Author Topic: Some interesting weight comparisons (Read 3073 times)

Mike Scholtes · « **on:** September 29, 2009, 08:05:39 PM »

I weighed the components of a few power systems and here's what I came up with. All units are ounces. Final number is takeoff weight for the particular system.

LA46 /Randy tube muffler 10.6
5 oz metal tank 2.2
5 oz fuel 5.0
Total 17.9

ST51 /Randy tube muffler 12.3
5 oz metal tank 2.2
5 oz fuel 5.0
Total 19.3

PA61 11.6
Header 1.0
Carbon pipe, mounts 3.0
6 oz tank 2.2
6 oz fuel 6.0
Total 23.8

AXI 2826 7.1
TGY 5S 3300 16.0
ESC/timer/wires 2.0
Total 25.1

TGY 42-50 9.1
TGY 5S 3300 16.0
ESC/timer/wires 2.0
Total 27.1

Plus, the lighter construction for the E-power deletes the usual maple engine bearers at 1.5 oz. If lighter finishes can be used due to the lack of need for a really nitro-proof finish, the all-up weight of larger E-power models compares very favorably with wet systems. And this is using relatively heavy (but much less expensive) batteries. If the TP lites are used the weight goes down another 4 oz or so. It looks quite possible to build the same model to the same weight either wet or E-powered.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #1 on:** September 29, 2009, 08:16:56 PM »

eeeeYUP!

Mike - NICE JOB tabulating all the weights. Builds a pretty compelling case doesn't it?

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2009, 08:48:51 PM »

Yeah, really a lot closer than I thought. And, I imagine the E-prop will be lighter than a wet-power APC, though probably not lighter than a carbon 3-blade.

Wait till people start designing E-power models from a blank sheet of paper rather than modifying "WWII fighter plane" planforms that have been standard since, well, WWII. I'll bet a lot of our clever designers around the country are doing just that. Do335 twin, anyone?

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #3 on:** September 29, 2009, 10:22:57 PM »

Here's my Vector 40 combo:--includes all wires/connectors

Scorpion 3020-780 with APC12-6 e Prop (and mounting hardware) 7.4oz
Phoenix 45 ESC with jmp-2 timer 1.6oz
FMA 4s2100 battery pack--7.0oz

All up flying weight = 16oz --includes charged-up weight!

I just measured these---so they are "real", not manufacturer's values.

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #4 on:** September 29, 2009, 11:12:40 PM »

Most interesting! Alan's numbers are almost 2 oz LESS than the LA46 setup in my kit-built Vector! And using the fairly heavy APC 12.25-3.75 probably makes the advantage go to E-power even more! Dang, this is getting exciting!

Had a very illuminating conversation with Eric Rogers at Woodland contest on Sunday. (Jimby Aron CD.) He flies a Score with a Plettenberg in it and knows a lot about electric. We were kicking around ideas for a totally off the charts E-design with multiple engines and nothing taken for granted. He confided that one prominent local builder in our NorCal district is building one such model already. You will have to wait and see what it looks like, along with the rest uf us. 2010 is going to be one interesting and perhaps watershed year in CL stunt.

John Witt · « **Reply #5 on:** September 30, 2009, 09:13:08 AM »

Alan,

I have ordered a Vector 40 kit which should be in hand late this week (~ 10/02/09). Based on your experience, are there some structural things to do to the kit that will build it out lighter than the ARC that you have?

My initial plan is to use the Turnigy 800 kV C35-48 motor (5.75 oz, w/o prop), CC45 ESC and the 2650 batteries I have (Zippy, 9.8 oz), so the power train weight should be around 18 oz. I used a 4 rail motor mount in the Panther that has turned out to be rugged, and in fact that model is over-built to some extent (47 ounces ready to go at the last contest).

I haven't had my hands on any of the Asian laser cut kits before, but some of the RC stuff I have seen pictures of looks pretty lightly built.

Also, in regards to multi motored models, can a single ESC commutate more than one motor, assuming identical motors -- seems like it would mess up the gov feedback if the ESC is using back-EMF for the feedback.

John

jim gilmore · « **Reply #6 on:** September 30, 2009, 09:25:54 AM »

I'm more than a little confused by the comparison.
But here is what I see tell me if I am wrong.
For all but the pa 61 an electric system is roughly 3 ounces heavier.
There is No comparison of rpm or prop size here.
Electric airplanes can be built differently to achieve a more durable lighter airframe.

