Hacker feigao and Neu motors

[Andrewg]

Most manufacturerd of new brushless motor designs have moved to slottless stators claiming superior performance. A new motor suggests this trend may be fashion and little else.

Steve Neu has just published tests of Hacker and Feigao slotless B50-9XL's and his new 4 pole-12 slotted stator motor.

The Hacker, Feigao and Neu have rpm/v of 1900, 1860 and 1500 rpm respectively. All were tested at 20 volts (18 or 20 cell).

Efficiency: The Neu is tops at 91%. The Hacker at 88% and the Feigao peaks at 80%. The graph below shows the Neu is particularly strong and cool running from 1-50 amps.

Despite these differences with a few more amps will achieve the same power at the expense of runtime. On 3300's that means 3:30 run for the Neu; 3:20 for the Hacker and 3:10 for the Feigao.

In sprint racing no issue they can all run hard. But for any timed or longer event the Neu will have a definite edge and on an oval its smooth driving 4-pole design, better torque and power should make it a winner

Neu's slotted motor is notable in several aspects. First at 50 amps it produces 23% more torque than the Hacker and 27% more than the Feigao. In direct drive it should accelerate much harder and loose less speed in turns.

If prop rpms were equalised on a gearbox the Neu would have 3% more than the Hacker and 7% (rising as amps increase) than the Feigao.

Up to 30 amps the Neu's has 25-10% more power than the Hacker. At 50 amps this has narrowed to 3%. The Feigao trails by 60-19% and 11% at the same points.

In short the Neu has some serious low amp grunt and better efficiency and power than the current champ at up to at least 50 amps.

The Hacker really only looses out at the bottom end as amps rise so does it. Probably better suited to riggers on an oval and for SAW performance diffs between it and the Neu look negligible.

The Feigao is an inexpensive and powerful motor for sport and oval racing. It looks to loose out most in SAW and runtime.
Also dont go adding way more cells than is typically withthe hacker equivalents these motors have high iron losses

Usually I would question results produced by the maker. However Neu started with SofA technology and worked from and has been very open in reporting success and failure. Neu started with an Aveox rotor and stator, changed the laminations which reduced performance then took some design hints from Kontronik's stators. As a result he has redefined state of the art within a very short development window.

This motor is as American as Aveox and has the potential to put the US back on top of the brushless performance stakes.

oh and its an unfashionable slotted stator motor...................

[Andrewg]

There is a link to a composite graph here

http://forums.radiocontrolzone.com/forumdisplay.php?f=335

[Jeff Shriver]

I am surprised by the effficiency difference between the Hacker and Feigao. I thought the Feigao was a exact knock-off of the Hacker. Also, the Feigao line is the same as the Nemesis line, isn't it?

[Jay Turner]

No one with any credibility that I remember ever said the two were identical. There is a reason that the Hacker is a bit more expensive, and now we know that the euro exchange rate isn't the only reason for the Nemesis' lower price tag.

But it would be pretty tough to see a difference on an oval course with either....a few percentage points in efficiency can be eaten up with poor cells, a so-so setup, etc. Chasing after a few amps or a few ounces is a futile effort for most.

BTW I own two Nemesis motors and am happy with them. I may even try one at the SAWs if I have time...... :p

[brooks93]

where can you go and look at these neu motors

[Andrewg]

Jeff
they are not an exact knock off - they are heavier and from dyno testing it seems the Feigao range suffers from high iron losses

This means as voltage levels rise the motor rapidly hits peak efficiency begins to decline across the entire amp range. its caused by a cheap stator material.

Feigao are nealry every hacker look alike on slae at present.


Jay
Deadright. These are good motors especially the 36mm version. The 480's and 20's seem to lag a little behind the Hacker equivalents

And with 3300's unless you need to run more than 3 minutes with these particular motors it looks like they will be as fast as anything else - just a little bit warmer.

One other thing that is notable is they seem to be much better suited to currrent draws over 30-35 amps. The low current efficincy is relatively poor but picks up from 35-80A.

If you are thinking about SAW - as the iron losses are related to rpm - the Feigao B50-8S motors peak efficincy was on 10v (45000 rpm free running) and falling thereafter - altho output continued to increase on 12v.

