Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
04-02-2013, 09:46 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
Any advantage or disadvantage over splitting the elevons on the Euro????
Already have four servos installed, haven't made the cut as yet.
Already have four servos installed, haven't made the cut as yet.
04-02-2013, 09:59 PM
#2
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: yorba linda,
CA
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
With that big delta it really cuts down on the need for flaps. In the interest of keeping it simple I would skip the split. My Eurosport is probably my easiest plane to land.
There's an expression about that delta "It won't stall but it will surely fall". It likes to land with the nose a little high and then add power to control the sink rate. If you want to land slower you can raise the nose up even more put be prepared to add a LOT more power to keep it from sinking. Heck with enough power and vectored thrust you can hover the plane.
It's not a real fast plane and mine has a tendency to get tail flutter going too fast. That's not what this plane is about. It's incredibly maneuverable and fun to fly. I don't think you will miss the flaps. Just my opinion.
Steve
There's an expression about that delta "It won't stall but it will surely fall". It likes to land with the nose a little high and then add power to control the sink rate. If you want to land slower you can raise the nose up even more put be prepared to add a LOT more power to keep it from sinking. Heck with enough power and vectored thrust you can hover the plane.
It's not a real fast plane and mine has a tendency to get tail flutter going too fast. That's not what this plane is about. It's incredibly maneuverable and fun to fly. I don't think you will miss the flaps. Just my opinion.
Steve
04-02-2013, 10:38 PM
#3
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
Not for flaps, for redundancy
I ran four servos too, I didn't split-really depends on your servo matching set up if you don't split. The Euro is much crisper on roll/stops with four servos, no "bounce" softness on the stops
If you can match don't, the slight rub would be if one servo seized...but IF a servo failed more likely lost power, so it could be driven by the other servo.
Dw
I ran four servos too, I didn't split-really depends on your servo matching set up if you don't split. The Euro is much crisper on roll/stops with four servos, no "bounce" softness on the stops
If you can match don't, the slight rub would be if one servo seized...but IF a servo failed more likely lost power, so it could be driven by the other servo.
Dw
04-02-2013, 11:27 PM
#4
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Leeds, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,449
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
8 Posts
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
I had an airframe failure on my very old and well use Eurosport.It resulted in the left inner surface being jammed down by about 25 degrees. It was pretty hairy but I managed to get it down because I had split the elevons. So redundancy is the main benefit.
John
John
04-03-2013, 06:45 AM
#6
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
ORIGINAL: stevekott
With that big delta it really cuts down on the need for flaps. In the interest of keeping it simple I would skip the split. My Eurosport is probably my easiest plane to land.
There's an expression about that delta ''It won't stall but it will surely fall''. It likes to land with the nose a little high and then add power to control the sink rate. If you want to land slower you can raise the nose up even more put be prepared to add a LOT more power to keep it from sinking. Heck with enough power and vectored thrust you can hover the plane.
It's not a real fast plane and mine has a tendency to get tail flutter going too fast. That's not what this plane is about. It's incredibly maneuverable and fun to fly. I don't think you will miss the flaps. Just my opinion.
Steve
With that big delta it really cuts down on the need for flaps. In the interest of keeping it simple I would skip the split. My Eurosport is probably my easiest plane to land.
There's an expression about that delta ''It won't stall but it will surely fall''. It likes to land with the nose a little high and then add power to control the sink rate. If you want to land slower you can raise the nose up even more put be prepared to add a LOT more power to keep it from sinking. Heck with enough power and vectored thrust you can hover the plane.
It's not a real fast plane and mine has a tendency to get tail flutter going too fast. That's not what this plane is about. It's incredibly maneuverable and fun to fly. I don't think you will miss the flaps. Just my opinion.
Steve
The servos as mentioned are for redundancy and to power the large surface. They didn't use to use two per elevon either, but the two with perfectly matched servos and no split is how I would go.
04-03-2013, 10:00 AM
#9
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
How do you match servos so close that they do not fight one another? I would be worried that with a tight deadband, you end up with less torque to the surface that if you had one servo?
Unless you have a ton of slop built into the linkage or a wide deadband on the servo (kind of defeats the purpose).
Unless you have a ton of slop built into the linkage or a wide deadband on the servo (kind of defeats the purpose).
04-03-2013, 10:06 AM
#10
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: yorba linda,
CA
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
OK roger that on the Redundancy but .... 3 months ago I was getting a little crazy an sloppy with mine, did kind of a pancake landing. Checked the gear out thoroughly, no problems.
