Re: 10/97 and 7/99 tan II rubber

From: Yuan Kang Lee <ykleetx_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:26:36 -0000

I have heard lots of discussion about 6/01. Great energy return IF the motor doesn't break.

Has anyone actually had a really good flight with 6/01?

-Kang

--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Brett Sanborn" <bsanborn@...> wrote:
>
> 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_...> 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
> > >
> >
>
Received on Fri Jun 17 2011 - 15:26:44 CEST