4S Super Test
Introduction
Since the announcement of the trex something like 18 months ago there has been a continual search for that great power combination. There are many power systems now available for the trex which provide really excellent power and make the trex a lively and fully 3-D capable machine. Some of these power systems are based on a 3S pack, they deliver good power and don't make the machine overly heavy. These high power 3S systems are typified by having high amp draw and therefore flight times are fairly short. As an example if we take a typical lithium polymer pack on the market today it should deliver 15C comfortably. Given that most preferred trex packs are 1800 to 2100 mAh this gives us a maximum draw of 31.5 amps. Beyond this point will reduce cycle life of the pack. If we take 31.5 amps and multiply it by the in-flight voltage of the pack (let's say 11 V) then we arrive at a theoretical maximum of 346 W.
If we run the same calculation but using a 4S pack (typically also 1800 to 2100 mAh) then we arrive at approx 450 W. The question is whether we can use this extra power and also whether it overrides the extra weight that the helicopter needs to carry because of the extra cell in the pack?
There are other advantages to running higher voltage. The most common talked about is the reduction in amp draw from running a higher voltage. Of course you can utilise this lower amp draw in order to increase flight times. Conversely you can go for the same amp draw and try to extract the extra power.
In this test I am not looking at trying to create maximum flight time. This test is looking to define which motor(s) provide the maximum power for 3-D flight with a secondary consideration to amp draw and efficency. One last factor worthy of consideration when looking at moving to a 4S system is the additional cost. Not only will you require more expensive packs but you may also need a different speed controller or alternatively a separate BEC.
Equipment
Before we move into looking at the test data I would first like to introduce the various motors that have taken part in this test. I would also like to credit the various suppliers whose motors are participating in the test. Additionally, I need to detail exactly what pack has been used in these tests and what speed controller. Following this I will explain how the test was conducted and give some explanation to the charts that have been produced.
| Motor | kv | Supplier | Pinion | Shaft size |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Align 430L | 3550 |
10T |
3.17mm |
|
| AON 3500 | 3500 |
9T |
2.3mm |
|
| Hyperion HP-H2220-06 | 2220 |
15T |
3.17mm |
|
RC-Zpower 450TH / JustGofly 450TH |
3000 |
*see note below |
10T |
3.17mm |
| Lehner 1020/22 | 2770 |
10T |
3.17mm |
|
| Medusa 28-32-2800 | 2800 |
11T |
3.17mm |
|
| Medusa 28-40-2500 | 2500 |
12T |
3.17mm |
|
| Medusa 28-40-3400 | 3400 |
10T |
3.17mm |
|
| NEU 1105-3Y | 3500 |
9T |
2.3mm |
|
| Lehner 1525-11 *see note1 below | 2700 | 10T |
3.17mm |
|
| NEU 1107-2Y | 3400 |
JAQ (TrexTuning reviewer) |
9T |
2.3mm |
*note: The RC-Zpower 450TH and JustGoFly 450TH are identical motors, the one in this review is an RC-Zpower 450TH. Both the RC-Zpower and JGF 450TH are identical for performance, RC-Zpower are the manufacturer of this motor and the supplier to JGF for their 450TH. Wattsuprc continue to supply this exact motor through their website and this information is stated here as there was some confusion regarding this. This is not a clone motor or underpowered variant of the 450TH.
*note1: Late arrival to the 4S test, added after the main test results.
The lithium polymer pack used throughout this test was a Kokam Balance Pro HD 4S 2000mAh 15C. This pack was used in conjunction with the FMA Direct discharge protection module (DPM), Optical Isolator and a SkyVolt 6S fast charger. This pack was specifically selected because of its excellent thermal capabilities, good voltage hold and the ability to recharge in 20 minutes (at 3C). The speed controller used in this test was a castle creations 35 amp. This speed controller was selected due to its popularity.
The test equipment used in this test was a Medusa Power Analyser Pro. This was fitted with the infrared RPM sensor. I also used a Hyperion Emeter to double check the recorded data.
The test machine was my own personal machine, which is fitted with a Heliup carbon frame, Microheli QNC rotor head and Hyperion Diamond rotor blades. This machine is also now fitted with the Microheli delrin main gear as during the course of this testing I managed to strip seven main gears. I then fitted the Microheli main gear and since then have had no issues with gear stripping. In fact I had to rerun all of the tests because the motors were performing better using the Microheli gear. One unexpected conclusion from performing this super test is that is well worth having the Microheli main gear. It is far more durable than standard gears but more importantly it is round. Having a perfectly round gear made setting gear mesh a very simple operation and also put less load on the motors during operation.
