dual recievers, a bit different?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BROOKLYN,
NY
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dual recievers, a bit different?
I've heard of using 2 recievers and splitting the plane left and right, so if you have a failure in one you can still land, what about one reciever in the fuselage, and one in the wing so you don't have to fiddle with 3 servo leads, a six foot wing, and 2 bolts, just bolt the wing on, turn on 2 switches, and go. and there's still some redundancy, so if you loose the fuz reciever, you still have ailerons, flaps, and retracts, which might get her down intact, and if you loose the wing, belly landing is a viable option. am i nuts? or does this sound like a good idea to you, the experts?
thanks for the help
thanks for the help
#2
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Locust Grove,
GA
Posts: 12,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dual recievers, a bit different?
Sounds like a good solution. My assumption is that you will have the battery pack in the fuselage and plug in the power to the receiver. -OR- are yo going to put the pack and the switch in the wing?
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BROOKLYN,
NY
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dual recievers, a bit different?
exactly, i was thinking of two separate packs/rx/switch. one for the fuse, one for the wing. that way I just need to do up 2 wing bolts, turn on 2 switches, fire up and fly (including all pre-flight checks of course) i think this will also keep the cg low in the plane, minimising nose overs (i hope) since i fly off of grass.
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BROOKLYN,
NY
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dual recievers, a bit different?
another question, are there any servos that rotate 180-190 degrees? or is there a way to modify a standard servo? I want to use a 190 degree rotation to lock my flaps up and down, or just up if possible
#5
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dual recievers, a bit different?
In my opinion, you are trading convenience for controllability. While it will be easier to setup and fly, its going to be much harder to get the plane down with only ailerons and flaps if the wing receiver fails.
Flying with flaps as your only pitch control will be hairy. If the receiver fails while you are level, you will probably have a fun ride, but be ok. If it fails in the verticals, or while doing a maneuver, by the time you figure out what happened and then attempt to get a feel for flying pitch with the flaps, the plane is probably gone at that point. The fuse won't be too bad, as rudder gives you roll and yaw, and the elevator gives you pitch.
I wouldn't make this trade off, and would rather plug in the three servo leads. Its a matter of safety for the people on the ground around me when I fly, and I would prefer the increased controllability should a failure happen.
Flying with flaps as your only pitch control will be hairy. If the receiver fails while you are level, you will probably have a fun ride, but be ok. If it fails in the verticals, or while doing a maneuver, by the time you figure out what happened and then attempt to get a feel for flying pitch with the flaps, the plane is probably gone at that point. The fuse won't be too bad, as rudder gives you roll and yaw, and the elevator gives you pitch.
I wouldn't make this trade off, and would rather plug in the three servo leads. Its a matter of safety for the people on the ground around me when I fly, and I would prefer the increased controllability should a failure happen.
#6
Senior Member
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lincoln,
NE
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dual recievers, a bit different?
I pretty much agree with sfaust on this. If you split RX across fuse/wing, you will gain convenience and some redundancy. However, the redundancy is pretty much useless because with a RX failure you will lose total control on critical surfaces (either elevator or aileron.) In this case I'd say your odds of flight failure resulting in a crash has actually DOUBLED! This is because you now have twice as many failure points, and a failure probably will result in a crash (I doubt many pilots can land a plane with flap/aileron only.)
Why to use two RX? I use two RX in anything 35% or bigger. High servo loads (say above 10A) probably aren't good for one RX. However, with the type of planes I fly, JR Matchbox or Futaba servo sync type devices solve this issue since they can have their own power lead run to them so high current draw passing in the RX is rarely an issue. It is also very rare for well maintained RX to malfunction. A more likely cause of failure related to the RX would be a failure in the connections to the RX or a power failure (batt, switch, etc.)
I use two RX not so much for RX redundancy, instead, I want redundancy in the connections to the RX, this really cannot easily be done with one RX, hence the two RXs.
I split RXs across left/right not fuse/wing. For example, RX1 runs left aileron, right elevator, 1/2 rudder, ignition kill; RX2 runs right aileron, left elevator, 1/2 rudder, throttle. This way if a RX, battery, switch, connection, etc fails I should still have some control of half of every flight surface type and either throttle or throttle kill. While I have twice the failure points of a single RX setup, I still have a flyable plane with a total RX failure. I can't say that with a single RX setup or a wing/fuse dual RX setup.
Why to use two RX? I use two RX in anything 35% or bigger. High servo loads (say above 10A) probably aren't good for one RX. However, with the type of planes I fly, JR Matchbox or Futaba servo sync type devices solve this issue since they can have their own power lead run to them so high current draw passing in the RX is rarely an issue. It is also very rare for well maintained RX to malfunction. A more likely cause of failure related to the RX would be a failure in the connections to the RX or a power failure (batt, switch, etc.)
I use two RX not so much for RX redundancy, instead, I want redundancy in the connections to the RX, this really cannot easily be done with one RX, hence the two RXs.
I split RXs across left/right not fuse/wing. For example, RX1 runs left aileron, right elevator, 1/2 rudder, ignition kill; RX2 runs right aileron, left elevator, 1/2 rudder, throttle. This way if a RX, battery, switch, connection, etc fails I should still have some control of half of every flight surface type and either throttle or throttle kill. While I have twice the failure points of a single RX setup, I still have a flyable plane with a total RX failure. I can't say that with a single RX setup or a wing/fuse dual RX setup.