The MiniMOB ~ RE-DESIGN STARTED..........

Hephaistos · Feb 19, 2009, 08:33 AM

Hello……
EDIT START

Well, the original title of this thread was this one:
350 grams ~ 12 ounces DC-HEAD-PUSHER
If you go on reading, you will see that I decided to raise the target weight to 500 grams. Therefor I changed the title of this thread.

EDIT END

ANOTHER EDIT

Another correction of the threads title was needed, as some modifications I made added some extra-weight.
Once it was: The MiniMOB ~ 500 grams ~ 17 ounces ~ DC-Head
Now its: The MiniMOB ~ 600 grams ~ 21 ounces ~ DC-Head
This decision is explained on page 5 , post number 75

ANOTHER EDIT END

ANOTHER EDIT START

Well, going on with the design, the target-weight was raised up to 750 grams. Refer to post page #8, post #111 to know why.

ANOTHER EDIT END

HA; EDITED ONCE AGAIN START

I Just added a prerotator. I could not resist this must-have!

HA; EDITED ONCE AGAIN END

HA; EDITED ONCE AGAIN START

This will be the last edit of the target weight for some time! The construction is finished and I start to build it!

HA; EDITED ONCE AGAIN END

As I decided to join the autogyro pilots club this summer, I would basically need my own autogyro.
To get some piloting-skills, I bought a cheap fixed-wing elevon-RTF-trainer including a TX with USB-cable to connect to the PC and a license for the CLEARVIEW-RC-SIM. There I learned to fly the basic trainer with three channels (rudder, elevator and throttle) and the four-channel-trainer with additional elevons. I did not maiden the RTF until now due to some bad weather round here when I had time (or vice versa).
I was surprised that the transmitter still felt similar to me after 20 years and the connections inside my head to switch the rudder direction depending on the fact if the plane is coming towards me or if it’s going away still worked. I build some cars and boats with my father when I was a little boy. I thought this would not be worth anything after this long time, but it seems to be like riding a bicycle: Once you got it, you never forget again!

I don’t like the three channel trainers and planes on CLEARVIEW, the controls are very sluggish to me, and its lot of work on the TX to fly a flat eight. The elevon-trainer seems to correspond far more to the way I imagine how to control a RC-airplane. It was a question of training to find out how to control the elevons, but when I got it, I started to feel safe on the SIM, making a flat eight, loops and always a save landing.

As you guys out there wrote several times that the twin-rotor-autogyro would fly like a three channel fixed-wing trainer, and the DC-single-rotor would fly like a four-channel-fixed-wing without rudder, I decided to build a DC-single-rotor first. I don’t know why the general advice is to start with three channels first and then learn how to use the elevons. For me it was easier to learn to control the elevons than to cope with the sluggish rudder-elevator-only-steering.

Now back on topic: I just wrote this to explain why I switched from a twin to a single rotor.

I have two outrunners with low KV round here, 45 grams weight and about 70~80 Watts of output-power, two matching ESC, a 10 grams four-channel receiver from the RTF (from which I hope it will survive the maiden-flight), and some small servos.

The outrunners would be perfect for an autogyro of 350 grams (12 ounces). As I could not find plans for an autogyro of this weight, I decided to make the construction myself. Magnus from Sweden build a minimum with 380 grams and it worked! I know that you all would tell me to start with a proven construction first! I allow myself to ignore this advice, but I promise that will be the only advice I will ignore.

As the 350 grams are exactly the middle between Jochen´s Micromum and Minimum, I think it would be best to place the main-dimension in the middle of both. The airframe will be made of 10x10x1 millimeters square aluminium tube with some drilled holes to save weight (Swiss-cheese-weight-reducing-method). The parts will be mounted with screws and plates cut from GF-sheet. I made first sketches with a 3-cell Lipo of 800 mAh and servos of 15 grams each. As I can imagine hitting the target-weight, I start to create a CAD-model to get the exact weight and to position the centre of gravity and the thrust-line at the right place.

I will post some screenshots from the CAD as soon they are worth to be shown.

So, any comments welcome, I hope to eliminate the basic mistakes from my construction with the help from YOU gyronuts out there! And as I know that there is nothing for free, I promise to post a complete set of technical drawings for the parts and the assembly if the construction is finished!

