--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Phedon Tsiknopoulos <phedon21t@...> wrote:
>
> But you do not fly by stretching, you fly by winding. As the strands are
> stripped finer the cross section of the motor in question assumes a more
> perfectly cylindrical cross section as opposed to a rectangular one, which will
> develop higher torque since it's further away from the neutral point. Ciao,
> Phedon.
>
Theory is useful, but in this case empirical evidence is what really matters.
People have tried all kinds of things that *should* improve times. Some actually do.
I agree with John B. here - my own limited testing of multi-strand motors, and discussion with others who have tried them, have not shown any significant improvements (as opposed to things like variable geometry props, which dow show significant improvements).
That doesn't mean there aren't improvements to be had with multi-strand motors, and it doesn't mean people shouldn't experiment if they are so inclined.
Mark Benns might chime in (or not). He's the latest one I've known to try them in his F1D program. I believe he has put them aside because he was experiencing a higher than normal breakage rate.
Received on Wed May 04 2011 - 10:36:29 CEST