Originally Posted by hklagges

Hi there,
I had a strange phenomenon with the Su-35. When sitting idle on the ground, one of the elevators starts fluttering - the servo is rapidly oscillating to and fro, resulting in the shaking elevator surface. This is not a small vibration, but a big fluttering, you have maybe 1-2 cms of up-down travel at the rear edge of the elevator.

When I give full up & down elevator for a few times, the fluttering stops.

Any ideas?

Cheers,
Henrik

PS: I don't know whether it also flutters while in the air. It may be that under load it disappears.

My Scimitar does the same thing but not to the same extent as what you describe. I don't think much of it. It flies well and has never given me any trouble.

Originally Posted by PeterVRC

All completed.....
And 286 bytes of TX programming later.....

Everything rewired, connected up and installed.
All (will it ever "all" be done?) programming mixes done.
All working as it should and reliably.

I set up:
1) Flaperons - running off Pot 1
2) Spoilerons - Running off Pot 2
3) Rudder Air Brakes - Running off the 'spare' Rudder DR switch (could mix that in to Spoilerons too?)
4) Tailerons - mixed off the Ailerons of course
5) Elevons - or what do you call synchronised Elevator and Aileron? - Ailerons mixed off the Elevators
6) Nose gear steering only active on gear down position.
7) TV's Active only for ID2
8) Of course every servo as an individual to allow all those combinations and their indivdual end points and trimming.

ID0 (flight mode 1): Just plain typical Su-35 control surface operation
ID1 : All the interactive surface mixes added in.
ID2: TV's online also

13 Channels total, for 286bytes of TX memory. Basically using as much as three more typical/simple aircraft. And twice as much as a plain 8 Ch Su-35 needs.
..
..

Hey Peter, nice work on the dual setup.

Is the twin RX setup a standard function / setup menu in the controller or is this custom. How do you get around the binding process so both RX can work at the same time. This is a really cool function which I think could really help those looking for a 16x channel radio without having to pay a couple k.

Thanks,

Dennis

The 9X series, from quite a few manufacturers using the same radio, can be re-flashed with ER9X Firmware (download for free) and then you get the 1001 extras and improvements of that new firmware system. Which includes a mode where they send 8 channels out as per normal, to the TX module port, but also another 8 channels out via the trainer port. Thus 16 channels in total.
So it is a simple TX setup option to enable this mode.

When you have a data stream (PPM in this case) you can send that to any viable target... such as, commonly of course, a TX module which then does the linking and transmission of the data to the RX.
The TX and RX actually have nothing to do with the TX unit's inputs/computer section (sticks, pots, switches, mixes, programming etc). Thus why most modern radios can have the TX/RX system changed easily.

So that allows you to just grab another TX/RX system and feed it the extra 8 channels sent to the trainer port. You thus have two totally independent transmission/receiver systems, each transmitting 8 channels of data.
At the RX/aircraft end all you are doing is running up to 8 devices (servos normally) from one system (RX), and the other 8 devices from the second system (RX). A plane would not care if you controlled it via 10 systems.... all it needs is that the servos end up being controlled.

You bind each TX/RX set just as you would any single pair. FrSky stuff uses the simplest binding method you could implement, so that is a very simple task.
Because the systems are digital (like most now) and they use 100Hz frequency hopping, that means they can co-exist totally fine - just like you can go to a flying field and have a dozen 2.4GHz users all flying fine at once. (well maybe some what less fine for people not using the 'better' end channel hopping based systems).

When you run two RX in a plane you can run them off a common power source, the same as per a single system. But I have set mine to each have their own power source - eg The main battery feeding a BEC per RX. This is for two reasons.

One is that it means I get 4A of current ability per RX, thus easily powering all its servos. Because each RX only drives half the sevos/retracts load that a single RX had to. So that is 8A total BEC ability. Whereas the stock Su gives you one BEC source (or is it a 'no-no' mix of two BECs paralleled?) of probably 5A.

The second handy benefit is that twin TX/RX gives you redundancy so that one TX/RX system is all but certainly going to keep operating even if something kills the other system. Unless it is something common... such as the RX battery source (but you could even give them each their own 2S battery source), or if something goes amiss at the actual TX/computer end. Basically you are no worse off than a single system, and have a lot more problem possibilities covered too.

To make this redundancy work, in a useful manner, you need to ensure you give appropriate control surfaces to each TX/RX system so that if you consider one set (TX/RX) goes down, that the remaining controls you assigned will still function in a usable manner for you to control the plane anyway! (easy to do with a bit of thought).

This total system costs (approx):
1) T9X $60
2) ER9X Firmware - free
3) 2 x TX Module.... FrSky win hands down over all others.... various choices, but say $100
This includes telemetry ability and display of that.
4) 2 x 8 ch RX $50
5) $13 for a 3S 1C TX lipo - well worth having!!

