkside - The Building of Circulas 46 IIe - An Electric Profile". This was my first attempt in designing, developing and building my first electric powered model airplane. The article can be downloaded at: http://flyinglines.org/nunes.circulas46lle.html

This lead to the building of his big brother, Circulas 61e which is a .60 size plane.


Dennis


Offline John Rist

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2944
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2023, 09:21:46 AM »
At 83 I don't fly as often as I used too.  The advantage of electric it it doesn't gum up while sitting around.  The down side if you get a call to go flying at the sprue of the moment it takes time to charge batteries.  for sure  it takes two different set of skills to get either to work.  My background is electrical engineering so I understood the technical terms used in electric flight. So for me the transition was easy. It takes a fair amount of knowledge to fly either electric or glow.  A learning curve is required to master either one.   D>K  PS I think cost is a wash.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2023, 09:11:07 AM by John Rist »
John Rist
AMA 56277

Offline Mark Mc

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 718
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2023, 09:36:43 AM »
The way I see it as a casual flyer, is...  If you're in it for competition or just serious personal development, then maybe electric is better.  If you're in it for the convenience of not having to clean, then maybe electric is better.  If you're in it for the long term price, then maybe reading a library book is better.   The argument that I've never understood is the, "It's quicker and easier to fly electric than glow" argument.  As a casual flyer, when I'm not just sitting at the field just enjoying talking and watching others fly, I'm in it for the nostalgia.  And that means glow.  Yes, sometimes engines can be finicky.  'Specially if you're a 1/2A nut like me.  I like playing with engines.  But a simple LA or FP is usually a two or three flip proposition.  And as said earlier, the smell is part of the nostalgia.  I do have three or four electric planes.  I'll stick with glow for the most part.  But, that's just me.

Online fred cesquim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • Fred Cesquim Aeromodelos
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2023, 11:07:53 AM »
  The argument that I've never understood is the, "It's quicker and easier to fly electric than glow"
i can tell from my own experience that i was trying to master the horizontal 8 with a primary force and a fox 35 and always scared with the burp or lack of power. friend of mine ( Fiorotti, the timer guy) got the plane and converted with the whole package for free. Next weekend i was doing the 8´s perfectly because i ceased to worry about the engine function and focused on the pattern. from then to the full pattern was much easy as the e-power gives you confidence. Ok, there are flawless IC engines, but for most of the mortals, e-power makes you forget the related struggle to have a steady glow engine running. Another positive thin is that if you use a inverted prop you never had any slack lines and planes recovers immediatly from mistkes. with this in mind, i can say that helps a lot on the learning curve. not that IC engines prevent us to do it. just a bit easy with E-power


Offline Brent Williams

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1260
    • Fancher Handles - Presented by Brent Williams
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2023, 12:04:40 PM »
Are you re-starting from scratch in the hobby?  If so, go electric and never look back.
Do you have a local source for glow fuel or will you mix your own?
Do you know how to diagnose engine run problems?
How much time is left in your flying career? 
How much time do you want to spend getting engine runs figured out?

Laser-cut, "Ted Fancher Precision-Pro" Hard Point Handle Kits are available again.  PM for info.
https://stunthanger.com/smf/brent-williams'-fancher-handles-and-cl-parts/ted-fancher's-precision-pro-handle-kit-by-brent-williams-information/

Offline Miotch

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2023, 01:06:04 PM »
Are you re-starting from scratch in the hobby?  Not really.  Using all my old stuff.  Have a bunch of engines and kits If so, go electric and never look back.
Do you have a local source for glow fuel or will you mix your own?Good question.  I have a gallon of old fuel in metal can (have to see what oil/nitro is, and may not be good anyway; but have the local Tulsa club nearby and I figure De, Joe or someone knows where to get fuel, but not sure
Do you know how to diagnose engine run problems?That, I do know
How much time is left in your flying career? Depends on whether you talk to my doctor or my wife.  Doctor says I'll live forever.  Wife says I'll die tomorrow if I eat anything I actually want to eat.
How much time do you want to spend getting engine runs figured out? I don't.  Nothing pisses me off more than when my Stalker or ST .61 runs perfectly on a stand, but won't run 30 seconds in a ship.
Beyond all of that, at the current time, cost would be prohibitive to make the change.  I'm thinking about keeping my eye open for some used equipment or for the next time I start a build.

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2023, 02:00:03 PM »
The way I see it as a casual flyer, is... 

If you're coming from RC and you've only ever flown electrics -- electric.

If you're absolutely new to model aviation -- either way.  If someone came to me and said "I want to learn that, but I don't want to mess with those stinky slippery slimy engines" then I'd set them up with an RC car radio for throttle control, a motor, and an ESC.  Then I'd let them loose to have fun.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Miotch

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2023, 03:11:34 PM »
Never flown RC.  Not new to C/L.  Just a retread with lots of old planes that will require fuel, no matter if I decide to attempt to delve into electric or not.

I'm really just wondering if I need to consider breaking out of my Luddite mindset.

Offline Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6823
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2023, 05:26:15 PM »
Never flown RC.  Not new to C/L.  Just a retread with lots of old planes that will require fuel, no matter if I decide to attempt to delve into electric or not.

I'm really just wondering if I need to consider breaking out of my Luddite mindset.

