PDA

View Full Version : FlightPower Launch GENUINE 20C to 30C Packs


Pages : [1] 2

FlightPower
09-09-2005, 12:35 PM
FlightPower UK are proud to announce the launch of the EVO 20 range of genuine 20C constant, 30C burst Lipo packs!

As a manufacturer of the highest quality Lithium Polymer battery packs, we are now able to bring the ultimate in high discharge technology to you along with advice and excellent customer service. These packs have a lower internal resistance than the current generation of cells, and are able to hold a unusually high voltage under extreme loads. This means more power, less heat and safer packs. Take the 4S1P 3700 pack we have been using in a Het-RC Super Sniper - it is capable, and happy, to allow you a constant 74 Amps discharge with peaks of 111 Amps! Check out the data on the new packs along with pictures on our website.

The UK modelling press are currently testing ready for review in next months magazines - be sure to buy your copies!

The website is about to go live with the new packs, be sure to hurry as demand is very high. Hit us at www.flightpower.co.uk (http://www.flightpower.co.uk).

If you have any questions about any of our products, please email us at info@flightpower.co.uk.

(Submitted in Julian's absence oveseas)

Geoff_Gino
09-09-2005, 12:57 PM
Wow !!!!!

FlightPower
09-09-2005, 01:43 PM
Hehe. That's what the general reaction has been when we demonstrate the packs!


(Submitted in Julian's absence oveseas)

2dogrc
09-11-2005, 10:11 PM
got graphs?

Red Scholefield
09-12-2005, 04:17 PM
[QUOTE=FlightPower]FlightPower UK are proud to announce the launch of the EVO 20 range of genuine 20C constant, 30C burst Lipo packs!

As a manufacturer of the highest quality Lithium Polymer battery packs, we are now able to bring the ultimate in high discharge technology to you along with advice and excellent customer service. These packs have a lower internal resistance than the current generation of cells, and are able to hold a unusually high voltage under extreme loads. This means more power, less heat and safer packs. QUOTE]

You assemble (maufacture) the packs. Who is the cell manufactuer?

sailr
09-12-2005, 07:04 PM
Fat chance they'll tell us Red. I'm working with a company in China right now to obtain their new 20C packs. Samples will be here by week's end...ready for our testing. Boost to 30C? Hmmm, I doubt it seriously. The company we are working with have been developing li-po's for many years. I'll ask them but I think they'll laugh at the idea of 30C.

FlightPower
09-13-2005, 10:25 AM
Hi all

We have formed a partnership with leading Korean scientists and have invested in our own factory in the Far East in order to produce the Evolution 20 range of Lithium Polymer packs.

All of the new packs are indeed capable of constant discharge at a 20C rate, so by definition it is possible to discharge an Evo 20 pack in 1/20th of an hour or 3 minutes. The cells also hold a much higher voltage under load than the current generation of cells (see graph), allowing you more power. Bursts of 30C are indeed possible, otherwise we would not be in a position to make the claim.

Find attached the requested graph of discharge behaviour at various loads.

Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Cheers

David, pp Julian

Red Scholefield
09-13-2005, 01:01 PM
Hi all

We have formed a partnership with leading Korean scientists and have invested in our own factory in the Far East in order to produce the Evolution 20 range of Lithium Polymer packs.

Find attached the requested graph of discharge behaviour at various loads.

Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Cheers

Have you submitted a sample of one of these packs for review by any of the independent testing/review people? If you are planning on selling in the US market I would be glad to do a comaprison of these packs with others I've reviewed.

Red Scholefield
The Battery Clinic
Model Aviation Magazine
www.rcbatteryclinic.com

sailr
09-13-2005, 01:36 PM
We will be interested in selling your products in the U.S. Please email me at playstructure@gmail.com

FlightPower
09-13-2005, 03:07 PM
Sailr

Private Message sent

Thanks


(Submitted in Julian's absence)

Red Scholefield
09-14-2005, 10:51 AM
Fat chance they'll tell us Red. I'm working with a company in China right now to obtain their new 20C packs. Samples will be here by week's end...ready for our testing. Boost to 30C? Hmmm, I doubt it seriously. The company we are working with have been developing li-po's for many years. I'll ask them but I think they'll laugh at the idea of 30C.

Until they offer a sample for independent testing I would be wary - unless they have no plan to sell in the US. I have received no reply to my offer to test their offering. (Post No 8)

FlightPower
09-14-2005, 12:45 PM
Red

Thank you very much for your kind offer of conducting an independent review on the Flightpower EVO 20 range. We currently have our packs out for independent review at the moment with all of the major UK magazines including Model Helicopter World, RCM&E, Radio Controlled Model Flyer and RC Model World as well as with reputable helicopter and fixed wing pilots. As soon as these independent reports have been published, we will be delighted to update you through the forums.


(Submitted in Julian's absence oveseas)

sailr
09-14-2005, 01:01 PM
With all due respect to Flightpower. If you wish to market your new cells in the U.S., Red Schofield is regarded as one of the top experts in battery technology in the U.S. You may crack the market in the U.K. with your impressive list of reviewers but that will be meaningless in the U.S. without a U.S. peer review. Magazine reviews are regarded as somewhat disingenuous in the U.S. as they typically include a bit of 'payback' for running an advert.

You should reconsider Red's offer. BTW, I'm not connected to Red in any way...just a respecter of his expertise.

FlightPower
09-14-2005, 01:26 PM
Thank you for identifying Red as a worthy candidate for testing our packs- it is always useful to know who is highly regarded in our field. We will indeed be marketing the packs in the States, and when the time arises that we need an independent tester, then Red will certainly be on our list.


(Submitted in Julian's absence oveseas)

Warden
09-14-2005, 04:11 PM
FYI. I emailed Flight Power asking how many cycles I could expect from an EVO 20 pack. The response I got was that "we have used/abused packs through more than 40 cycles and they show no sign of deterioration". I had hoped for a more definitive answer but none the less, I'm still very interested in these packs.

Red Scholefield
09-14-2005, 04:22 PM
Red

Thank you very much for your kind offer of conducting an independent review on the Flightpower EVO 20 range. We currently have our packs out for independent review at the moment with all of the major UK magazines including Model Helicopter World, RCM&E, Radio Controlled Model Flyer and RC Model World as well as with reputable helicopter and fixed wing pilots. As soon as these independent reports have been published, we will be delighted to update you through the forums.

Your call, if you are only interested in serving that part of the market served by UK magazines so be it. US readers are of the opinion that reviews of products advertised in the magazines may be somewhat slanted. Since the Battery Clinic has no advertising interests our reviews are as unbiased as
possible.

Red Scholefield
09-14-2005, 10:20 PM
Thank you for identifying Red as a worthy candidate for testing our packs- it is always useful to know who is highly regarded in our field. We will indeed be marketing the packs in the States, and when the time arises that we need an independent tester, then Red will certainly be on our list.

Bear in mind there is a 3 month lead time in having reviews published -add to that a couple of weeks testing (minimum) if there are no other projects in the lab at the time. At the rate things are breaking in the electric modeling arena vendors might find the "price of admission" for getting reviewed by qualified people may limit what products are reviewed in a timely manner. I've been, over the years because of no connection to any manufactuer or sponsored by any and having 30 years of industrial experience in batteries, looked to for answers on new offerings. I hate to answer in this manner, "The vendor you asked about has chosen not to submit his offering for review, therefore I cannot comment on the validity of his claims." But again, your call.



Red Scholefield
The Battery Clinic
Model Aviation

ragbag
09-17-2005, 10:57 AM
I am wary already, just from following the thread.

We are a very large market and to not have an independent from this market area seems a little slanted.

Being an end user I would sit back and wait till I got local feedback, not articles from magazines and pilots unknown in our market area. They mught be well known in the UK and of the highest regard, but not to us.

All of the people you have mention are not on the local news stands here and by controling the list of reviewers you can also control the feed back.

By George
Gainesville Fl
USA

RC-Tester
09-26-2005, 08:34 AM
FlightPower UK are proud to announce the launch of the EVO 20 range of genuine 20C constant, 30C burst Lipo packs!

As a manufacturer of the highest quality Lithium Polymer battery packs, we are now able to bring the ultimate in high discharge technology to you along with advice and excellent customer service.

As a cell manufacturer you must understand the importance of consumer safety and the requirements for UL1642 certification. (http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/1642.html)

In order that we can have confidence in a new cell entering the market could you provide the UL1642 certification information (and certificate details) for all of these new cells at these stated discharge rates?

After all this is the safety check for the consumer, and is always a worry about a new cell manufacturer. These requirements reduce the risk of fire or explosion to the consumer and will give us some confidence in your product.

Regards,

Rod

Post posting note: I have searched the UL database at http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/geosrch.html and I cannot find any reference to flight power - is it listed under something else or could you provide a link to your UL database entries?

All the registered companies are listed by following this link (http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/cgifind.new/LISEXT/1FRAME/srchres.html?begin=0&collection=/data3/verity_collections/lisext&vdkhome=/usr/app/verity_sw_rev24/common&query=lithium+batteries+-+component&SORT_BY=textlines:asc,ccnshorttitle:asc)

Milton
09-26-2005, 02:56 PM
Was talking about these on another board last night and thought I would just buy one for testing but had to drop that idea.
Shipping cost for one 1800-2S was about $28.45 US
Cost of battery was about $43.30 US
A little heavy for my taste
Milton

FlightPower
09-26-2005, 05:14 PM
Our US distribution arrangements are pending. UL and UNDOT certifications are a matter for discussion with our distribution partners, i.e. this is a supply chain discussion not a RC flight forum dicussion point. As far as we are aware no other RC LiPo brand can match our our uniquely flawless safety record and we have every confidence both in our technology and our processes that this will continue with our new products. This adds to our record as pioneers of cell balancer modules, distributing safety info with every pack and implimenting exceptional quality standards at the point of pack production.

Best regards,


Julian

RC-Tester
09-26-2005, 06:20 PM
Our US distribution arrangements are pending. UL and UNDOT certifications are a matter for discussion with our distribution partners, i.e. this is a supply chain discussion not a RC flight forum dicussion point.

Julian,

I hate to disagree but compliance with safety regulations is a very important consumer point for customer safety (i.e. RC flight users).

I gather from your response that you do not have Lloyds Register UL1642 certification and should not infer that you meet it.

However I note that your 'Flightpower Extreme' series must be UL1642 compliant as they are in fact APL Tech Battery cells (http://www.aplbattery.com/hd.htm) which have certification.

Rod

RC-Tester
09-26-2005, 09:09 PM
Julian,

Whilst you are discussing cells; I've compared these two cells:
http://www.aplbattery.com/hp/hd/5b2.jpghttp://www.flightpower.co.uk/prodimages/FPEX/3s1p1600_L.jpg

The one on the left is UL rated and declared by APL as being 1550 mAh 10C (APL524269HD-3S1P-FLPGB) and the one on the right is the FlightPower Extreme "FlightPower Extreme 11.1V, 1600mAh, 10.5-14C"

Is there any reason why the 'C' rating difference between the two?

.... just interested!

Rod

Ronaldster
09-26-2005, 10:29 PM
RC-TESTER , this is a small uk outfit registered with the BMFA site and stating that ""The UK source of massive Lithium Polymer power! Autography Flight Technology Ltd is the UK importer of the Lithium Polymer cells made famous by Thunder Power in the US. The new line of FlightPower Pro 8000 packs feature elegant rugged construction to compliment the legendary performance of these cells. The company also offers Schulze chargers and Minicopter Joker products."

So it looks as though they are thunderpower cells using the APL battery pack system.

I must say you have raised a very valuable point about the credibility of these Lipo suppliers.

Ronaldster
09-26-2005, 10:30 PM
Julian , making a marketing point about flawless safety record with your product what do you mean by that.

Any lipo supplier who has supllied in volume has bound to have some failures by the law of statistics

watt_the?!
09-26-2005, 10:43 PM
perhaps im missing something here...20C is 3 mins, 30C is 2 minutes flying....on the other hand, higher c rating should mean better V under load...right?...

so my thoughts are as long as the pack can hold High V under load, and is capable of 10-12C (6 minutes or so flight) then isnt weight the determining factor- and number of cycles...?

hypothetical:

target, 6 minute flight, WOT.

20C pack 2000mah, holds 10V continuous, weight is a little higher than normal, can draw 40A cont.

12C pack 2000mah, holds 9.5V, lower weight than 20C pack, can draw 24A continuous.


for 6 minutes flight, the 20C pack will deliver higher V throughout (theoretically), but will, (theoretically) weigh more.

the 12C pack will hold slightly less V under load and should weigh less.

of course the benefits extend when paralleling up etc...but my point is that C rating is certainly not everything, and in practice the on paper difference are difficult to discern in flight.

my thoughts anyways.

tim

RC-Tester
09-26-2005, 10:53 PM
so my thoughts are as long as the pack can hold High V under load, and is capable of 10-12C (6 minutes or so flight) then isnt weight the determining factor- and number of cycles...?

.. not quite! Thionk about how you actually fly - you may have a mean discharge of say 8C but within that flight envelope (if you fly manoevres) you will have bursts of much higher C discharge (say 20C for 3 seconds). I have certainly noticed this when examining the logs post-flight from my DPR-50 logger.

I think however this is a parameter that isn't quite being quantified by the manufacturers; i.e. what is the burst power capability during the discharge curve? This is a parameter that other pilots have referred to as being 'punch' that has not been easy to quantify.

.... on the number of cycles; I was a bit disheartened to read the report a few posts back of "...... through more than 40 cycles and they show no sign of deterioration". I would have expected any manufacturer of cells to qualify their product along the lines of the rest of the industry (500 cycles degradation data). But Julian might just post the information here .......

Rod

watt_the?!
09-26-2005, 11:34 PM
good points....

my load charts are more like 6C avg to 12C, so im guaranteed of greater than 6 minutes of flight (thats not that long).

i spec up parallel for higher demand. the philosophy is that if i need above 12C then i might as well downsize the pack and parallel it, to conserve weight and maintain V.

as you can see from my sig, im skeptical about the ''high C'' benefits -perhaps ignorantly so.

what would be good would be new electrolytes/nanotech that reduces cell weight, maintains capacity but allows cell discharge.

tim.

RC-Tester
09-27-2005, 12:06 AM
as you can see from my sig, im skeptical about the ''high C'' benefits -perhaps ignorantly so.
Not at all Tim; you make a selection based on your requirements and flying style and the manufacturers stated ratings. This is surely the correct thing to do.

The point I make about the 'burst' power relates to a parameter many of the manufacturers do not quantify and is more meaningful than a "20C" discharge that will give a fairly brief, but possibly exciting, flight. After all a 'burst' power curve encompasses voltage sag and discharge current that could be made up by paralleling packs (as you suggest) or by single cells.

I share some of your skeptisim about high discharge rates often stated. I'm especially skeptical about some manufacturers packs being able to deliver their continuous high C discharge rating without burning up or shortening lifetime considerably. A colleague at the 'patch' has been using a 'well known' 1600 mAh 3 cell LiPo, rated for 10.5-14C, within a HET Tucano at a mean 6C discharge where the capacity dropped to 900 mAh within 30 cycles. His charging was always with a Schulze Chamaleon and with a 3.0V cut-off on his ESC.

Rod

FlightPower
09-28-2005, 06:10 PM
Hi, The BMFA listing is about 2 years out of date. TP And FP started about 6 months apart with the same Korean supplier Saehan - hence the TP reference. For our Gen2 we went with APL and TP went to some unknown Chinese before doubling back to Saehan. At that point, more than 12 months ago, the BMFA listing was out of date. We have submitted ammendments of our listing ages ago to the BMFA but so far this has been ignored. For our Gen 3 we have grown sufficiently large for our own production facilities. We are the dominant UK source of Lipos far outweighing TP, Kokam, etc and we are represented by most serious hobby outlets here and many across Europe / Scandinavia, Japan, Australia etc etc. We also produce the Duralite E-Plus Silver and E-Plus Gold packs for the US market (these are our Gen 2 designes). For our Gen3 we are in discussions with the big US distributors and would expect to gain a serious foothold in the US under our own brand in the coming months. Flawless safety record is specifically about LiPo fires. We have been successful through QC, Electronic balancers and info in avoiding customer fires. Others have not had the same approach or the same success in respect of "venting with flames" or flat out blowing up.

RC-Tester I am not interested in answering your UL question on this web board, not one single genuine private customer/modeller has ever questioned such a thing and we never mentionned UL or UNDOT references to anyone in respect of the APL cells we worked with. In respect of the UL cert bearing on actual product quality I have to say we got sick of spending half our staff time testing and rejecting APL cells here in the UK to ensure the customer got a great product. With our new supply arrangements we can guarantee quality at source and reduce costs to the end user while practically doubling product performance. In respect of our new UL and UNDOT arangements are concerned I am satified for the sake of my business this is A. Handled and B. Commercially irrelevant to discuss here, and the reason that I feel this way is C. Not a matter for discussion here with you whoever you are. That said you seem to have a peculiar bias against FlightPower. Normally amongst modelers we stand out from the crowd by our ability to win friends, not critics - I think it's about time you mentioned who you are and who you represent so folkes can get a clear idea of where you are coming from.

Julian

Red Scholefield
09-28-2005, 07:11 PM
OK Julian, lets go back to square 1.

Have you submitted a sample of these packs for review by any of the independent testing/review people in the US market?

There should be no question as to who I am or where I am coming from.

Red Scholefield
The Battery Clinic
Model Aviation Magazine
www.rcbatteryclinic.com

RC-Tester
09-28-2005, 10:54 PM
RC-Tester I am not interested in answering your UL question on this web board, not one single genuine private customer/modeller has ever questioned such a thing and we never mentionned UL or UNDOT references to anyone in respect of the APL cells we worked with.
Well you have one who asked you - I did. in fact this is becoming more common and is a requirement for *any* application involving UAVs or for shipping.
In respect of the UL cert bearing on actual product quality I have to say we got sick of spending half our staff time testing and rejecting APL cells here in the UK to ensure the customer got a great product.
It has *nothing* to do with quality and everything to do with *safety*. Please read the Lloyds Register's own description:
These requirements are intended to reduce the risk of fire or explosion when lithium batteries are used in a product. please visit the Lloyds Register (http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/1642.html) website for more information.
In respect of our new UL and UNDOT arangements are concerned I am satified for the sake of my business this is A. Handled and B. Commercially irrelevant to discuss here, and the reason that I feel this way is C. Not a matter for discussion here with you whoever you are.
So you would also say that BS Kitemarks and CE certification, that after all are *safety* standards like UL, are no concern of the customer?
That said you seem to have a peculiar bias against FlightPower.
No bias whatsoever - you have made a series of statements about performance with *NO* independant evidence to back up your claims, and are refusing to answer questions about meeting product safety requirements. UK magazines cannot be seen as being a full and independant evaluation; after all they rely on your advertising revenue and we really do want to hear more than 'we put the battery in our (fill model in here) and it flew really well!'.

You have even gone as far as rejecting a fair offer made by an independant tester (Red). This could have backed up your unsubstantiated claims, now we are left questioning why you don't want a truly independant evaluation carried out.

