Electric Pattern Aircraft Discuss epowered pattern aircraft in this forum

Adverrun single drive

Reply

Old 10-29-2018, 03:31 AM
  #1  
J-P
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Saint Nom , FRANCE
Posts: 317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default Adverrun single drive

I have been flying the OS BELT DRIVE for 3 years with great success, and while attending the European Championship in Belgium this year, I paid a special attention to a belt drive prototype installed on Danny van VLIET ASCENT.
I knew about the popular ADVERRUN CONTRA, but was immediately interested in this single drive prototype.
Having flown with the OS BELT DRIVE for more than 2200 flights, it was interesting to have the possibility to compare both engines.

I received two weeks ago a prototype lend by Robert HIRSCH to install on one of my planes, and perform a serie of flights and maybe more ...

The idea was to evaluate and compare objectively both belt drive engines.
Same plane , same FUTABA ESC, same TP 5000 PROLITE X batteries, same 22 x12 NURILA carbon prop.

JP
AMA 347801












Last edited by J-P; 10-29-2018 at 03:51 AM.
J-P is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2018, 09:06 AM
  #2  
Arnaud POYET
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 8
Default

Very nice.
Arnaud POYET is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2018, 03:30 PM
  #3  
preston blake
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 28
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I'd also find interesting a comparison between the single belt drive and the contra unit in an otherwise identical setup. Maybe we don't need the complexity of the "contra" units...just the benefit of different props and different torque curves.
preston blake is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2018, 04:39 PM
  #4  
big_G
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hutto, TX
Posts: 364
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Excuse my ignorance, but what are the advantages of a geared or belt driven prop?

Last edited by big_G; 10-30-2018 at 04:31 PM.
big_G is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2018, 04:52 PM
  #5  
wattsup
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 637
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I'm not really sure but, I think Preston Blake had the answer to your question prior to your asking_ ie, " the benefit of different props and different torque curves".

Last edited by wattsup; 10-29-2018 at 04:54 PM.
wattsup is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2018, 12:15 AM
  #6  
J-P
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Saint Nom , FRANCE
Posts: 317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Most of the time the airframe weight is a factor when choosing an engine.
By chance manufacturers improve their building technique, and when it's time to decide about which engine ... you have choice now.
I have been using all majors brands, and despite the weight, my favorite is the OS BELT DRIVE.
The new version I installed in a ZEBEC is the same as the first version, with a slightly increased belt size from 9 to 11 mm.

Regarding the weights, the best is to put the engine on a scale and to read …………
Most of the pics are by swk550 .... thanks










J-P is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2018, 01:48 PM
  #7  
preston blake
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 28
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

JP, might you summarize the benefits of a belt drive over a direct drive such as the Plettenberg 30-10
preston blake is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2018, 05:12 PM
  #8  
OhD
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: west hills, CA
Posts: 1,144
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by preston blake View Post
JP, might you summarize the benefits of a belt drive over a direct drive such as the Plettenberg 30-10
1) High rpm motor is more efficient and lighter
2) Motor torque is lower so reaction torque on the airframe is lower

Jim O
OhD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2018, 12:29 AM
  #9  
Arnaud POYET
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 8
Default

Originally Posted by OhD View Post
1) High rpm motor is more efficient and lighter
2) Motor torque is lower so reaction torque on the airframe is lower

Jim O
Hi.

Yes I agree with this.

In addition, the "natural" brake is better and the drive is more smooth than a direct motor.
Like JP, I've been trying this engine for some time.
It's a very good solution, very light and very powerful.
I use a 22x12 Lassi at 6300 at full throttle on the ground or a Falcon 21x14 at the same RPM.

Best regards
Arnaud POYET is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2018, 04:24 AM
  #10  
RuneG
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 111
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Whats the weight off this new singel belt Adverrun?
RuneG is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2018, 04:45 AM
  #11  
J-P
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Saint Nom , FRANCE
Posts: 317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The engine I received from Robert HIRSCH is one of 10 prototypes a few top pilots .. I'm not one of them ....are testing.

