HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Feb 06, 2012, 06:35 AM
No, I dont work for HH ;)
Bowerz's Avatar
Southampton, Hampshire, UK
Joined Sep 2009
3,786 Posts
Not sure then, maybe i'[ve been unlucky, but my p-51 went after around 25-30 flights, my 4-site in 14 flights (i was counting after the P-51) and since then, i haven't brought any others.
Bowerz is offline Find More Posts by Bowerz
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 06, 2012, 06:58 AM
Way to many airplanes!
Canada, QC
Joined Oct 2009
5,489 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowerz View Post
Like i said earlier on, i would rather pay slightly more to not have to keep replacing motors. the fact is these micro brushed motors burn out way too quickly for my liking. However if they have changed the makeup of these motors and fixed that issue, i'll be all happy!
I'm sure they are the same motors because on average, you should get at least 100 flights easily on them, so overall, you were not lucky! And the way I (and likely HH too) see it, people who buy those airplanes fall mostly into two categories:

1- People who don't have much experience, buy those small airplanes, and crash them badly before the original motor die.

2- People who have lots of experience, who will get 400+ flights out of those, before something new come out, or/and they get bored of them. They won't mind changing 3 or 4 motors on them during that time, at the cost of $5 each (solo/bravo) for a total of $120 (still cheaper than brushless).

The biggest problem is truly when you don't get those 100 flights (again, average!) out of a motor. Cannot complaint, I've been lucky so far. My worst one lasted 72 flights, but I have a few that lasted 200+ flights. I always have one ready with the right pinion and long wires on it, so it fit any of my UMs. And I remove the front lip on the motor mount of my 4-Sites, Extra, etc so I can pull the motor from the front instead of the back. This allow me to change a motor in about 5 minutes, so I can even swap one during a flying session if I want.
RealGambler is online now Find More Posts by RealGambler
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 06, 2012, 12:07 PM
Kit Manufacturer
coreman's Avatar
United States, MA, Southbridge
Joined Feb 2010
3,573 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealGambler View Post
I'm sure they are the same motors because on average, you should get at least 100 flights easily on them, so overall, you were not lucky! And the way I (and likely HH too) see it, people who buy those airplanes fall mostly into two categories:

1- People who don't have much experience, buy those small airplanes, and crash them badly before the original motor die.

2- People who have lots of experience, who will get 400+ flights out of those, before something new come out, or/and they get bored of them. They won't mind changing 3 or 4 motors on them during that time, at the cost of $5 each (solo/bravo) for a total of $120 (still cheaper than brushless).

The biggest problem is truly when you don't get those 100 flights (again, average!) out of a motor. Cannot complaint, I've been lucky so far. My worst one lasted 72 flights, but I have a few that lasted 200+ flights. I always have one ready with the right pinion and long wires on it, so it fit any of my UMs. And I remove the front lip on the motor mount of my 4-Sites, Extra, etc so I can pull the motor from the front instead of the back. This allow me to change a motor in about 5 minutes, so I can even swap one during a flying session if I want.
Good tip on the mount mod. Going to try that on my polecat
coreman is offline Find More Posts by coreman
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: And into the winter season...
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 06, 2012, 12:38 PM
Registered User
brushless55's Avatar
United States, CO, Longmont
Joined Nov 2011
3,887 Posts
What is the best replacement brushed motor for these ?
brushless55 is online now Find More Posts by brushless55
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 06, 2012, 12:57 PM
Registered User
Canada, ON, Calabogie
Joined May 2011
261 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by brushless55 View Post
What is the best replacement brushed motor for these ?
I have had good luck with Solo pro motors
These motors are about the same power but seem to last longer and are more consistent power wise. The stock PZ motors are not as robust and vary a lot in performance.

Don't throw out the old motor before removing the gear and connector. You need to replace the connector and the gear on the SX motor with the parts from the stock motor.
I buy 4-6 at a time and always have 2 on the shelf.

All three of my micros have this motor and with a 5043 prop and Hyperion 240 mah flat packs I'm pretty happy with performance and flight times.
msdumo is offline Find More Posts by msdumo
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 06, 2012, 01:51 PM
Fly, be free! (splat)
United States, CA, Danville
Joined Jan 2008
1,378 Posts
The slow roll in the video looks great - does the AS3X system take care of that for you? I.e., no need to fiddle the rudder and elevator yourself to maintain altitude during the roll? I almost feels like cheating, but should make you feel like a great pilot!