My thanks to Aurrora for the supply of the Balance Pro Pack, Optical Isolator & SkyVolt Charger
My thanks to FlightBox for the supply of the MicroHeli Precision CNC Main Gear
The Test
The motor test consists of four phases. The first phase is an initial spool up to operating RPM. I set all of the motors to run at around 3000 rpm with approx 2° of pitch on the blades. The initial spool up is one minute operating at 3000 rpm with 2° pitch on the blades. The second phase of the test is the application of 10° of positive pitch for the duration of 20 seconds. This is the main loading part of the test and is designed to ascertain what RPM the motor can hold at full pitch at the end of 20 seconds. The third phase of the test the motor is given a 10 second rest at approx 2° pitch. The fourth phase of the test consists of 30 seconds pitch pumping from -10° to +10°. At the end of this phase the test is complete and the motor is checked to make sure it has not hit an excessive temperature (over 80° C.). The following table summarises the test.
| Phase | Activity | Duration | Start Time on Graphs | End Time on Graphs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | Spool Up to 3000 RPM at 2° pitch | 1 minute | 0 minutes | 1 minute |
| Phase 2 | 10° positive pitch | 20 seconds | 1 minute | 1 minute 20 seconds |
| Phase 3 | Approx 2° positive pitch | 10 seconds | 1 minute 20 seconds | 1 minute 30 seconds |
| Phase 4 | Pitch pumping | 30 seconds | 1 minute 30 seconds | 2 minutes |
I should point out at this stage that none of the motors tested went over the control temperature of 80° C. Therefore I will not mention this further in the test results.
The Charts
The following is an explanation of the charts used to differentiate the performance of the various motors. I will use the charts generated by the 450TH motor to explain how to interpret the charts.
Below is an amperage chart for the 450TH. The first 20 seconds of the chart show a spike in amperage as the motor initially spins up. Following this up to the one-minute mark the motor is running constant at 2° pitch. There is then a large increase in amps as I apply 10° of pitch for 20 seconds. The motor is then rested for 10 seconds at 2° pitch. Following this you can see a number of spikes in amperage as I pitch pump the helicopter until the end of the test.
As can be seen from the chart the 450 TH hit a maximum of 22.5 amps at the initial point that 10° of pitch was applied. During the pitch pump we have a fairly consistent amp draw for each pump. Also I can see from this chart that this motor is fairly easy to govern as the chart doesn't have any spiking at the points with the motor is running at 2° pitch. During the full pitch 20 seconds you can see that the amperage required slowly decays to approximately 21 amps, this decay in amp draw is due to the head speed slowing down and therefore less power is required.
The following chart is from exactly the same test as the above but this time showing the RPM during the test. This chart shows a very minor decay in head speed during the one-minute spool up. Following this the 10° of pitch is introduced and the head speed drops to 2475 rpm. A recovery in head speed is then seen during the 10 seconds that the motor is at 2 ° pitch. Following this we can see fluctuations in head speed during the pitch pumping of approximately 100 rpm. Also we can see that the 450 TH did not return to the 3000 rpm originally set for headspeed and that the pitch pumping average head speed was around 2700 rpm.
Within the context of this super test I will display data for several motors on one chart. This allows a direct comparison of the motor performance as they are put through exactly the same test. I will work with only three or four motors at a time on each chart so that the data does not get overly confusing.
So, let's move on to the first section of the super test. The first part of the test results will look at the relative amp draw of each motor.
Amp Draw
This part of the test will focus on the amp draw of the various motors as they are put through the standard test. The amp draw consumed by the motors in isolation does not give an indication of the performance of the motor. The set of charts that follow give an indication of what sort of flight time one might expect to get on each motor. The data also shows how hard the pack will be pushed to deliver the performance. The amp draw needs to be compared to the RPM performance in order to get an indication of efficiency. I will do this comparison later in the test.
The following chart shows the four worst performing motors in terms of amp draw. In other words all of these motors are the ones that demanded the most amps over the course of the test.