Kelly
you can contact Steve Neu through Ezone forums or Fly DMA were mentioned as a stockist . http://flydma.com/flydmahome.asp

[Don Wollard]

Andrew-

Brushless motors are very complicated machines. Often even the top engineers have trouble sorting out all the variations between one motor design to another. In fact – BL motors for hobby applications are typically designed for a specific use or operating range or they are designed to be mass produced at a low price. There really isn’t an in between. Therefore – someone who does not know there could be a difference with the design parameter of any motor could easily be mislead by the comparison you are referencing.

I have a couple questions. Is this the same motor SteveN has been working on for the past couple years? If so, the comparisons you made are of hand built prototypes which you then use to compare to production motors. Is this a fair comparison? I think not – but certainly OK as a point of reference. General motor variation in the electric motor industry (ISO 9000 guidelines) exceeds 5% for brushless motors. This in itself would have an impact if calculated into your chart.

Steve is certainly in the top dozen or so motor engineers in the States. He has ton’s of practical experience with RC applications and is a serious hobbyist to boot. Anything he comes up with is certainly noteworthy and no doubt a top performer.

Did you say the comparison chart you are referring to was prepared by Neu? If so, what equipment was used for the test and who calibrated it? Steve uses a homemade dyno device which I am sure is a very good one. You should also know that the very best industrial dyno’s available also accept a 3-5% variation for calibrated units. I would love to see the same comparison performed with a pro dyno used and the motors operated as if an unsophistitcated hobbyist where at the controls. You know … how a typical hobbyist abuses his equipment.

then took some design hints from Kontronik's stators

Hmmm!!! Kontronic stators are patented, worldwide. You either use this design or you don’t. Which is it?

Efficiency: The Neu is tops at 91%. The Hacker at 88% and the Feigao peaks at 80%. The graph below shows the Neu is particularly strong and cool running from 1-50 amps.

4 pole motors typically are more efficient than 2 pole motors @ lower amp draws. What happens above 50 amps could make the difference for model boaters and some car applications. Typically - a model boaters who runs BL motors may tell you a dyno report generally does not give a clear snap shot of how a motor runs in the field testing. There is never a substitute for field testing with any set up. Who knows why, its just different.

Up to 30 amps the Neu's has 25-10% more power than the Hacker. At 50 amps this has narrowed to 3%.

That is a typical fall off when comparing a 4 pole to a 2 pole motor. Nothing new. And with the typical variations the motor industry uses, its very possible that the Hacker is more efficient @ 50 amps+/- with equal or better torque curve.

Chinese motors are not good to compare to anything but other Chinese motors. Typically – the Chinese motor industry uses variation of machine built motors as high as 20%. Geezzzz! I published this info on this site more than a year ago.

Neu's slotted motor is notable in several aspects. First at 50 amps it produces 23% more torque than the Hacker and 27% more than the Feigao. In direct drive it should accelerate much harder and loose less speed in turns.

The real issue is for how long? Slotted motors are notorious for holding waste heat hence loosing large volumes of efficiency, if pushed over a given time line. Iron based motors such as the Neu motor in turn hold more waste heat than a cooper based slotless motor. Holding heat is not good for the typical model boater and death for the sprint racer.

Again – comparing these motors on a pro-dyno and let them run for say 5 minutes at any operating level you like would give us a better picture of this motor. A motor engineer would look at the heat variant to properly analyze what’s happening.

A poster on a different Forum noted the follow to your report;

>>>> Great info - but the Kv are not the same... Hacker at 1900 and Neu at 1500 - that's a pretty significant difference in Kv values.<<<

You replied ….

If you equalise the rpms on a gearbox the Neu has 3% more torque. Otherwise it still has the power and efficiency advantages shown.

I don’t get it. You are either comparing apples to apples or you are not. Assuming an adjustment in motor comparison via a gearbox does not equalize anything. The reason is simple. Magnet circuits change, sometimes significantly, in 2 pole motors in various Kv ranges which is common knowledge. In turn, the typical 2 pole motor performance changes are generally notable with changes in the Kv. S0 …this could potentially render your entire report useless as a bona fide motor comparison guideline. Again, a 3% variation is essentially meaningless if you use the same standards that the motor industry uses as a manufacturing guideline.

