Wattflyer RC Network: RC Universe :: RCU Magazine :: RCU Forums :: RCU Classifieds :: RCU User Reviews :: RCU YouTube
Home Who's Online Calendar Today's Posts RealTime Post Spy Mark Forums Read
Go Back   WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums - Discuss radio control eflight > Electric R/C Airplanes > Scratch and Kit Built Aircraft
Register Members List Wattflyer Extras Articles Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Social Groups

Scratch and Kit Built Aircraft Discuss and share your scratch built or kit built aircraft as well as building techniques, methods, mediums and resources.

Thank you for your support (hide ads)
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-23-2008, 01:53 AM   #1
Sky Sharkster
Super Contributor
 
Sky Sharkster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,457
View Sky Sharkster's Gallery11
Thanked 379 Times in 353 Posts
Awards Showcase

Globetrotter Pilot 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (20)
Default Homemade, Low-Cost Thrust Stand

Among the several power-system test devices, like wattmeters and tachometers, another handy tool is the thrust stand. David Fuller has published an article describing a DIY, low-cost design, using simple wood parts and a kitchen scale, here;
http://www.rcscratchbuilders.com/col...ruststand.html
rcscratchbuilders.com is a new site with the "builders" in mind, both foam and balsa. If you click on the revolving "Beginners" logo you'll find an easy-to-understand description of watts, volts, amps and "C" rating with a formula to calculate (estimated) flight duration.
Dave is also a Wattflyer member (magic612), check out the site!
Ron
P.S. I've added this to the "Builders Links" under Tools, Measuring and Testing Equipment) http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14117
Sky Sharkster is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2008, 04:12 AM   #2
jdetray
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 331
Thanked 22 Times in 20 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

You can improve the accuracy of your test stand by setting it up to operate as a "pusher." See the photo of my stand below.

This design reduces the influence of the test stand itself on your results. Our own Dr. Kiwi (a frequent poster here) gets all the credit for demonstrating that the pusher design is superior.

- Jeff


Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	motor_test_stand2.jpg
Views:	961
Size:	91.8 KB
ID:	67826  

AMA 787105
My other hobby: AstronomyBoy.com
jdetray is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 08:39 PM   #3
magic612
Bernoulli + Newton = Lift
 
magic612's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicagoland area
Posts: 75
View magic612's Gallery7
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

Hey Ron - I appreciate you posting a link to my article here. Thank you sir!

Jeff - thanks for the thought on the pusher configuration. The way I have designed this stand, it can be used in either manner. The arm for the 3/8" square stock is centered on the vertical arm, and can therefore be used pusher or tractor style.

I also figure that for most prop sizes that I use (8"-10") the area that is "blocked" by the vertical arm is relatively quite small, and rather insignificant considering that a static thrust stand is never going to be as accurate as an actual flying model anyway. But it's a pretty good way to test out various motor / prop / battery systems in the comfort of one's home, instead of running along side the model while holding a wattmeter! Additionally, for full fuselage style planes, the area of the arm is probably less than the drag created by a fuse, so for all intents and purposes, the difference is really a wash, I think.

And for safety's sake, I prefer the tractor method most times. Keeps the prop in a very obvious "keep clear" area. But that's just me.

www.rcscratchbuilders.com - building on the original dream of Wilbur and Orville.
magic612 is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 09:33 PM   #4
jdetray
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 331
Thanked 22 Times in 20 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

When Dr. Kiwi measured the difference, he found that his tractor-style test stand understated thrust between 4.3% and 21.8% compared to the pusher version. In general, the larger the prop, the smaller the difference. Here's the thread.

The Good Doctor's hundreds of motor and prop tests are used as the basis for some thrust calculators, so in that context the improved accuracy is important.

- Jeff

AMA 787105
My other hobby: AstronomyBoy.com
jdetray is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 10:19 PM   #5
magic612
Bernoulli + Newton = Lift
 
magic612's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicagoland area
Posts: 75
View magic612's Gallery7
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

Jeff - my point is that a static thrust stand is never going to give you "real world" performance anyway, so the difference between putting the prop on a thrust stand with a small vertical arm is A) likely to be less than the area of a full-fuselage plane and B) isn't realistic as an measure of actual performance, because it's static (not moving). So I'm not sure how that necessarily "improves accuracy," given the point that if the motor is put on a plane with a large fuselage, the increased "accuracy" just might end up over-stating performance.

As Dr. Kiwi himself acknowledges in that thread, "As you guys mention, the good thing is that the thrust numbers have been understated as opposed to being over-optimistic! I agree with Tom that, in the real world, the nose of any but the most streamlined aircraft will offer some degree of obstruction to airflow."

I'd personally rather understate my performance on the thrust stand, and be pleasantly surprised at the addition thrust I have under actual flying conditions, than have the reverse be true because my "measured" thrust was overstated (since on a marginally thrusted plane, that could prove disastrous!).

I think it's best used as a comparison tool, and for getting some idea of the performance to expect in the "real world." And it's also helpful in choosing an appropriate battery. And I should point out, again, that the thrust stand in the article can be used in either configuration. I actually designed it that way intentionally.

www.rcscratchbuilders.com - building on the original dream of Wilbur and Orville.
magic612 is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Reply

  WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums - Discuss radio control eflight > Electric R/C Airplanes > Scratch and Kit Built Aircraft

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
low cost alternate s-10promod Power Systems 6 04-12-2007 08:55 PM
Thrust Stand Questions?? alienx General Electric Discussions 4 04-11-2007 04:18 PM
Low Cost Brushless Outrunner XTorque General Electric Discussions 24 09-03-2006 01:58 PM
Low Cost (relatively) UAVs adhoc General Electric Discussions 0 08-24-2006 08:54 PM
Low tech, low cost video Commander_Drake Aerial Photography 10 02-14-2006 06:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:23 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 WattfFlyer.com
RCU Eflight HQ

Charities we support Select: Yorkie Rescue  ::  Crohn's & Colitis Foundation



Page generated in 0.19740 seconds with 30 queries