On the next flight after take-off I had a real bad flying aircraft on my hands. Turns out the bad landing had busted lose my left Elevon servo. It was just flopping around inside the wing. The plane kept wanting to snap over to the left. I was able to reduce power level off and continue flying with 1/4 right stick 1/4 back stick. I didn't know what was wrong but I knew it was something bad. After about 3 or 4 circuits with very shallow turns I was able to land it well without a scratch. During the taxi I noticed the left Elevon hanging down. I went to move it to check for stripped gears and heard the servo just clanking around freely inside the wing.
So the plane with one servo on each wing already has built in redundancy. Just kidding!
The only point I'm trying to make is the Eurosport will still fly with only one servo (but not very well). Until it happened to me I would have thought this scenario would have been a certain smoking hole.
Lesson learned, waggle the sticks every time before takeoff .. "Flight Controls Free and Correct".
Again just my opinion. I would save the extra weight and complexity of the additional servos and split. Buy a Vectored Thrust pipe and use those servos for that.
On the next flight after take-off I had a real bad flying aircraft on my hands. Turns out the bad landing had busted lose my left Elevon servo. It was just flopping around inside the wing. The plane kept wanting to snap over to the left. I was able to reduce power level off and continue flying with 1/4 right stick 1/4 back stick. I didn't know what was wrong but I knew it was something bad. After about 3 or 4 circuits with very shallow turns I was able to land it well without a scratch. During the taxi I noticed the left Elevon hanging down. I went to move it to check for stripped gears and heard the servo just clanking around freely inside the wing.
So the plane with one servo on each wing already has built in redundancy. Just kidding!
The only point I'm trying to make is the Eurosport will still fly with only one servo (but not very well). Until it happened to me I would have thought this scenario would have been a certain smoking hole. Lesson learned, waggle the sticks every time before takeoff .. "Flight Controls Free and Correct".
Again just my opinion. I would save the extra weight and complexity of the additional servos and split. Buy a Vectored Thrust pipe and use those servos for that.
04-03-2013, 11:15 AM
#11
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Leeds, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,449
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
8 Posts
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
ORIGINAL: LGM Graphix
You can't use any part of the elevon as a flap on a delta anyway.... ''flap'' on a delta is down elevator. All ''flaps'' will do on a delta is make the nose go down....
The servos as mentioned are for redundancy and to power the large surface. They didn't use to use two per elevon either, but the two with perfectly matched servos and no split is how I would go.
ORIGINAL: stevekott
With that big delta it really cuts down on the need for flaps. In the interest of keeping it simple I would skip the split. My Eurosport is probably my easiest plane to land.
There's an expression about that delta ''It won't stall but it will surely fall''. It likes to land with the nose a little high and then add power to control the sink rate. If you want to land slower you can raise the nose up even more put be prepared to add a LOT more power to keep it from sinking. Heck with enough power and vectored thrust you can hover the plane.
It's not a real fast plane and mine has a tendency to get tail flutter going too fast. That's not what this plane is about. It's incredibly maneuverable and fun to fly. I don't think you will miss the flaps. Just my opinion.
Steve
With that big delta it really cuts down on the need for flaps. In the interest of keeping it simple I would skip the split. My Eurosport is probably my easiest plane to land.
There's an expression about that delta ''It won't stall but it will surely fall''. It likes to land with the nose a little high and then add power to control the sink rate. If you want to land slower you can raise the nose up even more put be prepared to add a LOT more power to keep it from sinking. Heck with enough power and vectored thrust you can hover the plane.
It's not a real fast plane and mine has a tendency to get tail flutter going too fast. That's not what this plane is about. It's incredibly maneuverable and fun to fly. I don't think you will miss the flaps. Just my opinion.
Steve
The servos as mentioned are for redundancy and to power the large surface. They didn't use to use two per elevon either, but the two with perfectly matched servos and no split is how I would go.
John
04-03-2013, 11:18 AM
#12
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Leeds, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,449
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
8 Posts
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
ORIGINAL: mr_matt
How do you match servos so close that they do not fight one another? I would be worried that with a tight deadband, you end up with less torque to the surface that if you had one servo?
Unless you have a ton of slop built into the linkage or a wide deadband on the servo (kind of defeats the purpose).
How do you match servos so close that they do not fight one another? I would be worried that with a tight deadband, you end up with less torque to the surface that if you had one servo?
Unless you have a ton of slop built into the linkage or a wide deadband on the servo (kind of defeats the purpose).
