Who agrees with me?

[xviper]

In 5 to 10 years, I may be pushing up daisies but if not, I believe the current battery tech of today will get cheaper and cheaper and any improvements will add only marginally to the cost. Take what we see today. It was only a year or two ago that graphine tech was introduced and the price didn't go up hardly at all while the performance improved noticeably. I don't see that changing dramatically, so price should only get better or remain relatively the same. The "cutting edge" battery tech will only be made available to the hobby market if and when the price comes down to what we are used to today. Until then, these batteries will remain in the realm of niche applications - military, specialized industrial and experimental. Only those like in the military and space exploration can justify paying $10.00 for a single high tech screw. Only government heads of state will pay $100,000.00 for a toilet.

[CVA59]

In 5 to 10 years, I may be pushing up daisies but if not, I believe the current battery tech of today will get cheaper and cheaper and any improvements will add only marginally to the cost. Take what we see today. It was only a year or two ago that graphine tech was introduced and the price didn't go up hardly at all while the performance improved noticeably. I don't see that changing dramatically, so price should only get better or remain relatively the same. The "cutting edge" battery tech will only be made available to the hobby market if and when the price comes down to what we are used to today. Until then, these batteries will remain in the realm of niche applications - military, specialized industrial and experimental. Only those like in the military and space exploration can justify paying $10.00 for a single high tech screw. Only government heads of state will pay $100,000.00 for a toilet.

Hahaha, I hear that!

Considering there was a trade off. Let's say 3-4 minutes was all we will ever have as max flight times, I would not buying more and more packs if the prices of the 6S and now 8S packs were lower and not $75 to $125 bucks a pack. I looked at my battery shelf this weekend and the reality hit that I have over $700 worth of batteries laying there and that is not a lot. I'm wishing there was a trade off, flight time vs price of buying more packs to get more flights in. Not trying to split hairs as it is what it is and obviously I can't change it. Not griping just wishing.

[xviper]

Here's the latest on battery tech: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/08...-breakthrough/
However, what they develop for cars isn't always applicable to RC planes. We see the use of Li-Ion batteries for cars but we don't see much of that use in our planes. We are familiar with LiPo for our planes but we don't hear much of it being used in cars. But again, if we ever do use Lithium Fluoride for model airplane batteries, the initial cost will be very high. It's like TVs. Remember how we started with Cathode ray tubes? Then came plasma, which cost an arm and a leg when they first came out. Now, we see LEDs that revolutionized television. But we also have OLED, which is a step up but the cost is still high. To add one more step, we now have QLED, which only those who are willing to spend big and must have the technology, will buy. As for battery tech, we might consider that we're still in the LED phase of daily use.

[Valkpilot]

Here's the latest on battery tech: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/08...-breakthrough/
However, what they develop for cars isn't always applicable to RC planes. We see the use of Li-Ion batteries for cars but we don't see much of that use in our planes. We are familiar with LiPo for our planes but we don't hear much of it being used in cars. But again, if we ever do use Lithium Fluoride for model airplane batteries, the initial cost will be very high. It's like TVs. Remember how we started with Cathode ray tubes? Then came plasma, which cost an arm and a leg when they first came out. Now, we see LEDs that revolutionized television. But we also have OLED, which is a step up but the cost is still high. To add one more step, we now have QLED, which only those who are willing to spend big and must have the technology, will buy. As for battery tech, we might consider that we're still in the LED phase of daily use.

While you mentioned about cars, I feel that the area of development that will be more beneficial to our hobby is portable electronics, such as cell phones and tablets. The drive for more portable computational power, extended usage time between charges, and weight reduction can only benefit us as this technology is adapted by individual hobbyist and later mass production.

[CVA59]

I agree with you both. Even if we get new battery technology it will be so high I cannot afford it until the pricing comes way down. I also feel that when they can create a battery that can power a cell phone longer than 2 days that technology will help our hobby as well. I have a new iPhone and with me only using it for a couple calls a day and a couple dozen text messages I am lucky to get one and half days from the battery. I keep all programs I can turned off and keep it charged.

I am hopeful that someday soon we will see something better for our hobby that is affordable.

[xviper]

And yet, cellphones still use LiIon tech. Battery tech for cellphone application may not be the best comparison for what we use batteries for, particularly an Iphone. Iphones are high energy use devices, even just sitting on standby, with nothing running in the background. Hence, it's not just usage time but for me, standby time is important. Those new screens, when lit up, draw a lot of juice. Also, each time you use the phone, it depends on whether or not you are switching over to analog operation or if it involves the GPS chip, which in many cases, it automatically does. (BTW - unless you can turn off the GPS chip, a cellphone is always trackable, meaning the GPS circuitry is always on.) Analog and GPS tracking takes a lot of energy, especially in analog (like when using tracking logging in fringe areas). Take a look at some of the other brands and types of cellphones and you will find quite a few that will hold a charge and have standby times of nearly 2 weeks.
Now look at how we use a battery. We throw the thing into our planes and we blast off at high throttle most of the time and fly the thing between 1/2 to full throttle. "Standby time" for us, is the plane sitting on the ground with the battery plugged in but doing nothing and how often do we do that? New battery tech for RC must take into consideration these factors.
Battery tech is going to cater to the industries that generate the most revenue and for now, it's automotives and electronics. The hobby industry use of batteries can be seen as "peanuts" and we get what filters down from the "big boys". I may have a couple thousand bucks in LiPos but my wife's hybrid car has one battery pack that could cost many thousands when replacement is due. One has to wonder how many hybrid car owners are in the world compared to how many RC model users there are. Would it be safe to say multi-Billion $ vs multi-Million $?

