MAD M50C35 test

the values in the video are very similar to the tests that were made in germany. the maximum real output is around 13-14 kilowatts. the continuous output at around 9 kilowatts. that shouldn’t be a bad thing about the motor, special information for all those who are interested in real values. the relationship between engine weight and performance / resilience is pretty much on par with other brands such as geiger, rotex, hacker.

the price is pretty much the same for all current eppg motors. (It is important to take a close look at taxes, import costs, etc. to determine the real final price.)

1 Like

How is real maximum output determined? I have outputted well over 20kw for more then 1 min with mine. Also for continuous output power what temp was the cutoff for the motor?

Just curious about the test rules.

1 Like

I guess your 20 kilowatts are the power output from the baterrie? I am talking about the measured motor power which makes sense. example. a motor delivers 10 kilowatts of shaft power to a test bench. has an efficiency of 90% then the power output from the battery is around 11 kilowatts.

as soon as a motor is heavily overloaded. it is pretty much the same for all of them, no matter which brand, the efficiency drops extremely.

example. the motor is operated with 14 kilowatts of output power and has an efficiency of approx. 80% which is very realistic with a 4 kilogram motor the power consumption from the battery is around 14 kilowatts + 3 kilowatts loss = 17 kilowatts. at 15 kilowatts and 75% efficiency, for example, 15 kilowatts + 3.75 loss = 18.75 kilowatts are taken from the battery.

these figures are only approximate. In reality, the difference between the real power and the power drawn from the battery is even greater because the more the motor is overloaded, the more losses the esc generates.

if you don’t have an electronic test bench with a generator, you can simply test yourself what power a motor actually gives the propeller. you just have to use the propeller’s power diagram. here you can see the required power at a certain speed.

if you now test your eppg you can see exactly how many more kilowatts of the batterrie are needed to achieve this when you bring the propeller to the specific speed. that is then the loss that arises. of course you have to temp. adhere to the air, air pressure etc.

that are also specified in the propeller diagram. all of this is completely unimportant for many eppg pilots. it affects more the people who deal with development and concept creation.

I hope it’s roughly understandable.

it’s not about evaluating a brand of motor or who is better. it is simply a matter of facts about the current state of the art at eppg motors.

This motor is still very powerful. I have thrust tested the smaller version of this motor(mad M40C30) and even that is still giving over 15 pounds more thrust than a well tuned vittorazi moster 185. The motor in the sp140 is even more powerful than the one I tested.

yes that’s right all motors from china have a lot more power than any other. if you want to fly right at the top of the performance class, you can only win with china high tech! you have already shown it in many videos and xc logs.

the efficiency of the propeller at 3700 rpm on the m40c30 / kv 43 is less than 35%. there are almost no propellers that are designed for these speeds. are you sure that you actually do real tests?

the efficiency of the propeller at 3700 rpm on the m40c30 / kv 43 is less than 35%. there are almost no propellers that are designed for these speeds. are you sure that you actually do real tests

First of all thanks to Gerardo for the sharing the video.

@bratwurst Let’s separate show facts from (wild and potentially misleading) interpretations.

In the video Gerardo post a bunch of things are show:

  • He is using a VESC based architecture ESC and another video suggests the ESC is using the VESC 6 architecture
  • He is using the VESC tool
  • He is using the MAD M50C35 34KV (like the SP140 does)
  • He has a proper test bench that looks safe to operate
  • Without load his battery delivers around 71 Volt
  • The video does show that a VESC based controller can drive the M50C35 to a certain degree (not stating anything about max values or details about the controller itself)
  • The main power draw from the battery shown in the video is 167A @ 67 Volt => 11.2 kW (1:02).
  • He runs the engine up to 2233 RPM (1:23), (around 66 Volt * 34 under load)

There is no statement about:

  • the archivable max RPM
  • the archivable continuous output power
  • any power values delivered at the engine shaft - all displayed kW are from the battery (check out the other videos he posted to get more details about the setup)
  • the efficiency of the VESC architecture vs. the ADP ESC
  • the VESC implementation details, Firmware or settings used (that can make a huge difference!)