   No, you don't really. Not if what you are doing is satisfying and fulfilling to you. I am like yourself, a gear head and love engines. Over the past 30 years, I had a busy and demanding job that left me not a lot of free time. I could leave a I/C powered model (actually , about a dozen models) hanging in my garage, each with their own handle and  lines, ready to fly at a moments notice. As you mention, sometime an opportunity to fly came unexpectedly, so all I had to do was grab a model, equipment bag, starter box, fuel, then fuel, flip and fly!  My starter box is only used for driving the glow plug, so the 12 volt, 7 amp battery inside only needed to be charged once or twice a year and is always ready. I have a cordless starter when needed, and the same for that. I know my engines well enough that one or two flips are the norm, once I get things sorted out and a model set up and trimmed. If a flying circle were right outside my back door, I could pick a model, have lines hooked up, tank filled and engine primed and ready to start in about 15 minutes. One of the things I love the most is getting the model fueled, prime flipped through, hook up the glow plug, then pull the prop through once to feel that bump, know it's alive and ready to go, then quick flip and it's off and running. Solving any engine issues is something I enjoy, and I'm pretty good at. It's part of the attraction to me. Getting a model trimmed out and squared away to a point where I can do things this way is what I strive for.

   Where I fly we are about half and half, glow and electric. We help each other out with things, trimming issues, and other technical problems. I came to the conclusion a long time ago, while watching my friends fly electric models through a flite, that if that were all that was available to me, I would pursue the hobby in some other way. I have flown free flight models, of all kinds, and R/C sailplanes before, and still dabble in them and have a collection of kits and plans for each. They give me a specific pleasure that C/L stunt does not, but stunt gives me specific pleasures that R/C and free flight do not. But for me, a stunt model has to have an engine for me to get that enjoyment. I have been involved with electric R/C models long before the technology came to stunt. The local sailplane club that I was a member of early on put on and held a successful team trials for the first ever US FAI F3E team to the first world championships in Belgium in 1986. Then we lobbied for and succeeded in putting on the second ever electric World Championships here in St. Louis in 1988. So I have been around the technology and growth of it since that time and participated in the competitions, and enjoyed the hell out of it and made friends from all over the world in the process. And I could go back to it, because it is something all together different, a different set of disciplines and skills. So I am NOT anti electric! But again, if that were all that was available to me to fly stunt, I would move on to something else.

   As far as which is best, one over the other, that depends on the person and their ability to grasp the concepts of each. There are guys out there that have difficulties with engines and what it takes to get performance from them, so they make the switch to electric. But that takes a certain set of skills and understanding of technical knowledge at a certain level to get the most out of a system, and pretty importantly, keep things safe. Like I/C, there is nothing automatic about it.  To build an I/C model, we just look at the plans, or the kit box, and we know what engine to use. The instructions also usually point out a starting point for tank and props. I already "speak" that language, so no problem, but a new comer has the find his way through that, but it is pretty simple. For an electric model, it's more complicated. As some one has already pointed out, the initial lay out of cash to get equipped is higher., The learning curve for the technology, if you do not "speak" that language, is pretty steep.  So a guy just getting started has to make that decision, but they more than likely already understand that engines can be finicky and will take some study and work to understand and master. But they also need to understand that the electric systems are NOT like a Hoover vacuum cleaner where you just plug it in and flip a switch! At our field I have seen batteries come flying out of airplanes, motors seize up and come to a smoking stop, motors quit suddenly due to a component failure, connectors melt down, batteries with bad cells, and even just not work at all!! I lost count of how many times a programmer module was left at home, or the device for checking battery condition. Electric models have their pitfalls and problem areas, and again, it depends on the person and their level of understanding and grasping the technology.

      When the electric technology first started coming in and progressing, I watched the classifieds on the stunt forums and saw a lot of movement of equipment like chargers, batteries, speed controllers, timers, props and such as guys tried to find their way through it and find what was "best" or what worked the best for them. There is a LOT, if not almost all of that equipment, that isn't used any longer because the technology keeps evolving and trends keep changing. I think the electronic stuff has a finite useful life span before it can't be used any longer. I have engines from the last 6 decades that can be mounted on an airplane and used successfully. If treated properly, engines can have a very long and useful lifespan. Spare parts can be a challenge but those can be located and even parts engines can be cannibalized for parts. For your average Joe Bellcrank and engine can and have lasted a lifetime. I don't know if the same can be said for timers, speed controllers, motors, and the required support equipment.

   So as to which is better, it just depends on "things". It depends on the person intellectually, their skill levels, likes and dislikes, and what they are going to do with it. At the higher levels of competition, I think it's still 50/50, and again, depends on the pilot and his ability to get the most out of his "power plant". Who knows what the future will bring. I have collected enough stuff to keep me flying at my skill level, or maybe even above it, with what I have in "stock" now for glow engines. Electric may have an advantage in that respect, but then again, they may not depending on how technology goes and the supply chain thing goes.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

  PS to add; Miotch! I like the purple taildragger Shark! I'm not a big fan of purple, but that looks pretty cool, as does the Shark 45 as a taildragger.!
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Curare

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 779
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2023, 08:09:59 PM »
Everyone at my club thinks I'm the "electric guy" generally because most of the stuff I fly is electric. Why? Becuase I've got batteries and motors in bulb from RC. The outlay was virtually nil, and I already understood the engineering/electrickery.

If your aim is competition, electric affords you the ability to work on the sequence with a consistent power output. It might be poor but poor in my opinion consistency is better than being good one minute and trash the next.

BUT. The model will have no soul. I call them appliances. There's no heart, no soul, no noise, no STINK!.

I find that now that I've taken the foot off the pedal in terms of competition I reach for glow powered models more and more. They're far more fun, more tactile, (more cantankerous?)

In a nutshell: if you're training or competing: electric. If you want to have fun, Glow.
Greg Kowalski
AUS 36694

Offline Sean McEntee

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2023, 12:45:13 AM »
Electrics suffer in the 135 degree Kuwaiti heat...that's the limit of my experience with CL electrics.

