Any one tried Flight Power Lipo packs? - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Mar 08, 2004, 10:43 AM
Registered User

Any one tried Flight Power Lipo packs?

Hi All

About to try a Flight Power Lipo 3s4p - anyone comment on the comparisons with the TP 3s4p (great pack) - site says same cells and the build looks neater and stiffer.

Only ask as just read some ones comment that the packs dont have the same power - maybe i am simple but from what I read they are the same cells?

Nick t
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Mar 08, 2004, 01:59 PM
A man with too many toys
Do you have a link to the web page?
Mar 08, 2004, 10:43 PM
The cells used in TP packs are NOT the same cells used in the Flightpower packs. Flightpower buys the cells from the same source, but they are not the same high end cells that TP gets. The cells for TP are OEM spec, higher than typical capacity and deliver higher voltage under load. Plus, Flightpower does not match cells in packs the way that TP does - another reason the TP packs will have more power and dont have imbalance problems even after 350+ flights!

Next month however, TP will be releasing the new 8-10C discharge cells. These come from TPs own factory/production line so no one else will be selling them. The new packs will deliver 15-30% more power at the same price! Plus, the narrower width means they fit helis designed for sub C packs even better.

You can pre-order a pack of the new TPs here:
Mar 09, 2004, 12:40 AM
Our Daddy and Heli Junkie
Fred Bronk's Avatar
Moving to Batteries and Chargers.

Mar 09, 2004, 12:21 PM
Registered User
Please be aware that LRVCFlyer is a Thunder Power employee or representative called Justin pretending to be a fellow modeller by hiding behind login with a blank profile. He has no current or valid expertise in our products and the unpleasant attempt to claim our products are inferior to his is a scam designed to misdirect customers to his retailer West London Models. It is a shameful fact that I am personally responsible for introducing these companies to each other.

EDIT 20th March, further to testing and verification:

We have takend the Jason LRVCFlyer's allegations that our products contain out-dated cells from our mutual supplier extremely seriously. Rather than shooting from the hip we have taken the matter up with our supplier re-tested our packs and seen the results of an independent review to make sure we are on solid ground before responding:

We can now CATEGORICALLY state that the cells used in all but a small number of the very first FlightPower packs produced in Great Britain for the UK and European market and ALL current packs ARE in every sense equal to the cells used in the latest 8200 mAh 'dynamic power' packs produced and marketed by Thunder Power in the USA. FlightPower packs are simply packaged better - and given that this is the only difference then it would be fair and reasonable to conclude that a FlightPower pack is a higher quality product overall than the Thunder Power pack, not a lower quality item as LRVCFly has attempted to assert. Our packs ARE fully matched for high-discharge RC use and here is no reason to believe that our packs will become unbalanced within 350 or even 500+ charge cycles or to display any difference plus or minus from the TP implimentation in this regard. In fact a FlightPower pack is significantly more likely to survive a crash without leaving the cells in a damaged and dangerous state than the equivalent TP pack meaning that the likelyhood of ACTUALLY receiving 350 cycles from a FlightPower pack (which could easily represent 1050 10 minute flights) is much greater in real life. I doubt anyone has ever flown 350 let alone 1050 flights in sucession without a crash - have they? In conclusion. The cells we use represent the current limit of available technology for RC flight and the performance they deliver is astonishing. We also provide the highest level of support, information and expertise on this kind of product in the UK bar none. (Watch out for Model Helicopter World May 2004 for a full independent review - we are very happy with their findings).

This photo illustrates the different approaches to pack design. The British FlightPower pack is substantially more "survivable" than the US Thunder Power pack at the cost of a few grams in weight and a little extra width and length. The performance of the cells in these two packs is identical. The TP pack shown is actually repaired with black insulation tape where it cracked between to blocks of cells after a hard landing in a Logo 20 after an RX battery died at 4 ft from the ground. The heli was flyable next day with replacement undercarriage and blades and a feathering spindle - same tailboom, frames, canopy everything else i.e. a minor incident. There is no possibility that a FlightPower pack would have been damaged at all.

We are investors in continual development and our mission, like Thunder Power is to provide the leading technology available. We are both operating at the very limit of available technology releasing products as soon as they pass from the theoretical into production. This is the case now, will be the case next month when 10C LiPo arrives and then no doubt beyond. We will in fact have 2000mAh super-dynamic 10C liPo sooner than Thunder Power so if you rush in an pre-order a TP 10C 1850mAh 10C pack from West London you will find yourself committed while FlightPower customers will be out ther flying a superior cell ordered and shipped same day before your TP pack is even delivered.

Julian Cox, Director
Last edited by FlightPower; Mar 23, 2004 at 09:38 AM.
Mar 23, 2004, 08:46 AM
Registered User
FAIR Update & comparison

Seen the comments posted by LRVC flyer regarding the Flight Power packs and took the plunge anyway - placed my order for one 3s4p lipo and the 330d Schultz charger.

Prior to purchasing the Flight power (a few weeks) I obtained a Thunder Power 3s4p also and that pack had one flight on it prior to being joined by the FP pack.

I have now had the opportunity to try both along side one and other and must say that both are excellent products with what seems to be identical flight power (tacs same in both idle one and two) and duration. Both take roughly the same charge back according to the Schultz after 20 min timed flights - (varies between them, as youd expect, depending which 20 mins was more aggressive at the sticks).

The packaging is where they differ - FP pack are slightly larger and in the case of the 3s4p about 38grams heavier BUT better finished and much more solid due to stiffners and a nicer flexible shrink wrap. In addition the FP packs come with pre attached female 4mm gold connectors.