[Andrewg]

Don

I think you missed my point here. There is a line of high performance motors waiting for some enterprising individual to sell them, and they appear to be leading edge without the need to waste money on unproductive development.

To your points:

Brushless motors are complex: Brushless motors are extremely simple machines and performance in an electric motor is very consistent. The work which goes into their design is sophisticated. I don’t find them confusing at all – but I would not try to wring that last 8% out of one.

I think that Neu has made progress in part because he has a dyno with which he can obtain accurate repeatable data against which changes can be assessed. Does Xtreme have one?

Within the limits of current materials, cell technology and manufacturing process designs have stabilized. Wheel or external rotor motors run at up to 96% efficiency as can some internal rotor motors. The information is available in any number of research papers and published bulletins. And yes I get a lot of them off the net because they are published there. Eg CSIRO

Motor development awaits new technology like superconductors and lighter more easily manufactured materials. Controllers are an area of research.

However I have seem some confused people including engineers. One who makes industrial and medical motors told me he didn’t believe Hackers could make 90+% efficiency at the power levels they claimed – he was wrong. He is still making motors.

One guy told me he knew the secret of Feigao/Nemesis motors. They used the same wind in every motor and different magnet strengths to achieve different rpm/v. Now that is confusion. If he had been only half as ignorant he would have realized a simple test of coil resistance and induction would show that not to be the case (or the magnet!! lol).

Proto motors. Not sure. However the motor I based the comparison on is not the F5B or F5F motors that Neu has been squeezing. However, to satisfy my curiosity I will compare Neus tests of handmades from Hacker, Kontronic, Pletterberg and Aveox works teams at the fai world championships and try and match them up with some stock motors.

Even if the Hackers are production the fact is they are the best around so why not compare them.

As for 5% variation under ISO 9000. Your point cuts both ways. Applying a 5% window to performance of the motors shows potentially overlapping performance. It demonstrates what fantastic performance the Feigao provide at cheap prices! In fact that’s the feedback everyone seems to give on them.

Further, as a seller of a motor line you also create the problem for your brand that you will not release the dyno tests done on your motors and that you do not have the motor tests you say the others should have.

Finally Neu has achieved a 3% break when you are talking about 90% plus efficiencies – that is a very significant in terms of the small gains which can be made given the small band of inefficiency available for exploitation.

Neu uses a Magtrol hysteresis brake dynamometer which is specified at 0.25-0.5% accuracy. The force measurement are made using a digital scale; current using an LEM current module; and RPM is monitored from an optical wheel on the brake shaft. All the digital and analog voltages are are collected analysed in National Instruments Labview. He uses twin 80 amp power supplies to supply test power. I understand the bench on which it is mounted was contructed by Neu.

In short the dyno was assembled by Neu. However it would be unfair of me to attack his results on that basis. The dyno is used to prepare reports for publication. He is therefore accountable to manufacturers, sellers and modelers for his results. I know of only one who has complained about his test results.

If there are inaccuracies they apply to all motors equally and models from each manufacturer like Actro, Aveox, Hacker, Kontronik. LRK, Plettenberg. Feigao etc turn in consistent results across and between model ranges and motor types.

I am having Magtrol set up a dyno for me so if you would like motors tested it wouldn’t be a problem.

A modeler abusing equipment always equals less performance. The better the product the better it performs under any given circumstances. Neu runs his motors in regular competition at loads up to 205 amps. I don’t think there are any problems about the integrity of these motors.

RE: Kontronik stators are patented, worldwide. You either use this design or you don’t. Which is it?

Don you are not this simple. First as stated Neu uses a slotted stator, Kontronik use a slotless stator. Second Neu published his comments on this issue and it is clear he changed the thickness of the stator to achieve improved performance.

Significantly Neu made these changes before going into production, to avoid problems like poor efficiency overheating and flux leakage. Not all motor makers do this.

I am aware of the characteristics of the various pole configurations in electric motors. You would also be aware that four pole motors have a wide operating band viz a vis 2 pole motors. The test of the F5F motor suggests that the Neu motors have very broad bands of high efficiency at high power.

