Good explanation and comparison. My dream set up would be a more efficient axial flux turbojet motor. With small diameter twin rotor to increase RPM and efficiency with less inertia. More copper mass in the coils equals more efficiency than what's currently available. I believe we focus too much on batteries and not motor technology capability
Motors are already very efficient if using good motors. Even if you had 100% efficient, no loss motors you only gain 10-15% flight time over what we have now. The batteries are the problem with airplanes. I flew electric in the 90's with brush motors and NiCd batteries.
@@rcdieselrcme too I raced RC cars brushed with Nicd and was lucky to do a 5-minute race. Now I can go 25 minutes plus flat out. When they say electric motors are 90% efficient is very misleading to what's truly happening. I have two electric setups which both claim to be 92% efficient but one of my setups runs longer and just as fast on the same battery because it has a better motor. Look up axial motors design it's going to be the future it's already in some planes now
"...I looked up a typical turbojet and how much propulsive efficiency we get from that specific engine and it works out to be somewhere around 20 to 30%..." This is for full scale turbojets. You get nowhere near that for RC-scale turbines - lower pressure, lower combustion temperature etc. It kind of shows up in the low static thrust value. In practical terms, when battery power density doubles (in a few years) this will bring the EDFs performance close enough for most use-cases. I would totally prefer an EDF with (2,74min*2) circa 5 min flight time with 150+N of peak static thrust (could take a little bigger motor) to this 100N turbine
This is why I went with actual numbers as the last comparison. It's hard to argue with run time, thrust and exit velocity metrics. These are more real world numbers directly applicable to the application.
10 more yrs and just maybe battery tech will be worth doing, like ev cars the battery is way to heavy and way too inefficient. and then there is heat regulation with batteries , sorry way to many fires to be safe. hybrid is the answer at this point in tech.
@fromthebackofmymind for that to work, you need to carry an oxidiser with you. Necessary for a rocket, for anything else it's a lot of hassle. Might want thing about traditional Solar cells and nuclear batteries.
Good explanation and comparison. My dream set up would be a more efficient axial flux turbojet motor. With small diameter twin rotor to increase RPM and efficiency with less inertia. More copper mass in the coils equals more efficiency than what's currently available. I believe we focus too much on batteries and not motor technology capability
Great suggestion!
Motors are already very efficient if using good motors. Even if you had 100% efficient, no loss motors you only gain 10-15% flight time over what we have now. The batteries are the problem with airplanes. I flew electric in the 90's with brush motors and NiCd batteries.
@@rcdieselrcme too I raced RC cars brushed with Nicd and was lucky to do a 5-minute race. Now I can go 25 minutes plus flat out. When they say electric motors are 90% efficient is very misleading to what's truly happening. I have two electric setups which both claim to be 92% efficient but one of my setups runs longer and just as fast on the same battery because it has a better motor. Look up axial motors design it's going to be the future it's already in some planes now
"...I looked up a typical turbojet and how much propulsive efficiency we get from that specific engine and it works out to be somewhere around 20 to 30%..."
This is for full scale turbojets. You get nowhere near that for RC-scale turbines - lower pressure, lower combustion temperature etc.
It kind of shows up in the low static thrust value.
In practical terms, when battery power density doubles (in a few years) this will bring the EDFs performance close enough for most use-cases.
I would totally prefer an EDF with (2,74min*2) circa 5 min flight time with 150+N of peak static thrust (could take a little bigger motor) to this 100N turbine
This is why I went with actual numbers as the last comparison. It's hard to argue with run time, thrust and exit velocity metrics. These are more real world numbers directly applicable to the application.
10 more yrs and just maybe battery tech will be worth doing, like ev cars the battery is way to heavy and way too inefficient. and then there is heat regulation with batteries , sorry way to many fires to be safe. hybrid is the answer at this point in tech.
Yep, I'm not a believer in electric full size vehicles yet. Not until they consistently last 20 years with no major repairs.
@@RCexplained lol well with today's electronic components the 20 yr thing is over forever .
@@MrBumbles2 haha
How much energy is in the rest of the batteries?
What if you were able to “burn” it and convert it into forward momentum
Ignite the whole battery? Haha. This one I didn't think of.
Hydrogen. The future near here now.
Sounds fun to me!
What exactly do you expect hydrogen to do? Be a hard to handle, difficult to store fuel with bad energy density?
@@fabianrudzewski9027i expect it to power RC's in Space.
@fromthebackofmymind for that to work, you need to carry an oxidiser with you. Necessary for a rocket, for anything else it's a lot of hassle. Might want thing about traditional Solar cells and nuclear batteries.
So far I have not had my house burn down with JetA after 30
Plus years of rc turbine flights , just no comparison or real turbine engine ,