[NSRCA-discussion] Electric props vs. standard pattern

Tue Sep 8 12:15:05 AKDT 2009

Dqave:
Agreeing here with Bob.  I always make hard copies of in-depth stuff by the highly qualified guys, and file it away for rainy-day reading!<G>  Well worth the paper and drawer space.  (And no, it isn't filed and forgotten!)
Bill Glaze
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Kane 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 9:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric props vs. standard pattern

  Nice analysis, thanks for sharing.

  Bob Kane
  getterflash at yahoo.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
  To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 1:06:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric props vs. standard pattern

  Dave,

  The ideal prop airfoil shape is compromised to provide the needed structural integrity to withstand aerodynamic, gyroscopic, and impulse loads (from firing of combustion engines, and even pulses from electric motors).  Ideal in this context meaning most thrust and/or speed for least amount of input power.  Because the impulse loads from an electric motor are lower, and electrics are generally run at lower RPM (primarily to take advantage of larger more efficient props), it is possible to design a prop that is closer to the ideal shape and lighter while still having the needed structural integrity.

  Several years ago, I played with a very high RPM outrunner (295 KV) and checked many different props, including some E vs glow prop comparisons –

  16x10E – 8400 RPM, 79 amps

  16x10 – 8800 RPM, 69 amps

  Performance in the air was very similar, but the E prop was much lighter (about 65% the weight of the glow prop).  I preferred the glow prop because it afforded the same performance with cooler motor, ESC, and lipo temps (less mah discharged for an equal flight).

  I’ve run high RPM (7500 – 8000) outrunners in pattern quite a bit, and had always found the glow props to be better – in terms of lower input watts needed and fewer mah consumed for equal flights…..and I had a theory why…..but never “proved” it to myself until this past year.  I laminated a number of E props of various sizes for various motors/RPMs with CF cloth, and found on the higher RPM setups, the E props with CF would turn more RPM and draw less amps….and in the air they indeed performed better than a stock E prop or a similar sized glow prop.  With respect to pattern sized motors/power…..I saw very little improvement at <6500 RPM, but noticeable improvement >7000 RPM.

  The vast majority of electrics being used in pattern are <6500 RPM (and the unload in the air is a reduction in amps, but very little increase in RPM), while the majority of glow stuff is running between 7400 and 8400 (and can unload to ~+10% RPM in the air)…….so the difference in 6500 and 8700 (unloaded) is pretty substantial when you start looking at prop structure needed to eliminate flexing.

  Regards,

  Dave Lockhart

  DaveL322 at comcast.net

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ken Velez
  Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 11:41 PM
  To: ' General pattern discussion '
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric props vs. standard pattern

  Hi Dave,

  It seems to me that the electrics are not turning comparable numbers. Most setups are turning in the low to mid 6000 and only 1 or 2 set ups are in the 7000 and none in the 8000 that I know of. This is based on what I have observed only; so there could be a setup turning higher numbers; and on a 10S battery. If you go to more cells = more Volts = more RPM’s also more Amps. FAI is caped to 10 cells not sure about AMA. My Hacker A-60 is on the mid 7000 and we were using the 18.1X10-11-12 glow props; while it flies very nice with these props the plane is very slow for top classes and or wind. So right now I’m using an E prop; huge difference. It’s also my understanding that the E props are more efficient than the regular glow props not 100% sure but pretty certain about it but you are correct about the stiffer is more efficient when comparing 2 identical props lets say one plastic and one carbon but not equal when comparing different airfoils. An APC 20X10 E will be more efficient than a 20 X10 Glow and if you can make the APC 20X10E in Carbon it will be more efficient than the original 20X10E etc… Just my observations. 

  Ken

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
  Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 11:04 PM
  To: ' General pattern discussion '
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric props vs. standard pattern

  Why are we using the Electric style APC props on electric powered pattern planes rather than the standard pattern props? We are turning the electric motors at comparable RPMs to a glow engine. The standard pattern props are stiffer and should be more efficient it seems to me. I can understand a little weight savings if needed but is that the only reason for using the E-props? What am I missing? Anyone compared similar E and standard props in the same sizes? What results did you find? 
  Dave Burton

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090908/fa7dc445/attachment.html>