If you do have any detailed measurements you can share, then many folks here would be interested to see them.
For me personally running though example math on a bunch of approximations does not help a lot.

I hope Gerardo will share more details on the settings he used and on the maximum archivable values with the VESC setup, especially when pushing it more towards the maximum boundaries.

From first hand experience I can tell that pushing this motor with a VESC 100/250 (FW 5.03) beyond 10kW is rather tricky and does get expensive and dangerous really quickly and without any pre-warning!

As of today my advice is NOT to drive a large outrunner motor (with a high pole count) with a VESC based ESC. The new VESC 100/500 may change it, but this is to be proven.
Of course running far away from the maximums is rather easy to showcase, but our EPPG use case is asking for maximum efficiency and does need peak power in some flight situations.

Stay safe folks & always happy landings!

i have no relation to the tester in the video. My statement is that his tests and the simple values ​​are about the same as tests that were made in Germany by someone else. the result is that the motor is pretty much the same as other eppg motors in terms of power throughput. it can neither do more nor less than others and conforms to the rule of watt output per kilogram of engine weight, which has been in effect for years. I issued a warning about the use of esc and vesc on January 27th. this has been known in insider circles for a long time. you personally reject any exchange of information such as facebook as an example. that’s ok. it makes no sense to describe the details of a concept exactly here. it will always be called an esc that is suitable is too expensive. prefer to destroy many esc in order to learn the hard tour at some point what others have tried to explain to you. as soon as the wrong propeller is used, the best high-end system can be destroyed. i often see people think they are “inventors” and think to tune the system by using a “stronger” propeller. although people do not understand the entire relationship between phase currents, torque increase etc due to a lack of experience with it.

First, I forgot to mention, but we were at over 4,000 feet altitude during that test and were comparing to vittorazi engines at the same altitude. Also I was using a 130cm prop spinning at roughly 3000 rpm max and I used a throttle limit. I don’t know the exact rpm as I forgot to bring my tachometer. The test was meant for the battery pack so I wasn’t focusing as much on the motor. Even then, during the test I saw the motor hit thrust levels on our thrust stand far above what we have ever seen with a vittorazi moster 185 produce on that thrust stand regardless of the temperature, wind direction, humidity, etc.

Here is a short clip from the test:

OK. so the smallest props from the pitch of e props with 130 cm draw at least 14 kilowatts of power at 3000 rpm. that means if you bring your motor to 3000 rpm you have a switching / control voltage of around 70 volts on the esc. so that the output from the motor reaches 14 kilowatts, including a loss of 10 percent, it is 15.3 kilowatts that come from the battery to the esc. in the esc, the power is generated from 70 volts by 220 amps. as the torque is not too much voltage, the phase currents will surely rise to over 400 amperes in the controller. therefore it is impossible with such an motor and propeller not even to achieve the performance of a 100 cc gasoline engine. for 5 seconds, yes that can be. I like to be convinced of the opposite.

I held 18kW (measured at the battery) while giving the same thrust as a vittorazi 185(at my high altitude) for over 3 minutes continuous. During that 3 minutes I occasionally pushed the power up to almost 21kW for about 15 seconds at a time where I got over 15lbs more thrust than we measure with vittorazi moster engines. Afterwards I dropped the power to 6kW and held it for 30 more minutes. At the end my motor was fairly hot, but not overheating and my 200amp continuous/280 amp peak ESC wasn’t even warm.

Honestly, this motor performed WAY better than I expected. I was pretty concerned about phase current, but it appears to be fairly low and the esc has handled it fine (up until this point). Even if it is a problem, I already have an M50C35 motor and I have a higher current ESC coming.

1 Like

yes we are all happy if you show us your eppg somewhere live with this very good performance.

I think there will soon be a billionaire in the eppg business. unbelievable this power!
we in europe don’t blow the air against houses. we have to try. :rofl:

The power difference was measured at 5,000 ft above sea level. It won’t be nearly as big of a difference at seal level.