As can be seen from this graph the Hyperion and Medusa motor are the most hungry in terms of amps demanded. During the full pitch test the Medusa demanded almost 35.12 amps and the Hyperion was not far behind with a 33.72 amp demand. During the full pitch test you can see that there is quite a steep slope on the amps which is due to the pack suffering from voltage drop due to the heavy demand being placed upon it. That drop in voltage is mirrored by a drop in the amp demand. The maximum continuous current that the pack could supply was 30 amps and you can see a less steep slope on the two motors demanding below 30 amps during the full pitch test.
It is important to remember that the amps demanded could very well be justified given the performance returned by the motors. We will see later in the test whether this high amp demand was justified in the performance returned from the motors.
Let's now take a look at the motors that placed midfield in terms of their amp demand.
All of the above motors did not demand beyond what the pack could deliver and would provide a reasonable flight time on an 1800 or 2000mAh pack. Again we have to compare this amp draw to the relative performance delivered by the motors to ascertain whether it is a justifiable demand for the performance given.
The next set of motors are the least demanding in terms of amp draw. These are considered to be the winners if we purely look at these motors from an amp draw point of view. These motors will all give the maximum return in terms of flight time but this may be at the expense of performance.
All of the above motors do not stress the pack at all and one of these motors manages to break below 10 amps to deliver a 3000 rpm head speed. If we consider that all of these motors are being asked to turn 325 mm carbon blades at 3000 rpm the above results really are excellent in terms of efficiency. The outright winner in the amp draw test being the NEU 1105-3Y.
This concludes the first element of the test and we have our initial first-place motor which is the NEU 1105-3Y.
The next part of the test will look at the RPM held during the 20 seconds of full pitch.
RPM Held
This part of the test is looking to see how well the motor will hold a sustained heavy load. In this case plus 10° of pitch at full throttle. The expectation is that the head speed will slowly decay over the first 10 seconds or so and then the motor should hold at a specific RPM. It is the RPM at the end of the 20 seconds which differentiates one motor from another. The factors that come into play here are the heat generated whilst the motor is under load and the ability of the motor to deal with that increased heat. A good motor will hold a higher RPM and generally will generate less heat during the 20 seconds. Another important factor is how the motor recovers once you remove the load. Some motors will return to the 3000 rpm initially set, other motors will not do this. The demand placed on the pack also comes into play in this test. If the pack has been heavily loaded (beyond specification) then it may not be able to supply the required voltage immediately in order to return the motor to it's original 3000 rpm once the load is removed (i.e. once the pitch is reduced to 2°)
So, let's take a look at the bottom four performing motors for the full throttle, full pitch test.
If you've been paying attention you will have noticed that the top three motors for amp draw are amongst the bottom four in terms of RPM held under load. So immediately we can see that although these motors are very good on amp draw they aren't giving the best performance. This is not a revelation and is very much to be expected. We will need to look deeper in order to find the motors that are giving good performance and good amp draw characteristics. I should however temper the above statement in that all of these motors managed to deliver approximately 2400 rpm when placed under maximum load. Considering that this RPM was for a long time (and still is) considered to be a good head speed for 3-D the performance delivered by all of the above motors should not be dismissed out of hand. Also worthy of note is that the Align motor and the Lehner motor both returned to close to the original head speed once the load was removed. The other two motors suffered some loss in head speed at the end of the full pitch test. Let's take a look at the midfield in terms of RPM held.
The above three motors are all delivering in the 2500 RPM range under full load. This is enough to deliver some really quite spectacular 3-D. Also worthy of note is that two of these motors were placed in the midfield for amp draw. Again in this selection two of the motors demonstrated a good return to their starting head speed once the load was removed.
*note: please ignore the green line on the bottom of the above chart, it was caused by me disconnecting the power at the end of the test a little too early and the RPM just zeroed causing a straight line.
Let's now take a look at the top three performing motors for RPM held under load.
Two of the top three motors managed to return very close to their starting head speed. The NEU was not so good in this regard and was 125 rpm below its starting point before the full pitch (10°) was applied. The Hyperion was outstanding in the recovered RPM in that it returned to exactly it's starting value of 3050 RPM. As can be seen from the graph above the top three motors are delivering around 2575 rpm under full load. This is at the end of the 20 seconds of full pitch. All three of these motors really have outstanding power delivery. Of course if we go back and look at the amp draw figures we can also see that these top performing motors also require a considerable amount of amps in order to deliver the performance shown.