Bye
Mike

P.S.: I just think about a name for this project. As it will be the middle from a Micro- and a Minimum, Midimum would be the right name, but I don’t want to block another name ending with ...mum. Due to Jochen´s famous creativity, they got rare! The ….mum-ending should be kept for Jochen´s own constructions. As I can imagine that I will not size it down in the future, I can imagine calling it MiniMOB or MicroMOB; this is made from “mini” or “micro” and some of my initial letters. This would clearly be a reference to Jochen´s construction I copied with his permission. I hope this name doesn’t make some awful imagination to the native-English-speakers! I just fear to sell another Mitsubishi “PAJERO” to Spain.

JochenK · Feb 19, 2009, 01:17 PM

Mike,

'Midimum' - I had a good laugh when I read that one. I never even thought of that name. Feel free to use it. Right now I'm thinking more in the direction of 'Megamum'.

Jochen

StephanB · Feb 19, 2009, 06:36 PM

Mike,
it's time to think about http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=985017

Stephan

Hephaistos · Feb 20, 2009, 05:03 AM

Hello......

Stephan, I already thought of visiting the INTER-EX. September also seems to be long enough to get my construction to air. The only thing I don´t know is if I got time then, it´s usually the time of the year when my girl can have her summer-holidays.

Jochen, even if you allow me to use the name Midimum, I am a little in doubt today if it would fit. The usual scale is micro-mini-midi-maxi-mega. So a Midimum should be bigger than a Minimum.
What about your plans for the Megamum? I remember you got some plans for the RPG..........

BTW, I decided to invest a little more time on the details of the CAD, especially some parameters for easy scaling of the construction. This makes it easy to set up the first construction, and if it´s finished, I just play with the parameters until they fit again, make an update of the drawings and I got a set of drawings for a different size.........

Also I found a new way to build the head-joint. Its made of an IGUBAL spherical-joint, a inside-hexagon-screw and a piece of a inside-hexagon-screwdriver.

Bye
Mike

PeterO_UK · Feb 20, 2009, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hephaistos

Hello......
Jochen, even if you allow me to use the name Midimum, I am a little in doubt today if it would fit. The usual scale is micro-mini-midi-maxi-mega. So a Midimum should be bigger than a Minimum.
Mike

I'm planning on calling my next one the "biggermum" :-)
We could follow the SI system, afterall there is already the nanomum and micromum. Minimum is close to Milimum. So the next one up should be a mum, then the kilomum, megamum, gigamum and teramum.

PeterO_UK

StephanB · Feb 20, 2009, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hephaistos

Hello......
Stephan, I already thought of visiting the INTER-EX. September also seems to be long enough to get my construction to air. The only thing I don´t know is if I got time then, it´s usually the time of the year when my girl can have her summer-holidays.
(..)
Bye
Mike

Perfect! Bring her with you.

Stephan

Hephaistos · Feb 20, 2009, 07:10 AM

Hello Peter.......

Thats a clever idea! As the Micromum is 200 (take 250 to make it fit) grams, the Minimum is 500 grams, the MUM should be exactly 1000 grams. So a "MUM" could be the brandnew SI-unit for exactly one kilogram of a Jochen-styled autogyro.
Therefrom I suggest the following naming convention for the Mum-clones: MUM + initials of the one who build the clone + weight in grams.
So my construction would be the MUM-MO-350.........

I got the feeling the Jochens famous constructions are just to good for not beeing cloned, and there will be some more clones in the future!

Bye
Mike

PeterO_UK · Feb 20, 2009, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hephaistos

Hello Peter.......

Therefrom I suggest the following naming convention for the Mum-clones: MUM + initials of the one who build the clone + weight in grams.
So my construction would be the MUM-MO-350.........
Mike

A MegaMum would be HUGE !!!!!

Peter

Hephaistos · Feb 20, 2009, 07:36 AM

Jep, a Megamum would be really huge. But things like a KiloMum have already been done long time ago, and, miracle, miracle, it worked without an RC but with a pilot made from flesh and blood!

Just kidding, I only search a name for my construction. As it´s my first autoyro, LEAD-MUM would be perfect, but I don't want to meet trouble halfway!

Bye
Mike

Hephaistos · Feb 23, 2009, 01:48 PM

Hello..........

I just finished the head-joint on the CAD. I had to stay in bed with a bad cold the last days, so it took longer than expected to finish it. I attached some screenshots from the head joint, I think they are mostly self-explaining. Next thing to do are the servos and the connection rods.

