Matt Carlton Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Is the well used watts/lb formula a little misleading? In trying out various things, I imagined a model. 50" span, 40oz AUW, intended for sport flying. So, 250W or thereabouts? Plugging figures in. Turnigy 2830/1100, 3S Lipo, APC 9x5 prop. Nearly 1:1 thrust/weight ratio (0.8), 54mph pitch speed, 17A current. 182W. Or put another way. 73W/lb, which should be barely sufficient according to the watts/lb rule, but which seems, on the face of it, more than ample! Why would I need to spec a 250W power system if 180W will be more than good enough? Or am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan h Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Hi Matt. What plane is it. A 50" wingspan sports plane would need a motor bigger than the 28mm one you have it seems a bit small Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 You are only missing that these guides are just guides and if you select 100w/lb then you would expect a sprightly performance. 60-80w/lb will give a vintage style performance to match a lightly loaded 50" model weighing 2 1/2lb, 120 w/lb will give an aerobatic performance for a 50" model weighing 5lb. 150 w/lb will give a modest 3D performance with a 50" model weighing 3 lb. All these are IN MY OWN OPINION!! I've flown WW1 50" bipes on 60w/lb and aerobatic models on 150+w/lb. Nowt in life is simple, we can only get a ballpark figure as there are so many variables in terms of drag, speed, manouverability and pilots preferences. Edited By Bob Cotsford on 13/01/2021 21:58:04 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J D 8 Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 I have found the watts per lb to be a guide that errs on the side of having more than enough power . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Watkins Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Just because I could Matt, I built 18" - 4 8" span, Depron, EPP and Balsa models for indoor and outdoor flying weighing from 100 grms to 1300 from Generally flying 100 - 500 grm at 50 - 60 W/lb And the 1000 grm flown at 75-80W/lb Just because I could Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Carlton Posted January 13, 2021 Author Share Posted January 13, 2021 It wasn't a particular model as such, although it's similar to the Derek Woodward "Amelia" that I'm converting (.20 2 Stroke). I'd originally decided on a 3530 with 331W on the basis that it'd fly on 2/3 throttle with a bit of spare if I need it as I don't want to have to fly at WOT all the time. Really, I was just wondering how 'light' it would be feasible to get as the electric conversion is likely to be a bit heavier than the original glow engine. I did just check the spec of the .40 powered SLEC "FunFly" that I fly a lot and that's about 150W/lb so it probably is right. Edited By Matt Carlton on 13/01/2021 22:21:11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 In general, I wouldn't expect an electric model to be heavier than a similar IC model. Remember you need to weigh them when the IC model is full of fuel. An electric motor is much lighter than an equivalent power IC motor. If you include fuel load in the equation with battery/ESC weight then I wouldn't think there would be much difference between them. It all depends on what performance you want from your model. As I fly 2 mtr F3A models (competition aerobatics) I am limited to a max AUW of 5 Kg with the flight pack fitted. My motors produce around 2,800 watts (254 watts/lb). With that power they have unlimited vertical performance. That's 3.75 HP. My Wot 4 with an Irvine 53 weighs in at 4.5 lb and the Irvine produces about 1 HP or about 750 w. That gives it 166 watts/lb but that is insufficient for unlimited vertical. With a throttle pipe on it I that requires a much coarser prop to keep the WOT revs the same so say 1.2 HP or 894 watts making 198 watts/lb. That is unlimited vertical. I have no light weight floater type aircraft so I don't know what a viable minimum watts/lb figure would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Green Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 I use 100w per cc of glow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Chaddock Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 The Watts per pound is only a guide to ensure you have sufficient power, An electric motor can always be throttled quite happily and is likely to be more efficient at converting Watts to thrust if you do. It is possible to fly on a lot less than the guide. I got a 48" span plane to maintain height using just under 14W/lb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIMON CRAGG Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 I have converted most of my model fleet (18), to electric. From powerful 3D TO 1/4 scale. I have used e.calc as my guide, and all the models have turned out to be more or less exactly the same weight as they were with an ic engine. The beauty of e.calc is that you can try unlimited variations of lipo / motor / prop etc. Its certainly not as easy as "Its a .46, a 10x6 APC will do it" !. e.calc do point out a 10% error margin as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Carlton Posted January 14, 2021 Author Share Posted January 14, 2021 Thanks everyone. It just seemed that the W/lb measure was not necessarily telling the whole story. But I'll lean on it as a guide. 100W/cc looks interesting actually. Converts the .20 size model I'm doing to around 300W which would fit in with an AUW of 2.75lb. Sorry about my general ignorance on this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Walby Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Slightly off topic, but IMO its a guide and thus only a guide for general consideration. A good starting point however the more performance (extreme in any direction) then the less useful it is. I had a funfighter and fancied the need for speed....in the end it was pushing 400 w/lb but really went little faster than the original set up. Due to quite a thick wing, frontal area and high drag it was never going to go fast no matter how much power was dissipated by the electric set up. If the model has a high wing loading or low lift wing as part of the design then the power train will be designed to match the performance required, my ham fisted attempt achieved little compared to designs that are intended to fly fast in comparison. I think the really clever/good designs are those that achieve very wide ranges in flight performance without any nasty traits. They are easy to spot.....so they are very popular with model flyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Posted by Chris Walby on 14/01/2021 07:33:45: I had a funfighter and fancied the need for speed....in the end it was pushing 400 w/lb but really went little faster than the original set up. Due to quite a thick wing, frontal area and high drag it was never going to go fast no matter how much power was dissipated by the electric set up. The reason is simple. If you want to double the speed you need four times the power because doubling the speed increases drag 4 times. This a known constant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Airplanes go fast when they are low drag. "100W/cc looks interesting actually." 100W/cc is a pretty good rule of thumb for a glow 2 stroke equivalence. 