Napisal/-a mihah » 30.08.2004, 19:20
Še nekaj:
Physical Examination.
I weighed the motor and found it to be 74g as stated. This is fractionally (i.e. 3g) heavier than a typical 400 can motor without flux-ring so it can definitely be considered to be physically a direct replacement for any 400 or 480 "long can" motor.
It is also only 80% as long as the 400 can motor, making it more compact. I have had CNC - cut ply-mounting plates specially made in 1.5mm and 3mm ply, examples of which are on their way to you.
The quality appears to be first class, with chromium plated flux ring, hardened steel shaft, nicely anodized aluminum front and rear plates.
I found that the motor could be dismantled i.e. the rotating can could be withdrawn without having to undo anything, which would impede use in pusher applications. As we discussed a collect with grub screw on the output shaft would be an advantage. I'm glad to hear that this will be available as an extra.
The motor is also very versatile in that its shaft can be reversed allowing it to be externally mounted for use in tractor applications. In both cases pusher configuration will also be practical using the planned collect.
Magnet positioning and coil winding all appear uniform and in the case of the coils, resin bonding appears to be well penetrated.
Bench Running.
Using 7 to 10 cells and a variety of props ranging from 7x4 to 10x5 this motor was noticeably wiling to swing almost any prop fitted with ease. It appears to have a fairly low Kv (RPM per volt) and as a result I felt it preferred to be "loaded up" with quite a pitchy prop.
I will at a later date compile a chart of my static results.
Using a Castle Creations Phoenix 35 ESC on default settings, start-up was fairly smooth after the initial "kick" and throttling throughout the entire range appears to be effortless.
Out runners I have tested in the past all seem to have a "rough" patch but these don't appear to suffer in the same way - perhaps this is due to your deviation from the LRK winding method?
Certainly at low throttle settings the motor appears to be particularly efficient giving the impression that duration would be greatly enhanced. Motor running temperature also appears to be very low.
I used 20Amps static as my bench-test limit and concluded that my favorite set-up was using 9 x 1300CP cells and a 9 x 6 APC "E" prop. This was then transferred to an airframe for flight tests.
Flight Test.
The airframe used was a 30" Tucano designed by myself for RCME as a free plan. Flight weight was exactly 700g in this configuration.
To say the model was "overpowered" was an understatement! In fact it had UNLIMITED vertical performance, suggesting that this set-up is giving in the region of 800 - 900g thrust.
I took this model to an event at the weekend and everyone was astonished with its performance. It is clear that a 1Kg + model would have excellent performance using the Long motor and 10 cells, as the in-flight current on 9 cells is probably only peaking at 15A, with cruise setting probably below 10A.
I have a 42" X-FIRE sport aerobatic model which I intend to fit the Long motor into next; I will report on that result of course. It will be approx 1200g flight ready.
Conclusion.
There is no doubt that this is an outstanding motor. Its power-to-weight ratio is amongst the highest I have encountered and its quality and operating manners are impeccable.
What cannot be predicted at such an early stage of course is its long-term reliability; but as the bearings are of model car racing origin, and as these are essentially the only moving parts, I cannot see them ever wearing out.
It is difficult to draw comparisons with other motors as I have never experienced such performance from such a small package! Even a direct drive Speed 480 or 600 can motor would struggle to swing a 9 x 6 prop at such low currents.
In this respect I imagine it is suitable for anything from such as my small 30" Tucano at 700g with fantastic performance, through 40" 1/12-scale models for scale performance, and up to larger slow-fly and powered glider applications using a larger prop and perhaps 7 or 8 cells.
I have not had the opportunity to fully test the Short motor yet, but all I can suggest is that if it is anywhere near as impressive as the Long version, then you are surely onto a winner with these motors, given your intended market pricing structure.
Best wishes,
Nigel Hawes.
(RCME Electric Flight columnist).
UK. 10/2003
Sakura Racing XI Sport Master (Endurance, stock, mild modified, modified), Hyper GTB E, Tekno EB48, itd...