![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 1, 2:49*pm, "vaughn"
wrote: "Andy" wrote in message ... *This still leaves total climb capability a bit over 4,500 feet so the straight cruise must get more out of the motor than a sawtooth, though I am not clear why this would be true. One good reason is because the whole electrical system, especially the battery itself, is more efficient when operated at lower currents. *At higher power outputs, a greater percentage of the battery's precious stored energy turns into waste heat, so less of the battery's stored energy is available to actually propel your aircraft.. Vaughn True - though I was under the impression that a sawtooth profile is more efficient for the overall glider-motor system. I'm at a loss as to why the cruise mode for this system would produce nearly twice the range of the sawtooth - at least according to math on the various specs quoted.. The electric motor would have to REALLY hate being run full out. 9B |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The HPH 304S Turbine sustainer glider | kd6veb | Soaring | 2 | September 23rd 09 05:10 AM |
would an electric sustainer be practical | Brad[_2_] | Soaring | 7 | July 24th 09 06:29 PM |
Sustainer engine ignition noise (Solo2350) | Per | Soaring | 8 | January 4th 07 05:56 AM |
DG goes the sustainer option. | Paul | Soaring | 25 | June 4th 04 12:16 AM |
Chasing the front | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 7 | April 21st 04 01:09 PM |