|
Post by Max C. on Mar 31, 2016 18:03:50 GMT -5
Recently, I came across Below Cost Appliances, a clear-out site for various household items. Ceiling fans appear to be the highlight, with over nine pages of results listed. All fans are Hunter, with a plethora of rather obscure and/or long-discontinued models featured. After browsing the site, I stumbled upon a fan which would suit my living room - the Belle Meade: The fan, while certainly far newer than what many around here show preference towards, fits our décor, boasts an impressive CFM rating and furniture-grade wood veneer blades. Ultimately, I am wondering...what are your guys' thoughts? Is this a worthwhile fan, or should I continue to search for a superior alternative?
|
|
Jared H.
Full Member
Trying to get bi
Posts: 309
|
Post by Jared H. on Mar 31, 2016 19:48:44 GMT -5
These are very worth the while. They have MASSIVE motors, like 212x20 or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Parkman on Mar 31, 2016 20:13:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Max C. on Mar 31, 2016 20:20:23 GMT -5
These are very worth the while. They have MASSIVE motors, like 212x20 or something like that. Apparently it is 212X15 and an AirMax at that... I appreciate your suggestions! Factory refurbished is alright, so long as the motor is original and not a newer replacement.
|
|
|
Post by Parkman on Mar 31, 2016 20:25:01 GMT -5
I've bought at least 10 fans from Frugal Fair.. I believe many of them are discontinued models that Hunter no longer could sell and they literally took them out of the original box and placed them in the new brown box with a refurbished sticker so that company can sell them.
Now for a Beacon Hill I bought from them that was still in production at the time, that got a newer motor in it. But the Summer Breeze Plus and the Bayports and others all were "old school" Hunter Whisperwinds of quality!
I even had two fans in which one had a bad motor and another had a problem with the reverse switch and the company sent me two complete fans as a replacement free of charge with two day shipping. EXCELLENT Service!
|
|
|
Post by JW on Mar 31, 2016 21:38:26 GMT -5
Always wondered about these myself. At the time of their production, their stated CFM rating was well over that of an Original. However they didn't last long and you're the first collector I know to actually obtain one. Only ones I've ever seen in real life were on the San Antonio Riverwalk several years ago and they may not even be there anymore.
I'll be interested in hearing how it performs.
|
|
|
Post by Noah C on Mar 31, 2016 22:04:01 GMT -5
Recently, I came across Below Cost Appliances, a clear-out site for various household items. Ceiling fans appear to be the highlight, with over nine pages of results listed. All fans are Hunter, with a plethora of rather obscure and/or long-discontinued models featured. After browsing the site, I stumbled upon a fan which would suit my living room - the Bell Meade: The fan, while certainly far newer than what many around here show preference towards, fits our décor and boasts an impressive CFM rating and furniture-grade wood veneer blades. Ultimately, I am wondering...are your guys' thoughts? Is this a worthwhile fan, or should I continue to search for a superior alternative? I've known about them since I was a kid. I almost got a new old stock Santa Barbara 46" ceiling fan from them, but I decided against them. If I were you, I would get a hunter paramount XP, if I were absolutely limited to hunter and hunter only. It has a bigger motor than this Belle Meade (188×25 vs 210×15) and paramounts haul ass, too. If anything is in the vicinity of an original (2002-2015 model), then this is; last I checked this fan moves 7,000 CFM. There are some in this place called Badlands steakhouse, about 10 minutes from me, and they looked cool, and moved so much air that when we would get our steaks from there, we wouldn't sit inside because our food would get cold too quick. BTW the CFM rating on the Belle Meade, like most pre-2005 fans, is not accurate, kind of like how wind speed ratings from pre-2014 are no longer