|
CCPM
Can anyone give a good drawing of how CCPM works in a model heli (nitro or electric) thanks.
|
RE: CCPM
I think the E-Flite Blade CP product page has a pretty good explanation with photos that applies to any CCPM heli.
|
RE: CCPM
thanks, I am wondering how it works so any help in the form of pics... helps, thanks
|
RE: CCPM
try some of these links
http://www.heli-max.net/mediawiki/index.php/Links I don't remember which one specifically links to it, but these are just a collection of links that I and a few others put together for general heli info. this one especially should contain some of that info. http://www.swashplate.co.uk/ehbg-v17/ehbg_index.html |
RE: CCPM
ORIGINAL: calvino Can anyone give a good drawing of how CCPM works in a model heli (nitro or electric) thanks. However ... it doesn't take much imagination to see how the swash is physically manipulated with an eCCPM set up. EX ... 120° CCPM: http://dtipton.home.att.net/img/swash_sr3_1.jpg The collective function (assuming your heli raises and lowers the swash to accomplish this) requires ALL three channels to move together to lift /lower the swash evenly (no cyclic input) The aileron cyclic function would require both pitch and aileron channels to work together to tilt the swash and does not require elevator input at all. The elevator cyclic function would require ALL three channels: ail and pitch moving together and elevator moving opposite. With CCPM, you have think of the channel designations (ail, elev, pitch) and the swash functions (ail, elev, pitch) as two different things because with eCCPM ... two to three of the channels are used to accomplish one function (ie ail, elev, pitch channels are needed to accomplish the pitch function ... or ... ail, elev, pitch channels are needed to accomplish the elevator function). Mechanical CCPM (mCCPM) is a little easier because one channel is needed for each function (ie ail channel to produce ail function, etc). The "mixing" is done mechanically on the heli ... no need to "mixing" functions/channels in the TX. |
RE: CCPM
Tippy:
I am fairly new into the world of the Rc Helis, I have flown rc airplanes for more than ten years and there is a world in differences between helis and airplanes. I currently own a Blade CP Pro which I understand that works with the CCPM system. Now my doubht here is that I own a JR 8103 Radio and want to buy a nitro heli but I want it to work like my Blade, the question is in the mechanical mixes would do the same work for the nitro heli than my currently CP Pro? Thanks Alfred |
RE: CCPM
there are mechanical setups and electronic setups that do basically the same thing. Big debate as to what they are called, but some refer to it as mCCPM and eCCPM, anyways the answer to your q is yes, although mechanical setups these days are getting less and less popular with good computer radio setups =)
|
RE: CCPM
I am more interested in how the mechanics of it work but the stuff you gave was interesting. With the advent of cheap(er) computer radio's I can see how it is easier to do the CCPM with electronics... alfredbmor, just currious of what you think of the BCPP, hear the tail motor is a pain, except for that, would you recomend it or not. Have CX experence (and know a thing or 2 of on how to control an out of control heli). With nitro heli's you can't do all the mixing electronicaly. With the whole "variable blade pitch" why can't you rev up the motor instead (save on serovs...)