Chinese motors: Don you sell Chinese motors. The race of a person making a motor does not determine its worth. The Feigao/Nemesis Neu tested had a resistance the same as the Hacker i.e. very good. The issue with the Nemesis is high iron losses in the stator and ok but not great bearing quality. So keep them under about 40000 rpm and they are fine. When they get the better stator material their clone will cost $100 with $200 outputs.

Yes they have production variations but within their production variation the results are publishable and stand up in $/watt terms.

The Feigao/Nemesis I have seen tested perform very consistently. Not brilliant in all respect eg poor low amp efficiency, less runtime but very good in terms of torque, power output and high current handling

Heat: For heat to be a problem first the motor has to make it. The Neu motor makes relatively very little. Heat management in a suitably specified motor should not be a problem. Aveox or Mega slotted stators don’t have.

Waste heat in the Neu motor is between 40% (at 10A) and 25% (at 50A) less than a Hacker at the same voltage and current levels. A exponential trend line suggests the cross over occurs at 60amps. In other words the performance is leading edge.

Also the motor has a finned can like a Hacker C series. A rule of thumb suggests motors which produce 3 watts waste heat per sq inch of motor surface area should be able to run indefinitely without cooling. The Neu has sufficient surface area to dissipate the heat associated with a 55 amp load – more than reasonable when you consider it will have a 950 watt output at that level. My gut feeling is this is optimistic; suffice to say there is probably no cooler running motor of this size at this power level on todays market.

Re-torque and the equalization. Ok as you don’t get it let me explain. I am comparing the motors the way modelers will use them.

Racing classes are mandated on voltage or a proxy like cell count. If you like to use motors direct drive then it is appropriate to compare what the racer will have to use on say 18 cells. Just the same way Aveox, Lehner & Nemesis are all different.

For direct drive the raw figures are what will be turning the propeller. With the lower Kv of the Neu and Lehner you would have to use a higher pitch prop.

However the site I referred everyone to was a car site ie they always use gearboxes, as some boaters do.

Gearboxes do not increase or reduce motor performance (with exception of a very few watts loss in friction). They can make better use of what is available. They usually multiply (reduction) or divide torque (overgearing) in proportion to the ratios used. If we set the motors up on a gearbox so all the props were turning the same speed what would be the turning force on the prop – ie essentially the effect on acceleration.

The gearbox will not allow the motor to perform better than it did on a dyno test. It will not produce more or less power, it will not use more or less amps its efficiency will be the same. But if I use one to equalise the motor rpms I know then what I can achieve with each motor.

BTW Then you quote another poster who noticed the motors had different Kv’s. You fail to mention he did this after I had provided that information in a previous post

Testing the Neu against the other motors despite a different KV is absolutely valid.

And finally the comments about magnet circuits (you must show me one) and the failure to use motors of the same kv invalidating the comparison are incorrect.

First it is necessary to compare what will be available – the Neu motors with 4 poles have bigger gaps in Kv between each winding – just like an Aveox. All these motors would be each maker’s best motor for sprint race 18 cell mono or sport hydros.

Second, having different kvs is no point in this comparison. The motors are the best each manufacturer has for the 18 cell mono/sport hydro class. The question is which will deliver the best performance.

[Jay Boyd]

http://www.magtrol.com/motortesting/hd_dynamometers.htm#special

[Don Wollard]

Originally posted by Jay Boyd
http://www.magtrol.com/motortesting/hd_dynamometers.htm#special

Exactly Jay. We use a $75K Magtrol dyno to test the Chili motors before taking them into the field. These are real pro units and when calibrated are as close as you can get with electric motor performance.

[Andrewg]

Don

So you have a dyno? or Xtreme Energy has the dyno?

Are you going to show us the data for the Chilli Peppers?


To those who asked see:

http://www.neumotors.com/neu_home.asp is the site. But is is only just being developed. Interestingly they have a motor calculator on there. And there are several winds and sizes.

[Don Wollard]

Originally posted by Andrewg
[B]So you have a dyno?

No we rent time from an EE who owns one.

Are you going to show us the data for the Chilli Peppers?

