Re: Double strand motors?

From: highaltitude <cgrain1_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 21:18:45 -0000

The built in "Cray supercomputer" embedded in my brain says you may get more initial power but in the end less time, however that computer is about as reliable as a HAL-9000. I use muti strand braided motors on my P-30 and muti stranded unbraided on my Coupe and the power is great, but they only run for 25 seconds. I will be at Lakehurst next week and am stripping some rubber to do a side by side comparison test with the same date rubber and same cross section with a loop and strands and will get back to the group

--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "John Kagan" <john_kagan@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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 - 14:18:53 CEST