SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Thread Tools
Old Jun 01, 2015, 11:40 PM
rtfmaero is offline
Find More Posts by rtfmaero
Registered User
Joined Jan 2014
243 Posts
Hi,
I think you're right regarding which thread to post it to. Any idea which might be a better thread?

Duncan
rtfmaero is offline Find More Posts by rtfmaero
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Yesterday, 01:44 AM
mpjf01 is offline
Find More Posts by mpjf01
Registered User
Australia, SA, Adelaide
Joined Aug 2012
2,149 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtfmaero View Post
Hi,
I think you're right regarding which thread to post it to. Any idea which might be a better thread?

Duncan
I understand from your first post that you wish to know whether it is possible to separate several Taranis components and install them in different locations in a full size aircraft. I've not read of anyone doing this before, certainly people have used components inside custom cases without a problem but I am not aware of anybody with experience of long cable runs between parts. Try it and see would be my advice, just separate the parts on the bench with the cable runs you will ultimately use and see if everything still works.

As said, this is probably not the best thread for the discussion. I would start a new thread in the radios forum with a title stating what you wish to do, something like "Controlling a full size aircraft with a modelling RC System" should attract interest from a wider and possibly more knowledgeable group.

Many of the issues you might face are likely to be the same regardless of which RC system you use, others will be just related to Taranis, but a wider cross section of advice would be of benefit I think.
mpjf01 is offline Find More Posts by mpjf01
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:04 AM
4*60 is offline
Find More Posts by 4*60
most exalted one
Canada, BC, Blind Bay
Joined Aug 2002
3,811 Posts
Right you are.
4*60 is offline Find More Posts by 4*60
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:23 AM
rtfmaero is offline
Find More Posts by rtfmaero
Registered User
Joined Jan 2014
243 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpjf01 View Post
I would start a new thread in the radios forum with a title stating what you wish to do, something like "Controlling a full size aircraft with a modelling RC System" should attract interest from a wider and possibly more knowledgeable group.
Hi,
Excellent. I'll get on to that tomorrow morning (my wife insists I not play with computers in the evenings). Aw shucks mom!

Thanks for the advice,
Duncan
rtfmaero is offline Find More Posts by rtfmaero
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:55 AM
davidmc36 is offline
Find More Posts by davidmc36
No bounce, No play.
davidmc36's Avatar
Canada, ON, Ottawa
Joined Oct 2010
4,240 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtfmaero View Post
.....a degree of push-back of the concept itself. This surprises me a little if I'm honest. I would have thought the prospect of a full size plane under the control of modern RC technology would have been more immediately appealing.......
Ummmmm. From the viewpoint of somebody maintaining Transport Category A/C for over thirty years the prospect seems risky at best and downright stupidly dangerous at worst.

There is a reason A/C control systems are simplified: dependability. And when manipulated by "Digital" means the systems are tested to many-fold standards that a Taranis is tested to, have several redundant control paths, and are manufactured under an infinitely higher level of control than a "Modern RC System"

I will keep my eye on the news down the road with an expectation to see a story of the results of failure of the endeavor, I just hope it is not "above the fold"
davidmc36 is offline Find More Posts by davidmc36
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:33 AM
maguro is online now
Find More Posts by maguro
Registered User
maguro's Avatar
United States, DE, Bear
Joined Apr 2007
2,609 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmc36 View Post
Ummmmm. From the viewpoint of somebody maintaining Transport Category A/C for over thirty years the prospect seems risky at best and downright stupidly dangerous at worst.

There is a reason A/C control systems are simplified: dependability. And when manipulated by "Digital" means the systems are tested to many-fold standards that a Taranis is tested to, have several redundant control paths, and are manufactured under an infinitely higher level of control than a "Modern RC System"

I will keep my eye on the news down the road with an expectation to see a story of the results of failure of the endeavor, I just hope it is not "above the fold"
Judging by the illustration the aircraft will be certified in the experimental category. That gives the builder a lot of leeway, but I expect that in order to be certified the aircraft will have to demonstrate flight with the digital controls inoperative. Logically certification will require the pilot to demonstrate safe flight with a runaway servo in the same way an autopilot is certified in the normal category.

Having experienced a runaway TSO certified autopilot, I know that it can happen in the best systems. A hobby grade RC system is far from TSO certified.
maguro is online now Find More Posts by maguro
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:05 PM
Kilrah is online now
Find More Posts by Kilrah
Happy FPV flyer
Kilrah's Avatar
Switzerland
Joined Sep 2006
5,576 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtfmaero View Post
From the comments this thread has elicited, it seems that there is a degree of push-back of the concept itself. This surprises me a little if I'm honest. I would have thought the prospect of a full size plane under the control of modern RC technology would have been more immediately appealing.
The good old stick/linkage concept is known to work well, and most importantly... failures can either be attributed to the pilot or to some simple mechanical concept that is easy to understand and "debug".

On the other hand, modern advanced RC systems like multirotor flight controllers work a couple of orders of magnitude more efficiently when they work, but when they don't nobody really knows why and how to fix it. See the flyaways and other issues with recent off-the-shelf models, when issues arise they involve combinations of hundreds of parameters and you can't even know where to start looking at what may have gone wrong. You can design something that "should work well in theory" in one year, but it will then take 20 more to really find all side effects and correct them.
None of today's "advanced" RC technology has 20 years experience, and as a hobby device anything that's done is usually dumped after 5 years because it's "outdated and we're better just starting from scratch again than trying to understand and improve on that thing that's become so complex now"... losing all the experience that could have been gathered about reliability in the process.

