MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

The two receive option that AW spoke of is actually quite common in large-scale planes

AmishWarlord

My Feedback: (5)

...and if you lose both then you know that you either got shot down or your transmitter is intermittently broke.

Would be nice if the Tx had a signal log like some ESC's have to you can see a record of the signals transmitted.


Lets pretend that they do and the chart pictured is the transmission log of the radio. You could tell that at 2:45 seconds into the flight the Tx stopped transmitting.

Zor

Yes and I have tried unsuccessfully to find how they are connected to their power source and to their loads.

This was discussed recently and it ended that no one actually posted the complete arrangement.

I wish that someone would and clarify the setup .

At the time I asked some questions that remained not answered. I concluded that the postings were guesses or opinions from fellows that had never installed such double receiver installations.

I wish to thank you MinnFlyer for your part of this discussion.
Looks like you are approving the described setup by AmishWarlord.

Zor

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Like this. I've never used it myself, but I have seen it many times. Note: The Rudder, Throttle, Flaps and retracts can be on either Rx.

AmishWarlord

My Feedback: (5)

Zor you divide your plane in two and run two separate systems. It's like your flying two planes at the same time.

Zor

so we are back at the AmishWarlord setup for which I expressed some concern.

I just cannot accept an assumption that the control surfaces would be neutral or just about centered at their trimmed position at the moment of a receiver failure.

We have carried this discussion to its end I believe.

Best regards to both of you de Zor

AmishWarlord

My Feedback: (5)

I was thinking today about what could go wrong in just a flight pack, switch, and receiver connection. I came up with 36 things! if just one fails your plane will crash.

lets start at the 4 cell battery.

You have a four cell pack. each individual cell can crap out. That's 4 items

4

Next each cell has a positive and negative side that is soldered to a plate. That's 8 items

12

Next are the two solder joints for the connector wire.

14

Next are the two wires from battery to switch connector that can be cut or chafed.

16

Next are the two female pin joints in the connector.

18

The the two male pin joints in the connector.

20

Two more wires from the switches battery side

22

Now two solder joints at the switch.

24

Now the four contact point in the switch

28

two more solder joints from switch to receiver side wires

30

two receiver side wires that could be cut

32

two female pin joints

34

two male pin joints inside the receiver

36

It's a wonder planes don't crash more often.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Zor, given a choice, which would you prefer, a plane whose controls are locked slightly out of whack and no control whatsoever, or a plane in which half od the controls are locked out of whack and full control over the other half.

If you disagree with this, then you disagree with 90% of the fliers at giant scale rallies. If you cannot see the benifit of having SOME control, then I suggest you look harder.

Zor

MinnFlyer,

As I wrote in my previous posting "I think we have reached the end of this discussion".
Particularly now that your post is trying to make me appear ridiculous.

My choice would be none of those you are comparing. I would have as I already wrote an arrangement different such that I would have rudder, elevator and aileron control on either receivers no matter which one has failed.
I do not believe you can claim that the control surfaces would fail in "slightly out of whack". I believe that some controls could be at nearly if not at their full deflection.

I see that you competely misunderstood what I already wrote.
A good reason to end this discussion.
I wrote that I can think, and I did so, of a different arrangement that provides control of all control surfaces in the event of either receiver failure.

In the history of radio control there has often beena better way brought up by someone.
I happen to think that there is a better way.

Of course I see the beneft of having SOME control. In fact I see the benefit of having better control then what you guys have showed.
I suggest, with all due respect, that YOU look harder and find a more advantageous solution.
I think that what I considered would work very nicely.

Again I do not see any usefulness to keep discussing this topic since I do not know how to write more clearly to be understood.

Perhaps I should feel sorry about my usage of the English language.

Best regards and no hard feelings on this end.

Zor

AmishWarlord

My Feedback: (5)

I've seen very few planes go bazerk and crash as would happen if the controls where locked at maxim deflection. I've seen more than a few fly aways. and I've had and have seen the most common occurrence where you are flying "the pattern" and go to make a turn and yell out 'I aint got it" followed by a near by crash.

Red_Jeepster

CAN we please get back on the topic of the Ultra Sport!!!????!!!!
Take this "Theoretical" conversation to some other posting, PLEASE!

Zor

For sure Red_jeepster,

You must have read that I was trying to stop that discussion.

I am all with you now.

What do you wish to discuss now about the Ultra Sport ?

Zor

SeaJay

My Feedback: (6)

MinnFlyer, Yes it is like loosing a kid..

