Required Torque/Power to Move X-Wing Fighter

Why wouldn't you just push it around? Anyway the motors you spec are going to be very low torque at 1-20 ratio...and if it's reversed at 20-1 ratio it will move painfully slow...like a turtle...

Model
#PM8018-RA3020T
Voltage-
24
Phase-
DC

Speed (rpm)-
126
Torque (in-lbs)-
72.5
Power (hp)-
0.14

I would go with something like this....

Thanks. the gearbox outputs ~150rpm that translates to about 6mph with 8" wheels (assuming input motor running around 3,000rpm) but we want to run it at around 3mph that is, as you said, very slow but perfect for our purpose (showing to kids, etc.).

The Xwing is quite automated (wings open/close, canopy, "variable thrusters" on "jet engines", all the electronics inside the cabin, etc.) and having to push it around would take some "magic" away.

This is why the question was whether motor/gearbox combo that I linked to would be adequate to smoothly move the X-wing on paved surface. Thanks

Yes I'm sure it will be fine....although rather expensive and slow....What are you using for a power source? Controller?

https://www.groschopp.com/data/other/Performance/41490.pdf

This link is for the combination of the motor and gearbox together. Here is the parent page.

This is the page for the motor itself (PM8018)

and this is the page for the gearbox.

We already had a model RA3020 gearbox and the PM8018 motor is the biggest motor that can fit that gearbox. So, trying to see whether purchasing the PM8018 motor is worth it or if we should look for another option altogether.

thank you.

What about steering?

https://www.houseboatmagazine.com/2013/07/remote-control-steering

I would take a spring gauge and pull the vehicle gradually to see how much force it takes to get moving, that will be your peak torque necessary, and add perhaps 30% over that to ease stress on the system....and perhaps another 20% for outside forces and rough terrain and loss of peak power from power supply...

Just considering lift of the X-wing, 3 mph (= 264 ft/m) x 0.03 (slope) x 1100 lb = 8712 ft-lb/m = 0.264 hp. The actual need will be somewhat larger to account for rolling resistance, acceleration, and safety factor. This will require a motor of about 1/3 to 1/2 hp.

3 mph is a pretty good walking speed, so maybe you don't need it that fast.

(I may come back later and look at the resulting torque requirement.)

Probably should take into account wind loading force, there should be a maximum safe wind speed for deployment...

Perhaps so. Could you furnish us with some arithmetic?

Sure.....

https://mae.ufl.edu/designlab/motors/EML2322L%20Drive%20Wheel%20Motor%20Torque%20Calculations.pdf

My question was about wind load. What does your reply have to do with that at all?

Moreover, what do you fancy is OT about my two previous posts?

Wind load? It doesn't actually fly you know...and I don't know about any fancy OT posts....

You, not I, started the notion of wind load. Have you just forgotten which side of the debate you are on?

No you started with the lift of the x-wing...I'm still on the right side of the debate, you are on the out side...

That was about going up a slope, and therefore lifting the whole assembly. It had nothing to do with aerodynamic lift, and nothing to do with wind. Moreover, I discounted wind another time or two.

Why are you lifting a rolling assembly? It rolls, it has resistance, overcoming the resistance is all that is required...and rolling into a headwind could certainly add resistance...

The OP said that he was rolling this up a 3% slope. That's where the mechanical (but not aerodynamic) lift comes from. I never said anything about wind, until you brought it up irrelevantly.

Until now, I have never encountered anyone so desperately confused.

Confused, you're the one who lives in an environment with no wind....You know this isn't actually in space...

What in hell are you talking about?

The environment I live in has fairly frequent and dependable winds, with several wind farms nearby.

And what is this nonsense about space? Neither I nor anyone but you has mentioned that at all.

Quit trolling.

For some more about local wind, check out this video of a "tumbleweed tornado":

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/weather-news/article242423691.html

What if this is inside a building, in which case wind load will be irrelevant?

The motor that turns the rotating restaurant at the top of the Post Office Tower in London is of the order of 1/4hp. Rotation speed of the restaurant is of the order of one revolution per hour.

It is friction and its effect with speed that determines motor power. The weight of the object only affects the acceleration and deceleration rates.

This object needs no motor to turn it at all, and the acceleration and deceleration rates are minute:

Additional, to post from BruceFlorida, to say that I am shocked that those supporting STEM seem to know so little about STEM.

The basic formulae are simple enough, and go to Power (Watts) = Force (kg x 9.8) x Velocity (m/sec) in consistent fundamental units. These typically are Meter, Kilogram and Second OR Foot, Pound and Second while not forgetting that Force is Newton OR Poundal calculated as Kg x g or lb x g respectively with g the acceleration due to gravity being 9.8 m/sec/sec or 32.2ft/sec/sec respectively.

Remember that the units used always have to match - the units for an answer flow from the units used in the inputs. You don't get a answer in "watts" out if the inputs are rpm and torque as ft-lbs.

Simple mathematics is needed to convert the linear equations to rotary ones. Force is equal to torque/radius, and for velocity we need rotation speed (in radians/sec or rev/sec x 2 pi) multiplied by radius. You can look up rolling resistance for a wheel and that will vary for tyre pressure and rubber but will be around 0.05, but maybe 0.1 or more if the wheel is quite small and there is any sort of small step.

The hard stuff as BruceFlorida alerts us to will be things like the effect of vibration, small wheels tracking in cracks or stalling at ridges - but some simple trials and research should give some insight into these issues.

An 1100 pound load is quite considerable for the motors/gearbox you propose.

Might I suggest an alternative would be to visit a mobility scooter supply shop and see if you can get or have donated the gearbox and drive motors fron a scooter for your purposes. These are designed to move a person and the scooter and I am sure they would be more fit for purpose and the voltages and control is more manageable.

As a reference I picked up a couple of scooter motors and controllers for $50 from a clearance sale, used but still faultless so you may be lucky. To see the speed at which they propel 300Kg along would mean you would have to slow them down which would be more than adequate.

One can't tell from the pictures but, it looks like a tri-cycle style landing gear. My recommendation would be to put the drive gear-motor combination only on the front (nose) wheel. If you were to put one on each of the two rear wheels you would have to somehow synchronize them or risk having the craft continually trying to go in a circle every time you tried to move it. When that happens the two motors will also be somewhat working against each other. IMHO, it would be better to pull the whole craft along by the nose gear. To that end, you may need a more powerful gear-motor combination but, you would only need one.

Just sayin',

TBC