RC helicopters with separate throttle and pitch controls?

[Velktron]

I know that full-scale helicopters were made for decades without an automatic engine/throttle governor, so pitch and throttle had to be regulated separately, but were there ever any RC models made with separate pitch/throttle controls?

If yes, how were the commands set up on the transmitter?

And just how hard were they to fly?

[HX3D014]

I know that full-scale heliocopters were made for decades without an automatic engine/throttle governor, so pitch and throttle had to be regulated separately, but were there ever any RC models made with separate pitch/throttle controls?

If yes, how were the commands set up on the transmitter?

And just how hard were they to fly?
http://www.swift-tuning.com/curves.php'

This (http://www.swift-tuning.com/curves.php) should answer your question :)

More can be found by Searching here and elsewhere for "Throttle Curves"

very common topic and a beginners one at that ;) Are you new to the world of RC helicopters?

Bryce.

PS , it is not as difficult as flying a heli with no Gyro ;)

[Velktron]

I own and operate a Honey Bee CP2, if that answers your question.

I just wanted to know if historically, RC helicopters have been operated with separate throttle and pitch controls like full scale helicopters (small piston operated helicopters like the Robinson 22 can still be delivered without an engine governor).

The fact that modern RC helicopters have coalesced the throttle and pitch into a single control doesn't say much in regard to my question, now, does it?

[ashdec87]

the problem with having pitch and throttle on separate controls is that you run out of thumbs/finger to use it. Plus I could see it being a pain to try and keep the throttle matched to the pitch manually. This is the reason for throttle curves. You do this once and it should be the same from then on. Did that help?

[Brandano]

The very early helicopters had a constant pitch rotor. Later variable pitch helicopters had probably the throttle on a dial, and the speed of the engine would fluctuate with pitch changes of the main rotor

[Velktron]

No. Telling me that it would be hard to use doesn't tell me whether it has ever been used or not.

The question was if separate pitch and throttle has ever been historically implemented, thus really having to manage 6 separate channels. And by "historically" I mean going back as far as the 1960s and 1970s, if necessary.

Or were RC helicopter designers so considerate to have thought of using throttle curves all the way since the very beginning?

The very early helicopters had a constant pitch rotor. Later variable pitch helicopters had probably the throttle on a dial, and the speed of the engine would fluctuate with pitch changes of the main rotor

Aha, at last someone without reading comprehension issues. Are there any famous rc helis that actually flew that way? Since when are throttle curves being used?

[DT56]

No. Telling me that it would be hard to use doesn't tell me whether it has ever been used or not.

The question was if separate pitch and throttle has ever been historically implemented, thus really having to manage 6 separate channels. And by "historically" I mean going back as far as the 1960s and 1970s, if necessary.

Or were RC helicopter designers so considerate to have thought of using throttle curves all the way since the very beginning?



Aha, at last someone without reading comprehension issues. Are there any famous rc helis that actually flew that way? Since when are throttle curves being used?

Just a thought, if I were requesting free information from a group of fellow enthusiasts, I'd try my best not to insult them.

[Brandano]

Again, I am just going by vague recollections and logic. I imagine that some form of throttle curve would have been added in relatively early on. I can see two ways to achieve this: using a mechanical mixer between the collective and the throttle on board the helicopter, or hacking the transmitter to apply a mix of the collective and throttle to the throttle channel, perhaps using rough lookup curves stored on an eeprom, or some exquisitely designed op-amp based mixer.

[pmackenzie]

The Schluter Helibaby (early 80's?) had collective pitch.
Throttle and collective mixing was done using output arm geometry since at the time there was no such thing as a heli radio. (No EEPROMs or lookup tables back then either :) )
I usually flew mine with pitch on a knob, so in effect it was a CP heli with remote pitch adjustments. I did it this way because without revo mixing (not invented yet) and no gyro it was the only way I could get it to work.
A mechanical collective/tail rotor mixer would have helped, but I never did make one.

Moving to the late 80's the Hirobo shuttle could be flown without a heli radio by Y connecting the throttle and collective servos. Head speed was kept somewhat constant by using the servo arm geometry.
Even then the heli radios were still not computer based, generally just having analog circuits and trim pots to make adjustments.

