I have limited experience. Mostly bad though. It flew 2 minutes less on my
LPP at USIC one year compared to 8/93.
Brett Sanborn
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Achee
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:13 PM
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re: 10/97 and 7/99 tan II rubber
while we're talking rubber batches, does anyone have any experience good or
bad with 12/97?
Ken
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Yuan Kang Lee <ykleetx_at_gmail.com> wrote:
Many of you offered your experience with 10/97 and 7/99, and your comments
were much appreciated.
I have used 7/99 extensively for my EZBs. Based on flight times, I think it
is pretty good. I am not a diligent rubber tester, so I have not compared
the 7/99 closely with other batches.
I have found that it can be wound to high turns at high torque -- whether it
unwinds with high torque compared to other batches, I don't know. I have
found that most 7/99 motors are good and can be wound hard at least a few
times.
I have from time to time substituted 2/99, 10/97, 4/10, 7/10, 3/02. Each
time, I have found the 7/99 to be better. But these are not controlled
comparisons, and other factors may be in place: motors may not have been
well broken in, motors were of of smaller cross section.
I will try 10/97 for low ceiling flying in the future. As others have said,
10/97 is "torqy" but does not give enough turns.
At USIC 2011, I also used 7/99 for LPP. These motors are roughly .085",
compared to .030" for my EZB. I found these thicker motors to be very
brittle. Of the 6 LPP motors I made, 4 had severe cuts on them after one
hard wind. Of the 2 remaining, I could get 2 hard winds on each before
breaking.
It appears to me that a thick 7/99 motor (.085") is much more brittle than a
thin 7/99 motor (.030"). Can anyone think why this is the case? I won't be
using the 7/99 for LPP anymore.
Regards,
-Kang
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Indoor_Construction%40yahoogroups.com> , "ykleetx" <ykleetx_at_...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks, Max, Bob, Aki, Steve for your feedback.
>
> Seems like there is very little knowledge of 7/99, except from Bob, and
that it is excellent!
>
> Seems like the feedback on 10/97 is also very good and held a Cat II F1L
record. Not as good as 5/99 (of course not) but lots of torque perhaps not
enough turns.
>
> I'll be doing some tests on EZB motors that are around .024" x .4g and
compare these batches to the 3/02 I have.
>
> -K
>
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Indoor_Construction%40yahoogroups.com> , "ykleetx" <ykleetx_at_> wrote:
> >
> > What does everyone think of these two vintages? I would love to hear
your experience, opinion, advice. Rumors are okay, too. I recently bought
some and now would like to test and use it. Thank you.
> >
> > -K
> >
>
- application/x-ygp-stripped attachment: stored
- application/x-ygp-stripped attachment: stored
Received on Thu Jun 16 2011 - 20:13:54 CEST