accurate; as testing has gotten more accurate for these types of things, numbers have changed; fans that move 9000 CFMs by testing methodologies ten years ago only move around 7000 by today's methodologies, so they cannot be compared unless one turns on the fan in question, feels it's airflow, then turns on a comparison fan and feels it's airflow. As for industrials, that is a different story. But for these types of fan, it is the truth. For example, the hunter beacon hill's CFM rating was 7500 CFM, until they retested it a few years back and found out it really only moved 4,600 CFM. Mind you, this was before the motor swap. Another example: FASCO said that their Charleston moved 7,200 CFM, but yet a fan with upward facing blades is not as effective an air mover as a fan with blades parallel to the ground, so the Charleston moves slightly less air than,say, a Panama. Panamas after they changed the blade pitch to 15° moved 6,228 CFM, and Panamas when they had the 14° blade pitch moved a bit more than that. If a Charleston can't beat this, then one testing methodology is either not accurate or it is outdated because it was replaced with a new one. I said all of that to say this: that Belle Meade is probably in the league of 6,500-7,000 CFM. That means it moves more air than almost anything it's size, but that thing does NOT move anything close to 9,800 CFM. Pic of paramount: But since I am not much of a hunter guy..... Well, the Fanimation Edgewood would be a very good alternative. One of the best spinner motor alternatives: And so is the Quorum pinnacle:
|
|
|
Post by Cole D on Apr 1, 2016 20:37:36 GMT -5
I think it looks very nice for a modern fan and the motor sound pretty good for a spinner.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan U on Apr 1, 2016 20:56:55 GMT -5
Definitely not my style in terms of appearance, but with those specs I'd look past that!
|
|
|
Post by Christian C. on Apr 1, 2016 22:01:27 GMT -5
I own a Hunter Belle Meade, and I can vouch for their quality and performance. The motor is 210x15 Airmax, and the performance is up there with any stack motor fan, maybe even an original. The bottom plate is cast metal as well. I highly recommend it. Here's the video of mine:
|
|
|
Post by Noah C on Apr 2, 2016 3:20:47 GMT -5
I own a Hunter Belle Meade, and I can vouch for their quality and performance. The motor is 210x15 Airmax, and the performance is up there with any stack motor fan, maybe even an original. The bottom plate is cast metal as well. I highly recommend it. Here's the video of mine: Thanks for the info, Christian! Note: I have a Grand Lodge in my family room. The 210×15mm airmax motor was found in your fan, the Royal oak, the alchemy, and the midtown. The Grand Lodge actually has the same size motor that the Paramount XP had, a 188×25, only the Grand Lodge's motor is skeletal. Mine ran for about five years, and stopped working, and I don't think it is a capacitor issue, as it ran at normal speed for the time it ran. About a year ago, it started working intermittently, and sometimes I would try to turn it on, and the motor would buzz and vibrate like it wanted to spin, but it would not spin at all. And now, it doesn't work at all; the motor makes noise, but it does not spin. It will be replaced with an Emerson carrera grande eco anyway, so I am not much concerned; I will try to upload a clip of it doing this tomorrow. And the Hunter Grand Lodge is not nearly the quality of this Belle Meade; mine has a semi-passable metal quality, but the switch cup is not die-cast like yours, and the blades are MDF; I can tell based on how light, thin, flimsy, and simply cheap they are. The Royal oak may have been made of better componentry, which i doubt, but the grand Lodge is certainly not anything worth writing home about as far as quality goes. And if Hunter's wall/remote control fans were at least somewhat reliable, then this would be an okay fan. But, that's not the case. Luckily, you have a pull chain model. Quick question: how much CFM do you think this moves? Most K55-type motor casablanca's are usually in the mid 6,000s just to give you a reference stick.
