Would a electronic throttle mounted on the carb for gas engine be something you buy? by this I mean no more linkages to deal with,No more having to decide will this servo work with my engine, no more having to pull a choke.

Sorry my thinking was off last night when I posted the poll

What is that?

I thought I was flying by wire?

Are you talking about a throttle governor or something?

You know....when you remove the direct mechanical linkage (including hydraulics) between the human actuated input/control (i.e., a steering wheel, accelerator/throttle lever, control yoke) from the the device that's being controlled (steering rack, carb, elevator/rudder/aileron)....and then replace that mechanical linkage with a proportional, digital/electronic connection between the input device...which turns the physical motion into an electronic signal...and a servo-motor that converts the electronic signal back into a physical motion. It was first widely implemented & the phrase coined with the first Airbus; now all modern planes use that.

Hmmm...if ONLY someone could wrap their head around a concept like that and produce something for model aviation. And while we're fantasizing, why not go 'unicorn-hunting' and wish for something absurd...like a WIRELESS electronic connection?

I guess we can dream, can't we?

I don't think your explanation of fly by wire is correct.
My definition of fly by wire is the pilots control is connected to a computer. When he wants to turn he sends a signal to the computer and then the computer takes over and moves the necessary controls the aircraft requires to do what the pilot wants. This was given to me back when we(Boeing) were responding to an R for P for the B-1 back in the early 70's
Fly by wire has been used by our military many years before Airbus used it.
If you want fly by wire you need to install a computer. Eagletree is now producing a three axis stabilization unit that would do that for you.

Computers can be...and usually are...used 'between' the controller & actuator, but all that matters with that term is that the direct, 'physical' connetion between the control & the actuator (mechanical linkage and/or hydraulics) are replaced with an electronic signall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire

And I said "widely implemented"; no PRODUCTION military or commercial planes were FBW in 1984, when the A320 came out.

I think that is incorrect. The F-16 is fly by wire and was in production in the 70's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...ighting_Falcon

Back to the question at hand, I THINK he's asking why we still use mechanical linkage between a servo & the carb vs. making a special servo that would be PART OF, or mount directly on, the carb?

That's a good question. Vibration & fear of 'stuff' permeating the servo are not really issues anymore (that aren't easily addressed). Servo motors don't really need geartrains anymore (that's another question/issue), and throttles have always required barely any force to do the 'throttling'.

Mfgs could (should?) integrate a motor & even some control circuitry directly into the carb itself.

My guess is that the reason nobody's tried this is similar to the one that prevented the switch to 2.4mhz/spread-spectrum/signal-hopping radio technology 20 years after it was integrated into $20 cordless phones.

People (users AND manufacturers) in this hobby don't really cotton to newfangled ideas. It's the car guys...and a company who never made a single hobby product; Nomadio...who dragged the RC world kicking & screaming into the 20th century.

Im not asking if you still use throttle linkages Im asking if there was a carb with electronics mounted directly would you buy it?

Would it be competitively priced, compared to what I'm using now?? Reliable? If so, I'd sure be interested! If it's too much more, the way I'm doing it now works pretty good....

Yes it will be priced right and be just as reliable as the servo your using now.

F16 Fighting Falcon was in production around that time frame

Add mid range mixture control please

Mid range mixture control important to have / and what application would you use it?

It is a interesting thought. My first thought was a Walbro carb with a servo built into it for controlling the throttle. It isn't a bad thought to have.
But whatever one does it has to be relatively inexpensive though.

Even with fuel injection, you still have the throttle to control on the throttle body. So we still need some sort of a servo like mechanism to control it.

One other thought is to use a solenoid like arrangement for controlling the throttle. This has been used a lot on various things where you have a plunger that moves in and out that is controlled by varying the voltage level applied to it.

Your reference to wikeleaks states a computer is used in Fly by wire.
The MD-11 manual control could be called fly by wire according to your definition.

delete

What, and to whom, are you referring?

I...and Wiki (-pedia, not 'leaks)...am saying a computer is not required for FBW (though they're used 99.99% of the time); it's the elimination of a mechanical connection that defines this term. YOU are the one who said YOUR defnition keyed on the use of a computer as an 'intermediary' in the control signal transer. YOUR definition (incorrectly) allows the inclusion of the MD-11 in the FBW category, not Wiki's!

The MD-11 used computers to help monitor/tweak/limit the HYDRAULIC control systems. That's not FBW, hydraulics are a mechanical connnection.

But when they first tried replacing those connections with the "control input>convert input to electric signal>send signal via wires to servo-motors>servo-motors move control surface proportionally to signal input" model...in the 1930s....THAT is/was fly-by-wire.


/

cool idea, but i dont see it happening anytime soon

Pattern flying. I live in mid range and having optimal mixture at 30%-70% throttle is key. But I'd bet that most IMAC'rs would love a controlled mid range mix too

The F-16 was the first production aircraft to be FBW. It is not only FBW, it has negative flight stability margin to improve maneuverability (think 3D) and lift. That is why is has those triple redundant flight control computers (used to be quad redundant when it was analog computers).

As far as a built-in throttle actuation, besides cost and reliability, you will increase the bulk of the carb. Which for gas it is already bulky enough, and for nitro, the engines are not made to fit bulky carbs. But there are always ways around those issues.

Even in full size cars the electronic systems (throttle, fuel injection and ignition) are usually mounted on the firewall, not the engine.  Fuel injectors can be considered servos.  And the throttle control is either a servo or an air controlled device that is effectivly a servo.  And yes, vibration is still a big issue as is temperature.

As Einstein said many, many years ago - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Well that's not precisely what he said but it sums it up.

Heat, vibration and radiointerference problemscome to mind with such a divice as you described, To get around those issues would not make it cost effective
in my opinion.

A regular non digital servo from hitec is 20 dollars or less and a digital is 30 dollars so you will have to be cheaper than this to sell it.

An F-16 without said computers is unflyable. Hince the nickname "lawn dart" . Great aircraft. I am an egress tech on them but unflyable without computers.

Nice idea for the carb but don't think it could be made cheap enough to replace a simple servo.