On Nov 30, 2006, at 12:36 PM, John Barker wrote
> Quote<Because the rubber has greater distance to pull from.> end
> quote.
>
> Nick
> I don’t understand this. My understanding is that a half motor is
> made of
> the same cross section as a full motor but of half the length.
> There is
> then a rod that is of a length equal to half the hook distance and
> of a
> weight equal to half the weight of a full motor, which goes between
> the half
> motor and the rear hook. It seems to me therefore that the
> aeroplane total
> mass and maximum torque should be the same whether a half or a full
> motor is
> used.
>
> I have not flown indoor for many years and techniques may have
> changed so
> please excuse me if my question is fatuous.
>
> John Barker - England
>
>
> Hi all,
I think partial motors are great for all of the mentioned reasons.
However, there is one "small" problem to be aware of. If a slight
problem is showing up on full torque, look out for a full motor test,
as it will stay on full torque for longer than the model may be ready
for. The slight problem will still show up, but can become major for
what seems like a long, long time; as in torqueing into the floor or
flying straight across the building before it begins to turn. An
excellent way to exercise your vocabulary!
A good discussion on partial motor testing. Also, partial motors are
roughly linear in flight times (i.e. a 1/2 motor will double the time
and a 1/4 motor about 4 times). This will be somewhat dependent on
the particular ceiling but provides a guideline on what to expect -
hopefully.
Well, off to Albany, OR for the 2 day season opener this
weekend. Chris Borland - Sacramento
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on Thu Nov 30 2006 - 13:23:37 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:44 CET