another meeting of indoor flight

[ian]

the general concensus is that anyone who dislikes electric flight is talking
out of their elbows. Power to weight ratios end up better than most IC
machines.

[Doug McLaren]

In article <tQIig.367522$xt.51888@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
ian <where@remyposts.com> wrote:

| the general concensus is that anyone who dislikes electric flight is talking
| out of their elbows.

Huh? If somebody dislikes electric flight, who are you to judge them?

Why would somebody have to `talk out of their elbows' (whatever that
means) to say that they don't like something. Wouldn't they be the
expert on what they do and do not like?

| Power to weight ratios end up better than most IC machines.

In some cases. In other cases, not.

Sure, you can take a specific electric setup, and say it has a better
power/weight ratio than most IC powered machines. But you can also
take a specific IC setup and say it's got a better power/weight ratio
than most electric setups.

And of course, that's only one variable of many involved in putting
something into the air.

Sounds like you're just bashing IC flying for some reason, which is no
more rational than bashing electric flying. Fly what you like.

--
Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
How many pounds are in a gallon? --Homer Simpson

[ian]

"Doug McLaren" <dougmc@frenzy.com> wrote in message
news:s0mjg.24233$bk5.2960@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> In article <tQIig.367522$xt.51888@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> ian <where@remyposts.com> wrote:
>
> | the general concensus is that anyone who dislikes electric flight is
> talking
> | out of their elbows.
>
> Huh? If somebody dislikes electric flight, who are you to judge them?

an electric flyer

> Why would somebody have to `talk out of their elbows' (whatever that
> means) to say that they don't like something. Wouldn't they be the
> expert on what they do and do not like?

depends on the daft reasons for coming up with not liking electric.
Especially when they haven't even tried it.

>
> | Power to weight ratios end up better than most IC machines.
>
> In some cases. In other cases, not.
>
> Sure, you can take a specific electric setup, and say it has a better
> power/weight ratio than most IC powered machines. But you can also
> take a specific IC setup and say it's got a better power/weight ratio
> than most electric setups.

only if the machine in question weighs over a ton

>
> And of course, that's only one variable of many involved in putting
> something into the air.

your point?

>
> Sounds like you're just bashing IC flying for some reason, which is no
> more rational than bashing electric flying.

Not bashing IC flying just those IC flyers that bash electric

Fly what you like.

first intelligent statement you've made

> Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
> How many pounds are in a gallon? --Homer Simpson

[Doug McLaren]

In article <X7wjg.379627$tc.369139@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
ian <where@remyposts.com> wrote:

| "Doug McLaren" <dougmc@frenzy.com> wrote in message
| news:s0mjg.24233$bk5.2960@tornado.texas.rr.com...
| > In article <tQIig.367522$xt.51888@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
| > ian <where@remyposts.com> wrote:
....
| > Huh? If somebody dislikes electric flight, who are you to judge them?
|
| an electric flyer

Uh-huh.

| > Why would somebody have to `talk out of their elbows' (whatever that
| > means) to say that they don't like something. Wouldn't they be the
| > expert on what they do and do not like?
|
| depends on the daft reasons for coming up with not liking electric.

Their reasons are daft? Not the statesman, are we?

| Especially when they haven't even tried it.

And what if they have? I know people who don't like electric flight.
They like the smell and the sound of IC engines. They don't like the
short flight times (though this is less of an issue now.)

They don't like having to carefully plan out their power plant --
instead, they're used to just strapping a big honking engine to their
plane. (The higher power/weight ratio of glow setups helps make this
work.)

They may not like the extreme cost of anything larger than 0.10 size
or so. Perhaps by going electric you're spending your money on
batteries up front rather than fuel as you go, but even so, you tend
to pay more, especially for larger planes.

You may not think their reasons are valid, but they certainly do.

It's odd that I find myself defending IC flying. I haven't flown
anything IC in several months -- but it's not so long ago that I've
forgotten about it's benefits.

| > | Power to weight ratios end up better than most IC machines.
| >
| > In some cases. In other cases, not.
| >
| > Sure, you can take a specific electric setup, and say it has a better
| > power/weight ratio than most IC powered machines. But you can also
| > take a specific IC setup and say it's got a better power/weight ratio
| > than most electric setups.
|
| only if the machine in question weighs over a ton

Eh?

By `ton' you mean a few ounces, right? Those little Norvel 0.061
engines make a lot of power, and weigh very little, for example. It
weighs less than 2 oz, and yet puts out about 1/3 of a hp (about 250
watts) at full power. Give it 2 oz of fuel, and that's 250 watts for
almost 15 minutes. Do that with 4 oz of electric gear!

Ultimately, if your electric power train (battery + esc + motor)
weighs a certain amount, you should almost always be able to find an
IC power train (fuel + engine + throttle servo) that provides the same
power but weighs less, or provides more power at the same weight. The
only case where this might not be be true is 1) the extremely small
case, where the servo will weight a lot more than the ESC would, or 2)
the case where your power system can only provide this much power for
a very few minutes. If you're draining your battery at 20C, it's dead
in under three minutes. (`Under', because when you hit your battery
that hard, you don't get the full capacity out of it.)

But we don't fly electric because it has a `higher power/weight ratio'
(which is good, because it doesn't.) We fly it because it's more
convenient, and it quieter. We can fly in our house, or in our front
yard. We don't need a bunch of equipment to get flying.

| > And of course, that's only one variable of many involved in putting
| > something into the air.
|
| your point?

My point is that `power/weight ratio' is NOT why we fly electric.
Well, maybe it's why you fly electric. It's not why I do.

| > Sounds like you're just bashing IC flying for some reason, which is no
| > more rational than bashing electric flying.
|
| Not bashing IC flying just those IC flyers that bash electric

If you say so. Sort of reminds me of dealing with playground drama in
about the 3rd grade, though.

| Fly what you like.
|
| first intelligent statement you've made

Of course, lately most of what I've flown has had no motor or engine
at all ...

--
Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
No matter what happens, there is always someone who knew it would.