The rotor-axis is made from a inside-hexagon-screw with 5 mm metric pitch. The shaft to block the unwanted rotation is cut from an inside-hexagon-screwdriver with a bowl. If the screw and the screwdriver are good quality, there is very little freeplay. The Igubal-spherical-joint can take about 400 Newtons of load for breaking, so its more than oversized. Just high-tech-plastics! The screwdriver is a little misaligned in the lower fixation when moving, but its in the range of 0,05 mm, so no reason to be scared. The control lever is made from 4mm outer / 2 mm inner inox-capillar-tube and is TIG-welded to the screw.

The joint can move about 13 degrees to all sides from the middle position. Just one question: 13 degrees left and right for roll and the middle is vertical. Thats clear to me.

But what about the pitch? Where should the middle be placed concerning the pitch? In other words and viewn from the side: Is the rotor moved from being parallel with the lower frame tube 26 degrees backwards, or is it better to move the middle a little backwards, for example 5 degrees, so the rotor can move from 5 to 31 degrees backwards?

Bye
Mike

PeterO_UK · Feb 23, 2009, 02:06 PM

Mike,
That's a neat looking construction

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hephaistos

The joint can move about 13 degrees to all sides from the middle position. Just one question: 13 degrees left and right for roll and the middle is vertical. Thats clear to me.

But what about the pitch? Where should the middle be placed concerning the pitch? In other words and viewn from the side: Is the rotor moved from being parallel with the lower frame tube 26 degrees backwards, or is it better to move the middle a little backwards, for example 5 degrees, so the rotor can move from 5 to 31 degrees backwards?

Bye
Mike

Maybe this picture from the Minimum plans will help you a bit...
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attac...mentid=1471296

The mast is tilted back by 8 deg, and the rotor is also at 8 deg, so they are at right angles to each other. (Well nearly so as my rotor is about 10 deg tilted back). I would suggest this layout as it makes it very easy to tell (by eye) if you've got the rotor set correctly. Some other designs where this can't be done by eye seem to be harder to get set up at first. You'll also note that Jochen suggests only about half as much movement in pitch as in roll. On his designs this is achieved by the shape of the control "U" which is about twice as tall as it is wide.

PeterO_UK

PS: I just realised you're aiming more at a micromum size, so maybe the plans for that would be more helpful.

Hephaistos · Feb 23, 2009, 02:34 PM

Hello Peter........

Okay. The middle or neutral position of the rotor is aligned with the mast. I assumed something like this when I looked at Jochens plans, but I was not shure if the assumption was right.
Thanks for clearing up. The possibilty to simply look at the rotor if its rectangular to the mast is important to have an easy check before flight.

The 13 degrees to all sides are the mechanical possibilty of the joint.
If I go for 10 degress of pitch I can have 15 degrees of roll. I will adjust the control-levers to get this values if I have the servos placed. Would it be okay to have the reduction like this: 10 degrees pitch / 15 degrees roll with servos moving 40 degrees to both sides from the middle?

Bye
Mike

P.S.: For the size, the last decision is not made until now. If I get it to 350 grams, okay, I dont need to buy an outrunner. If not, I size up to minimum-dimensions. Perhaps this would be better, no juggling with dimensions.

PeterO_UK · Feb 23, 2009, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hephaistos

Hello Peter........

The 13 degrees to all sides are the mechanical possibilty of the joint.
If I go for 10 degress of pitch I can have 15 degrees of roll. I will adjust the control-levers to get this values if I have the servos placed. Would it be okay to have the reduction like this: 10 degrees pitch / 15 degrees roll with servos moving 40 degrees to both sides from the middle?

You really need to ask Jochen, I just know that the Minimum settings work OK. My experience so far is that I only ever use any "down" when doing a dead-stick landing or flying fast.
PeterO_UK

JochenK · Feb 23, 2009, 05:21 PM

Mike,

if your joint allows 13° tilt in each dierction, how are you going to get 15° roll throw?

I usually start out with 50% of the servo throw reserved for roll, 40% for pitch, and the remaining 10% are for mixing throttle onto roll. These values are then adjusted to the actual needs of the perticular gyro.

Jochen

Hephaistos · Feb 24, 2009, 02:34 AM

Hello.........

Jochen, the joint is able to move 13 degrees pitch and 13 degrees roll at the same time. Roll and pitch are measured rectangular to each others. So the total movement is something about 18 degrees in a direction of 45 degrees.
If I have 10 degrees of pitch and 15 degrees of roll, I get a total movement of 18 degrees again, in a direction of 34 degrees now. I hope its clear now.