And the ECO8 (late 90's) came with a mechanical mixer that let you fly with a 4 channel radio. Collective pitch servo was Y-ed to the ESC, and the mixer did the CCPM and tail rotor compensation mechanically.

Pat MacKenzie

[Velktron]

Thanks for everybody's answers - so it appears that due to practical reasons, some form of throttle-pitch mixing or at least compensation was introduced early on.

Just a thought, if I were requesting free information from a group of fellow enthusiasts, I'd try my best not to insult them.

That goes without saying, but if you looked at certain threads I started, you'd notice that many just chimed in without bothering reading the first post in a thread, which IMHO is the most important thing to read when one labels a thread as a "Question".

This applies to this very thread, unfortunately: just take a look at the first reply. The poster answered much like a bot that's programmed to churn out a generic link about "throttle curves" as soon as it spots those keywords, and missed my question entirely.

On another forum (not rc related this time) I've had TWO PAGES of replies made by apparently reading comprehension challenged people before a mod had to step in to avoid it going heavily OT, so it's not something limited to RCGroups either, although it tends to happen a lot around here.

[pmackenzie]

That goes without saying, but if you looked at certain threads I started, you'd notice that many just chimed in without bothering reading the first post in a thread, which IMHO is the most important thing to read when one labels a thread as a "Question".

This applies to this very thread, unfortunately: just take a look at the first reply. The poster answered much like a bot that's programmed to churn out a generic link about "throttle curves" as soon as it spots those keywords, and missed my question entirely.

Not sure if this applies to your other threads but in this case the source of confusion is likely the thread title, which mentions "throttle governor", which is not really at all what you are asking about.

Pat MacKenzie

[Velktron]

Still, any doubts should be cleared up when one bothers reading the very first post on this thread. Or perhaps I'm a dumbass for doing so regularly, while I could just shoot a stream-of-conciousness reply based just on a thread's title :rolleyes:

[pmackenzie]

The thread title question is clear and concise.
The question in the OP is a bit convoluted. It sort of sounds like you think that all R/C helicopters use and have for a long time some sort of governor.
Which is exactly what the thread title says.
Lots of "newbies" (and I am not saying you are one) post on here and confuse the concepts of "controls" and "servos" and "functions".

Read in that context the response you found so annoying makes perfect sense.


Pat MacKenzie

[Velktron]

OK, let's nitpick a bit further.

Throttle governor: a device that's supposed to keep motor output constant over a variable range of loads. The "output" could be RPM, torque, or power. These are usually linked to some degree, but the means for controlling each may vary between motor types. In helicopters, the final observable quantity we want to keep constant is rotor or motor RPM. This could require a more or less "throttle" however, no matter if the motor is gas, nitro, turbine or electric. We just control the amount of energy input, and monitor the macroscopic outcome (RPM).

It could be an "active" or a "passive" governor, like e.g. preset pitch/throttle curves. In either case, the question referred to the complete absence of any sort of automatic or preset "governor", a category that comprises throttle curves too (although an active governor could be used even in RC models, nowadays).

Tried reading the replies in the key you suggested, but I must really try hard not to read them as nitpicking and wordplaying. Which is bad for everyone, since it makes me look like a dumbass and frustrates anyone who answered in good faith.

Let's review my OP sentence by sentence:

I know that full-scale helicopters were made for decades without an automatic engine/throttle governor, so pitch and throttle had to be regulated separately,

The above is a fact, as can be easily verified in any aviation history source.


but were there ever any RC models made with separate pitch/throttle controls?

I'm obviously trying to discover if *any* RC model (helicopter) was ever made with such an arrangement. The way I see it, that excludes automated governors, AND preset throttle/pitch curves. It's implied that I expect vintage models (at most) to work that way, but I'm digressing.


If yes, how were the commands set up on the transmitter?

And just how hard were they to fly?

Well...quite obvious where I'm trying to reach here. I am implying that a separate throttle-pitch arrangement could have once been in use, just it has been in full scale helis.

[HX3D014]

The Schluter Helibaby (early 80's?) had collective pitch.
Throttle and collective mixing was done using output arm geometry since at the time there was no such thing as a heli radio. (No EEPROMs or lookup tables back then either :) )
I usually flew mine with pitch on a knob, so in effect it was a CP heli with remote pitch adjustments. I did it this way because without revo mixing (not invented yet) and no gyro it was the only way I could get it to work.
A mechanical collective/tail rotor mixer would have helped, but I never did make one.