|
RE: CCPM
ORIGINAL: calvino With the whole "variable blade pitch" why can't you rev up the motor instead (save on serovs...) 1. Using only throttle to control altitude will translate into relatively slow changes in lift (altitude) because it takes some time for the motor to adjust speed. When using collective pitch with a proper throttle curve, motors are already spun up to a high rate of speed, so changes in the pitch of the blades will translate into almost instantaneous changes in lift. 2. Generally, the faster the rotor turns, the more stable the heli will be due to gyroscopic effects. Using only throttle with fixed pitch necessitates that you spin up to a certain RPM to climb to hover altitude and then reduce RPM to hold the hover, meaning that the heli will become less stable hovering than when ascending. When descending, you would have to reduce RPM even further, making the heli even less stable. |
RE: CCPM
tks. just currious, makes more sense now. I know from my fixed pitch BCX the slower I was, the more tippy... makes lots more sense. Calvino
|
RE: CCPM
ORIGINAL: calvino I am more interested in how the mechanics of it work but the stuff you gave was interesting. With the advent of cheap(er) computer radio's I can see how it is easier to do the CCPM with electronics... alfredbmor, just currious of what you think of the BCPP, hear the tail motor is a pain, except for that, would you recomend it or not. Have CX experence (and know a thing or 2 of on how to control an out of control heli). With nitro heli's you can't do all the mixing electronicaly. With the whole "variable blade pitch" why can't you rev up the motor instead (save on serovs...) As I mentioned, this is my first heli, but I'd like to answer your question this way: I effectivly fly any heli loaded in my G2 Flight Simulator and the CP Pro is hard to maintain locked in hovers, as you just think, the tail is a pain. Once the battery is partially discharged the heli flies better. I know there are some upgrades for this particular heli, as a giro, esc and a brushless motor, but I'd really like to buy a better heli one than invest on my little cr pro. I am thinking that the HeliMax Kinetic 50 could be a good choice, but it is a new product and there are not much people here that have had any experience with it. Time will tell. By now I am trying to fly my Blade CP pro better and I'll be ready for the next step as soon as there will be more information about the kinetic. About the electronic and mechanic CCPM, it is not even clear to me. Maybe I am wrong but I think that it refers to the set up of the main shaft linkage and the way it moves controlled by three mixed channels isn't it? Thanks. Alfred. |
RE: CCPM
yeah, the whole CCPM working stuff is hard to find information on. Most all people say the bcp is a toal pain to fly, I don like the nitros (never flown one though). The downside being huge cost to get airborn... so dificult to decide. Tks though.
|
RE: CCPM
Alfred......
There's mCCPM and eCCPM Any setup that moves the swash plate up and down on the main shaft (which is pretty much all modern designs) use some for of cyclic/collective pitch mixing. However as standard practice when you hear the term CCPM most people are refering to eCCPM (there is much debate about this) So today we have mechanical mixing and ccpm (in common terms). Mechanical mix birds like the Raptor have a collective pitch servo, an aileron servo and an elevator servo. Collective pitch inputs only cause the pitch servo to move. CCPM have 3 servos usually attached 120 degrees apart around the swash plate. A collective pitch input causes all three servos to move in unison to push the swash up or down. An aileron input causes the opposing servos to move opposite tiliting the swashplate left or right on the axis thats maintained by a radius pin and radius block. An elevator input causes the two opposing servos to move down while the elevator servo moves up or the aileron servos to both push up and the elevator servo pulls down. |
RE: CCPM
BarracudaHockey:
Thanks for explaining such a new concept to me. As I said before I will be acquiring in the near future a new heli and wanted to know everything about the CCPM. I also wanted to know if my JR8103DT would work fine with this new technology. In other forum I have been told that it will work fine. There is a Swash Plate type menu and it has these options: 1servo NORM 2servos 180o 3servos 120o 4 servos 90o I believe that you could use any option according of the Heli Manufacturer. By now it seems that the most popular CCPM is the 120o 3 servos actuated swash plate. Looks like an easy thing to do but it is hard to me to understand it. Thanks again. Alfred Because of your answer |
RE: CCPM
Yo would use the option appropriate to your helicopter.