Thanks for the info on the servo throws. Its very useful Information for the design of the control lever and the connection rods.

Peter, what do you want to say with: "My experience so far is that I only ever use any "down" when doing a dead-stick landing or flying fast". I struggle with the grammar a little. If I write: "My experience so far is that I only use "down" when doing a dead-stick landing or flying fast", do I write the same or have I changed the sense of the sentence?

Bye
Mike

P.S.: The more I think about the details, the more I get the feeling that it would be easier to scale up to the Minimum size. The effort to buy a bigger outrunner should be small in comparision to the expenses of the broken material until I have the settings right for my own construction. For scaling up, there will be no swiss cheese needed on the frame, so it will be easier to build.

Feb 19, 2009, 06:36 PM	#3
StephanB Restricted User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Frankfurt-region, Germany Posts: 1,254	September? Mike, it's time to think about http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=985017 Stephan

Feb 23, 2009, 01:48 PM	#10
Hephaistos Tannenzäpfle-Terminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Baden-Baden, Germany Posts: 397	Hello.......... I just finished the head-joint on the CAD. I had to stay in bed with a bad cold the last days, so it took longer than expected to finish it. I attached some screenshots from the head joint, I think they are mostly self-explaining. Next thing to do are the servos and the connection rods. The rotor-axis is made from a inside-hexagon-screw with 5 mm metric pitch. The shaft to block the unwanted rotation is cut from an inside-hexagon-screwdriver with a bowl. If the screw and the screwdriver are good quality, there is very little freeplay. The Igubal-spherical-joint can take about 400 Newtons of load for breaking, so its more than oversized. Just high-tech-plastics! The screwdriver is a little misaligned in the lower fixation when moving, but its in the range of 0,05 mm, so no reason to be scared. The control lever is made from 4mm outer / 2 mm inner inox-capillar-tube and is TIG-welded to the screw. The joint can move about 13 degrees to all sides from the middle position. Just one question: 13 degrees left and right for roll and the middle is vertical. Thats clear to me. But what about the pitch? Where should the middle be placed concerning the pitch? In other words and viewn from the side: Is the rotor moved from being parallel with the lower frame tube 26 degrees backwards, or is it better to move the middle a little backwards, for example 5 degrees, so the rotor can move from 5 to 31 degrees backwards? Bye Mike Attached Thumbnails 81.3 KB · Views: 454 30.3 KB · Views: 208

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Build Log 70g/2.5oz. dc head pusher - the Nanomum	JochenK	Auto Gyros	134	Oct 23, 2009 09:18 AM
Build Log 500 g/17.5 oz. dc head pusher - the Minimum	JochenK	Auto Gyros	214	Jul 29, 2009 11:11 PM
Build Log 200g/7oz. dc head pusher - the Micromum	JochenK	Auto Gyros	216	Mar 16, 2009 01:19 PM
12 volt DC power supply	reallynewflyer	Power Systems	15	Jun 11, 2008 10:25 AM
What Voltage and Amperage does a 12 Volt DC charger need?	Jamie-	Power Systems	3	Aug 08, 2001 01:02 AM