Without soft mounts and rear support, the weight of mine is 555 g.

The final weight of the engine including 4 soft mounts will be around 510 g, red anodized, and more sexy than the preproduction engine.

There is no adjustable tension device, belt is oversized compare to the OS BELT DRIVE, there are bearings where needed, and it looks maintenance free ....

It will soon hit the market - ask Mike MULLER at F3A Unlimited - after intensive flight tests.























Last edited by J-P; 10-31-2018 at 04:50 AM.
J-P is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2018, 05:05 AM
  #12  
Malcolm H
 
Malcolm H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 665
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Hey Jim,
"Motor torque is lower so reaction torque on the airframe is lower"

You'll have to explain this one to me, surely its the gearing output torque that's reacted into the fuselage not the motor torque? Therefore for a given propeller torque the reaction torque is the same regardless of the type of drive.

Malcolm
Malcolm H is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2018, 10:50 AM
  #13  
OhD
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: west hills, CA
Posts: 1,144
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Malcolm H View Post
Hey Jim,
"Motor torque is lower so reaction torque on the airframe is lower"

You'll have to explain this one to me, surely its the gearing output torque that's reacted into the fuselage not the motor torque? Therefore for a given propeller torque the reaction torque is the same regardless of the type of drive.

Malcolm
Hi Malcolm,
I've been waiting to see if there was some smart guy out there that would catch me on that one. In the single prop drives being discussed here the "gear box" is mechanically coupled to the motor/airframe and you are correct. What I said applies to the Contra drive where one propeller torque reacts against the other propeller and the "gear box" output is not coupled to the airframe. But you already knew that.
If I hadn't made the statement though, and you hadn't replied, we wouldn't have been able to highlight one of the features of the Contra. By the way at our recent District championships, all pilots flew electric and about 30% had counter rotating props .

Jim

Last edited by OhD; 10-31-2018 at 10:54 AM.
OhD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2018, 01:59 PM
  #14  
Malcolm H
 
Malcolm H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 665
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Yes, there’s no doubt Jim that Contras in one form or another are the current vogue, I wonder what the next “big” thing will be?

Malcolm
Malcolm H is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2018, 02:21 PM
  #15  
luckymacy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: walllingford, PA
Posts: 492
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Malcolm H View Post
Yes, there’s no doubt Jim that Contras in one form or another are the current vogue, I wonder what the next “big” thing will be?

Malcolm
LOL, it's already here - bell bottoms and contra drive biplanes!

Anybody owned a contra drive biplane and decided it wasn't that great after all and ditched it? I see a lot of bipes like the Biside for sale but not contra designed bipes.

What I find interesting is that some of the top fliers can go back and forth on the same day between a contra and non contra type plane without seeming to miss a beat. I have never flow contra so that makes me suspicious it's more hype than practical help but lesser skilled pilots than the F3A type flyer have told me that contra is easier, almost like cheating, and they'd never go back to non-contra in pattern. Reminds me of the folks who say they'd quit pattern before every going back to glow. So I guess if you have the muscle memory and recognition to move the rudder to compensate for the torque factor before it even gets a plane out of shape then it's not that big a deal not to use contra. Obviously so many of the very top pattern guys would tend to favor a plane that has bountiful power on a windy day (ie YS engine) than a contra drive option, all things being equal, so contra isn't the silver bullet. Someone we all know is about ready to debut his YS powered biplane to test it out for the upcoming Worlds and that'll shock some folks. Same person has bounced around with all different airframes and powerplants in pattern and flies great no matter what they are using.

Last edited by luckymacy; 10-31-2018 at 02:48 PM.
luckymacy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2018, 03:05 PM
  #16  
wattsup
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 637
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

"Contra in one form or another are the current vogue"? It is a fact that "Contras in one form or another" have been flown successfully in many contests since June of 2010! Where have you been?
wattsup is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2018, 04:02 PM
  #17  
ltc
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mendon, MA
Posts: 1,038
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I have the first generation OS belt drive in a BJCraft Passion (with Jeti Mezon)

Is a ESC braking even necessary?
Is anyone running ESC braking on (single) belt drives?
The belt/gearing appears to provide very positive braking compared to any of my outrunners...
ltc is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2018, 02:12 AM
  #18  
J-P
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Saint Nom , FRANCE
Posts: 317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I think there is no difference between OS version I an II , except one of the belt has been enlarged from 9 to 11 mm

Regarding the brake, I followed OS / FUTABA recommendations and use 28 % with both RS 21 x 14 or Nurila 22 X 12 props.

