You must Sign-in or Register to post messages in the Hobby Squawk community
Registration is FREE and only takes a few moments

Register now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Admiral vs Roaring Top Batteries & Actual C

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Admiral vs Roaring Top Batteries & Actual C

    Some of you have gotten the impression that I don't like Admiral batteries and prefer the Roaring Top batteries to them. Sorry for leaving that impression in several threads were I discussed using RT's instead of Admirals, including in the F-16, F-18, F-4 and SU 30 threads. There are several "good" LiPos out there, and my only experience is with Admirals, Roaring Top, E-Flight, Venom and Thrust batteries. I know HRB, the new Smart Spektrum batteries and several others make great batteries, just don't happen to have them to test them. I used the Progressive RC Internal Resistance Meter to test the true C of a battery and a power meter to measure the Amps and Watts various EDF's drew.

    Al I can say is that with the EDF outrunners that I have, there is very little difference in the Amps and Watts drawn on a RT 5500 70 C battery, a RT 6250 35 C and the Admiral 50 C. There is some difference in weight as the RT 70 C and Admiral 50 C weigh the same at 825g and the RT 6250 weighs 798g. So other than weight, the only difference is in mah, which of course matters in flight time. I'll use the RT 6250 or Admiral 6000 in all my outrunner EDF's.

    There is a difference in amps & watts drawn between these batteries in my 2 jets with inrunners, the F-16 and SU-30. It seems, and I'm not smart enough to know why, the inrunners do benefit in 7-9% more thrust from a higher C battery like the RT 70 C (example is the SU-30, 120 amps/2905 watts with RT 70 C and 114 amps/2610 watts RT 35 C and 110 amps/2490 watts Admiral). For me, that higher C does help with these 2 "heavy" jets in getting off the grass runway, but once in the air, I don't notice much difference in performance. For me, flight time is much more important so even with the F-16, lately I've been using the RT 6250 35 C to get an extra 30-40 seconds, even though I need another 20-30 feet of runway to get up versus the 70 C (and it does weigh less, which helps my very heavy F-18 Canadian with the stock outrunner).

    We all know the stated C rating is never true and the RT 35 C was just slightly higher than the Admiral 50 C (29 C RT & 27 C Admiral). The RT 70 C tested out at 36 C. I also found that in general, the lower the stated C rating of the battery, the closer to actual C.

    I have over 100 batteries and the majority of those (65) are Admirals. I have various cell count and capacities and use them exclusively in everything with only a few exceptions I mentioned above. I've had many of those for years, and have NEVER had one puff or go bad. I can't say the same for E-Flight, Venom and some of the others I have when it seems almost 50% have puffed and several have lost a cell over time. Some of that may be in my storage, charging, etc. but I try to be consistent with 1 C charging and only storing batteries at 40% charge and yet some brands still puff, but not the Admirals (nor the RT but have only had those for 6 months so the jury is still out).

    So will I continue to use/buy Admirals? You betcha yah!!
    Hugh "Wildman" Wiedman
    Hangar: FL/FW: Mig 29 "Cobra", A-10 Arctic, F18 Canadian & Tiger Meet, F16 Wild Weasel, F4 Phantom & Blue Angel, 1600 Corsair & Spitfire, Olive B-24, Stinger 90, Red Avanti. Extreme Flight-FW-190 Red Tulip, Slick 60, 60" Extra 300 V2, 62" MXS Heavy Metal, MXS Green, & Demonstrator. FMS-1700mm P-51, Red Bull Corsair. E-Flite-70mm twin SU-30, Beast Bi-Plane 60", P2 Bi-Plane, P-51.
Working...
X