rotor09

I to respectfully disagree.

If your swashplate moves up and down for collective and tilts for cyclic, so the commands are being mixed somewhere below the swashplate (CCPM).

In your system, these commands come from a the mechanical arrangement that cause it mix these commands using a mechanical system (m). There may not be interactions, but the Collective is moved by your big collective arm that moves up and down. While it is doing so, the for/aft CYCLIC and roll CYCLIC commands are transferred to the swashplate by bellcranks and control rods that are mixed in with this up/down movement of the collective arm.

So by pure definition, the COLLECTIVE and the CYCLIC are being mixed with the movement of the swashplate (CCPM) and your system does it with the mechanical movement of your collective arm while transferring the cyclic movements of your other two servos through a bellcranks and control rods associated with your collective arm. (mechanical). This is why I believe the correct and less confusing term of mCCPM is the proper definition.

If the CCPM movement/mixing at the swashplate is performed by software in the TX, then it is done electronically (eCCPM).

evan-RCU

I'm always willing to learn but I see only eCCPM and mCCCPM for collective helos. I can't think of a collective helo that falls in the non-CCPM category. Even the old Minature and Kalt systems I consider mCCPM even though if you disconnect the collective servo the cyclics work.

Rafael23cc

My Feedback: (6)

Go back to page one of this thread, and try to find a Kyosho Concept. That is what we are calling non-CCPM. Where the swashplate is stationary (does not move up and down for collective control) but the washout base, does move up and down to control collective pitch.

Rafael

Chris Bergen

And this is where the confusion is. The commands are NOT mixed. THATS my whole point.

If you take each control individually, removing the other 2, disconnecting the servo, however you wish, each control will work independently.

Moving the collective up and down in NO way adds or subtracts ANYTHING to or from the aileron function. The servo doesn't move(rotate), it simply rides in a cradle.

Now don't mistake the up and down movement as a mix. The ORIGINAL Intrepid control had the aileron servo in a stationary position. If you are confusing this with the ROCKING servo mechanism used in the original X-cell, don't. The difference is that the pushrods from the rocking servo DID move fore and aft, causing a bellcrank(s) to rotate, mixing in a control movement. The collective system REQUIRED these pushrods to be in place, there were no OTHER pushrods, independent pushrods, to move the collective.

In MY helicopter, remove the aileron pushrods, you'll STILL have a collective control movement, ie a swashplate that moves UP and DOWN. Remove the collective pushrods, You STILL have aileron control!!! With that FACT, how are you then MIXING Collective and Aileron? They are 2 totally independent systems.

I could explain the elevator in similar terms, but you get the idea. Without any mixing of the controls, mechanically or electrically, then you cannot call this control system CCPM.

I hope tommorrow to scan a page from a book from Dave Day. Only 1 page, with one drawing, that may explain this better than I can.

evan-RCU

I see what you all are saying but to me it semantics. To me it does not matter if the swash moves up and down or not I think it's still mechanical mixing. But I also can see Chris's point. Just how the definition is applied.

Rafael23cc

My Feedback: (6)

And that is the whole basis of this discussion.

Chris: Can we agree that there are three types of controls?
1. The pure electronic CCPM as you describe (as in the TRex),
2. the one that somehow mechanically, the swashplate moves up and down for collective control (as in the Raptor), and
3. the one where the washout base (or other parts of the head) is the one that controls the collective pitch angle, but the swashplate does not move up and down for collective control (as in the Kyosho Concept).

Can we at least agree that those are the 3 types of controls?

Rafael

Chris Bergen

Well it'll take TWO pages, sorry...





This isn't a "concept". It's CCPM or it's NOT. There is no "evolution" either. CCPM is nothing NEW, the date on this book is 1987!! It was understood at THAT time what CCPM was and was NOT.

Lets break down some of the pictured paragraph.

Swashplate, cyclic controls. Pertinant information I would say.

In MANY designs, but as you guys have pointed out, not ALL.. Good.

Radio systems, THIS type of control (meaning moving swashplate), simplified by mixing into THREE servos. Cool! I gotta try this!!

Becoming clearer?

This system (CCPM) will not work with ALL moving swashplate designs....Hmmm. So a MOVING swashplate does NOT automatically denote CCPM.

So the gist of this paragraph is thus, 3 servos mixed electronically in "the more expensive radio systems" is CCPM. The mixing of the servos in the RADIO makes it CCPM!! The fact that the swash moves up and down does NOT mean it's CCPM.

He even specifies that if only TWO functions are mixed, it's STILL not CCPM!!

What I believe is happening in this hobby, as it concerns this topic, because the controlling systems of a model helicopter is complicated, difficult to pick up quickly, some are taking a short cut to understanding, putting the blanket of CCPM over everything because it's now what a beginner learns in his first helicopter with the proliferation of the cheap but decent flying models now on the market.

The TRUTH is otherwise. Trying to "keep up with the Times" does not make terminology correct. CCPM is an ELECTRONIC mixing function IN the radio. Period. Always has been, always will be.

evan-RCU

I think Cyclic Collective Pitch Mixing (CCPM) as defined in this book is only refering to electronic CCPM where the mixing is all done, or mostly done by the transmitter. There is still mechanical mixing being done in many cases and in all cases where there is a elevator specific servo, aileron specific servo, and pitch specific servo. I think that is the point everyone else is making Chris.

There used to be just CCPM. Now poeple are saying mCCPM and eCCPM.

