Dual control surface servos
02-09-2023, 01:57 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2023
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dual control surface servos
Dear menbers
I'm building a large Balsa usa Phaeton 90, and the idea has arison that I will see a betterhandling/performing ship with the Saito 125 4cyc., if I use dual servos. I placed a over ride control servo saver on one of the pair of servos. Will it be adequate to prevent stripping of gears in a servo ?Also how much spring adjustment would be necessary?
Any inputs/opinions will be welcome!
I'm building a large Balsa usa Phaeton 90, and the idea has arison that I will see a betterhandling/performing ship with the Saito 125 4cyc., if I use dual servos. I placed a over ride control servo saver on one of the pair of servos. Will it be adequate to prevent stripping of gears in a servo ?Also how much spring adjustment would be necessary?
Any inputs/opinions will be welcome!
02-10-2023, 09:01 AM
#5
My Feedback: (3)
I can't remember a stripped servo gear or failure from flying anything. Crashing, that's another matter. IMO I think you have servos you'll never have to worry about. Like Scale stated, the control surfaces on that model won't test the limits of your servos, and the only time I've seen anyone use a servo saver was on rudder / tailwheel control to limit any tail wheel shock transmitted to that servo. I personally never used one, got some sitting in a new package for a decade though for that rainy day I might need it.
Decades ago you could get airplanes as big as that Phaeton 90 when servo technology was quite primitive back then, and rated a fraction of the torque you purchased.
Limitations of those old servos weren't a major issue. I suppose if you're model goes 100 mph or you perform 3D stunts, high torque servos would be necessary.
I've been using standard servos with few exceptions meaning the used plane came with them, but I didn't choose to throw money into them thinking it's a weak link. Flying pylon racers, pattern planes, 1/4 scale, sport planes, .40 and .60 size, some pulled along rather nicely using 16,000 rpm Rossi engines, servos weren't a concern. I read more about high torque servos in recent years than ever before, as if suddenly its now a requirement. BS. I never said, "Oh my servos have reached their limit, I need to find a higher torque servo immediately."
Placing your pushrod clevis closer to the shaft of the servo with a round or 5 prong servo arm will be easier on the servo than the full arm length of the 4 prong servo arm.
End point adjustment can be set in your radio programming if you need more deflection but that plane doesn't need more than 100%.
I'd consider a high torque servos in a 3D model, or a plane that goes over 100 mph. Sadly most people fool themselves into thinking their sport plane can go that fast, and you walk over and see a lame OS FX .61 or AX .65 with a 12X6 prop. Do that math, a .60 sport plane will never see 100 mph unless it's going straight down off a cliff. Radar gun readings tell the truth and never feel the urge to exaggerate.
Decades ago you could get airplanes as big as that Phaeton 90 when servo technology was quite primitive back then, and rated a fraction of the torque you purchased.
Limitations of those old servos weren't a major issue. I suppose if you're model goes 100 mph or you perform 3D stunts, high torque servos would be necessary.
I've been using standard servos with few exceptions meaning the used plane came with them, but I didn't choose to throw money into them thinking it's a weak link. Flying pylon racers, pattern planes, 1/4 scale, sport planes, .40 and .60 size, some pulled along rather nicely using 16,000 rpm Rossi engines, servos weren't a concern. I read more about high torque servos in recent years than ever before, as if suddenly its now a requirement. BS. I never said, "Oh my servos have reached their limit, I need to find a higher torque servo immediately."
Placing your pushrod clevis closer to the shaft of the servo with a round or 5 prong servo arm will be easier on the servo than the full arm length of the 4 prong servo arm.
End point adjustment can be set in your radio programming if you need more deflection but that plane doesn't need more than 100%.
I'd consider a high torque servos in a 3D model, or a plane that goes over 100 mph. Sadly most people fool themselves into thinking their sport plane can go that fast, and you walk over and see a lame OS FX .61 or AX .65 with a 12X6 prop. Do that math, a .60 sport plane will never see 100 mph unless it's going straight down off a cliff. Radar gun readings tell the truth and never feel the urge to exaggerate.
Last edited by J330; 02-10-2023 at 09:03 PM.
02-10-2023, 02:15 PM
#9
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2023
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the data. I'm afraid to admit how long this plane has been in the building. Balsa USA gave very little data for placment of engine, tank , or radio gear, so I've made beaucoup mistakes, plus my building table and moving place to place wreaked havoc on time available. Then Hangar9 discontinued the deep red of the fuselage and I have to strip/recover. Whew! I don't want to remove elevators or rudder to recover. 'hope I can leave a little covering between the control surfaces and the stabs for attachment of the new red covering. Sorry for venting!
Mike
P.S. how is my choice of the Saito 125 4cyc.? Thoughts?
Mike
P.S. how is my choice of the Saito 125 4cyc.? Thoughts?
