[SPAM] RE: Linear output - was Notes to Self 3

[Rcmaster199 at aol.com]

I abhor using electronics to "FIX" a poor mechanical or aerodynamic  set-up. 
These lessons were learned early before there were dual rates or even  
reversing switches, let alone all the other shtuff that come standard in mid to  hi 
end radios.
 
Suggestion for newbies working on new planes: turn all your expo, rate  
switch, program, etc., off, high off, respectively, and center all your  servos 
without program assist. Zero everything but reverse as necessary.  Adjust all of 
your linkages accordingly to center the surfaces. Then adjust to  preference 
as Dave suggests. 
 
Mark is particularly on the mark (pardon the pun) with his "retentive"  
analysis. Two monokote layers forming an overlap seam = .005". In my view  
measuring beyond about .015" (1/64") is counterproductive on anything we do  (except 
engine parts and wing or stab tube fit, goes without saying). Everything  else 
on the airframe made to at least that tolerance, will not necessarily fly  
better enough so that one could tell the difference.
 
MattK
 
 
In a message dated 2/10/2005 2:57:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
DaveL322 at comcast.net writes:

For control setups, straight / symmetrical / equal / balanced / etc  is 
useful if for no other reason than as a reference and a good starting  point.  From 
that starting point, I find adjustments to throws, rates,  expo, etc are more 
predictable to change the control feel / balance to what I  like, and I find 
that I need to use less "electronics" to get the control feel  I want.  I am a 
firm believer in using the minimum amount of electronics  needed to get the 
control feel I want.  There is no doubt in my mind that  the aerodynamics are 
not linear, the control systems are not always linear,  and the individual 
pilots perception of what is linear is usually different -  so it is really about 
tuning the control feel to what best suits the  individual pilot.
 
Changes to incidences and thrust to achieve a better state of trim are  also 
more predictable and repeatable when the plane is straight to be begin  with.  
My airplanes are usually geometrically straight on the test  flight, and then 
get tweaked and adjusted from there to fly straight in the  air (dynamic and 
static are different as has been discussed on this list -  things like spiral 
airflow).
 
Regards,
 
Dave Lockhart
_DaveL322 at comcast.net_ (mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net) 
 
 

--------------  Original message -------------- 

> This was basically my point. I  think we sometimes get beginners tooooo 
worried 
> about the  mechanical setup. Not to downplay the value of good mechanical 
>  setup...I think it's VERY important to have tight, slop free, true 
mechanics  
> before we start messing with the radios... But I think there 's a  point at 
which 
> you're wasting both time and money. 
>  
> Same goes for retentive straightness...there are tolerence to  
measure...and 
> tolerences not to bother with. Once I'm within a  certain range...it's time 
to 
> fly. There's no point in measuring to  1/128th of an inch when lord knows 
the 
> edges of my monokote from  various color schemes and overlaps have more 
impact. 
> 
>  ________________________________ 
> 
> From:  discussion-request at nsrca.org on behalf of Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
> Sent:  Thu 2/10/2005 1:29 PM 
> To: discussion at nsrca.org 
> Subject:  Re: Linear output - was Notes to Self 3 
> 
> 
> The  latter, in my view. 
> 
> Servo output to surface deflection  (mechanical set-up) is one thing. Stick 
> movement to surface  deflection, quite another. Not to belabor the obvious, 
we 
> have expo  galore available and each adjusts to his or her prefernce. 
> 
>  m2c 
> MattK 



 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050210/40a5758b/attachment.html