I bought this motor to use with 1s batteries in a tony ray sopwith camel. Specs state it will produce 8w on 1s but I am only getting half that with a 5x3 prop. I measured 0.8A, it should be pulling about 2A. Tried it with 200ma and 600ma 1s batteries, with same results. I tried it with a 2s 800ma battery and got 2A/15w. Is anyone else using this motor on 1s?

The chart here seems to show 8.3W with a 5030 prop on 1s. I'd like to think 53gms thrust should be enough.
https://www.newegg.com/p/1SW-0121-00TW1
https://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductI...01029W6VAV.jpg

Originally Posted by AntiArf

The chart here seems to show 8.3W with a 5030 prop on 1s. I'd like to think 53gms thrust should be enough.
https://www.newegg.com/p/1SW-0121-00TW1
https://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductI...01029W6VAV.jpg

Yes but I'm only getting half that

The data is highly suspect. "Work" can be loosely considered equivalent to "pull". Irrespective of the prop, the work being done by the motor should be roughly proportional to the power going in to the motor.

I see 3.7V 4040 and 5030 having 7.6 and 8.3 Watts respectively, a ratio of 1.09. However, the thrust reported as 35 and 53g respectively has a ratio of 1.51. So this is saying the 5030 produces better than 50% more thrust for a mere 9% increase in power in to the motor.

I say "no way" to that.

Originally Posted by shane55

Yes but I'm only getting half that

Sorry read that wrong. Yeah that is a bit low.

Originally Posted by rocketsled666

The data is highly suspect.

That is very true, in a lot of cases.
I don't even need to try to measure thrust, just the wattmeter alone shows that I never seem to get what they claim I can from small, high kv motors.
With my favorite size of around 20"-24" span, I'm done with 2s setups. Used a lower kv 3s motor on my last build, a 24" Spitfire, and got the performance that the model should have. The other recent builds in the same size fly well, but it's bummer when a warbird flies really well and doesn't have the power to really have fun with. 1811s are good for their intended uses, but for slightly larger models I have no more use for motors like the C20. Still should have used a small 3s setup in a recent 20" P47, where the 1811 wasn't bad but didn't quite get it. I don't seem to get what the 1811 claims either. This motor with the same prop on 3s destroys the C20. https://www.altitudehobbies.com/coll...park-300-equiv

Darn, double post, thought I edited the last one.

Had to look further into the Tony Ray Camel specs, although I've seen them before. It's big enough, and like all Camels could use noseweight, to the point I'd consider using a 2000-3000kv 180 size motor in it on 2s, or similar. Likely will need the noseweight anyway. Used a 3000kv Eflite in on a recent 104 gram 24" build on 2s with a 4540 prop cut down to 4-1/8, and it was ballistic. You would have power to spare, and would not need that high of kv with a 5" prop. IMO I'd only use 1s UM gear if a model really calls for it and I'm more than convinced it will have ample power. For something as large as this Camel, a 180 size motor with a small 2s with 6A ESC (in the nose) and diode drop for 1s servos would work well. Built and flew a Camel before, and the CG needs to be far forward.


BTW RNAF built and flew the Ray Camel. Seems his opinion of the 5gm outrunner and forward CG could justify an 1811 sized setup on 2s. https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...7&postcount=34

Originally Posted by AntiArf

Darn, double post, thought I edited the last one.

Had to look further into the Tony Ray Camel specs, although I've seen them before. It's big enough, and like all Camels could use noseweight, to the point I'd consider using a 2000-3000kv 180 size motor in it on 2s, or similar. Likely will need the noseweight anyway. Used a 3000kv Eflite in on a recent 104 gram 24" build on 2s with a 4540 prop cut down to 4-1/8, and it was ballistic. You would have power to spare, and would not need that high of kv with a 5" prop. IMO I'd only use 1s UM gear if a model really calls for it and I'm more than convinced it will have ample power. For something as large as this Camel, a 180 size motor with a small 2s with 6A ESC (in the nose) and diode drop for 1s servos would work well. Built and flew a Camel before, and the CG needs to be far forward.


BTW RNAF built and flew the Ray Camel. Seems his opinion of the 5gm outrunner and forward CG could justify an 1811 sized setup on 2s. https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...7&postcount=34

Flying weight is supposed to be 45g though. I'm about 10g over that already. going 2s would probably add another 20g. an 8520 brushed set up maybe?

2s with small cells. Total battery weight determines usable power in watt/hours. The battery can be the same total weight as a 1s, although the lower kv setup should be more efficient, which is a benefit, and the ESC can be lighter in some cases, as the current is lower. I have a fleet of small, light weight 3s 40mm EDFs which people aren't going to compete with, using 2s setups. Clearly there are some UM builds that benefit from 1s setups and tiny motors, but there are 2 main points here:
1. The Camel needs noseweight. Mount everything as far forward as possible, and the weight becomes useful weight.
2. I've seen more UM builds than I can count, where builders add unnecessary weight such as 0.032" pushrods (detrimental aft weight in this case) when I would use 0.015", heavy servo/brick mounts and battery boxes, etc, defeating the purpose of trying to shave every gram with gear. Same with hardware such as heavy Dubro horns used on tail surfaces, when one cut from 0.010" or 0.015" sheet plastic, with a hole poked with a pin for the pushrod wire works fine.