1 normal would be a Raptor. 3 servo 120 degree would be a Trex. I've never seen 2 or 4 servo implemented ever. |
RE: CCPM
alfredbmor:: ... I believe that you could use any option according of the Heli Manufacturer. By now it seems that the most popular CCPM is the 120o 3 servos actuated swash plate. Looks like an easy thing to do but it is hard to me to understand it. Once you seperate FUNCTIONS from CHANNELS ... you'll get a better "feel" for the CCPM big picture. FUNCTIONs are what the swash needs to do to make the heli fly: ie Pitch FUNCTION moves the swash up and down (for most helis) on the main shaft, the aileron FUNCTION tilts the swash left/right and the elevator FUNCTION tilts the swash fore and aft. CHANNELS designate which RX slot the servos are plugged into. IE: Futaba designates ch1 as aileron, ch2 as elevator, and ch6 as pitch. In order to determine the swash config for your heli ... you need to know which channel(s) are needed to perform each function. With the NORMAL swash config (ala TT Raptor) ... the aileron channel is the only channel needed to cause an aileron function (doesn't need any other channels) therefore no "mixing" is required in the TX (at least not for those functions). Elevator FUNCTION requires only the elevator CHANNEL Pitch FUNCTION requires only the pitch CHANNEL In this config, the TX setup is fairly easy however all the extra levers and linkages add weight to the heli. For 30 size helis and up, the extra weight is not a big factor but for the smaller electrics where weight (or lack of it) is very important ... the less mechanical stuff on the heli the better. Enter electronic CCPM ... stage left. As you said, the 120° swash config is probably the most commonly used swash config ... especially for smaller helis ... but does require TX channel / function mixing (electronic CCPM) because all the mechanical stuff has been removed to save weight and reduce the servo-lever-swash link complexity. Again ... you need to know which channel(s) are needed to perform each function. When you map the servo/channel(s) needed for each function in this swash config, you'll see the difference compared to the normal/non-ccpm config. Reference the 120° config again: http://dtipton.home.att.net/img/swash_sr3_1.jpg For the PITCH function to work, you need help from all three servos (normal swash only needs the pitch channel). You need ALL three channels to work together to raise and lower the swash. The aileron function needs two servo channels (normal swash only needed the aileron channel) which are the aileron channel and the pitch channel. The elevator channel needs ALL three servos (normal swash only needs the elevator channel) which are pitch and aileron servos moving half the swash in one direction and the elevator servo moving opposite to the other two. This in itself requires some mixing of channels but this only describes one input at a time. Now imagine changing your pitch (moving the collective stick) while inputting both aileron and elevator stick movements. Take the aileron servo/channel for example. It's commanded position is based on a MIX of ALL three swash functions (aileron, elevator, and pitch). The pitch servo/channel commanded position is based on a MIX of ALL three swash FUNCTION also. The elevator servo/channel commanded position is based on a MIX of elevator and pitch FUNCTIONS This is the heart of CCPM (electronic CCPM). The end result is for a NORMAL swash config heli (ala TT RAPTOR) is slightly more complex mechanical setup and possibly heavier but less difficult for TX setup where as the CCPM configs offer a lighter and less complex mechanical setup but requires a TX to support the specific swash config and slightly more challenging to setup in the TX. Of course, once you get your head around programming the TX ... it'll become second nature and will "seem" just as easy to program as the Normal config TX setup. |
RE: CCPM
ORIGINAL: tippy alfredbmor:: ... I believe that you could use any option according of the Heli Manufacturer. By now it seems that the most popular CCPM is the 120o 3 servos actuated swash plate. Looks like an easy thing to do but it is hard to me to understand it. Once you seperate FUNCTIONS from CHANNELS ... you'll get a better "feel" for the CCPM big picture. FUNCTIONs are what the swash needs to do to make the heli fly: ie Pitch FUNCTION moves the swash up and down (for most helis) on the main shaft, the aileron FUNCTION tilts the swash left/right and the elevator FUNCTION tilts the swash fore and aft. CHANNELS designate which RX slot the servos are plugged into. IE: Futaba designates ch1 as aileron, ch2 as elevator, and ch6 as pitch. In order to determine the swash config for your heli ... you need to know which channel(s) are needed to perform each function. With the NORMAL swash config (ala TT Raptor) ... the aileron channel is the only channel needed to cause an aileron