Any advantage using AE cells for receiver batteries? - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Sep 15, 2001, 10:34 PM
Registered User

Any advantage using AE cells for receiver batteries?

Are AE cells any improvement over using AA cells for the
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Sep 15, 2001, 10:49 PM
characters welcome!
Mark Wood's Avatar
AEs are larger than AA cells, of Nicad makeup and would only make a heavier pack. Use AA or smaller NiMh for long duration and lighter weight.

Sep 16, 2001, 12:03 AM
Rocket Scientist
dtknowles's Avatar
I checked a couple sources and 600AE's (0.63 oz.) are lighter than 700AA's (0.77 oz.) and have a higher energy density at 952 mah/oz. vs 909 mah/oz. If you have extra 600AE's use them but the 700AA's are cheaper and thinner and you can never be too rich or too thin. AAE's, AAU's and NiMh AA's and AAA's are all going to have better energy density but will also cost more and all except the NiMh AAA's will weigh a little more.

Tim Knowles
Sep 17, 2001, 09:17 AM
Balsa Flies Better!
If you fly when it gets nippy- i.e. around 45 degrees or chillier, leave the NiMH cells at home.

Sep 17, 2001, 09:42 AM
Visitor from Reality
600AEs are lighter than 600-ish AAs - anything lighter is good!

To quote a CL flier, whose name I cannot recall, "It's easier to take a gram off each of 100 pieces of model, that to take 100 gm off the finished model".
Sep 17, 2001, 10:30 AM
Sloping off....
leccyflyer's Avatar
Would it also be correct to state that 600AEs are more amenable to fast-charging at the field than our bog-standard 600AAs ? This could be an advantage to us mixed electric/IC pilots or those that do not use a BEC by making our "just-in-time" charging regime consistent between our electric and IC models.

Put simply you wouldn't have to worry about a 14 hour C/10 charge the day before going flying you could fast charge your RX pack with impunity on the way to the field or when you get there.


Sep 17, 2001, 10:44 AM
leccyflier: Exactly my thoughts. I switched to using only 600AE's in my receiver battery packs about a year ago. I use a home-made "Power Pole-to-Futaba" adapter to fast charge our receiver packs before flying and at the field. At the field, I use an ESV to keep track of the receiver pack's voltage, recharging as needed.

Since the transmitter packs hold their charges much longer than receiver packs, it lets us fly at much shorter notice.

BTW, I do cycle the receiver packs periodically, including recharging via a regular radio charger.

Bill B.
Jan 12, 2003, 04:43 AM
Swedes don't grow on trees
Jonas Leander's Avatar
Originally posted by Brian Cullen
Would it also be correct to state that 600AEs are more amenable to fast-charging at the field than our bog-standard 600AAs ?
Me thinks so too. But, I have also resorted to Sanyo N-3US, which is a 1000 mAh AA-sized NiCd. It also seems more suited to fast charging than normal AA-cells. I also run my S400 ships on the N-3US. I get slightly more punch and longer run time and they seem to put up with the abuse just as well as the 600AE.

/ Jonas
Jan 12, 2003, 11:34 AM
Registered User
SchiessCo's Avatar
The ability to fast charge is key. I use fast charge NiCads or NiMH or in all my sailplanes, where weight is not an issue. For any other plane, I'd use small NiMH packs, and bring a couple extras along.