A go at a Foamie

The ESC that I ordered which on the photo on Ebay was the one shown in Quorneng's video arrived this morning. However it hasn't the BLHeli name on it, it is just in another anonymous black heatshrink so is indistinguishable from the one I'm having problems with. So I've contacted the seller to return it.

I sent this message to the seller:
An ESC has just been delivered but it is not the one shown on your site which was a BLHeli.
It is unmarked but looks exactly like one I bought from elsewhere which works but gave eratic motor behaviour.
I would have to solder connections to try it out so I think I will have to return it.

& got this reply:
Sorry for that ,could you send some pictures to show the problem ?
And how many pcs did you test ,no worry , we will try our best to help you.
Hope to hear from you soon.

People either don't read stuff or cannot understand it.
Either way they just send an irrelevant reply.
The device cost £7.55, to send it back will cost £1.55. Is it worth it?
To test it I will have to solder on the connections - then I won't be able to send it back!
I looked at a ZML ESC on Ebay, 20A rating & above the photos show a maker's (?) label, the 12A one is in a plain wrapper, but would they all come in a plain wrapper!?
So how do you know what you're getting?

And now for something completely different - my wife's set-top box has just lost its marbles, so thats the rest of this morning gone.

 

A typical seller's reply to a complaint, appear helpful but commit to nothing!
Unless you can test it without soldering in any way you may have to accept that it is in fact unreturnable.

In my experience ESCs (approx 100 ESCs!) I have not had one that has not worked from new but only failed after I started using it. 
Be aware that the ESC rating is based on the MOSFETS manufactures figures which in turn are based on random testing so there is an "in use" failure risk even at the claimed rating. Keeping to less than 80% of the claimed rating will reduce the "in use" failure rate a bit.
Of course it is possible, particularly with cheap ESCs, that the claimed rating is a bit optimistic for marketing reasons, a bit like the "C" ratings on many LiPos! 

I have had 1 catch fire in a model my SR71, after i dont know how long building it it was ready for its maiden flight, so with everything checked i taxied out for the maiden and as i turned it into the wind about 100 yards away we saw the white magic smoke appear from it, made a mad dash towards it but i dont run to quick and by the time we got to it there was no saving it
So i started stamping on it to break it up to save what i could of the electrics as they cost a lot of money 4 Thunder Power lipos 5000 6s at £150 each 2 Lander 120mm EDFs and 2 Castle Creations ESCs at £250 each
I managed to save the 4 lipos 1 edf and 1 esc, it was the other esc that had let go and caused the fire, i finished up at the hospital with my burnt legs
The thing is those ESCs had got a reputation for catching fire and the shop in England where i bought them never mentioned it
I made quite a fuss both with the shop and Castle  but got nowhere
I found out later the nickname for the ESC firm was Castle Cremations 

After a couple or more hours on my wife's set-top box we got to "reset to factory settings", which of course would have deleted all her recordings, pressed OK & got a message "cannot reset to factory settings phone this number...." . Its well out of warranty so that would have been a waste of time.
We had an old one in the spare room that the kids use which I've set up so tonight we've got a choice of Jungle Book, The BFG or Peter Pan!

On the ESC/motor front things went from bad to worse. The Emax GF2822 ran OK on the black ESC so I put the LE2204 on the test rig. It vibrated like the clappers on all three of the ESCs I have so I went through all the calibration routines to no effect. Put the CF2822 back on, no problems. Checked all the connectors on the LE2204, all OK so soldered the connectors on the second LE2204 I've just bought, put that on, no problems.
Examined the problem LE2204 closely, & felt more than saw that the mounting plate was cracked exactly where the first one had fractured.
These motors must be surviving on planes so all I can think of is that being mounted on the rigid arm of my test rig must be stressing it too much.
 
 

Are you sure the surface you are fixing the LE2204 to is truly flat. If it isn't then just tightening the hold down screws would put a big load on the "arms" of the mounting plate.
The bulkheads I used on both my Albatross conversions are truly flat being printed and as they are only 3mm thick will also "give" a bit rather than over stress the LE2204 mounting plate.
Unless your prop is seriously out of balance to break two LE2204 mounting plates is very odd.

The arm is 2x1 dressed softwood & I chose the wood myself from the local hardware shop so it didn't have any knots, shakes or twist in it.
There is a 10mm hole at the centre to clear the bearing. You can look through from underneath & see that it is clear.
I had bought a piece of 2mm thick neoprene to put underneath to act as soundproofing/vibration damper but looking at it I thought it was as likely to flex the spider if the fixing screws were tightened down unevenly.

To me the problem (assuming you'll always get some vibration or uneven-ness) is the four holes in the arms (or legs in the case of a spider) which weaken them. They cannot save that much weight.
The CF2822 motor with its top-hat mounting base is a much stronger beast.
I won't be putting the LE2204 on the test rig again.

I've mounted the LE2204 via a bulkhead someone has kindly printed for me. It ran fine on both the 6x4.5 & the 7x4.5 folding props.
On the test rig at 100% the 6" took 3.6A & gave 160g thrust, the 7" took 5.4A & gave 320g thrust.
On the model the 7" seemed to have too much oomph for a glider so I would have to alter the max value in the transmitter.
 
Putting the battery at the front of the cockpit put the CG about where I believe it should be, at the cut-out for the inner ailerons/flaps.
The next job is to get all the servo leads inside which will mean soldering the wires & not using the ready-made connectors.
The connectors I have used for the motor end up 30mm long & rigid with the insulating sleeves so they take up alot of room. I'm looking at using the small brass ferrules sold for crimping picture frame wires but soldering the wires in them.

I fear putting 2mm neoprene under the motor mount was not a good idea as any vibration forces would cause the neoprene to distort and thus put a bending load on one or more of the mounting plate "arms". To make matters worse this load would then cycle +/- at prop RPM. Not good for an aluminium component!
I would accept the motor mounting plate is relatively weak so it is important that is is screwed down onto a surface that is both flat and rigid.

I am sure the printed bulkhead you have used on your FX707 will be fine. On a rigid surface the motor mounting plate will simply transmit any vibration forces to the bulkhead and thus to the airframe where it will be absorbed. Under normal vibration loads the motor mounting plate will not deflect and thus should be quite adequate.

This is my best guess as to what was happening.

Agree that sounds way too far back. You would have to fly with full down elevator and have no longitudinal stability.
Both my FX707s fly with the CG at 45mm back from the leading edge at the root.
With this CG position and trimmed for "hands off" level flight the elevator is exactly inline with the tail plane.   

Re Position of cg;
I'd missed a word or three out.......

"I believe it should be, at the cut-out for THE WIRING FOR the inner ailerons/flaps"

which is 46mm back from the LE which is the recommended distance I've read elsewhere.