Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
02-05-2010, 03:45 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Trondheim, NORWAY
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
In their 2010 catalogue available for download here: http://www.hacker-motor.com/images/C...atalog_web.pdf
Hacker announces two new outrunners targeted for F3A use.
Hacker Q60 F3A is a backmounted outrunner very similar to the Plettenberg XTRA 30-10 EVO (The Hacker seems to be 5 mm longer).
Hacker Q80 13S F3A is front mounted outrunner.
I haven't been able to find any prices yet.
Hacker announces two new outrunners targeted for F3A use.
Hacker Q60 F3A is a backmounted outrunner very similar to the Plettenberg XTRA 30-10 EVO (The Hacker seems to be 5 mm longer).
Hacker Q80 13S F3A is front mounted outrunner.
I haven't been able to find any prices yet.
02-05-2010, 11:15 AM
#4
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
I'd guess that design was to optimize cooling.
Regards,
Dave
Regards,
Dave
ORIGINAL: foofydoo
that last one is a different shape to normal. I wonder what advantages it brings over the normal type
that last one is a different shape to normal. I wonder what advantages it brings over the normal type
02-05-2010, 04:24 PM
#9
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: pound ridge,
NY
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
ORIGINAL: foofydoo
that last one is a different shape to normal. I wonder what advantages it brings over the normal type
that last one is a different shape to normal. I wonder what advantages it brings over the normal type
Looks like maybe they were trying to make it an exact replacement for the C50 series in terms of mounting. If that's the case I would say "WoW!" Way to go Hacker, 'cuz that would be a definite selling point for me. Now if they can make an outrunner that weighs the same as the C50 we'd have a slam dunk.
02-05-2010, 08:08 PM
#10
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
I think it's interesting that Hacker went with a front mounted outrunner. It would make sense that their intention was to have a C50 replacement, that's actually a pretty smart idea. The reason I am scratching my head though, more so than usual, is that most people have gone away from the front mounted motors without rear support. I am looking at the rear of the motor and don't see provisions for any support... it may be there, but i don't see it.
I never had any problems with front, or nosering, mounted motors, but there has been several threads devoted to the cons of this practice. Many airplanes have met their demise by noses falling off due to the stresses of the unsupported motor. I'd do it again, but recently that has been considered the 'wrong' way by those 'who know'. Just find it interesting.
Tom M
I never had any problems with front, or nosering, mounted motors, but there has been several threads devoted to the cons of this practice. Many airplanes have met their demise by noses falling off due to the stresses of the unsupported motor. I'd do it again, but recently that has been considered the 'wrong' way by those 'who know'. Just find it interesting.
Tom M
02-05-2010, 08:12 PM
#11
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
As far as a price, a guy out west here talked to Hacker USA earlier this week about something unrelated and they also said that these motors were on their way. Price was supposed to be half that of the C50 Comps... which puts it around $400. Hopefully that's the list price and we can get it less than that. Maybe a Hacker guy will pipe in with the expected street price.
I also read on a German site that they are expected to hit the street around April. That was for the Q80, not sure if they are going to be available at the same time.
Tom M
I also read on a German site that they are expected to hit the street around April. That was for the Q80, not sure if they are going to be available at the same time.
Tom M
02-05-2010, 10:55 PM
#12
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: pound ridge,
NY
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
ORIGINAL: ExFokkerFlyer
I think it's interesting that Hacker went with a front mounted outrunner. It would make sense that their intention was to have a C50 replacement, that's actually a pretty smart idea. The reason I am scratching my head though, more so than usual, is that most people have gone away from the front mounted motors without rear support. I am looking at the rear of the motor and don't see provisions for any support...
Tom M
I think it's interesting that Hacker went with a front mounted outrunner. It would make sense that their intention was to have a C50 replacement, that's actually a pretty smart idea. The reason I am scratching my head though, more so than usual, is that most people have gone away from the front mounted motors without rear support. I am looking at the rear of the motor and don't see provisions for any support...