Hmm.... $230 for a bulletproof RC system (whether used just for 8ch, or 16ch) . Which sports almost every feature of any RC system, and a bunch more that others don't even have the ability to do, which is all a result of the ER9X firmware programming.
I couldn't even write up all the things it can do.... if you just say "I can program anything I could ever possibly want to do in any RC model" then that pretty much covers it! LOL

But you will need to do a tiny bit of soldering, for making the TX flash programmable (10 solder joints?). And have a degree in programming to make the best use of the TX programmability, LOL. Though the layout of ER9X is the best, most intuitive they could do, and would be the best of any other RC systems too.

If there is just ONE RC "item" I have to call the 'best', then this is it. (or even the best of anything RC out there). And there isn't one other thing that comes anywhere near it in that score/value that sets it up there. eg T9X/ER9X 100pts.... nothing else (of anything RC) is even over 80pts. Mainly because this IS the heart of all your RC model use! It is the tool that allows you to make your models do whatever they can do, and no other item (or RC system) comes near this resultant value.
..
..

Wes,

here are the photos you asked for.

also a video of the landing lights & strobe which between the cockpit and airbrake, im working on the navs still. oh and a lil run up of the afterburners...man the multicolor gives it that realistic look with slow spin up.

SU35 Landing lights, afterburner, & strobe (2 min 18 sec)

Nice work it looks good

J-ACE, you need those lights on your Hawk. Nice work v8truckin

I was thinking that OZZI

Gentlemen,

Today I maiden one of the stock version of the Su-35. Was a good one, all the servos worked well.

I have to say, the fan was well balanced. did not need any weight with 4500 mah 6S.

The power was good but felt noticeably lesser than the lander. The acceleration was good because of the lesser weight. However, top end performance was not as good as the lander. Energy retention, the lander set up was much better, again becos of the weight. Low speed handling was about the same.

The scream and the top speed and the vertical climb was significantly different.

It was however still a very fun plane to fly.

Originally Posted by PeterVRC

The 9X series, from quite a few manufacturers using the same radio, can be re-flashed with ER9X Firmware (download for free) and then you get the 1001 extras and improvements of that new firmware system. Which includes a mode where they send 8 channels out as per normal, to the TX module port, but also another 8 channels out via the trainer port. Thus 16 channels in total.
So it is a simple TX setup option to enable this mode.

When you have a data stream (PPM in this case) you can send that to any viable target... such as, commonly of course, a TX module which then does the linking and transmission of the data to the RX.
The TX and RX actually have nothing to do with the TX unit's inputs/computer section (sticks, pots, switches, mixes, programming etc). Thus why most modern radios can have the TX/RX system changed easily.

So that allows you to just grab another TX/RX system and feed it the extra 8 channels sent to the trainer port. You thus have two totally independent transmission/receiver systems, each transmitting 8 channels of data.
At the RX/aircraft end all you are doing is running up to 8 devices (servos normally) from one system (RX), and the other 8 devices from the second system (RX). A plane would not care if you controlled it via 10 systems.... all it needs is that the servos end up being controlled.

You bind each TX/RX set just as you would any single pair. FrSky stuff uses the simplest binding method you could implement, so that is a very simple task.
Because the systems are digital (like most now) and they use 100Hz frequency hopping, that means they can co-exist totally fine - just like you can go to a flying field and have a dozen 2.4GHz users all flying fine at once. (well maybe some what less fine for people not using the 'better' end channel hopping based systems).

When you run two RX in a plane you can run them off a common power source, the same as per a single system. But I have set mine to each have their own power source - eg The main battery feeding a BEC per RX. This is for two reasons.

One is that it means I get 4A of current ability per RX, thus easily powering all its servos. Because each RX only drives half the sevos/retracts load that a single RX had to. So that is 8A total BEC ability. Whereas the stock Su gives you one BEC source (or is it a 'no-no' mix of two BECs paralleled?) of probably 5A.

The second handy benefit is that twin TX/RX gives you redundancy so that one TX/RX system is all but certainly going to keep operating even if something kills the other system. Unless it is something common... such as the RX battery source (but you could even give them each their own 2S battery source), or if something goes amiss at the actual TX/computer end. Basically you are no worse off than a single system, and have a lot more problem possibilities covered too.

To make this redundancy work, in a useful manner, you need to ensure you give appropriate control surfaces to each TX/RX system so that if you consider one set (TX/RX) goes down, that the remaining controls you assigned will still function in a usable manner for you to control the plane anyway! (easy to do with a bit of thought).