So let's move on to the pitch pumping section of the test.
Pitch Pumping
This part of the test is where the motors are pitch pumped for 30 seconds from -10° to +10°. What we are looking for in this part of the test is for a consistent RPM fluctuation across the 30 seconds. We are also looking for the smallest possible fluctuation in RPM as we want the machine to maintain as much head speed as possible. What we should not see is a slowly decaying head speed across the 30 seconds. We also do not want to see large drops in RPM. The pitch pumping starts at 1 minute 30 seconds on all the charts and is the last (spiky) part of the graphs before spool down.
So let's take a look at the bottom for performing motors in this section of the test.
What we can see for the bottom performing motors is that the head speed has dropped down into the 2600 to 2700 RPM range. RPM fluctuation is between 100 and 175 RPM. We can also see a slight decay in head speed from the beginning of the test to the end of the test. The Align motor was slightly better than the other motors in the bottom four. The other three motors really gave a very similar performance in terms of RPM fluctuation and head speed.
Let's take a look at the midfield for the pitch pumping section of the test.
Amongst these three midfield motors the AON shows the largest fluctuation in RPM at about 150 rpm per pitch pump. The other two motors are identical in that they show 125 rpm fluctuation. All three motors are sitting at around 2700 to 2800 rpm during the pitch pump test. There is little if any decay in head speed across the length of the pitch pumping test.
Let's take a look at the top three motors for the pitch pumping section of the test.
The Medusa 28-40-3400 is the clear winner in this section of the test and is fluctuating 100 RPM per pitch pump. This motor also manages to maintain the 3000 rpm head speed set for the test. The other two motors perform almost identically to one another in that they are sitting at the 2800 to 2900 RPM range. Again the fluctuation on these two motors is around 100 RPM. As with the midfield motors there is no decay in the overall head speed across the 30 seconds of the test.
Before we consider efficiency the following ranking is for those who care nothing for amp draw and are just interested in out right performance.
Fourth Place : Medusa 28-40-2500
Third Place : NEU 1107-2Y
Second Place : Hyperion HZ2220-06
First Place : Medusa 28-40-3400
However there is more to performance than just outright grunt. However, for those just interested in grunt here are the charts for the first and second place most powerful motors. These are not at this point test winners, just the most powerful motors on test regardless of amp draw.
Before moving onto the next section of the test here is a summary table showing the tabular data for each motor.
| Motor | Initial RPM |
2° Pitch Amps |
Max Pitch Amps |
Max Pitch RPM Held | Recovered RPM |
Pitch Pumping Amps peak |
Pitch Pumping Low RPM |
Pitch Pumping High RPM |
Pitch Pumping RPM Fluctuation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JustGoFly 450TH | 3050 |
11.3 |
22.51 |
2475 |
2925 |
21.79 |
2650 |
2775 |
125 |
| AON 2815-3500 | 3200 |
11.35 |
27.66 |
2500 |
3075 |
27.07 |
2800 |
2950 |
150 |
| Align 430L | 3050 |
13.12 |
29.03 |
2400 |
3025 |
26.79 |
2750 |
2875 |
125 |
| Hyperion HZ2200-06 | 3050 |
13.58 |
33.72 |
2525 |
3050 |
31.41 |
2875 |
2975 |
100 |
| Medusa 28-40-3400 | 3100 |
13.28 |
35.12 |
2575 |
3075 |
35.35 |
2925 |
3025 |
100 |
| Medusa 28-40-2500 | 3175 |
13.07 |
26.83 |
2525 |
3075 |
25.78 |
2825 |
2975 |
150 |
| Medusa 28-32-2800 | 3100 |
12.71 |
25.09 |
2475 |
2975 |
24.3 |
2750 |
2875 |
125 |
| Lehner 1020/22 | 3100 |
10.44 |
21.02 |
2375 |
3025 |
20.96 |
2600 |
2775 |
175 |
| NEU 1105-3Y | 3000 |
9.27 |
20.16 |
2450 |
2900 |
19.33 |
2650 |
2725 |
125 |
| Lehner 1525/11 | 3175 |
14.6 |
32.13 |
2500 |
2975 |
30.29 |
2850 |
2775 |
75 |
| NEU 1107-2Y | 3125 |
9.56 |
22.88 |
2600 |
3000 |
21.75 |
2775 |
2900 |
125 |
That concludes the source data we can now use to analyse the efficiency versus performance of each motor. Based on this we should then be able to identify which motors provide the best power for the least amp draw. This is a more complicated comparison than the previous charts.