I think it's about time you mentioned who you are and who you represent so folkes can get a clear idea of where you are coming from.
Thats easy - I represent no-one except myself. Trying to slide away from real questions by inferring I work for a competitor does you no favours whatsoever. But for the record I am the Chairman of a modelling club in the South East, a University Academic (who deals with electric flight as a hobby and at work), commercially managed product development to meet stringent Telcordia certification requirements, and write software and carry out testing for an e-flight equipment and motor manufacturer (Hyperion) as an independant consultant. None of this has any links to LiPo manufacture or distribution - so don't go pretending I have an axe to grind.

My questions come from worries about the safety of LiPo technology - especially at higher discharge rates. I was further worried that you have presented no evidence that your cells are safe at these high discharge rates (such as certification or independant testing). LiPo cells are fast becoming a commodity product in RC. The time for blindly accepting the claims made by manufacturers / suppliers is, in my opinion, over. This is why I have started some comparative testing over in RCG (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=418260).

I was further worried that on previous generation of cells that you supply you have 'stretched' the specification past the manufacturers - 10C becomes 10.5 - 14C. Have you really assessed the full implications of so doing?

In summary: If you want to avoid such 'embarrassing' questions then get your packs independantly tested - Red has already made the offer.

Rod

Ronaldster
09-29-2005, 12:47 AM
For our Gen 3 we have grown sufficiently large for our own production facilities. We are the dominant UK source of Lipos far outweighing TP, Kokam, Polyquest etc
Julian

I do not think so , another unsubstantiated claim!

watt_the?!
09-29-2005, 01:26 AM
im not jumping into the credibility debate, but, just a glance some other packs for instance though:

tanic have a 3250 3s pack (30 gr less than the 3s 3300 packs you have on your website and that includes taps)

your price is $20US better though...good price for sure..although i note that it is preorder price..

PQ also do a 3300..16C claim at 257g (10 g less) for $125US. ($20 more than yours).

N3CLI
09-29-2005, 02:18 AM
We will all see in time.

My money is on Red and the tester.

Fred:cool:

FlightPower
09-30-2005, 01:51 PM
Red, RC-Tester.

Guys, I have just taken a moment (for the first time) to read this whole thread from the beginning. This thread was started with well placed enthisiasm by a colleague while I was overseas at the plant. I'm sure he was anicipating a lively debate of how to make loads of different models go like hell - i.e. the sort of thing he/we are more used to over here. My colleage felt uncomfortable dealing with some of the issues raised here and so sidestepped the offer from Red. My first contact with this discussion was being called out of a meeting to deal with "a problem thread" on a web board (that with due respect to you all) I had never heard of. Hence the shortness of my responses.... well that was then

What I can see now is Red politely offering to test our packs no doubt with the intention to help verify out claims for the benefit of the US market that we have something worth taking seriously, this is to be applauded. Clearly our testing has given us the confidence to invest in a plant dedicated to delivering this technology, I have absolutely no doubt that indepenent testing will yield confirmation of our own results. Red, if the offer is still open to test our stuff then we will graciously accept. Please contact me directly: julian.cox@flightpower.co.uk to explain the form and make arrangements.

The UL issue is more tricky. I wish to maintain my stance that I wish to restrict this information to major buyers precisely because I don't want our product offering dissasembled into its component parts by all comers. This happened in our APL days and I was not too keen on it. What we do is so much more than the sum of the parts. Analysing APL would tell you nothing of our visits to that plant to set up our own systems, tain our own staff there, followed by 100% QA testing in the UK - only this way could we achive a premium product that could be called FlightPower.

Needless to say our new transport arrangements are in place. If this is not sufficient information for Mr RC-Tester then I must simply apologise to you/him and refer you to our track record on matters of safety. We have always taken the most responsible stance possible and as a result been extremely successful in providing safe enjoyment to our customers. We have certainly not taken a backward step in our approach to safety with our new range.

Best regards,

Julian Cox, Director
AFT FlightPower

RC-Tester
09-30-2005, 04:11 PM
Guys, I have just taken a moment (for the first time) to read this whole thread from the beginning.
Julian,

Thanks for taking the time to respond and to take up Red's offer of some independant testing - the independant data will help everyone's confidence including your own!

On the issue of UL - I can understand your reasoning but cannot help feeling that this will become more of an issue as the standard starts to 'bite' in the industry. Already it is specified as a requirement for most UAV applications and for many shipping agents; it will not be long before every consumer will be demanding compliance as well.

Many thanks,

Rod

N3CLI
09-30-2005, 04:15 PM
This thread is very new being on line for only several months.

It is quite fast growing and has lots of electric flyers all over the world.

It is run by RC Universe as a free service for only eflyers.

Fred AMA68196:)

RC-Tester
10-07-2005, 06:02 PM
<SNIP>
Red, if the offer is still open to test our stuff then we will graciously accept.
Julian Cox, Director
AFT FlightPower
<SNIP>

Julian, Red,

As it's a week later: are the tests still going ahead? I think we all would be interested in the results.

Rod

Red Scholefield
10-07-2005, 08:35 PM
Julian, Red,

As it's a week later: are the tests still going ahead? I think we all would be interested in the results.

Rod

No response has been made to the Battery Clinic's Sept. 30th.
request for test samples.

purehobby
10-08-2005, 03:39 AM
oops! Duplicate

purehobby
10-08-2005, 03:43 AM
Are these battery packs any relation to the Duralite brand? The label looks the same? just curious.
I always wonder why distributors/pack manufactures try and keep the cell manufacture a secret. I mean I sale lipos but it is no secret who manufactures them. We have 20C product but I don't think I would go as far as saying 30C discharge. Sorry not meaning to promote my product.
I would love to see the results if you would send some to Red for testing.

Robert

madmickey
10-08-2005, 11:59 PM
Hi
To lay my cards on the table I am a Jet and aerobatic nutter who enjoys flying. I am NOT an expert on electric flight and LiPos I dont even own an electric plane ( YET) A Super Snipe is definitely becoming an option.
What I can say is that I have been looking at Electric flight for my F3A type applications and I am tettering on the brink. I am a proffesional engineer and after assessing the info on electric flight I feel that E flight is approaching a cusp point and about to go through another step change and I am hanging off until then.
What I can say is that the UK modelling mags are pretty unbiased. Quiet Flight in particular is well renowned for calling a spade and spade although I can sympathise with the view that model mags are at times economical with the truth particularly when it comes to some brands of model IC engine ( sorry for mentionin the swear word on an E flight web board).

I personnaly would take what Julian says as an honest. We in the UK have the something called the Trades Descriptions act and with modern chargers etc it is becoming increasingly easier for the " Average Modeller" to gather the very data which would refute the performance claims of the manufacturer. In short he would be found out pretty quick and smacked pretty hard.
Flight Power are not a fly by night operation and have been around for quite a while, so they have a recognised track record

I too will wait with interest for the magazine reviews but will not be surprised if they confirm Flight Powers claim. Not because of a biased reviewer but because the cells " Do exactly what it says on the label"

For me Electric power is the future of Model aeroplanes. It is plug and play technology. No more twiddling needle valves, tuned pipe etc or starting engines and manhandling aeroplanes with screaming engines.
Put it on the runway, arm it and fly it, the boon to safety alone is worth it.

I await to be shot at. Please no overcharged LiPos

Mike

RC-Tester
10-09-2005, 02:27 AM
Mike,

I do have a few things to add in response, and probably goes some way to explain why I'm skeptical of *all* manufacturers claims unless independantly verified:

What I can say is that the UK modelling mags are pretty unbiased.
I know one of the writers for a leading UK magazine personally, he has carried out several product reviews. Often he has complained (privately) that any of his 'non-favourable' reviews do not get published. Furthermore one of the largest publishers is (reputedly) intimately tied to one of the largest modelling importers in the UK by fact of marriage and ownership. This does not seem unbiased to me.

I personnaly would take what Julian says as an honest. We in the UK have the something called the Trades Descriptions act and with modern chargers etc it is becoming increasingly easier for the " Average Modeller" to gather the very data which would refute the performance claims of the manufacturer.
The Trades Descriptions Act is enforced by Trading Standards in the UK. They rely on significant levels of complaints by members of the public before acting. Do I need to remind you of the 'liquid gold' fluid that was raved about by HiFi buffs and magazines in the early 80's - it was claimed that it reduced noise and improved clarity if painted on audio connectors. After quite some time of sales, and rave reviews, it was found to be tap water and had no effect.

The average modeller does not have access to discharge equipment capable of 350 W + in order to verify the performance claims, further I can find no reference to information about just how long the packs would last if discharged at the stated ratings. Most modellers would use them in flight and if degradation occurred (cumulative effect) this can often be blamed on 'you must have mischarged / abused / overdischarged the pack'. The independant professional testing would go a long way to gaining some confidence in these claims; there seems to be a peculiar lack of independant verification. Maybe Julian will be addressing this with the RC Battery Clinic?

I too will wait with interest for the magazine reviews but will not be surprised if they confirm Flight Powers claim. Not because of a biased reviewer but because the cells " Do exactly what it says on the label"
I don't think I have ever seen a UK battery review magazine article that

Assesses the cycle life of a pack
Looks at performance at continuous maximum discharge rates
Performs more than a couple of charge/discharge cycles.This makes it hard to really assess how long the pack will last, and the eventual cost per flight. Surely these are important to the user. It certainly is close to my heart (and my wallet).

Rod

madmickey
10-09-2005, 10:02 AM
Hi
I did say at the moment I am in interested observer of E flight.

To the best of my knowledge the modelling community is pretty small and especially with the advent of web boards word gets around like greased lightening. So if the claims are false they will be found out pretty quick.

As to the unbiased nature of UK mag I dont think they are less biased than any other mag, I for instance have yet to see a bad review in the US modelling press. But as I dont have detailed knowledge I will say no more on the unbiased subject.

Mike

RC-Tester
10-09-2005, 03:20 PM
The website is about to go live with the new packs, be sure to hurry as demand is very high
The website is still showing 'pre-order' yet the announcement was a month ago - are the packs shipping now?

I was about to purchase a pair of Polyquest 2500 3S XP packs for my brushless twinjet; however I've been looking at the two specifications (PQ and TP):

PolyQuest 2500 XP 3S Lithium Battery.
15C Continuous, 20C Peak Current Discharge
Dimensions: 130mm x 45mm x 20mm
Weight: 210g
Max Discharge : 37.5A
Max Charge : 2.5A

FlightPower Evolution20 2500mAh 3s1p 11.1V.
20C constant discharge(50A) 30C Bursts(75A).
Dimensions - 21mm x 40mm x 120mm
Weight - 196g

The two packs are *almost exactly* the same dimensions, weight and capacity yet the FP has 5C higher continuous and 10C higher burst capability. So *if* they are available now I will buy one of the 2S to evaluate at the 50A continuous in a CC regime (and compare to the PQ XP), if that is positive I'll come back for a pair of the 3S.

The flight profile on the TJ is pretty much full-on 38A with regular bursts to 46A; hence the stress on packs is high and I want to make sure that the packs I buy are up to the job.


.... let me know when you are likely to be shipping product.

Rod

hoppy
10-09-2005, 07:35 PM
FlightPower
This what we are looking for-
http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1661

Why not add yours to RD's list?

Or send some to Red, EveryDayFlyer or RC-Tester????

RC-Tester
10-15-2005, 04:29 PM
Julian, Red,

As it's a week later: are the tests still going ahead? I think we all would be interested in the results.

Rod
...... Its all gone deathly silent!

Does anyone know if the packs have been released, or if testing is going ahead?

Rod

Red Scholefield
10-15-2005, 09:01 PM
...... Its all gone deathly silent!

Does anyone know if the packs have been released, or if testing is going ahead?

Rod

Nothing received here at the Battery Clinic for testing.

Turbojoe
10-15-2005, 10:45 PM
There is an interesting conversation going on in the RunRyder T-Rex forum regarding these batteries.
HERE (http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/t206816p1/) is the link.



Joe

RC-Tester
10-16-2005, 03:19 AM
Nothing received here at the Battery Clinic for testing.
It might be a mute point Red; I have had fairly reliable information that FlightPower is now the UK distributor for the Polyquest XP packs. This might explain the amazing dimensional, weight and capacity similarity between the two packs.

...... However this cannot be the case because in post 7 (http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9094&postcount=7):
We have formed a partnership with leading Korean scientists and have invested in our own factory in the Far East in order to produce the Evolution 20 range of Lithium Polymer packs.

Hmm......:confused:

Rod

BMJR
10-17-2005, 02:50 AM
I was looking at one of the magazines the other day and Hobby Lobby has a large ad for polyquest batteries the new "20" 20C packs.
Humm..

RC-Tester
10-22-2005, 07:01 PM
It has now been several weeks since the original postings from the MD of FlightPower. I can only presume from the silence from FlightPower, and despite their earlier claims, that

There will not be any independant testing of the packs.
That they are indeed PQ XP packs, not manufactured in their new 'factory in the Far East'.I also notice that the only postings made by FlightPower on this forum are to try to promote sales. I am at a loss to explain why some re-sellers try to give the appearance of being a manufacturer and why they appear to only see these forums as a form of 'free marketing'. Surely most people realise we now live in a global market with much greater information availability and a much more knowledgeable user base?

In my opinion I think we all welcome a manufacturer/supplier who wishes to engage with users ...... hmm. In order to keep this thread on-topic I've just placed something in the site suggestions here (http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1983).

Rod

ragbag
10-22-2005, 11:50 PM
only[/B] postings made by FlightPower on this forum are to try to promote sales.

Rod

Seems like I remember that in the first few weeks of Wattflyer they were invited to promote their products in the forums. Not take over or use it for private advertising or anything along that line. Something about there being no ads in Wattflyer, so this was permitted.

I will stand corrected if my memory fails me.

By George

qban_flyer
10-23-2005, 12:20 AM
Seems like I remember that in the first few weeks of Wattflyer they were invited to promote their products in the forums. Not take over or use it for private advertising or anything along that line. Something about there being no ads in Wattflyer, so this was permitted.

I will stand corrected if my memory fails me.

By George

You are correct in your assessment. Blatant take over of the forum for financial gains is not allowed here.

FlightPower
10-24-2005, 04:30 PM
Guys,

Red e-mailed me saying please send in some packs. He also stated : "I am limited to 140 watts discharge using West Mountain Radio CBA-II"

As I explained to Red by e-mail on the same day he wrote to me, we have a multi killowatt testing facility that uses banks of brusless motors and props as sink. This means that we are actually testing real life loads rather than static DC. I was anticipating a response like "aha what a good idea, I'll upgrade my rig to cope with your packs" but have heard nothing back so far.

A limitation of 140 Watts makes it impossible to test any 2s pack at 20C continuous greater than 1000mAh or to verify 30C burst claims for a pack in excess of 667mAh. Bearing in mind that the majority of our range and everything we have ever brought into the UK so far is 1200mAh 2s and above, and only 3s packs in 800mAh, this request is turning into a headache and has gone onto the "we'll get round to it" list.

The other problem we have, (and those that are inclined to cynicism feel free to comment if you must), is that everything we have so far produced has gone straight out the door again to a waiting trade or private customer, this is why you see "pre-order" all over our web site - because we have not yet managed to hold stock for a single day. Because of this, we are focussed on increasing production and getting product to waiting customers rather than just marketing more and more stuff.

The offer to verify the performance of our packs is naturally helpful in marketing and we DO want to take advantage of it. With your kind permission we will orgainise this as part of our priorities and not instead of our priorities which have to be to our existing customers.

Here is another thread on RR that may be of interest. There is a contribution from Paul_C there that includes a performance graph from his model which I liked a lot. I have already written at length on that thread regarding our business and the way we conduct ourselves, if you are interested please take a look....

http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/t206807p1/

Regarding this thread, we will attend to you as soon as possible. It will make our lives much easier if you can organise some more powerful test equipment so we can send a standard product from our range.

Thank you,

Julian Cox

RC-Tester
10-24-2005, 04:45 PM
The offer to verify the performance of our packs is naturally helpful in marketing and we DO want to take advantage of it. With your kind permission we will orgainise this as part of our priorities and not instead of our priorities which have to be to our existing customers.
<SNIP>
Regarding this thread, we will attend to you as soon as possible. It will make our lives much easier if you can organise some more powerful test equipment so we can send a standard product from our range.
Thanks for coming back Julian,

Yes I am interested in the 3S packs for myself - could you let us know what the expected delivery schedule would be for a 3S 2500?

On the testing front I can go to 420W peak and 350W continuous - enough to fully test your 2S 2500 pack. I can also feed burst profiles (or any profile I like) on a CC discharge. If you like I could discus with Red and collaborate on certain elements of the testing?

Rod

hoppy
10-24-2005, 04:55 PM
On the testing front I can go to 420W peak and 350W continuous - enough to fully test your 2S 2500 pack. I can also feed burst profiles (or any profile I like) on a CC discharge. If you like I could discus with Red and collaborate on certain elements of the testing?

Rod

Looks like you found a willing and able independent tester Julian. I would like to see his (and/or Red's) test results.

FlightPower
10-24-2005, 05:12 PM
Good good, I'll run along and organise a 2s1p and 3s1p 2500.

In the mean time please sip a cool beer and relax.

Julian

Red Scholefield
10-25-2005, 11:56 AM
We now have the test rig needed to go to 1,000 watts and it is within 1% accuracy. Looking forward to testing samples of your choice.:D

Red - The R/C Battery Clinic


Guys,

Red e-mailed me saying please send in some packs. He also stated : "I am limited to 140 watts discharge using West Mountain Radio CBA-II"

As I explained to Red by e-mail on the same day he wrote to me, we have a multi killowatt testing facility that uses banks of brusless motors and props as sink. This means that we are actually testing real life loads rather than static DC. I was anticipating a response like "aha what a good idea, I'll upgrade my rig to cope with your packs" but have heard nothing back so far.

Regarding this thread, we will attend to you as soon as possible. It will make our lives much easier if you can organise some more powerful test equipment so we can send a standard product from our range.

Thank you,

Julian Cox

watt_the?!
10-25-2005, 12:47 PM
fwiw i think that there is great interest in looking at the performance at lower C ratings, not just at the max claims of 20 and 30C and so on.

the implied result of high c capable packs is better V under load at more practical C ratings, so the lower C tests surely are valid and perhaps even more important.

it still comes back to the fact that although you can take the high amps, why fly for 1.5 minutes?...who flies for 1.5mins?

most are after good V for 6-12 minutes, or 8-12C, and even 15C. Plus there's the ability to burst. If someone's only wanting to fly for 6 minute plus, then they either parallel a pack up or spec to avg. 10C dont they?- (to get a nice high V under load)

But is the tradeoff weight alone?...is it advanced chemistry?

This is why I personally have been interested in this thread. So, with respect to a 140W test rig limitation, doesnt that represent enough capacity for at least some 3s packs and certainly some of the smaller 2s packs at between 10-20C?

not trolling, just trying to understand the logic in stipulating a 1000W test rig.

Tim.

rotary65
10-25-2005, 01:07 PM
Tim - In heli and ducted fan, we need the high discharge tests (200-300 Watt - 140W just isn't representative). These applications are what are driving the need for this type of cell. In the micro/min helis, pack weight and size are also critical - 20C packs in this size/weight are what we need for our Trex helis, for example. We've been killing our TP2100 3S G2 12 C packs.

watt_the?!
10-25-2005, 01:17 PM
with respect, i disagree. i fly both EDF and helis also...the trex hovers at less than 10A and maxes out at 20A at most for headspeeds of around 2400 and high pitch. your G2 pack should be able to deliver 24A continuous. Still, i use the tanic 2450 12C packs and they are fine, as they can deliver 26A-28A cont, but the average draw is around 12-15A, or 5-6C, resulting in 10 minute flights.

now,

140W from 7.4V, or less, allows 20C to be tested.

