|
|
Post by geoff2474 on Feb 2, 2011 19:25:09 GMT 1
Hi Guys
Do any of you with Watt meters know what the standard SCLP draws either in Watts per volt or Amps?
Also, I see alot of references on various web sites about thrust, normally expressed in ounces.
Am I right in assuming that 30oz of thrust will hold a 30oz plane in a vertical position? If not, then why not?
Geoff
|
|
|
|
Post by Dillzio on Feb 3, 2011 0:10:43 GMT 1
We've discussed this a while ago, from memory the stock cub with the 9x6 will draw about 13a
30 oz thrust will not be able to hold the plane vertical. Holding in a plane in a vertical position is known as hovering, and it's EXTREMELY hard to do. To hover you need a 3D plane (lighter than a cub with much bigger control surfaces), and you need excess throttle so that you can feather it. Hovering a plane requires continual adjustment of the rudder, ailerons and elevator, as well as constantly feathering the throttle (I think that whenever you need to correct the plane with aileron/rudder/elevator adjustments you need to give the throttle a quick blast)
Watch some videos of hovering planes on youtube and you'll understand. The RC training videos are worth looking at, as the show you all the inputs needed on the controller to do the tricks.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff2474 on Feb 3, 2011 17:38:30 GMT 1
We've discussed this a while ago, from memory the stock cub with the 9x6 will draw about 13a . Thanks for that Dill. The amp figure is useful. As for my question regarding thrust, I do not intend to try and hover my SC. I just wanted to understand 'thrust' a little more. From a technical point of view it would suggest that a given thrust would have the ability to pull that amount of weight. For instance, if I suspend my plane on a fishing scale it requires 'X' amount to stop it dropping to the floor. Therefore if I applied thrust = to 'X' it should also keep it from dropping to the floor. Now which bit of that thinking is absolute crap?  Geoff |
|
|
|
Post by geoff2474 on Feb 3, 2011 18:02:46 GMT 1
Sorry Dill
I forgot to remind you of the different actuall model weight where you are, I have made allowance for the English Gravity = 1.25 Australian Gravity.
Just in case you thought I did not know about the difference ;D
Geoff
|
|
|
|
Post by toff on Feb 3, 2011 18:56:23 GMT 1
What? You mean Aussie gravity is stronger than ours? Makes sense I suppose, with them living upside down on the bottom of the world. The gravity down there probably has to be stonger to stop them falling off the planet. Maybe thats why dillz has had fly-aways. The SC gets away from Aussie gravity, enters normal gravity, and ends up on the moon!
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff2474 on Feb 3, 2011 21:07:49 GMT 1
What? You mean Aussie gravity is stronger than ours? Makes sense I suppose, with them living upside down on the bottom of the world. The gravity down there probably has to be stonger to stop them falling off the planet. Maybe thats why dillz has had fly-aways. The SC gets away from Aussie gravity, enters normal gravity, and ends up on the moon! Hi Toff Not exactly what the equation says, I always assumed their gravity was .25 less than ours. On account of them hanging off the bottom of the world, so to speak. It is one of the best explanations for some of the things they say and do ;D ;D Geoff |
|
|
|
Post by toff on Feb 5, 2011 23:20:30 GMT 1
Ahhh, so what you seem to be saying is that the gravity that works 'down under', is lower than ours, making englishmen seem like 'supermen', as opposed to the natives, due to the lesser gravity. Looks good in cricket I suppose, but if thats the case, why do New Zealand kick our bottoms at Rugby?
|
|
|
|
Post by renard80 on Feb 7, 2011 0:59:18 GMT 1
. . . . why do New Zealand kick our bottoms at Rugby? Presumably because it gives them an enormous thrill, sweetie! They do the same at Eton. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it . . . ;D ;D |
|
