Nick -
We haven't noticed this with our SO planes, but they have motorsticks that mass as much
as the entire plane that you are typically flying!
Dave Drummer
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Nick Ray" <lasray@...> wrote:
>
> John,
> Your assertion is correct. The theory that is currently held by the
> majority of indoor fliers states that if everything thing is done
> properly they results will simply be a scaled down version of the full
> flight. However, in very high torque loads, especially in cold
> weather, where the rubber can hold more energy than normal, the some
> sort of increase in the force trying to collapse the stick seems to be
> happening. In speaking with Fred Tellier, who had noticed the same
> effect, I came to the conclusion that because the dummy part of the
> motor is neutral, and the increase motor section of a full motor is
> pulling on the stick, there should be an increase in the total
> compression load of a full motor when compared to a partial motor.
> Maybe if a few more people see this happening we could give the affect
> a name, and an equation to model the effect it has as the motor is
> scaled up?
> Nick Ray
>
> On 11/30/06, Chris and Josette Borland <candjborland_at_...> wrote:
> >
> > 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]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Fri Dec 01 2006 - 07:21:32 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:44 CET