Tom M
I was wondering the same, but then I got to thinking that Pletty's have been mounted with rear support only for several years and there is no difference from a structural stand point whether a motor is front mounted or rear mounted assuming the moment length is the same. Anyways, an intriguing design none the less.
Joe
02-05-2010, 11:26 PM
#13
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
The difference is in the structural integrity of what the motor is mounted to. The firewall mount is a much more rigid way to mount a motor. Typically they are supported by 180 degrees plus of a good solid joint. Nosering mounted, you are relying on the integrity of the glasswork/carbon of the nose section of the airframe. You are essentially hanging 20 plus ounces off of glass or carbon and relying on it to hold with all the gyroscopic forces of a 20"+ prop. That's the argument... Now, with my old Genesis, you could grab the prop and make the nose flex a couple degrees in each direction... that is until I reinforced it. I had about a hundred flights on it before that... and several more after... no issues.
But if you search the forums, they general consensus was that nose ring mounting is bad, aft mounting is good... and I suspect that's why we don't see many motors anymore that can be mounted by the nose. Dualsky used to be able to be mounted either way, but the new models are rear-mounted supported on the front to avoid damage.
FWIW
Tom M
But if you search the forums, they general consensus was that nose ring mounting is bad, aft mounting is good... and I suspect that's why we don't see many motors anymore that can be mounted by the nose. Dualsky used to be able to be mounted either way, but the new models are rear-mounted supported on the front to avoid damage.
FWIW
Tom M
02-06-2010, 12:12 AM
#14
My Feedback: (92)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rosamond, CA
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
I don't know why, but every front mounted outrunner I have done has not worked. I destroyed a Partner fuse when I tried a front mounted outrunner in it, and several foamies got the nose destroyed when the front mounted outrunner ripped them apart. I only rear mount outrunners now. My personal opinion is that it has something to do with gyroscopic precession and the difference in the forces between front and rear mount.
02-06-2010, 12:56 AM
#15
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
Tony,
I've had four with nosering mounted outrunners and they were all fine when I had them... three are still flying. Now, I know there are plenty of people like yourself Tony who had issues, so I can't say that there is nothing wrong with that kind of mounting... I just have never had any trouble, maybe it's just luck. But because you and others have had so many issues, and the prevailing thought was that nosering mounting was not a good idea, I am surprised that Hacker designed the motor this way. Maybe they have a better way of mounting it than we do?
Tom M
I've had four with nosering mounted outrunners and they were all fine when I had them... three are still flying. Now, I know there are plenty of people like yourself Tony who had issues, so I can't say that there is nothing wrong with that kind of mounting... I just have never had any trouble, maybe it's just luck. But because you and others have had so many issues, and the prevailing thought was that nosering mounting was not a good idea, I am surprised that Hacker designed the motor this way. Maybe they have a better way of mounting it than we do?
Tom M
02-06-2010, 10:32 AM
#16
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Springfield, MA
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
When mounted on a firewall any torque produced by the motor is transmitted to the fuselage. But since the fuselage is larger in circumference at the location of the firewall rather than at the nose, the force is spread out over a larger circumference. But thats only half the story. The torque produced by the motor must be opposed by the fuselage. The radius of the firewall acts as a lever arm, and the larger the lever arm the less force the fuselage has to apply. This is similar to a servo horn, the farther out you go the less force is required to stop a servo from moving(Torque=force x lever arm).
Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it(at least for now).
P.S. Unfortunately, I've got first hand knowlege of an unsupported Hacker A-60 ripping loose from a Prestige.
Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it(at least for now).
P.S. Unfortunately, I've got first hand knowlege of an unsupported Hacker A-60 ripping loose from a Prestige.
02-06-2010, 04:25 PM
#18
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Eindhoven, NETHERLANDS
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
I am flying the Pletty mounted in the spinner so then you have a rear-mounted motor on the nosering which still sort of scares me. I think what is helping this solution is the fact you then have to use the RASA folding prop. I think it makes quite a difference on the stress induced on the nosering (provided the prop can actually fold....).
If I would do it again I would go for the rear-mounted motor on a firewall with a folding prop, just for safety.
So the front mounted Q80 might benefit of the folding prop as well.