There seem to be several favors of AS3X receivers out there - please forgive me if someone already answered this, but I I am wondering if this specific receiver will go into brushless mode like the AR6400 and allow us to add a brushless ESC?
jdwolters is offline Find More Posts by jdwolters
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 06, 2012, 02:46 PM
Way to many airplanes!
Canada, QC
Joined Oct 2009
5,489 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdwolters View Post
There seem to be several favors of AS3X receivers out there - please forgive me if someone already answered this, but I I am wondering if this specific receiver will go into brushless mode like the AR6400 and allow us to add a brushless ESC?
The only official answer we got so far from Seth Arnold is: "The ASK and Spitfire use a similar board to the AR6400L" That's not really conclusive.

But the good news is: There's an official picture of the receiver in the ASK-21 that clearly show the usual 3 pins connector for the motor connection! (And funilly, there's no motor in that airplane!.) So odds are that the brushless hardware is in place in the new receivers as well.
RealGambler is online now Find More Posts by RealGambler
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 06, 2012, 11:13 PM
Have fun
airpower's Avatar
Joined May 2007
6,148 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdwolters View Post
The slow roll in the video looks great - does the AS3X system take care of that for you? I.e., no need to fiddle the rudder and elevator yourself to maintain altitude during the roll? I almost feels like cheating, but should make you feel like a great pilot!

There seem to be several favors of AS3X receivers out there - please forgive me if someone already answered this, but I I am wondering if this specific receiver will go into brushless mode like the AR6400 and allow us to add a brushless ESC?
No, the as3x softens movements rather than eliminate them, you will still have to use rudder and maybe elevator, but it will be far less than without the system and with alot less coupling.
airpower is offline Find More Posts by airpower
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 07, 2012, 12:09 AM
Gopher huntin' stick jockey
turboparker's Avatar
East Bethel, MN USA
Joined Jul 2009
12,161 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRuggiero View Post
Being too lazy to research propeller efficiency relative to number of blades, and the UMX Spit's 4-blade prop, I offer this. The first of the full-size Spits (and Hawker Hurricane) were equipped with two-blade fixed-pitch props. The next generation had three-blade props. The Mark XI Spit had four-bladers; some Griffon-engined Spits had five-blade props, as did the Hawker Sea Fury.

Prototypes of the B-29 had three-blade props, but production versions had four-bladers. Likewise the early C-130 had three-bladers, while later versions had four-bladers. Newer C-130s have six-blade props. The Grumman C-2 has eight-blade propellers.

It would seem to me that, as power is increased, it is more practical to add more blades to the propeller to convert that power it into thrust, rather than increase the diameter. A smaller propeller disk allows shorter landing gear and closer placement of two engines per wing on a four-engine airplane.

How that translates to model airplanes, particularly very small ones, I don't know. Has anybody done tests?

Jim R.
Jim,

Propeller theory at large & small scales has been well-established for many years. A single-blade prop is the most efficient, regardless of scale. However, single-blade props are impractical in all but a few cases. A notable exception is C/L racing - where single-blade props are the norm, precisely because they are the most efficient. With our RC planes, a correctly-sized two-blade prop will provide better performance than a correctly-sized three or four-blade prop of similar design. Scale appearance & clearance issues are the reasons for using multi-blade props on our models. The tradeoff is efficiency. With glow & gas-powered planes, one can usually choose a more powerful engine of similar dimensions to offset a lower-efficiency scale prop. With electrics, that is not always an easy thing to do.

There are two primary reasons for using more than two blades on full-scale props:

1) When a two-blade prop of sufficient diameter to fully-absorb the engine's torque would present ground-clearance issues (or in the case of multi-engined craft, fuselage clearance or nacelle placement issues).

2) When a two-blade prop of sufficient diameter would have a prohibitively high tip-speed at typical throttle & pitch settings. You don't want the tips to go supersonic for any period of time, as it dramatically reduces efficiency & can damage the blades. Preferably never, but it happens on some planes during the takeoff run. The sharp snapping sound heard from planes such as Cessna 180s & Beavers on takeoff is not the engine's exhaust note. Rather, it is the sound of propeller tips going supersonic.

Joel
turboparker is offline Find More Posts by turboparker
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 07, 2012, 06:53 AM
Flyin' low & slow T-28s!
MaladroitFL's Avatar
United States, FL, Vero Beach
Joined Feb 2011
3,324 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turboparker View Post
Jim,
The sharp snapping sound heard from planes such as Cessna 180s & Beavers on takeoff is not the engine's exhaust note. Rather, it is the sound of propeller tips going supersonic.

Joel
Wow, that's very interesting. I never knew what that sound was. I always assumed it was the motor "popping" as it was warming up to an efficient running temp.

You learn something every day. Thanks!

