Here's my test results... I didn't run it too long, but I ended up with 141A max at 3167W max... and that is with the system in the plane.

Freewing SU-35 Build Video #10 Wattmeter (3 min 7 sec)

That is a very good result!!
Hold it upright and see if it lifts itself!!

But 2mins WOT time.... hungry!! hehe

Originally Posted by PeterVRC

That is a very good result!!
Hold it upright and see if it lifts itself!!

But 2mins WOT time.... hungry!! hehe

I did in the preflight video....and yes it was starting to lift itself.

V8, I can't think of what could have happened to your batteries. They should have been fine really. Though of course anyone COULD wreck batteries one ay or another. I don't really remember, but I vaguely recall you mentioning things like "just a bit puffed", so that shows you are aware of things and thus I would expect you don't thrash them to death, down to to LVC etc LOL

Both in the 185-200A area capability. Though I divide by TWO to decide their 'true' ability - probably due to lower end batteries and maybe 1.5x is ok for good batteries. This 'capability' seems a useful way to get an idea of what load that battery can do with 'less' voltage sag. If you load them more, they sag notably more and get hotter... so the 'half rating' is where they are still coping well enough.
I don't know if that is good, or bad, but I rarely puff any batteries at all. At worst "Hmmm, that is pretty hot". LOL

This then means in your case, say it is 95A for these two, if you do ask more of them then they are moving into more stressful areas.
Though mine are much the same too! (174A capable = only 87A 'easy cruising' for it, LOL)

The Zippy would be a higher IR than a 'better' battery (more expensive brand, supposedly better one) so what that does is limit the current draw, and thus power, because of the balance of the combination of motor/battery impedances.
Zippy are so-so - but I like their value. But you are going to get lower performance, due to that IR. Sort of an enforced speed limiter! And thus longer flight time. hehe
And this means even more likely to be all ok in your application.

The Gen's Ace.... no idea about that brand. Sounds average really. Technically much the same capability as your Zippy was - but probably is X amount better really. (lower IR you would hope). A rough guide of quality is $. hehe.
So across your two, and even my 5800's, they are all much of a muchness really. And that could suggest they are possibly not truly up to the task of what the output power costs. If anything, I am going to fry mine courtesy of the HETs now!!

You can see the IR of my Zippy, versus JK's Nano.... creating 110A versus 140A !! So whilst mine is 'economical' (hehe), X amount of the drop is likely to also be a battery under a bit more duress. Though, as they are not getting overly hot it could truly be pure IR - higher IR only causes the impedance balance produce a situation that the motor only 'wants' that lower current amount, so it is not any cause for higher battery duress, quite the opposite really.

You almost need an in-flight logger (Amps) to see what occurs across your entire flights. For an extra clue.

Glad I have 90A ESC's 'just in case'!!!
The Nano test would have upset the prior 60/70's!

Paralleled 5800 30C (= 60C in theory).... versus the 5000 65C Nano.... (not flying!)
It will be interesting to see the results!

Hmmm, I need those duct mounted ESC's!!! Work order assigned..... get to work!

peter
your theory is off
5800mah 30c = 174amp continuous
5000mah 65c = 325amp continuous
these batteries are not even close in comparison
unless I misunderstood your post.........c-rating does not add together when paralleling its still 30c battery chemistry however your continuous amps will increase due to the capacity increase when paralleling
example
1 5800 30c batt is 174amps continuous rating
2x 5800 30c paralleled would be 11600mah 30c which now has a continuous amp rating of 348amps it is still a 30c rated pack

??????
All of what you just stated shows....... 2x 5800 = 384Amps
That is the same as 5800 60C anyway. Paralleling effectively doubled the C rating.
Plus doubled the capacity of course.

But I can see the sentence I wrote that was not very clear.
"Paralleled 5800 30C (= 60C in theory)"...... should have said 'effectively 60C'.
LOL

The reason for doing the test is to see how paralleling "X"C, will go against a Nano 65C

I guess what thru me is I didn't think this model could hold two 5800 packs so I thought you were talking about two packs together making it a 5800 pack total, thats what a 6s2p 5800 30c would be 2 x 2900mah packs in parallel, the pack you should have said was a 6s2p 11,600mah. anyway I just misunderstood what you were saying.
still though no comparison with the two batteries the 65c 5000 will smoke it............at half the weight

Great flying characteristics on this one

Souper Flanker (4 min 48 sec)

My two Gens Ace 4800mAh 60C batteries should arrive Tuesday. The two 5000mAh 60C's have proven their ability and remain mildly warm after each flight. Looking forward to that as well as flying this morning.

