|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.
| 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.