120, 140CCPM

[sub-standard heli person]

Just a quick question for you all out there....What advantages is there of
using 140ccpm over 120ccpm on the Vigor CS?

Regards

[tippy]

... 140ccpm over 120ccpm ...?

Ok I'll take a stab.
Draw a circle (swashplash). Put a dot at the top (12 o'clock for those that remember clocks with hands). Put a dot at 120 degrees (4 o'clock) and a dot at 240 (8 o'clock). Now draw a line thru 12 and 6 o'clock. Draw a second line perpendicular to this line and have it intersect the 4 & 8 o'clock dots.

Make note of the distance from the center of the circle to the intersection of the two lines. Now make a note of the distance from the center to the 12 o'clock dot (ie radius of circle).

These two distances are different. Let's assume the 12 o'clock dot is forward on your heli.

OK if the 4 & 8 o'clock servos move the same amount (ie no mix adjustment) as the 12 o'clock servo, they will move the back of the swash further than the front. This induces some amount of collective change when an elevator function is applied. To reduce/eliminate this affect, a mix must be applied OR the 4 & 8 o'clock dot line must be moved further aft.

So if you move the dots to say 5 & 7 o'clock (ie each is 140 degrees from 12 o'clock, then the line through the 140 degree dots will be further aft (ie closer to the distance of the 12 o'clock dot distance.

Since the differences are less, then less collective movement is induced during an elevator function thus lessening or possibly even removing the need for the adjusting mix.

The advantage of 140 over 120? You get a purer action because you are inducing less of a different (collective in this case) action.

If you fly like me, you probably won't see the difference. If you fly like Curtis, you probably will.

Hope this helps,
tippy

[Beav]

"sub-standard heli person" <sub-stand@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1087508972.32498.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.ne t...
> Just a quick question for you all out there....What advantages is there of
> using 140ccpm over 120ccpm on the Vigor CS?

Less interaction between collective control and cyclic control, but
remember, there's only one radio manufacturer provides that feature.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[sub-standard heli person]

The option is there on my 10X but is it worth the bother?

"Beav" <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote in message
news:10d6j9af8nesafd@news.supernews.com...
>
> "sub-standard heli person" <sub-stand@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1087508972.32498.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.ne t...
> > Just a quick question for you all out there....What advantages is there
of
> > using 140ccpm over 120ccpm on the Vigor CS?
>
> Less interaction between collective control and cyclic control, but
> remember, there's only one radio manufacturer provides that feature.
>
>
> --
> Beav
>
>
> Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
> (with the obvious changes)
>
> Beavisland now lives at
> www.beavisoriginal.co.uk
>
>
>

[Steve R.]

"sub-standard heli person" <sub-stand@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1087596466.12143.0@ersa.uk.clara.net...
> The option is there on my 10X but is it worth the bother?
>

If you've got a JR helicopter with 140 CCPM and the 10 series radio with
this mix setup, I'd say that probably yes, it's worth the bother. 140 CCPM
is supposed to address some of the issues that 120 CCPM has. It's better
but the issues are still there. A three servo CCPM is going to have one
servo involved in two functions (collective and for/aft cyclic) and the
other two servos involved in three (collective, for/aft and left/right
cyclic). As long as you've got this kind of imbalance, there's a potential
for unwanted collective/cyclic mixing. Is it a significant problem in the
real world? No, not really!

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[Beav]

"sub-standard heli person" <sub-stand@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1087596466.12143.0@ersa.uk.clara.net...
> The option is there on my 10X but is it worth the bother?

It is IF your swashplate allows for the CORRECT placement of the links yes,
but don't think that using the 140 spacing (well for 2 servo's out of the 3)
on a swash designed for 120 operation will work, coz it won't.

When I say it won't, it actually WILL, but it's crap, so don't do it:-))

For the correct swash AND if you've got the facility to "140", then 140,
otherwise stick with 120, or better still, none.

I avoid ECCPM wherever possible.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Beav]

"Steve R." <srhodes13@houston.rr.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:UXJAc.9406$4g1.8605@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> "sub-standard heli person" <sub-stand@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1087596466.12143.0@ersa.uk.clara.net...
> > The option is there on my 10X but is it worth the bother?
> >
>
> If you've got a JR helicopter with 140 CCPM and the 10 series radio with
> this mix setup, I'd say that probably yes, it's worth the bother. 140
CCPM
> is supposed to address some of the issues that 120 CCPM has. It's better
> but the issues are still there. A three servo CCPM is going to have one
> servo involved in two functions (collective and for/aft cyclic) and the
> other two servos involved in three (collective, for/aft and left/right
> cyclic). As long as you've got this kind of imbalance, there's a
potential
> for unwanted collective/cyclic mixing. Is it a significant problem in the
> real world? No, not really!