Only on 2 cell packs of 850 mAh or less or single cells of 1700 mAh max.

Tim.

also, anyone running their packs at 20C should EXPECT low V, and low flight times.
Agree - push packs this hard and you will get much less service life.

i just dont get it- why peeps dont just parallel up a pack and go for 6C, OR, run high V, low amps using a lower kv motor.

qban_flyer
10-25-2005, 01:52 PM
fwiw i think that there is great interest in looking at the performance at lower C ratings, not just at the max claims of 20 and 30C and so on.

the implied result of high c capable packs is better V under load at more practical C ratings, so the lower C tests surely are valid and perhaps even more important.

it still comes back to the fact that although you can take the high amps, why fly for 1.5 minutes?...who flies for 1.5mins?

most are after good V for 6-12 minutes, or 8-12C, and even 15C. Plus there's the ability to burst. If someone's only wanting to fly for 6 minute plus, then they either parallel a pack up or spec to avg. 10C dont they?- (to get a nice high V under load)

But is the tradeoff weight alone?...is it advanced chemistry?

This is why I personally have been interested in this thread. So, with respect to a 140W test rig limitation, doesnt that represent enough capacity for at least some 3s packs and certainly some of the smaller 2s packs at between 10-20C?

not trolling, just trying to understand the logic in stipulating a 1000W test rig.

Tim.

Well put.

Take the standards for the Audio Industry, the FTC stipulates (mid '70s) that not only they MUST meet their rated output power for one hour with both channels operating, but also MEET one third 1/3 the rated power under the same conditions (where the amplifier's output stage is being stressed to the max) for at least 30 minutes in order to qualify its rated max output as a valid measurement.

Before that ruling every manufacturer was claiming that their puny 20 watt amplifiers were capable of delivering 400+ watts per channel! Rubbish! Entered both the FCC and the FTC into the fray, every one had to "revise" their "previous output specs" or else.

We need something similar with batteries, all batteries not just Li-Pos. Max discharge current capabilities tells us only part of the story, performance wise.

rotary65
10-25-2005, 03:07 PM
with respect, i disagree. i fly both EDF and helis also...the trex hovers at less than 10A and maxes out at 20A at most for headspeeds of around 2400 and high pitch. your G2 pack should be able to deliver 24A continuous. Still, i use the tanic 2450 12C packs and they are fine, as they can deliver 26A-28A cont, but the average draw is around 12-15A, or 5-6C, resulting in 10 minute flights.

Ok - I get it now.

The problem we're having with the G2 TPs is heat. After 10-12 minutes they're at 60C - the top of their rating. This causes them to die.

My expectation is that these higher 20C cells will run cooler on the same application than the 12C packs. So, it would be important for me to see temperature readings under 10-12C loads since this is my key concern. By running them at ~50% of their rating, they should run much cooler, well within safe operating temperature ratings for longevity. Is this reasonable?

So, using your example, a 10C test with temperature readings would yeild the results I'm really looking for. So, yes - I agree wholeheartedly - I need the lower current tests more than the higher current ones. 20C lab tests won't be relevant.

(Sorry to muck up the thread with this newbie stuff)

watt_the?!
10-25-2005, 09:40 PM
no this is good...no muck up at all.

a really interesting discussion. and should be interesting results.

if they stack up, flightpower will come out very shiny indeed.

Tim.

watt_the?!
10-25-2005, 10:03 PM
Ok - I get it now.

The problem we're having with the G2 TPs is heat. After 10-12 minutes they're at 60C - the top of their rating. This causes them to die.



me thinks another victim of overzealous advertising...12C yes, but for how long?....rather than print 12C continuous, it might be 12C and will not explode.

for the trex, a 2100 pack is not quite big enough. Even the 2220 packs dont quite cut it either.

many are running 3s2p 1300-1500 or so and the 2400-2600 packs with good success.

of course there are a bunch of variables also.

im waiting for the day where someone brings out cells that can do what the others do, but weigh half as much.

RC-Tester
10-25-2005, 10:27 PM
Ok - I get it now.

The problem we're having with the G2 TPs is heat. After 10-12 minutes they're at 60C - the top of their rating. This causes them to die.

My expectation is that these higher 20C cells will run cooler on the same application than the 12C packs. So, it would be important for me to see temperature readings under 10-12C loads since this is my key concern. By running them at ~50% of their rating, they should run much cooler, well within safe operating temperature ratings for longevity. Is this reasonable?
Okay - but it is not quite as straight forward as considering the mean discharge current. The critical factor in pack lifetime, longevity (and safety) is temperature that is not related to the power being delivered but the product of I^2 and internal resistance.

Consider these two cases for a cell of resistance 10mOhms:
1. A continuous discharge at 10A
2. A discharge that is pulses of 20A for half the duty cycle.

Both cases have a mean discharge current of 10A, and many people assume the temperature rise will be the same (well if it was a 2000 pack that would be 5C right?). This isn't true with temperature!

For case 1) the mean thermal power being dissipated is 10^2 * 0.01 = 1W.
For case 2) the mean thermal power being dissipated is (20^2 * 0.01) / 2 = 2W

Or the power converted to heat for the burst profile is double that of the continuous discharge!

I think this may be one of the reasons that many are seeing pack failures and lifetime issues - a pack that is marginal on temperature under continuous discharge will perform even worse when the mean profiles has the same discharge. It is also why I am so interested in how the 'burst' ratings are being defined by the manufacturers.

Rod

watt_the?!
10-25-2005, 10:42 PM
nice...

very similar to a ''mission profile'' for operating electronic equipment.

whilst under stress, failure rate goes up, but cycling also generates a more harder to quantify stress as its not as simple as summing the peaks and troughs as it is superimposed on the battery's current state.

can anyone say markovian analysis?:D

RC-Tester
10-25-2005, 10:52 PM
can anyone say markovian analysis?:D
....You wouldn't by any chance have any software for this would you? ;)

Rod

watt_the?!
10-25-2005, 10:57 PM
lol...maybe....not a plug, more a specialty.:D

rcers dont need this stuff, but it is interesting nonetheless that it could be modelled....oh, it can be done by hand too.

Walt Thyng
10-26-2005, 01:59 PM
If the new Flight Power LiPos are re-labeled Polyquests they'll have to deal with Hobby Lobby which now has EXLUSIVE USA distribution rights for PQ. They're doing the same thing with PQ as they did with Axi motors --- cutting out or putting the squeeze on the little guy. Ask Kirk Massey or Radical R/C or Ecubed R/C.
Walt

RD Blakeslee
10-26-2005, 04:24 PM
Re post #68:

Rod, My burst graphs (limited to those cells I thought could "take it", based on their voltage maintenance at high discharge rates) seems to suggest that short resting periods may confound attempts to relate burst power to temperature under actual flying conditions.

- RD

qban_flyer
10-26-2005, 06:18 PM
If the new Flight Power LiPos are re-labeled Polyquests they'll have to deal with Hobby Lobby which now has EXLUSIVE USA distribution rights for PQ. They're doing the same thing with PQ as they did with Axi motors --- cutting out or putting the squeeze on the little guy. Ask Kirk Massey or Radical R/C or Ecubed R/C.
Walt

It's the very same thing they've done with GRAUPNER and JETI ESCs. It's the very reason why AXI and the afore mentioned stuff has always been so expensive. They get to set the price and we, the end users have to either bite the bullet or get something else.

I have chosen to go the something else route. Too many brands out there that are just as good, if not better, for me to patronize one outfit exclusively. One that has put an absolute "yearly minimum ourchase amount" on LHSs that get their stuff from them as a LHS proprietor has told me (including the amount).

jfcgnv
10-26-2005, 09:42 PM
I ordered the 1200 and the 1800 batteries and gave them to RED to test. I don't want to put words into his mouth however I think he was pleased with the results.

I have an Alfa F-86 with a Hi Max 2025-5300 and a Jeti 25 speed controller and have been using TP pro lite 2000 and a Kokam 1500 at three cells with great results 12 to 15 minute flights and battery just warm to the touch.

After using the 1200 this AM at the field I did not notice any difference between the TP 2000 Pro Lite and the EVO 1200. Both gave me 150 watts and 12 minut flights and both were not even warm. Based on this I would have to say thaT THE EVO bateries are as advertised. All we need now is a USA distrubuter bacause they are very pricy to get from England.

watt_the?!
10-26-2005, 09:48 PM
anecdoates like this are always good....however it is hard to think that you get the same flight time out of the 1200 as you do out of the 2000.

unless of course the 2000s are very poor.

considering the same flight regime, for 12 minutes, that's 5C..great for keeping the V up.

the problem is that for the 1200 that's an average of 6A and the kokam pack an average of 10A, suggesting a different flight regime, ignoring the weight difference which wouldnt be large anyway.

good lord i WANT these to be good...i hope they are.

Tim

jfcgnv
10-26-2005, 09:55 PM
I admit the flights were different however they were as simular as I could make them. I had periods of full throttle with each and periods of power off with each. The flights were as similar as I could make them because I wanted to see what the 1200 would do.

The bottom line is I don't work for Flight Power and have no ax to grind one way or the other. I am just posting my flight results, if you want to think I am making these up then go ahead it dosen't change what I and about 15 of my club members witnessed, That is that on the two flights there was no difference between the EVO 1200 and the TP 2000 Por Lite.

d_wheel
10-26-2005, 10:20 PM
jfcgnv,

Did you fly them both until the esc cut off, or did you time the flights? Also, how many mah did you put back into the packs.

Later;

D.W.

jfcgnv
10-26-2005, 10:44 PM
The flights were timed. Power off at twelve minutes and dead stick landings. I have not charged the batteries yet and it will take a full day as I charge each cell individually. That is a total of six cells to charge. I will post the time and MAH each battery took in a couplwe of days. From past flights with the Kokam 1500 and the TP 2000 Pro lite they take about 1100 to 1200 MA to charge after a 10 to 12 minute flight. It will be interesting to see what the EVO takes to full charge.

watt_the?!
10-26-2005, 10:59 PM
I admit the flights were different however they were as simular as I could make them. I had periods of full throttle with each and periods of power off with each. The flights were as similar as I could make them because I wanted to see what the 1200 would do.

The bottom line is I don't work for Flight Power and have no ax to grind one way or the other. I am just posting my flight results, if you want to think I am making these up then go ahead it dosen't change what I and about 15 of my club members witnessed, That is that on the two flights there was no difference between the EVO 1200 and the TP 2000 Por Lite.

mate, you got me all wrong...not trolling or implying anything, just analysing the info you gave. I took 12 minutes and applied them to 1200 and 2000mah respectively.

watt_the?!
10-26-2005, 11:00 PM
jfcgnv,

Did you fly them both until the esc cut off, or did you time the flights? Also, how many mah did you put back into the packs.

Later;

D.W.

good questions, but i think that you cant compare the flights as it is likely that they werent the same. This is what is the problem with anecdotal evidence....these need to be on the bench for this reason precisely.

jfcgnv
10-26-2005, 11:19 PM
DW, I agree that there is no substitute for bench testing. There everything is a constant and easily duplicated.

The bottom line is how do they perform at the field in an airplane. That is what most flyers want to know.

Because of the varible of power output it is impossible to compare batteries just on a specified flight time, I.E. 12 minutes. The proof in the pudding is how did or does it perform in the airplane. It is here that I made my observations. The flights were as close as I could get them and I could not tell ANY difference in the TP 2000 Pro Lite and the EVO 1200.

The charge MA should answer a lot of questions and I will post them as soon as I get the cells charged.

My first inclination would be be that the EVO 1200 could not hold up to the same flight profile as the TP 2000 Pro Lite, however it did. I could not notice any difference in full power climb with either battery. I find it interesting that a 1200 MA battery would perform as a 2000 MA does. This surprised me.

Red, Bench tested both the EVO 1200 and the EVO 1800 for me and you might want to PM him for his results. I don't think he wants to post them because the factory did not authorize him to do so.

watt_the?!
10-26-2005, 11:27 PM
[quote=jfcgnv;18400]

The bottom line is how do they perform at the field in an airplane. That is what most flyers want to know.
[quote]


let me pose a hypothetical...

you are at a drag racing meet and you watch one top fueller look amazing firing on all cylinders and doing a 4.90 pass at 330mph.

then you watch another in the next round and it does a 4.65pass at 315mph.

you will not notice the difference at all by observation. Even the drivers cant tell as all they know is that it felt good. Many times they will report that they thought they didnt go too well yet run a best time.

this is the same for many things. the perception is always the error. This is why any subjective assessment is open to speculation and conjecture.

Cheers,

Tim.

jfcgnv
10-27-2005, 12:04 AM
Tim, Your arguments are solid as usual. Still, I want to know how a airplane performs in the real world. All I can say is I am not dissapointed in the EVO's performance. I do find one fault with them though. They are HEAVY. The Pro Lite 2000 is the same weight as the EVO 1200.

FlightPower
10-28-2005, 08:49 PM
Update re USA distribution:

Performance RC Product Inc. better known as Duralite Batteries USA have agreed to commence vending and distributing FlightPower Evo 20 packs in the USA and Canada with immediate effect.

Feel free to contact them at:


info@duralitebatteries.com (info@duralitebatteries.com)

(877) 744-3685 (toll free in North America)

www.duralitebatteries.com (http://www.duralitebatteries.com/)

watt_the?!
10-28-2005, 08:59 PM
Tim, Your arguments are solid as usual. Still, I want to know how a airplane performs in the real world. All I can say is I am not dissapointed in the EVO's performance. I do find one fault with them though. They are HEAVY. The Pro Lite 2000 is the same weight as the EVO 1200.


ok...so how much did you put back into them then?...2000?

more than 1200?

i can claim a rating of 40C continuous if i market a 20C product at half it's mah rating.

now im very curious.

watt_the?!
10-28-2005, 09:11 PM
ok...

EVO pack.

1200mah pack.

20C constant, 30C burst.

16mm x 30mm x 98mm

weight = 101g.

price: $54.



Tanic 15-20C continuous 1180mah pack

16mm x 29mm x 89mm

weight 84g.

price $51.82


lighter, smaller, cheaper....

RC-Tester
10-28-2005, 09:53 PM
The other problem we have, (and those that are inclined to cynicism feel free to comment if you must), is that everything we have so far produced has gone straight out the door again to a waiting trade or private customer, this is why you see "pre-order" all over our web site - because we have not yet managed to hold stock for a single day. Because of this, we are focussed on increasing production and getting product to waiting customers rather than just marketing more and more stuff.
Julian,

As you are aware, as I have stated several times, I am interested in purchasing the 2S 2500 pack. However your site says 'pre-order' and you say you are shipping. Can you please tell me when you are expecting some in? (I also asked this before but had no answer)

At the moment I am incredibly confused:confused: :

Your site lists stock levels in the 990's
Your site also says 'pre-order'
According to the Google cache of 6th October (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:EYSdfMIpvSYJ:www.flightpower.co.uk/products.php%3Fid%3D24+&hl=en) your stock levels have only fluctuated by only 1 or 2 in a month, yet they 'are rushing out of the door'Please put us out of our misery: why are you listing nearly a thousand items in stock, yet saying 'pre-order', and haven't told us if they are in stock?

Rod

jfcgnv
10-28-2005, 10:11 PM
OK her are the numbers;

EVO 1200

Cell Starting Voltage MA charge MA bat Took Time
1 4.0 1.2A 1289 2:15:20
2 3.9 1.2A 1271 2:02:47
3 3.7 1.2A 1363 2:06:44

PRO LITE 2000

1 4.2 2.0A 1188 1:58:42
2 4.2 2.oA 1215 2:49:16
3 4.2 2.0A 1226 3:02:14


I used an Orbit Microlader charger. I find it interesting that the EVO took more than its rated output on all three cells. I must have been right at voltage cut off when I landed however it did not cut out on me. Also both batteries took about the same amount of MA in the charge. Another difference was that the Pro Lite was at 4.2 volts on all three cells at the start of charge where as the EVO was down some. Onother odd point was one of the Pro Lite cells took over three hours to charge.

I again flew both Bateries at the Field today and could not find any difference in actual flight times or performance between the two batteries. From an operational standpoint the EVO 1200 performes as good as the Pro Lite 2000. I know this is not a verifiable bench test however from my prespective I am well pleased with both Batteries. I can find nothing from my operational experiences that would lead me to believe that the EVO batteries are junk. To the contrary I am well pleased with them.

jfcgnv
10-28-2005, 10:13 PM
The spaces I put in did not take in the post. The first number is the Cell number , the second is the starting voltage the third is the MA the cell took and the fourth is the time to charger cut off.

GeraldRosebery
10-29-2005, 03:29 AM
The problem as I see it is that while the purchasing power of the UK pound is about $1 US, the value is $1.78 (October 27th). That makes all UK products non-competitive in the USA. If they sell them in the US to compete with Poly Quest and Thunderpower their UK customers will be buying them from the USA. If they don't they won't sell very many. We need to get a US supplier to line up similar products from China.

RC-Tester
10-29-2005, 07:07 AM
The problem as I see it is that while the purchasing power of the UK pound is about $1 US, the value is $1.78 (October 27th). That makes all UK products non-competitive in the USA.
I think they will have bigger problems than that in selling them in the states (from RR thread (http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/t206807p1/)):
In addition to this our FlightPower UK distributorship business is entrusted with an Enerland (all-brands including Polyquest) exclusive in our local market. FlightPower UK distributes and vends electric power-train items from PSU to ESC in fixed-wing and helicopters. We of course actively advertise, distribute and vend FlightPower battery products in the UK and much of Europe and Scandinavia.
... I would have thought Hobby Lobby would get just a *little* annoyed if they found their Enerland USA exclusivity was being circumvented.

Rod

RC-Tester
11-13-2005, 09:25 AM
Any news Julian: (its been 2 weeks with no response)

Does Red now have some test packs (as he complied with all of your wishes)?
Are the packs available for purchase or not? (why does the site show nearly a 100)

Rod

As you are aware, as I have stated several times, I am interested in purchasing the 2S 2500 pack. However your site says 'pre-order' and you say you are shipping. Can you please tell me when you are expecting some in? (I also asked this before but had no answer)

At the moment I am incredibly confused:confused: :

Your site lists stock levels in the 990's
Your site also says 'pre-order'
According to the Google cache of 6th October (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:EYSdfMIpvSYJ:www.flightpower.co.uk/products.php%3Fid%3D24+&hl=en) your stock levels have only fluctuated by only 1 or 2 in a month, yet they 'are rushing out of the door'

margotcopeland
11-15-2005, 05:15 PM
I''l be interested to see if the batteries are everything they're claimed to be, after all's been said and done.

FlightPower
11-15-2005, 05:54 PM
We sent the packs out to Red on 3rd November.

Nearly 2 weeks ago as at the date of posting.


Julian.

(obviously the discourteous bit has now been removed, with thanks)

RC-Tester
11-15-2005, 06:53 PM
Dear discourteous forum subscriber.

We sent the packs out to Red on 3rd November.