function (doesn't need any other channels) therefore no "mixing" is required in the TX (at least not for those functions). Elevator FUNCTION requires only the elevator CHANNEL Pitch FUNCTION requires only the pitch CHANNEL In this config, the TX setup is fairly easy however all the extra levers and linkages add weight to the heli. For 30 size helis and up, the extra weight is not a big factor but for the smaller electrics where weight (or lack of it) is very important ... the less mechanical stuff on the heli the better. Enter electronic CCPM ... stage left. As you said, the 120° swash config is probably the most commonly used swash config ... especially for smaller helis ... but does require TX channel / function mixing (electronic CCPM) because all the mechanical stuff has been removed to save weight and reduce the servo-lever-swash link complexity. Again ... you need to know which channel(s) are needed to perform each function. When you map the servo/channel(s) needed for each function in this swash config, you'll see the difference compared to the normal/non-ccpm config. Reference the 120° config again: http://dtipton.home.att.net/img/swash_sr3_1.jpg For the PITCH function to work, you need help from all three servos (normal swash only needs the pitch channel). You need ALL three channels to work together to raise and lower the swash. The aileron function needs two servo channels (normal swash only needed the aileron channel) which are the aileron channel and the pitch channel. The elevator channel needs ALL three servos (normal swash only needs the elevator channel) which are pitch and aileron servos moving half the swash in one direction and the elevator servo moving opposite to the other two. This in itself requires some mixing of channels but this only describes one input at a time. Now imagine changing your pitch (moving the collective stick) while inputting both aileron and elevator stick movements. Take the aileron servo/channel for example. It's commanded position is based on a MIX of ALL three swash functions (aileron, elevator, and pitch). The pitch servo/channel commanded position is based on a MIX of ALL three swash FUNCTION also. The elevator servo/channel commanded position is based on a MIX of elevator and pitch FUNCTIONS This is the heart of CCPM (electronic CCPM). The end result is for a NORMAL swash config heli (ala TT RAPTOR) is slightly more complex mechanical setup and possibly heavier but less difficult for TX setup where as the CCPM configs offer a lighter and less complex mechanical setup but requires a TX to support the specific swash config and slightly more challenging to setup in the TX. Of course, once you get your head around programming the TX ... it'll become second nature and will "seem" just as easy to program as the Normal config TX setup. |
RE: CCPM
Great explanation Tippy:
I have been doing some homework and have been reading to understand this new concept to me in my new heli interest. I found in the latest issue of Model Airplane News (October issue) a great CCPM explanation oriented to the performance of the heli regarding of the separation degrees on the controls of the swash plate. As you just said the raptor needs a normal servo configuration and a complex linkage is in order to obtain the correct inputs to move accordingly the swash plate. In the Model Airplane Magazine the author of the review shows the physics effects of the swash plate movements and claims that should be better if we apply a 135o (3 servos) rule instead a 120o (3 servos) in the swash plate configuration. Well, then CCPM is not that good and maybe a normal configuration (As the raptor) could be the best, paying off course the price of the linkage weight. Also the author says that modern computer radios compensate the 120o fault by increasing and decreasing some servo-swash plate movements. I really recommend the reading of that particular review and maybe we can focus now on the effectiveness of the normal or the CCPM systems for a better control of any Heli. |
RE: CCPM
1 Attachment(s)
thanks aflred, with the computerization of stuff it makes more sense that the radio is doing all the work. any way to read that article (online), should check my local library for it. I guess CCPM is one of those hard to explain things, it is also like V-pitch props on 3D foamies, tks for the info, calvin
|
RE: CCPM
alfredbmor:: ... In the Model Airplane Magazine the author of the review shows the physics effects of the swash plate movements and claims that should be better if we apply a 135o (3 servos) rule instead a 120o (3 servos) in the swash plate configuration. It makes sense if you are familar with geometry. |
RE: CCPM
Yes it is getting clearer every step ahead, I also read that the new JR radios (9303) have a new swash plate type in the 140o. It is good to understand the new technologies before buying the first nitro heli.:D
|
RE: CCPM