Again look at RNAF's build comments. You can try to build as light as you want, and it won't help if a model is underpowered and needs noseweight. As for advertised specs, I've seen more than enough model specs that aren't realistic. Just OTOH 45 grams seems very challenging for a properly balanced Camel it's size. https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...7&postcount=34

My Guillow's Camel was unflyable with a CG of 15mm from the bottom wing LE. Flies well at 10mm. I started with a 250 class outrunner. Ended up using a larger outrunner for more power. May as well since the nose weight is needed anyway. That with a 3s-480 and still a bit of ballast balanced the model. I've also seen more than enough builders do what I used to do, cringing to keep an AUW low, to the point where the CG is aft and the model either flies poorly or crashes. Gear should generally be mounted fully forward like this (old build but still demonstrates the purpose) and not bricks in the cocpit area, etc. Goes along with principle #2 listed above.

FWIW, my 18" span Camel flies very well on an eflite 8520 gear drive setup, AR6400 brick and a 1s 200.
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...-Sopwith-Camel
Glenn

The Tony Ray is 15" span (380mm). Bigger is better, if you can build light enough to take advantage of the efficiency gain from increased wing area, where the cubic gains can be a benefit, even with a higher actual wing loading. Your Guillow's Camel is 18" span, and appears to be doing just that. I wouldn't be surprised if your 18" Camel could perform roughly as well on the same power system as a 15" Camel, at a 50% weight increase. I like to build as large as possible for a given power system, where I still have adequate power. Of course scale concerns come into play also, especially for EDFs. RNAF commented that his Tony Ray Camel has just ample power with a 5gm HK outrunner. I used the same motor in a much heavier and larger Guillow's 24" Rumpler with plenty of power, and I wasn't as weight conservative in the build as RNAF's build.

Note that higher Kv motors are wound with less turns of wire, and so offer less resistance and work better with 1S power sources. I fly some of my planes successfully on 1S using a 6000Kv-7000Kv motors in the 1108 to 1204 size range.

Everyone here understands that.
The point is that a power system is chosen for a number of reasons, depending on size, weight, desired performance, etc.
Comparisons have to be done as apples to apples:
1. A lower kv wind will deliver equal power (watt/hours) to higher kv wind at a lower current level and higher voltage.
2. Batteries of equal weight have the same total power, regardless of the cell count. Obviously some brands are better than others, but the principle holds true with cells from the same manufacturer.
3. ESCs tend to become heavier, as their current rating increases.
4. Harnessing becomes heavier as current increases

Those who know how to best use the principles for their apps will have the best results. I have a fleet of 3s 40mm jets that would be difficult to accomplish with higher kv 2s setups. The harnessing and ESCs will be heavier for the 2s fans, causing a weight penalty. Some will never understand principle #2 above, which states that the 3s battery will not be heavier than a 2s battery of equal power. In fact the higher efficiency of the lower kv/higher voltage setup allows for it to be lighter. Now you can have a lighter model that can fly as well as a model with more power.

Hi Shane

I have a different suggestion- although it may be too late. I'm building a couple of Tony Ray's kits- I've pretty much finished the Copernicus and I just started on the Zero.

A 15" Camel at around 50 grams or so is not going to be a floater- so I'm thinking you might want to go with a direct drive motor. I think a lot of people are struggling with inadequate pitch speed in these airplanes. I'm flying a Diels A-8 at around 65 grams on what I think is the old Parkzone Champ motor- and it's marginal. The gearbox that Tony Ray has recommended looks to have taller gearing and a bigger prop than the Parkzone gearbox- which is going the wrong direction for a smaller, faster airplane. I'm struggling to find motors and gearboxes which can handle a 4" prop- will probably try some 8mm motors with some 65mm and 75 mm props I found at Minimum RC.

I'm concerned about going brushless as I think it adds a bunch of weight. As AA has pointed out- that weight up front may not be a problem, but if your overall weight starts increasing further- that's an issue.

Another cheapo way to go might be to find one of the old Mabuchi 180 can motors- I have a couple that were sold by Hi Line as the Firefly motor. They worked pretty well on 3 nicads and a little 2.5" prop- might do OK with the GWS 3" prop. These motors weigh about 15 grams and I think should work with a 1s setup-I think they pull around 1 - 1.5A.

Sam

Thanks but actually bought the 8520 motor, didn't get the chance to try it yet though. is this the 180 motor you refer to, 32g? probably not

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000...e814c071b3eb-5

Originally Posted by Megowcoupe

Hi Shane

I have a different suggestion- although it may be too late. I'm building a couple of Tony Ray's kits- I've pretty much finished the Copernicus and I just started on the Zero.

A 15" Camel at around 50 grams or so is not going to be a floater- so I'm thinking you might want to go with a direct drive motor. I think a lot of people are struggling with inadequate pitch speed in these airplanes. I'm flying a Diels A-8 at around 65 grams on what I think is the old Parkzone Champ motor- and it's marginal. The gearbox that Tony Ray has recommended looks to have taller gearing and a bigger prop than the Parkzone gearbox- which is going the wrong direction for a smaller, faster airplane. I'm struggling to find motors and gearboxes which can handle a 4" prop- will probably try some 8mm motors with some 65mm and 75 mm props I found at Minimum RC.

I'm concerned about going brushless as I think it adds a bunch of weight. As AA has pointed out- that weight up front may not be a problem, but if your overall weight starts increasing further- that's an issue.

Another cheapo way to go might be to find one of the old Mabuchi 180 can motors- I have a couple that were sold by Hi Line as the Firefly motor. They worked pretty well on 3 nicads and a little 2.5" prop- might do OK with the GWS 3" prop. These motors weigh about 15 grams and I think should work with a 1s setup-I think they pull around 1 - 1.5A.

Sam

Hi Shane

I think what might work is an N50 motor- maybe it's got better magnets these days. Weight of 11 grams- 25.5 mm long, 12 mm in diameter- not cylindrical-got somewhat flattened sides. I bought a half dozen for $2/piece.

Sam