I just picked up a FF electric setup from Texas Timers, and will be diving into the world of electric FF this year.  Should be fun.  In the end, whatever blows your cap off  H^^

Offline Miotch

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2023, 06:40:29 AM »
Electrics suffer in the 135 degree Kuwaiti heat...that's the limit of my experience with CL electrics.

OMG !!  I would suffer more than the motor in 135 degrees.

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2023, 07:59:50 AM »
There is little I can add, except my own experience.  When I returned to the hobby back in 2017 all I had to work with was an ARF Nobler with an old, but still reliable OS35s.  I had heard of electric but had not witnessed it or even piped IC.  I got both on the same day and left the field feeling like a 7th grader on is first day in High School. (I grew up in Kentucky, we only had elementary and High).  Both were so superior to what I knew that I had to make a choice.  What did it for me was something I had never guessed.  Half way through the first e-flight I had seen the flier, Mike Scott asked me what I thought.  I could hear him!  Now I have found this as much a negative as a positive but it was new.  Then he just picked up his plane and set it in line and didn't even wipe it down!  My comment was, to quote Will Smith, "I have to get me one of these".

For me the positives outweigh the negatives.  I love competition, even a simple practice session flying alone is a mini-contest to me so electric has really aided me in regaining some of what I have lost with the years I was out and is more forgiving of aging reflexes.  I do miss the noise and the smell, but I get my fill of that with the group I fly in.  Watching a well tuned Bear making smoke trails on a calm day - priceless.

I think a paraphrase of an earlier comment sums it up for me - Electric is overall superior but it has no soul.

Oh, I almost forgot the "little I can add".  You don't need to make the front end of your plane a fortress anymore.  Without the vibration they just don't need the lumber or the excessive reinforcement, but they do need to be wider and have lots of cooling vents.  You haven't lived until you have tried to convert a 70's IC to electric.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Chuck Matheny

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 789
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2023, 02:14:29 PM »






To each their own.... H^^

« Last Edit: March 29, 2023, 05:28:14 PM by Chuck Matheny »

Offline Sean McEntee

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2023, 05:43:16 PM »
OMG !!  I would suffer more than the motor in 135 degrees.

Temps got up to 143 that summer in Kuwait.  130s is a nice day!

Offline john e. holliday

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 22752
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2023, 05:46:38 PM »
The old DOC just took time to read thru this.  I thought of electric when it first started in stunt and then into carrier.  If I had what would have happened to my equipment when old age said enough and gave me a big warning.  It has been two years since I woke up one morning and could not move or hardly breathe with the back pain I was having.  Trying to make doctors happy slowed my progress to where I am today.  I have a 1/2A I plan on trying in the back yard as soon as the weather lets me get the stooge adjusted.  The plane I plan on using hopefully will fly like a Bi-Slob as I will be doing a little more than a 1/2 circle.  So my glow engines may have gotten stiff from waiting on me but it only took na few minutes to get each one loosened up and running.  So electric is out of the picture for this old decreped man. D>K H^^
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline Chuck Matheny

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 789
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2023, 10:15:31 PM »
The old DOC just took time to read thru this.  I thought of electric when it first started in stunt and then into carrier.  If I had what would have happened to my equipment when old age said enough and gave me a big warning.  It has been two years since I woke up one morning and could not move or hardly breathe with the back pain I was having.  Trying to make doctors happy slowed my progress to where I am today.  I have a 1/2A I plan on trying in the back yard as soon as the weather lets me get the stooge adjusted.  The plane I plan on using hopefully will fly like a Bi-Slob as I will be doing a little more than a 1/2 circle.  So my glow engines may have gotten stiff from waiting on me but it only took na few minutes to get each one loosened up and running.  So electric is out of the picture for this old decreped man. D>K H^^

May God bless your stiff hands and painful back so that you can have some more years of  fun Doc Holliday.
I wonder what the triggers are..it seems like every other time I look at my hands there is a new disfigurement showing.
I think a gun cleaning kit with Hoppes #9 solvent is what  it takes to keep those Cox engines loose as a goose and ready to rev.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2023, 12:39:59 AM by Chuck Matheny »

Offline GERALD WIMMER

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 622
    • Auckland Free Flight Club
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2023, 04:28:26 AM »

To each their own.... H^^

Interesting comparison 250cc of exciting noise vs swishing sounds of electric but would say local residents would prefer the low electric noise.

For me most models are glow or diesel but I have flown electric since 1980 starting with RTP style electric control line models progressing to bigger and better and also electric RC gliders and on to many RC types as the gear improved.
The reason why we use mainly engines mainly cost and the events we fly,  for example going to our NZ Nationals in January me and my sons had 3 stunt models , 3 vintage stunt models, 3 scale models, 2 diesel team racers and 3 glow and 3 diesel slow combat models but only my scale model was electric.
It would simply be too many battery packs to compete in so many events with 3 people when we need only a couple of pints of glow and diesel fuel for our fleet.
My sons Otto and Max always prefer engines over electric motors and Cl over RC enjoying the challenge, smell, sound and feel of IC and CL.
 
Regards Gerald

PS I crashed my scale model at the Nats as I forgot to charge the battery or check it in the general confusion, helping my sons.

Offline Chuck Matheny

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 789
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2023, 11:45:16 AM »
Interesting comparison 250cc of exciting noise vs swishing sounds of electric but would say local residents would prefer the low electric noise.

For me most models are glow or diesel but I have flown electric since 1980 starting with RTP style electric control line models progressing to bigger and better and also electric RC gliders and on to many RC types as the gear improved.

