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.

Electric vs Nitro

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Electric vs Nitro

    I met some fellow pilots a few weeks ago, a Dad with his son and grandson. They were teaching the grandson on an electric trainer, and recalled his father saying he has been in RC for about 2 years, mainly in nitro. What floored me was his statement he had never crashed a plane sans the periodic engine-out belly landing. Now we all have our share of hanger stories but this one in particular has me baffled. Technically he never stated if it was pilot-caused or mechanical, and just the first impression of them leads me to believe he was not" stretching"  the truth. In reviewing my first 2 years of RC flying, I could have put one of my kids through college with the amount of crashes and "incidents" I have, and consider myself having excellent hand-eye coordination being a master carpenter the past 30 years.
    In that all of my rc experience is electric, except for the ubiquitous Cox .049 birds growing up, I ask those of you with both Nitro and electric experience the differences in flying quality, characteristics, ease of learning, and reliability. I am currently builing a 2100mm Legends P-38 which was specifically modified to electric for reliability purposes.
    Are there any rc pilot "savant or rainman" types out there similar to this guy?
    CT
    Tags: None
  • #2
    RE: Electric vs Nitro

    My room looks like a " Old  junkyard " with all the crash or bent parts laying around . If it was all out side the city would give me a citation










    Bryan 
    But Crashing is Landing

    Comment

    • #3
      RE: Electric vs Nitro

      Greetings CT,

      I, like all of us I'm sure, would love to spread the yarn of never crashing an airplane, but it just wouldn't be true!!!

      Now, I will admit that I have come across a student or two who while growing up had developed such astute electronic gaming hand-eye coordination that it actually looked like they were phenom first time flyers. It wasn't true of course but their reaction-time to potential hazards while flying was so fast that it was difficult to tell they had never flown before.

      Landing however was another ballgame all together. No amount of Worlds of War Craft playing time is going to prepare a first time flyer for landing.
      Perhaps, the gentleman you encountered experienced successful belly-landings because he neglected to mention the he ripped off the landing gear on the first attempt!!!

      As far as electric and nitro goes, drag is drag, lift is lift and propulsion is propulsion......
      A plane cares not whether its prop spins using electrons or combustible liquids.

      The only differences I have ever found between the two is noise......

      All of this in my humble opinion of course.

      Bill L.
      In OKla.

      Comment

      • #4
        RE: Electric vs Nitro

        Electric power is far superior, even more so for the beginner! 

        The power curve of an electric motor is very linear verses the somewhat peak power curve of a sport glow engine. This make selecting the proper engine and prop troublesome. With electric the prop selection is not the art it is with glow. This linear power curve means that any given size motor is much more flexible in its application.

        With the superior electric set up there are no mixture strength issue to try to learn while trying to tune the engine. Also no glow plug issues, no engine breaking in procedure, and no dangerous liquid fuel!

        The only downside to electrics is that one is carrying the cost of 2 years worth of "fuel" in every flight. (batteries really only have a 2 year life span). So this can be a negative if you crash and damage the battery early on in the batteries life. But with the cost of Lipos dropping so fast and the cost of nitro going up at about the same rate. Glow is all but dead as a viable power source for our models.

        Now so you don't think I'm biased, let me tell you about myself. I spent much of my youth learning to master the glow engine. I gained enough of a mastery to have built engines that have won the USA Nats (FAI F3D Pylon). I think this shows I know some what, what it takes to make a glow engine work. I've also be involved with high powered electric flight since 1986. These were the days of round cells and 27 cell Nicad battery packs.

        Now there are some unique safety issues with batteries. But nothing too critical that some common sense and the use of a quality charger can't control. Much like with alcohol no lit cigerates or open flames.

        For the record I've never had a lipo fire in over 15 year of flying lipos. But I've had 1/2 a dozen fires with my glow powered models spanning 30 years.


        Again electric power all the way.
         

        Comment

        • #5
          RE: Electric vs Nitro

          Originally posted by Rocketeer
          Greetings CT,

          I, like all of us I'm sure, would love to spread the yarn of never crashing an airplane, but it just wouldn't be true!!!

          Now, I will admit that I have come across a student or two who while growing up had developed such astute electronic gaming hand-eye coordination that it actually looked like they were phenom first time flyers. It wasn't true of course but their reaction-time to potential hazards while flying was so fast that it was difficult to tell they had never flown before.

          Landing however was another ballgame all together. No amount of Worlds of War Craft playing time is going to prepare a first time flyer for landing.
          Perhaps, the gentleman you encountered experienced successful belly-landings because he neglected to mention the he ripped off the landing gear on the first attempt!!!

          As far as electric and nitro goes, drag is drag, lift is lift and propulsion is propulsion......
          A plane cares not whether its prop spins using electrons or combustible liquids.

          The only differences I have ever found between the two is noise......

          All of this in my humble opinion of course.

          Bill L.
          In OKla.
          My earlier post dealt with the power system. While I understand your position that propulsion is propulsion I'd like to disagree (offer a different perspective) a bit when looking at the airframe. 

          For the same power it is much easier to spin a larger prop with an electric. This allows for much easier (stronger) acceleration from a post stall (or close to stall) maneuver. Also the larger prop disk will often give the flying surfaces more response for control while in this stall regime. All of this will help save a model from some of the ham fisted antics that often accompany the learning process.
           
          Also the lower RPM and often better balance (of the prop and motor) means that the airframe (glue joints) and the electronics will last much much longer before they fail due to wear. Then there is the issue of finish. For a glow powered model the finish must be sealed. This contributes a lot to the total weight of the model.  Also once this seal is lost (broken) the airframe (well wooden ones) will deteriorate extremely fast.

          Other than historical inertia that there are more guys (for now) that are comfortable with glow than there are guys well versed in all practical aspects of electrical flight. Glow has no virtues and carries a huge liability with the noise issue mentioned earlier!

          All the best,
          Konrad

          Comment

          • #6
            RE: Electric vs Nitro

            Greetings Konrad,

            Makes perfect sense, Thanks.



            Bill L.
            In Okla.

            Comment

            Previous template Next
            Working...
            X