AWL, I build too slowly to rebuild, so I guess I will be looking for a New "Kid" to adopt.. Although I might just get the plans from RCM, and have a set of foam wing cores cut, since I hate building the wings the most. I dunno, we shall see. Also, I like the idea of having the Shorter 74" wings as opposed to the 80" (82"?) wing span that I had, as it had Waaaayyyy too much float.. I can tell you this, My next US will definantely have Flaps, so that the approach angle wouldn't be quite so flat, with reduced float on landing.. that plane took quite a bit of runway to get down, and very little to get airborne!

I am not sure if I will try the twin Rx's, or just twin batts & switches connected to a single Rx.

Craig.

SeaJay

My Feedback: (6)

Yep, AWL, that's what happened, I was in the pattern, and then the "I aint got it" Scenario is what occurred.. was heading for the pits and luckily took a turn away and crashed about 75 yards on the other side of the runway..

I will admit that I didn't have the fail safe set.. I will set them from now on.. although I am not sure if that would have made a difference or not, since I think there was a total loss of power to the Rx..

Craig.

MetallicaJunkie

timing is everything.....not all planes do stall turns the same way..

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

My vote is for twin batteries and switches or a single pack with twin leads using twin switches. NOBS batteries sells twin lead packs. Most problems are with the switches. JR heavy duty have good contruction. Take a switch apart and examine it. My last Hobbico only had one lead soldered to the center set of lugs!
John

jp_boud

My Feedback: (2)

I managaged to pick up some pnemonia and haven't flown for a while. Now that I'm getting better the weather does not want to cooperate. Go figure! I'll get it to turn like Iwant....or not....either way I'm going to love flying it!

arrdee

JP
Metalica is correct , timing is very important to a stall turn, but its not everything. Try reducing your throttle to app. 1/4 (or as required) instead of chopping it to idle. In order for the rudder to do it's thing, there must be air flow passed it. Since the US is so slick you may have to reduce the throttle before you enter the vertical.

Arrdee
US BH #109

us020140

My Feedback: (28)

I have a GM Precision Products Rainbow Runner. Am I qualified to join?
Phil

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

That's not an Ultra Sport... But we're not snobs either.


Holy cow, I had to go back 4 pages to find the list!

1. Ken Isaac - RCKen
2. Mike Buzzeo - Minnflyer
3. Alex7403
4. Dash008
5. AH1G
6. tschuy
7. MILDBILL-RCU
8. Box car
9. Top Gunn
10. SeaJay
11. Crash Campbell
12. SKYHI1
13. ChuckW
14. RhyanO
15. landeck
16. Ilikebipes
17. airbusdrvr
18. Insanemoondoggie
19. daisy shoot
20. prgonzalez
21. BelAirBob
22. hrrcflyer
23. rastus1
24. tony0707
25. *JCB*
26. Redback
27. bigugly
28. MetallicaJunkie
29. Gordie M
30. Jim_Purcha
31. rcsws
32. jeffsend
33. fireman7875
34. 72
35. ser00
36. Oly
37. cpeisher
38. donzhere
39. SKYHI1
40. kbarko
41. pgilbert
42. rambler53
43. rcjets_63
44. dschroeder
45. Quikturn
46. blueapplepaste
47. green river rc
48. SushiSeeker
49. VCScott
50. FallDownGoBoom
51. ccp10
52. Deadeye
53. Eganwp
54. carlosponti
55. Navy18
56. MineBurg
57. Cdallas2
58. loopyrc
59. Sled
60. Bernard
61. jrbmoto
62. Bubba153
63. Alfredbmor
64. FentonFlyer
65. Sneakywrist
66. BLW
67. smkrcflyer
68. gabarber
69. Amishwarlord
70. JPMacG
71. kamakazie frank
72. RussianFlyer
73. RoyR
74. Red Jeepster
75. Fallingleaf
76. Yukonflier
77. rcjim000
78. goonybird1
79. rglgatortail
80. Latebreaker
81. Tango juliet
82. Saito18
83. hafidy
84. RR24
85. mechdrew
86. siko_flyer
87. Kit
88. n7188u
89. gerryndennis
90. JNorton
91. misterv
92. Mustangman40
93. OntAeronut
94. proptop
95. scottrc
96. scirocco14
97. pt19 flyer
98. Doug47
99. b.bixel
100! bikerbc
101. weezle
102. Mtthwacrss
103. matadco
104. rickbrad
105. GaryHarris
106. Roary m
107. P47Tbolt
108. jp boud
109. arrdee
110. KaP2011
111. HFrank
112. custombuiltrc
113. jquid
114. dasquirrelisme
115. KC10Chief
116. _Tommy D
117. Do328jet
118. sirzepp
119. mrshea
120. AJsToyz
121. svenska3
122. I FLY
123. turnscrew
124. SteveW
125. Super08
126. ma_mulcahy
127. digital_trucker
128. ARTP47
129. us020140