Alan (All up flying weight = 16oz --includes charged-up weight!)
uhm your plane weighs in at 16 Ounces ? I'm even more confused.

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2009, 10:43:26 AM »

Quote from: jim gilmore on September 30, 2009, 09:25:54 AM

I'm more than a little confused by the comparison.
But here is what I see tell me if I am wrong.
For all but the pa 61 an electric system is roughly 3 ounces heavier.
There is No comparison of rpm or prop size here.
Electric airplanes can be built differently to achieve a more durable lighter airframe.

Alan (All up flying weight = 16oz --includes charged-up weight!)
uhm your plane weighs in at 16 Ounces ? I'm even more confused.

Sorry Jim, that is the powerplant flying weight, ready to be installed in the plane.

John,

I had the ARC, and I had to do 2 things, # 1 make new flaps since the original wood was way too soft and "flabby", and #2, I cut ~1.5" circular holes in the two elevator halves--one was made of of true iron-wood, but otherwise was nice and stiff.

But no other structural changes (or I should say needed changes) had to be done.

However I do recommend a good strong motor mount, to hold the front end together in case of a prop strike. So you might want to consider that the maple mounts might still be a good idea. You might wonder why I think that is a good idea!

Paul Walker · « **Reply #8 on:** September 30, 2009, 01:23:23 PM »

PA61 11.6
Header 1.0
Carbon pipe, mounts 3.0
6 oz tank 2.2
6 oz fuel 6.0
Total 23.8

AXI 2826 7.1
TGY 5S 3300 16.0
ESC/timer/wires 2.0
Total 25.1

TGY 42-50 9.1
TGY 5S 3300 16.0
ESC/timer/wires 2.0
Total 27.1

The battery looks a little small. If you are replacing at PA 61 in a PA61 size plane, the 3300 looks a little small. I have flown an Impact at an all up weight of 61 ounces, and used 3200 out of a 4000 5 cell battery. Be careful with the first few flights to be sure you don't destroy a battery by sucking it dry!

That battery also looks less than optimal. My TP 4000 5S2P battery weighs 14 ounces (396 g). That's 2 ounces less than your smaller capacity battery.

Paul Walker

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #9 on:** September 30, 2009, 02:06:32 PM »

Hi Paul:

Thanks for the caution. Any advice from you I will certainly take seriously. I made the battery choice based on Archie Adamisin's results using this motor and battery combo in a Strega at over 70 oz. These are relatively inexpensive "starter" batteries to see how this combination of components performs. When I can afford it I will want some of the lighter batteries. I studied the "setups" posts and noted that most were putting back in under 3000mA in models this size, and using the 80% guideline it appears the 3300mAh should be sufficient. That's why I got the the ICE 50, so I can track power use. Of course, if Archie's model explodes in flames I will rethink the battery choice.

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #10 on:** September 30, 2009, 02:27:24 PM »

Quote from: John Witt on September 30, 2009, 09:13:08 AM

Alan,

<snip>.....

Also, in regards to multi motored models, can a single ESC commutate more than one motor, assuming identical motors -- seems like it would mess up the gov feedback if the ESC is using back-EMF for the feedback.

John

I missed this question.

Now I have heard of some people using a single ESC to control 2 brushless motors, but honestly I haven't exactly figured out how that works. Maybe by some minor miracle the two motors manage to exactly sync up during the initial power on sequence. Once synced, I could see how they would be forced to stay together, as long as their prop loads (and kV's) are so close that they behave almost identically.

However most (>99%?) people are using two separate ESC's, one for each motor. Now you can run both ESC's off a single timer/throttle output. But be aware that ESC's also can be slightly different. I once switched a CC Phoenix 35 for another CC Phoenix 35 (this was a bench run, so everything else was identical), but I was surprised to see a slight rpm difference. Maybe not a big deal, but I was still surprised. So the moral of the story is that it is good to test things before assuming everything is ok! You can always deal with some small differences, but if I was making a twin, I'd want the slightly higher rpm motor on the inboard wing I think.

