HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Feb 12, 2013, 01:21 AM
Registered User
United States, CA, San Diego
Joined Jan 2011
2,573 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterVRC View Post
There are also new CyclonePower 12blade alloys coming very soon. With the IR550-2200kv. Basically the exact same specs as the HET 2W30, and same output results as the ERC 1400w (2W30) combo.
Fractionally heavier... but only $90 each. Fully assembled and dynamically balanced.

Due out any day now...

I really like the ERC housings, but at $97 or so more.... over 100% more cost, for identical result.... you get BOTH CP's for the price of one ERC, and enough change to pay for the shipping too!
CP12B dynamically balanced with IR550s $90 each--WHERE?? rc-castle???
IntheTubeDeep is online now Find More Posts by IntheTubeDeep
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 12, 2013, 01:22 AM
Registered User
Australia, VIC, Melbourne
Joined Nov 2006
10,472 Posts
Hmmm, missed this....
Just the housing.

http://rc-castle.com/shop/product_in...oducts_id=2922

Not the typical CP housing. I am not sure who truly makes them. I have the 90mm version... fun to assemble! Well thought out and more than adequate strength in total. A bit overkill really - in strength and thus weight. So the 70mm will be the same. The 90mm housing is heavier than a Lander 90mm alloy! So this new design, by whoever, is the new leader of the overly heavy pack! hehe

A bigger issue is they are bigger than pretty well any other fans of their size. Longer... larger outer diameter (also due to the ribs on it). But you can make anything fit anything, if it is worth doing....
In the 90mm case it is notably bigger than all others, but the specs on the 70mm version are less dramatically larger.

So I suspect the CP motor/fan combo will be based off this housing. This housing with the CP IR550-40-2200kv motor as usual.
I liked the prior cast/welded alloy CP's better..... BAH.
$20 for the housing is good value. $19 for the rotor/sdaptors/spiner...also good value really. So $40 is a valid price.

I am not sure I will get one of them when they come out complete... I guess I will toss up on getting one housing/rotor to check over for now.
The Lander 10 blade... and I expect they will also do a 12 blade soon too anyway.... is a better option price-wise, for the same power result.

A few things coming out and I predict a few to come (Lander for one), so a bit of fence sitting time required, as far as 12 blade things go.
PeterVRC is online now Find More Posts by PeterVRC
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 12, 2013, 01:26 AM
Registered User
Australia, VIC, Melbourne
Joined Nov 2006
10,472 Posts
Raymond said the 10 blade was dropped off as the new 12 blade version was coming....
I assumed it would be the same housing as the 10 blade had used. Maybe it still will be, BUT if they list a CP housing and rotor as the prior post, then that is likely what the new setup will use too.
All the CS12 stuff (which Lander don't use the same CS rotors, and I am not sure about CP but I am pretty sure theirs are the CS12 rotor) is only fractionally more cost than CS10 stuff. So seeing they will use the same motor for sure, the 12 blade price should be a fraction higher than the 10 blade ($85) was.
Maybe they are slow on assembling and balancing the first batch due to their holidays.....
PeterVRC is online now Find More Posts by PeterVRC
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 12, 2013, 01:40 AM
Registered User
Australia, VIC, Melbourne
Joined Nov 2006
10,472 Posts
Oh, and another interesting thing is......

The CS10's in the Su don't sound that amazingly great, compared to many other planes where they do.
Lander has a 6 blade DPS fan (the prior model to the DPS 10) which is cheaper, by about $8, and sounds half way from 6 blade to CS10.... due to its great balance and high RPM. And they use, heading towards, 10Amps less per motor than a CS10 for the same thrust!
So those are another fantastic option, IF you don't mind the drop in 'whoosh'... which the Su does not give very well anyway.

ANY of the pre-assembled, balanced, alloy units around run great and sound great. Lander 6 or 10, CP 10, ERC 10 or 12. Balanced and Alloy = best you can get towards turbine like 'whine', which allows more airflow to be heard, thus more 'whoosh' too - though less effective in the Su.

