Power Pack H - What are the motors rated for?

[JasonK]

I finally got around to bench testing my power pack H, but came up with some unexpected results.

• The store page indicates that it will work from 2S to 4S.
• The Build and Demo videos for the dart indicate that it will work from 2S to 4S.
• The EMAX store page for the 1106 motors (which appears to be the same motor) indicates that the 4500kv motor can do 4S for a 2in class prop, but 3S up to 3in

However on my bench, with the GemFan 3035 TriBlade Propellers that come with the H pack, the motors run fin on 2S, however at 3S it only take 20 or so seconds for the motors to get rather hot to the touch (to were I don't think I could hold them for 10 seconds afterwords).

Given that everything is telling me the motors are rated for 3in props at 3S, is there anything I should be checking for something I might have done wrong? or is it possible/likely that the ratings on the various pages are for the 2in props and a 3in prop that is less 'aggressive' then the one that ships with the H pack?

Thoughts?

 

[JasonK]

Maybe an easier question -> has anyone ran the H-pack on 3 (or 4S) with the props in the pack successfully?

 

[Mr.Grinch]

I ran the H pack with 3” supplied props on 3s exclusively with no issues. Motors ran warm, but not hot and had 10 minute flights with 650mah batteries.

 

[JasonK]

were you running at 100% throttle the whole time? (as 2S full would be 2/3 throttle on 3S)

 

[JasonK]

I just retested mine on 3S and again it only took ~20 seconds to get the motors to hot to hold.

 

[FishbonesAir]

I just retested mine on 3S and again it only took ~20 seconds to get the motors to hot to hold.

Ancient history thread... the problem is you were doing a static test. In the air, the props are moving as they should, as are the motors. Amp load drops 25-35%, according to EngineerX, and I have no reason to doubt his research.

 

[Mr.Grinch]

Ancient history thread... the problem is you were doing a static test. In the air, the props are moving as they should, as are the motors. Amp load drops 25-35%, according to EngineerX, and I have no reason to doubt his research.

Too bad that whole line just died off, although I did talk to Josh at FF23 and asked about any future development. He said they were looking into slightly larger motors that run more efficiently and hopefully won’t have the same overheating problems that many people had reported. I still like the ones I have, but I don’t push them hard enough to have any issues.

 

[Shurik-1960]

Engines of the same model can be expensive and cheap.Therefore : they pull the model perfectly and do not warm up with the recommended propellers, others just buzz. Here is a qualitative example - https://aliexpress.ru/item/40013389...w.productlist.search_results.0.34a27aa2cTR3Kt

 

[JasonK]

Ancient history thread... the problem is you were doing a static test. In the air, the props are moving as they should, as are the motors. Amp load drops 25-35%, according to EngineerX, and I have no reason to doubt his research.

yes, the load is less.

if the resistance is constant, then 1.5x voltage = 1.5x current => 2.25 power dissipation
so even if the current goes down in flight by 25%, we would be at 1.5 * (1.5*.75) => 1.6875 power dissipation... maybe if it was on the edge of "ok" or you don't normally fly at full throttle for more then a second here or there, might be able to make do.

Also, the prop speed on the stock setup is fairly high, so I doubt the loading would drop as much with these motors as some others.