I thought I would post this as looking above I seem to have caused quite a bit of bother and as I now have the flight perfomance first hand for both I feel the above is a fair and balanced view by a user. Both are first rate products - one lighter but the other better packaged and probably more durable when the inevitable occurs - pays your money and.....

One intresting point to note is that my Flight power pack was cheaper than the TP pack (not by much) maybe 10 but should I have a problem I can go direct to the pack assembler rather than an agent.

Conclusion - great product and I will be using them again.

Nick Taylor
West Sussex
Mar 23, 2004, 09:32 AM
Involuntary Beta Tester
I checked out the the prices of the Flightpower packs and for us in the US a 3s4p 8000 pack at 166 British pounds is about $305 USD. A TP 8000 3s4p is $230 USD. Then there is shipping costs to add on top of that.

I like the idea of protecting the cells better though. How much abuse can this protection take in an airplane that goes in nose first though. I've had a bad crash in a 40 sized warbird with 16 nmih and they just broke apart no worse for wear. If I had lipos I'm not sure any of them would have survived irrespective of the way they are packed.

Mar 23, 2004, 09:42 AM
Registered User

Youve hit the nail on the head there! TP are cheaper in their own market than FP and that is exactly what you would expect as shipping, duty, insurance etc all adds up! That will be the reason FP are chearper here than TP!

Good to see that finally both continents have a good local supply of cutting edge products - we in the UK generally lag behind in eflight product releases, that has now been addressed for Lipos at least!

Dont know about the survivability of your above scenario though - FPs would stand a better chance, but I suspect planet eart wins that one either way! The smaller crashes and instances where the lipos need support when mounted (heli applications in general) is where packaging pays off in my mind.

Last edited by NickT; Mar 23, 2004 at 09:57 AM.
Mar 23, 2004, 10:01 AM
Registered User
Nick T - thank you for stepping in

kelvin - we are not generally targeting export to the States, but please be advised that the 166 includes VAT which does not apply to exports outside the EU - that makes $305 into $259 immediately. There is also the matter of an unusually high exhange rate which will take care of much if not all of the remaining difference when the rates swing back again. The carriage and import duty will always be the big divider in either direction.

There is a marked difference in the construction. Nose-in the packs are likely to be very resillient but for hopefully obvious reasons we can't speak from experience whether a 20mph crash is OK and a 100mph crash is not.

Mar 24, 2004, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by FlightPower
[B]Please be aware that LRVCFlyer is a Thunder Power employee or representative called Justin pretending to be a fellow modeller by hiding behind login with a blank profile
Im sorry Julian - please check your facts before making such a false statement...

My name is Jason and Ive been a respected member of the EZone and RCGroups for nearly 7 years. Almost 6 of those years were spent sharing and learning before working for Thunder Power. With over 2000 posts to date (more than 1700 of which were made before working for Thunder Power), I have hidden nothing as a fellow modeler, nor my affiliation with Thunder Power - whom I am very proud to work for!

We ask that you no longer use Thunder Power in any of your advertising, marketing, manuals, conversations, etc. You have used our good name to your advantage, and we have no affiliation with you or your company. Please also refrain from using trademarked terms such as "dynamic power" or "super dynamic power" to describe your packs.

The first generation Thunder Power packs (claimed the same as current Flightpower packs) are soon being discontinued and replaced with our next generation of Super Dynamic Power packs. These packs replace current models, sporting a narrower width making for perfect drop in replacement of all sub C sized stick packs. Please see comparison photo below.

Aside from the improved form factor which only Thunder Power packs offer, the cells used (proprietary to AET in Las Vegas - manufacturer of ALL Thunder Power packs) deliver performance well beyond that of previous TP packs (and current Flightpower models). Also see discharge curve attached below.
Last edited by LVRCFlyer; Mar 24, 2004 at 08:38 PM.
Mar 24, 2004, 08:11 PM
From top to bottom:

- Current model TP6000-4S3P
- 12 cell Sanyo 3000 mAh sub C pack
- New model TP6000-4S3P
Mar 24, 2004, 08:15 PM
We will in fact have 2000mAh super-dynamic 10C liPo sooner than Thunder Power
Please post a comparison discharge curve of your new cell.

Meanwhile, this is the new Thunder Power 10C discharge curve (available next month in the UK from West London Models):
Last edited by LVRCFlyer; Mar 24, 2004 at 08:22 PM.
Mar 24, 2004, 09:37 PM
Space Coast USA
hoppy's Avatar
Why a prototype graph? We've seen some differences between prototype and production cell performance.

Mar 25, 2004, 06:34 AM
Registered User
LRVC - we have earned a good name of our own and will happily refrain from drawing parallells with Thunder Power unless where it serves to answer comparisons that you yourself have invited.

Given that I personally sold TP into West London in the first place (at a time when we did not have a product to offer) I had hoped for a little more courtesy than implied by your persistent attempts to leverage that relationship against us by any means, fair and unfair, honest and not so honest.

My gut reaction to your approach is at first to defend ourselves, and then contemplate throwing enough money at this to come after you in your core market, something that we are eminently capable of doing, and will treat with increasing priority if you continue to push us in ours.

Let us please draw a line under this unsightly squabble. I have PM'd you to request a more friendly and professional approach and so far received no reply. My request was simply: please concentrate on the positives of your products and we will be happy to do likewise in respect of ours.


Mar 25, 2004, 11:00 AM
Registered User
vintage1's Avatar
Thar must be gold in them thar hills, with all this feisty talk and claim jumping...

Blimey. I think I'll wheel out the Rolls, and nip down to Heathrow and visit a few Korean battery manufacturers my self....

Thread Tools