Of course if you had a brushed motor setup, you could drive both from a single ESC. However I would still check out if they both behaved similarly.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #11 on:** September 30, 2009, 03:35:06 PM »

Alan,
actuallly if I were to do an electric twin, I think I would want at the very least perfectly synced motor rpm, or slightly higher rpm on the OUTboard motor. it has to fly farther, and if you run it slower you are negating a certain portion of its contribution to the overall power delivery. Not only that, but it will cause some trim issues in yaw that would be very difficult to eliminate through aerodynamic means I would think
Just my 2cents

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #12 on:** September 30, 2009, 03:37:02 PM »

Quote from: Mark Scarborough on September 30, 2009, 03:35:06 PM

Alan,
actuallly if I were to do an electric twin, I think I would want at the very least perfectly synced motor rpm, or slightly higher rpm on the OUTboard motor. it has to fly farther, and if you run it slower you are negating a certain portion of its contribution to the overall power delivery. Not only that, but it will cause some trim issues in yaw that would be very difficult to eliminate through aerodynamic means I would think
Just my 2cents

I don't disagree, but I think I would prefer the first flight in my configuration!---just in case. But now we digress from the original thread. I'm doing that too much lately.

dave shirley jr · « **Reply #13 on:** September 30, 2009, 06:38:25 PM »

Mike,
unless i misunderstand the 80% use standard. you'r planning to use too small of batteries
I thought you don't want to use more than 80% of the capacity?
3300x.8=2640 or am I missunderstanding this?
by the way, wasn't eric running a rojett this weekend?

I am waiting to see the new design from oakland as well.
it should be interesting
Dave jr.

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #14 on:** September 30, 2009, 07:00:08 PM »

Hi David:

Yep, Electric Eric was indeed running a RoJett 61 in ex-PTG Diva 2. Neither of us having PTG's way with engines Eric and I spent quite a while trying to start it. Need to learn that "finger snap" start that only Expert flyers seem able to do.

On my 3300 mAh batteries, the range of mA put back in is about 2100 to 2800 according to the flyers who have posted their info, with the exception of Paul Walker. I believe he is using a Plettenberg like Eric has in his Score. This is only a test, not a final configuration!

Eric seems to be close with PTG and says we can expect something truly different soon.

By the way, congrats on your awesome Phantom! Everybody seeing this post needs to go to the AeroManiacs site and oogle the pictures.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #15 on:** September 30, 2009, 07:20:21 PM »

Quote from: Mike Scholtes on September 30, 2009, 02:06:32 PM

Hi Paul:

Thanks for the caution. Any advice from you I will certainly take seriously. I made the battery choice based on Archie Adamisin's results using this motor and battery combo in a Strega at over 70 oz. These are relatively inexpensive "starter" batteries to see how this combination of components performs. When I can afford it I will want some of the lighter batteries. I studied the "setups" posts and noted that most were putting back in under 3000mA in models this size, and using the 80% guideline it appears the 3300mAh should be sufficient. That's why I got the the ICE 50, so I can track power use. Of course, if Archie's model explodes in flames I will rethink the battery choice.

The Strega in question weighs 79 oz and uses a 6sx2800 pack. It is using 1600-1700mah (roughly 60% of capacity) If a 5S system was used we could expect it to not quite 2100 mah - which would keep the 3300 pack in the game. Indeed even if it was 4S the usage would scalle to just under 2700 mach - and a 4Sx3600 pack should do the job.

I am at a loss to explain what appears to be a huge discrepancy versus PW's experience. NO WAY do I see the 79 oz Strega as being a lower power application! Indeed I used what Paul had published in the "Post your Set-up" thread as the sanity check on the 6Sx2800 in the first place. The only other thing I could point at is the start-up profile. We are using the Hubin timers and none of them call for a full power blast on the ground prior to launch - as some timers do - but I do not even know if that is part of Pauls start-up regimen. Full power at static conditions would be a heck of a punch - but hardly explains the differences.

BTW the 6Sx2800 Arrowind pack weighs 1 oz more than PW's excellent TP-4000's, however it was cost versus weight again, plus the idea that more cells each pushing less current would be less stressed out and run cooler...