And also Steve, it's only a "real" problem if the servo's are moving
quickly. For scale flying, even the 120 "works", but I'm still a devotee of
conventional controls.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Steve R.]

"Beav" <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote in message
news:10d95ea5g1mbs62@news.supernews.com...
>
> And also Steve, it's only a "real" problem if the servo's are moving
> quickly. For scale flying, even the 120 "works", but I'm still a devotee
of
> conventional controls.
>
>
> --
> Beav
>

You'll get no arguments from be, Beav! :-)

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[Beav]

"Steve R." <srhodes13@houston.rr.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:n%fBc.16273$4g1.8064@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> "Beav" <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote in message
> news:10d95ea5g1mbs62@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > And also Steve, it's only a "real" problem if the servo's are moving
> > quickly. For scale flying, even the 120 "works", but I'm still a devotee
> of
> > conventional controls.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Beav
> >
>
> You'll get no arguments from be, Beav! :-)

I knew that:)))


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Peter Christy]

Beav wrote:

>
> "sub-standard heli person" <sub-stand@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1087508972.32498.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.ne t...
>> Just a quick question for you all out there....What advantages is there of
>> using 140ccpm over 120ccpm on the Vigor CS?
>
> Less interaction between collective control and cyclic control, but
> remember, there's only one radio manufacturer provides that feature.

Actually, that's only partly true (sorry to be pedantic, Beav!).

Even on 120 degree eccpm, interaction *only* occurs when the servos are moving
at maximum speed, ie when you bang the stick hard from one extreme to the
other. This situation only occurs during extreme 3D, or when you panic (in
which case a little interaction would be the least of your worries 8-)

If the servos are moving at normal rates, any interaction is minimal, and is
only perceptible at extreme swashplate angles.

I know there's been a lot of argument over this, but for the sort of flying I
do (sport or fai style) the interaction issue really doesn't arise. It's only
really relevant to extreme 3D enthusiasts.

Personally, I find the advantage of mechanical simplicity (and hence
reliability) offered by eccpm is more than adequate compensation for an
imperceptible amount of interaction that, in any event, only occurs in extreme
situations!

Just my 2 penny worth!

--
Pete
christy@NOattglobalSPAM.net
(make the obvious amendments to reply!)

[Beav]

"Peter Christy" <christy@NOattglobalSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:QzcCc.25$kX3.15@newsfe6-win...
> Beav wrote:
>
> >
> > "sub-standard heli person" <sub-stand@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1087508972.32498.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.ne t...
> >> Just a quick question for you all out there....What advantages is there
of
> >> using 140ccpm over 120ccpm on the Vigor CS?
> >
> > Less interaction between collective control and cyclic control, but
> > remember, there's only one radio manufacturer provides that feature.
>
> Actually, that's only partly true (sorry to be pedantic, Beav!).
>
> Even on 120 degree eccpm, interaction *only* occurs when the servos are
moving
> at maximum speed, ie when you bang the stick hard from one extreme to the
> other. This situation only occurs during extreme 3D, or when you panic (in
> which case a little interaction would be the least of your worries 8-)
>
> If the servos are moving at normal rates, any interaction is minimal, and
is
> only perceptible at extreme swashplate angles.
>
> I know there's been a lot of argument over this, but for the sort of
flying I
> do (sport or fai style) the interaction issue really doesn't arise. It's
only
> really relevant to extreme 3D enthusiasts.
>
> Personally, I find the advantage of mechanical simplicity (and hence
> reliability) offered by eccpm is more than adequate compensation for an
> imperceptible amount of interaction that, in any event, only occurs in
extreme
> situations!
>
> Just my 2 penny worth!

2 quids worth there Pete :-))

You're dead right of course, and most flyers wouldn't notice the interaction
in the air, and those who're capable of extreme 3D probably wouldn't be
bothered by it anyway, but I still don't like to see one servo arm driving
the swash up on one side, while the other is pulling it down further on the
other. My sense of mechanical sympathy to blame I reckon:-)


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com" (
with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

>
> --
> Pete
> christy@NOattglobalSPAM.net
> (make the obvious amendments to reply!)