Efficiency Analysis
I could at this point just select the highest performing motor and ignore the amp draw characteristics. However, whilst this may be the right thing to do and fit some people's requirements I don't think it represents the best choice of motor. If you are not concerned about amp draw and are purely concerned with performance then the Medusa 28-40-3400 is the top performing motor.
Personally I would want to make sure that I'm getting great performance but equally maximising my flight time as well as taking care of my pack. This is where it is worth taking a couple of moments to talk about the amp draw from these motors.
The test is conducted with the helicopter strapped down. This means that during the test the blades have to move static air. The motor is having to work significantly harder than if the model was moving through the air. This effectively pushes up the amp draw requirements during the test. In flight all of these motors will pull less amps, suffer from less head speed drop and generally perform better. We need to keep this in mind when looking at the figures and assessing whether the motor in question is suitable for our requirements.
First we can narrow the field of motors that we are looking at by selecting the top six performing motors from an RPM point of view. The following motors are not being considered as overall test winners based on this:
Lehner 1020/22
Align 430L
NEU 1105
JustGoFly 450TH
Whilst these motors do provide good performance they are at the lower end in this test and therefore not potential test winners. We can also take a look at the high amp draw motors in this test as they also may not be overall winners due to their larger amp draw requirements.
Therefore the following two motors are also not considered to be overall test winners:
Medusa 28-40-3400
Hyperion HZ2220-06
This leaves me with four motors to compare with regard to performance and efficiency.
AON 2815-3500
Medusa 28-40-2500
Medusa 28-32-2800
NEU 1107-2Y
So let's get these four on a chart and see whats going on.
Final Selection
The final selection for the overall winner is very difficult. All of the motors below have delivered an outstanding performance. As you can see from the graphs they are very close in terms of their performance and it is the amp draw that will separate the winner.
Here we can see that in the full pitch twenty second test the NEU 1107-2Y and the Medusa 28-40-2500 have the best performance. In the pitch pumping the AON 2815-3500 and the Medusa 28-40-2500 have the best performance. The common motor here being the Medusa 28-40-2500.
Let's now take a look at the amp draw of these motors in comparison.
In the amp draw comparison the NEU 1107-2Y and the Medusa 28-32-2800 have the best figures. The AON 2815-3500 and Medusa 28-40-2500 being relatively similar and considerably more hungry in terms of amp requirements.
Next we need to consider weight and price.
Weight & Price
The last consideration with regard to performance is the weight of the motor. In this section I will also include an indicative price for each of the motors. Although price has little to do with performance it is a selection criteria when choosing a new motor. The following table summarises the weight and price of the various motors on this test.
| Motor | Weight (g) | Price ($) |
|---|---|---|
| JustGoFly 450TH | 57 |
56 |
| AON 2815-3500 | 98 |
75 |
| Align 430L | 58 |
45 |
| Hyperion HZ2200-06 | 87 |
tba |
| Medusa 28-40-3400 | 100 |
80 |
| Medusa 28-40-2500 | 100 |
80 |
| Medusa 28-32-2800 | 70 |
80 |
| Lehner 1020/22 | 73 |
150 |
| NEU 1105-3Y | 65 |
90 |
| Lehner 1525/11 | 135 |
200 |
| NEU 1107-2Y | 100 |
119 |
We can see that three of the top four motors all weigh in at 100 g and therefore have no particular performance advantage over one another. The Medusa 28-32-2800 only weighs 70 g and therefore will benefit from some in-flight weight savings over the other motors.
If we take a quick look at price we can see that there is a premium to pay for the NEU1107-2Y where as the other motors are all of a similar price.
Other Observations
During the course of this test there were several other things that came to my attention. Firstly most of the motors were quite happy to run using the Castle Creations governor. Notable exceptions to this were the Align 430L and the Hyperion HZ2220-06. These two motors were definitely not happy and some fluctuation in RPM can be seen on the graphs during spool up phase.
The Medusa 28-40-3400 had to be governed back to 60% throttle in order to get the head speed down to 3000 rpm. This made this motor run rather inefficiently and accounts for the high amp draw.
