Rudy,
I think I agree with you. The Outrunner motor really seems to offer the needed torque at a reasonable efficiency to fly CL stunt "as is". We are now putting together electric systems that rival the weights of IC systems, + a full fuel tank.

So at this point, we have the flexibility to choose our rpm range and match the power to weight of any IC setup ( something the glow guys don't have).

Now I can't say that at some future point, someone will come up with a new plane with a geared electric system that beats anything. Also a geared motor isn't that much more irritating than a piped glow sound, so the judges can't complain that much!

But at this point of time, there really isn't a need to get to the 90% efficiency level in electric to be competitive with any glow setup. Of course for most of us the hand/eye coordination is never going to be there!

Personally, I thought the geared unit that Denny used was superior to the outrunners . It ran quietly, it ran cool and it ran perfectly, right up until it failed. We'd used them in RC many times without incident. But then, we were not using a Governor so we were only using one side of the gear teeth. I feel that the governor required us to use both sides of the gear teeth and as such work hardened them and caused the failure. I, personally haven't given up on the idea but with the success we've had using the outrunners, it's not on the top of the priority list right now. Maybe later this fall I'll have time to revisit this idea.

     Arch

Hi Dean,

"..... You're baiting me ... right, Rudy? ....."

Yes! (insert picture of me with Rod and Reel here) 

I know that you engineers just can't resist "geared systems". They are a great way to help too dissimilar things get along better. Without the 28 speeds on my bike I would have to move to Kansas, without the beautiful auto transmissions in our cars we would be even more dependent on the crazy middle east, etc.

But, gears are not always the answer.

I started flying when I was 16. All my life I have had a great deal of confidence in the planes power system, both piston and jet. There was ONE exception, the Cessna 421 twin I flew during college. Their GEARED engines were notorious for having problems. I never trusted that plane and it was one of the very few planes I did not enjoy flying. Like I said in my post, the power is great but it comes at too high of a price (reliability) for me.

I do understand, and admire the wonderful attitude you engineers have that drives you in your pursuit of perfection. If our little corner of the hobby had a mission that required more power than our present rules allowed, then I could see (maybe?) giving up some reliability, adding noise, working harder, etc. just to get a little more power out of a legal system.

The rules on our power systems in CLPA are such that the mission in CLPA is met with power systems that are well below the max. size/power allowed. Unless the mission changes (longer than 67' lines allowed, different power hungry maneuvers, much larger planes, etc.) then I see no reason to trade reliability for some gain in a smaller than legal motor. It is just too easy for us to add more "reliable" Volts. We seem to be at a more than satisfactory place using only 1/2 of our allotted Volts under the rules (18.5V). Even the Wet guys are still way below their rule size limits, and they still have a VERY POWERFULL YS supercharged .91 on a pipe in reserve if needed! ;-)

I can see why geared systems are attractive in RC pattern. The weight limit on a relatively large 2M plane does not leave much room for a very large power system, it needs all the power per oz. it can get. Plus the power mission is much more challenging in RC pattern, with power draining maneuvers on a looong vertical up line.

For years we tried the geared systems in IMAC. Now, with the availability of LARGE non-geared outrunners and LOTS of volts, we never looked at gearing again and the manufactures have stopped making them.

But ..... Please keep the candles burning late into the night in your reseach lab at the Bob&Dean "Skunk Works". We all benefit from your hard work and talented brain cells! 

PS: I like your last idea. The full size aircraft using electric power are using belt drives but they don't seem to scale down to our size very well?

Warm Regards, 

Hi Guys,
We do have the brake with the CC and many other brand ESCs, that's how we stop the prop for landing.
We use the regenerative braking in Pattern, and the restarts are sometimes problematic.
It sure helps: as a matter of fact, it is vital in some places in the F3A schedule.
I don't see CC modifying the governor mode to use it, though. The loop stability problems are ugly!
Cogged belts don't like more than about 20 K RPM. The NEU ORK series with Kvs in the 1000 to 1400 range would belt nicely, and the rubber band will help attenuate the cogging/commutation vibration that makes prop and airframe noise. Someday ...

Dean