MT13050 - 5.2kg 148mm diam outrunner

http://www.rctigermotor.com/show.php?contentid=146

Does anyone know more about this motor?

I tried emailing them, but no reply. Maybe we can get a reply if more people ask questions about the same motor?

...kind of inefficient... :wink:

What do you base that on?

Should be more efficient than the Colossus, for example.

Simply that I find motors below 90% as inefficient, just a personal point of view.
With todays materials, magnetics and design software motors should really be designed for highest efficiency possible.
A bad vs good design cost the same to develop, yet the good design only cost a fraction more to produce.

I think the number 73% is strange though. I don't think it's the efficiency of the motor. It simply doesn't add up with the other numbers.

I did a quick 43V (12S) calc on the numbers presented, yet the No-Load is stated at 10V, not 43V as one would expect.
Anyway, I came to a little more than 86% peak efficiency.
43V Efficiency = 86.39% at 2500W output and 67.30A input at 393.92W loss

The thing is......at higher voltage the No-Load increases as well.
If calculating twice the No-load at 43V I get 81.33%.
43V Efficiency = 81.33% at 3250W output and 92.94A input at 746.20W loss

It's possible it has even higher No-Load, decreasing the efficency further.

48mohm is strange too. A motor of this size shouldn't have such high resistance. My guess is that it's off with a factor of 10.

We can compare with the CA120-70 from Hobbyking, which has a weight of 2,7kg. It has 4mohm resistance with 150kv, so with 75 kv, it would have 16mohm. MT13050 has twice the weight, and a larger diameter, so it should be able to have 4.8mohm resistance. If it really has 48mohm with 75kV, it's a really bad motor for it's size, IMO.

But since they didn't answer my email, I can't confirm these numbers.

Hehe...keep pushing them for accurate numbers... :lol: