Good Combo for E-Open B

Want to discuss OPEN electric combat items? Come on in! This is the place.

Moderator: hbartel

EK
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 6:36 pm
Location: Aubrey,Texas

Post by EK »

FX on 15% using the old MAS 9X4, I look for upper 18's. Tried the 'new' MAS 9X4 and got 19.3 - 19.5 but didn't care for the pull nor the way it unloaded. Bought a couple 'new' MAS 9X5 and will probably go to them when my stock of the old MAS is gone.
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

What I used for most of the year in 07 was 18.5v and 50a on the ground. Mathematically that`s 925w input. But with voltage drop I`m sure it was under 900w static.

The Ammo 36-50-1500 would turn an APC 8/4 at about 21.5k for the 50a, depending on the motor.

Brian, you`re absolutely right about the quality motors being much more efficient. I think that the ARCs have good potential for the 25 sized events, but the shafts are rather soft and easy to bend on them. I`ve asked Dave at LightFlight to get the manufacture to go with harder shafts on all of his motors. Other than the shafts which should be an easy fix for them, the ARCs should be excellent.

Right now I only have a 2.5T which is 1050kv which would need 5s for 2548 and Limited B and probably 6s for Open B.

I think you are right that the 2T (1400kv) would be a good all around motor as a .25 replacement. 4s for the limited events and 5s for Open.

BTW Bob, My motors weighed 8oz to 9oz which is what just about any 36-55 sized inrunner will weigh.

You might get by with using the high quality outrunners like the Scorpions in SSC, 2548 and Limited B. But IMHO they are unsuitable for use in Open B.
User avatar
boiler
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:16 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by boiler »

I may be wrong here but the harder shaft might decrease the efficiency of the motor. That's assuming the shaft contributes to the induced fields. Lee, the reason I asked about the weight is you proposed the weight as the most practical equivalent to the cid issue for limiting engine size. I think I remember you giving 8.5 OZ as a good comparison about a year ago. Since you won the overall open award last year (congrats) I was thinking you would be the best person to advise us on this issue.
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Since you won the overall open award last year (congrats) I was thinking you would be the best person to advise us on this issue.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

`I understand Bob, and I very well may be, but too many times I`ve had my data and suggested limits questioned to the point just short of calling me a liar, cheater or both. I`ve also debated endlessly with some of the vocal minority who can`t tell the difference between KWs, KVs or KGs. (SG, I`m not talking about you.) So I`m just not going there anymore.

Maybe the best solution would just be to pick a prop and an RPM that is fast enough and powerful enough and just have a very fast and loud limited event to replace Open B. Again, just a suggestion, and I have no intention of defending it.

Nothing against you Bob, of course. But I`m taking a break from rules debate. You guys make the rules, and I`ll just show up and fly by the rules you make.
Post Reply