The Medusa 28-40-2500 was more efficient on an 11T pinion but it delivered better overall power on a 12T pinion. Interesting the 11T pinion is the correct pinion to use given it's KV rating but these motors clearly prefer to be loaded up or "over geared" to deliver maximum power. For most people the 11T pinion would probably be a better choice and 12T should only be considered if you really want that little bit extra power.
The Lehner 1020/22 is rated as a 300 watt motor and during the test it peaked at 307 W. Considering the competition in this test is capable of reaching into the high 400 W range I feel this motor is perhaps not a good match in this particular test. However, it should be noted that this motor did run extremely efficiently considering its diminutive size and power output.
Whilst testing the Lehner I was somewhat surprised by the results which caused me to question whether the settings on the Castle Creations speed controller were correct for this motor. In order to verify this I ran the test using a Jazz speed controller. The power produced was exactly the same but interestingly the amp draw was considerably higher when using the Jazz controller.
Whilst trying to test the NEU 1107-2Y I managed to strip five main gears. This was a combination of using a nine tooth pinion and trying to put over 400 W of power through it onto the main gear. All of the Align main gears were neither round nor did they run true on the pinion. This resulted in a very frustrating period during the test. I even tried the supposedly high strength blue gears available from Align. They also stripped. It was at this point I decided to buy the Microheli CNC delrin gear. At this point all of my gear stripping issues went away, setting gear mesh became a simple task and surprisingly the performance I could extract from the various motors increased. Unfortunately for me this meant I had to retest all of the motors as I couldn't give any one motor the advantage of running with the Microheli gear.
For those who are interested in maximum flight time but also benefiting from the power of a 4S system the NEU 1105-3Y was outstandingly efficient. This motor will provide the best flight times if you are looking for this particular element in your setup. Similarly the NEU 1107-2Y showed very good efficency although not as frugal as the NEU 1105-3Y.
Lehner 1525-11 late arrival
The lehner 1525-11 was a late arrival, I have added it's data into the performance comparison table higher up in the review. Performance wise it was closest to the Medusa 28-32-2800 but was much better on the pitch pumping. Head speed decay in the full pitch test was a shallower drop off to the final RPM than the Medusa 28-32-2800. For pitch pumping the lehner had the best score on the test with only a 75rpm change in headspeed through each pump. On amp draw it was quite high, certainly high enough to place it outside any of the overall test winners. The Lehner seems to sit somewhere between efficiency and overall performance, I would displace the Medusa 28-402500 in favour of the Lehner 1525/11 in the overall performance (regardless of efficiency) top four, however it is worth noting that allthough the motor did outperfrom the Medusa (just) it is also 135g in weight, so inflight the Medusa would probably outperfrom the Lehner due to it's weight advantage. For this reason I have left the performance winners for the test as they are. I would place the Lehner somewhere quite low down in the overall efficiency test as it was quite hungry on amp draw. It's a powerful motor (top five), superb on pitch pumping but not as efficient as the competition in the overall ratings which placed it out of the running for the overall test placings.
It's chart is included below showing RPM and Amp draw.
Conclusion
As with all tests it eventually becomes necessary to pick the winner. Listed below are my personal choices based upon the data gathered.
Fouth Place : AON 2815-3500
Third Place : Medusa 28-32-2800
Second Place : Medusa 28-40-2500
First Place : NEU 1107-2Y
The NEU 1107-2Y is awarded first place on the basis of its excellent power delivery and superb amp draw. In particular I was impressed with the efficiency of this motor in comparison to its peers. The only area that I felt could have been better was the pitch pumping where the motor did not seem to recover well from the 20 seconds of full pitch. The second and third place motors (Medusa) are a cheaper alternative to the NEU and although they don't provide quite the same level of efficiency they certainly do deliver an outstanding performance. The fourth place motor was somewhat of a surprise to me. The AON is not particularly designed to be a 4S motor and I had to change its shaft to a 2.3 mm version in order for it to compete in this test. This allowed a nine tooth pinion to be fitted. The only concerning element with regard to the AON was that it refused to be governed and it didn't matter what transmitter settings I used it ran at 3200 rpm. Regardless of this it still turned in an excellent performance.
I have placed the winner and runner up on three charts, one showing Amps, one showing RPM and one showing Watts of power delivered.
Lastly, my thanks to all the suppliers who made this test possible by providing not only motors but lithium packs, test equipment and their expertise in helping me get the best out of their motors.