Nearly 2 weeks ago as at the date of posting.

Kindly take the matter up with him.

Julian.

Dear Julian,

I'm not sure who you are referring to here but discourtesy is not answering a simple question from a possible customer:
As you are aware, as I have stated several times, I am interested in purchasing the 2S 2500 pack. However your site says 'pre-order' and you say you are shipping. Can you please tell me when you are expecting some in? (I also asked this before but had no answer)
This is now my fourth time of asking without any response.

You have not helped matters by showing stock levels of nearly a 1000 and stating that this is also pre-order.

Discourtesy is also trying to mislead the forum readers here, as you tried to claim you manufactured the cells: (from post 7 (http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9094&postcount=7))
We have formed a partnership with leading Korean scientists and have invested in our own factory in the Far East in order to produce the Evolution 20 range of Lithium Polymer packs.
It is also discourtesy to try and suggest in another forum that you have never tried to mislead anyone (runryder forum here (http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/t206807p2/)):
There is obviously a rumour doing the rounds in Australia to the effect that we are claiming to be something that we are not. I don't agree with this rumour.
I think anyone reviewing page one of this thread would conclude that you were in fact the source of this rumour.

.... You know what they say about throwing stones in a greenhouse?

You are however to be congratulated on sending your packs to Red and I think we all await the test results.

Rod

Red Scholefield
11-15-2005, 07:34 PM
Dear discourteous forum subscriber.

We sent the packs out to Red on 3rd November.

Nearly 2 weeks ago as at the date of posting.

Kindly take the matter up with him.

Julian.

No packs received as of 15 Nov. What address was used? They will get top priority when they arrive.

qban_flyer
11-15-2005, 08:00 PM
Anyone making claims about their "superlative" product(s) should be able to substantiate said claims.

It is not discorteous to ask legitimate questions from any manufacturer, it's the way WE do things in the US, and anyone daring to make claims about their products should be ready for whatever queries about said claims comes their way.

If we are willing to shell out more money for a "superlative" product(s), we also have a right to make sure we are getting what we are paying for. I for one, don't believe anything put on paper by anyone, anymore. I want tangible proof of the claims being made before I spend my hard earned cash. That, discorteous does not make me, what it makes me is a smart investor.

:(

margotcopeland
11-15-2005, 09:06 PM
The post he was referring to was mine, but it has been heavily edited because I after I read his response, I thought Red was in possession of a battery.

The gist of my post was:

I said it was a very confusing post.

That they started a POST, not a commercial, and as soon as hard questions were asked, their attitude changed abruptly.

That they came in here spouting PR, and when pressed for the facts, wouldn’t give any hard evidence. When faced with more requests and very direct specifics, they were danced around, and intimations were made that one of the questioners was probably a “competitior” or had some axe to grind.

That another British marketer used almost the same tactics on me, and I asked whether the British consumer simply accepted generalizations and advertising from companies without question.

That unless they developed a breakthrough lithium technology, their product was probably average with little change but the label.

That is a forum for hobbyists, not mere consumers, and “it works great in XZY plane” and other advertising/PR statements would not be greeted with complete acceptance.

That free advertising on this forum had a price of people often asking tough questions, and those questions shouldn’t be a bother, which is what I got from your replies.

--------------

That is not even close to verbatim

Perhaps it was discourteous, so, when he responded I pulled the comment.

qban_flyer
11-15-2005, 09:44 PM
Perhaps it was discourteous, so, when he responded I pulled the comment.





I don't think it is discorteous to ask valid questions about a product claimed to do something others have not been able to achieve yet. Especially if the product is costlier to us State side, and said manufacturer refuses to answer in a straightforward fashion to a straightforward question.

I made the mistake of believeing certain manufacturer's claim on his packs of "15C Maximum Discharge Rate". What the "manufacturer" conveniently left out of the equation was that 15C was the burst rate, not the continuos one.

So what I thought could be discharged safely at a given rate, was 50% higher than what it should have been. Since there was no distinction made as to what "15C Maximum Discharge Rate" was, I wound up damaging two very expensive packs.

I have opted to purchase battery packs from manufacturers that give me both rates printed on the packs. From manufacturers willing to clearly answer questions I may have about their products, not to give me the run-around as some still do.

If by doing so some manufacturers consider me discorteous, then so be it. It's their loss, not mine. I won't waste my money on their wares.

jfcgnv
11-17-2005, 08:58 PM
With all the negative post in this forum I just want to say that I am well pleased with my two batteries. I have flown them three times a week for over a month now and I can find no fault with them. I gave then to red for testing before I used them and he could find no fault with them. I did instruct him to not test them to destruction though as I wanted to fly with them. I suppose if he tested them to destruction he might have found a fault with the batteries. Like I have said I don't work for or even know Flight power, its corporate policy or its employees.

Geoff_Gino
11-18-2005, 05:35 AM
Hi All

Been waiting to see what, if any, negative feed back comes from this thread.

I have been using a Flight Power 3S1P 2,2 amp 20C discharge in my Sig Little Extra for 2 months now and typically fly 2 days each week end.
In this time the battery has been cycled at least 3 times each day on top of which the plane has crashed on no less than 4 occassions due to a faulty servo.

So far the battery has performed to spec and has shown no signs of having any problems at all.

Treat them right and they will behave.

Geoff
South Africa

qban_flyer
11-18-2005, 03:13 PM
Treat them right and they will behave.

Geoff
South Africa

YUP! And that also applies to all others, regardless of make. :)

RC-Tester
11-19-2005, 08:20 PM
With all the negative post in this forum I just want to say that I am well pleased with my two batteries.
I'm glad it worked out for you!

I'm going to close my disussion in this forum with some concluding remarks: I will only purchase from reputable suppliers, who don't try to mislead or add 'hype' to their products. I would expect any supplier to answer reasonable questions in a reasonable time and this is (in my mind) a general reflection on the business practice of any company who does so.

Well I'm afraid, Flightpower, your actions speak louder than words:

Flightpower tried to mislead us into believing they 'manufactured' the cells (PolyQuest XP).
My question on availability has gone unanswered in over a month (site says 'pre-order' yet stock says a 1000) - despite asking *four* times.
They have publicly attacked another poster in this forum (do you have something to hide FP?)
Their claims of being a 'leading supplier' in the UK do not stack up - amongst our 75+ members only one flies FlightPower in a solitary model and I have never seen FP packs regularly used at *any* indoor meeting in the UK.
The suggestion that FP (a 3-5 man company) 'sorted out' any quality issues at APL (a 10 - 100 $Million manufacturer) is almost laughable.
Relevant safety and consumer legislation (UN DOT and UL1642) is apparently 'not an issue for the consumer'.
Reticence to have any packs independently verified (I believe Red still doesn't have a pack for test; despite the FP 'hype' to the contrary).With the silence from FP, the attacks on another poster, and the 'claims' made in this thread, I won't bother to waste any more time on these guys; if I want Polyquest XP packs I'll buy through a reputable supplier without the hype and leave the 'spin' to those that want it.

Rod

qban_flyer
11-20-2005, 12:38 AM
I'm going to close my disussion in this forum with some concluding remarks: I will only purchase from reputable suppliers, who don't try to mislead or add 'hype' to their products. I would expect any supplier to answer reasonable questions in a reasonable time and this is (in my mind) a general reflection on the business practice of any company who does so.

Well I'm afraid, Flightpower, your actions speak louder than words:

Flightpower tried to mislead us into believing they 'manufactured' the cells (PolyQuest XP).
My question on availability has gone unanswered in over a month (site says 'pre-order' yet stock says a 1000) - despite asking *four* times.
They have publicly attacked another poster in this forum (do you have something to hide FP?)
Their claims of being a 'leading supplier' in the UK do not stack up - amongst our 75+ members only one flies FlightPower in a solitary model and I have never seen FP packs regularly used at *any* indoor meeting in the UK.
The suggestion that FP (a 3-5 man company) 'sorted out' any quality issues at APL (a 10 - 100 $Million manufacturer) is almost laughable.
Relevant safety and consumer legislation (UN DOT and UL1642) is apparently 'not an issue for the consumer'.
Reticence to have any packs independently verified (I believe Red still doesn't have a pack for test; despite the FP 'hype' to the contrary).With the silence from FP, the attacks on another poster, and the 'claims' made in this thread, I won't bother to waste any more time on these guys; if I want Polyquest XP packs I'll buy through a reputable supplier without the hype and leave the 'spin' to those that want it.

Rod

I am with you 100% Rod.

Paper will take everything anyone dares to print on it. That does not make the written text truthful, though.

When a manufacturer makes claims about their "superlative" product(s), they had better be ready to back up said claims with proof positive, not hype and or an attack on the ones questioning the facts.

Also, they had better be ready to answer questions from both consumers and reviewers alike in a prompt an clear fashion, not hype.

Failure to do so will sink them rather quickly. :(

Jeff Boyd 2
11-22-2005, 09:28 AM
Hi guys, just thought I would let you know that these packs are now available in Australia from Model Flight (a large reputable importer/supplier of RC gear for around 35 years. They distribute products widely throughtout Australia and overseas, and they are also the Australian Agent for JR). See link:

http://www.modelflight.com.au/flightpower.htm

From what I have heard, these packs are awesome, and I will have to get one test in my Horizon Eflite Mini Edge. Given time, I will let you know my comparison with a couple of other new packs I have.

PS. Don't beat me up too bad, as I haven't read the whole thread . . .

watt_the?!
11-22-2005, 10:41 AM
ive got no probs buying them if they are good...thing is, they seem to be just one of the crowd. anecdotes are fine, but , well they are anecdotes and prone to subjectivity and the inability of the flyer to discern subtle differences and apply controlled c onditions for comparison.

it seems to me that lipos are subject to several things:

1. weight,
2. Size
3. Capacity
4. Discharge Capability
5. Ability to discharge under load
6. Heat.

From what ive seen the current lipos are pretty much all the same. Some make claims of high C but this is at the expense of weight, despite the fact that high C is a pragmatic issue in itself...some claims of mah capacity seem to be false also, thus giving abnormally high ''tolerance'' for discharge. What really annoys me personally is that some claims attract a higher demand..and thus drive a higher price when really they are still claims, and yet to be verified.

Jeff Boyd 2
11-22-2005, 12:40 PM
Fair call.

All I can do is check the performance on my Medusa "dyno", and then compare relative performance in a back to back flight evaluation.

I have had two packs rated at 10C when they were only approx 6C packaged and marketed by an Australian business (who I know don't make them). This is potentially hazardous, and I won't buy another pack from them for safety reasons (plus a burning plane is not a good look).

I have heard a rumour that there are only about 3 or 4 actual manufacturers of these cells in the world, and they are sold to marketing type companies who rebadge them. e.g. perhaps Polyquest and Flightpower? First issue Thunderpower and Dualsky . . maybe? Megapower and Polyquest? I would be keen to have this confirmed.

This is not an uncommon marketing practice, and it is done for a number of reasons, including getting around "exclusive" distributor agreements. No question Hobby Lobby is a big operator in the U.S., but I know they wouldn't get all the Li-Po market . . far from it. So an exclusive arrangement with them would limit the sales, so the cell manufacturer allows another company to "rebadge" their product and supply into the same market thereby gettiing around the exclusivity.

However, these marketing companies should not lie about their activities, and should just cleverly go about their business of supplying quality products and making money . . everyone will be happy.

I've got two packs of 3E-Model LiPo's . . whose are these??? . . I don't know but they perform real well (although a little heavy). They are nicely assembled with the cells seperated for cooling, and come completely wired with genuine Deans Ultras (M & F) and balance ports . . and they are cheap. Check it here http://www.edwardling.com/flighttosky/product_e.asp?type=batt

It's a great hobby, and the rapid growth in electric flight is exciting. I'm just glad to be a part of it.

jfcgnv
11-23-2005, 02:37 AM
Jeff, I hope you are thick skinned. I have posted several post in this forum and have been chastised for not being a certified scientific battery tester. MY post were like you propose to do. That is flight testing and comparing them to other batteries in an actual flight comparision. I have to agree with those that say the batteries are great. In fact my EVO 1200 outperforms my TP Pro Flight 2000. I know the nae sayers think I am touched however the proof is in the pudding, Ask any of my club members whom have seen my flight comparisions. I for one would like to know how your "flights" go.

jfcgnv

watt_the?!
11-23-2005, 05:14 AM
lets try and be objective here and not sensitive. no need for a thick skin IMO, just an open mind.

you cant argue a controlled test. a ''flight'' is no way to compare the performance of a pack...if you cant measure it properly, then it is subjective at best, completely wrong at worst.

no one is attacking credibility here, just being open and frank about what is posed.

honestly i couldnt care less about what the thoughts were about the flight...so many variables. Unless you are comparing something that is completely out of spec for one pack over the other, then the differences should be subtle and only measurable from proper datums.

and this, is the basis for this thread. in order to know, they need to be tested. i am almost 100% certain that if i gave flyer lipo pack xyz and abc and asked them what was best, and then did the same for a number of flyers, i'd get mixed answers.

however if i gave a tester both packs and said, tell me which is best, then the results do not lie.

Jeff Boyd 2
11-23-2005, 11:54 AM
Tim, I agree with what you are saying, and you get no argument from me that a battery tester will give you accurate results . . . except, I have flown quite a few different packs of 1800mAh 3S1P packs in 3D park flyers, and for that mater 2S1P packs as well, and I could feel a performance difference and got noticeably different duration from them as well. Sure, obviously good packs versus poor . . but this is all that matters to me.

I guess if you put these packs "on the bench" you would actually see it in the data. For that matter my Medusa unit would show the voltage drop under various loads and this would equate to the variation in "power" feel . . . I guess ? ? ?

Tim, excuse my ignorance (I have only been flying electrics for about a year, and I am by know means a "techie") but it sounds like the type of results you are looking for under an "approved" testing method is splitting hairs" stuff, when I am sure the average sport flyer just wants a pack that performs well. And if the average flyer can't really tell the difference between the packs you are giving him . . what benefit is the battery testers results to him ?

Jeff Boyd 2
11-23-2005, 11:59 AM
PS. Tim, I see you're from Adelaide . . we'll have to fly togetther one day, then we can argue about something different . . like . . should a rolling circle roll to the outside or the inside . . ONLY JOKING ! ! (I do them both ways anyway . .)

Cheers, Jeff

jfcgnv
11-23-2005, 01:42 PM
Jeff, see what I mean. An open mind means that you can see all sides of an issue and give credit to the merits of all participants views.

There can NEVER be a substitute for verifiable laboratory testing and I take my hat off to the engineers that have the equipment and knowledge to do that. Their data is absolute, no question!

However , if you ask the average joe flyer, he or she will ask, how does it fly?, how does it perform? You will get responces like "Gosh my battery wont do that", "or that battery is crap". This is what is important to the average electric flyer, not some question like what does the discharge gragh look like at 20 amps and how long did it give it to you before the temp went to 140 degrees. Great questions for the techie but if it flys like crap , who cares.

An example, one of my club members has a twin electric that has two speed 600's for power. He has been using a TP 2100 Lipo. His flights were just adequate and he mostly "hung on the props". He put in my EVO 1200 and the A/C littery jumped off the ground. After a four minute flight the battery was not even warm. I know this is subjective and not verifiable , except to my club members who witnessed it. I refuse to believe that this type of information is useless in determining the worth of a battery.

Sensitivity, No. Open minded Yes. Let me know how your Flight test go I for one am interested.

watt_the?!
11-23-2005, 08:08 PM
all good points. the problem is that unless there is a marked difference between the packs, and probably more a motor/prop spec issue, it is difficult to tell.

for instance i still have some 6c packs that if i place in a plane that uses 4C versus another 20C pack in the same plane i wouldnt know the difference.

another example would be voltage under load. one pack may be holding 10V, where another might be holding 9.5V, or even 9.2V.

depending on the motor used, the difference could be hundreds of rpm, but may be 1000s. For the 1000s then it would be noticeable, i agree.

i must admit i was being a bit terse about my ''couldnt care less'' bit...but was trying to make a point.

the point i am trying to make is although you may be able to ID the differences, others may not, especially those who havent seen your plane fly before. Also, many do not see what you are doing on the throttle either, and so forth.

other questions you may ask are ''what was being used before''...this poses another problem in trying to determine what the differences should be between packs.

A fairer comparison today would be between similar packs. i.e. similar mah, similar C rating. A pack that can draw 20C v a 10C pack is not really fair as it really depends on what current is being drawn.

case in point..the twin speed 600 plane. Suppose it is drawing 15A. Well, on the gen 1 tp it would perform poorly (6C), on the gen 2 it would be marginal (10-12C), but it should at least perform well for any 20C pack at WOT...i.e. takeoff for instance...and so on...

so we need to be careful about experiences, thats what im trying to say.

Tim.

timocharis
11-23-2005, 08:49 PM
Tim,

One thing I'd add -- I'm tired of static tests. They don't tell me much about a pack and less about a motor. The dang things get cooling when flying, and that makes a huge difference. Batteries that get way too hot on the bench are just warm under the same load with some air flow. Motors are even more severe that way.

It is possible to test "in the air." Barring that, perhaps some centrifugal test would be workable. I'm not deep in enough to this issue to suggest anything particularly useful -- just increasingly dubious of static tests.


Dave North

sailr
11-23-2005, 08:50 PM
All of my tests of TP packs has shown them to perform far below the data they provide, which is overrated. I use a West Mountain Computerized Battery Analyzer/Discharger to be sure conditions are always identical. We are pleased that our Hurricane Flight Systems Li-po's have all exceeded the specs. We actually underrate our batteries.

Of course in any given application, anything can happen. Murphy's law..right? :-)

Jim
www.flyhurricane.com

jfcgnv
11-23-2005, 08:58 PM
I may have one explanation for the "unusual" results from my EVO packs. Because as I have stated I don't see how a 1200 pack can keep up with a 2000 or a 2100 pack. I agree a 6c pack would appear weak compared to a 15c pack.

Would a 2000 pack marketed as a 1200 pack give the same results as we are talking about. I mean if EVO sold their 1200 pack as a 1200 pack when it really was a 2000 pack then you could explain the power avialable, couldn't you? As a retired Airline Pilot I am well aware of de-rating an engine and the benifits you can gain in preformance as altitude increases. Could not the same reasoning be given to Battery packs? Lets say a battery manufacturer de rates his battery and then makes certain claims about the power or performance of the product. If the battery were de rated the you might be mis-lead into thinking the output was miraculus when it in reality was just average. This might also explain why the EVO batteries are a little bit heavy when comparefd to other Batteries of the same MA. Just a thought, What do you think?

watt_the?!
11-23-2005, 09:27 PM
Would a 2000 pack marketed as a 1200 pack give the same results as we are talking about.


yep....thats what i think i posted earlier in this thread....and would explain the weight issue.

and IMO is just unethical if it is the case.

Tim.

watt_the?!
11-23-2005, 09:30 PM
Tim,

One thing I'd add -- I'm tired of static tests. They don't tell me much about a pack and less about a motor. The dang things get cooling when flying, and that makes a huge difference. Batteries that get way too hot on the bench are just warm under the same load with some air flow. Motors are even more severe that way.

It is possible to test "in the air." Barring that, perhaps some centrifugal test would be workable. I'm not deep in enough to this issue to suggest anything particularly useful -- just increasingly dubious of static tests.


