Originally Posted by ozair

Ron you are a YouTube Celebrity, here is video on your CG machine (this is what I used to build it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcys2GjouK4

and this is your thrust machine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V02lFaeJhHs

Great job on the videos. Any reason you didn't use end caps on the base of the CG machine?

Originally Posted by marsol

Great job on the videos. Any reason you didn't use end caps on the base of the CG machine?

I did not do these video's someone else did, but I did use end caps on the base of the CG machine, its the only way you will get it steady.

Just finished bench testing of the stock BL outrunner from my V1 SkyS from BH, same battery and Wattmeter used as per my previous post's http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...postcount=9757
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...postcount=9812

Stock 5x3 14.36Ap/11.92Vm/171.4Wp
MAS 6x4 Nitro 18.10Ap/11.79Vm/213.7Wp
TGS 6x4 E 22.32Ap/11.87Vm/266.8Wp
APC 6x4 EP 22.57Ap/11.79Vm/264.4Wp
MAS 6x4x3 EP 25.72Ap/11.72Vm/302.0Wp

Quite a difference to the RC Timer BC 2212/6-2200 outrunner and the Turnigy 2835-2200 inrunner from HK.

Originally Posted by ozair

Ron you are a YouTube Celebrity, here is video on your CG machine (this is what I used to build it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcys2GjouK4

and this is your thrust machine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V02lFaeJhHs

Regarding the first video, I don't know why he chooses to turn the arms out at 90 degrees to the base. First, it puts a twisting force on the T's, which he was careful not to glue to the base tubing, so naturally they sag to the outside. Secondly it puts the weight of the plane right over the T's. Just a little push and it would all fall over backwards. That is why the original design used the T's to begin with! So a short section of pipe could be put behind the verticals to prevent it from going over backwards. If the arms were left parallel to the base, as he originally put it together, and which would work just fine on most planes, including the one he is showing, the weight of the plane would be pretty much centered over the base. A MUCH more stable arrangement.

Nice design though!

Regarding the second video: I couldn't watch more than about half. He has the motor mount vertical so loose it is wobbling back and forth sideways. And he just continues to stick his fingers in the way of a prop and motor that is still connected to the battery. He even ignores the beeping that should wake him up to the fact that he should disconnect it. No more rcjose videos for me....

Gord

Originally Posted by Gordks

Regarding the first video, I don't know why he chooses to turn the arms out at 90 degrees to the base. First, it puts a twisting force on the T's, which he was careful not to glue to the base tubing, so naturally they sag to the outside. Secondly it puts the weight of the plane right over the T's. Just a little push and it would all fall over backwards. That is why the original design used the T's to begin with! So a short section of pipe could be put behind the verticals to prevent it from going over backwards. If the arms were left parallel to the base, as he originally put it together, and which would work just fine on most planes, including the one he is showing, the weight of the plane would be pretty much centered over the base. A MUCH more stable arrangement.

Nice design though!

Regarding the second video: I couldn't watch more than about half. He has the motor mount vertical so loose it is wobbling back and forth sideways. And he just continues to stick his fingers in the way of a prop and motor that is still connected to the battery. He even ignores the beeping that should wake him up to the fact that he should disconnect it. No more rcjose videos for me....

Gord

Actually he had the plane on the balancer backwards. The mass of the plane should be over the legs. I pointed that out to him after I seen the video. The arms were not designed to be moved outward, not sure why he did that and I pointed out to him that the arms should be as close to the fuse as possible to get the most accurate results. That is the reason for the adjustable base. On the second video for the Thrust Machine I also noticed that the upright the motor is attached to was very loose. He kinda changed my orig design there a little. And yes his safety techniques needs a little tweaking. But we're all amateurs and do the best we can.

Ron RC

Originally Posted by Ron RC

Actually he had the plane on the balancer backwards. The mass of the plane should be over the legs. I pointed that out to him after I seen the video. The arms were not designed to be moved outward, not sure why he did that and I pointed out to him that the arms should be as close to the fuse as possible to get the most accurate results. That is the reason for the adjustable base. On the second video for the Thrust Machine I also noticed that the upright the motor is attached to was very loose. He kinda changed my orig design there a little. And yes his safety techniques needs a little tweaking. But we're all amateurs and do the best we can.