At the moment (all the same outpout power/thrust) the Lander 10 wins on cost, but about 20g or so heavier. The CP 10blade (if they even exist anywhere now) was next in cost, and good 'medium' weight. The ERC way up the scale in cost (and Tamjets), like near double(!), but the ERC is lighter (30g?) and looks the best - but you don't see it anyway.
Until I see the new CP 12 alloy, which I expect wil be the same power and specs but just not as great a housing result (long and overly hefty), the Lander 10 blade is leading.

I actually have a Lander housing with a turned down a CS12-70 to fit. It was a Lander 6 blade and thus it is 68mm inner diameter. I have no motor of use to test in that at the moment. I only did that to make use of the housing that was lying around (and it was a fair amount of effort to do it all !). I have some 5S L2855-2300kv's - which alloy housings (Lander, prior CP cast ones, ERC) can't fit without machining the motor hub face (which I did) - but they have lousy bearings (as they came!) so I couldn't even test it on 5S.
Which reminds me of the ERC 12 blade... he turns them down to fit the 10 blade housings (as they are larger diameter than the 10 blade rotors). That is no issue in the end, but it does mean it is not quite a real CS12-70 fan anymore (like my modded one isn't).
PeterVRC is online now Find More Posts by PeterVRC
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 12, 2013, 01:50 AM
Registered User
Joined Jul 2007
2,086 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxthrottle View Post
...........Or seriously shed the extra weight.
Exactly!!

I suggested that in Post #6735 and 6765...................
davemilw07 is offline Find More Posts by davemilw07
Last edited by davemilw07; Feb 12, 2013 at 02:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 02:00 AM
You are a "go" for reentry
Maxthrottle's Avatar
High Orbit.....
Joined Jun 2009
6,262 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by davemilw07 View Post
Exactly!!

I suggested that in Post #6765...................
I don't think he really wants to so he doesn't have much choice other than to step up the power.

Trouble is he's only looking at the top amp number without comparing what the amp number gets in thrust. So ya it may be 75 amps but he's getting a full kilo + more thrust. If he drops back his thrust to around the same, his amp consumption also drops.
With some motors and this approach you can use less amps for a given thrust than the other motor that consumes less amps for a number of reasons; heat soak, magnet mass, pole count, can length, winding length and turns etc.
Maxthrottle is offline Find More Posts by Maxthrottle
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 12, 2013, 02:11 AM
Registered User
Joined Jul 2007
2,086 Posts
OK, then just spend $300 and buy the PnF version from BananaHobby, and start over with the stock setup (NO mods!!!!!!!)..............

(A twisty pilot's head doesn't give you very much extra performance).............
davemilw07 is offline Find More Posts by davemilw07
Last edited by davemilw07; Feb 12, 2013 at 02:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 03:07 AM
Registered User
Australia, VIC, Melbourne
Joined Nov 2006
10,472 Posts
I would never build a plane to a formula of "It needs to be a light as possible", I will never compromise "It needs to do what it needs to do - lower weight doesn't come into it".
Weight doesn't become a factor for a long way into higher levels with foamies. You have all the room from 'foam to composite'... usually 1Kg at least in something of this size.
Of course you will have to power that, but that is no issue.... there are plenty of solutions. People are running 1800w in 1000mm single 70mm jets. So powering a 1400mm Su adequately, even at 4.0kg AUW is doable.

Just don't try to power 3.5Kg AUW on 4S !! That is where the real issue is in this case!
By about 3.8Kg AUW, in any EDF jet, even 5S is nearing useful limits, and 4S was out of the useful region long before that. Probably back at 2.8Kg AUW area.
6S could do even some EDF jet designs at 4.5Kg AUW totally fine.
PeterVRC is online now Find More Posts by PeterVRC
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 12, 2013, 03:13 AM
Registered User
Joined Jul 2007
2,086 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterVRC View Post
I would never build a plane to a formula of "It needs to be a light as possible", I will never compromise "It needs to do what it needs to do - lower weight doesn't come into it".
Weight doesn't become a factor for a long way into higher levels with foamies. You have all the room from 'foam to composite'... usually 1Kg at least in something of this size.
Of course you will have to power that, but that is no issue.... there are plenty of solutions. People are running 1800w in 1000mm single 70mm jets. So powering a 1400mm Su adequately, even at 4.0kg AUW is doable.