80W/cc works well for glow 4 stroke equivalence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maurice Dyer Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Just finishing a Flair SE5a, modded for sparks. My first one weighed in at a tad over 5lbs and had an OS52 and is lovely. This one has a motor I've propped for 700 watts on 4S. About one horse, which is what the OS was putting out. Makes sense or ??. Maurice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff S Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 As several have already said- it's just a guide. Moreover the 100 watts/lb rule of thumb was used when electric drive trains were rather less efficient with cheap brushed can motors being the most commonly used. My Ballerina, for example, flies as well as I need on about 80 watts/lb. I've converted a few models designed originally for glow to electric power and the electric drive trains tend to be lighter. Unfortunately, the model as a whole has to be the same or a similar weight to when it was glow powered because it still has to balance in the same place. The only way to reduce the weight and take advantage of the lower weight of the motor/battery combination is to lighten the tail or lengthen the nose (difficult in a scale model). I like to have the potential for greater power by choosing heavier motors and higher current escs but prop for more modest power. The flexibilty of electric drive trains is both an advantage and a problem because it confuses until properly understood. But isn't understanding part of the attraction? Geoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Posted by Phil Green on 14/01/2021 01:26:14: I use 100w per cc of glow. I'm with Phil on this one, as it actually works quite well for helicopters, too! Watts per pound doesn't work at all well for helis, which tend to be much heavier for a given engine size than their fixed wing counterparts. (Big "prop" turning slowly is more efficient!) -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff S Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Posted by Maurice Dyer on 14/01/2021 11:39:52: Just finishing a Flair SE5a, modded for sparks. My first one weighed in at a tad over 5lbs and had an OS52 and is lovely. This one has a motor I've propped for 700 watts on 4S. About one horse, which is what the OS was putting out. Makes sense or ??. Maurice Not sure if your description of your Flair SE5a as 'lovely' was intended or if it was a typo for 'lively' but my similarly powered SE5a's performance would fit both. Though mine is quite a bit heavier at almost 7lbs in both glow and electric versions. Unfortunately I haven't been able to fly it since the conversion but it's turning a 12x6 prop at around 8500 rpm, about the same as the OS52 did. It's also on 4S but didn't need any of the lead ot needed in its glow form, mostly because the battery (4S 4AH) is right at the very front over the motor. IIRC the power is also about 700 watts which is the magic 100 watts/lb and probably far more than is needed. I'm looking forward to its test flight whenever. I had my Corvid (Pfizer) vaccination today, so here's hoping Geoff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Carlton Posted January 14, 2021 Author Share Posted January 14, 2021 As a side note, I assume that if one were to find that a particular model was overpowered, such that full throttle were rarely, if ever, used, does it make sense to 'under prop' to reduce the wattage and current draw to keep things cooler and happier? It looks like there's a fairly wide range of suitable props within any set up, certainly compared to IC and definitely less fiddling with tuning, exhausts etc. So, for a slow flying model like a Junior 60 say, a big, low pitch prop, on a hefty motor should be fairly efficient? So less current = less capacity required for same flight duration = lighter weight = less power required! Is it possible to gear an outrunner down to drive some really slow high pitch props like those used for rubber power?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad_flyer Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Certainly it can make sense to prop down a bigger motor. It is probably only really necessary if you are using so little power that the stick travel is too small to be comfortable. For example, I have a 50-odd inch trainer, 3 1/2+ lbs. Initially I ran it on a small motor, 3s and 300W. Flew fine, but not much in reserve, everything was at 3/4 throttle or more and felt on the edge. Now I have a bigger motor, 4s and max 550W. I expect I still actually _use_ well under 300W most of the time, but it is much nicer to fly around with the stick near the middle. There is also plenty of go for many practice landings in a flight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Posted by Geoff S on 14/01/2021 17:06:40: whenever. I had my Corvid (Pfizer) vaccination today, so here's hoping Geoff. Are you crowing about getting the injection, Geoff ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Carlton Posted January 14, 2021 Author Share Posted January 14, 2021 I hear everyone's raven about it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Posted by Matt Carlton on 14/01/2021 17:46:29: So, for a slow flying model like a Junior 60 say, a big, low pitch prop, on a hefty motor should be fairly efficient? So less current = less capacity required for same flight duration = lighter weight = less power required! Is it possible to gear an outrunner down to drive some really slow high pitch props like those used for rubber power?? Just use a low KV motor. I've been using a 1000kv motor in my Jnr 60 for a few years. It drives a Topflite 11x6 ic wooden prop, on 3s lipo at WOT : 8800 rpm, 27A, 300W. Model weighs 3.75 lb, so that 80W/lb & is well overpowered but flies mostly at very low throttle. About 15 months ago I changed the motor for a 600kv one of about the same weight with the intentions of trying it with13x6 & 13x8 wood props. I did a few ground test measurements which looked quite promising (I can't remember the numbers now) & was all ready to flight test the set up but unfortunately life stepped in & I haven't been able to fly at all since. I hope to be able to resume flying when the present pandemic crisis is over & see how this new power set up performs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Jack next Daws had his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Re the watts/lb question, I think for a scale like performance virtually all scale really only need similar power : weight ratios to the full size aircraft they are based on, using the mid range weight. Power & weight figures for most popular scale choices can be had from Wiki. The figures for many sports models could be estimated by comparing with a similar style of full size as the model. A while ago I made up an Excel file that returns the model weights, area, power etc for any chosen scale when the full size data is entered. It will give, what I consider, practical results for light aircraft, WW1, trainers & motor gliders etc but not for WW2 fighter type weights & power levels (though IMO the power to weight ratio should be the same for any model and it's full size counterpart). If anyone want's to try the Excel file for themselves just drop me a PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.