Rafael23cc

My Feedback: (6)

Exactly. But it went over 10 pages at Heli freak, and we are going on 3 pages here. It is fine to know the theory, but we all know theory evolves and changes. Back in 1987 that was the concensus and it's fine by me. Hell, now people are telling me that Pluto is not a planet. What are we going to do? I did not mean that as disrespect, but as a way of drastically pointing out that something that we thought was set in stone, can change.

Rafael

evan-RCU

I agree. In 87' the radios still had inverted switches on them...

Chris Bergen

And again, my point is that there is NO mixing going on in my control system!! If you, the pilot, move the elevator stick, that is the ONLY control(servos, bellcranks, elevator yoke and swash tilts exactly fore and aft) that moves. If you move the aileron stick, that is the only control (servo, bellcranks, swash tilts EXACTLY sideways) that moves. When you move the collective stick, the elevator servo does not move, the elevator bellcranks do not rotate, the elevator yoke does not tilt.

With a collective stick movement, the collective arms move the yoke straight up and down, moving the swash plate straight up and down, NOT mixing in any elevator (adding or removing elevator movement) to accomplish it. The aileron servo moves up and down with collective movement due to its position IN the collective arms, but is not mixing IN any aileron (adding or removing aileron movement) due to the position of the points of rotation for ALL the controls.

Similar to what happened in the Helifreak thread, you have different people presenting a different argument on why it IS CCPM.

From the book I posted, a moving swashplate does NOT necessarily consititute CCPM.

In a single servo system (the term used by many RADIO manufacturers) with NO mixing, then it cannot be CCPM as the last letter "M" stands for Mixing.

A swashplate is NOT a "mixer".

Any mixing going on ABOVE the swash is irrelevent, we're discussing the controling OF the swashplate.

If you can refute, WITH documentation from a reliable source (wikipedia is NOT, LOL...), ANY of my arguments as presented, then I will concede and begin my advertising campaign that we now have a CCPM control system in the Intrepid Line of helicopters. Can you IMAGINE!!

evan-RCU

The mixing I'm talking about is typically above the swash. why is it irrelevent? it still needs to happen? I think that is the issue, you are making a point only with the radio system and we are talking the whole system, radio and helo mechanics.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

If you listen to Ray Hostettler the mixing in the control system above the swash plate is what he's talking about.

Below the swash, I agree completely.

Rafael23cc

My Feedback: (6)

We all know exactly what CCPM is, (what we are calling eCCPM) and what is not (what we call mCCPM and Non-CCPM) you are the one hung up on the pure definition of CCPM, Which we all agree on, but we call it eCCPM.

And who is questioning the system in your helicopter? We are talking in general, providing several examples and you keep talking about the Intrepid. As I said before, I've never seen an Intrepid, so I can't comment about that one, But I bet that you have seen all of the helicopters we are providing as examples.

Right there is the perfect example of mCCPM. BY DESIGN the aileron servo is STRATEGICALLY placed IN THE COLLECTIVE ARM to have it move up and down with it. If you place the aileron servo anywhere else on the frames, it WILL NOT work the same. Who said that we are mixing aileron to collective? What if we are mixing collective to the aileron? Have you stopped to look at it from that angle?

Just like the older Miniature Aircraft helis, the aileron servo rocked back and forth with the movement of the collective servo, another perfect example of mCCPM. Even a step back further, I remember the servo arm provided in some helis, It got mounted to the top of the aileron servo. It had a hinge just above the servo wheel and 3 balls on top, the middle ball was for the collective servo, and the outer balls were for the aileron controls. Pretty ingenious way of MIXING collective into the system mechanically. The current perfect example a little more popular than the Intrepid is the Raptor. The aileron servo is also mounted on the collective arm and it moves up and down with it. If you change it's location it will not work the same, and it WILL HAVE to be converted to PURE CCPM (eCCPM)for it to work.

A lot of people have said it before including you, CCPM flourished when it started being used as a marketing tool. As the manufacturer, it is up to you to use it or not. But the term mCCPM would not look good on the side of an Interpid box.

The problem is that the concept has evolved but the books have not. Other than Ray and some other people that gear their books to novices, who else has written a book about this stuff since 1987? Heck, I have one of the Paul Tradelius books, I happen to own two copies of different printings (circa 1989 and 1998), and it is basically the same book but with "updated" references to current models. So I sincerely believe that nobody has taken a FRESH look at this stuff for a while.

But Chris, You have not answered one of my questions, I'd hate to think that you are avoiding it:
Rafael

Chris Bergen

Many times in many threads, including this one. Also consider that the Raptor mechanical system is almost a direct copy of our control system, so it CAN be considered in the same category.

AHH but it WILL!! I already stated that the original design DID have it stationary. It was moved to prevent a binding issue and getting rid of a troublesome (failure prone) bellcrank....

EXACTLY!! LOL!!!

Evan,



OK..CCPM or no? FlyBarless...There's NO mixing here either!!!

I would say there are MORE than 3, but in CURRENT use TODAY you have;

3 servo 120 CCPM
3 Servo 140 CCPM
4 servo CCPM
Single Servo

This is how the RADIO's spell them out.

I don't believe anyone manufactures a 3 servo 90 degree CCPM anymore...

So MY question would be, why not make it VERY simple and EASY to understand, there are TWO types of controls in use today, CCPM and Single Servo.

Most everyone (save you few here ) understands what CCPM is, electronically mixing 3 or 4 servos to move the swash.

A very LITTLE bit of education would get those to understand that "single servo" means a single servo operating Aileron, a single servo operating elevator, a single servo operating collective. Since that's how it's explained IN THE RADIO, why not use it for your evolutionary concept?