Why Bother drew, get some car ESC's and program the TX so reverse works friendly for its application. Thats what I would do for reversing with nacelles of those type.

Originally Posted by silenthunter

why bother drew, get some car esc's and program the tx so reverse works friendly for its application. Thats what i would do for reversing with nacelles of those type.

lol ftw.

So are you ordering your reversing esc's now?

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...idProduct=8993

LOL. The problem is that car esc's rarely go above 4 cell voltage, the kong sized one above does 4 cells.
One needs to look around for options on this.

Actually that esc fills the bill nicely, its not THAT big. And 100 amp is perfect.

Remove the fan, and re position the capacitors to suit.

Guys I've been thinking ever since K Mr A380 asked about internal thrust reversers & after 4 or 5 large mugs of coffe I think I may have something
"Internal thrust reverser Doors Like clamshells that reverse the EDF's thrust flow.

Originally Posted by SilentHunter

Why Bother drew, get some car ESC's and program the TX so reverse works friendly for its application. Thats what I would do for reversing with nacelles of those type.

Yes, of course, I was just pondering how to make a scaled down mechanism.

Originally Posted by demondriver

Guys I've been thinking ever since K Mr A380 asked about internal thrust reversers & after 4 or 5 large mugs of coffe I think I may have something
"Internal thrust reverser Doors Like clamshells that reverse the EDF's thrust flow.

Yes, that is what I said in my previous post, sliding the cowl also would allow for escaping air.

Would be tough to place the servos, but I digress.

^^^^I kinda disagree with it. sometimes we've just got to dumb things down a bit and think of the simplest solution. this mechanism would be super simple to make, without putting much (if any) load on the servos. the hardest part would be making the outer shell slide open when the clamshells close. that being said, even that can be dumbed down to get the simplest solution.

Well if its so easy to make lets see it on your 57!

Everything seems simple in the head, I've built enough stuff to know that it usually does not end up that way. Even the "simpleset" device ends up being a pita! Look at my reversing shells. Quit a bit of screwing around!

Yeah you can make little doors open etc, but if they do nothing then its pointless really. I have never studied thse devices before, not sure whats going on in there on the real ones or the angles etc.

Originally Posted by SilentHunter

Well if its so easy to make lets see it on your 57!

Everything seems simple in the head, I've built enough stuff to know that it usually does not end up that way. Even the "simpleset" device ends up being a pita! Look at my reversing shells. Quit a bit of screwing around!

Yeah you can make little doors open etc, but if they do nothing then its pointless really. I have never studied thse devices before, not sure whats going on in there on the real ones or the angles etc.

Definitely true, it always never works.

The real ones are pretty complex. They siphon air off of the turbofan, but not the jet.

Originally Posted by SilentHunter

Well if its so easy to make lets see it on your 57!

Everything seems simple in the head, I've built enough stuff to know that it usually does not end up that way. Even the "simpleset" device ends up being a pita! Look at my reversing shells. Quit a bit of screwing around!

Yeah you can make little doors open etc, but if they do nothing then its pointless really. I have never studied thse devices before, not sure whats going on in there on the real ones or the angles etc.

I found these Pics Silent, they show real schematics of real thrust reversers, Man these things have gotta be complicated to build!

Boeing 767-400 thrust reverser test. (0 min 23 sec)

isn't an EDF basically a turbofan? just sayin. LOL.

as far as the 57 goes, I'm not going that extreme. I know thrust reversers work, even at model scale, but at what cost? there's always something lost from something gained, so I tend to play percentages. as for the above statement, the real ones aren't all that complicated. I was an aero engine mechanic at Air Canada, so I've got some experience with this stuff and the real designs are fairly dumbed down, all things considered. remember that designers will ALWAYS go for the easiest and most cost effective solution to a problem, mostly cause that's what makes sense.

I guess that means I stick to my original statement, although a will concede that simple often can end up becoming complicated.

ill use it just because its cool

If real aircraft were powered by electric motors the engineers would use reversible ESC's. Nyuk, nyuk.

wow...just..wow...