Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / February 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

How do you compare electric motors to Nitro engines?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
R. David Steele - 23 Feb 2004 02:21 GMT
Is there a comparison of electric motors to the typical RC
aircraft engine?  With the Nitro motor we have .40, .46, .61 and
1.2 (I think).  What would be the equivalent electric motors?
mike tully - 24 Feb 2004 05:06 GMT
Here's a good rule of thumb:

Take the price of a typical glow engine - let's say a .40.  Take the price that
it sells at - let's say $80.  Triple the price - $240.

Find an electric motor that is $240. There is your equivalent!  Don't let
people confuse you with complicated formulas. It's really very simple.
Although you will need those formulas to calculate what the appropriate
battery, prop and gear ratio should be.
R. David Steele - 24 Feb 2004 12:35 GMT
|Here's a good rule of thumb:
|
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
|Although you will need those formulas to calculate what the appropriate
|battery, prop and gear ratio should be.

That does not tell what size, power or amps are equivalent.
Paul McIntosh - 24 Feb 2004 16:31 GMT
Well, take that same .40 engine and figure it will be over 1hp.  IIRC, 1hp
is about equivalent to 770 watts.  Divide that by 8.4 volts (fairly standard
pack) and you will have to deliver almost 92 amps!  Remember that in
anything electric, there are losses in energy conversion so you have to add
maybe 10-20% to get the power to the prop.  Use a geabox and add 5% or more
to that.

As you can see, standard packs are going to rapidly fry trying to deliver
this kind of current.  The better way is to go up in volts (more cells).
There is a very good program for estimating electric needs called Motocalc.
If you want more precise answers, download that and play around with it.

> |Here's a good rule of thumb:
> |
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> That does not tell what size, power or amps are equivalent.
Doug McLaren - 25 Feb 2004 00:08 GMT
| Here's a good rule of thumb:

          ^^^^ obviously you meant to say `bad'.  Hope this helps.

| Take the price of a typical glow engine - let's say a .40.  Take the
| price that it sells at - let's say $80.  Triple the price - $240.

Ok, 0.049 glow engine.  That's pretty typical, right?  Price is about
$50.  Triple that is $150.  Except that I can get similar performance
out of a $10 motor.  If the $10 motor can't do it, a $40 cobalt motor
certainly will.

| Find an electric motor that is $240. There is your equivalent!

Actually for a larger electric, it's the battery pack that really
costs a lot of money, not the motor.  The motor prices tend to taper
off, but the battery price doubles when you double the price, and the
ESC price goes up as well, but not quite double.

| Although you will need those formulas to calculate what the appropriate
| battery, prop and gear ratio should be.

I think that's what they were after.

Signature

Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com                         you forth love if honk

Paul McIntosh - 25 Feb 2004 06:56 GMT
.049s are not typical and in the extreme minority in RC modeling.  The sales
figures I read in the trade mags say that the .40-46 clss is by far the
largest.

> | Here's a good rule of thumb:
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> --
> Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com                         you forth love if honk
The Natural Philosopher - 25 Feb 2004 11:12 GMT
> .049s are not typical and in the extreme minority in RC modeling.  The sales
> figures I read in the trade mags say that the .40-46 clss is by far the
> largest.

BUT in te elecricworld, speed 400 ios the largest. Why? Because its teh
cheapest way to go flying, like a 40 is with IC power.

Concluson. Don't compare electric to glo. Its a futile waste of time.
Power is developed differntly RPM wise, teh motors are not fixed power
devices either, the props are more efficient, and the pack is at least
60% of the equation. And the cost/performance/size graphs are completely
different. And the airframes built to different standards.

If you want to just wrote a cheque, and get a 5lb ARTF into the air,
then et a 40 engine and don't ask silly questions.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.