Just don't try to power 3.5Kg AUW on 4S !! That is where the real issue is in this case!
By about 3.8Kg AUW, in any EDF jet, even 5S is nearing useful limits, and 4S was out of the useful region long before that. Probably back at 2.8Kg AUW area.
6S could do even some EDF jet designs at 4.5Kg AUW totally fine.
Right, the stock setup IS 6S!!

And the lighter the better, no matter how you look at it....................
davemilw07 is offline Find More Posts by davemilw07
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 03:19 AM
Registered User
Australia, VIC, Melbourne
Joined Nov 2006
10,472 Posts
Lighter is never better in foamies....
Not in one of the 29 I have anyway. (well, 5 more unfinished/unflown too)

They all are upgraded power and batteries, to get more weight (never weight just by adding wasteful weight, but always via battery weight and mods), and fly better than stock notably.
Not featherweight bits of paper in the wind, and have proper inertias etc. so that they actually fly like a real plane does (break more like real ones when they crash too though!)
PeterVRC is online now Find More Posts by PeterVRC
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 12, 2013, 03:22 AM
Registered User
Joined Jul 2007
2,086 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterVRC View Post
Lighter is never better in foamies....
Not in one of the 29 I have anyway. (well, 5 more unfinished/unflown too)

They all are upgraded power and batteries, to get more weight (never weight just by adding wasteful weight, but always via battery weight and mods), and fly better than stock notably.
Not featherweight bits of paper in the wind, and have proper inertias etc.
OK, I give up, end of discussion......................................

(I'm way off base here!!!!!)
davemilw07 is offline Find More Posts by davemilw07
Last edited by davemilw07; Feb 12, 2013 at 03:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 04:44 AM
Registered User
Australia, VIC, Melbourne
Joined Nov 2006
10,472 Posts
The twin CS10 HET 2W30's give:
2.80Kg thrust - settled (eg after peaks and from 5secs onwards), but slowly degrading. (3.0Kg initial peak).
126Amps (135Amp peak) and 2550Watts for that 2.8Kg. 20.2volts, or so, doing that, which is not too good! The battery itself should not have an issue with the current, but the IR/Motors impedance balance is costing Volts.
Tested with a 5000mAH Nano 65C - which is thus supposedly 325 Amp "capable".

But it was about the best I had predicted and expecting really.
Seeing one unit on its own can run at 75Amps, and there is no way any battery is going to maintain 150Amps WITH decent Volts too, thus both Volts and Amps are assured to be notably lower with two of them running.

I got no reverberations through the range, so that was good - better than before. But I know one fan balance is fantastic and the other pretty good. Plus with the silicone 'beds' for them. Though I wouldn't mind the more 'rigid' sound of alloy in there also - I can tell they are plastic housings.
I am not sure anything can help gain 'whoosh' but it can only be better to have less of the 'other' fan housing based noises.
I decided I will get a pair of those new CP housing/rotors, seeing I have a few planes I can play 'musical fans' with if they don't suit one or another best.
I also have two 10blade Landers I could use, but they are/were aimed for other single fan jets and I don't think I could offset their added weight and get it all balanced (the CP/HET weight totals are lighter).

DOH... forgot to weigh the Su while I was at it......

With the air brake and LEF's added now, I hit my 16 Channel maximum! I guess that is efficient use of the RC systems potential! LOL (eg no channel 'wasted'). I need to make up a new 'flight manual' (A4 page) to read before flight so I remember what all the switches and dials do! Every single surface can do pretty well any possible thing a real one could (switchable mixes galore!). Though I doubt I will get to test all control conditions in less than 20 flights!