Wow...I never heard of electric powered control line way back then.
Were you using RC Car stuff...?
Yep....nothing makes more sense to me than electric power for a RC glider.


Offline Dave_Trible

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6132
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2023, 03:11:37 PM »
If it don't stink and it don't grunt it ain't no dad gum fun!!!

Dave
AMA 20934
FAA Certificate FA3ATY4T94

Offline GERALD WIMMER

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 622
    • Auckland Free Flight Club
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2023, 06:28:51 AM »
Wow...I never heard of electric powered control line way back then.
Were you using RC Car stuff...?
Yep....nothing makes more sense to me than electric power for a RC glider.
Hello

RTP electric models were popular a long time ago with slot car motors insulated lines etc. I simply added a motorcycle battery to my back pack with insulated lines and slot car controller for the handle when I was a kid. I did this before going with nicad batteries (miniature AE cells worked well) on board battery and RC car/truck can motors and imagine a lot of others were experimenting as well in the 1970's and 80's as the gear improved with control line while the RC world opened up to electric.
After Lipos and brushless motors arrived it was all to easy by comparison.

Regards Gerald

Offline Jim Kraft

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3411
  • AMA78415
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2023, 12:48:30 PM »
   I am still stuck in the ignition era. Electric for the spark and gasoline for the power. To each his own. I will probably never grow up. I was hooked in the 40's before glow came out.
Jim Kraft

Offline Dan McEntee

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6823
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2023, 01:21:45 PM »
   I am still stuck in the ignition era. Electric for the spark and gasoline for the power. To each his own. I will probably never grow up. I was hooked in the 40's before glow came out.

  You might say it's the best of both worlds Jim!!!!!! I have a few on the shelf I have been playing with, trying to learn!
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Fred Cronenwett

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2093
    • Lafayette Esquadrille
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2023, 02:57:10 PM »
I still have both, but with the electric I can plug the battery in and go. I don't have to adjust the needle valve, clean the model, etc.

When it comes to the Nats I have told myself only enter electric powered modela, less hassle as compared to glow power

From a scale point of view I can hide everything with an electric power system but the glow engine has a lot hanging out in some cases.

I am building more and more electric over glow power but still have glow powered models.
Fred Cronenwett
AMA CLSCALE7 - CL Scale
Model Aviation CL Scale columnist

Offline jerry v

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2023, 04:44:44 PM »
Internal combustion pros: can run for hours on the tank with proper wing loading. Minimal requirement for supporting equipment. Just fuel and glow driver. Diesels need only fuel. Power to weight ratio considering engine and fuel for the length of flight time compare to electric motor and battery weight for the equal flight time. Sound and smoke add realism to scale models. Easy to store for long time - add oil and put it away. Crash is not as costly- sometimes it’s only prop replacement.
Cons: Vibration. Airframe needs to be stronger ( heavier) . Needs fuel proof from soaking oil. Reliability depends a lot on the weather conditions. Needs constant adjustments. Cleaning after use.

Electric pros:  convenience- plug and play. Clean operation. After flight just put back in the car. Electric helicopters will beat any gasser during drag races. Tesla will beat any hot rod. Electric power is limited only by wire thickness)). No noise to disturb neighbours and animals.

Cons: need electricity to charge batteries. In remote areas needs more supporting equipment- generator, fuel, charger. Can not have charging process unattended. With the same wing loading electric is much less flight time than IC . Crash is much more expensive than IC. Only jet turbine burn is more expensive))

Conclusion- when power grid will go dark from all air conditioners, Tesla on charge, all totally electric appliances at household, prohibitions of generators and bunfires - then we will enjoy flying IC engines. If we will have them.

Jerry 
Variety is the spice of life.

Offline john e. holliday

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 22752
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #30 on: April 01, 2023, 04:54:39 PM »
But Fred C. your scale planes are not as critical to weight as a stunt plane. S?P
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline Kafin Noe’man

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2023, 08:29:16 AM »
After a long hiatus of 17 years, I’m finally back to this hobby after finding out that my improperly-stored CL stuff are still working pretty good.



I cleaned and tested all of my engines 2 OS LA 40, 2 OS LA 25, 1 ENYA SS30 and they all still run ok, that’s why I’ve decided to stick with the IC setup. Well, it’s not easy to get them running well, but once you figure that out, you’ll be happy especially for those who are still learning to fly the complete pattern where you’re expected to have crashes. From my personal experience, IC engines are tougher and can withstand the heavy crashes compared to the electric motors and Li-Po batteries.

But if you decide to choose the IC engine, be prepared for times like this: you’ve gone to the field but ended up with no flying because you have spent all your time that day just to figure out what’s wrong with your engine.  LL~ LL~ LL~
INA 1630
I fly: Vector, Cardinal, XEBEC, and Banshee

Offline Air Ministry .

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 4978
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2023, 06:44:39 PM »
Quote
, I’m finally back to this hobby after finding out that my improperly-stored CL stuff are still working pretty good.

Far Out . ! . Your for it now ! .



The LA 25s will haul a ORIENTAL on 70 feet of .018 wire , no worries . And Do a nice accurate schedule .
https://www.modelairplanenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/FSP08701-Oriental.pdf
https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=6494
Thems the wings n proportions .
Carry a tonna weight n still flygood .



Using this as a guide , use a crayon , and your favorite airplane with two engines , Like a NF 13 Meteror 57 inches long .  :P
Work at 60 or 70 ounce ! so at 40 odd theyre marvelous . If you leave the undecarage where it belongs. Theyre NOT cars .,

Pttum Crankshats at SEVEN INCHES - Ea. Side  ( 14 in. seperation , = Ea. Side . )



« Last Edit: April 02, 2023, 07:07:22 PM by Air Ministry . »

Offline Air Ministry .