"Show us"? What ... you have a mouse in your pocket or do you wish to order a motor? The data on our production motors can be found @www.rumrunnerhobbies.com

BTW - The Chili's are 100% American developed and made. No Chinese parts, what-so-ever. Hacker can't say that. Hacker's aren't 100% German - but they claim Made in Germany.

We never sent SNeu a Chili. Someone loaned him a pre-production prototype to look at. He tested the motor and then cut it open without permission - and then would not send the motor back. Hmmm!!!!

I got wind of his dyno when he gave me feed back based on his test. His numbers where somewhat different than we got on the same motors on a $75,000+ Magtrol dyno.

If you want to see a Chili in operation Andrew - there is a little video clip on the bottom of the CP20 motor page on RumRunnerHobbies.com. Click on Brushless Motors and you will get there. This was clip was sent to us from dealer in Oregon who dropped the Hacker line after getting our motors. If you listen - you can here his comments. This guy alone, is selling over 300 Chili's a month, must say something.

Then again, this thread isn't about Chili's, is it. Its about comments and conclusions you made regarding a motor you have never seen or tested. Sounds authoritative to me!

[Andrewg]

Don

You make me laugh.

You are right!!! I should accept the coments of a guy on a video I dont know about a motor I am not sure he is using, but might be selling, over a dyno report. I mean hey how objective can a dyno be after all?

But like you said I was talking about the Neu motors. I think they are a great all American motor. And your right I have never seen Neus motors only the dyno tests. But you cant tell how a motor runs by eyeballing it, only by testing.

BTW the sales sheets you referred me to are missing figures for maximum efficiency; current at max efficincy and; power @ 7v categories you put up?

Also the Ir and Io figures give max efficiency of 82% at 40 amps at 7v. The calculator I am using is usually very optimistic about efficiency and amps at max efficiency.

Hey happy to be proved wrong....

[sneu]

Originally posted by Don Wollard


We never sent SNeu a Chili. Someone loaned him a pre-production prototype to look at. He tested the motor and then cut it open without permission - and then would not send the motor back. Hmmm!!!!

I got wind of his dyno when he gave me feed back based on his test. His numbers where somewhat different than we got on the same motors on a $75,000+ Magtrol dyno.



Careful Don--you are saying things that are not really true. Yes the motor was loaned to me for testing and it was returned to that person. The one that I saw as parts was one that was burned up when the user(not me) tried to use it in a plane. I did not "cut" up any motor. In any event unless you have some written agreement when you hand out samples I think it is fair game if someone wants to look inside.

You "got wind" when I sent you my test data! As I recall you said at the time that you were going to add back iron to improve the rather high noload current tha the CP had. You imply that since my dyno is made by my hand that it could not be accurate--bad assumption IMHO. BTW my dyno has a Magtrol brake in it--does that make it any better? :)

Please be at least fair when talking about what I have done. I think that my motors will stand on their own merits.

Steve

[Don Wollard]

Now I have a few minutes and can reflect on your post, Andrew. I am glad I entertain you – things must be slow down under.

You made a post on this forum and others making statements of fact and drawing conclusions. Have you ever tested the motor you are promoting or only repeating what you read somewhere? As in the past, when challenged you seem to enjoy changing the subject in a strange way by attempting to divert the reader’s attention.

So back to your post and the subject matter of this thread, jolly fella.

Mind you, I was not questioning the new SNeu’s motor; I questioned your report because I didn’t understand your conclusions. I first felt that perhaps you left something out (on accident). But now, perhaps not.

So let’s see here. You compared a 1900Kv motor to 1600Kv motor of different design parameters as if these motors where equal. Then …. To justify the differences you used gearing to equalize the motors. Hmmm!!!

My PM’s and email, today, had a number of comments sent by responsible spokesmen regarding your statements. I only have time this eve to share a couple which addresses your comments on using gearing to equalize the Neu motor to a Hacker of different Kv’s. As follows;

>>>>The gearbox will not allow the motor to perform better than it did on a dyno test. It will not produce more or less power, it will not use more or less amps its efficiency will be the same. But if I use one to equalize the motor rpms I know then what I can achieve with each motor. ''<<<<

Yet another ….

