Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
#26
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
Hi Chad,
I can feel a small rock ok. I do not have a new one to compare with.
The reason I asked about the age of yours is that they all loose a little power (so also a little efficiency) as time and use go by.It may not be fair to compare well used with new.
On the voltage I agree a pack can hold a bit more or less under the same load.
You said;
'As you can see, on the Advance run we are holding about 1V better for a near similar current draw from the pack'
I just said the 'pack' preformed better when it held 1 volt extra, therefore it has nothing to do with what was providing the load, the load was 80A regardless.
Brian
I can feel a small rock ok. I do not have a new one to compare with.
The reason I asked about the age of yours is that they all loose a little power (so also a little efficiency) as time and use go by.It may not be fair to compare well used with new.
On the voltage I agree a pack can hold a bit more or less under the same load.
You said;
'As you can see, on the Advance run we are holding about 1V better for a near similar current draw from the pack'
I just said the 'pack' preformed better when it held 1 volt extra, therefore it has nothing to do with what was providing the load, the load was 80A regardless.
Brian
#27
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
Hi Brian
There should be no rock, its almost not even there, but if you feel it then it is a bearing. Also sometimes you can see some black deposits if you look around the race seals.
Yes on the Advance run the pack was working better, if it was holding the same voltage as the previous test at that point (34V), then you would have seen less amps on the Advance run.
If you look at time point 0.66 min, you will see early in the Evo run the pack voltage was 35V (same as the Advance run at the cursor point), but the amps were over 90A.
There should be no rock, its almost not even there, but if you feel it then it is a bearing. Also sometimes you can see some black deposits if you look around the race seals.
Yes on the Advance run the pack was working better, if it was holding the same voltage as the previous test at that point (34V), then you would have seen less amps on the Advance run.
If you look at time point 0.66 min, you will see early in the Evo run the pack voltage was 35V (same as the Advance run at the cursor point), but the amps were over 90A.
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Moss, NORWAY
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
I think that in order to determine a (relatively) few percent difference in efficiency comparing one motor to another, you need to run the motors with a more controlled power supply than the batteries we are using. There are just too many variables, such as temperature, state of charge etc.
(But it certainly gives a nice indication that Plettenberg is going in the right direction, thank you Chad.)
What has Plettenberg actually said about the expected efficiency gain compared to the outrunners?
I think it is a shame that the motor manufacturers are not publishing efficiency curves, including the current levels that we actually operate these motors at.
The few that state efficiency data usually only state a "max. efficiency", which usually is totally irrelevant, as this will be at a very low current.
(At very low current it does not matter much whether the efficiency is 70, 80 or 90%, because you are using very little current anyway.) What matters, is the efficiency at 75-100% power, that is where you drain the battery. But nobody is publishing data at these power levels.
On the other hand, if the efficiency of this inrunner is comparable to the efficiency of the higher revving geared inrunners, then the total gain would be quite significant, eliminating the losses in the gearbox.
Magne
(But it certainly gives a nice indication that Plettenberg is going in the right direction, thank you Chad.)
What has Plettenberg actually said about the expected efficiency gain compared to the outrunners?
I think it is a shame that the motor manufacturers are not publishing efficiency curves, including the current levels that we actually operate these motors at.
The few that state efficiency data usually only state a "max. efficiency", which usually is totally irrelevant, as this will be at a very low current.
(At very low current it does not matter much whether the efficiency is 70, 80 or 90%, because you are using very little current anyway.) What matters, is the efficiency at 75-100% power, that is where you drain the battery. But nobody is publishing data at these power levels.
On the other hand, if the efficiency of this inrunner is comparable to the efficiency of the higher revving geared inrunners, then the total gain would be quite significant, eliminating the losses in the gearbox.
Magne
#29
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fenton,
MI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
All I did was a quick calculation of the % difference based on the numbers Chad gave. I know it's not scientific but it clearly shows an advantage exists. Even if the numbers were off by 50% from a laboratory test it would still be significant.