Dean Pappas · « **Reply #16 on:** October 01, 2009, 09:25:18 PM »

Dennis,
30 seconds of full power running while you walk to the handle under static conditions should add ... hmmm ... maybe between 12% and 15% to your total consumption. I've found that static governed operation consumes 1-1/2 times the average flight current. Do the numbers jive in that case?
Dean

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #17 on:** October 01, 2009, 10:37:48 PM »

Quote from: Dean Pappas on October 01, 2009, 09:25:18 PM

Dennis,
30 seconds of full power running while you walk to the handle under static conditions should add ... hmmm ... maybe between 12% and 15% to your total consumption. I've found that static governed operation consumes 1-1/2 times the average flight current. Do the numbers jive in that case?
Dean

Not quite enough at 12% to 15%. Paul reports 3200mah used in his 5S system. If I take 6S numbers we experienced and project it to 5S I get 2100mah - so we are looking at about a 1100 mah difference; 50% more than we project or 33% less than Paul observes. That's like cats and dogs living together!

* Some of the timers when queing up, run a short blast at FULL (not flight ) RPM. I think it is maybe 2-3 seconds tops. THAT would be a HECK of a drain, but again, the time period is too short.

* The Strega has not been stooged, and the helper knows to release when the power comes up. It is currently set on slow spool-up so it takes maybe 6-7 seconds to power up enough to release, then continues powering up for another few seconds. The point is the startig-to-launch routine on the Strega precludes the motor ever being at flight RPM at rest - that should help reduce that spike by quite a bit. We also have the flight time set to "comfortably close" after the pattern and reducing power usage.

* Now that the ICE-50's are at hand, we want to do an ESC change-out and use the datalogger! I have a couple different motors and batteries to try - including a 5Sx3300 and a 4Sx3600. They SHOUD be adequate - but I guess we will see!

Edit: thought of something else:
* My Triton Charger driving through the Equinox balancer (mine is only good for 4S) takes a long time to balance the packs. With 4S it will typicially hit 16.8V in reasonably short order but will then use between 100 & 200 mah in the final balancing "tap dance" over the course of the next 20 -25 minutes or so. The 6S charger does not balance the same way - rather it charges each sell to the same peak - and the balancing of the cells happens PDQ. Thus depending on the charger - it is POSSIBLE (admittedly grabbing at a straw) that the charging/balancing regimen results in more mah being registered over the charging & peaking routine.

* Hope Paul chimes in and can spot any further issues that would cause the discrepancies between his readings and ours..?

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #18 on:** October 01, 2009, 10:54:48 PM »

How long are both of your flights--from power on the power off. Things will add up---sometimes!

I'm still a bit surprised that my Vector uses less energy over the flight than my Nobler did---these are the same exact batteries, but a year older for the Vector. Same prop, same rpm, same flight time...... different results.

Archie Adamisin · « **Reply #19 on:** October 02, 2009, 04:26:10 AM »

Alan,

We saw similar trends with the Oriental and Vector using the SC Brodak 3S set-up on a 10 x 5 APC turning 10,920 rpm. The Vector used about 100-200 less capacity. Not sure, but I think that points that the Vector is a cleaner airframe. Even more puzzling is that they were within a couple ozs flying weight.

Archie Adamisin
Muncie, Indiana

Kim Doherty · « **Reply #20 on:** October 02, 2009, 07:28:11 AM »

Dennis,

Just to add a couple of data points to your discussion, SHOCKWAVE with 740 Square inches, 70.5 ounces all up weight, airfoil similar to Impact in thickness, TP 5S2P 4200, Plett Orbit 30-12 and Schulze F2B ESC with my timer/processor drew approx. 2700 mAh at 5.1 sec laps on 65 ft. lines (eye to eye), running six minutes 13 seconds of flight time without optimization. After optimizing prop diameter, pitch and undercamber it would draw approx. 3100 mAh for the same flight profile. Startup is a fairly rapid soft start to approx 7700 rpm (it will not run below about 7200) for thity seconds and then to the chosen flight rpm (likely around 9100 rpm running a 13x6 prop)

Paul's flights are likely to run about the same time as above.

Kim.

John Witt · « **Reply #21 on:** October 02, 2009, 08:11:43 AM »

Some thoughts over why Vector might be more efficient an airframe vs. Oriental over the PA pattern sequence. If one plane turns more cleanly than the other, i.e., less boundary separation, less control deflection, less airspeed loss, whatever, then the motor has to spend less energy dragging it back up to the governed speed. CG location will also affect the cruising and turning energy even if the all up weights are the same. There are 39 90/120 deg turns in the pattern, so low drag at high G loadings could be significant.

I get consistently about 50-70 mAh difference in the recharge totals between two TP 2150 packs, so I'm not really sure how closely one can determine between different charger and battery combinations. If the same charger is used for the same batteries a pattern emerges. Just don't assume the numbers coming from my charger are exactly the same as yours (my amps aren't your amps, etc.)