|
|
|
Post by Max C. on Apr 2, 2016 12:31:11 GMT -5
Always wondered about these myself. At the time of their production, their stated CFM rating was well over that of an Original. However they didn't last long and you're the first collector I know to actually obtain one. Only ones I've ever seen in real life were on the San Antonio Riverwalk several years ago and they may not even be there anymore. I'll be interested in hearing how it performs. That is astounding. For how long where these actually sold? I have not actually obtained the fan as of yet, however will be contacting Below Cost Appliances later today. I've known about them since I was a kid. I almost got a new old stock Santa Barbara 46" ceiling fan from them, but I decided against them. Out of curiosity, what prompted the decision to shop elsewhere? If I were you, I would get a Hunter Paramount XP, if I were absolutely limited to Hunter and Hunter only. It has a bigger motor than this Belle Meade (188×25 vs 210×15) and Paramounts haul ass, too. If anything is in the vicinity of an Original (2002-2015 model), then this is; last I checked this fan moves 7,000 CFM. There are some in this place called Badlands steakhouse, about 10 minutes from me, and they looked cool, and moved so much air that when we would get our steaks from there, we wouldn't sit inside because our food would get cold too quick. Although the Paramount XP appears to be quite a decent fan, it is simply too plain in appearance for the living room. Also, a larger motor does not necessarily translate into superior performance. Take into account that the Bell Meade uses an AirMax. It has likely been optimized for maximum (or darn close to) airflow, hence the name "AirMax" BTW the CFM rating on the Belle Meade, like most pre-2005 fans, is not accurate, kind of like how wind speed ratings from pre-2014 are no longer accurate; as testing has gotten more accurate for these types of things, numbers have changed; fans that move 9000 CFMs by testing methodologies ten years ago only move around 7000 by today's methodologies, so they cannot be compared unless one turns on the fan in question, feels it's airflow, then turns on a comparison fan and feels it's airflow. For a low-end generic brand, I could certainly foresee inaccuracies in regards to CFM ratings. However, Hunter was a reputable company. Unlike a cheap, short-lived name, they invested time and effort into their testing procedures. I highly doubt they bought a pin wheel from a dollar store, called a couple of low-level employees over and said "Jihm Bawb, Skeeter, y'all ned 2 hold dis 2 da fan 2 du syintifikul resherch! If in dowt, say it blowz 10,000 CFM!" Also, have a glance at this report from 1998. The methods of testing are on-par with those of today: www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/pdf/FSEC-CR-1770-98.pdfBut for these types of fan, it is the truth. For example, the Hunter Beacon Hill's CFM rating was 7500 CFM, until they retested it a few years back and found out it really only moved 4,600 CFM. Whose truth Honestly, I do not automatically assume that the original CFM rating was majorly inaccurate on every fan. A downgraded motor is far more likely in my eyes. Even if the motor has remained identical, there are other factors to be considered including:
- Blade and blade bracket weight.
The last item is particularly noteworthy. The first Highburys actually used lower capacitor values than most other Hunter fans. Instead of 5 + 5 + 5 UF, it was 2 + 3 + 4 UF if memory serves. I am unsure of exactly what specific ratings and tolerances effect RPM in given manners, and will not even attempt to produce a calculation or formula therefore. However, the Highbury's official CFM rating increased by approximately 300 when Hunter decided to use a capacitor rated at 5 + 5 + 5 UF. Throughout all of this, the motor has not changed. I said all of that to say this: that Belle Meade is probably in the league of 6,500-7,000 CFM. That means it moves more air than almost anything it's size, but that thing does NOT move anything close to 9,800 CFM. How many Hunter Bell Meads have you worked with Noah? Well, the Fanimation Edgewood would be a very good alternative. That is slightly too modern in appearance for the space. Thank you for the suggestion, though. I own a Hunter Belle Meade, and I can vouch for their quality and performance. The motor is 210x15 Airmax, and the performance is up there with any stack motor fan, maybe even an original. The bottom plate is cast metal as well. I highly recommend it. Here's the video of mine: Thank you for providing this video Christian! I am definitely sold now, especially considering the bottom plate is cast.