Dave North


good points...but a wind tunnel is hard to come by, let alone the telemetry required to record the data. IMO if we use a standard reference point then we can compare apples to apples at least...its more a compromise than anything else.

sailr
11-23-2005, 11:23 PM
the mAh rating has nothing to do with performance! It only has to do with how long you can fly. VOLTAGE determines performance. Of course you have to have enough amps to carry the demand of the motor. Generally, though, the mAh rating tells you the size of your fuel tank

watt_the?!
11-23-2005, 11:44 PM
the mAh rating has nothing to do with performance! It only has to do with how long you can fly. VOLTAGE determines performance. Of course you have to have enough amps to carry the demand of the motor. Generally, though, the mAh rating tells you the size of your fuel tank

the capacity of the pack determines, in part, the internal resistance of the pack which in turn affects the voltage, esp under load. it has ALOT to do with performance, including determining the max current able to be drawn.

since P=IV, then power out is directly proportional to both V and I.

rearranging this P= I squared x R...

sailr
11-23-2005, 11:48 PM
If you'll read my post again I said 'you have to have enough amps to carry the demand of the motor'. As far as the internal resistance thingy...you got me there.

RC-Tester
11-24-2005, 12:10 AM
One thing I'd add -- I'm tired of static tests. They don't tell me much about a pack and less about a motor. The dang things get cooling when flying, and that makes a huge difference. Batteries that get way too hot on the bench are just warm under the same load with some air flow. Motors are even more severe that way.
You would be surprised just how much a static CC load mimics the 'feedback loop' of a pilot on the sticks - as the voltage sags he will naturally increase the stick position to maintain a similar in-flight performance (constant power).

You're right to talk about heat, but have you considered all the implications?

How much air flow is 'some air flow? - is this quantifiable and the same in each of your models?
What is the effect of air flow? The centre of the pack may well be still at the 70 deg C (or more) causing damage; only the surface has been cooled - effectively lulling you into a false sense of security.
At the end of the day a pack that delivers its performance safely under static conditions *will* do so in-flight. One that doesn't is an accident waiting to happen.It is possible to test "in the air." Barring that, perhaps some centrifugal test would be workable. I'm not deep in enough to this issue to suggest anything particularly useful -- just increasingly dubious of static tests.
I'm skeptical of the repeatability and lack of like-for-like comparison an in-air test offers. I'm also skeptical of talk of 'banks of motors' being used as a constant resistance load as this takes no account of the effect of a pilot who naturally increases throttle position to compensate for voltage sag.

Something else to throw in the pot; burst testing the pack is likely to produce far higher temperatures in the pack (that causes degradation) than any constant current discharge. This is because the power 'lost' in the pack is related to the pack IR x (Current^2), not voltage x current, and therefore for a 'burst' discharge of the same mean current as any continuous discharge the heat developed will be far in excess.

What actually governs how well a pack can be used for high current, and its voltage performance under load, is the cell internal resistance. This resistance leads to conversion of power to heat ((I^2)xInternalR), voltage sag (V-(IxInternalR)) and hence the maximum current that can be drawn whilst still delivering a safe voltage at a safe temperature. In general the pack IR drops with increasing capacity; and this is why you see a better performance with a larger capacity pack. It is also why others here have suggested that some games are played with stated cell capacity - if you relabel a 2000 (15C) pack as 1200 it magically gains a new discharge rating of 25C (15*20/12), yet still has the same current delivery!

Rod

(Seems I posted at the same time as 'Watt the?!')

RC-Tester
11-24-2005, 12:24 AM
With the silence from FP, the attacks on another poster, and the 'claims' made in this thread, I won't bother to waste any more time on these guys; if I want Polyquest XP packs I'll buy through a reputable supplier without the hype and leave the 'spin' to those that want it.
..... back on-track and an update.

The lack of 'customer orientation' from FlightPower has lost them a sale; I got a PQ2100XP pack from aircraft-world (http://www.aircraft-world.com) which I tested and found met my needs. So I have just ordered a 5S PQ3300XP thats going straight in a model as soon as it turns up this week!

Rod

timocharis
11-24-2005, 12:25 AM
Rod,

You raise an interesting question about the temperature at the center of the pack. What part of the pack is normally tested for temperature in static testing? The use of the word "may," however, leads me to suspect there is more speculation than quantification going on. Where is the reaction heat generated, and how does it usually flow? How does differ from pack to pack?

Otherwise, after reading your post carefully, I think you've managed to completely miss my point. Though you drifted close here and there...

One thing I will admit, to fairly answer your question: no, I am sure I have never once in my life managed to consider all the implications. I have at times thought I did, only to discover later that, no, I didn't.


Dave

RC-Tester
11-30-2005, 07:31 PM
No packs received as of 15 Nov. What address was used? They will get top priority when they arrive.
Just interested - did you ever receive anything or was it classic 'vapour ware'?

Rod

Red Scholefield
11-30-2005, 10:00 PM
Just interested - did you ever receive anything or was it classic 'vapour ware'?

Rod

I've not seen a thing.:confused: or :rolleyes:

Red S.

ozace
11-30-2005, 11:06 PM
I have some of the flightpower packs and they are very impressive. Just like the polyquest xp's.
My tip is buy the cheaper of the 2 as far as i can tell they are identical .
not very scientific but it works for me.

Mattyduk
11-30-2005, 11:10 PM
Im just about to bite the bullet and buy 2 5s 5000 packs. I allready have a 4s 3700 thats seems to perform really well on ground tests. But the proof is in the pudding so to speak will keep you informed.:)

RC-Tester
12-10-2005, 03:25 AM
OK,

I'm more than a little uneasy that we may be being 'mislead' by the assembler here. I had occasion to be looking at Companies House (http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk) records today that includes the companies filed accounts (these are public records available to all). They certainly made interesting reading in light of the claims made here:
..... We have formed a partnership with leading Korean scientists and have invested in our own factory in the Far East in order to produce the Evolution 20 range of Lithium Polymer packs.
..... For our Gen 3 we have grown sufficiently large for our own production facilities.
Errrm ..... the numbers don't stack up. The first odd thing for a company purporting to be this size is that they were able to submit abbreviated accounts: this is only possible if turnover is below £5.6M and the balance sheet is less than £2.8M.
..... We are the dominant UK source of Lipos far outweighing TP, Kokam, Polyquest etc and we are represented by most serious hobby outlets here and many across Europe / Scandinavia, Japan, Australia etc etc.
I had wondered why I didn't know more modellers who bought FP packs if they far outsold TP and Kokam in the UK - their accounts give a different story:

Total assets of £2,715
Stocks of value £20,312
Cash in the bank £5,858
Profit and loss account for the year of < £10,000Errmm.... again I don't see how their own accounts stack up with the statements they make here. I can think of several UK suppliers whose figures look much bigger than this. If they outsold TP and Kokam in the UK I would expect figures *at least* 10 times higher, and you would also expect them to have more than £2715 in test equipment, facilities and office equipment. £2715 is barely more than a PC, fax, printer and a CBA!

And finally the claim made by FlightPower (in the RR forum) to have an exclusive on the Enerland cells does not look true also: Overlander (one of the biggest UK suppliers) is now bringing in the PolyQuest XP's as 'Poly-PRO Gold'.

Maybe its time for FlightPower to come clean; a number of 'claims' (that they couldn't substantiate) have been in this thread, they have attacked posters who have questioned them, and the packs they say they have sent for independent testing don't seem to have materialised. Do they really expect the RC community to be so gullible?

Hmmmm......

Rod

Mattyduk
12-10-2005, 08:53 AM
Is it just me or do you have way too much time on your hands.

jfcgnv
12-10-2005, 01:00 PM
Mattyduk, I don't think so. I really enjoy this forum and others that interest me. I don't always agree with everything here however all information has some truth and knowledge in it. You know pilots and hanger flying and what would we do without rumors. Take the information here and if you like it use it and if you don't then just laugh and condsider the source. Like Wat_the says. "I love this place".

Mattyduk
12-10-2005, 01:19 PM
I agree with you on that JFCGNV. There are many people with different agendas.

I just think when you start looking into the accounts of companies then its getting a little obbsessive perhaps.

I allways think the proof is in the performace. Has anyone used FP EVO 20 packs and had poor performance.

jfcgnv
12-10-2005, 01:33 PM
I have two EVO packs and am well pleased with their flight performance, and i agree I have not heard of anyone that is displeased with the actual battery.

This forum has brought to my attention however that Evo is probally misleading its custormers on the actual product they are getting.

I was comparing the performance of a 1200 pact to a 2000 pack of different manufacture and the EVO 1200 pack seemed to out perform the 2000 pack. WE all know that this is probally not possible but we were seeing it with our own eyes. As it turns out the EVO pack was in all probability not really a pack of 1200 Ma but a de- rated pack of some larger capacity. Therefor the performance we thought we were getting out of a 1200 pack was indeed misleading.

The post you refere to is just confirmation that this company probally is mis leading the consumer (you and I) about the product they market. I feel this type of information is very useful when considering what battery to buy.

To answer your question. No I have not heard of anyone actually displeased with their EVO battery.

RC-Tester
12-10-2005, 05:44 PM
I just think when you start looking into the accounts of companies then its getting a little obbsessive perhaps.
Maybe - it might seem that way but only takes a couple of minutes (literally). I've been 'stung' by fly-by-nights in the past and only just avoided a major sting from ANSA in the UK - their behaviour has cost many modellers and suppliers throusands, and in the UK they are now infamous for the number of people they owe products/money to. ... They too tried to pass themselves off as being a very large concern, the major supplier of LiPo and BL in Europe, and 'magically' increased the C-ratings of their packs. I only escaped by the skin of my teeth with ANSA; despite others saying 'he's a nice bloke really; I'm sure he'll sort it out sometime' (BTW the same people who said this are the ones complaining now that they are owed product and money and wondering why no-one knew!)

So you see nothing gets me more annoyed than someone trying to deliberately mislead; it usually means they have something to hide. So when I know something doesn't add-up should I:

keep it to myself (and let others complain about why no-one knew), or
should I share the information I have so others can make up their own minds?I allways think the proof is in the performace. Has anyone used FP EVO 20 packs and had poor performance.
I use the same Polyquest XP's myself (from ACW (http://www.aircraft-world.com)) and I am more than happy with the performance. It will be very interesting if Overlander (http://www.overlander.co.uk) put them on special especially as they are selling some of the PQ sizes that FP are not.

Rod

Mattyduk
12-10-2005, 06:28 PM
I agree with everything your saying. I know of people who were conned by ANSA.

However if FP are really stating untrue claims about products and are lying about their products then isnt this a case for trading standards perhaps and let them deal with it.

Red Scholefield
12-10-2005, 06:37 PM
No packs received as of 15 Nov. What address was used? They will get top priority when they arrive.

Dec 10, no packs received for testing.

timocharis
12-10-2005, 07:03 PM
matty:

Oddly, I assumed what Rod said -- that it only took a few minutes. I came close to posting one of those annoying content-free "wow, good idea to look that up Rod" messages but decided the world could live without.

No longer. Rod, what a good idea to look that up!

On the other hand, I kind of enjoy doing a quick search and finding something revealing, so I have sympathy with the motive. And I certainly thank Rod for sending along the results.

The "content" portion of my message is, don't assume what seems difficult necessarily is -- particularly for people who know their way around. That's the advantage of a little mini-bureaucracy like this. Things that might take me days to figure out, someone else has already done several times and can whip out an answer in seconds.

Hmm. As content, that's fairly lame. But I'm pressing the 'Submit Reply' button anyway.


Dave

justwannafly
12-11-2005, 07:37 PM
I visited this forum thinking i might learn something about li-po batteries. Being a newcomer to this technology I had high hopes.
Imagine my amazement then to read the barely disguissed vitriol flung about by "experts" unwilling to disclose their identity, do these people actually have time to fly models?
When all is said and done , it'll be the consumer who decides the fate of the product, they always do.
As for RC Tester or what ever your name is---get a life.
Must go, got models to fly.

ozace
12-11-2005, 07:53 PM
I visited this forum thinking i might learn something about li-po batteries. Being a newcomer to this technology I had high hopes.
Imagine my amazement then to read the barely disguissed vitriol flung about by "experts" unwilling to disclose their identity, do these people actually have time to fly models?
When all is said and done , it'll be the consumer who decides the fate of the product, they always do.
As for RC Tester or what ever your name is---get a life.
Must go, got models to fly.

Julian ?

panzerd18
12-11-2005, 08:01 PM
The FlightPower packs contain Enerland 20C cells. From what I have heard the new Polyquest XP 20/30C are also Enerland 20C cells. I have no doubt the cells used in FlightPower packs will perform very well.

FlightPower do make the packs in their own factory as they receive the cells and put them all together so in a way they do make their own.

For the full story you should read this

http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/t206807p1/

From reading this thread from start to finish I would say FlightPower deserves more respect than currently given. They are a well known brand now in Australia. As for someone saying FlightPower attacked someone...Grow up.

watt_the?!
12-11-2005, 09:57 PM
ok before this goes entirely off the ropes...lets make some statements here...

1. no one has ever verified by test the packs...so please lets not crucify those who speculate.

2. there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that something fishy is going on...and that isnt just restricted to FP by the way.

Now, although im australian, i know too well that Aussies are not unlike the majority of the rc consumers. If it performs well, is expensive, and others say it's good, then it must be good, right?..and it must be what it says it is...

This thread is about testing the packs for comparison, and has, over time evolved to questioning the actual capacity of the packs themselves. Since nothing has been verified (although some evidence exists), we should not be taking aggressive stances against each other, rather considering each other's position.

Tim

Electricflying
12-11-2005, 10:05 PM
I value Red Scholefield's opinion and will be interested when he gets a pack and can give a report.
John

FlightPower
12-12-2005, 03:06 PM
Hello Guys,

I have not checked in with this forum for a while. I would like to thank all of you who have chimed in with your support. However I am at a loss to know why we or anyone ought to be put in a position where defending our reputation is necessary.

Let me state that we have at no time behaved any way that could possibly justify such a torrent of poisonous BS as we are getting here from RC-Tester. We sent some packs that got lost in the post and didn't check back in time before we were publicly lambasted as a bunch of miscreants. Give us a break please, we're not permanently online because we are working!

We deliberately operate to the highest standards of integrity because this is what works for us. Comments that repeatedly state, suggest or imply that we are not who we say we are, don't produce what we produce are in and of themselves misleading. This is an unmerited attack upon us that appears to serve no other purpose besides discrediting us for reasons unknown. Each statement that I have committed to these forums regarding our business and our products is indeed factual, a matter that we would be agreeable to taking up with RC-Tester in court of law should his identity become known to us. On this subject if anyone has any information regarding this character please forward it to me directly or post it here. RC-Tester I suggest that you contact us directly to resolve whatever problem you have with our company post haste, our telephone number is 01279 777 111.

We are the official distributor of all Enerland Cell-based packs in the UK and we are pefectly at liberty to distribute Polyquest XP, however we have not done so to date because we are fully confident that Evo 20 represents a solid customer offering where we have direct control over the quality we can deliver.

Regards Duralite, Last I heard the Flightpower Evo 20 packs had landed, I will double check this afternoon UK time when they open.

Lastly, I get the impression that particularly in the US, some LiPo companies have made consumers sore. We are not of that breed. Feedback from genuine customers is universally positive and we intend to maintain this by doing the best job we possibly can.

Here is an example of customer feedback from someone who has actually tested our packs:

After extensive testing in the development of the Century Swift 16 we found that FlightPower Evolution 20 batteries gave the best continual power over many cycles. What we were most impressed with is that they gave exactly the same amount of power time after time when others dropped away. The FlightPower Evo 20 4s1p 3700 is the battery of choice for the Century Swift 16.

Mark Tilbury, MD Century UK
Seven Times National F3C Champion

Julian Cox

cyclops2
12-12-2005, 04:11 PM
I will buy when I see them flying for a year in major electric fan fly events in the USA. I think I am taking a rational stand. Let the major importers get burned on samples. Then stick their reputations on the line. That is what the exorbatant prices are for.

Red Scholefield
12-12-2005, 04:36 PM
I value Red Scholefield's opinion and will be interested when he gets a pack and can give a report.
John


I'll be interested as to WHEN I will get packs to test. They were supposedly sent on Nov 3. :confused:

FlightPower
New Member

Dear discourteous forum subscriber.

We sent the packs out to Red on 3rd November.

Nearly 2 weeks ago as at the date of posting.

Kindly take the matter up with him.

Julian.

FlightPower
12-12-2005, 06:20 PM
Hello Red,

I have no idea where the original packs we sent you have gone. We are now going to Fedex you some new packs direct from the factory at our expense.

Let me just say one thing. This thread was started by a colleage who thought it would be a great help to the company to blatantly shout about our new stuff. I am a sufficiently old hand on web forums to appreciate that this was a breach of protocol, and for this I apologise.

However, some of the more extraordinary attacks we have received here go way beyond what we are prepared to accept as fair-rebuke for promoting via a web board, and into something much more seriously un-called for.

I am a little shocked that this state of affairs has been alowed to progress without moderation. Red am I correct in saying that you have already tested a FlightPower customer's pack and found that they supported the performance statements we have made here? If so you can clearly see that this is supported by the experiences of every genuine customer who has contributed to this thread.

In any case, and particularly if the above is correct, I would ask you to step in and prevent this thread going out of control in future.

Thank you,


Julian Cox.

Mattyduk
12-12-2005, 07:10 PM
Well said!!!!!!!

RC-Tester
12-12-2005, 07:26 PM
Let me state that we have at no time behaved any way that could possibly justify such a torrent of poisonous BS as we are getting here from RC-Tester.
Then let me state that I cannot find any 'BS' in what I have posted; I have asked questions relating to performance, safety and independent validation that have gone unanswered, and raised questions based on publicly held information. I was considering using your packs myself but wanted to have some confidence in them; I even *repeatedly* asked about the pack availability as I wished to purchase and your website was confusing (stated pre-order only but then listed stock levels).

Faced with the lack of response (even though you had posted in the meantime) I purchased, and tested, the PolyQuest XP upon which testing I purchased my XP 5S 3300 packs.

With your reticence in engaging with independent testing (Red, RD or others) and the failure of the promised test-pack appearing at the Battery Clinic, I Wondered if I had missed something (to my loss) with the FP packs so I tested your statements against measurable data that is publicly available. Faced with no other evidence then to not do so would only leave 'it is - because FlightPower say it is' which I am not prepared to accept as you have not supplied any data on cyclic life and safety.

So in essence we are still left with no quantifiable information about:
1. Cyclic life
2. Performance and performance degradation at the stated maximum performance levels
3. Safety, and conformation to safety standards

That left only your statements that could be assessed for veracity:
..... We are the dominant UK source of Lipos far outweighing TP, Kokam, Polyquest etc and we are represented by most serious hobby outlets here and many across Europe / Scandinavia, Japan, Australia etc etc.
That I could only test by comparisons with the many modellers throughout the UK that I am aware of, and the prevalence of FP packs at events. In my experience the number of FP packs was in the minority being outweighed by TP and Kokam. I would have expected (for the statement to be true) that the opposite would be the case.