Mac
MaladroitFL is offline Find More Posts by MaladroitFL
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 07, 2012, 07:25 AM
Kit Manufacturer
coreman's Avatar
United States, MA, Southbridge
Joined Feb 2010
3,573 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaladroitFL View Post
Wow, that's very interesting. I never knew what that sound was. I always assumed it was the motor "popping" as it was warming up to an efficient running temp.

You learn something every day. Thanks!

Mac
which is the same reason a bullwhip snaps, the tip has gone supersonic
coreman is offline Find More Posts by coreman
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: And into the winter season...
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 07, 2012, 10:14 AM
Your customer
Silverexpress's Avatar
Berkley, MI
Joined Dec 2009
1,394 Posts
Wrong thread....
Silverexpress is offline Find More Posts by Silverexpress
Last edited by Silverexpress; Feb 07, 2012 at 11:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 07, 2012, 10:42 AM
Registered User
Blacksburg, VA 24060 USA
Joined Feb 2000
3,216 Posts
turboparker,

Multi-blade propellers: I hadn't thought about the supersonic prop tip problem. Now I recall that the Republic XF84-H "Thunderscreech" suffered from that problem in a very big way.

I recall the time when free-flight modelers used single-blade props with counterbalance. This trend lasted longer on rubber-power Wakefield and similar competition models than it did on glow-powered models, where counterbalancing never seemed to work well, leading to engine bearing and mount failure. There was also the question of asymmetric thrust around the rotating axis.

From my own experience, I accidentally broke a blade on a rubber-powered indoor model. I flew the airplane anyway, and, despite the unbalanced shaking, the climb was much more vigorous. I didn't try any further tests on a one-blader.

Jim R.
JRuggiero is offline Find More Posts by JRuggiero
Last edited by JRuggiero; Feb 07, 2012 at 10:54 AM. Reason: additional thought
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 07, 2012, 10:59 AM
Your customer
Silverexpress's Avatar
Berkley, MI
Joined Dec 2009
1,394 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRuggiero View Post
turboparker,

Multi-blade propellers: I hadn't thought about the supersonic prop tip problem. Now I recall that the Republic XF84-H "Thunderscreech" suffered from that problem in a very big way.

I recall the time when free-flight modelers used single-blade props with counterbalance. This trend lasted longer on rubber-power Wakefield and similar competition models than it did on glow-powered models, where counterbalancing never seemed to work well, leading to engine bearing and mount failure. There was also the question of asymmetric thrust around the rotating axis.

From my own experience, I accidentally broke a blade on a rubber-powered indoor model. I flew the airplane anyway, and, despite the unbalanced shaking, the climb was much more vigorous. I didn't try any further tests on a one-blader.

Jim R.
The master of one-bladed aircraft...

1 blade propeller. Will it work on Nitroplanes Hawk 3D? (9 min 3 sec)


1 Single Rotor Blade helicopter experiment, Horizon Hobby Blade 400. (7 min 43 sec)
Silverexpress is offline Find More Posts by Silverexpress
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 07, 2012, 11:45 PM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2011
196 Posts
I called it. I'm sure we'll see a ultra micro icon a-5. Haha just came to mind randomly. Also I'm hearing tons of complaints of the brushed motors. There is no issu with them!!! They're cheaper, can last a long time, don't need super powerful batteries, and Ive never had any issues. When I was into airhogs I had a sharpshooter for about a year and a half until it got attacked by a dog, and even with their low quality I never had an issue with any of the motors. My mcp s has over 300 flights on the stock brushed motor. No issue here. It's just e-flute makes model that everybody wants that have brushless and barge more from hem. I think e-flits should make their umx's to have the option of a brushed motors to make them cheaper. Just my honest opinion on brushed motors.
Dittsboylogan is offline Find More Posts by Dittsboylogan
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Product E-flite UMX MiG 15 Ducted Fan Jet with AS3X Bowerz Micro Ready-to-Fly 139 Nov 03, 2014 05:46 PM
Article Horizon Hobby Blade mQX Micro Quad-Copter with AS3X RTF & BNF Review Michael Heer Multirotor Talk 30 Feb 22, 2013 09:47 AM
New Product E-Flite UMX Mig 15 with AS3X! Bowerz Scratchbuilt Indoor and Micro Models 4 Jan 16, 2012 08:02 PM
Discussion UMX S-Bach or Beast 3d (with AS3X)? The Spirit 3D Foamies 6 Jan 07, 2012 06:41 AM
Sold Eflite UMX Beast 3D BNF with AS3X Technology baddb1 Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 3 Dec 19, 2011 06:42 AM