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 4978
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2023, 07:04:21 PM »
As For Electric . If you fly the above Unmuffled , every schoolboy with a bicycle in range will arrive before it lands . You dont get this with electric .
Conversely ,
ELECTRIC you can fly anywhere , theyll just think its a electric weed eater , if you camuflage it.

Starting , if youve got NONE - Lectricery is the with it option . BOTH is a little costly and distractive .

Out in the wilds , Fuel Enmgines are the go . In Suberbia , your less liable to be arrested , flying ' silent ' .

Offline the original Steve Smith

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 277
  • Fly Stunt!
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2023, 07:05:37 PM »
You have some really nice looking planes there Mio. I would be reluctant to cut into them to make the conversion. Perhaps look into an electric ARF if you want to try it out.
 
Thanks,
the original Steve Smith
AMA 2112

Offline Air Ministry .

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 4978
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2023, 07:12:18 PM »
Luddite is a term used by unstable comercially nfluanced neurotics and grasping twerps to deride things theyre incapable of  operating satisfactorally themselves ,
so place everyone in that boat .

Pull the backplattes and inspect for goobers , oxidation , tarantullas etc . If theyre spick n span , you dinnae need ta clean em out . Dont runem with GUNGE inside or theyll die .

If you wanna spernd millions , or thousands , go electrified .

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2023, 08:01:44 PM »
As For Electric . If you fly the above Unmuffled , every schoolboy with a bicycle in range will arrive before it lands . You don't get this with electric .
I don't get that with anything.  Model Airplanes are banned from all city parks and schools in my lovely town.  Kids around here wouldn't even look up from their tablets, and in the unlikely event they still identified as boys and had a bicycle, it would be in the garage gathering dust.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Paul Smith

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5793
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #37 on: April 02, 2023, 08:10:44 PM »
My five-year old grandson was able learn to run an RC electric car in two minutes.

He was bored with it in five minutes.

Paul Smith

Online Bob Hunt

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2690
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2023, 10:04:03 AM »
When I first saw this thread I decided to not respond; I’ve written a bunch about my feelings regarding electric flight over the past few years, and reasoned that it was a good time to lay out and see what others had to say. Now I’ve counted to ten (something I’m trying to do with all threads that are controversial, and often with little to no success…) several times before responding on this subject. What I’m passing on here is what I hope will be looked upon as my take, not the only take, on the subject. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

My first experience with even semi-modern electric flight came at the 2005 Nats. I was judging at that Nats and after the qualification round I was judging on circle two was finished I strolled down the L-Pad to watch the final qualification flights on circle three. It was very windy that day and as I approached the circle I saw a model cutting through the wind very impressively. And I noted that it must have been fitted with a very good muffler as I could not hear it running. Then it dawned on me that it was electric powered.

I found out that it was Walt Brownell’s Arc Angel. That flight was Walt’s last official for that Nats, and I did something I almost never do; I asked him if I could fly it. He enthusiastically said yes, and we went over to the empty circle four. I got a handle setting and Walt installed a fresh battery. What followed was for me the most dramatic epiphany in my flying career. He launched the Arc Angel and on the takeoff roll I knew my competitive stunt life had changed in an instant. The power was not overwhelming (none of those early electric setups were ultra strong…), but the constant line tension and pace of the flight convinced me that this was the next big thing in stunt. If I have any talent at all, I believe it is in a sort of strategic thinking about coming things.

   I thanked Walt for the ride, and then got on my phone and called my buddy and tech guru, Dean Pappas. I asked him if converting my Genesis Extreme was feasible and he said that he’d been waiting for me to come to this conclusion for a while, and he then rattled off all the stuff I’d need to do the conversion. Then he came over to my shop when I returned from the Nats to help with the installation/conversion. When the retrofitted Genesis was ready to fly, Dean installed an RC receiver and hooked it up so that he could make throttle adjustments while I was flying. He sat in the center of the circle with me while he made the adjustments and asked my opinion of how the model felt with each adjustment. Then, armed with his notes, he went home and came up with a method of installing different “scripts” to adjust the RPMs of the motor. Yes, it was unwieldy having to bring a lap top computer along to the field to make these changes, and even then the power was not overwhelming, But, the consistency and the repeatability from flight to flight was amazing.

   In my typical habit of rushing to bring a new idea to fruition to quickly, I opted to fly that setup at the upcoming 2006 team trials. Now, it’s true confession time here. The fact that the weather at that team trials never got very windy made it possible for me to showcase the somewhat anemic system to best effect, and I made the team. Looking back, I should have not flown that system there. Now the pressure was on to fly an electric model at the World Championships in Spain the next year. And, I realized that we would need a much more powerful system in order to compete properly in all types of conditions. Dean said he could design such a system, but he needed someone else to write the more sophisticated code required. I drafted a friend who had those skills, but he was not able to focus on the project right away due to family and job issues. I decided to hold off and wait for him to produce what we needed. That was a major mistake. When he did get time to focus on the new system he found a lot of problems and could not solve them quickly. He kept putting off the project, again due to personal issues. I should have at that point just flown a glow model in Spain. I didn’t. I waited until the eleventh hour - almost literally - and received the somewhat rushed system only a day before scheduled to leave for Spain. That was perhaps the biggest mistake of my CL Stunt competition career.

   Electric wasn’t ready for prime time, and neither was I with the system I had in place. The result was a dismal placing, well outside the “cut.” That was the only time in my WC competition career that I failed to make it into the finals. And, to add insult to injury, I screwed it up for the rest of my team (Paul Walker and David Fitzgerald) to have a chance at the top spot in the team placing. For the record we finished in third (Bronze Medal) mostly because of their very high placings.

