April Propwash 2018 web.pub

At 100 amps, you'll see that the temperature increase is over 30-degrees less than any of the P-LTD motors. KV drop is only 14%, the RPMs are about the same as an AQ2030, as is the power output of around 1500W (2.0 hp, approximately). Yes, you could run this motor with the same prop and, in theory, have about the same top speed, with cooler temps. You would, however, enjoy the advantage of stronger acceleration, as the torque of the larger motor would spool up the load harder. I decided not to even test the SSS3660-1500. I’m tired of my garage getting stunk up and frankly, I don't think it would fare much better. The 1968 KV version, like I said, actually looked good. There are a couple different ways to get KV out of a motor, or to lower KV in a motor, and it's clear that the SSS motors seem to build resistance as the KV goes down. Here is the complete data chart for the tests. A couple of conclusions can be drawn, but the one that really stands out is that we actually did a really good job of "equating" motors in P-limited for the original motor set. They are all relatively close in power output potential, etc. The second conclusion that might be drawn is that there simply aren't a lot, if any, "equivalent" replacements out there for these motors. You can either go up in power, or down, but nothing really achieves an equal performance level. The one most obvious choice by many, at the given power levels, is 1620 RPM higher, and there is still room to push that option. The present P limited motors are in 2-3 and 5-6; lower power motors are in rows 10-12; possible P limited motor substitutes are in rows 1 and 4, 7-9 and row 13; and the marginal SSS3650- 1500 is in row 14. This discussion got a little "heated" when people were suggesting motors like the Leopard 4074, or even allowing the new Dynamite 3930-1750 from the IM31 V3 (40x68 1750 KV). To help understand why allowing the larger, 40mm motor sizes into P-limited cannot possible be done fairly, I ran two 60 second load tests on the Dynamite DYNM3930, one at the standard ~100 amp load (I tried to get it right there, but ended up "only" being 97.00 amps), and the other at 140 amps. I tested these at 100 amps, for 60-seconds, without any water cooling. All of the P-limited legal motors came in at under 150- degrees. A typical P-limited run in a 1-mile race is around 2:00, give or take. With water cooling, I'm pretty sure any motor that survived my testing will survive the heat. (Continued on page 22) smoking at the 25-second mark, when loading it enough to push it into the test range (90-100 amps). Data shows it was only pushing 74.0 amps and 1100 watts. Even the Neu 1410-2Y didn't hold up well. To be fair, this isn't a "real" NEU 1410... It's one of their "cheap motor" line ($49.95) and not really a "Neu". If the goal was to reign in the performance of the class (would have to limit setups to 75 or 80 amp max), the 3650-sized motors might be an option. In comparison to the present P-LTD motors, they aren't equal in performance. I won't be testing this size any further. I added a "% KV Drop" column so it might be easier to see just how much the load is affecting the RPM. I tested these 3600 motors: 1. TURNIGY SK3 3659-1900 2. TP3660-1950 3. LBP3660-1900 They all were loaded to 100-105 amps for 60-seconds. The Turnigy and the TP are clearly higher powered than any of the present P-limited motors. At the same loads, they gain about the same temperature, but are ~2000 and ~1600 RPM higher. With the Turnigy and assuming a 3.0" Pitch Prop, that would equate to a 4 mph advantage. A 1-MPH increase equates to over 1/4 lap over a race distance. The Leopard LBP3660-1900 is about equivalent in performance to an AQ2030, but gains a tick more heat. Finally I tested the following SSS3660 motors: SSS3660-1968 SSS3660-1800 There is definitely a difference in these motors of equal size, one being 4-pole and the other 6. I haven't sat down to try to quantify the difference, but I think we've all seen the difference when we went from 2-Pole Nemesis/Fiego motors to the Neus and such, so it's obviously a torque difference. It did appear that the 6-Poles could turn a similar load with fewer amps. The SSS3660-1968 motor actually tested fine. It has just a tick less power than the TP and Turnigy SK3. However, the SSS3660-1800 motor burned up on the stand after about 50-seconds at only 94 amps. Didn't fully self- destruct, but the windings show that they did get a little hot and must have shorted. I’m not sure what to think of this, but it seems that with the SSS motors, when you try to load the lower KV motors up to the power levels of the higher KV stuff, they burn. The same thing happened with the SSS3650-1500 motor (it looks VERY toasty inside!). PROPWASH Page 21 Data from the motor tests 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.