Feb 19, 2009, 08:33 AM	#1
Hephaistos Tannenzäpfle-Terminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Baden-Baden, Germany Posts: 397	The MiniMOB ~ RE-DESIGN STARTED.......... Hello…… EDIT START Well, the original title of this thread was this one: 350 grams ~ 12 ounces DC-HEAD-PUSHER If you go on reading, you will see that I decided to raise the target weight to 500 grams. Therefor I changed the title of this thread. EDIT END ANOTHER EDIT Another correction of the threads title was needed, as some modifications I made added some extra-weight. Once it was: The MiniMOB ~ 500 grams ~ 17 ounces ~ DC-Head Now its: The MiniMOB ~ 600 grams ~ 21 ounces ~ DC-Head This decision is explained on page 5 , post number 75 ANOTHER EDIT END ANOTHER EDIT START Well, going on with the design, the target-weight was raised up to 750 grams. Refer to post page #8, post #111 to know why. ANOTHER EDIT END HA; EDITED ONCE AGAIN START I Just added a prerotator. I could not resist this must-have! HA; EDITED ONCE AGAIN END HA; EDITED ONCE AGAIN START This will be the last edit of the target weight for some time! The construction is finished and I start to build it! HA; EDITED ONCE AGAIN END As I decided to join the autogyro pilots club this summer, I would basically need my own autogyro. To get some piloting-skills, I bought a cheap fixed-wing elevon-RTF-trainer including a TX with USB-cable to connect to the PC and a license for the CLEARVIEW-RC-SIM. There I learned to fly the basic trainer with three channels (rudder, elevator and throttle) and the four-channel-trainer with additional elevons. I did not maiden the RTF until now due to some bad weather round here when I had time (or vice versa). I was surprised that the transmitter still felt similar to me after 20 years and the connections inside my head to switch the rudder direction depending on the fact if the plane is coming towards me or if it’s going away still worked. I build some cars and boats with my father when I was a little boy. I thought this would not be worth anything after this long time, but it seems to be like riding a bicycle: Once you got it, you never forget again! I don’t like the three channel trainers and planes on CLEARVIEW, the controls are very sluggish to me, and its lot of work on the TX to fly a flat eight. The elevon-trainer seems to correspond far more to the way I imagine how to control a RC-airplane. It was a question of training to find out how to control the elevons, but when I got it, I started to feel safe on the SIM, making a flat eight, loops and always a save landing. As you guys out there wrote several times that the twin-rotor-autogyro would fly like a three channel fixed-wing trainer, and the DC-single-rotor would fly like a four-channel-fixed-wing without rudder, I decided to build a DC-single-rotor first. I don’t know why the general advice is to start with three channels first and then learn how to use the elevons. For me it was easier to learn to control the elevons than to cope with the sluggish rudder-elevator-only-steering. Now back on topic: I just wrote this to explain why I switched from a twin to a single rotor. I have two outrunners with low KV round here, 45 grams weight and about 70~80 Watts of output-power, two matching ESC, a 10 grams four-channel receiver from the RTF (from which I hope it will survive the maiden-flight), and some small servos. The outrunners would be perfect for an autogyro of 350 grams (12 ounces). As I could not find plans for an autogyro of this weight, I decided to make the construction myself. Magnus from Sweden build a minimum with 380 grams and it worked! I know that you all would tell me to start with a proven construction first! I allow myself to ignore this advice, but I promise that will be the only advice I will ignore. As the 350 grams are exactly the middle between Jochen´s Micromum and Minimum, I think it would be best to place the main-dimension in the middle of both. The airframe will be made of 10x10x1 millimeters square aluminium tube with some drilled holes to save weight (Swiss-cheese-weight-reducing-method). The parts will be mounted with screws and plates cut from GF-sheet. I made first sketches with a 3-cell Lipo of 800 mAh and servos of 15 grams each. As I can imagine hitting the target-weight, I start to create a CAD-model to get the exact weight and to position the centre of gravity and the thrust-line at the right place. I will post some screenshots from the CAD as soon they are worth to be shown. So, any comments welcome, I hope to eliminate the basic mistakes from my construction with the help from YOU gyronuts out there! And as I know that there is nothing for free, I promise to post a complete set of technical drawings for the parts and the assembly if the construction is finished! Bye Mike P.S.: I just think about a name for this project. As it will be the middle from a Micro- and a Minimum, Midimum would be the right name, but I don’t want to block another name ending with ...mum. Due to Jochen´s famous creativity, they got rare! The ….mum-ending should be kept for Jochen´s own constructions. As I can imagine that I will not size it down in the future, I can imagine calling it MiniMOB or MicroMOB; this is made from “mini” or “micro” and some of my initial letters. This would clearly be a reference to Jochen´s construction I copied with his permission. I hope this name doesn’t make some awful imagination to the native-English-speakers! I just fear to sell another Mitsubishi “PAJERO” to Spain. Last edited by Hephaistos; Oct 13, 2009 at 02:25 PM. Reason: thread title: extension actualized

Feb 19, 2009, 01:17 PM	#2
JochenK Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,041	Mike, 'Midimum' - I had a good laugh when I read that one. I never even thought of that name. Feel free to use it. Right now I'm thinking more in the direction of 'Megamum'. Jochen