   As you are probably all aware, the technological advances in electric flight came hot and heavy globally from that point on. I remember saying to someone back then, “Electric is the worst it’s ever going to be today.” And I still stand by that quote; electric technology is expanding and improving seemingly every day. The batteries are getting better by leaps and bounds, the motors are better and more efficient, the active timer flight management systems are ever improving, the ESCs are getting better, the propeller development for electric flight has improved greatly over the past few years, and our understanding of how to implement all these factors into new airframes that are designed to optimize that mode of power has moved forward dramatically.

   Perhaps I should list the reasons why I prefer electric power over glow. But, a disclaimer first. Glow power (to paraphrase SNL’s Garrett Morris…) has been very, very good to me! I have nothing bad to say about glow power, or about those who prefer it over electric. Everyone should go with whatever works best for them.

Reasons why I like electric:

1: Consistent, reliable, repeatable performance over dozens - if not hundreds - of flights. Once the system has been adjusted to my liking I can fly for a long while without changing anything. In fact two years ago I put 200 flights on my Crossfire without changing anything!

2: The balance point stays the same throughout the flight. I have found that having the balance point in one place all through the flight makes my control inputs more consistent. As a glow model burns off fuel north of the balance point, the airplane reacts to inputs differently; it becomes progressively more tail heavy. This was found to be a huge benefit in heavy wind near the end of the pattern. With a glow model the balance point has shifted aft significantly due to fuel burn off and the overhead eight becomes more difficult to track. With the electric system there is no balance point shift and the model tends to be much easier to track (steer, if you will) through the overhead maneuver much more solidly.

3: The ability to adjust the vertical (roll) balance point at will by shifting the battery up or down (usually up). I’m convinced that a lot of my trim problems over the years were due to an improper vertical CG location. I have noted over the years that the vast majority of new stunt planes when flown for the first time exhibit a slightly outside wing riding high condition (it is hardly ever the other way around…). Of course the first thought is that there is either a warp in the wing that is causing that, or misaligned flaps that need some “tweaking.” I use mostly foam core wings (duh…), and I’m very careful in cutting, covering, and joining them, so I’m confident that a warp is not the cause. That leaves a flap tweak. In the past when I’ve encountered this situation (fairly often), I immediately went the flap tweak route. And in many cases even though the tweak worked to level the wings, there was something that just didn’t “feel” right. Now I realize that it was a condition of low vertical center of gravity and my flap adjustments were fighting that and causing other problems.

   Our models are tethered at the leadouts, and if the vertical center of gravity is too low the weight below the vertical CG swings outward like a pendulum and forces the outside wing high in level flight and low in inverted flight. A good case in point is my beloved Genesis Extreme. It was originally powered by a glow engine (in fact it had two different glow systems installed over time). It initially needed a slight flap tweak to get the wings level, and it never felt right to me, even though it was very successful. When I made the changover to an electric system in that model and it still didn’t feel quite trimmed. Dean Pappas suggested experimenting with the vertical placement of the battery. He suggested moving it up 1/8-inch. I did that and was then immediately able to remove the flap tweak, and the model instantly felt just wonderful. Additional small adjustments in the vertical CG with the battery yielded what was perhaps my best flying plane ever to that point. This is a major trim tool that is not easily available in glow. If you were to move the tank up (or down) to achieve the proper vertical CG, it would affect the engine run (yeah, captain obvious here…). And even if you could use the tank to make such an adjustment, the fuel would burn off throughout the flight and negate the trim change anyway. I suppose you could add weight above or below the tank in a glow model to address the vertical CG location, but that would require adding extra weight, and you might not be able to add it high (or low) enough to cure the problem. The battery adjustment up or down in an electric model does not add any additional weight and it is extremely effective.

4: The ability to use a reverse pitch prop. Some electric stunt fliers don’t agree on this point. It is perhaps a personal thing, or perhaps an airplane specific thing. I believe that the reverse pitch prop gives me more line tension in outside and vertical maneuvers. Every time I’ve tried to switch back to a normal rotation prop I have found that I prefer the reverse pitch better. Being a fan of what I call “Obvious Physics,” The spiral airflow from a normal rotation propeller will eventually hit the inboard side of the vertical fin (rudder) and push it outward, and consequently push the nose inward. Because the fin is so far aft of the balance point of the model this yields what can best be described as a weathervane; it doesn’t take too much pressure on the left side of the fin to move the aft end of the plane outward and the nose inward. But, there’s more… Since most stunt models have a fin that has most of its area above the vertical CG, that spiral airflow when it hits the fin will also cause a left roll component. The reverse pitch prop addresses the yaw part of this very effectively in my opinion, but it has the opposite effect on the roll issue; it tends to make the model roll to the left. I’ve found two solutions to the roll issue; one years ago and by mistake! The Genesis models I flew in the early part of my career had very little vertical fin (dorsal) and also a lower fin (ventral). Those models didn’t seem to be affected so much by the spiral airflow issues because of the low profile of the fins and the fact that their areas were somewhat “balanced” top to bottom. I take no credit here for having that thought when I designed those models… But, I have found that addition of a ventral fin on my models that have an actual vertical fin has negated to a great degree the roll tendencies.
 