>>>>"Gearboxes do not increase or reduce motor performance (with exception of a very few watts loss in friction). They can make better use of what is available. They usually multiply (reduction) or divide torque (overgearing) in proportion to the ratios used. If we set the motors up on a gearbox so all the props were turning the same speed what would be the turning force on the prop – ie essentially the effect on acceleration. " <<<<

Exactly!

Further and based on your report I would give the edge to the Hacker for the needs of the model boating community. Aircraft have different needs. Multiple pole motors with high efficiency are quite useful.

The constant of any motor is a function of its design parameters. This is true even if the motor is brushed. The high efficiency BL motors tend to display lower output than Amp Hog motors. This is well documented in both publications as well as in the field.

Everyone uses Hacker BL Motors as a benchmark to compare with. Hobbyist do this, retailers do this and so do design engineers with dignified credentials such as Steve Neu. I guess than means Hacker is ‘the’ motor to beat or at least compare to, wouldn’t you say? And for the Chinese motors, they are cheap, use cheap components and are suppose to be that way. I would be disappointed if the new SNeu motors wasn’t twice as good as the Chinese motor, wouldn’t you?

You presented two very different motors (one a prototype 4 pole motors to a 2 pole production motor) and then … you drew conclusions as if to say the comparison motors are similar. They aren’t. Motor development takes a long time as well as a lot of effort to get right. Perhaps there will be additional test/comparisons on these new motors soon.

[Don Wollard]

Originally posted by sneu
[B]Careful Don--you are saying things that are not really true. Yes the motor was loaned to me for testing and it was returned to that person.

Welcome to the Rum Runner Forum, Steve. I stand corrected. My comment was based on several emails I received as well as a post you made on another site. I must have misunderstood.

With all due respect, it wasn't your motor I questioned as much as the report and the reporter. I think that was fair and you would do no less.

BTW my dyno has a Magtrol brake in it--does that make it any better? :)

I have an email from you early this year in which you described your dyno equipment to me. Sounds like you have upgraded. That is great news.

Please be at least fair when talking about what I have done. I think that my motors will stand on their own merits.

Your accomplishments are legendary, indeed. I too am sure your motors will be among the very best. With your experience, background in the motor business and skills as a writer including comparing other products - I admit surprise at how your new motor was presented if this data indeed came from you. Thats all.

Oh! Now that you are here, could you better explain the comparison presented so that a layman such as me would better understand? That business of the 50amp comparison and using gears to equalize motors that are not equal does not make sense to me and a few others.

[Don Wollard]

Originally posted by sneu
[B].......and it was returned to that person.

Hey Steve. I found an email from earlier this year. "That person" said you kept the motor. Are you now saying this was not true. Hmmm!!!

Does not matter either way - those motors where test motors that we sent out to various parties for feed back. Its a great way to get feed back when you need it in a hurry.

[sneu]

I have none of your motors--I gave the motor that I ran on the dyno back to the same person that supplied it in the first place.

I have used magtrol brakes for years.


Steve

[Andrewg]

Don

Here is the gist of your argument as I understand it:

1. I presented two very different motors (one a prototype 4 pole motors to a 2 pole production motor) and then … you drew conclusions as if to say the comparison motors are similar. They aren’t.

2. Motor development takes a long time as well as a lot of effort to get right. Perhaps there will be additional test/comparisons on these new motors soon.


I believe the comparison is valid because:

In relation to point 1.

1. all the data i reproted is avaiable in the current edition of quiet flyer. I have reported it accurately and I have explained my manipulation of that data

2. the motors for which the data was reported are those from each manufacturer which are/would be used in 18 cell mono (the Hacker B50-9XL is now; the Feigao 9XL has a very close Kv); and the Neu 1515/1.5 the Kv closest in the Neu range to to a good 18 cell motor

3. the motors are fundamentally similar ie internal rotor sensorless brushless motors

4. they vary in size in minor ways. the masses are not dissimilar, the physical dimension of the rotors/ stators are similar in size, the statior structure differs, the most apparent difference the Neu is a 38mm can (vs 36-37 for others) as the stator s thicker and the finning takes it to 48mm

5. there is no discrimination in the rules for open mono and hydro classes between motors on the basis of:
* brushed or brushless
* the method of winding used
* stator design
* number of poles
* physical dimensions.