ESC: OS OCA-1100HV
Acceleration: Lowest
Start power: Low
Advance timing: 0 degree
Air brake type: 15~25%

These are the exact settings I'm using for testing the AVERRUN SINGLE DRIVE
J-P is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2018, 04:22 AM
  #19  
preston blake
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 28
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I enjoy these discussions about the relative merits of different power/prop setups. I transitioned from an Osmose/Pletty/21x14 to an Inspire/V3 contra, then Agenda/V4 and now a Angelit/V4. For me the contra is about ease of speed control. I'm fortunate to have Joe Walker as a flying buddy and he alternates between a Fantasista/Pletty and an Agenda/V4. He flies both well but as I coach/critique his flights his speed control is better with the Agenda. I believe therefore that the contra's benifit is speed controll, not decreased left turning tendencies. Which then opens the question, might a single prop belt drive not offer the same advantages ? As a strong believer in the KISS principle, I'd prefer to get rid of the extra prop and mechanics required to drive it.
preston blake is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2018, 12:07 AM
  #20  
J-P
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Saint Nom , FRANCE
Posts: 317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

In order to compare the AVERRUN SINGLE DRIVE with the OS BELT DRIVE, I modified a plane to be able to install both engines.

With no time to wait for CNC cut parts from RS, I did the necessary parts with a dremel ....

I used 4 mm carbon plywood sandwich for the front and side supports, and a 1 mm carbon plate for the rear one.

Robert HIRSCH recommended me a rigid front and soft rear support, but I had to install the SINGLE DRIVE as the OS with four soft mounts on the front, and 2 at the rear.

Arnaud POYET who test flew the engine tried both, rigid and soft mounted, and didn't noticed any difference.

With the KONTRONIK wires on the opposite side of the OS, I extended by 10 cm the wires between the FUTABA ESC and the engine with PRC Silicone Wire 12 AWG.

Installation is complete ... next the ESC settings and first flights 😎😎




























Last edited by J-P; 11-02-2018 at 12:16 AM.
J-P is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2018, 04:15 AM
  #21  
luckymacy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: walllingford, PA
Posts: 492
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

why not just go contra instead of all the install hassle without the contra drive benefits?
luckymacy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2018, 05:31 AM
  #22  
wattsup
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 637
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

To quote J-P from the first of this thread "I have been flying the OS BELT DRIVE for 3 years with great success".......I can't speak for him, but I believe this is his preference and unlike some, J-P has figured out what works fo him and is NOT just following the crowd.
wattsup is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2018, 09:22 PM
  #23  
MAVROS
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NEWCASTLE, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 307
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Monkey see Monkey Do........blah blah blah

Its always about who has the shiny new gadget ......YS, ELECCTRIC, MONOPLANES,BIPLANES,CONTRA,SINGLE DRIVE.........BLAH BLAH BLAH
The sport is all about NOISSICERP aerobatics and no-one talks how to do a loop or a roll properly.....or how to compensate for that wind or energy management etc etc

If you are not skilful or talented ( like me) don't worry we have a fix for that.

OOPS did I go too far sorry
MAVROS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2018, 11:22 PM
  #24  
Hans Meij
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NETHERLANDS
Posts: 668
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Hi J-P,
Very interested in your experiences with the drive. Please let the info flow.
Have 3 OS drives. 2 V2 and one V1 converted to 11mm belt. Also very happy with belt drives.
Regards, Hans
Hans Meij is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2018, 04:06 AM
  #25  
preston blake
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 28
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

New technology is part of the fun...otherwise I'd still be flying my Veco 45 powered Kaos.
preston blake is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service