   One last thing about the reverse pitch prop: In the past with normal pitch props I have noted that when flying in dead calm conditions when I hit my own turbulence, the model tended to roll towards me. With the reverse pitch props the model seems to always roll away from me, towards the outside of the circle. That has been comforting…

5: And really for me this could have been number 1… The ability to now make and fly reliable twin motor models with counter rotating props. When I was young I had a love affair with twins (airplanes that is…). I sketched a bunch of them but never actually tried to make one into a stunt model. Getting one glow engine to run consistently well was difficult enough; getting two to run consistently well seemed like a nightmare waiting to happen. To be fair here, there is one guy who had been able to make the glow twin a viable thing, and that is the “Twin Guru,” Gordan Delaney. My hat is off to him for that talent. In fact it was a flight on Gordan’s Pathfinder Profile Twin after a VSC that fully convinced me to go the twin route, only with electric power.

   With a normal single engine/motor plane the largest diameter prop you are likely to use these days is 12-inch to maybe 13-inch. And, the spiral airflow from that prop is going around the fuselage and hitting the vertical fin as discussed above. With a twin the ability to use two nominally 10-inch diameter props yields a whole bunch more disc span. That means a lot more of the wing, flaps, stabilizer and elevators are covered with accelerated air. That means more lift. And none of that spiral air flow is going around the fuselage and hitting the vertical fin… With an electric twin you can also counter rotate the props (typically we run a standard direction prop on the inboard side and a reverse pitch prop on the inboard side. With electric, twins are easy (again, we are talking here about airplanes…).

6: The obvious stuff. Electric is quiet and clean. I can now fly at a field that is 1/4-mile from my house at 6 AM. That field is surrounded by homes, and no one even knows I’m there in the morning.

   Electric has little to no vibration to weaken the airframe. Some have surmised that this is NOT a good thing as some electric models have shown a tendency to hunt in level flight, and that may be the byproduct of not enough vibration in the system to break the stiction of the controls. I’ve had one or two that exhibited this trait, but was able to trim it out successfully. Interestingly, none of the twins I and my friends have built for electric have shown any tendency to hunt. Perhaps the two motors set up just enough harmonic resonance to induce just enough vibration to break the stiction.

   The timer allows an electric flier to do nominally 4 one minute, twenty second runs on one battery. That’s a big plus for initial trimming and handle setting; no need to fly a whole flight to make those adjustments.

   My clothes and my car no longer smell of castor oil. Big plus when I want to sneak out and get a few flights while my wife is at work; she doesn’t even know I went out! Oh, rats, now she’ll know…

   Add to the above that the new active timers are ever evolving with new features. Retracts are a cinch now, and an adjustable 2-4 break has become the norm. There are also features that add power when the nose is lifted (from upright or inverted flight), and even a G-Force feature that was a tremendous plus a couple of years ago at the Nats when it was extremely windy. Overhead and vertical tension was not a problem.

   Finishes will last longer, and stress cracks are virtually a thing of the past with electric power.

   And lastly, cost, or lack thereof. A gallon of glow fuel today is nominally priced between $25.00 and $30.00. The modern competition stunt model gets at most 20 flights per gallon (some of the larger displacement engines get significantly less than 20 flights per gallon). The batteries we have been using for the past several years can be purchased for nominally 50 to 70 dollars, but sometimes they have holiday specials at greatly reduced prices; most of us buy our batteries when one of those sales are on, and typically save 25 to 40 percent. So, let’s say the price of a battery is $60.00, or the same cost as two gallons of fuel. The minute you pass 40 flights on a battery the cost per flight as compared to glow begins to drop. Of course you will need more than one battery, but if you fly a lot, the cost per flight will eventually come down, and continue to drop over time. Treat your batteries well and they will last for years.

   Factoring into the cost thing is an intangible for many fliers. If you have to travel a distance to a field at which glow can be flown without ticking off the neighbors with noise, the cost of gasoline for your car and the wear and tear can become a factor. Many have local fields that might be pressed into service if there was no noise issue. Just sayin’. Having said that, as my old friend, Dean Pappas always says, “There is only one hobby… Spending money!”

   In closing this rather long missive, the bottom line is use what turns YOU on. Glow or electric; they each have their plusses and minuses. Pick what turns you on and have fun flying Stunt!

Bob Hunt

Offline Paul Taylor

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6040
  • If God is your Co-pilot - swap seats!
    • Our Local CL Web Page
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2023, 03:21:47 PM »
I have both IC and electric. But all new planes will be electric.
The exhaust fumes started burning my eyes the past few years.

I will say there are more cons to IC vs Electric.
The only advantage of IC is you can fly at a moments notice. But that’s if you can get fuel.

Paul
AMA 842917

Tight Lines = Fun Times

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2023, 03:46:19 PM »
I have both IC and electric. But all new planes will be electric.
The exhaust fumes started burning my eyes the past few years.

I will say there are more cons to IC vs Electric.
The only advantage of IC is you can fly at a moments notice. But that’s if you can get fuel.


Paul - I have found the Li-Ion batteries less critical of their owners than Li-Po.  I can keep mine fully charged for as long as three or four days with no ill effects.  I do keep them refrigerated which may help.  Still, I normally only have 4 on alert duty so the spur of the moment can't be too long.   If I am in the trim mode, I can get to the field, get in three quickies and be back to the office within the hour and NOT smell like a caster bean.   