This total system costs (approx):
1) T9X $60
2) ER9X Firmware - free
3) 2 x TX Module.... FrSky win hands down over all others.... various choices, but say $100
This includes telemetry ability and display of that.
4) 2 x 8 ch RX $50
5) $13 for a 3S 1C TX lipo - well worth having!!

Hmm.... $230 for a bulletproof RC system (whether used just for 8ch, or 16ch) . Which sports almost every feature of any RC system, and a bunch more that others don't even have the ability to do, which is all a result of the ER9X firmware programming.
I couldn't even write up all the things it can do.... if you just say "I can program anything I could ever possibly want to do in any RC model" then that pretty much covers it! LOL

But you will need to do a tiny bit of soldering, for making the TX flash programmable (10 solder joints?). And have a degree in programming to make the best use of the TX programmability, LOL. Though the layout of ER9X is the best, most intuitive they could do, and would be the best of any other RC systems too.

If there is just ONE RC "item" I have to call the 'best', then this is it. (or even the best of anything RC out there). And there isn't one other thing that comes anywhere near it in that score/value that sets it up there. eg T9X/ER9X 100pts.... nothing else (of anything RC) is even over 80pts. Mainly because this IS the heart of all your RC model use! It is the tool that allows you to make your models do whatever they can do, and no other item (or RC system) comes near this resultant value.
..
..

Peter, nice explanation! You should combine all of your posts into a 9X/FrSky thread for noobies like me as its a wealth of information. Maybe FrSky should bring you on board!

A couple quick questions:

1. Why did you select the 6ch FrSKY D6FR instead of the FrSky V8FR-II? Didn't the FrSky V8FR-II come with the DJT as a combo pack?

2. You mention soldering for TX flashing and a degree in programming I know you were kidding but kidding aside is setting this up to do what you accomplished, is there anything other than purchasing all of the components and programming through the TX required?

Thanks again for the help and hope to setup my SU similar to yours in the future!

Dennis

Originally Posted by v8truckin

I know its hard to see the plane, but so was it for me at sundown, lol! Soooo heres my afterburner kit mod it also has nav lights but im still working in the nav light and landing lights housing and location. N E how heres a trial run with the afterburner led lights went with the multicolor lights vs the red led lights for this effect (pic below). Dont forget 720p

http://youtu.be/peaOIp88wLg

Well, hehehe, that video made the Su remind me of Star Wars fighters, considering the sound and the lights

Originally Posted by vortices

Gentlemen,

Today I maiden one of the stock version of the Su-35. Was a good one, all the servos worked well.

I have to say, the fan was well balanced. did not need any weight with 4500 mah 6S.

The power was good but felt noticeably lesser than the lander. The acceleration was good because of the lesser weight. However, top end performance was not as good as the lander. Energy retention, the lander set up was much better, again becos of the weight. Low speed handling was about the same.

The scream and the top speed and the vertical climb was significantly different.

It was however still a very fun plane to fly.

A few people have been talking about their "lander" jets. Which specific model is everyone talking about? "Lander" seems to be a line of various jets. Are they all similar in performance. I found this website:
http://parkrcmodels.com/index.php?cP...8kn1m6b782npc7

Hi guys,
Mine is supposed to be arriving in two days. In a nutshell can someone give the best CG and how far from root wing if that is necessary as well as any tips on things to watch out for would be appreciated. I am using 5000mAh 6S batteries. Does anyone ever take off with TV activated and is it possible?

I am coming from an 8S 90mm composite 1200mm wingspan CMP L-39 jet so I am not a bad flier.

Originally Posted by urrl

Hi guys,
Mine is supposed to be arriving in two days. In a nutshell can someone give the best CG and how far from root wing if that is necessary as well as any tips on things to watch out for would be appreciated. I am using 5000mAh 6S batteries. Does anyone ever take off with TV activated and is it possible?

I am coming from an 8S 90mm composite 1200mm wingspan CMP L-39 jet so I am not a bad flier.

I can't remember the exact number but I used the exact measurement as stated in the instructions that came with it. I also use a 5.0A 6s. As I said before, my battery is as far back as the wiring mess will allow and I still had to stick on a bit of lead in the tail hole between the nozzles. The guys using a smaller battery tend to need no lead.
I have TV activated on all axis the whole time. Dial up the EXPO on the rudder as it can be a bit touchy until you start doing crazy spins.

Need help!

Remember the other day I told you I fried a Servo?

Today I put a new out-of-the-box unused servo (for TV rudder) and to my surprise it fries instantly after (I check it first and it goes fine).

Either I'm the man with worst luck on the globe or something is frying my servos in my electronic setup.

Anyone has an idea of what can be happening?

This was my Electronic Setup.

Originally Posted by SU-4ever

Either I'm the man with worst luck on the globe or something is frying my servos in my electronic setup.

The setup looks okay!

Cheers,
Henrik