Hi got the RTF version in the weekend. Find it a bit more difficult to fly inverted than the mini cp. Maybe it has something with the simple tx that came with it. Often I loose the tail and everything go haywire. Have now broken the tail and am doing the mod to a square boom. I need to know how long original boom are.

Hugo

Originally Posted by rdogg32

I can't replicate what I did to get it to show up, but it is there under certain circumstances.

http://www.horizonhobby.com/products...yle-BLH3380#t1

What are we supposed to be looking for?

Originally Posted by hugo-norway

Hi got the RTF version in the weekend. Find it a bit more difficult to fly inverted than the mini cp. Maybe it has something with the simple tx that came with it. Often I loose the tail and everything go haywire. Have now broken the tail and am doing the mod to a square boom. I need to know how long original boom are.

Hugo

Hugo,

The high latency & low resolution of the toy-grade tx is likely to blame. If you are serious about this hobby, do yourself a huge favor & pick up a DX6i (or better, if funds allow). You will thank yourself many times over.

Joel

Originally Posted by hugo-norway

Hi got the RTF version in the weekend. Find it a bit more difficult to fly inverted than the mini cp. Maybe it has something with the simple tx that came with it. Often I loose the tail and everything go haywire. Have now broken the tail and am doing the mod to a square boom. I need to know how long original boom are.

Hugo

I think it's possible the mini cp is easier to invert. The nano is so light and agile, that if you don't have control of it...it will dart off at an angle very quickly.

Originally Posted by Sixinarow

What are we supposed to be looking for?

The URL has the words balls, as well as the words proceeding it.

Originally Posted by Daryoon

The URL has the words balls, as well as the words proceeding it.

Haha, I see it now

Originally Posted by Sixinarow

What are we supposed to be looking for?

The web developer who doesn't understand how URLs work

For example http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...6&ballsheretoo

Go ahead, add balls to all your favourite websites

I know the box says BNF, but is there any setting up to be done such as checking screws and stuff?

Cheers
JIm

Got to fly my Nano with the mSR tail boom and new body. (In case anyone missed my post; I split my Nano boom and instead of leaving it alone since it was flying fine, I used a mSR boom I had which is 1/4" shorter.)
Had some tail wag and drift with the shortened mSR boom. Guess I have to get my own carbon fiber and cut my own booms....

@ Daryoon - How's your square boom holding up? Break them as often as the round booms?

Motor seemed more bogged down with the new canopy on. The new one weighs 1g more then stock. Would 1g make that much of a difference? ...... Put the old canopy back on and it did not seem to bog down..... I guess so..... Really like the look of the new canopy.....

Hi again guys.

I had to duck from my "servo" comments for a while - I thought this forum was full of those guys from RC10Talk.com for a minute. . . . moving on!

I've read that the nCP X has some tail boom issues, here and on other forums, and read somewhere that someone is getting an extended tail boom version as a replacement. Does it work?

Then again, I guess I won't need to worry about the tail boom when I stop crashing as much!

Mine snapped, and it broke right where it sticks out of the main frame. I'm simply opting to order 3 spares just for sanity's sake. I also am getting at least 3 spare main motors for now, because they look like and remind me of the same size ones as my mSR Xs - I have two of those, and a few months ago I picked up 6 spares of those for them both. The new ones I got seem to run a bit longer, and instead of a lifespan of only 35-40 batteries through them, I'm getting 50-65 batteries run through them before they croak,

This summer I bought some red silicone o-ring swash dampers for my mSR X, and I used the spares as skid stops. They are tiny o-rings and are the same size as the black ones used on the blade grips. I got them on ebay, and want to know if I can get them somewhere else. If anyone knows, please throw me a link!

@ Daryoon - thanks for that link for the canopies!

Originally Posted by elgecko

Got to fly my Nano with the mSR tail boom and new body. (In case anyone missed my post; I split my Nano boom and instead of leaving it alone since it was flying fine, I used a mSR boom I had which is 1/4" shorter.)
Had some tail wag and drift with the shortened mSR boom. Guess I have to get my own carbon fiber and cut my own booms....

@ Daryoon - How's your square boom holding up? Break them as often as the round booms?

Motor seemed more bogged down with the new canopy on. The new one weighs 1g more then stock. Would 1g make that much of a difference? ...... Put the old canopy back on and it did not seem to bog down..... I guess so..... Really like the look of the new canopy.....

With the recent questions about square vs round, and hollow vs solid, which being better, I thought maybe someone would get some usefulness from re-posting these:

Originally Posted by i812

A year or so ago, I think I read that for the same weight and length of material:

• a square rod is going to be a little stronger than round rod.
  
  
• a hollow rod is going to be a little stronger than solid rod.
  
  
• a square hollow rod will be stronger than any other combination.

If so, since we want our heli's to be strong and lightweight, Walkera made the best choice when they decided to use a hollow square rod.

From looking at Nature's "grand" design:

• Fragile non-rigid creatures tend to have roundish shapes and don't have any solid structure. Example is a jellyfish.
  
  
• More rigid, simple small lightweight flying creatures have more squarish exoskeletons with soft interior (kind of like a hollow tube/square). Example is a beetle.
  
  
• Larger more complex creatures have soft exteriors, with hollowed interior skeletons. Large flying birds tend to have squarish hollow bones. I'm guessing bone's edges aren't squarishly "sharp" so edges don't "cut"/bruise outside soft flesh, but are squarish because as described above: square is more rigid than round. Example is a Chicken/Human.

Originally Posted by i812

IMO, when making these comparisons, for the heli, it is important to consider weight. For many other applications weight may not be as important; however, cost and amount of material is, and since more amount of material, costs, and weighs more, most applications also choose the lightest method of using a particular material.