(but then I am a card carrying hooligan!)) The split stops the control jamming a bit I reckon. I have flown the Euro both ways and split is the way to go for me.John
04-03-2013, 11:29 AM
#13
My Feedback: (5)
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
Well I have the same length push rod, Standard metel gear servo and I also use a servo programer to set the dead band. Only at max travel the servos start buzzing and how offen we give max input and for how long 
.
If you have a one servo per wing and one goes dead...That's a roll either way.
. If you have a one servo per wing and one goes dead...That's a roll either way.
04-03-2013, 11:56 AM
#15
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
ORIGINAL: LGM Graphix
You can't use any part of the elevon as a flap on a delta anyway.... ''flap'' on a delta is down elevator. All ''flaps'' will do on a delta is make the nose go down....
You can't use any part of the elevon as a flap on a delta anyway.... ''flap'' on a delta is down elevator. All ''flaps'' will do on a delta is make the nose go down....
im guessing the down elevator and up canard are creating lift.. some at the front and some at the back?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyAo2sBSpVo
04-03-2013, 05:17 PM
#17
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
Mine is under construction and the surfaces are split. A) because one smaller surface for one servo is better. B) I can program the inner surfaces independently to tune flight characteristics like roll C) if one servo dies I have three more to help out D) no extra matching or match boxes required I can do all thats needed by radio alone
Looking forward to some high alfa flying!
Looking forward to some high alfa flying!
04-03-2013, 11:20 PM
#19
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
ORIGINAL: JohnMac
You split the Elevon. You get snappier control. The wing on the Euro bends ( at least mine does (but then I am a card carrying hooligan!)) The split stops the control jamming a bit I reckon. I have flown the Euro both ways and split is the way to go for me.
John
ORIGINAL: mr_matt
How do you match servos so close that they do not fight one another? I would be worried that with a tight deadband, you end up with less torque to the surface that if you had one servo?
Unless you have a ton of slop built into the linkage or a wide deadband on the servo (kind of defeats the purpose).
How do you match servos so close that they do not fight one another? I would be worried that with a tight deadband, you end up with less torque to the surface that if you had one servo?
Unless you have a ton of slop built into the linkage or a wide deadband on the servo (kind of defeats the purpose).
(but then I am a card carrying hooligan!)) The split stops the control jamming a bit I reckon. I have flown the Euro both ways and split is the way to go for me.John
The first of my ES had a very pronounced bend and it was near impossible to get it to centre. Latter ones seem to have an improved stiffness....
Andre
04-04-2013, 01:28 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Coventry, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
From the CARF manual
However, if you choose to fit lower specification servos you
can fit 2 in each wing and split the control surface between
the central ribs that are moulded-in to allow this. Do not
split the functions of the control surfaces (ie:: elevator only
on the inner and aileron only on the outer surfaces) as the
reduced surface area for each function severely limits the flying performance of this model, and in some circumstances, for example at very slow airspeeds, you will not have sufficient control.
However, if you choose to fit lower specification servos you
can fit 2 in each wing and split the control surface between
the central ribs that are moulded-in to allow this. Do not
split the functions of the control surfaces (ie:: elevator only
on the inner and aileron only on the outer surfaces) as the
reduced surface area for each function severely limits the flying performance of this model, and in some circumstances, for example at very slow airspeeds, you will not have sufficient control.
04-04-2013, 03:56 AM
#21
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
ORIGINAL: Couch Potato
From the CARF manual
However, if you choose to fit lower specification servos you
can fit 2 in each wing and split the control surface between
the central ribs that are moulded-in to allow this. Do not
split the functions of the control surfaces (ie:: elevator only
on the inner and aileron only on the outer surfaces) as the
reduced surface area for each function severely limits the flying performance of this model, and in some circumstances, for example at very slow airspeeds, you will not have sufficient control.
From the CARF manual
However, if you choose to fit lower specification servos you
can fit 2 in each wing and split the control surface between
the central ribs that are moulded-in to allow this. Do not
split the functions of the control surfaces (ie:: elevator only
on the inner and aileron only on the outer surfaces) as the
reduced surface area for each function severely limits the flying performance of this model, and in some circumstances, for example at very slow airspeeds, you will not have sufficient control.
04-04-2013, 05:45 AM
#23
RE: Too Split or Not too Split CARF Eurosport
I chose to not over-complicate things. My ES has hundreds of flights....one servo (Futaba 25kg) one surface. ( Statistically, for each servo you add, the greater the chance for a servo failure..)