#30
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
ORIGINAL: Magne
I think that in order to determine a (relatively) few percent difference in efficiency comparing one motor to another, you need to run the motors with a more controlled power supply than the batteries we are using. There are just too many variables, such as temperature, state of charge etc.
(But it certainly gives a nice indication that Plettenberg is going in the right direction, thank you Chad.)
What has Plettenberg actually said about the expected efficiency gain compared to the outrunners?
I think it is a shame that the motor manufacturers are not publishing efficiency curves, including the current levels that we actually operate these motors at.
The few that state efficiency data usually only state a ''max. efficiency'', which usually is totally irrelevant, as this will be at a very low current.
(At very low current it does not matter much whether the efficiency is 70, 80 or 90%, because you are using very little current anyway.) What matters, is the efficiency at 75-100% power, that is where you drain the battery. But nobody is publishing data at these power levels.
On the other hand, if the efficiency of this inrunner is comparable to the efficiency of the higher revving geared inrunners, then the total gain would be quite significant, eliminating the losses in the gearbox.
Magne
I think that in order to determine a (relatively) few percent difference in efficiency comparing one motor to another, you need to run the motors with a more controlled power supply than the batteries we are using. There are just too many variables, such as temperature, state of charge etc.
(But it certainly gives a nice indication that Plettenberg is going in the right direction, thank you Chad.)
What has Plettenberg actually said about the expected efficiency gain compared to the outrunners?
I think it is a shame that the motor manufacturers are not publishing efficiency curves, including the current levels that we actually operate these motors at.
The few that state efficiency data usually only state a ''max. efficiency'', which usually is totally irrelevant, as this will be at a very low current.
(At very low current it does not matter much whether the efficiency is 70, 80 or 90%, because you are using very little current anyway.) What matters, is the efficiency at 75-100% power, that is where you drain the battery. But nobody is publishing data at these power levels.
On the other hand, if the efficiency of this inrunner is comparable to the efficiency of the higher revving geared inrunners, then the total gain would be quite significant, eliminating the losses in the gearbox.
Magne
Plettenberg claims a max efficiency of the Advance motor at 91%. I am not certain what they claimed the Evo to be, but I am sure it was not at that level. I do believe there is a gain, the weather is improving here and hopefully I can get out to the nice quiet stretch of highway again this weekend. With that I will get some flight testing on the MagCAD prop, as well read some RPM values and provide the info.
Also Pletty does have tests of the Advance with a variety of propellors with the various gathered data posted on their website!
#31
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Eindhoven, NETHERLANDS
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
When first starting up the Advance with the YGE90 controller I was not happy with how the motor starts. It does a sort of tick-tock when starting, not a very nice sound.
I now have received my programming card and have the following settings:
Timing: 24 degrees
Brake: Acro
Cutoff type/battery type: Slowdown/Lipo
cutoff voltage 30V
Cells: 10
Break at app. 15%
Active Freewheel/Gov mode: on/off
Startup speed: Plane Slow
PWM Frequency: 8 kHz
Startup power: 4%
This setup is a copy of settings published by Chris at F3A Unlimited, with exception of Startup Power. This I reduced from 8% to 4%. I also tried 2% but this gave no improvement.
Now the start is more or less OK. Of course during flight this never is a problem since the prop keeps spinning (I think).
Any further advice on reducing the "tick-tock" at startup is very appreciated.
I understood from Chad the Schulze 32.80 has a similar behaviour. Haven't tried the Jeti yet.
Volkert
I now have received my programming card and have the following settings:
Timing: 24 degrees
Brake: Acro
Cutoff type/battery type: Slowdown/Lipo
cutoff voltage 30V
Cells: 10
Break at app. 15%
Active Freewheel/Gov mode: on/off
Startup speed: Plane Slow
PWM Frequency: 8 kHz
Startup power: 4%
This setup is a copy of settings published by Chris at F3A Unlimited, with exception of Startup Power. This I reduced from 8% to 4%. I also tried 2% but this gave no improvement.
Now the start is more or less OK. Of course during flight this never is a problem since the prop keeps spinning (I think).