Ron RC

I like the idea on the thrust machine. I will build one based on it. I will use a standard electronic scale rather than the pull scale although it will complicate things a bit. And probably put a T and two verticals below the motor mount, or even just two verticals a short distance apart with the motor mount joining them at the top to get around that lateral stability problem. Should be a lot quicker than cutting wood! Thanks for the idea Ron!

Gord

Originally Posted by Gordks

I like the idea on the thrust machine. I will build one based on it. I will use a standard electronic scale rather than the pull scale although it will complicate things a bit. And probably put a T and two verticals below the motor mount, or even just two verticals a short distance apart with the motor mount joining them at the top to get around that lateral stability problem. Should be a lot quicker than cutting wood! Thanks for the idea Ron!

Gord

Gord, actually it is pretty accurate for a down and dirty quick setup. I like the scale I used because it has a max hold feature and you don't have to keep an eye on it while revving up and beeps when going to hold. Plus I use it for weighing my planes. This is the one I used http://www.harborfreight.com/hand-he...ale-97227.html And yes, lots quicker than cutting wooden parts, kinda like the old Tinker Toys when putting together. Keep us posted on your design, I'm sure we will all be interested.

Ron

Originally Posted by ozair

Just finished bench testing of the stock BL outrunner from my V1 SkyS from BH, same battery and Wattmeter used as per my previous post's http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...postcount=9757
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...postcount=9812

Stock 5x3 14.36Ap/11.92Vm/171.4Wp
MAS 6x4 Nitro 18.10Ap/11.79Vm/213.7Wp
TGS 6x4 E 22.32Ap/11.87Vm/266.8Wp
APC 6x4 EP 22.57Ap/11.79Vm/264.4Wp
MAS 6x4x3 EP 25.72Ap/11.72Vm/302.0Wp

Quite a difference to the RC Timer BC 2212/6-2200 outrunner and the Turnigy 2835-2200 inrunner from HK.

=======
Yo Ozzie;
Good show - thanks for sharing. This stuff fascinates me!
.
.

Hello,

This is my 4th FPV plane flight and it seems there is a problem in the stock bixler motor or exceed 40 amp esc Im running. There is a high pitched squeal at random times. The attached link is from a 808 cam I had attached since its better quality than the cam I fly with. I lost my signal at 2 miles and when the Eagle Tree RTH kicked in I got the noise. My amps also jumped from about 7 to 18-20 during the noise. This has happened on 2 previous flights and the RTH also engaged then. Im not sure if this is a motor, esc, osd pro, or other problem. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

fpvplaneproblem.avi (0 min 54 sec)

Okay, here are my results using the ET data. Sorry I couldn't get the axis labels to be the same for similar data points but it was too cumbersome to try and get everything adjusted without spending too much more time on it. I have too much to do!
Here are the details of the tests.
Measurements taken:
Pack voltage
Current
Power = Pack voltage x current
Servo current
Fuselage temp
ESC temp
Ambient temp
I took RPM but I don't trust it so am not showing it

I took measurements using three different props:
Stock 5x3
TGS 6x4e (e-Bay $1 prop in fact)
APC 6x4p (pusher prop)

Then for each prop, I flew using the BEC and then disabled it and used an UBEC to see what the temps would be on the ESC.

I flew on two different days that were almost identical in temperature and wind. I didn't have enough time to do it all in one day.

I tried to let the ESC cool enough in between flights but it obviously didn't get back to ambient temperature. The wind was going to pick up both days so I had a somewhat small window of time each day.

For each flight, I took off, flew for approximately 1 minute at half throttle, then went full throttle for 20 seconds. After the 20 seconds at full, I cut the throttle completely and came in for a landing as soon as possible.

Here are the plots.

Looking at the numbers for the stock motor and the props that ozair did, I'm surprised that our power numbers are so different. His are 50-80W higher for the stock, TGS, and APC props. However, I was flying and he was bench testing and since there's less resistance in the air than just holding it on the bench, I think that may account for a little of the difference but I don't know enough to really state that as a fact. Just a possible theory as to why our numbers differ so much. Battery could make a difference too but in general, both tests between me and ozair were about the same.

There you have it. I can finally mark it off as done!