There are a lot of variables to control, for sure. I am still in the stage where every flight is somewhat different than the previous. The only one I personally know who's not in that mode is Paul, where every flight is just like the previous one, that is a run through the full PA sequence, shutdown and landing, and VERY consistent performance of the maneuvers.

Of course there's always the wind, to muddy up the waters, if I may be allowed a mixed metaphor.

John

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #22 on:** October 02, 2009, 08:32:25 AM »

Quote from: Kim Doherty on October 02, 2009, 07:28:11 AM

Dennis,

Just to add a couple of data points to your discussion, SHOCKWAVE with 740 Square inches, 70.5 ounces all up weight, airfoil similar to Impact in thickness, TP 5S2P 4200, Plett Orbit 30-12 and Schulze F2B ESC with my timer/processor drew approx. 2700 mAh at 5.1 sec laps on 65 ft. lines (eye to eye), running six minutes 13 seconds of flight time without optimization. After optimizing prop diameter, pitch and undercamber it would draw approx. 3100 mAh for the same flight profile. Startup is a fairly rapid soft start to approx 7700 rpm (it will not run below about 7200) for thity seconds and then to the chosen flight rpm (likely around 9100 rpm running a 13x6 prop)

Paul's flights are likely to run about the same time as above.

Kim.

Kim,
So my question is the 30 seconds @ 7700 rpm when you are walking out to the lines?

I just ask, because my motor is off for ~20 s after I push the start button (and get the initial start). When the power comes back on the plane is released. (trying to save every watt!).

I think Dennis also isn't running the motor until after he picks up the handle (but I could be mistaken).

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #23 on:** October 02, 2009, 08:53:30 AM »

Quote from: Kim Doherty on October 02, 2009, 07:28:11 AM

Dennis,

Just to add a couple of data points to your discussion, SHOCKWAVE with 740 Square inches, 70.5 ounces all up weight, airfoil similar to Impact in thickness, TP 5S2P 4200, Plett Orbit 30-12 and Schulze F2B ESC with my timer/processor drew approx. 2700 mAh at 5.1 sec laps on 65 ft. lines (eye to eye), running six minutes 13 seconds of flight time without optimization. After optimizing prop diameter, pitch and undercamber it would draw approx. 3100 mAh for the same flight profile. Startup is a fairly rapid soft start to approx 7700 rpm (it will not run below about 7200) for thity seconds and then to the chosen flight rpm (likely around 9100 rpm running a 13x6 prop)

Paul's flights are likely to run about the same time as above.

Kim.

Kim:
So does this mean you take-off at 7700 RPM then power up to 9100 rpm in flight? If so that would be about the softest least "spikey" profile you could possibly have. Argueably 6:13 was probably longer than you really needed, but not by itself teh deal breaker. I think we are running around 5:45 right now - about 8 laps after the clover...

Prior to your 7700 rpm start up do you have a sequence where the bird powers up to full rpm? If so what (approx) is that speed & for how long?

If the differences cannot be found in the start-up profile then about all that's left is motor & prop efficiency differences. THe Strega uses a 3526 (35mm commutator x 26mm magnets) Hows that compare to the Plett Orbit 30-12?

Kim Doherty · « **Reply #24 on:** October 02, 2009, 10:07:11 AM »

Alan,

In FAI F2B competition (the only thing I fly), you have only seven minutes from the time you signal to start till the wheels must be stopped on the ground. I could put a longer delay into the timer but from the time I engage the magnet with the hall effect sensor (start switch) it takes several seconds to reach the 7700 rpm floor. The floor is there because the Schulze F2B ESC only operates between 7000 rpm and 12000 rpm. When I have my hand in the safety thong the motor is just moving to full power. I do not like the idea of going with a hard start straight to full power although there may be no downside to doing so. I can run the motor because I have the battery capacity to do so. As I reduce the size/weight of my power train I may infact use a longer initial delay as I will now be using 4000 mAh packs instead of 4200 mAh packs.

Dennis,

The motor powers initialy straight to about 7700 rpm then after thirty seconds to 9100 rpm. I take off under full power. I do not think you would ever want to take off with less than full power as dealing with strong wind could prove difficult.

