Not sure if this is of interest to anyone.
Summary: Compared to 6 Bonka 22,000 6S @ $220 ea
Pack Cost: $492 shipped vs $1,476 shipped (Exactly 1/3 the cost)
Flight Time: ~31 Minutes (same)
Capacity: ~3 kWh (same)
Weight: 30 lbs (same)
2 Likes
I’m seeing this as 20lb heavier for the the bonka equivalent.
8.37lb per module x 6 modules = 50.22lbs
Looks like you calculated the cost with the right amount of modules but did 4 modules for the weight?
This is the original listing I was looking at. It has 5 lbs listed. I do agree that the other has two weights. Would be interesting to see what the discrepancy is caused by. Possibly the cell vs module (cell + casing). The reason I linked the one I did was because it was a little less expensive.
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F123303287202
Looks like I found the source of the measurements. The 5 lb value must be a guess or a lie. Naturally that was the number I saw and used in my calculations. Thanks for catching it. Kind of a bummer that the energy density isn’t quite as high. If you can tolerate 50 lbs of batteries then this is still a great value.
Might be good for someone doing only a trike/quad setup
I am have not heard of a 75lb foot launch but it’s not too far off from some heavier motors. According to the spreadsheet, 55 lbs was was limit for battery weight. That seems pretty heavy but may be doable just not ideal. I am considering converting my airmax 220 to electric, which has both a harness and a quad. The system will likely be 18S so 75 lbs in batteries and 4.5 kWh. Could get a tandem size wing and add even more batteries.
Sounds like a great project - would you go the Eppg route?
Cheers, Patrick
Can you clarify what you mean by Eppg route? There would likely be two configurations. One with a lighter setup for foot launches and the other for quad. The foot launch version would likely be less powerful and shorter flight time. It is just in the idea phase right now but it should be different than anything I have seen on the market. Don’t really want to get ahead of myself until I have fully design the system in CAD at least.
Ironically I have been following alien power systems for years and that is where I planned on getting mine from. I am not sure why Eone has a belt reduction system when Alien offers a lower kV option.
I did some digging when I was making my decision on E styles - apparently unless you go with the pricier pancake style you cant get the torque u need at the rpm u need. The reduction was the solution for for that to run the less expensive motor. I eventually decided to go with Openppg as I wanted to have the complete fold away option and it is easier/cheaper to replace one of 4 motors or controllers should one fail. Being able to take my complete flying kit in the hatch back is worth the extra cost to me. As I get older – still fairly young at 53 now - I want less hassles, starting to minimalize things. Openppg is one of these minimalizing steps.
Cheers, Patrick
1 Like
I see the advantage of getting more bang for your buck but wonder if you really do save much after buying the pulley, bracket, and belt wear.
Yes, I wondered that as well. I dont think belt wear is a big cost factor but over all it is another factor in the equation. After my review of different systems, I would have opted for a direct drive and went with the more expensive pancake motor as the cost difference was higher but the reduction in complication I believed was worth the extra $$. But again, I ended up going more for compactness/lower repair costs versus a lower cost less complicated unit that would cost more to service should something happen. Each has it merits depending on what one needs as a pilot.
Cheers, Patrick