In the absence of other data, there was other data that your statements could be assessed against: the filed accounts at Companies House. These can be used to test against the above and these others you made:
..... We have formed a partnership with leading Korean scientists and have invested in our own factory in the Far East in order to produce the Evolution 20 range of Lithium Polymer packs.
..... For our Gen 3 we have grown sufficiently large for our own production facilities.
I would expect any supplier who is the dominant source, and generated sufficient revenues to invest in a factory, to have this reflected in their accounts. It is true that a company can grow geometricaly, however the time at which you made these statements you had not yet started shipping your new EVO range. I find it hard to reconcile you filed accounts with the statements above.

I then looked at your responses to questions on this forum, in particular your response to Red's question:
You assemble (maufacture) the packs. Who is the cell manufactuer?
Your response was:
We have formed a partnership with leading Korean scientists and have invested in our own factory in the Far East in order to produce the Evolution 20 range of Lithium Polymer packs.
Now this may be technically correct (as you assemble the packs) but appears to be implying you are manufacturing the cells (as this was the actual question). I question why that implication was given.

So you see; I fail to see where the 'torrent of poisonous BS' is coming from. In the absence of hard data, and quantifiable results, testing your statements against available and verifiable data was all that was left. I think if you examine my posts I have only asked (unanswered) questions and relayed verifiable information.

I was genuinely interested in your packs, but wanted some comfort in the stated claims. With the absence of this, the testing of the statements against available data, your attitude to pertinent questions and your subsequent attitude, I will not be considering in future.

This examination would not have been necessary if you had been able to either provide some hard data, or have them independently tested. I fail to see how questioning or testing your statements against what little verifiable data there is can be construed as an 'attack' - unless you think that anyone who doesn't take 'your word' is attacking you.

On this subject if anyone has any information regarding this character please forward it to me directly or post it here
..... sounds like 'wanted - dead or alive' to me; can I expect John Wayne or Clint Eastwood to walk through in a minute? :eek:

I am a little surprised that you, as a supplier, took the opportunity to 'rubbish' the PolyQuest XP and your competitors in a public forum, and to me speaks volumes about your business ethics and integrity.

Rod

P.S. If you check your PM you'll find my phone number, that you can contact between 9-5, as I have nothing to hide. On the other hand I do not want my personal details on open forum; as I'm sure that you do not put your personal details down. However please be aware that the conversation may be reported on open forum.

watt_the?!
12-12-2005, 07:35 PM
can we just get a pack for test and be done with this?
there is another thread going this way also, so dont feel as though you are the only lipo seller under scrutiny. two things are for sure.
1. when tested, there will be no speculation
2. if they test well, you are golden.

in Red's defence, i dont see anything that really needs moderation here. its an open forum with no bias towards any product- which actually makes it great for the consumer. If some choose to ''investigate'' that's up to them. As long as we dont go down the road where it gets real nasty or abusive, then all we have is a group discussion dont we? And everybody has a right to their opinion..

?

FlightPower
12-12-2005, 08:24 PM
Dear RC-Tester,

Thank you for the phone number.

Where you appear to have been fully blind-sided in your calulations regarding us is that the sole reason we have chosen not to engage with you, is YOU. As for the conclusions you draw from your pseudo-intelligent analysis, you are flat wrong on every count. Patience permitting, I will proceed to demonstrate this to you tomorrow when we speak.

As for your request for your identity and reputation being protected from public scrutiny while you in turn feel at perfect liberty to paint a picture of us across a public forum as a bunch of lying ****s. That will remain to be seen.

Julian

FlightPower
12-12-2005, 08:28 PM
watt_the!

Sir, as I stated earlier today, we will now send Red some packs direct from our plant. This will serve two purposes. 1. to get the packs to Red. 2. demonstrate to Red where exactly they are coming from.

Julian

watt_the?!
12-12-2005, 08:30 PM
watt_the!

Sir, as I stated earlier today, we will now send Red some packs direct from our plant. This will serve two purposes. 1. to get the packs to Red. 2. demonstrate to Red where exactly they are coming from.

Julian

good..then we'll know and this thread can be closed...

FlightPower
12-12-2005, 08:36 PM
RC-Tester

I have pm-ed you with a web-link to a piece of software. Kindly download and install this on your PC

This is a MPEG4 viewer program that will enable you to log on to a live camera inside our factory. I will give you a temporary password tomorrow so you can take a look for yourself. This will require a broadband connection to operate properly.

I will also organise 3-way calling to the plant so we can get staff to show you products and some of our processes that we have been discussing here.

Julian

RC-Tester
12-12-2005, 09:47 PM
This is a MPEG4 viewer program that will enable you to log on to a live camera inside our factory. I will give you a temporary password tomorrow so you can take a look for yourself. This will require a broadband connection to operate properly.
Julian,

You might find that others here might be equally interested in seeing the live camera, if there was a 'chat' area on this forum they could also see the discussion between us.

As I don't think there is a working 'chat' area on here (the moderators might confirm) you might like to consider allowing others on here to see the video.

Regards,

Rod

Red Scholefield
12-12-2005, 10:01 PM
Hello Red,

I have no idea where the original packs we sent you have gone. We are now going to Fedex you some new packs direct from the factory at our expense.

Red am I correct in saying that you have already tested a FlightPower customer's pack and found that they supported the performance statements we have made here?

See attached plot of 1 discharge cycle of two EVO packs at two different rates. Charged with Astro 109. End of charge voltage read 4.2 volts/cell.


In any case, and particularly if the above is correct, I would ask you to step in and prevent this thread going out of control in future.

Thank you,


Julian Cox.

When the thread is out of control I will take care of it.

I note that the attached graph did not come through as clear as I wished. The discharge rates were at C rate and 10 Amps. Future testing will take them to the 20 C rates claimed with temperature monitoring. I have found that while some packs are given a very aggressive C rate capability, discharging at these rates causes a temperature rise than is considered detrimental to cell life.

FlightPower
12-12-2005, 10:30 PM
Thanks Red,

So it would appear that our "can't believe own eyes" 2000-beating Evo 20 1200 is indeed a 1200 after all and not a de-rated something else.

RC-Tester, I am quite sure a lot of people would like to take a tour of FlightPower, heading that list would be most of the indiviuals we would least wish to entertain. As for non-competitors, unfortunately for them, none has yet reached your elevated status of butt-pain to warrant such treatment, so that would be a polite no.

Julian

RC-Tester
12-12-2005, 10:54 PM
I have found that while some packs are given a very aggressive C rate capability, discharging at these rates causes a temperature rise than is considered detrimental to cell life.
I agree wholeheartedly with you Red!

Attached is a 15C cont. discharge from a PQ2100XP 2S pack. Temperature surface measured using a J-Type thermocouple.

You will note that the surface temperature has already reached 60 C (the point at which all manufacturers agree permanent damage is ocurring).

From the other measurements I have published I would expect the internal measurements to be ~ 10 C higher; or a whopping 70 Celsius. In a 3S or more configuration I would expect the temperature rise to be greater still.This is the reason why I will not stress these Enerland cells past the 15-16C discharge to 20C that some manufacturers publish for them.

I await your tests on the cells at 20C discharge with baited breath .....

Rod

cyclops2
12-12-2005, 10:57 PM
I have seen nothing that has swayed me for or against. No charge or discharge curves available ?
Cheap Batteries has great power curves. Where are yours ?

watt_the?!
12-12-2005, 10:58 PM
the medical profession often use double blind testing to verify if something actually works..i.e. both the tester and the subject dont know what they are working with.

this thread, in a way attempts to try and investigate this, albeit not being double blind. It attempts to be at least open and objective and not swayed by user comments. To be fair, the user pays for the product, puts it in their plane, and flies it and by all accounts, loves it. That's great. And that's where the majority leave it.

However, what better data to back it up than independent test to boost sales? survival at a forum with no other agenda than from the modeller's perspective surely means credibility beyond all others?

one thing that is wrong though, is that Red has chosen to test in good faith, on a pack sent by the manufacturer, rather than randomly taking an off the shelf pack. So in effect, the manufacturer has the advantage...

i sense it is getting a bit nasty here now..which is a shame.

Tim.

Mattyduk
12-12-2005, 11:08 PM
i sense it is getting a bit nasty here now..which is a shame.


It started getting nasty a long time ago:(

FlightPower
12-12-2005, 11:10 PM
one thing that is wrong though, is that Red has chosen to test in good faith, on a pack sent by the manufacturer, rather than randomly taking an off the shelf pack.


Tim, please note that the 1200 and 1800 packs Red has been testing are indeed off the shelf customer packs. I expect that I can demonstrate to RC-Tester tomorrow reasons why we can be confident of product consitency in our processes.

Julian

Mattyduk
12-12-2005, 11:13 PM
What I dont understand is that Red has tested the packs. Or am I missing something here:confused:

Brodjack
12-12-2005, 11:48 PM
have been reading this 'thread' the past month or two with great interest.
Mainly waiting for genuine responses about the Evo high discharge bats.
The idea of using a 196g 50 amp bat,in my Twinjet really sounds attractive,the verticals would be amazing,320g ones make it sing at the moment,4 mins.of really high performance would be enough.
The 'thread' has turned to bickering,nothing helpful at all.Its telling me nothing about the bats.in question
If i were to try,or should i say buy some,i would need at least 3 packs.Not cheap.
How long would the packs last at the stated 50 amp draw,I have my own thoughts,would they need replacing quite regular,again i dont know.
The only way,for me anyway,would be to read about an independant test,power ouput,cycles etc.
Not taking sides here, Without companies like yours these new products would simply not be available, BUT also if i'm buying,again not cheap,sets of bats,a little bit of proof would also help.
Its a shame RCTester never got to test,and probably wont now.If his tests were successful,ie all they claim.I for one would have replaced all my,already 'ok' bats.with the Evos' and probably lots more guys would have.

RC-Tester
12-12-2005, 11:51 PM
.....unfortunately for them, none has yet reached your elevated status of butt-pain to warrant such treatment, so that would be a polite no.
Thankyou for the nice compliment - do think of all your potential customers in the same way?:rolleyes:

As you have accused me of bias, and I only posted the comparison against the TP cells, I wouldn't like to give you more chances of accusing bias. So here is a direct comparison (at continuous 15C discharge) of the Enerland cells with the 15C rated Kokam and TP, together with the 20C rated Kokam. Most agree that temperature is a good indication of the packs actual discharge performance rating.

Draw what conclusions you like! (but it probably answers your questions Brodjack as FP state they are using the same cells as the XP)

Rod

FlightPower
12-12-2005, 11:54 PM
[quote] Reason: Added 20C Enerland pack against TP 15C pack comparison [\ quote]

We would not expect to see the swan-neck dip in the first 10-15% of the discharge curve in the FlightPower implimentation at 15 or even 20C. This is simply not our experience.

Note the FlightPower Evo 20 curves from Red, while I appreciate that Red has so far pushed the 1200 only as far as 8.33C and the 1800 less than that, you can see there is no tendancy towards Swan-neck pattern.


Julian

Brodjack
12-12-2005, 11:55 PM
'Thankyou for the nice compliment - do think of all your potential customers in the same way?'
somehow i dont think your a 'potential' cutomer anymore......Ha Ha.
Great entertainment stuff this...........

FlightPower
12-13-2005, 12:06 AM
RC-Tester
[quote] Thankyou for the nice compliment - do think of all your potential customers in the same way? [\ quote] No Rod, you are entirely unique.

Brodjack,

We sent Red some packs ages ago by standard post from the UK. Weeks later Red reports that they still have not arrived. We are now sending some more by Fedex.


Julian

RC-Tester
12-13-2005, 12:06 AM
You are showing a Doitec Polyquest implimentation of two Enerland 2100mAh cells. From our in-house testing, we would not expect to see the swan-neck dip in the first 10-15% of the discharge curve in the FlightPower implimentation at 15 or even 20C.

Note the FlightPower Evo 20 curves, while I appreciate that Red has so far pushed the 1200 only as far as 8.33C and the 1800 less than that, you can see there is no tendancy towards Swan-neck pattern.

..... Which ties up nicely with the Enerland cells in the PQ2100XP at 7C (attached) showing similar behaviour......

Nothing in the pack construction (using the same cells) should have an effect on this temperature behaviour. A change in the lead and connection resistance will have an effect on the voltage drop under load but not on the shape of the curve. Therefore it is a fair comparison.

Do you have a temperature / voltage curve for a 2S or 3S FP pack under continuous 20C discharge?

Rod

Brodjack
12-13-2005, 12:51 AM
'We sent Red some packs ages ago by standard post from the UK. Weeks later Red reports that they still have not arrived. We are now sending some more by Fedex.


Great,thats all we want to see,test the bl..dy things then we can hopefully buy some,............

FlightPower
12-13-2005, 12:54 AM
4613

The attached is a single 2100mAh cell graph, when we set up the new packing lines we did a lot of work to ensure that we could build packs to hit multiples of the voltages under load predicted by these graphs - and we are more than satisfied we achieved this..

Julian

Red Scholefield
12-13-2005, 01:09 AM
Thanks Red,

So it would appear that our "can't believe own eyes" 2000-beating Evo 20 1200 is indeed a 1200 after all and not a de-rated something else.

RC-Tester, I am quite sure a lot of people would like to take a tour of FlightPower, heading that list would be most of the indiviuals we would least wish to entertain. As for non-competitors, unfortunately for them, none has yet reached your elevated status of butt-pain to warrant such treatment, so that would be a polite no.

Julian

I for one would be delighted to particpate in your plant tour. And I will sign any kind of confidentiality agreement you need. As Application Engineer for GE/Gates?Energizer I didn't work with Black & Decker, Skill, McGraw Edison, Dremmel, Makita, DeWalt, Sears (Craftsman), Ryobie, Porter Cable, Hitachi, Milwaukee, Bosch in product planning . . . and reveal what each were doing.

RC-Tester
12-13-2005, 01:15 AM
When talking about QC and matching, I am not casting aspersions towards anyone in particular when I say that it is absolutely typical for practically all RC LiPo pack makers just to slam everything off the sausauge machine into one pack after then next.
........ I am sure it would AMAZE anyone to discover how rare it is to practice this bedrock principle of performance and reliability enhancement in modern LiPo pack production. In fact with the possible exception of Thunder Power I understand that we are in a minority of One to put this principle into volume pack production.
I'm not sure you're in the minority you think; I know that FMA and Hyperion (details here (http://www.aircraft-world.com/prod_datasheets/hp/lipo/vx/hp-lvx-lithium.htm)) as well as TP state that they do 100% cell selection and matching, and there are others out there as well.

(...... but I'm sure the others will pipe up here themselves if they do as well)

Rod

FlightPower
12-13-2005, 08:17 AM
A note regarding our QC. Now we have our own processes under our own control our return rate is sub 1/10 of 1% and less than this for genuine manufacturing defects.

Julian

FlightPower
12-13-2005, 09:44 AM
Good morning RC-Tester, it's time to rock and roll.

RC-Tester
12-13-2005, 01:04 PM
Good morning RC-Tester, it's time to rock and roll.

..... a quick report (more later today):

Julian spared a considerable time this morning (2 1/4 hours - thanks Julian) in a video conference tour of his assembly operation with his lead engineer where he was open about all of his QC, testing and assembly operations and showed in detail the process from incoming cells to final packaging and shipping. The facilities I saw show that a considerable investment has been made, both in terms of manpower and equipment, and effectively squashes the implications from the Companies House records as they cannot account for subsequent investment. I will get together more detailed observations later today but I felt it was important that I set the record straight on conjecture about their assembly unit straightaway - the unit looked well thought out, equipped and staffed and had good QC processes in place.

I also spoke with three FP distributors (one in Japan and two in the UK) who did not seem to have been pre-arranged; all three confirmed that since release of the EVO 20 this line of packs had become their biggest seller in their LiPo lines. (The Japanese distributor had been holding EVO stock for a month and the two UK operations had been reselling EVO for over three months). All three reported that pack failures had been confined to solitary packs within their sales that may have been due to abuse but were replaced free of charge. If the low failure rate and pack replacement policy continues with time then this is laudable as I know how difficult pack returns can be made to the end-user.

What surprised me is that the packs had been available for retail for longer than the FP website implied and the UK stockists were not in my area - this restricted my access to the packs and my knowledge of them.

I did discuss the discharge ratings of the packs, and verification, and I see we have some disagreement on this rating issue relating to temperature, cycle life and real-life useage .... but more on that later as it is likely to be one of those things that my opinion and others opinions may not agree on. I may even buy a pack for my own tests and characterisation before considering for my next build. I think the hard quantitative data from Red's tests will give a more complete picture that will avoid conjecture when they are run.
(note to other suppliers reading here - don't just give us your sales pitch and qualitative observations on your product, many also want to see some hard quantitive data on them in order to be convinced)

So this is a (very) brief update, that I will report on fully later today when I have some time free, but I would like to thank Julian for taking the time this morning to go on a tour of Flightpower and the unscripted discussions with their distributors. Please note: FP do appear to have their own assembly operation in Korea and conjecture otherwise is not true.

Regards,

Rod

Mattyduk
12-13-2005, 02:02 PM
So is this an apology?

Mike Parsons
12-13-2005, 02:37 PM
I have not read this thread in it's entirety, but took the Cliff-Notes tour of it.
I read enough to see the high's and low's and I can understand how we arrived to this point from both FP's standpoint as well as the consumers standpoint of discussion we have had on this thread. I will however ask that both sides take care in the conversation as the thread did turn into a bit of bickering and it not at all flattering to either side.

I can appreciate Julian's efforts in giving Rod a guided tour through the facilities to quench Rod's thirst for information. In my years in this hobby, I have yet to see a manufacturer show such efforts. So for whatever reason motivated that effort whether it be customer service, or just to appease, I still applaud it.

I still think there is plenty of information that can and will be made available, so lets not stop now. However, lets keep the debate/conversation civil.

-Mike

watt_the?!
12-13-2005, 07:13 PM
now thats what im talking 'bout!!...

nice one FP...nice one Rod...

Turbojoe
12-13-2005, 09:36 PM
I was getting ready to unsubscribe from the thread because it was getting kind of ugly. Now it's starting to really get somewhere. I'll be watching it even closer now. I'll be in the market for some more packs after the first of the year. It'll be nice to maybe have another mfg to choose from.


Joe

Mr. Baggins
12-13-2005, 10:02 PM
Bicker filter on. Looking forward to hearing good things about these packs and having another choice.

Reflex
12-14-2005, 01:38 AM
Not an expert here
But did anybody else notice the Voltage depression at 20C
near the start of the FP batt. graph in post 171 ?

The Hyperion Graphs don't have this at 20C ......

Someone enlighten me

cyclops2
12-14-2005, 02:11 AM
If anyone even tries to guess at what caused that we WILL become sidetracked in a nonrelated subject.

watt_the?!
12-14-2005, 02:18 AM
Not an expert here
But did anybody else notice the Voltage depression at 20C
near the start of the FP batt. graph in post 171 ?

The Hyperion Graphs don't have this at 20C ......

Someone enlighten me

alot of battery curves have this..and it is more prevalent under high C.

i think i recall the word ''tension'' somewhere...Red?

Tim.

watt_the?!
12-14-2005, 02:21 AM
4613
In fact with the possible exception of Thunder Power I understand that we are in a minority of One to put this principle into volume pack production.

Julian

I know for certain that Tanic do match their packs also and pack and group the cells according to their characteristics as measured on several variables.