Volkert
If I would do it again I would go for the rear-mounted motor on a firewall with a folding prop, just for safety.
So the front mounted Q80 might benefit of the folding prop as well.
Volkert
02-07-2010, 02:28 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Livonia,
MI
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
I was judging and witnessed an AXI pull right out of the nose of a plane. It was either a Genesis or a Smaragd (can't remember). It happened shortly after entering the box from an end maneuver and there was a brief, deep-toned rumbling sound followed by shrapnel. The plane went into the falling leaf routine and wasn't damaged too badly. We were able to see where the motor just ripped the glass right out of the nose. We never did find the motor. It was a well-built plane with a fair number of flights on it. In any event, it was definitely some sort of destructive harmonic similar to flutter. If I were using an outrunner, it'd be rear-mounted to a firewall.
Verne
Verne
ORIGINAL: ExFokkerFlyer
The difference is in the structural integrity of what the motor is mounted to. The firewall mount is a much more rigid way to mount a motor. Typically they are supported by 180 degrees plus of a good solid joint. Nosering mounted, you are relying on the integrity of the glasswork/carbon of the nose section of the airframe. You are essentially hanging 20 plus ounces off of glass or carbon and relying on it to hold with all the gyroscopic forces of a 20''+ prop. That's the argument... Now, with my old Genesis, you could grab the prop and make the nose flex a couple degrees in each direction... that is until I reinforced it. I had about a hundred flights on it before that... and several more after... no issues.
But if you search the forums, they general consensus was that nose ring mounting is bad, aft mounting is good... and I suspect that's why we don't see many motors anymore that can be mounted by the nose. Dualsky used to be able to be mounted either way, but the new models are rear-mounted supported on the front to avoid damage.
FWIW
Tom M
The difference is in the structural integrity of what the motor is mounted to. The firewall mount is a much more rigid way to mount a motor. Typically they are supported by 180 degrees plus of a good solid joint. Nosering mounted, you are relying on the integrity of the glasswork/carbon of the nose section of the airframe. You are essentially hanging 20 plus ounces off of glass or carbon and relying on it to hold with all the gyroscopic forces of a 20''+ prop. That's the argument... Now, with my old Genesis, you could grab the prop and make the nose flex a couple degrees in each direction... that is until I reinforced it. I had about a hundred flights on it before that... and several more after... no issues.
But if you search the forums, they general consensus was that nose ring mounting is bad, aft mounting is good... and I suspect that's why we don't see many motors anymore that can be mounted by the nose. Dualsky used to be able to be mounted either way, but the new models are rear-mounted supported on the front to avoid damage.
FWIW
Tom M
02-07-2010, 03:50 AM
#20
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
... Looking at the Q80 picture in the Hacker catalogue; should be possible to make an rear support...
EG: carbonplate2-3mm thick ( approx 3cm dia ), drill 5 holes in, put carbon rods in the holes,isolated by fuelhoses, fit everything in the center of the "spoke-space" ... rest of support to the fuse-frame could be the same as the C50... Hmm...
Just some thoughts, hard to say without the motor close-up... Anyway, would be interesting to try this motor, if i did not have two of the C50 already
Kjell Olav
EG: carbonplate2-3mm thick ( approx 3cm dia ), drill 5 holes in, put carbon rods in the holes,isolated by fuelhoses, fit everything in the center of the "spoke-space" ... rest of support to the fuse-frame could be the same as the C50... Hmm...
Just some thoughts, hard to say without the motor close-up... Anyway, would be interesting to try this motor, if i did not have two of the C50 already
Kjell Olav
02-07-2010, 05:04 AM
#21
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
... Or mayby i am totally wrong...
Hard to see which parts are moving in this motor... could the spokes move as well ...?
Kjell Olav
Hard to see which parts are moving in this motor... could the spokes move as well ...?
Kjell Olav
02-07-2010, 09:38 AM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vikersund, NORWAY
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Two new F3A outrunners from Hacker
looks like the purple ring is moving and the shaft is connected to this , you see it if you looks at the Hacker site.