Tail: pipe drive vs. belt drive - opinions and facts?

[Martin Petzold]

I consider converting my Eagle gasser to belt drive after having encountered
enough trouble with the orig. rod drive solution.
Can anyone enlighten me what the pros and cons of both systems are in real
life, i.e. what to expect with a belt...?

Note, my Eagle flies on a none-standard engine (ca. x3 orig. power) and is
taken really hard...

Martin

[x-guy]

The only pro that I know for belt is that it can survive in a crash, the rod
drive shaft usually break and the rod is very expensive (like Raptor 60 rod
is as twice expensive as the tail boom). The con for belt is that the
tension needs to be adjusted, too tight, it put more load on the engine, too
loose, it can not drive the tail efficiently.


"Martin Petzold" <econ@loxinfo.co.th> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D
:auf33i$lbp$1@news.loxinfo.co.th...
> I consider converting my Eagle gasser to belt drive after having
encountered
> enough trouble with the orig. rod drive solution.
> Can anyone enlighten me what the pros and cons of both systems are in real
> life, i.e. what to expect with a belt...?
>
> Note, my Eagle flies on a none-standard engine (ca. x3 orig. power) and is
> taken really hard...
>
> Martin
>
>

[Siam Heli]

Well, that reflects my thoughts...

Any more input, anyone who actually flies an Eagle or Freya with belt drive?

Martin




"x-guy" <xguy@hotmall.com> wrote in message
news:augig3$rsm$1@news.seed.net.tw...
> The only pro that I know for belt is that it can survive in a crash, the
rod
> drive shaft usually break and the rod is very expensive (like Raptor 60
rod
> is as twice expensive as the tail boom). The con for belt is that the
> tension needs to be adjusted, too tight, it put more load on the engine,
too
> loose, it can not drive the tail efficiently.
>
>
> "Martin Petzold" <econ@loxinfo.co.th> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D
> :auf33i$lbp$1@news.loxinfo.co.th...
> > I consider converting my Eagle gasser to belt drive after having
> encountered
> > enough trouble with the orig. rod drive solution.
> > Can anyone enlighten me what the pros and cons of both systems are in
real
> > life, i.e. what to expect with a belt...?
> >
> > Note, my Eagle flies on a none-standard engine (ca. x3 orig. power) and
is
> > taken really hard...
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
>
>

[Guy Nicholas]

> The only pro that I know for belt is that it can survive in a crash, the
rod
> drive shaft usually break and the rod is very expensive (like Raptor 60
rod

My Fury has hit the ground several times, taking out about 3 tail booms so
far. I have yet to break the shaft. My raptor also hit the ground several
times in its day and its belt was cut once...after about 5 bent booms. The
belt got cut when the tail actualy broke. The aluminum is thin and sharp.

The torque tube on my Fury runs $32 USD, the belt on the Raptor .30 was
about $25.

I will also say that I think the torque tubes in the X-Cells are pretty
tough compared to some of the others I have seen.

To be clear, I am not saying that the torque tubes are tougher than the
belts, just that in my crashes the torque tube has not been a problem. I
have seen many others crash where the tube went.

Regards, Guy

> is as twice expensive as the tail boom). The con for belt is that the
> tension needs to be adjusted, too tight, it put more load on the engine,
too
> loose, it can not drive the tail efficiently.
>
>
> "Martin Petzold" <econ@loxinfo.co.th> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D
> :auf33i$lbp$1@news.loxinfo.co.th...
> > I consider converting my Eagle gasser to belt drive after having
> encountered
> > enough trouble with the orig. rod drive solution.
> > Can anyone enlighten me what the pros and cons of both systems are in
real
> > life, i.e. what to expect with a belt...?
> >
> > Note, my Eagle flies on a none-standard engine (ca. x3 orig. power) and
is
> > taken really hard...
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
>
>

[Alan Robson]

I fly a condor with a belt drive tail. No probs.
My friend had the shaft driven version, only difference i found was that it
looks better!

[Peter Christy]

One other thing to consider:

Unless you lock the boom in place with a strategically placed self-tapper,
its possible for the boom to slip out slightly and disengage a shaft drive!
I've seen this happen more than once, and I'm told that even Curtis has
fallen foul of this one!

This can't happen with a belt!

A *properly adjusted* belt causes no more drag than a shaft.

Having said that, if you're into an ultimate 3D machine, then a shaft is
probably better able to handle the extreme torque changes.

If you want an all round sport or F3C machine, a belt is generally easier to
set up properly, cheaper, and more trouble free (in my experience anyway)!

--
Pete
christy@attglobal.net

[Tim van Halteren]

> Having said that, if you're into an ultimate 3D machine, then a shaft is
> probably better able to handle the extreme torque changes.

The Henseleit 3DNT has a belt. This should be proof enough that a belt drive
is not at all a bad thing. The Henseleit Rocket was one of it's predecessors
and it had a tube drive. I don't think Jan Henseleit would have changed it
from tube to belt if he didn't feel it was an improvement.

Belt drive usually uses less components (cheaper) and are more likely to
survive a crash.

Just my opinion of course.

Tim

[Jimmy Huang]

Someone actually questioned him about this one of those online forums.
His biggest reason for switching over to belt was that there was a
significant weight savings compared to the alternatives.

If you like to do aerobatic autos with a driven tail, I would stay
away from belt drives. Not as efficient. But as someone else has
said, if belt is setup properly, this difference is hardly noticeable
(not noticeable at all under engine power).

Jimmy

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 10:42:37 +0100, "Tim van Halteren"
<t_dot_van_dot_halteren@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>> Having said that, if you're into an ultimate 3D machine, then a shaft is
>> probably better able to handle the extreme torque changes.
>
>The Henseleit 3DNT has a belt. This should be proof enough that a belt drive
>is not at all a bad thing. The Henseleit Rocket was one of it's predecessors
>and it had a tube drive. I don't think Jan Henseleit would have changed it
>from tube to belt if he didn't feel it was an improvement.
>
>Belt drive usually uses less components (cheaper) and are more likely to
>survive a crash.
>
>Just my opinion of course.
>
>Tim
>