Originally Posted by StarHopper44

=======
Yo Ozzie;
Good show - thanks for sharing. This stuff fascinates me!
.
.

You're welcome SH.

Originally Posted by healthyfatboy

Okay, here are my results using the ET data. Sorry I couldn't get the axis labels to be the same for similar data points but it was too cumbersome to try and get everything adjusted without spending too much more time on it. I have too much to do!
Here are the details of the tests.
Measurements taken:
Pack voltage
Current
Power = Pack voltage x current
Servo current
Fuselage temp
ESC temp
Ambient temp
I took RPM but I don't trust it so am not showing it

I took measurements using three different props:
Stock 5x3
TGS 6x4e (e-Bay $1 prop in fact)
APC 6x4p (pusher prop)

Then for each prop, I flew using the BEC and then disabled it and used an UBEC to see what the temps would be on the ESC.

I flew on two different days that were almost identical in temperature and wind. I didn't have enough time to do it all in one day.

I tried to let the ESC cool enough in between flights but it obviously didn't get back to ambient temperature. The wind was going to pick up both days so I had a somewhat small window of time each day.

For each flight, I took off, flew for approximately 1 minute at half throttle, then went full throttle for 20 seconds. After the 20 seconds at full, I cut the throttle completely and came in for a landing as soon as possible.

Here are the plots.

Looking at the numbers for the stock motor and the props that ozair did, I'm surprised that our power numbers are so different. His are 50-80W higher for the stock, TGS, and APC props. However, I was flying and he was bench testing and since there's less resistance in the air than just holding it on the bench, I think that may account for a little of the difference but I don't know enough to really state that as a fact. Just a possible theory as to why our numbers differ so much. Battery could make a difference too but in general, both tests between me and ozair were about the same.

There you have it. I can finally mark it off as done!

Great job HFB. This data is very usefull especially the ESC temps, with and without the BEC. Servo currents are handy to know as well, were these the stock servos or the HXT 900's?

Was this data acquired with the Eagletree V4 same unit at HK for about $48-?

Originally Posted by healthyfatboy

Okay, here are my results using the ET data. Sorry I couldn't get the axis labels to be the same for similar data points but it was too cumbersome to try and get everything adjusted without spending too much more time on it. I have too much to do!
Here are the details of the tests. ...[SNIP]

Wow - I'm in candyland!!

Looking at the numbers for the stock motor and the props that ozair did, I'm surprised that our power numbers are so different. ...[SNIP]

To Ozzy and HFB:
What were the LiPo pack(s) you each used, and their normal & burst ('C') ratings? Might that have affected the numbers??

To HFB:
Were your full-throttle readings made during straight & level flights, ie no climbing, or turns where the loading (or unloading, depending on direction of turn) on the prop would've had some effect?
[[Addendum: Haven't 'blown up' your thumbnails & read, yet....just reading off the board here.]]

Or even, upwind vs downwind legs? That's one thing I'm interested in testing with my EagleTree when it arrives. Planning on setting 'er to steady half-throttle, & just flying some identical rectangle patterns to study that. And seems that's one area where bench-testing can provide some 'steadier' comparative data.

Originally Posted by ozair

...
Was this data acquired with the Eagletree V4 same unit at HK for about $48-?

Hi Oz;
Not to answer for him, but I'm pretty sure it was. (We've been comparing some notes 'backstage'). This more to say, you should be able to get it for more like $42-3 (USD - maybe that's the diff?). I'm not sure how HK's 'Buddy Code' thing works, but if my purchase enables one, I'd be happy to pass it along for your benefit if interested (or anyone else).

&&&
PS: HFB....What exactly is 'fuselage temperature'??

All this brings up another 'element' -- generically, what is a "safe" operating temperature for an ESC?

I know we've seen plenty about overheating 'em....and failures caused by (image of the insulation melted off my stock 20A 'Blue Label' in mind ), but don't recall ever seeing anything in here about any kind of temperature you wanta keep 'em below! IE, at what point do you 'know' you should seriously consider going to a higher amp-rated one?

And hey! -- now I gotta buy a new 20A 'Blue' for my EagleTree to test against my 'stilted' mod. Joy Joy Joy! *LMAO*

(It's a sickness.)