AmishWarlord

My Feedback: (5)

Well Seajay your flight report settled something for me that I posted about earlier. I felt uneasy about my US1000 kit having an 81" wing when the RCM plans had it at 72". I'm going to forgo my kit and base my twin on the 72" plans.

Zor

Hello JP,

A recent posting made me look for the quoted post which was yours and I found it as post #1392 on the 5th January.

Something was bothering me and it does no harm to write a few comments.

I understand that there is some variations in the execution of what is referred to as "stall turns" also named "hammerheads".

The ideal execution is based on the CG trajectory and not on the airplane attitude.
From straight and level flight a pull up is done to a vertical trajectory of the CG and any wind has to be accounted for. It means that if the maneuver is executed starting with a heading into the wind, then the nose must have a pitch down attitude so the CG goes up perpendicular to the horizontal and does not drift with the wind.

During the up trajectory the engine is set to idle or to a low rpm and the vertical distance travelled is not taken into account.

At the moment of flight reversal, I understand that the airplane has to rotate only around the yaw axis and around its CG. In other words the airplane must not fly a U turn in a vertical plane. The direction of rotation is initiated with rudder just before the the zero vertical speed is reached. During this rotation the wing opposite the direction of rotation does some travel forward while the wing on the side of rotation has no airspeed or even fly backward. This creates a roll tendency that has to be counter-acted with the use of ailerons. It is easier to rotate in one direction or the other depending on the gyroscopic action of the propellor and its direction of rotation.

As the 180 degree rotation is approached the use of rudder becomes necessary to stop the rotation with the nose straigt down. Since the airspeeed at that moment is next to nil, a burst of engine power helps the rudder to be effective.

On the way down the CG is supposed to follow the same trajectory as on the way up and the recovery is to be at the same altitude in the opposite direction. The whole maneuver ideally all performed in the same vertical geometrical plane.

Well ___that is my understanding .

I would be happy to read any different description if one thinks I am misunderstanding.

In "The Good Old Times" I had a few aerobatic flying lessons in a full size Chipmunk.
Raising a family in those days prevented me from spending more money on such flying lessons.

Regards to all readers,

Zor

box car

I got my RCM 1000 wing from eurekaaircraft, it is 74" as itis on my RCM plans. I just started cutting parts on a RCM US60 witch is going to be a stretch 60 at 115% with a 120 AX for power on EI.

SeaJay

My Feedback: (6)

us020140,

I too have a GM Precision Rainbow Runner..  I have the Fuse Built up, and only half a wing (There is that wing building phobia thing again), I started that build about 10 years ago, (See, I told You I build slowly!!) I guess I need some foam wing cores cut for that one too!    How does it fly??

Craig.

SeaJay

My Feedback: (6)

AWL,

The 81" definitely had Waayyyy too much float for my taste.. I think flaps would have helped a lot, could even mix in a little crow for a little steeper approach angle, without increased approach speed. I know I am looking forward to seeing that twin US. you have on the boards..

BTW, who has the US twin ALA P82 twin fuse on the boards? I remember seeing some pics of it framed up, looking forward to seeing the completed product!!

Box Car, so what you are trying to say is that you are building a longer, Meaner and Leaner US60? Sounds cool...

I know there is a bit of concern over talking about the RX Issue, that doesn't specifically relate to the US, but since we were just talking about it, I had a thought occur to me, and I wanted an Opinion on said thought!!

What about twin Rx's with a Y connector coming from each Rx, going to each Servo, I would think that would work, if you employed some diodes in the harness to make sure the power went to the servos, and not into the other Rx? ( am not an electronics guru at all, but had some basic electronics classes in high school)

thoughts?

Zor, I just re read through your posts, and I would like to hear your thoughts on how you would set up your Twin Rxs... You can PM me your thoughts, of you dont want to post here, that would be cool with me..

(and with that, I won't bring up the Rx issue again)

Thanks, Craig.