Originally Posted by Draknkep

Hi Guys....

I'm curious as to what the all up weight of this plane comes out to??

I have a 73" Aero-Works 90-1.20 Yak that comes out to 12.8 pounds with two 5S 4000mAH packs. I'm thinking of selling the plane, and getting the Slick when it is available.

Would and Axi 5330-18 with the previously mentioned packs be too much?? It's 2467 watts..

SteveT

Or I have an Axi 5320-28, on 8S....would that be enough??

SteveT

nice video Bonedoc!looked like you kicked it when you punched it.
also power came in handy for the "on purpose fall out of hover to drag rudder on ground" move..nice

what's the kv of the motor?

Moto weighs the same as Hacker A50 L series, so it's slightly on the heavy side, but doable for sure.

Originally Posted by Fig Jam

As some of you may know I prefer to use Inrunners in my larger planes, I was going to fit a Hyperion 4025-14 in the 70" Slick originally but peer pressure and pride forced me to go with a Neu .

The Slick presents a bit of a problem if you want to go with a geared Inrunner due to the short Firewall to spinner distance, ideal for PNP Outrunner's that the Slick was designed for but not so easy to accommodate a geared Neu.

I wanted to use commonly available components and basic hand tools so that anyone could duplicate my install. All the parts were ordered from Tower Hobbies or Horizon ( including the G10) and only basic hand tools were use during fabrication (Dremel, cordless drill, screwdriver). I think I paid about $50 for all the materials I needed, the G10 fiberglass sheet was the most expensive purchase at around $32 from Tower (stock# LXA272) but enough material was left to make another half dozen mounts. I also bought 2 packs of threaded inserts (stock# LXE070) and 2 packs of Carbon fiber tube from Horizon (stock# EFLM1960), these along with the threaded inserts are used to make the motor mount spacers.

I first measured the distance from the firewall and the front of the cowl, that being the distance I needed from the back of the mounting plate to the prop driver face. I then measured the distance from the rear of the motor to the prop driver face to determine the difference. The G10 plate was 2.5mm thick X2 so I had to take that into account too.

The Carbon tubes were then cut to length and the threaded inserts ground to fit the inside of the tubes and glued in place with 1 Hr Epoxy. The front and back mounting plates were drilled for the motor mounting screws and fire wall mounting bolts and the inner holes dremeled out to fit the front of the gearbox and the motor case. The firewall center hole was enlarged to accommodate the rear of the motor and new mounting holes drilled. Once the epoxy had set the mount was assembled and the motor attached, a test fit proved that I'd measured correctly , so everything was mounted up ready to go.

RTF weight is right at 9lbs 1oz with a Hyperion 4350mAh 6s pack. I ran up the motor in the basement but only made it to half throttle before things started flying off shelves! The maiden will have to wait until the weather clears up in Kentucky, I'm thinking that the power will be adequate.

So if you have ever wanted to try an Inrunner but didn't know how, you've one less excuse now! Hope this is useful for some folk, if you have any question feel free to ask.


Mike

That is a really great install. Very interesting approach and very clean. I am running a Hacker inrunner on mine as well and my mod was to cut off the front of the motor box to get the correct length for the aluminum mount. I had to rebuild the front of the motor box and make sure I accounted for the correct thrust angle. Your mod is much simpler. Plane flies great and love the sound as well.

Mr. Stoops,

Are you or have you used the Reaper Xl recommended for this plane at altitude yet? I am slightly higher than you and am used to a lack of power, I just don't want to buy a few motors until I get it right. I feel 1900 watts should work, even with 15-20% loss of power, but I thought I would ask anyway. Thanks!

Bryce

I still don't understand why you would loose any power with an electric.......just prop it up so you pull the same power out of the motor........

Originally Posted by G.P.

Got my Slick today.....which was in record time for something coming from across the border. Unfortunately the United Postal Smashers smashed the canopy pretty good. Rob at ADCHobbyStore.com is already taking care of it though, so I just want to send a Big Thank You! out to Rob. I've dealt with other vendors in the past that have left me hanging, so I really appreciate the great service from Rob and Ben.