Any further advice on reducing the "tick-tock" at startup is very appreciated.
I understood from Chad the Schulze 32.80 has a similar behaviour. Haven't tried the Jeti yet.
Volkert
#32
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NETHERLANDS
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
ORIGINAL: wagen017
Haven't tried the Jeti yet.
Haven't tried the Jeti yet.
My testruns, (numbers see posting above) were with the Spin. Now put the Schulze on both Advance and C50. The C50 did gain efficiency with the Schulze, resulting in about 5-10A less draw for the C50 compared to the Advance (with same prop and rpm). Startup with the Schulze is better than with the Spin.
#33
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Eindhoven, NETHERLANDS
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
hmm. I don't have any such problem on my Jeti Spin Opto + Evo 30-10.
Plettenberg is very specific about which wire from the controller to connect to which on the motor. With YGE, all wires are yellow and the only instruction is to switch any two wires when running in reverse. Could that make a difference?
Volkert
Plettenberg is very specific about which wire from the controller to connect to which on the motor. With YGE, all wires are yellow and the only instruction is to switch any two wires when running in reverse. Could that make a difference?
Volkert
#34
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
Hi,
This tic-toc can be/is a symptom of a poor connection or solder joint.
Somtimes,depending on type, new connecters need 'bedding in'.
What connecters are you using ? AC & DC.
Brian
This tic-toc can be/is a symptom of a poor connection or solder joint.
Somtimes,depending on type, new connecters need 'bedding in'.
What connecters are you using ? AC & DC.
Brian
#35
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NETHERLANDS
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
ORIGINAL: wagen017
With YGE, all wires are yellow and the only instruction is to switch any two wires when running in reverse. Could that make a difference?
With YGE, all wires are yellow and the only instruction is to switch any two wires when running in reverse. Could that make a difference?
#36
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Eindhoven, NETHERLANDS
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
ORIGINAL: serious power
Hi,
This tic-toc can be/is a symptom of a poor connection or solder joint.
Somtimes,depending on type, new connecters need 'bedding in'.
What connecters are you using ? AC & DC.
Brian
Hi,
This tic-toc can be/is a symptom of a poor connection or solder joint.
Somtimes,depending on type, new connecters need 'bedding in'.
What connecters are you using ? AC & DC.
Brian
I think the solder is of good quality.
Volkert
#37
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fenton,
MI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
ORIGINAL: wagen017
When first starting up the Advance with the YGE90 controller I was not happy with how the motor starts. It does a sort of tick-tock when starting, not a very nice sound.
Volkert
When first starting up the Advance with the YGE90 controller I was not happy with how the motor starts. It does a sort of tick-tock when starting, not a very nice sound.
Volkert
#38
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Eindhoven, NETHERLANDS
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
I tested the YGE90 on a EVO30-10 and was similar to the behaviour on the Advance. Now tested the Jeti Spin on the Advance and you see the prop go anti-clock wise then clockwise but pretty smooth. It might just be I now notice since I really pay attention since before it was so much clearer. With the 4% startup power setting it is better.
I will test fly the YGE90 first now on my EVO to see how it works out.
The tic-toc in itself is simply how any controller works on this type of motor. It was just very agressive first.
Volkert
I will test fly the YGE90 first now on my EVO to see how it works out.
The tic-toc in itself is simply how any controller works on this type of motor. It was just very agressive first.
Volkert
#39
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fenton,
MI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
You run your motors clockwise? Mine all run in the opposite direction. Of course, I use APC props. Maybe you use some that are pitched in the opposite direction.
I sometimes get very short backward turn before the motor spins properly even with my Jeti Spin. Maybe I always get it but I don't always notice it. I do however have some systems where the prop tic-toc's a few times before the motor spins in the proper direction. I think my Jeti Spin ESC's are just a lot better and handling start-up from complete stop. When I'm flying, my prop is never completely stopped so I don't think it matters too much in the grand scheme of things.