6:13 -> 6:20 is not longer than needed, it is the optimum time you can use and safely land within the seven minutes. If you run less time you are forcing yourself to fly every manoeuvre in succession without pause. If a big gust or thermal hits you have little choice but to enter the manoeuvre regardless. I like to be able to add an extra lap if needed due to the wind or to allow the judges to move. I also have no fear that having run to the end of time before doing the clover that I will not have exactly the same power I did at take off.

Kim

Dean Pappas · « **Reply #25 on:** October 02, 2009, 10:11:29 AM »

Hi All,
Dennis, in general comparing charge figures from balancing chargers involves a fair bit of uncertainty. I've seen 10% increasess while charging a pack that imbalances more than maybe 20 millivolts cell-to-cell, and some of my Pattern flying buddies report worse. The datalogger info (EagleTree in our case) is much more consistent, and agrees with the old Astro 109. Yes, I still keep it around.

I can easily see where props would make the difference.

Dean P.

Igor Burger · « **Reply #26 on:** October 02, 2009, 01:00:12 PM »

Kim, what does it mean "only operates between 7000 rpm and 12000 rpm" .. what if I use pitch which will push me out of that, or motor with another number of poles etc. ?

Paul Walker · « **Reply #27 on:** October 02, 2009, 01:10:27 PM »

Quote from: Igor Burger on October 02, 2009, 01:00:12 PM

Kim, what does it mean "only operates between 7000 rpm and 12000 rpm" .. what if I use pitch which will push me out of that, or motor with another number of poles etc. ?

I can verify that the motor, no matter the KV, will not run below 7000 nor go above 12,000 with that ESC. For most stunt applications, this isn't a problem.

Paul Walker

Igor Burger · « **Reply #28 on:** October 02, 2009, 01:12:44 PM »

OK Paul, but what about number of poles?

Paul Walker · « **Reply #29 on:** October 02, 2009, 01:18:38 PM »

Quote from: Igor Burger on October 02, 2009, 01:12:44 PM

OK Paul, but what about number of poles?

That I have not tried to varry.

Paul

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #30 on:** October 02, 2009, 01:24:18 PM »

Quote from: Paul Walker on October 02, 2009, 01:10:27 PM

I can verify that the motor, no matter the KV, will not run below 7000 nor go above 12,000 with that ESC. For most stunt applications, this isn't a problem.

Paul Walker

I am guessing this is the same issue that the CC Phoenix governor has --it regulates in a particular rpm band--the band being set by the rpm and the number of magnets. When I first flew my E-Super Clown 2 or 3 years ago, I had to use High Governor mode, because the stock motor had 10 magnets and in the low mode, I couldn't get the rpm. Actually in the high mode, the rpm I wanted to run at was at the bare bottom of the range. Talk about being tight! Reminds me of how the throttle granularity of the JMP-2 and Ztron timers made a single tick equal to 3-400 rpm changes as I recall. Made tuning lap speeds tough.

When I switched to a 14 magnet motor, I could move to the low governor mode (I might have this backward). Also the rpm granularity was a lot better. However now I run in Set RPM mode, so granularity is not a worry anymore at all. These are the good old days!

But anyway, any one of the two bands and #magnet poles only worked in a fixed rpm range. kV didn't matter, but the # of magnets did (because the ESC governor is counting magnets as they rotate by).

Every motor I have had since then has had 14 magnets, and for the rpm range I run in (7500->9000, maybe more), everything works just fine.

Sorry if I am stating the obvious!

Igor Burger · « **Reply #31 on:** October 02, 2009, 01:30:41 PM »

Alan, that is why I asked ... my first motor which I tried had 6 poles (Jeti Phasor 30-3), now I have 14 in Axi, but MVVS has 12 and 16, so if that ESC does not allow some selection or automatical sensing, then that range must be too high for that 6 pole motor and too low for say 22 poles

Kim Doherty · « **Reply #32 on:** October 02, 2009, 02:46:02 PM »

Quote from: Igor Burger on October 02, 2009, 01:00:12 PM

Kim, what does it mean "only operates between 7000 rpm and 12000 rpm" .. what if I use pitch which will push me out of that, or motor with another number of poles etc. ?

Igor,

To obtain the 20 rpm step size we had to limit the operating range to 5000 rpm. 5000 / 256 steps = 19.5 rpm/step. We chose the 7000 to 12000 range ( we could just as easily have selected 8000 - 11000) as I could not think of an F2B application that would run outside of these bounds. To operate the motor you must select an rpm above the 7000 rpm floor value. The ESC will not run the motor below this threshold. The Schulze ESC is optimized for use with high pole count motors.