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #41 on: May 16, 2023, 04:00:37 PM »

4: The ability to use a reverse pitch prop. Some electric stunt fliers don’t agree on this point. It is perhaps a personal thing, or perhaps an airplane specific thing. I believe that the reverse pitch prop gives me more line tension in outside and vertical maneuvers. Every time I’ve tried to switch back to a normal rotation prop I have found that I prefer the reverse pitch better. Being a fan of what I call “Obvious Physics,” The spiral airflow from a normal rotation propeller will eventually hit the inboard side of the vertical fin (rudder) and push it outward, and consequently push the nose inward. Because the fin is so far aft of the balance point of the model this yields what can best be described as a weathervane; it doesn’t take too much pressure on the left side of the fin to move the aft end of the plane outward and the nose inward. But, there’s more… Since most stunt models have a fin that has most of its area above the vertical CG, that spiral airflow when it hits the fin will also cause a left roll component. The reverse pitch prop addresses the yaw part of this very effectively in my opinion, but it has the opposite effect on the roll issue; it tends to make the model roll to the left. I’ve found two solutions to the roll issue; one years ago and by mistake! The Genesis models I flew in the early part of my career had very little vertical fin (dorsal) and also a lower fin (ventral). Those models didn’t seem to be affected so much by the spiral airflow issues because of the low profile of the fins and the fact that their areas were somewhat “balanced” top to bottom. I take no credit here for having that thought when I designed those models… But, I have found that addition of a ventral fin on my models that have an actual vertical fin has negated to a great degree the roll tendencies.
 
One last thing about the reverse pitch prop: In the past with normal pitch props I have noted that when flying in dead calm conditions when I hit my own turbulence, the model tended to roll towards me. With the reverse pitch props the model seems to always roll away from me, towards the outside of the circle. That has been comforting…
Bob Hunt

Bob - your eloquent, as usual, coverage here of the left hand prop has me thinking of going back to them.  I gave them up primarily because I couldn't get them anywhere.  It was just too much trouble.  Is there now a reliable source for them that does not require refinancing your home to have a couple in the flightbox?  I miss the better takeoff and overhead performance, much of which I have regained since switching to the Fiorotti timer but still, there is no substitute for good overhead line tension.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Bob Hunt

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2690
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2023, 05:05:31 PM »
Hi Ken:

I've been using with great success the Cox/Ressinger 11 x 5 reverse 3-blade props. As they come they are a bit heavy, but there is an abundance of extra material around the hub and on the inner section of the blades that I sand off with a small drum sander and a hand tool. Then I balance them carefully. I've been able to get around 8 to 9 grams off the prop in total, and that seems to work well with the Fiorotti active timer that I use. Chris and Alan also make a 12 x 5 reverse pitch prop that can also be lightened. They are very stiff!

I've also been running some of the BadAss wooden 2-blade reverse pitch props with great success. They are extremely light and come very well finished and balanced. Took me a while to get used to running a wood prop after all these years; haven't run one since 1980!

Later - Bob

Offline realSteveSmith

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #43 on: June 10, 2023, 07:25:24 PM »
There is one major 'con' to the electric side of this debate that I don't see mentioned here.  The fact of the matter is that if you use (especially soft cased) lithium hobby batteries, the risk of accidental fire is very real.  A quick search over on one of the RC forums (e.g. RC Groups) will confirm how often this type of thing can happen....and it happens to the 'it will never happen to me' guy too.

There are precautions that can be taken, but to fairly compare I/C to electric, you should factor in the added infrastructure needed to safely store these batteries at your home.
AMA 175438

Offline kevin king

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1525
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #44 on: June 10, 2023, 09:53:02 PM »
Not having to hold your friends planes upside down and breath in clouds of carcinogens is a plus also.

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #45 on: June 10, 2023, 10:18:12 PM »
Even though I am committed to electric, the sight and sound of a well tuned piped engine and the exhaust tail drifting off - priceless.

Then when I get home I am greeted with "Get those stinkey clothes in the washer,  and take a shower".
There are two inventions in our hobby that are most likely the work of Wives.  Electric Motors and MonoKote.

Ken
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online John Park

  • Agricola
  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 458
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2023, 08:45:18 AM »
Even though I am committed to electric, the sight and sound of a well tuned piped engine and the exhaust tail drifting off - priceless.

Then when I get home I am greeted with "Get those stinkey clothes in the washer,  and take a shower".
There are two inventions in our hobby that are most likely the work of Wives.  Electric Motors and MonoKote.

Ken
Stinky clothes?  You glow-motor guys don't know the meaning of stinky clothes!  That's the major down-side of diesels - the up-side is no batteries, no blown plugs, and nitrate dope with no need for fuel-proofer.  Oh, and a fuel tank about two-thirds of the size you need for glow.  Good diesel fuel is still readily available over here in Britain - at a price!  Diesels are great, and really convenient - just as long as you don't want to fly anything bigger than a Peacemaker.
You want to make 'em nice, else you get mad lookin' at 'em!

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9920
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2023, 07:44:58 PM »
Internal Combustion engines are NEAT! Electric motors don't interest me in the slightest. They are superior for flying Stunt, no doubt about it. I do get weary of hearing electric guys comparing notes on how fast their battery vendor is on returning replacements under warranty. I don't care. If somebody can't get glow fuel, I'll do what I can to help.

One of the things about electrics that bothers me is that just because they're quieter, people will tend to think they are safer. The same size/design plane will probably weigh very close to the same and have very similar speed, so they are going to hurt just as bad if they hit somebody. The general public doesn't seem to respect the safety cones around our circle, so it concerns me. Particularly since I know that our homeowner's insurance takes the first hit and AMA/MAAC will get aboard only after that's done and gone.  :P Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline De Hill

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2023, 08:10:48 PM »
My Fox and my Ringmaster;

They comfort me.
De Hill

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6034
Re: Electric vs. Internal combustion: your experience/preference
« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2023, 08:59:18 PM »
One of the things about electrics that bothers me is that just because they're quieter, people will tend to think they are safer.
Actually, *are* more dangerous.  The judges can hear what you say. LL~

Ken

AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here