Sorry to hear about the UPS "smasher" damage. We'll get you setup. Thanks for the kind words

Rob

Originally Posted by reelcoolfish

I still don't understand why you would loose any power with an electric.......just prop it up so you pull the same power out of the motor........

That would be my thought as well, but since the air is thinner, does that mean that you have less cooling for the motor, ESC, and batts or is that not as much of an issue?

Maybe I’m full of it, but it seems to me it would take
–more- power to hold the same weight object up in thinner air? So equal power in does not equal power out needed at the prop for a given weight?

[edit] I may have gravity and air density confused.

Hopfully you'll get the full scoop from Stoops.

Kevin

Originally Posted by Wildman777

That would be my thought as well, but since the air is thinner, does that mean that you have less cooling for the motor, ESC, and batts or is that not as much of an issue?

You have less air for everything so all the airfoils (prop) will produce less lift at a given speed. But I agree that someone that is from up there should provide a much better prospective.

I set up the ICE 100 today. Direct soldered, soft cutoff, and 2 samples per second for data logging (for 22 minutes of logging.) I have the auto calibrate throttle but don't like the idea of having to waste full power milliamps for 4 seconds on the beginning of every flight to calibrate it. I may set the endpoints but the way that it was explained in the manual sounded a little confusing.

I wonder if using a throttle curve for the low end and high end would just work. I have the JR X9303 Heli version.

I took amp readings on the ground and with the built in logger. It seems like the logger is about 20 amps higher and 300 watts more than my e-flite watt meter. The watt meter is capable of reads over 100 amps and over 2000 watts. I am not sure if it is because the logger can sample every 2 seconds vs me looking at the meter for the highest # seen or something else.

I was very happy with the throttle response and timing on the ICE 100. It was cool the entire time of testing!

Hope the weathers good Thursday. Fall has arrived in Colorado and it has been windy as well.

Joe

Originally Posted by Brycycles

Mr. Stoops,

Are you or have you used the Reaper Xl recommended for this plane at altitude yet? I am slightly higher than you and am used to a lack of power, I just don't want to buy a few motors until I get it right. I feel 1900 watts should work, even with 15-20% loss of power, but I thought I would ask anyway. Thanks!

Bryce

Bryce what's your altitude? Scott does not have a 70" Slick yet but will soon. I let him borrow my Reaper 60XL for the 65" Vyper but that plane weighs less than the slick so it's not a fair comparison. I will be flying my 70" Slick again hopefully this Thursday with the new ICE 100. Scorpion 120 was not working. Scotts rule of thumb is to prop up in diameter and pitch to the next size to get similar performance. The amps and watts usually come up to what is recommended at sea level. This has worked very well.

That being said I still think that the same plane at sea level with the recommended prop is a little more powerful out of a hover than the same plane with the increased pitch and diameter at 5200ft. I don't think with electric there is any reason to go to a bigger motor at higher altitudes. Just match the prop to the amps and watts that are recommended. Gas planes suffer much much more at high altitudes. With gas planes a bigger motor may be necessary but also adds weight which increases wing loading in already thin air. Not a good combo. Any technical stuff Scott would be better to answer.

Joe

In hover and vertical pull-out, you need the same power from the motor regardless of altitude, because the motor is supplying the lift (discounting secondary effects like efficiency and prop wieght).

In more horizontal flight, when the wing is suppling the lift, the plane seems heaver because the wings supply less lift because of thie thinner air.

However, in a hover, when the motor is doing the lifting, proping-up is like making the wing bigger, to give you equivelant lift and power output.

Originally Posted by reelcoolfish

In hover and vertical pull-out, you need the same power from the motor regardless of altitude, because the motor is supplying the lift (discounting secondary effects like efficiency and prop wieght).

That makes sense. Work In = Work Out (minus some efficiency losses)

Sorry, I got nerdy there for a minute .

I guess the key is that the thinner air loads the motor less and causes it to draw less current with a given prop, compared to sea level. A bit of a brain teaser there for my pea sized brain

Was also thinking of the loss of lift while more horizontal. Does that lift not also come from the motor altimatly, since the motor is also pulling the wing forward?

I'd better stop thinking about this now before I blow up

Kevin