I'm not a Mechanical Engineer, and I forgot where I read the mathematical reasoning and derivation of the equations for why things with square edges resist bending more than round edges having the same length and weight (i.e. same amount of material). From what I remember, it is one of the main reasons many steel structures are made from "I" beams.

I did a search on the internet, and found a site that does the calculations for different cross section beams. To compare the same length material having the same weight, the cross sectional areas must be the same.

Area of square = SquareWidth^2

Area of circle = PI * Radius^2 = PI * (Diameter / 2)^2

So, for same length and weight:

SquareWidth = (square root of PI) * Radius = 1.77 * Radius = 1.77 * Diameter / 2
SquareWidth = 0.886 * Diameter

If a person plugs those equivalent "weight" (cross sectional area) dimensions into the website's calculator (see link at bottom of post), they'll find the equivalent weight (cross sectional area) solid square beam deflects (bends) less than the same equivalent weight (cross sectional area) solid round beam.

I think for the same reason(s) the equivalent weight (cross sectional area) solid square beam is stronger than the solid round beam, the equivalent weight hollow square beam is stronger than equivalent weight hollow round beam. I'm fairly certain if a person knew how to do the equivalent weight (cross sectional area) calculations, and made them all the same, the person would find for a given amount of weight (cross sectional area) the ranking from strongest shape to the least would be:

hollow square
hollow round
solid square
solid round

Using the calculator in the below referenced web link, I verified the two solid shapes, but not the hollow shapes because there are more variables involved. But if a person is careful to calculate all the dimensions required so they all have the same "solid" cross sectional areas, they will have the same weight, and then good strength calculations can be made and compared for the various shapes having the same weight (cross sectional areas).

Here is a website that has a strength calculator for different shaped Beams: http://www.easycalculation.com/mecha...ular-beams.php

Below are a couple "show-n-tell" experiments that can be performed to help demonstrate the above statements are true without using math:

Get 2 identical sheets of paper. Fold one sharply in half, then open it back flat again. Now compare how easy it is to bend the paper that was never folded with the one that was and has a sharp crease. Even though they are both made from exactly the same amount of material having the same thickness, the one with a sharp crease is significantly more difficult to bend against the crease.

Get 2 identical sheets of paper. Roll and tape both into identical long hollow round beams. Sharply press one tube flat, and then expand and sharply press flat again in such a way that it forms a hollow square beam. Now compare how easy it is to bend both. Even though they are both made from exactly the same amount of material having the same thickness, the one with sharp creases is significantly more difficult to bend against the creases.

Real world practical man-made example: Automobile Bumpers - behind the "minor" shock absorbing material, there is probably a "major" hollow squarish support structure. If round and/or solid structures gave more "bang" for the buck, the design Engineers probably would have used those "shapes" instead, especially when it involves human safety and lawyers trying to sue multi-billion $ companies for negligence.

I flew 3 battery and some good hard crashes. So far the tail is holding. Continuing my test. I will let you know when I break or splinter one.

The v911 canopy is about .75g more. Any weight on the nano can be felt. You can trim more off the canopy to get the weight close to the stock Nano. One way is to mount it closer to the main shaft. You'll have to redo both holes.

Alternatively, grab a Walkera canopy. Those are the same weight as the stock once trimmed to fit. And should be more resilient. (Yet to be tested by me. )

In an application where the forces are directed in one direction square is stronger. That's why a crane or engine hoist, or truck frame is square. All of the force is in one predictable direction.

If you can control the direction of the force on your tail boom when you crash, then sure square is better. I don't have any control over the direction of the force when I crash.

For the record, I haven't broken a nano tail boom yet, or on any of my other small micro helis (msrx, msr). I've lost more tail motors than booms and since you can't by a new tail motor without also buying a new boom the parts box always has more spares than I need. At this size and weight I think you're splitting hairs on the square VS round debate.

Hey Guys!

I just got a Nano about a week ago and about on the 5 flight i broke the landing gear!
I had a MSR landing gear and put that in there. Since then ive put about 50 flights on it and have had some good hard crashes! I dont know if it's my luck or if the landing gear is built different, but it has not broken! So if anyone breaks theirs and gets another one, get a MSR one! HAHA

Nano gear is identical to MSR gear.

Originally Posted by ruzam

In an application where the forces are directed in one direction square is stronger. That's why a crane or engine hoist, or truck frame is square. All of the force is in one predictable direction.

If you can control the direction of the force on your tail boom when you crash, then sure square is better. I don't have any control over the direction of the force when I crash.

For the record, I haven't broken a nano tail boom yet, or on any of my other small micro helis (msrx, msr). I've lost more tail motors than booms and since you can't by a new tail motor without also buying a new boom the parts box always has more spares than I need. At this size and weight I think you're splitting hairs on the square VS round debate.

Once again, I'm not an ME, and haven't given it much thought or discussion; however, from a first glance, it appears to me the only possible forces that the Tail Boom can experience is:

compression
expansion
bending
rotation

I'm guessing of all 4 different equally likely possible orientations, the bending force would be the most significant because of the "lever" effect (i.e. a small force perpendicular to a long lever can result in a large effective torque at the pivot (stress) point).

As for the comparison of round vs square cross-section being equivalent to splitting hairs, I doubt it. If a person does the paper experiment described in the above post, it will become very apparent there is a significant structural difference between the two shapes given the exact same amount of material. A person can also verify the difference in strength mathematically by plugging into the well accepted (and confirmed) engineering equations which can be and were derived from basic principles.

My purpose isn't to argue and insist I'm correct, but to be aware of the best choice and why. If it is free or costs the same, I always would like to choose the best.

I enjoy when someone is able to teach me a better way.