Moving to the late 80's the Hirobo shuttle could be flown without a heli radio by Y connecting the throttle and collective servos. Head speed was kept somewhat constant by using the servo arm geometry.
Even then the heli radios were still not computer based, generally just having analog circuits and trim pots to make adjustments.

And the ECO8 (late 90's) came with a mechanical mixer that let you fly with a 4 channel radio. Collective pitch servo was Y-ed to the ESC, and the mixer did the CCPM and tail rotor compensation mechanically.

Pat MacKenzie

I remember My shuttle. with its plain green canopy ;)

Also remember having to try to learn to fly it in 1990 1991 without a gyro (could not afford one back then) But I vaguely recall a heli radio with simple pot adjusted trim mixing ?

It was a long time ago and that radio has long since passed hands from me.

Velktron
settle down. I had not enough time to completely answer your question. (You know. Life and all ;))

Besides do believe That by giving a method on how it was done was answering you second question. And that second question was only to be answered if the answer to the first one was yes.

then I gave a comparison as to how hard it was to fly.

Yes it was all short. But I took the time to post a link and Help you out.

And then you turn around and say that Stuff.

Not nice !

[HX3D014]

Assuming that this thread Question could be turned into a Discussion based loosely on the OP and Subsequent concepts arising to methods Other than a Governor.

OK here it is. (Actually it is a governor. but it is a Mechanical one)

Centrifugal Throttle.

Simple direct drive from the main Rotor or Rotor Drive shaft Pre Clutch ?

as an rpm is increased the Weights spinning on above mentioned direct drive would want to pull out from centre of Rotation. through some clever mechanical mixing you can have it so as the shaft slows in RPM it would cause the Weights be sprung back towards the Centre of rotation and then that movement would be linked to the throttle. and so it would now cause the throttle to Increase. like wise if the RPM of the weights increased. then the weights would apply more force to the springs compressing them and then the weights eventual movement would cause the Throttle to Reduce.

This is old steam tech. That is I seen such a device on a steam wheel where the wheel was to keep an RPM.

I have no actual knowledge of this concept being used on Heli throttle links. But I know they use such a device to lock the Main blades from flap down.

OK. Back to the Actual historical Recollections and Facts. enough of my Bot work.

[Velktron]

I rest my case. So far I only have received one or two meaningful post in the spirit of "Yes, there were" or "No, there weren't.".

The rest were more or less debates on the meaning of the OP or went seriously off-topic. I even concede that not everyone here has English as a first language, so that could be a barrier to properly understanding the OP.

I've had to work with people who had English as a first language or had published academic work in it, yet couldn't keep track of a sentence's context if it spawned more than a few lines in length, so perhaps I should use shorter sentences...who knows.

OK, some posters tried to provide a honest answer but it was a bad topic, overall . Even now that I changed the title, I don't think it will be enough to get it back on track.

[Bartleby]

Some information can be found on the website of one of the pioneers, Dieter Schlüter (http://www.dieterschlueter.de/). Alas, it's only available in German - hopefully an automated translation service like babelfish can give you an overview.

Regards

[Roj]

I rest my case. So far I only have received one or two meaningful post in the spirit of "Yes, there were" or "No, there weren't.".

The rest were more or less debates on the meaning of the OP or went seriously off-topic. I even concede that not everyone here has English as a first language, so that could be a barrier to properly understanding the OP.

I've had to work with people who had English as a first language or had published academic work in it, yet couldn't keep track of a sentence's context if it spawned more than a few lines in length, so perhaps I should use shorter sentences...who knows.

OK, some posters tried to provide a honest answer but it was a bad topic, overall . Even now that I changed the title, I don't think it will be enough to get it back on track.

Allow me to add another meaningless post if I may..

I notice in this thread 5 irrelevent posts were from you, complaining about the quality of people's responses and questioning their standard if english.
My advice is to try courteously directing discussion in the direction you feel it should go. Good luck.

[Velktron]

OK then...were there ever, or were there not, radio controlled helicopters with separate pitch and throttle controls?