Gohbee
Senior Heliman
Location: SC
| Hey Guys! I just wanted to make everyone aware of the new Phazor 600 coming out soon. The Phazor 600 will use a composite frames with aluminum bearing blocks. The kit will be available as a conversion for existing Stinger 50 and Raptor 50 owners as well as a complete kit using the same head and tail unit from the Stinger 50. We've been testing the prototypes for several months now and we're closing in on the final design. Below is an outline of some of the goals of the new design and the resulting advantages:
1. Modularity: Nitro and Electric: We wanted a basic frame set that we could use as the foundation for both a 600 size nitro and electric machine. Thus we wanted an optimized electric and an optimized nitro frame set that would share components and allow the customer to relatively easily change over to electric/nitro or vice-versa. The electric version will be called the Phazor 600. Our thought is to stick with the Phazor name for all our electric models. Hence there will be a Stinger 600 version that will be nitro.
One of the primary features of our frame design is that it uses a layered frame approach that divides the frame in to three main components. If you look closely at the pics you'll notice that the frame is split into a forward upper frame and an aft upper frame with the lower frame running the length of the body. This allows greater rigidity around the bearing blocks becuase the frame is double thick at this point. Only the front upper and lower frame needs to be swapped to change back and forth to nitro and electric.
Another advantage to the 3 piece layered frame design is that it reduces crash costs. It's highly unlikely that you will break all three frame components in a single crash. We will make the frame components available separately so that you only have to replace what breaks....if it breaks.
2. Maintain Raptor Compatibility: This new frame set will allow current Stinger and Raptor owners to upgrade their machines giving them a lighter weight, more durable, higher precision, and cost effective frame set.
3. Less Weight & Higher Center of Gravity: We wanted a model that is lighter than our current nitro machine and a light weight electric. The current prototype weighs in around 7.9 lbs with the carbon frames, an 8S battery. Regarding the Nitro version, we have completed most of the component level design and are just now starting to work with the assembly design. We do feel confident that the Nitro version will weigh even less than electric version.
We feel that weight and CG are the largest factors regarding performance. Lowering the weight and raising the CG produces a very nice flying machine.
4. Dual Stage Main Drive System (Flexible Gearing): For the electric version we wanted a flexible gearing system that allowed customers to run the various motors at different voltages. (ie 6S through 10S) This will give you more choices and allow you to home in on optimum combinations. This is the primary reason for the belt drive off of the motor. This setup will give us a whole host of ratios and allow the customer to optimize setup for longer flight times, or for insane power. Not having this ratio flexibility is perhaps one of the biggest problems with competing electric helicopters in the same weight class. This flexibility will allow customers who want to keep the cost down to run the machine with 6S batteries. Others who can never have enough power can set it up for 10S. The dual stage drive will also allow us to use just about any current or future motor out there. We will not be locked into to certain KV range. We're currently testing multiple motors and speed controllers. We will keep you informed on our test results as we move forward. If you have already have a motor that you're using in a 600 size electric that you're satisfied with, let us know what you've got and perhaps we can try it as well.
5. 120 Deg CCPM & Composite Frames: We felt like we could gain precision in the control linkages with an CCPM setup and using composites over plastics. We also knew we could save weight. We're going to offer G10 and Carbon for cost and performance considerations.
6. Push pull: We wanted a push pull linkage system in order to provide smooth consistent control and to minimize wear and tear on the servos.
7. Raised Center of Gravity: (Mentioned above but worth mentioning again) We wanted to raise the center of gravity higher on the main shaft. This will facilitate a more responsive helicopter. Notice that the servos are all mounted high on the frame. Also the motor is pointing downward so that the CG is raised above the boom centerline. Only the lighter components are mounted lower on the machine, such as gyro, receiver, etc.
8. Increased Rigidity Double thick frames around the bearing blocks. See above comments.
9. Make it affordable: Our goal is always affordable performance. We wanted a stout helicopter that is not a drain on the budget to fix after a crash. At this point, we have no idea where we'll end up on cost. However, my gut feeling is that we'll be very competative. We would not have pursued the design this far if we were not going to be cost effective.
I've attached some pictures of the machine that we flew at the IRCHA Jamboree. Your comments are welcome.
     |
with they way fuel prices are these days and the way the hyper burns fuel.