[CVA59]

And yet, cellphones still use LiIon tech. Battery tech for cellphone application may not be the best comparison for what we use batteries for, particularly an Iphone. Iphones are high energy use devices, even just sitting on standby, with nothing running in the background. Hence, it's not just usage time but for me, standby time is important. Those new screens, when lit up, draw a lot of juice. Also, each time you use the phone, it depends on whether or not you are switching over to analog operation or if it involves the GPS chip, which in many cases, it automatically does. (BTW - unless you can turn off the GPS chip, a cellphone is always trackable, meaning the GPS circuitry is always on.) Analog and GPS tracking takes a lot of energy, especially in analog (like when using tracking logging in fringe areas). Take a look at some of the other brands and types of cellphones and you will find quite a few that will hold a charge and have standby times of nearly 2 weeks.
Now look at how we use a battery. We throw the thing into our planes and we blast off at high throttle most of the time and fly the thing between 1/2 to full throttle. "Standby time" for us, is the plane sitting on the ground with the battery plugged in but doing nothing and how often do we do that? New battery tech for RC must take into consideration these factors.
Battery tech is going to cater to the industries that generate the most revenue and for now, it's automotives and electronics. The hobby industry use of batteries can be seen as "peanuts" and we get what filters down from the "big boys". I may have a couple thousand bucks in LiPos but my wife's hybrid car has one battery pack that could cost many thousands when replacement is due. One has to wonder how many hybrid car owners are in the world compared to how many RC model users there are. Would it be safe to say multi-Billion $ vs multi-Million $?

I agree totally. Having a hybrid vehicle and the replacement battery cost alone would be a deterrent for me to make that purchase. I love some of the new technological ideas and advancements on certain things but the maintenance and longevity can be very costly and I guess there is the down side to some of the advancements we are seeing today. I never in my wildest nightmare would I have imagined such a thing as a cell phone not to mention this many years into it they would cost $800-1000. I miss a world where using a pen and paper and having one land line (party line) was the norm. I just miss the simpler things in life I guess. I do like some of the benefits that technology brings but what I see today is that same technology is replacing people using their brains and replacing common sense with whatever Google tells them. Not to get off topic but I feel better now getting that out, LOL.

[CVA59]

This is a good alternative for sure:

[rifleman_btx]

I just picked up a $90 tailgator from harbor freight. Works great

[CVA59]

That may be exactly what I do as well.

[rifleman_btx]

I like it, its cheap and quiet. Has plenty of power for my dual 6s 4500 packs on my charger.

[Hoomi]

My charger works on 12VDC, so here in sunny Baja Arizona, if I want to charge at the field, I'll grab the solar panel, controller, and spare battery from our trailer, and take them along.

[EddyRC]

I think you are comparing performance on very different model types. For example, the Freewing A10 can fly for about 8 minutes with good throttle management. I have few videos showing those longer flights.

Because "most" Jets have lower wing area compared to prop planes of equivalent size, the flight time is lower when compared to model airplanes that runs on prop and fuel. If you were to build a ducted fan model using a nitro as the power, chances are you would only be able to fly it for about 4 or 5 minutes.

[Hoomi]

I think you are comparing performance on very different model types. For example, the Freewing A10 can fly for about 8 minutes with good throttle management. I have few videos showing those longer flights.

Because "most" Jets have lower wing area compared to prop planes of equivalent size, the flight time is lower when compared to model airplanes that runs on prop and fuel. If you were to build a ducted fan model using a nitro as the power, chances are you would only be able to fly it for about 4 or 5 minutes.

Hey, I'm bothered that the USAF can't get as good of fuel mileage out of an F-16 as they could get out of a Cessna 172... :Confused:

[OV10]

I think you are comparing performance on very different model types. For example, the Freewing A10 can fly for about 8 minutes with good throttle management. I have few videos showing those longer flights.

Because "most" Jets have lower wing area compared to prop planes of equivalent size, the flight time is lower when compared to model airplanes that runs on prop and fuel. If you were to build a ducted fan model using a nitro as the power, chances are you would only be able to fly it for about 4 or 5 minutes.

Eddy................welcome to the forum but I gotta call ya on that claim of 8 minutes. Show us the proof please;)

[EddyRC]

Here you go:

[EddyRC]

Eddy................welcome to the forum but I gotta call ya on that claim of 8 minutes. Show us the proof please;)

Video posted. There are three more on my YouTube channel.

[EddyRC]

What I am trying to say is that, the type of the airplane and it's method of propulsion are the main factor on flight endurance. For example, if you mount the same EDF system and battery from a commonly sold EDF jet, on a glider, it could fly for a very long time. Then, if you use a propeller instead of the EDF, chances are it could fly for even longer. If you replace the motor with a glow powered engine, it may fly for about the same time, maybe a bit more - but you can't stop and start a glow in flight, so theoretically, an electric powered glider could stay longer in the air.

[OV10]

Video posted. There are three more on my YouTube channel.

:PLOL I'm blown away man. Wheels off/on was approx 7min 15sec. I've never ever come close to that length of time nor have I seen in person or on the net anything close.
Most that I know from a year ago when I had mine where running 4500-5000 pacs and lucky to get 4-1/2 min. Please share what size pacs you're using.;)

[Hoomi]

I'm sure the drag from that GoPro on the A-10 cut the flying time a bit.