Great stuff that FP does also. 20C graph looks good too.

Tim.

Fred Marks
12-14-2005, 03:08 AM
Deleted 12 13 05
Fred Marks

cyclops2
12-14-2005, 03:59 AM
I think we now see why Businesses have a hard time talking to or about their product and it's advantages compared to everyone else. You can only badmouth your competitors for so long in public before they have to swing back. These people want each others customers and this post is turning into one company into, I am better than anyone else, so only buy my product. I personaly am not finding facts anymore. Just companies trying to discredit or defend. Time to terminate this type of product posts.
AND remove this bashing of companies thread completly,, as it is very pro each company. I am suprised a new line can bash ALL established companies for so long.

FlightPower
12-14-2005, 06:48 AM
EDITED: I have agreed with Fred that discussion of FMA by FP or FP by FMA has no place in this thread or elsewhere. Fred, sir, will you kindly remove your remarks also. With many thanks.

We have insurance to cover trading in the States and Worldwide. It is in the $Millions as is to be expected.


Julian

watt_the?!
12-14-2005, 06:55 AM
i think to be fair to FP he was trying to describe some of the features that make them good and he's made the statement as a point of difference really rather than a direct attack on a competitor...that's how i read it anyways.

Tim.

Rugar
12-14-2005, 07:05 AM
:rolleyes:
POSTING ADVERTISEMENTS:
This is a forum of ideas and discussions. We do not wish to have the readers of the forums overwhelmed with advertisements but realize that posting announcements or interesting new product information is information our members want. To balance this need for information and the need to prevent spamming of ads in our forums, we will allow the following to be posted:

Any vendor/company may post one announcement with product information or news no more than once every week (7 day minimum between announcements)
Commercial announcements must be made in one forum only and the forum must be applicable to the topic of the commercial announcement thread
Members may reply to these threads and vendors may follow up with answers, support or additional information.
"Build Threads" are permitted
No "sale" ads or graphical ads allowed. This is for dissemination of product announcement, market research or pertinent news strictly.
No bumping is allowed. Companies should use common sense discretion when adding information so they don't aggravate their customers
Full disclosure of company affiliation is required for these posts.
Companies may answer within ongoing threads whether providing direct answers to questions about their products & support or adding pertinent product information such as specs, photos, videos, inventory status for example.
Companies will refrain from posting in threads of their competitors where the subject contains another companies name or product in it.

Geoff_Gino
12-14-2005, 08:32 AM
I was getting ready to unsubscribe from the thread because it was getting kind of ugly. Now it's starting to really get somewhere. I'll be watching it even closer now. I'll be in the market for some more packs after the first of the year. It'll be nice to maybe have another mfg to choose from.


Joe

Ditto

Geoff

watt_the?!
12-14-2005, 09:57 AM
Geoff,

did you have that sig (proverb) before this thread?

very scary...

Tim

Geoff_Gino
12-14-2005, 10:28 AM
Geoff,

did you have that sig (proverb) before this thread?

very scary...

Tim

Hi Tim

Been following the thread with interest as I have a 3S 2,2 amp and have been hammering the hell out of it. Must admit it is holding FP's claim, but the pack is still only 3 months old.

(Proverb) is as a result.

Geoff

Brodjack
12-14-2005, 10:40 AM
Hi Tim

Been following the thread with interest as I have a 3S 2,2 amp and have been hammering the hell out of it. Must admit it is holding FP's claim, but the pack is still only 3 months old.

(Proverb) is as a result.

Geoff

Geoff ,whats the bat.flown in?Motor etc.Cycles?
Thanks........

ragbag
12-14-2005, 11:14 AM
Ditto

Geoff

First time I have been back in a while.

Nothing has changed.

They haven't convinced me that I need waste my time or money on their product.:rolleyes:

Wait a week or two and someone else will have a bigger and better wizbang.

Then we can sit and talk about the next frog on the biggest pond. And is he realy that big.

By George

Reflex
12-14-2005, 11:56 AM
Watt_the?! (Tim) thanks for the reply

So far the FP Graph is the ONLY hard Data I have seen on these cells
despite asking for a discharge graph, on another Forum, when they first came onto the market.

I worry about the Voltage Dip at 20C discharge and consider it MAY be an indication of the onset of Thermal problems.
I look forward to any independent tests on these cells and any further comments by RC_Tester in particular.

Based on the Data available I have ordered 2 packs of Hyperion 2100mah
for my current hungry T-Rex.

jfcgnv
12-14-2005, 12:54 PM
Reflex, I wouldn't worry too much about the initial volage drop in Lipos under high load. I noticed this with my first lipo and posted a thread about it in the other forum.

Having been in R/c since the late 50's and evolved from dry batteries to lipos I have used and seen almost every type of battery for R/C use. I noticed right away that Lipos were the only battery that actually INCREASED voltage after and intial start up. After about 15 tp 20 sec the voltage actually increased. This had me stumped. How could a battery under load actually increase in voltage. That seemed impossible, but it was happening. I might add that this only happens when the battery is stressed to its limit, so this is one way of telling you that you might want a larger MA batttery, or a new generation larger C rating one.

One explanation I got was that as the battery heats up the chemical action in the battery improves so it is more effecient, therefore more UMPH. I question this because as heat increases so does resistance so whewre does this leave us? I don't know however I know we have the expertice in this forum to answer. How about it guys any better or more correct answers out there.

Reflex
12-14-2005, 01:03 PM
I might add that this only happens when the battery is stressed to its limit,
My thoughts exactly ;)

Mike Parsons
12-14-2005, 01:28 PM
Fred,
While I do appreciate your need for rebuttal, we do have a rule about posting in a competitors thread as Rugar has so kindly pointed out.

-Companies will refrain from posting in threads of their competitors where the subject contains another companies name or product in it.

I will suggest that you start a new thread if you would like to set the records straight. Having said that, I am always game for a debate as long as it is kept civil, professional and contains no ad hominem attacks.

-Mike

Geoff_Gino
12-14-2005, 01:33 PM
Hi Ragbag and Reflex

I have a Soaring Star glider with a 14C pack in it and was having problems with the ESC cutting off after about 30 seconds of WOT on the climb out. Added a second 2S cell and in my tests noticed that the initial voltage drop was quite large (down to 6,7 volts) but held that untill I got worried about the heat in the ESC which was about 90 seconds later. WOT climb out is no longer a problem and I would say that the 20C should give more or less the same voltage curve.

Hi Brodjack

My 20C pack is a FP 2,2 amp 3S and is in my Little Extra with a 40 amp Hyperion motor which is drawing 39 amps WOT. Typically on take off I climb out at 40 degrees and do a half roll straight into an giant outside half loop which gets me to flying height. This takes between 30 and 40 seconds and after that only about 20% of the flight is at WOT and getting 9 minute flights. Typically cycle the pack 3 times on each day of the week end and have yet to put more 1,5 amps back in.

Yeah I like it!!
Geoff

RC-Tester
12-14-2005, 02:37 PM
..... a quick report (more later today)
As I said earlier I would provide rather a more detailed report about the FlightPower packs and manufacturing operation as I believe many will find this interesting ….

My ‘tour’ of FlightPower started with three 3-way phone conversations with three of the FlightPower distributors; one in Japan and Midland Helicopters and Sussex Models in the UK. For all three I was able to ask unscripted questions that centred around:


‘why they had selected the FP EVO packs’
‘what was the return rate’
‘what testing they carried out on the packs’
‘how did their pack sales compare with their other brands’The distributors:

The Japanese distributor had been holding FP products for some time, but started stocking the EVO20 packs in November. They stated that they had selected the EVO 20’s based on a combination of factors; high discharge cells, their previous relationship with FlightPower, a good returns policy, a better performance than the TP packs they sell and price. They had some returns with the FlightPower ‘Extreme’ packs but, one month in, they had had no returns of the EVO packs – however they did state that there had never been a problem with the FlightPower replacement policy. In terms of testing they had only flight-tested where they had found a better power delivery under load than the TP packs they also sell. In terms of pack sales the EVO 20’s were more popular than the other packs they sold, although this had not been the case with the previous generation.

A similar discussion was held with the buyer / consultant for Sussex Model Centre in the UK. Again they stated that they had selected the EVO 20's based on competitive pricing for high discharge cells and their previous relationship with FlightPower. They had been stocking the EVO's for 3 or 4 months and had one pack return, although there had been others with the 'Extreme' generation. They credited Evo 20 with allowing them as a mainstream retailer to begin to make sales of higher capacity packs for larger models including sales of 40-50 FP 3300 and 3700 packs (amongst much larger sales of 1200 and 2500 packs) where previously the sale of a pack above 2500 would be quite rare. They now try to maintain stock levels of 3 or 4 for the larger packs and 10 in the smaller packs. Again they stressed that FlightPower had a very good returns policy that they were pleased with. With regards to testing they had only flight-tested the packs (always using the balancer) and also had positive customer feedback. In terms of pack sales the EVO 20's were more popular than the other packs they sold, and with the demand and pricing would be concentrating solely on this line.

Midland Helicopters gave a similar story and had been reselling FP products for a couple of years and the EVO's for a couple of months. They had stocked the EVO 20's mainly for their electric helicopter line in particular for the competitive pricing for performance in comparison with the TP packs. They stated that the return rate on the EVO's was effectively nil excepting one and were happy with the 100% replacement policy of FlightPower. In terms of testing they also only ran flight-tests, here this was mainly in the Align TREX with a 420 motor and 13T pinion (20A), where they stated that the EVO 1800 packs were only lukewarm and run cooler than the TP 2100 packs in the application (they did say that the previous 'Extreme' generation were not so good). In terms of sales the EVO 20 was their biggest seller and in particular the EVO 20 1800 3s pack had been sold with every new TREX-SE and customers reported a power benefit.

The reseller responses were all positive for FP and all stressed the very good returns policy (which is unusual for many suppliers) and that there was a low return rate on the EVO packs. All had only flight tested the packs but the comparison with the TP packs was positive in terms of temperature and power delivery. As the EVO 20 was a relatively new product for all three companies it may be too early too assess the cyclic lifetime of the packs, and to see if the consumer demand is sustained past the ‘release period’. FlightPower may be able to help here by supplying data on the pack temperature and cyclic life at different discharge levels.

The assembly operation:

Julian spared a considerable time in a video conference tour of his assembly operation, with his lead engineer, where he was open about all of his QC, testing and assembly operations and showed in detail the process from incoming cells to final packaging and shipping. The unit I saw was approximately 2000 sq.ft. and of modern appearance.

All incoming Enerland cells are measured for voltage (10 mV resolution) and impedance (1KHz AC measurement – 10 microOhm resolution) and results logged to a database against the cell pouch number. Cells are only passed to production if the voltage is within the 10 mV resolution of the measurement at 3.80 – 3.81 V per cell. Cells of 3.79 and 3.78V are quarantined for two weeks and re-checked for voltage stability.

The database of measured IR of the cells produces a normal distribution, centred around the mean, of cell resistance. This distribution is due to the standard manufacturing variance of the cells by Enerland. Different parts of the distribution is classified into grades; for example the centre of this distribution (which has the smallest IR variance) is classified as the 'A' grade and would be used for large series pack construction where cell variance and balance is the primary concern. Cells are designated for pack construction at this stage via matching of the impedance (10 microOhm) and voltage (to the measurement resolution); the cells are then identified, stored in the database, and placed together into 'assembly trays' as packs ready for construction. This process is reported to have the capability of designating 200 packs an hour.

The next operation was tab welding. The trays are taken to the welding operation and all pack tabs are joined with a large total surface area weld to form the pack configuration. Pre-assembled tap and power pigtails are then soldered to these welded tabs to complete the pack electrical connections. Tracking numbers are placed on the packs and the pack IR and voltage is then measured and compared to that predicted by the original cell measurement (100% post fabrication validation on IR and voltage). Packs that do not match a check-sum of the original cell data are inspected and any issues identified fed back into process improvement. The commitment to process and quality control was clearly demonstrated.

The final operations are pack finishing and packing. Automated tape dispensing machines are used to dispense fixed lengths of reinforced tape that is placed over the cell electrical connections and the product and safety labels affixed to the pack. The heat shrink is placed over the pack and shrunk using temperature controlled hot-air guns, leaving the labels visible underneath the clear shrink. The completed packs are then packaged with a product safety data sheet.

The facilities I saw show that a considerable investment has been made, both in terms of manpower and equipment. The unit looked well thought out, equipped and staffed and had good QC processes in place that are consistent with the low return rates reported by the vendors to date.

Discussion with Julian Cox


I stated to Julian that, based on my own tests of the Polyquest XP packs, I did not believe the Enerland cells to have a true discharge rating of 20C as the temperature rise at 15-16C discharge was reaching the point that cell damage would start to occur and would affect the cyclic life. Julian countered that this did not match with his experience considering that FlightPower had verified to their total satisfaction that the Enerland 20C claim was verified by their own bench tests and flight tests before committing to their investment in the packing plant and volume cell orders. Considering that measurements were based on a PQ pack he suggested that in fairness I should test a FlightPower pack if we are to discuss results in the context of this discussion. (Note I will shortly be testing a 2S 2100 pack)

Julian mentioned that part of their testing involved flight-testing to destruction in a 20C+ EDF application. He indicated that these tests gave an expected cyclic life reduction if run continuously at 20C and proposed some typical figures: 10C would life to ~200+ cycles and 20C would life to ~50 cycles – however these 20C cycle life estimates were based on testing in a model that had several 'airplane/ground interfaces' and >50 may be possible in the absence of physical abuse.

I emphasised that (in my opinion) the data for a true 20C continuous discharge is necessary as this allows interpretation of lifetime at high burst discharging where the mean discharge may be as low as 10C. I suggested that the lifetime is related to thermal behaviour and, as the thermal power is related to the square of the current, that a burst profile may be as aggressive as a 20C continuous and this data may allow the burst capability to be estimated. Julian suggested that the ideal comparative testing environment would have standard brushless motor loads and RMS measurement of Amp draw, to relate power draw to live loads, however in practicality static load testing equipment is more available and he agreed that this will provide a meaningful comparison between different test subjects.

… However we both agree that a fair assessment can only be made after Red carries out the testing and we have some results!

In summary; my impression of FlightPower is not the same as it was a week ago - it is now positive and the investment they have made is clear. I was impressed by the commitment made to quality in the assembly process and the finished product. In terms of the pack performance I think that time and test results will tell in the longer term.

Regards,

Rod

Mike Parsons
12-14-2005, 02:43 PM
Thanks for taking the time to detail it out Rod.

-Mike

cyclops2
12-14-2005, 03:29 PM
Is this thread supposed to be the private endless running ad for Flight Power.
I hope they are paying a ad fee for each post.
This thread SHOULD HAVE a warning that it is the private running commerical for Flight Power.

cyclops2
12-14-2005, 03:33 PM
Now that you have set a precedent for this company, ALL others should have unlimited acces to run their own thread. Do you ,the moderators see something wrong in that logic?

sailr
12-14-2005, 03:36 PM
I've been following this thread with interest and frankly have been intimidated not to mention our new line of 20C burst to 30C packs! We are going to send some packs to Red Scholfield for testing as soon as they arrive in mid January. Our preliminary data using a Mountain Analyzer have shown our prototype packs to outperform TP hands down. Our packs have TRUE mAh ratings on them. The competition's 2100 pack, for example, was exhausted at 1800mAh while our 2100 pack was exhausted at 2208mAh. We believe in truth in merchandising! You can check out our current offerings of motors, speed controls, li-po's and servos at our web site www.FlyHurricane.com (http://www.FlyHurricane.com)

We are currently signing up dealers too. E-mail us at the web site if interested.

Regards,
Jim Slaughter
President
Hurricane Flight Systems

Unbalanced prop
12-14-2005, 03:55 PM
Gotta love competition and the free enterprise system!:D Build a better lipo and they will beat down your door. By spring someone will claim to have a 50 C lipo with 100 C bursts that charges in 5 minutes.:rolleyes: Hope your cells perform as advertised Jim, they "sound" good.

Doug

FlightPower
12-14-2005, 04:36 PM
Rod,

Thank you very much for taking the time to contribute such a giant write up. I happy to agree that your statements are a balanced representation of who and what we actually are, and that this now reflects some first hand experience instead of conjecture. I am grateful that Rod has reported this contact with us a generally positive experience, I had no idea what we were letting ourselves in for other than the certainty that we could demonstrate a reality that bore no resemblance to the fiction we were reading about ourselves here.

I am therefore particularly grateful to Little Bellanca Japan, Sussex Model Centre UK and Midland Helicopters UK for taking the time to handle unscheduled comf-calls about FlightPower in the middle of your busy days. We'll try not to make a habit of it but this was important.

This has indeed been a trial by fire and absolutely no fun, however I am responsible for leading a team of great guys and gals across two continents, each one of whom in my opinion has worked far too hard and far too well to be grouped and characterized across the web in the way this thread was running.

This process has had me frustrated to hollering point on several occasions. I therefore offer my sincere apologies to anyone who felt implicated by any less than humble remark of mine that I made in that state, particularly to Enerland our most valued business partner and to Fred Marks whom I have called personally today (thanks for your kind advice sir).

Red I'm sorry I didn't come back to you on your request to look around the plant - of course you can if you like, just buzz me a mail. Hopefully the new packs will test out just fine.

Until then,

Best regards,


Julian Cox, Director & CEO
Autography Flight Technology Ltd (FlightPower Lithium Polymer)
www.flightpower.co.uk (http://www.flightpower.co.uk/)

cyclops2
12-14-2005, 06:23 PM
Is ok if I get up off of my knees? I am not used to bowing down for long periods of time like this. Julian, you have done a excellent job on the competition. Congratulations!! :)

timocharis
12-14-2005, 06:46 PM
As for me, it has been interesting all the way through, and very informative. Oddly, being a cheapskate, it has left me with the general impression that 10C is about the max I want to push, but that's neither here nor there.

Lots of things to learn about batteries, companies, competition, claims, investigation -- this thread has it all! Lost shipments, confusion, flared tempers ... but in the end, a boatload of good stuff.

Thanks to Rod, Julian, Red and all the other participants. Still very interested to see the test results, of course. But while some may see this as a 'promotional' thread, or others as just bickering, I see it as a prime example of the online process adding information and changing perceptions in a very useful way.

So there!


Dave North

FlightPower
12-14-2005, 06:52 PM
Thanks Cyclops?

Thanks Dave!

Enough lithium for one day.

it's time for beer

Thank the Lord

sailr
12-14-2005, 06:58 PM
Actually, we'll have one of those in February! :eek: Just kiddin! I wish though! Sure would make flying BIG airplanes a simple reality wouldn't it?

Gotta love competition and the free enterprise system!:D Build a better lipo and they will beat down your door. By spring someone will claim to have a 50 C lipo with 100 C bursts that charges in 5 minutes.:rolleyes: Hope your cells perform as advertised Jim, they "sound" good.

Doug

cyclops2
12-14-2005, 07:53 PM
Julian. I was NOT making a snide or backhanded set of remarks. Accept all of it as a compliment to your taking the project in your own hands and steering it to completion. I would gladly work for a CEO who sets a path and then finishes the trip. Well done!:)

qban_flyer
12-14-2005, 08:06 PM
Extremely informative thread, especially post #201. :)

Red Scholefield
12-14-2005, 08:22 PM
alot of battery curves have this..and it is more prevalent under high C.

i think i recall the word ''tension'' somewhere...Red?