6. all open race classes are based on cell counts. The best available motor no matter how compromised is the one to compare

7. when comparing motors for use in a cell class it is most appropriate to compare them with other motors which are likely to be used in that cell class.

8. the assessment of the absolute torque outputs of each motor by indexing them against the kv of the Hacker is totally appropriate and is similar to the way in which gearbox ratios are chosen for competition.

9 the rules do not discrimate on price, market position or production run quantities;

10. Mr Neu informs me the production motors will use the same dimesions and materials as the test motor. Like the test motor they will be wond by Mr Neu. In short is representative of the production motors.

11. aready at least one senior multiple record holder has inquired about using the motors in NAMBA sanctioned racing.

On your point 2:

The development of the Neu motors its origins and progress has been reported in Quiet Flyer and Ezone. It has been distinguished by openess, at times humour, and the definition of the motor in terms of its performance on the dyno and in models.

I am aware of the issues in motor and electronics development having developed one motor, the Hacker Jeti Navy controllersand a number of industrial prototypes for UAV's and micro power units.

As the forum is labelled as one for the discussion of new brushless I thought it appropriate to post the data on new motors here

It is an accurate reflection of published data. So I am relaying information which I belive is credible.

I have been open accountable and explicit about one manipulation of the torque data - which I am assured by a holder of 3 doctorates and lifetime career in particle physics . He is family tho.

BTW the guy in the video .... A business colleague of his took the time to email about it today. I now have two reports which cannot be reconciled in any element.

[Don Wollard]

Originally posted by sneu
I have none of your motors--I gave the motor that I ran on the dyno back to the same person that supplied it in the first place.


No problem either way Steve. I would have given you the motor if you had asked. I could only reply on the email I received from the other party and the fact you didn't reply to my email asking for the motor back.

Last note from me on this matter.

You are famous for your unbiased reports on airplane products. I have enjoyed your writings for sometime. For that reason, it seemed strange to me the report of your new motor(posted on this site and others) compared in the way it was. this sounded more like a test motor report then a statement made by yourself. So I respectfully requested clarification - and didn't get it.

Just for kicks - I would love to see an unbiased test of your motor at 40-50 amps. That is, with similar product so that there is a level playing field to begin with. I will look forward to buying one of your motors as soon as you have a distributor.

Best of luck with your venture.

[Andrewg]

Quiet FLyer December 2004 Vol 9 Issue 12 $US6.50 or available on line from Kiona Publishing at http://www.quietflyer.com/

Pages 18-21

Pg 21 see
Graph 1 and 2. The results for the Hacker (B50-XL9)at 15, 20, and 30 volts. (sic)
Graph 3. The results for the Feigao (B50-XL9) at 20 volts.
Graph 5. The results for the Neu F5F motor (1515/1.5) when tested at 20 volts (sic)

Data presented in text Pp19-20
motor diameter
motor length
motor mass
stator diameter
stator length
stator slots
gear ratio
output shaft diameter
motor mount dimensions
gear ratio
Io
Ir
Kv
Model use and performance

Data presented in each graph
Voltage range 20 volts
Amp Draw range 0-50 amps
Rpm 0-10000 rpm
Torque 0-250 oz in
Watts out 0-1000 watts
Efficiency 0-100%


Also approximatley 4 years of motor tests are available in PDF as free downloads from the Kiona Publishing site.

These are an excellent reference library and include motors from Actro, Astroflight, Aveox, Electronic Model, Feigao, Graupner, Himaxx, Kontronik, Lehner, LRK, Mega, Multiplex, Plettenberg Razor and others.

Of special note are two sets of tests on factory FAI F5B motors; tests of effect of partial throttle running; and the 160 amp tests on several motors.

Also included are battery controller and partial throttle tests on brushed and brushless motors.

[Don Wollard]

Andrew -

This thread makes no sense. I was still hoping that someone would make sense out of the report you posted. Well ... guess not this time.

New product announcements have always been welcome on this site as long the post is responsible and not misleading.

Thx for posting the good information regarding locations of motor data, for future reference.