I sometimes get very short backward turn before the motor spins properly even with my Jeti Spin. Maybe I always get it but I don't always notice it. I do however have some systems where the prop tic-toc's a few times before the motor spins in the proper direction. I think my Jeti Spin ESC's are just a lot better and handling start-up from complete stop. When I'm flying, my prop is never completely stopped so I don't think it matters too much in the grand scheme of things.
#40
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Eindhoven, NETHERLANDS
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
everything is relative Mike! Depends on your perspective. [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]
Looking from the back towards the front it runs clockwise.
Volkert
Looking from the back towards the front it runs clockwise.
Volkert
#41
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fenton,
MI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
Fair enough.
ORIGINAL: wagen017
everything is relative Mike! Depends on your perspective. [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]
Looking from the back towards the front it runs clockwise.
Volkert
everything is relative Mike! Depends on your perspective. [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]
Looking from the back towards the front it runs clockwise.
Volkert
#42
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Eindhoven, NETHERLANDS
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
last comment on the YGE: ran it today with the EVO30-10. No problems with its behaviour, it does seem to run a bit more efficient then the Jeti. It still gave some errors (receiver fail) so I will sent it back to YGE for a check.
Now back to the Advance!
Volkert
Now back to the Advance!
Volkert
#43
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
Ok, here is the real data. Got three flights on the motor yesterday, one with the MagCAD prop and two with a Falcon 21x14.
The MagCAD is a beast, huge static power, but very reasonable in flight. Great speed and great vertical as well as very good natural downline braking, my only complaint is it is consuming more power over the flight than the Falcon does. The Falcon prop is excellent as well, very low power consumption, excellent vertical performance, my only complaint is the natural braking of the prop is not as good.
All flights were P-11, flown quite big, I was not trying to cut the power usage. The wind was up around 15mph, and was bloody cold on the fingers!
No question the motor is very efficient in flight, better than an Evo without a doubt, you can see very low amp draw during the sequence. Also it runs really cool, barely getting more than 10C above the ambient air. With the Falcon prop I did a flight of P using 3200mAh.
There was some question last time about battery temp, on all flights these packs were heated up on my dashboard, so are well above ambient at the start of the flight.
Also attached some other pics, one of our "runway" lol, and my buddy Nedim landing his Wind yesterday on the "runway"
The MagCAD is a beast, huge static power, but very reasonable in flight. Great speed and great vertical as well as very good natural downline braking, my only complaint is it is consuming more power over the flight than the Falcon does. The Falcon prop is excellent as well, very low power consumption, excellent vertical performance, my only complaint is the natural braking of the prop is not as good.
All flights were P-11, flown quite big, I was not trying to cut the power usage. The wind was up around 15mph, and was bloody cold on the fingers!
No question the motor is very efficient in flight, better than an Evo without a doubt, you can see very low amp draw during the sequence. Also it runs really cool, barely getting more than 10C above the ambient air. With the Falcon prop I did a flight of P using 3200mAh.
There was some question last time about battery temp, on all flights these packs were heated up on my dashboard, so are well above ambient at the start of the flight.
Also attached some other pics, one of our "runway" lol, and my buddy Nedim landing his Wind yesterday on the "runway"
#44
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saanich,
BC, CANADA
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
My Advance arrived yesterday from F3A Unlimited and the craftsmanship is simply amazing. I can't wait to get it installed in my #1 Xigris for flight testing and by Chad's comments it looks to be motor to beat this year. Now, only if the weather would start to cooperate and I wish we had runways like that
Mark
Mark
#45
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
Chad:
Do you know if the Advance is optimized for “large props”? The test results published by Plettenberg shows that the APC 20x13 and Rasa 20,2x16 are almost identical in current consumptions. If these two props are run on the 30-10 Evo the Rasa 20,2x16 will we quite heavy compared to the APC 20x13.
http://www.plettenberg-motoren.com/g...tschrauben.htm
I’m still waiting for my Advance.
Regards,
Henning
Do you know if the Advance is optimized for “large props”? The test results published by Plettenberg shows that the APC 20x13 and Rasa 20,2x16 are almost identical in current consumptions. If these two props are run on the 30-10 Evo the Rasa 20,2x16 will we quite heavy compared to the APC 20x13.
http://www.plettenberg-motoren.com/g...tschrauben.htm
I’m still waiting for my Advance.
