Tonight's Dumb Idea...

[Jeff Hughes]

Makes me wonder why you bother to soft mount the engine if the servo can
live bolted to the mount?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob" <lomcevak at tin.it>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: Tonight's Dumb Idea...


>
>
> > >The servo sure shakes a lot, but the relative motion between the
> > >servo arm ant the engine is none. So the servo lasts longer and the
> > >servo response to the engine is much more precise.
> >
> > How is it that the servo lasts longer being subjected to the engine
> > motion and the associated dynamics?  I can see where the wear on the
> > servo and throttle arm from the throttle pushrod may be reduced but
> > that's a minor problem.
> >
>
> The vibrations the servo is given have, of course, much greater amplitude,
> and this could let you think that it suffers more.
>
> But what a servo really suffers of is the stress driven through his
rotating
> arm.
> The gears and the pot wear is directly related to the impulses to the arm.
>
> The more the acceleration of the connecting rod, the more wear to the
servo.
>
> With the servo virtually still compared to the engine, the servo arm is no
> loaded at all, and the high amplitude - low accelleration forces the servo
> is undergone to, is harmless to the servo.
>
> Anyway, in a 4 years time, no one servo failure I know of.
>
> PS: It might be possible for me to make some mistakes with my english.
> If I write something wrong, please let me know.... ;-)
>
> Best Regards
>
> Roberto Bracchi - Modelcompositi
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#