That said, if I was in your place I would definitely "play" with those things out of curiosity and interest too. As long as I've made perfectly sure to have a backup of course, for example

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtfmaero View Post
It would be interesting to know if my plane could be flown with the mechanical controls if the digital control surfaces were fully deflected.
That would 100% need to be tested before anything "elaborate" is done with the digital controls, map each servo to a separate potentiometer, and slowly add "errors" on them, starting small and getting into the worst possible (and all) combinations to check you still have satisfactory handling. With a "center everything" switch, AND an additional circuit breaker that cuts power to all servos of course (also test that aerodynamic forces center the control surfaces without causing flutter in that situation).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtfmaero View Post
Think of everything RC pilots add into their TX. Why would one NOT want this in a full size plane?
Quite a few pilots actually cut down on most of mixes after realizing they can get as good results by training and without the added complexity

Your plane reminds me quite a bit of the Quickie, with the wings joined. We were looking into electrifying one several years ago with a friend due to its efficiency in that size class, but life separated our paths for now. One day, who knows...
Kilrah is online now Find More Posts by Kilrah
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:26 PM
82ndRCFLYER is online now
Find More Posts by 82ndRCFLYER
Sky Soldier
82ndRCFLYER's Avatar
United States, TX
Joined Jun 2013
279 Posts
Mine is being shipped gotta read this whole thread now to see what the heck is going on Tips, tricks, etc
82ndRCFLYER is online now Find More Posts by 82ndRCFLYER
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:54 PM
rtfmaero is offline
Find More Posts by rtfmaero
Registered User
Joined Jan 2014
243 Posts
Thanks for your considered feedback guys. I really appreciate it. As Kilrah said:
Quote:
map each servo to a separate potentiometer, and slowly add "errors" on them, starting small and getting into the worst possible (and all) combinations to check you still have satisfactory handling. With a "center everything" switch, AND an additional circuit breaker that cuts power to all servos of course (also test that aerodynamic forces center the control surfaces without causing flutter in that situation).
I was thinking along the same lines.

Kinda puts the experimental back into Experimental Category doesn't it? A key safety measure would be being able to guarantee the centering of the digital surface. If a servo fries itself, or otherwise locks up in a fully deflected position, I wouldn't think a "centre everything" switch would do the job. Might have to yank it back mechanically. A central lever (foot operated to ensure sufficient leverage can be applied) connected to all surfaces might suffice to centre everything. This is just off the top of my head - haven't really looked into it. But it might be do-able.

But hey - it is now morning, and I'll try to get some time soon to start a new thread. Sorry for injecting this discussion into the owner's thread.

Cheers,
Duncan
rtfmaero is offline Find More Posts by rtfmaero
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:03 PM
rtfmaero is offline
Find More Posts by rtfmaero
Registered User
Joined Jan 2014
243 Posts
Hi,
I've started a new thread to continue this discussion. If you're interested, please jump across. Here's the link:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...26&postcount=1
rtfmaero is offline Find More Posts by rtfmaero
Reply With Quote
Old Today, 03:23 PM
marmalade1 is online now
Find More Posts by marmalade1
Registered User
United States, IL, Wheaton
Joined Sep 2013
84 Posts
Flying to day with my Taranis and for the first time I monitored the RSSI. High and far for the plane (line of sight) it went to 45. No verbal warning. It's as far as I need but, shouldn't it be higher/stronger than that?
A01 version, 2.0.17 (latest FW, uncertain of exact #). Fresh LiFe rx cells, freshly charged tx NiMh.

Any thoughts?
PD
marmalade1 is online now Find More Posts by marmalade1
Reply With Quote
Old Today, 04:02 PM
maguro is online now
Find More Posts by maguro
Registered User
maguro's Avatar
United States, DE, Bear
Joined Apr 2007
2,609 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmalade1 View Post
Flying to day with my Taranis and for the first time I monitored the RSSI. High and far for the plane (line of sight) it went to 45. No verbal warning. It's as far as I need but, shouldn't it be higher/stronger than that?
A01 version, 2.0.17 (latest FW, uncertain of exact #). Fresh LiFe rx cells, freshly charged tx NiMh.

Any thoughts?
PD
You could easily have something shadowing the antennas, or have them in a poor orientation. Without more information it is hard to tell. Did you range check and check RSSI at all attitudes including from below the aircraft?
maguro is online now Find More Posts by maguro
Reply With Quote
Old Today, 04:48 PM
marmalade1 is online now
Find More Posts by marmalade1
Registered User
United States, IL, Wheaton
Joined Sep 2013
84 Posts
Antennas at 90 degrees to each other and not really near any metal (no CF at all). Somewhat close, 1" to throttle wire, but that's really slender. No range check or RSSI orientation check. I figured these txs can transmit kms, all I need is a solid 600m max. What's common RSSI values for line of sight?

PD
marmalade1 is online now Find More Posts by marmalade1
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question FrSky Taranis - assimilating web info mcshaz Radios 6 Today 12:40 PM
New Product FrSky Taranis - 16 Channels, Full Telemetry, RSSI Rotozuk Radios 43031 Today 08:43 AM
Discussion Owner's Thread: ROC HOBBY 2.2M V-TAIL GLIDER by FMS/MOTIONRC StarHopper44 Electric Sailplanes 2100 Yesterday 08:31 PM
Discussion is the FrSky Taranis next step after Turnigy 9X 9Ch tormodnt Radios 3 Nov 30, 2014 06:58 PM