|
|
|
Post by Noah C on Apr 2, 2016 16:25:57 GMT -5
Max, I took a look at that report, and it confirmed the differences in CFM and efficiency testing between 18 years ago and now. The testing method of today utilizes a cylindrical structure that is three feet tall and eight inches wider than the specific fan diameter that they are testing. The cylindrical structure is four feet off the ground. Sensors calculate the wind speed, which is converted to CFM. This methodology is less indicative of real life usage and the airflow you will feel from the item in question, but more accurate as far as measuring total airflow. And yes, I understand how a more powerful capacitor can make your fan operate at a higher RPM and move more air. Example: Hampton Bay Glendale's have used the same size motor (153×15) for a little bit, after they rid the fan of the 153×20 (?) that the Glendale previously contained. CFM ratings for the Glendale were about 5,400, up until about a year or two ago; the boxes I have seen of Glendale's from about late 2014 onward say the fan moves about 4,700 CFM. Given they did not change the motor size, they most likely put a less powerful capacitor in there, maybe by 1 UF (rough estimate); I don't know the exact capacitor value of the Glendale series.
I really like the Belle Meade; it is, if you didn't know, one of my favorite hunters, 2nd century original, original, alchemy, and millennium aside. Not saying that you shouldn't get the fan, Max, as it is a great fan. Edgewood is too modern, and the Quorum is not anywhere near the quality of the Edgewood or the hunter. Did the fan have to be spinner motor? Just curious.
Also, a subject that is rarely talked about here is wind speed. I personally think this is a more accurate methodology of testing air movement for the fan to see how concentrated the air being moved by the fan is; this is more indicative of its performance per size and air movement.
|
|
|
Post by Max C. on Apr 3, 2016 15:59:47 GMT -5
Max, I took a look at that report, and it confirmed the differences in CFM and efficiency testing between 18 years ago and now. The testing method of today utilizes a cylindrical structure that is three feet tall and eight inches wider than the specific fan diameter that they are testing. The cylindrical structure is four feet off the ground. Sensors calculate the wind speed, which is converted to CFM. This methodology is less indicative of real life usage and the airflow you will feel from the item in question, but more accurate as far as measuring total airflow. Honestly, it does not matter to me if the new method illustrates "improved accuracy" for total airflow. As you said, it might not prove to be as realistic in a real-life installation. Since we are measuring airflow for humans, not machines, the traditional method will suffice for me I really like the Belle Meade; it is, if you didn't know, one of my favorite Hunters. It sure took a while to convey that... Edgewood is too modern, and the Quorum is not anywhere near the quality of the Edgewood or the hunter. Did the fan have to be spinner motor? Just curious. The fan does not have to include spinner, however what I found happens to use one.
|
|
|
Post by Noah C on Apr 3, 2016 22:33:47 GMT -5
Max, I took a look at that report, and it confirmed the differences in CFM and efficiency testing between 18 years ago and now. The testing method of today utilizes a cylindrical structure that is three feet tall and eight inches wider than the specific fan diameter that they are testing. The cylindrical structure is four feet off the ground. Sensors calculate the wind speed, which is converted to CFM. This methodology is less indicative of real life usage and the airflow you will feel from the item in question, but more accurate as far as measuring total airflow. Honestly, it does not matter to me if the new method illustrates "improved accuracy" for total airflow. As you said, it might not prove to be as realistic in a real-life installation. Since we are measuring airflow for humans, not machines, the traditional method will suffice for me I really like the Belle Meade; it is, if you didn't know, one of my favorite Hunters. It sure took a while to convey that... Edgewood is too modern, and the Quorum is not anywhere near the quality of the Edgewood or the hunter. Did the fan have to be spinner motor? Just curious. The fan does not have to include spinner, however what I found happens to use one. OK...as far as testing methods go, what I was really trying to say is that you cannot compare ceiling fan airflow from two fans as accurately if one is tested for airflow differently than the other, as you would be able to if they were tested the same way/a very similar way. And again, CFM is not important if your fan has a low wind speed. did not feel the need to convey that this was one of my favorite fans... They recently discontinued the carrera grande (the one Cole has) so it should be less expensive; it seems as though your living room would require a transitional fan anyway. That has a 212×25 so it should move more air, unless they put capacitor(s) with really low values inside of it, which I don't think they did. Can you post a picture of your living room, because nobody knows how big it is, it's style, what would fit?
|
|