Yeah, as mentioned, my outline was a bit vague and lacking enough detail to be fully clear.
It is 'out of plane' (beside it) testing, just to see IF a pair of lowly Zippy's can match the 65C nano.... and their current, volts and temps etc.

I do also have a pair of 2800 30C's but that paralleled battery end result will not be anywhere near the Nano.... just 168Amps, so not even half the ability. Though they are a theoretical match for the single 5800 30C, just a bit heavier. I guess I will test those also to see what comes out of that.
But even the 5800 test is just that... an unusable pairing, due to weight in that case, so it is just as a test of what result occurs. More just to store data on combinations.

By my normal 'rules' I would want about 250Amp capable batteries in this setup. (2x the 125A required). That means a 5000 50C or 60C (oh, surprise.. that is the Nano.... LOL).
But the 5800's gave OK results in other aircraft... lower results but adequate.... so I went cheapskate on it, seeing I was buying FOUR.
It still flies (flew) very well, FAST. So it would be interesting to see what level higher the Nano does - I think there is a lot lof loss is in the ducting with CS10's so that to get more thrust out, you need a LOT more power in. And something like the '140A Nano setup' versus '110A Zippy setup', might not even realise a good value return on dollar. For sure more thrust, but how much more? And even then, that gets reduced by airframe drag, so the overall cost of the yet unknown, but possibly small, gain is a LOT.
$108 versus $69.. for what return? At the moment I can see one part of the return will be $108 2min30sec flights, versus nearly 4min flights for $69! LOL
But anyway.... it needs recording to see the true thrust/speed difference.

A few more lighting modifications.

SU-35 more lighting mods (0 min 39 sec)

Originally Posted by jk671

Here's my test results... I didn't run it too long, but I ended up with 141A max at 3167W max... and that is with the system in the plane.

John, could you run the motor at half throttle for a minute and then punch it to full throttle and tell us the numbers. Not that this isn't a great setup but peak on a fresh battery can be misleading. Too, after that minute are you still getting the 1:1 TWR.

AUW also.... try getting on a scale and then holding it in your hand to find out how much it weighs if your small scale doesn't go high enough.
Actually I guess I could thrust test mine the same way by seeing how much lighter I get... actually that may depend on your scale. Mine gets an average and then posts a weight. So if I change it would come back with an error.

My Wemos top out at 113 amps after a minute but still do 1:1. So not sure if thats what to expect from a CS10 or if the setup is showing losses...


Question to all cause I'm stumped. Do any of you ever get a strong stutter from your setups at certain throttle ranges? Mine is enough to almost add a brake effect on the fans even though they are not programmed with brake on. Anyone read a thread or something like that? Anyone know what may be causing it or if its on the motor side or ESC? Mines low timing low PWM and the brake function is definitely not on.

max here are a couple ideas for you to chase down
1,check motor wire connections for cold solder, loose or bad bullet connectors to the motor
2, check motor wires where they come out of the motor for cut or damaged wire insulation causing a short to the case of the motor on one of the phases
3, incorrect timming can cause this also, try changing the timing and pwm rate
4, check esc/ motor compatibility......some motor and esc combo's dont play well together

let us know what you find

Max,

Are you using HW pentium/fentium 80a escs still?

Originally Posted by v8truckin

Max,

Are you using HW pentium/fentium 80a escs still?

The 70HV. I spoke with Mark about it and he said it does show up now and then but didn't have an explanation for it. But for some reason its starting to happens more than I care for. I've changed the timing but that only shifts when it happens.

I should ask up in the EDF talk thread.

Oh and thanks JCDFRD. Didn't notice your post but timing/PWM Low and hobbywing don't seem to be an issue with HETs 2W25. But I'll retest the connections. I may have messed something when I changed from the 80 to the 70.
Thanks.