Feb 20, 2009, 05:03 AM	#4
Hephaistos Tannenzäpfle-Terminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Baden-Baden, Germany Posts: 397	Hello...... Stephan, I already thought of visiting the INTER-EX. September also seems to be long enough to get my construction to air. The only thing I don´t know is if I got time then, it´s usually the time of the year when my girl can have her summer-holidays. Jochen, even if you allow me to use the name Midimum, I am a little in doubt today if it would fit. The usual scale is micro-mini-midi-maxi-mega. So a Midimum should be bigger than a Minimum. What about your plans for the Megamum? I remember you got some plans for the RPG.......... BTW, I decided to invest a little more time on the details of the CAD, especially some parameters for easy scaling of the construction. This makes it easy to set up the first construction, and if it´s finished, I just play with the parameters until they fit again, make an update of the drawings and I got a set of drawings for a different size......... Also I found a new way to build the head-joint. Its made of an IGUBAL spherical-joint, a inside-hexagon-screw and a piece of a inside-hexagon-screwdriver. Bye Mike

Feb 20, 2009, 07:10 AM	#7
Hephaistos Tannenzäpfle-Terminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Baden-Baden, Germany Posts: 397	Hello Peter....... Thats a clever idea! As the Micromum is 200 (take 250 to make it fit) grams, the Minimum is 500 grams, the MUM should be exactly 1000 grams. So a "MUM" could be the brandnew SI-unit for exactly one kilogram of a Jochen-styled autogyro. Therefrom I suggest the following naming convention for the Mum-clones: MUM + initials of the one who build the clone + weight in grams. So my construction would be the MUM-MO-350......... I got the feeling the Jochens famous constructions are just to good for not beeing cloned, and there will be some more clones in the future! Bye Mike

Feb 20, 2009, 07:36 AM	#9
Hephaistos Tannenzäpfle-Terminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Baden-Baden, Germany Posts: 397	Jep, a Megamum would be really huge. But things like a KiloMum have already been done long time ago, and, miracle, miracle, it worked without an RC but with a pilot made from flesh and blood! Just kidding, I only search a name for my construction. As it´s my first autoyro, LEAD-MUM would be perfect, but I don't want to meet trouble halfway! Bye Mike

Feb 23, 2009, 02:34 PM	#12
Hephaistos Tannenzäpfle-Terminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Baden-Baden, Germany Posts: 397	Hello Peter........ Okay. The middle or neutral position of the rotor is aligned with the mast. I assumed something like this when I looked at Jochens plans, but I was not shure if the assumption was right. Thanks for clearing up. The possibilty to simply look at the rotor if its rectangular to the mast is important to have an easy check before flight. The 13 degrees to all sides are the mechanical possibilty of the joint. If I go for 10 degress of pitch I can have 15 degrees of roll. I will adjust the control-levers to get this values if I have the servos placed. Would it be okay to have the reduction like this: 10 degrees pitch / 15 degrees roll with servos moving 40 degrees to both sides from the middle? Bye Mike P.S.: For the size, the last decision is not made until now. If I get it to 350 grams, okay, I dont need to buy an outrunner. If not, I size up to minimum-dimensions. Perhaps this would be better, no juggling with dimensions.

Feb 23, 2009, 05:21 PM	#14
JochenK Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,041	Mike, if your joint allows 13° tilt in each dierction, how are you going to get 15° roll throw? I usually start out with 50% of the servo throw reserved for roll, 40% for pitch, and the remaining 10% are for mixing throttle onto roll. These values are then adjusted to the actual needs of the perticular gyro. Jochen

Feb 24, 2009, 02:34 AM	#15
Hephaistos Tannenzäpfle-Terminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Baden-Baden, Germany Posts: 397	Hello......... Jochen, the joint is able to move 13 degrees pitch and 13 degrees roll at the same time. Roll and pitch are measured rectangular to each others. So the total movement is something about 18 degrees in a direction of 45 degrees. If I have 10 degrees of pitch and 15 degrees of roll, I get a total movement of 18 degrees again, in a direction of 34 degrees now. I hope its clear now. Thanks for the info on the servo throws. Its very useful Information for the design of the control lever and the connection rods. Peter, what do you want to say with: "My experience so far is that I only ever use any "down" when doing a dead-stick landing or flying fast". I struggle with the grammar a little. If I write: "My experience so far is that I only use "down" when doing a dead-stick landing or flying fast", do I write the same or have I changed the sense of the sentence? Bye Mike P.S.: The more I think about the details, the more I get the feeling that it would be easier to scale up to the Minimum size. The effort to buy a bigger outrunner should be small in comparision to the expenses of the broken material until I have the settings right for my own construction. For scaling up, there will be no swiss cheese needed on the frame, so it will be easier to build.