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

From: Don DeLoach <ddeloach_at_comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:33:45 -0600

I don't really know Kang. I'm not that precise with my record keeping. Sorry

Don DeLoach

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:37 PM, "Yuan Kang Lee" <ykleetx_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Don,
>
> Are you able to wind your 6/01 motors more than one time to max torque?
>
> Thanks for sharing your info.
>
> -Kang
>
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Don DeLoach" <ddeloach_at_...> wrote:
> >
> > I've had lots of good flights with 6/01 Kang. A few of my best ever in fact.
> > But remember I am no *indoorist*
> >
> >
> >
> > The 9:45 (?) at Tustin in April 2010 was 6/01.
> >
> >
> >
> > Plenty of others.
> >
> >
> >
> > Don D
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Yuan Kang Lee
> > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:27 PM
> > To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: 10/97 and 7/99 tan II rubber
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > <mailto:Indoor_Construction%40yahoogroups.com> , "Brett Sanborn"
> > <bsanborn_at_> 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%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:Indoor_Construction%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Ken Achee
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:13 PM
> > > To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:Indoor_Construction%40yahoogroups.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>
> > > <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>
> > > <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 Sat Jun 18 2011 - 20:34:13 CEST