good point. everything is changing so fast it is hard to keep up [&:]
|
RE: CCPM
alfredbmor:: ... In the Model Airplane Magazine the author of the review shows the physics effects of the swash plate movements and claims that should be better if we apply a 135o (3 servos) rule instead a 120o (3 servos) in the swash plate configuration. Ideally ... you want pure movements ... ie elevator only with elevator stick movement. The 120° config induces some collective pitch movement (if not compensated for) during elevator input. People like me who fly around willey-nilley, floppy-sloppy will probably not notice. If you are after crisp precision flight ... you'll notice. Take a look at the image below. The black line is a line through the main shaft perpendicular to the C/L of the heli. The other lines (green, red, blue, orange) are lines parallel to the main shaft line. Each vertical (arrowed) lines show the distance from the attach point lines to the main shaft line. As you can see, in the 120° config, the ail/pitch line (red) to main shaft line is much shorter than the elevator line (green) to the main shaft line. What does that mean? Say your elevator input moved the elevator line UP 1 mm and the ail/pitch line moved DOWN 1 mm ... what would happen at the IDEAL line? Well ... if the shaft line is the theoretical pivot point ... then moving the ail/pitch line 1mm would cause the IDEAL line to move FARTHER than 1mm. If one side of the swash (elevator attach point) moves 1mm and the other side moves more than 1mm then the pivot point will no longer be at the center. This forces the swash to slide up the shaft slightly ... which induces collective pitch changes with elevator input ... ooops. This will happen if all 3 of your servos move equally with elevator input. We can reduce the affect with TX mixing. Newer TX's have this feature. It does this by causing the ail & pitch servos to move the swash less than the elevator servo does .... so that the IDEAL line (orange) move distance is nearer to the elevator line (green) move distance. When the green line and orange line move equally in opposite directions ... the pivot is through the main shaft (black line) and NO collective pitch is induced. We can also reduce the affect by mechanical means ... ala 140° config (see BLUE line in image) The 140° config moves the ail/pitch attach point line further away from the main shaft line making the ail/pit distance closer to the elevator distance. It's done by attaching small levers with attach point balls at the end. This effectively causes the ail/pitch line (Red for 120°) to be pushed back to the blue line (140° config). So ... As the difference in the two distances get smaller ... the less of the pitch change affect you will have. Of course, if you could make the two distances equal ... that would be IDEAL http://dtipton.home.att.net/img/swash_120v140.jpg |
RE: CCPM
tippy, you know your stuff, good job. Not expecting a diagram that good [8D], now I think I am STARTING to get it, I hope. Is there a pop quiz halfway through to see if I really know my stuff ;)
|
RE: CCPM
Thanks for your graphics tippy:
Although that the shaft center is not at the same distance that the aileron and pitch, the radius is always the same. In theory when we apply the same amount of distance to the three servos that move the swash plate, they will travel the same distance up and down, the difference will be appreciated when only one of the servos is actuated up, then the other will partially have to raise or lower but the travel will be different. The 140o swash plate idea is to compensate the travel of the servos and make this swash plate more natural to move increasing then the final results. In the real world, as you mentioned this kind of differences tend to be minimal in the heli behavior leaving only to the Pro Pilots its benefits. As technology advances, al of this upgrades tend to make our helis better and behave more stables with high possibilities of a great performance in 3D areas. I have had the opportunity to fly several helis on the sim programs G2 and G3 by Great Planes and there are a lot of difference between this two simulators, obviously they tend to make the flight pattern more real and I have found easier to fly an heli on the G3 program version. New radios like futaba 12 with fasst technology has going a little more far with up to 8 swash plate configurations, that let us know that the final word is not written yet but we are very closer to the real thing. Some helis that are in the market by now, like raptors and Kinetic 50 from HeliMax have not a CCPM configuration but they are 3D capable at a certain point. Maybe CCPM could make them perform better but as I said before, for a Sunday flier the differences will be barely noticeable. Thanks: Alfred. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:37 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.