Tim.

All Lipo cells exhibit this characteristic when discharged at high rates. It is more predominate in some than others depending on internal resistance and some other subtilties of design and construction. My theory is that heating at this rate results in increase in the conductivity of the active material allowing the voltage to rise a little after the early dip.

ragbag
12-14-2005, 09:09 PM
I've been following this thread with interest and frankly have been intimidated not to mention our new line of 20C burst to 30C packs! We are going to send some packs to Red Scholfield for testing as soon as they arrive in mid January. Our preliminary data using a Mountain Analyzer have shown our prototype packs to outperform TP hands down. Our packs have TRUE mAh ratings on them. The competition's 2100 pack, for example, was exhausted at 1800mAh while our 2100 pack was exhausted at 2208mAh. We believe in truth in merchandising! You can check out our current offerings of motors, speed controls, li-po's and servos at our web site www.FlyHurricane.com (http://www.FlyHurricane.com)

We are currently signing up dealers too. E-mail us at the web site if interested.

Regards,
Jim Slaughter
President
Hurricane Flight Systems


Funny, last week I was at a school fun day and a gentleman showed me the Hurricane batteries he was trying and seemed very pleased with them.
Maybe they can get matching time in another thread. This one is wore out.

By George

watt_the?!
12-14-2005, 09:28 PM
One explanation I got was that as the battery heats up the chemical action in the battery improves so it is more effecient, therefore more UMPH. I question this because as heat increases so does resistance so whewre does this leave us? I don't know however I know we have the expertice in this forum to answer. How about it guys any better or more correct answers out there.

i think that this is correct actually.

at the onset, the pack would be not so warm, so i suspect as the temp increases, conductivity also does...but that's speculation. it is a very common feature of lipo discharge graphs though.

Tim

edit: looks like i posted this at the same time red did..thanks red.

Reflex
12-15-2005, 12:28 AM
Red. thats my take on it also
I wonder if it can be used as an indicator
that the cell limits are reached ?

qban_flyer
12-15-2005, 02:24 AM
Red. thats my take on it also
I wonder if it can be used as an indicator that the cell limits are reached ?

I was wondering about the same thing. :confused:

cyclops2
12-15-2005, 03:47 AM
Way back in time I was told that those spikes at sudden or critical points were actually non-destructive arcing in the insulators. I told the Applications engineer, "you have to be kidding me". He stuck to his statement and added that it was very similar to the damage static electricty does not due to us , but we still feel the current or power.

cyclops2
12-15-2005, 03:52 AM
I have a wilder one. They are due to the uneven chemical reaction rates as the load is increased. The battery people did not agree back then. They were happy it worked in large volume.

rcnerd
12-15-2005, 05:02 AM
Wow.......This is the coolest thread ever!!!!!:D

I just found this a little while ago and just couldn't put it down....now an hour has passed and I've finally found the end...

First of all my hat's off to all of the key players. While there were certainly some missteps (I see lots of edits!!!) all the key players handled themselves quite well IMHO!!!!

Second Kudos to the forum and the mods for letting this run it's course, this venue is a refreshing change from the other RC sites!!!:)

What I don't think flightpower realized soon enough is that a strange troubled breed exists....The Battery Nerds. Battery nerds care about only batteries, fantasize about batteries and enjoy just sitting and holding batteries. Don't take this term to be an insult, far from it is is an elite few that truly can obsess over batteries. I know, I am one too. Not just an rcnerd but a Battery Nerd as well. Now the problem with battery nerds is they like facts figures and tests. How it flies is besides the point!! As well other factors come into play that can never be accounted for. Julian, your emoloyee could have posted his little advert in any Airplane thread and you probably would have had people asking if it would fit their plane....but here they want to see discharge graphs with temp measurements.

There's a guy on another forum, and maybe here called u-dUd who really summed it up for me with his sig:

"it's not healthy to think about batteries that much"

(I hope I got it right.)

Also Julian, no offense mate, but when something's important you ship it properly and get a tracking #.....

Anyway this thread was so entertaining the hairs on the back of my neck stood on end reading it......THANKS!!!!!


-Another Battery FREAK:eek:

watt_the?!
12-15-2005, 05:25 AM
rcnerd...this is the point i've been trying to make..and to his credit julian has hung in there...make the nerds happy and all else is a walk in the park...you have a winner.

qban...i think you are on the right track with the indication of battery limits...although i havent seen a graph showing test where the voltage does not increase, another leading manufacturer posted it's graphs for it's 20C packs sometime early this year and it showed a significant depression and time to regain voltage. I would suspect that either of two things happen-
1. the voltage regained is quite a bit lower than for lower discharge rates, and/or
2. there is no voltage regain at all.

i.e. one graph would show a flatter recovery profile, and the other would just show a rapid drop in voltage to zero. I'd say that for each increment of an increase in C (discharge), the curve would become flatter and lower, until the point where (2.) occurs.

tim

timocharis
12-15-2005, 05:56 AM
Oh yeah, that's another thing I learned by attending this thread: I'm not a battery nerd. That's part of where the 'tired of static tests' posts came from.

On my plane of thought, batteries are food for flight.

But I'm all for battery nerds, out there hustling the chefs to keep coming up with gourmet meals. My foamy says: yum.


Dave

ozace
12-15-2005, 06:50 AM
What a read, thanks boys.
After all the Cr*p i am still using the FLightpower lipos i bought a month ago and could not be more pleased. One of the few in the market to supply 3700mah cells so i can fly my helis on 1p packs. Makes for more economical setups for me.
Julian may rub some up the wrong way occasionally on the forums but on the phone must be a super salesman, seems to win them over.
All credit to him, his product is the top of the heap at the moment.
Can we now get back to using the batts instead of reading and writing about them.

Rod nice of you to put an indepth reply in the Thread for us to finish the issue from your end.

Reflex
12-15-2005, 08:39 AM
qban...i think you are on the right track with the indication of battery limits...although i havent seen a graph showing test where the voltage does not increase,
I have,the Hyperion cells Graph does not show this marked voltage depression at 20C.

Now IF it is an indication of internal heating (Bad) at high C rates
I'd love to see a Lifetime comparison test between the FP and Hyperion cells run at 20C.

Graph Here
http://www.aircraft-world.com/prod_datasheets/hp/lipo/vx/hp-lvx-lithium.htm

big guy
12-15-2005, 09:00 AM
t
To Flight Power

Having used some of your cells I must say Yes they are good and No they are not.

I have 2 5s 3700mah packs and also a balancer from flight power to suit.
One of my packs swelled up after only 5 flights and a max amp draw of no more than 40amp and that for a short time.
The other pack dropped its voltage to under 4 volts for yes the whole 18.5v pack dropped under 4v.
Explain that.
After several trips back to my local Hobby shop (Model Flight) which incidentally were excellent, we worked out it was a faulty balancer.
How often does that happen.
The 3s 1800 pack also gets very warm but must admit holds up very well in my t-Rex and does not drop voltage much under load.
They are very heavy though as the 5s weighs in at 485g.
Something to consider.

All told, the experience so far has not been that good and had my hobby shop not been as understanding, who knows what I would have written here.

I use these in a chopper and failure can be catastrophic.

So remember, If it doesn't hover, don't bother.
Frank

Brodjack
12-15-2005, 09:01 AM
Lovely,now we've all finished thanking each other and kissed and made up.Lets get back to the bats.
Is there anybody out there using them at 20c,even 80% continuous,would be pretty good.
Forget flight times,thats just a bonus.What we want to see is real performance,in theory,possible with these bats.
Must be a few takers??...........

qban_flyer
12-15-2005, 02:59 PM
Wow.......This is the coolest thread ever!!!!!:D

I just found this a little while ago and just couldn't put it down....now an hour has passed and I've finally found the end...

First of all my hat's off to all of the key players. While there were certainly some missteps (I see lots of edits!!!) all the key players handled themselves quite well IMHO!!!!

Second Kudos to the forum and the mods for letting this run it's course, this venue is a refreshing change from the other RC sites!!!:)
Watt Flyer really ROCKS!!! :)

What I don't think flightpower realized soon enough is that a strange troubled breed exists....The Battery Nerds. Battery nerds care about only batteries, fantasize about batteries and enjoy just sitting and holding batteries. Don't take this term to be an insult, far from it is is an elite few that truly can obsess over batteries. I know, I am one too. Not just an rcnerd but a Battery Nerd as well. Now the problem with battery nerds is they like facts figures and tests. How it flies is besides the point!! As well other factors come into play that can never be accounted for. Julian, your emoloyee could have posted his little advert in any Airplane thread and you probably would have had people asking if it would fit their plane....but here they want to see discharge graphs with temp measurements.
I have experienced something similar in the Sound Reproduction and Reinforcement field. Some are more concerned with the "sound" than the music itself!

There's a guy on another forum, and maybe here called u-dUd who really summed it up for me with his sig:

"it's not healthy to think about batteries that much"

(I hope I got it right.)

Also Julian, no offense mate, but when something's important you ship it properly and get a tracking #.....

Anyway this thread was so entertaining the hairs on the back of my neck stood on end reading it......THANKS!!!!!


-Another Battery FREAK:eek:

Right on!!!:D

FlightPower
12-15-2005, 03:29 PM
Big_Guy,

I just got a mail about this from Mike O'Reilly,

This is incredibly rare and your case will be sorted just for the asking.

Cyclops - Thanks!

We don't see dips in voltage curves, and we fly 20C constant applications ourselves. However I want this info to come here from Red.

Cheers!

Julian

Reflex
12-15-2005, 05:26 PM
We don't see dips in voltage curves, and we fly 20C constant applications ourselves. However I want this info to come here from Red.

In post 171 you posted a graph showing such a voltage dip at 20C ????

Since you are running constant applications at 20C
would you say how many useful cycles are available at this rate ?

http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4613&d=1134433221

My concerns are Cost per Flight
I have seen posts for other Li-Pos saying around 20 cycles at Max C rate
So a £60 pack works out to £3 per flight :eek:

FlightPower
12-15-2005, 06:08 PM
Reflex,

We took a Microject and converted it to EDF. This was test flown with a Evo 20 4s1p2500 using a Mega Motors 16/15/2. Static full trottle measured with a true RMS Amp clamp was in the order of 60Amps or 24C.

Allowing for unloading in the air we would refer to this as a 20C constant application. This setups was flown several times a day and clocked up 13 crashes, including one crash that threw the pack over 100 yards from the point of impact and was found and returned the next day by a dog walker. Inbetween flights the pack was charged a between 2 and 3 C. After 50 flights the pack looked like a banana and gave up. As did the airframe. Another point to mention is that the Lipo-safe cut-off on the ESC was set for a 3-cell pack (instead of correctly set for a 4s pack), so this setup was being driven to over-discharge on most flights.

I appreciate that this is flight testing and not a lab test, however we now have a lot of experience and feedback to suggest that this is a reasonable bench-mark for expected life in a 20C ap. This was also a particularly aggressive test all round. We would normally encourage users not to fly like you stole it (i.e. deck it repeatedly), not to set standard chargers for multipe C charging and not to set ESCs for over dicharge. In the absence of these last factors we would hope that most users would achieve more life-cycles and not fewer than our results.

Regarding the graph in 171, I agree this does have minor dip at 20C, but I would not wish to discuss graphs until Red has had a chance to produce an independent assessment. I should be a little more specific, to say that we don't experience power dips when starting to run a plane or heli. I have discussed with Rod (as a question not an implication) the possibility that this dip could be an artifact of static loads heating up and increasing resistance in the first few seconds of testing.

Best regards,

Julian

everydayflyer
12-15-2005, 06:16 PM
The general consensus for 20C LiPolys being operated at that continuous level is 50 to 80 cycles. Heat is most likely the major killer at these levels. Cells operated above 140F have their lives cut short and those above 160F become cannon foder in short order.
I in no way recomend doing so but I have operated 10C rated (true 7C) LiPolys at burst to 16C without doing measureable damage.These were 5 second and less burst and temperatures were alway below 130F.

Julian would you be able / willing to supply a pin out for your taps?

Charles

FlightPower
12-15-2005, 06:28 PM
everydayflyer

I was reluctant to state the same numbers as coming from us, but I can concur that these 50-80 cycle figures tally's with our feedback.

Julian

Reflex
12-15-2005, 06:28 PM
Julian thank you for the reply
Informative and entertaining :)

Can I come and fly with you guys :cool:

p.s. If the Dip was caused by the Load increasing resistance
it should also be on the 15C curve

Regards
Paul

Red Scholefield
12-15-2005, 06:56 PM
Reflex, I wouldn't worry too much about the initial volage drop in Lipos under high load. I noticed this with my first lipo and posted a thread about it in the other forum.

SNIP

One explanation I got was that as the battery heats up the chemical action in the battery improves so it is more effecient, therefore more UMPH. I question this because as heat increases so does resistance so whewre does this leave us? I don't know however I know we have the expertice in this forum to answer. How about it guys any better or more correct answers out there.\

John,

As the battery heats up the conductance increases, not the resistance. This is why initially under high discharge rate the voltage dips somewhat until heat generated decreases the resistance and the voltage rises again. Realize that the change in resistance with high discharge is only part of the equation.

FlightPower
12-15-2005, 07:05 PM
Yes, but you might want to wait until the Lehner 2.5-3.0 KW motor arrives for the Weston Magnum R. Seriously, we are planning some open days in the UK in January 06 and we have some stupidly cool stuff to play with.

Julian

Mattyduk
12-15-2005, 07:07 PM
Yes, but you might want to wait until the Lehner 2.5-3.0 KW motor arrives for the Weston Magnum R. Seriously, we are planning some open days in the UK in January 06 and we have some stupidly cool stuff to play with.

Julian

Count me in for them :)

rcnerd
12-15-2005, 07:15 PM
:D You guys freakin rule!!!:D Thanks to Red, Rod, Julian, watt_the? and all the other contributors. As a long time battery nerd I am very happy to find a place where a group like this can be found. Wait til I tell my friends that I found people who obsess over batteries more than me...they will be amazed. BTW Julian you seem like a cool guy and I'm glad that your batteries are doing well!! Good luck and PM me if you want to send me any free packs for real-world testing in conditions here in the Great White North!;)

Keep it comin you freaks.......I love it!!!!!!:cool:

everydayflyer
12-15-2005, 08:14 PM
Perhaps this question was missed in post # 232.

Julian would you be able / willing to supply a pin out for your taps?

Charles

FlightPower
12-15-2005, 08:19 PM
the 2s and 3s pinouts are pretty obvious (Look for the triangle on the connector - this is ground, then the next one is 3.7 nom, next is 7.4v nom and the next is 11.1V nom for the 3s). the bigger pack pinouts are described here:

http://www.flightpower.co.uk/support/FPEX2_retrofit_lead.doc

Julian

everydayflyer
12-15-2005, 08:28 PM
Thanks Julian,
With battery in hand I have no problem reading the taps, however I do not own a Flight Power LiPoly and may never own or even see one but there are many who will expect me to be able to help them make adapters to use with this or that balaacer.


Charles

big guy
12-15-2005, 10:28 PM
Julian

The new pack held up well yesterday and charged to 21v. I now have no balancer but surely not too much can go wrong till new ones arrive.

I also received e-mail from flight power explaining how rare this would be.

I am in bsiness also of a different nature but I understand the importance of custumer service and all is fine in that department.

Just a thought though, what if the model went down because of battery failure and no fault of my own?
Would flight power come to the party for replacement of model?

When I flew my heli last night, that is pretty much all I was thinking.What if, silly really because I never have before but twice bitten -very shy i guess.

well either way all is good so far and Meryy Christmas.


Big Guy

qban_flyer
12-15-2005, 10:37 PM
My concerns are Cost per Flight
I have seen posts for other Li-Pos saying around 20 cycles at Max C rate
So a £60 pack works out to £3 per flight :eek:

Isn't this becoming a bit too expensive? :confused:

watt_the?!
12-15-2005, 10:45 PM
Just a thought though, what if the model went down because of battery failure and no fault of my own?
Would flight power come to the party for replacement of model?



I've heard this over and over again. Alot of manufacturers wont even admit fault even when they are blatant...i.e. Fliton and their ''little'' wing spar saga.

if we could all make claims like this i'd be very much richer myself for sure...personally ive had antennas that didnt work, receivers that glitched and stopped, servos that decided to not work, wings that have come off, tailplanes that have ripped off and linkages that have broken...and this is the list of things that i can trace back to faulty parts from the supplier..

most will replace the faulty part..some will argue to the death about it and acuse you of incompetence in some form. AFAIK only some small % of LiPo manufacturers do warranty. I know of one that does complete replacement, all costs. Many pass on this responsibility to their dealers.

i.e. i wouldnt expect your claim to go far- no disrespect to FP at all...just the way it is.

Tim.

rcnerd
12-15-2005, 10:46 PM
I thdon't think your ever going to get consequential damage covered!

watt_the?!
12-15-2005, 10:55 PM
i think that you could win if you pursued a claim via civil law channels but the cost would outweigh the benefit..ethically you probably are correct, as long as you can prove that the supplier/manufacturer did not inform of indemnity against liability of any kind as well as the root cause of the fault.

i reckon i couldve claimed Rx, 3 servos, lipo, ESC and motor when the wings came off my plane under low G...video and witnesses to back it up...but where would it end?

watt_the?!
12-15-2005, 10:56 PM
Isn't this becoming a bit too expensive? :confused:

yes, one of my pet topics...reliability. bang for buck doesnt stop at performance.

sure a drag car can do a 4.5 1/4 mile...but at the expense of a $200,000 engine every 4 passes.

Brodjack
12-16-2005, 11:04 AM
Julian,read with interest your Magnum Project.
I have a Weston Tigershark ready for electric.I did think of your bats.for the source long before this thread was started.Thats why i,m so keen to see real data.
High performance ancillaries is a must for these types of planes,as you nodoubt know.
Anything special regards the Lehner motor?
Hope you'll keep us posted with the info on the open days.
Thanks Brodjack.............

RC-Tester
12-16-2005, 02:27 PM
The FP 2100 arrived today, and I'll start testing under CC discharge shortly.

Attached are the images of the pack in packaging, top of the pack, bottom of the pack. Also attached is the datasheet that was enclosed.
(a contradiction here: the packs says only to charge at 1C, and the datasheet says 'The new 20C chemistry can be charged at 2C and above for the first 90% of its capacity ....')

A check of cell voltages shows:

cell 1: 3.80 V
cell 2: 3.80 VI'll get Deans Ultras fitted, balance charge it using the Hyperion LBA 6 then carry out a 15 and 20C continuous current discharge with temperature measurement. Expect some results on Sunday evening (it looks like a flying weekend:D , so no static discharges).

Rod

Note to everydayflyer: The tap connector is a black nylon 0.1" pitch connector, with a polarizing rib on the surface between pin 1 and 2. Numbering convention is with cell1 -ve (pin1), cell1 +ve / cell2 -ve (pin2), cell2 +ve (pin3).

everydayflyer
12-16-2005, 03:40 PM
Thanks RC- Tester for the pinouts. Interesting approach to use 1 black and two reds for a 2S. Looks like everyone is trying to be different.:)
Graupner 3S pinouts added to my adapters post on RC G.

Charles