Just to be clear, the original package (Plett Orbit 30-12, Schulze 18.46k F2B ESC, TP 4200 5S2P battery and our timer processor) was optimized for open class F2B competition with no regard to other harware use. Which does not mean that you can't use it with other equipment only that we did not test it.

Kim.

Igor Burger · « **Reply #33 on:** October 02, 2009, 03:27:39 PM »

>>>We chose the 7000 to 12000 range <<<
so you just hard coded some (all) of ESC parameters :-)

so it is really for THAT combo ... for example you cannot use Neu motors as well as almost all inrunners ...

hmmm I prefer if I can set all myself ... OK, clear

Kim Doherty · « **Reply #34 on:** October 02, 2009, 04:30:08 PM »

Quote from: Igor Burger on October 02, 2009, 03:27:39 PM

>>>We chose the 7000 to 12000 range <<<
so you just hard coded some (all) of ESC parameters :-)

so it is really for THAT combo ... for example you cannot use Neu motors as well as almost all inrunners ...

hmmm I prefer if I can set all myself ... OK, clear

Igor,

I am not sure why you continue to be so negative about my efforts to provide a high quality electric power package. I apologize for not having asked you almost 4 years ago if you would be flying electric in the future and which motors, poles, settings you would like to have exposed etc. I frankly do not see a lot of people using inrunners for our application.

The Schulze 18.46k F2B ESC will work with any higher pole count motor and any timer, and any battery. If you must roll all of your own settings go ahead. you will still not have a better performing ESC.

This post concludes my participation on this forum.

Kim.

Paul Walker · « **Reply #35 on:** October 02, 2009, 05:03:55 PM »

so it is really for THAT combo ... for example you cannot use Neu motors as well as almost all inrunners ...

I believe that Mike Palko is using the Shultze 18.46 F2B ESC with a Neu motor.

Paul

Igor Burger · « **Reply #36 on:** October 02, 2009, 09:38:28 PM »

Kim, what is "negative"? I just say I prefere configurable ESC. :-) Do not take it personal.

If you like it, so use it. I do not see anything wrong.

Sorry if you feel it as an attack. I am just asking, because I want to know more about stuff which I did not try yet. Sorry again.

Roger Anderson · « **Reply #37 on:** January 20, 2010, 08:46:08 PM »

That battery also looks less than optimal. My TP 4000 5S2P battery weighs 14 ounces (396 g). That's 2 ounces less than your smaller capacity battery.

Paul Walker

Hi Paul,

I searched the TP web site and I could not find a 4000 5S2P battery that weighs 396g. I could only find 4S batteries in that weight range. The TP 5S batteries all seemed to weigh in close to the same weights as the Zippy 5S batteries found at Hobby King at around 499g. Am I looking in the wrong place? Where can I find these very low weight high power batteries?

Thanks,

Roger Anderson

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #38 on:** January 21, 2010, 08:02:53 AM »

Quote from: Roger Anderson on January 20, 2010, 08:46:08 PM

That battery also looks less than optimal. My TP 4000 5S2P battery weighs 14 ounces (396 g). That's 2 ounces less than your smaller capacity battery.

Paul Walker

Hi Paul,

I searched the TP web site and I could not find a 4000 5S2P battery that weighs 396g. I could only find 4S batteries in that weight range. The TP 5S batteries all seemed to weigh in close to the same weights as the Zippy 5S batteries found at Hobby King at around 499g. Am I looking in the wrong place? Where can I find these very low weight high power batteries?

Thanks,

Roger Anderson

I think I recall Paul saying that TP made them up for him. I think they will do that if you contact them directly.

Roger Anderson · « **Reply #39 on:** January 21, 2010, 09:05:19 AM »

Thanks Alan, I think you must be correct. Batteries like Paul describes do not appear to be available as off-the-shelf items.

Thanks,

Roger

Author Topic: Some interesting weight comparisons (Read 3073 times)

Alan Hahn

Alan Hahn

Alan Hahn

Alan Hahn

Alan Hahn

Kim Doherty

Alan Hahn

Kim Doherty

Alan Hahn

Kim Doherty

Kim Doherty

Alan Hahn