Regards,
Henning
#46
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Eindhoven, NETHERLANDS
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
Henning, as far as I know, you cannot directly compare RASA props to APC (or similar) when it comes to what pitch the prop is.
Volkert
Volkert
#47
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
Chad had already posted the technical data to compare the new Pletty Advance 30-10 to trustworthy 30-10 Evo, therefore there is not much to say more about it in the meantime. Instead, I would like to write my "performance in flight" observations.
I have been watching Chad flying his Xigris C1 more than anyone in this planet, probably 1000 flights, may be more...
Seeing the same airplane in the air powered by the new Plettenberg Advance, my first observation was like "Wow, this motor is a REAL performer". It has definitely more power, hands down, without any doubt. Speeds up faster, spools down quicker due to its inherited low inertia as it is an in-runner.
I certainly believe, with today's power demanding F3A pattern schedules, more power without excessive current draws and weight penalty is a huge asset, especially if you are flying F3A F11 in strong winds. We had already experiences the need of more power while Chad was flying in the finals at 2010 US Nat's, just a couple of minutes before a huge storm hit Muncie runways! Standing at the back of him and calling the sequence, I was whispering him "power, more power" and he replied after the flight, that was all I had...
I know we will be testing the motor in many more flights before coming to finalize its evaluation.
In summary, the new Plettenberg Advance 30-10 looks like its a WINNER, IMHO.
I have been watching Chad flying his Xigris C1 more than anyone in this planet, probably 1000 flights, may be more...
Seeing the same airplane in the air powered by the new Plettenberg Advance, my first observation was like "Wow, this motor is a REAL performer". It has definitely more power, hands down, without any doubt. Speeds up faster, spools down quicker due to its inherited low inertia as it is an in-runner.
I certainly believe, with today's power demanding F3A pattern schedules, more power without excessive current draws and weight penalty is a huge asset, especially if you are flying F3A F11 in strong winds. We had already experiences the need of more power while Chad was flying in the finals at 2010 US Nat's, just a couple of minutes before a huge storm hit Muncie runways! Standing at the back of him and calling the sequence, I was whispering him "power, more power" and he replied after the flight, that was all I had...
I know we will be testing the motor in many more flights before coming to finalize its evaluation.
In summary, the new Plettenberg Advance 30-10 looks like its a WINNER, IMHO.
#48
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fenton,
MI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
When you think about it, doesn't it make sense that the prop that exhibits better down line breaking also consumes more power?
#49
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
@Henning
I don't know exactly which prop sizes Pletty was targeting, but since the motor is actually a little hotter than the Evo, it almost makes you think it should work better on the smaller props than the Evo did? Certainly works good on the "big" props, I have not tried flying with the smaller ones yet. Next time out I will fly the APC 20.5x14 and the Rasa (solid blade) 20.5x14 and make some comparison to the bigger props!
I hope you get the motor soon, and that you like it!
@Mike Wiz
Not necessarily, for instance the Falcon 21x14 is similar to the APC 21x14, yet the APC has better natural braking....it is also twice the weight, but static numbers are usually quite similar.
I don't know exactly which prop sizes Pletty was targeting, but since the motor is actually a little hotter than the Evo, it almost makes you think it should work better on the smaller props than the Evo did? Certainly works good on the "big" props, I have not tried flying with the smaller ones yet. Next time out I will fly the APC 20.5x14 and the Rasa (solid blade) 20.5x14 and make some comparison to the bigger props!
I hope you get the motor soon, and that you like it!
@Mike Wiz
Not necessarily, for instance the Falcon 21x14 is similar to the APC 21x14, yet the APC has better natural braking....it is also twice the weight, but static numbers are usually quite similar.
#50
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fenton,
MI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Plettenberg Advance 30-10 Inrunner Test Data!
Really, so it absorbs more energy in breaking but not under power. I wonder.... Well, I'm a prop expert so I'll take your word for it.