I have four 'big' (well, 1400mm or so areas anyway) EDF jets awaiting me finding a new runway! So that they aren't wrecked before even taking off, or on their first landings! And it is not easy finding one! So far.....
PeterVRC is online now Find More Posts by PeterVRC
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:01 AM
Registered User
Australia, VIC, Melbourne
Joined Nov 2006
10,472 Posts
3650g AUW with Nano 6S 5000mAH 65C (oops, 3655g)

I need to work out which 'side' of the CS10's need more airflow to realise more of the potential thrust......
Usually the exhaust side in most aircraft, but the Su exhaust tube diameter isn't too bad really. I think it was 60mm or 61mm when I measured it last.
If they optimised the inlet side and cheaters for 6 bladers, maybe it is the inlet side that is the CS10/12 shortfall really. I would probably need to cut a test cheater in the underside, to test it, and then replace it permanently again if it didn't help.....

Oh... and also test with two batteries in parallel first to see what it could even possibly do if it had more than enough Volts and thus Current to feed what the fans could do. (eg maintain mid/high 21V). Mainly as a cross reference to use with larger cheater test results afterwards to help pinpoint what issues there are.
But I am not going to do anything that make it un-airworthy for long (eg hours) as it is ready to go (well enough) as it is really.
PeterVRC is online now Find More Posts by PeterVRC
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:29 AM
Registered User
hklagges's Avatar
Munich
Joined Dec 2008
1,097 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterVRC View Post
If they optimised the inlet side
I don't think it is optimised - just look at the fat piece of foam that obstructs the inlet next to where the main gear sits.

Cheers,
Henrik
hklagges is offline Find More Posts by hklagges
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 06:09 AM
Registered User
Australia, VIC, Melbourne
Joined Nov 2006
10,472 Posts
Yeah, but I don't know if they tested for that and made the other 'steps' and things (cheaters too) all to help offset that 'bump' too.
I don't hear 'whoosh' and usually 'odd shapes' and paths in the airflow cause white noise. So maybe the flow around it is reasonably 'nice' anyway. But it does look quite a messy/intricate inlet side total really!

Though admittedly I did not put my ear close to it to check better ever, LOL.
The power of WOT is quite awesome, even scarey, when tethered to a scale and keeping ready at the nose to stop any runaway happening if something fails! hehe
Boy would this thing LEAP ahead quick smart if unleashed!

I keep seeing people adding "non-techo" really terrible hack jobs of cheaters to over-powered jets, so they can feed the fan enough, and they 'work'... fine as far as flying results seem. I build/cut my NACA style cheaters... or bevelled/rounded edges..... and they hack away with a knife in a square, or trapezoid, often with no bevelling etc, and whilst it might not be optimal it does still give them the big power boost required. LOL.

My 3.6Kg Me-262 'only' has 2.8Kg thrust and it flies fast and fine - and can do anything a real one really could anyway. (probably does more really, seeing they were relatively low end jet engine technology back then).
This Su flew fine in speed terms at 3.2Kg area.... even when very nose heavy (a mistake), and even still taking off within 20metres (no TV used, plus I don't even know how it DID achieve that short distance!). So with 2.8Kg thrust in it now - not that it is going to be much different to before - just the 65C batteries now, so it might have been more like 2.6Kg thrust before on the 30C's - that will do its 3.65Kg fine too.
But if I can get a bit more, seeing the EDF's are technically fine doing it, then that can't hurt.... hmmm, except in flight time if used a lot! I'll worry about improving that aspect later..... move to 6000mAH or more if it can fit. The one main bane of the Su.... very limited battery space.... though I have about 50mm of length spare in the tray as of now....
PeterVRC is online now Find More Posts by PeterVRC
RCG Plus Member
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion LX F-35 Vs Freewing F-35 Mmarshall Foamy EDFs 17 Jul 09, 2014 06:49 AM
Found SU-34 Freewing lw777pilot Aircraft - Electric - Jets (FS/W) 1 Dec 15, 2013 01:25 PM
New Product Brand New SU-35! 70x2,TV and made by Freewing!Update:Worldwide Availability neversommer Foamy EDFs 593 Jan 09, 2012 09:02 PM
For Sale Freewing SU-34 stock battery - Brand New JGuilty13 Aircraft - Electric - Batteries & Chargers (FS/W) 0 Nov 29, 2011 02:01 PM
For Sale Freewing SU-34 stock battery JGuilty13 Aircraft - Electric - Jets (FS/W) 0 Nov 29, 2011 10:29 AM