IBE, Ignition Battery Eliminator

[JPal101]

There is a new unit being marketed by Troy Built Models. The Ignition Battery Eliminator and it is just that, a device that uses power from your receiver battery and saves weight by eliminating the ignition battery for gas airplanes. Perfect for those smaller aircraft that are now using small gas engines but are sensitive to the extra weight. Not only does it save weight but it also acts as a electronic engine kill right from your transmitter. I will be writing more about this as I get it installed in my 50cc extra.

[IBTRIN]

I just picked up a DL55 from troybuilt with one of these as part of their promotion.
Been looking everywhere for more info. the only one they had in stock was the one that can use the A123's. It looks like a pretty neat setup. Just wish i could find some history on them to know about their reliabilty.

[nate428]

this thread already started on it
http://www.flyinggiants.com/forums/f...tle-thing.html

[JPal101]

	Quote: Originally Posted by IBTRIN
	I just picked up a DL55 from troybuilt with one of these as part of their promotion. Been looking everywhere for more info. the only one they had in stock was the one that can use the A123's. It looks like a pretty neat setup. Just wish i could find some history on them to know about their reliabilty.

I asked the same question, according to TBM they would not release anything unless it was proven first.

[kirkman]

This little jewel is the "bomb".....

Takes the place of your ignition battery and regulator. Plus it can be used with or without an ignition switch.

Plug it into a spare channel on your reciever and you can turn it on or off with the flick of a switch.

watch the video:
http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items/WRCIBEF4C.html

[JohnVH]

That is a pretty neat device!! But really, I dont know of any gas plane that is plagued by having a ignition battery in it.

[JPal101]

I think the smaller planes 70"- 73" that would normally use a 120 /140 size glow engine would benefit by eleminating the extra weight

[JPal101]

eliminating

[flatspinjim]

It would also eliminate charging another battery. Does anyone know if it's been used with a 72mhz radio?

[Charley38]

	Quote: Originally Posted by flatspinjim
	It would also eliminate charging another battery. Does anyone know if it's been used with a 72mhz radio?

I don't think the frq band of the radio makes any difference. I might go for this I have a quarter scale Xtra 300L that could use the weight savings.

CR

[Extra nuts]

I think the idea is not to use your rx batt and rx itself for the ignition in case of a servo sticking and spiking power which could send your rx into failsafe, not to mention use up power from an already over loaded battery running rx and servo's and whatever else??? I also dont see a ign batt causing any extra weight problems on the smaller 70' 73' planes either. Most ign batts are 5oz or less with a regulator. If your batt is heavier then 5oz then your problems is that your using batteries that are too heavy like rc car NiCad's.lol. 6v NiMH are 5oz at best. Most regs are not even one. A li-ion 7.4v 2600 is 3-4oz. Li-po is about the same, mabey 1oz more. Yah to use the little gizzmo from TBM might reduce charging one batt, but it will definatly have you charging the other more often. Not worth the trade off to me. I prefer redunancy. Its safer and provides longer flight times between charges. A couple oz's of extra weight is not going to make or break you. Just my two cents worth.

[Ramz]

I am going to try one out in a 73" Pilot RC Yak with a DL30. I wanted to see what kind of all up dry weight I could get with this plane (short of tearing it apart and completely rebuilding it) so I decided to spend a bit of cash on some titanium axles, foam wheels, juice bottle tank, etc.....so this little device fit the bill perfectly. I would be a bit hesitant to try it on my 40% but I am eager to see how it works. I am using an AR7000. As for the weight savings, it actually does matter alot on the smaller planes IMHO if you think about it in percentages. Yes, you may be saving only 5 or 6 ounces but on an 10 lb/1000 sq in airplane, that is roughly a 4% weight savings...fairly significant in my books. Every ounce counts.

[2walla]

Cool, but I think that I can live with 5oz of weight for a separate battery..

[Extra nuts]

Me too. I'd rather not spend money to give even more advantage to problematic areas. Call me crazy but im not looking for extra reasons to crash. Not to mention the slightly slower responce time in the radio equip from ganging another elctrical burden on the already overworked rx. Your going to need 2 batts for your rx now,lol. How much is that TBM gizmo anyway. 5 extra oz seems like cheap insurance to me. Whats in your waaallet?

[Charley38]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Ramz
	As for the weight savings, it actually does matter alot on the smaller planes IMHO if you think about it in percentages. Yes, you may be saving only 5 or 6 ounces but on an 10 lb/1000 sq in airplane, that is roughly a 4% weight savings...fairly significant in my books. Every ounce counts.

I'll second that but there's more. If you take an airplane that was designed for a light glow engine, convert it to a heavier gas engine and add the weight of the ignition and ignition battery, it can throw the balance way out of kilter. In the case of my 73" Lanier Xtra 300L that's what happened. even though the servos are in the tail and the flight pack battery is as far back as it will go, 2 oz had to be added in the tail to get the CG right, an abhorrent result. If the ignition battery can be eliminated it's likely that the balancing weights can be too. I might even be able to move the flight pack battery forward, get it closer to the CG, a good thing if it works out. Here's hoping.....

CR