72 Mhz radio question
Danny
Flight Simmer and love to fly the helos in the sim. But I know full well
that flying with a joystick and flying with a two stick transmitter is a
completely different technique.
For Christmas I was given an Falcon 40 and a co-axial AH64 Apache, by Colco.
Both are 4 channel machines. The transmitter that came with the Apache
appears to be of less quality than the transmitter that came with the Falcon
40. It apparently has an electrical short in the internal circuitry and
works sometimes and dead other times. I will be addressing that matter with
the seller this week.
In the meantime, I took the Tx crystal out of the bad transmitter and put it
into the Falcon 40 transmitter to see if it would work but I get no response
from the Apache when the Tx is turned on. The TX radio for the Falcon 40
has some dip switches on the back but I have not made any attempt to change
them as I have no idea what these switches control. That radio works great
when the Falcon 40 matching crystal is installed in the radio. I can't fly
it yet. I did have to give it a try and got it off the ground an inch or two
for 3 seconds or so, then set it down before I could damage it.
Any suggestions or comments about the radios will be appreciated.
Danny
Beav
"Danny" <drm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hhdg72$oki$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>I am new to this group and new to R/C helo flying. I'm a long time M$
>Flight Simmer and love to fly the helos in the sim. But I know full well
>that flying with a joystick and flying with a two stick transmitter is a
>completely different technique.
>
> For Christmas I was given an Falcon 40 and a co-axial AH64 Apache, by
> Colco. Both are 4 channel machines. The transmitter that came with the
> Apache appears to be of less quality than the transmitter that came with
> the Falcon 40.
And it needs to be. The falcon 40 is (almost) a "proper" RC heli, while the
co-ax is something slightly above a fun time toy.
>It apparently has an electrical short in the internal circuitry and works
>sometimes and dead other times. I will be addressing that matter with the
>seller this week.
Best thing you can do.
>
> In the meantime, I took the Tx crystal out of the bad transmitter and put
> it into the Falcon 40 transmitter to see if it would work but I get no
> response from the Apache when the Tx is turned on.
There needs to be some sort of match between the crystal in the Tx and the
one in the Rx. It's more than likely that there isn't in your case. They
have to share the same frequency band (27, 35, 49, 72mHz etc) and they have
to share the same "slot" within the band. Example being 35mHz.... 35.000,
35.010, 35.020 ad nauseum All the crystal controlled radio's need to have
hises matches.
> The TX radio for the Falcon 40 has some dip switches on the back but I
> have not made any attempt to change them as I have no idea what these
> switches control.
They'll be there to reverse the direction of the servo's associated with the
channel numbers next to the di switches. Leave them be.
> That radio works great
For now :-)
> when the Falcon 40 matching crystal is installed in the radio. I can't fly
> it yet. I did have to give it a try and got it off the ground an inch or
> two for 3 seconds or so, then set it down before I could damage it.
Make up a training undercarriage for the Falcon for at least the first few
flights. Plenty of examples to see on the web (trainging gear for RC
heli's). This will keep damage to a minimum if nothing else.
>
> Any suggestions or comments about the radios will be appreciated.
Don't fuck about with the dodgy radio, get it sorted by the manufacturer and
use the training gear.
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
Danny
RX. That is why I thought placing the matching Tx crystal, 72.050, from the
failing transmitter, into the Falcon 40 transmitter, would allow me to use
the F40 transmitter for the Apache. I did not change the 72.050 Rx crystal,
mounted on the receiver in the Apache helo, but only put the matching TX
crystal in the F40 transmitter.
Should that not have worked to allow me to enable the F40 transmitter on a
frequency other than that with which it was shipped? In summary, I had
72.050 RX crystal in the Apache and 72.050 TX in the transmitter that came
with the Falcon 40. But no joy. Both transmitters and receivers are in the
72 MHz freq. systems.
I suppose the next question how would I be able to use a Futaba radio with
the Apache if I chose to purchase one of them if I can't get another
transmitter to work?
Danny
"Beav" <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in message
news:q7u_m.167$PV...@newsfe19.ams2...
Beav
> Thanks for the response, Beav. I am familiar with matching freq on TX and
> RX. That is why I thought placing the matching Tx crystal, 72.050, from
> the failing transmitter, into the Falcon 40 transmitter, would allow me to
> use the F40 transmitter for the Apache. I did not change the 72.050 Rx
> crystal, mounted on the receiver in the Apache helo, but only put the
> matching TX crystal in the F40 transmitter.
>
> Should that not have worked to allow me to enable the F40 transmitter on a
> frequency other than that with which it was shipped?
Well it would IF the two transmitters were of the same make or at least had
crystals from the same set. Mind ewe, if one of the components is PCM and
the other is PPM, then all bets are off.
> In summary, I had 72.050 RX crystal in the Apache and 72.050 TX in the
> transmitter that came with the Falcon 40. But no joy. Both transmitters
> and receivers are in the 72 MHz freq. systems.
ASre they both PPM or PCM? If not, then it's possible to switch (via inbuilt
software) the Tx from one state to the other. Ususally, but I'm not familiar
with the Falcon, so I can't say for sure if the Tx has that capability.
>
> I suppose the next question how would I be able to use a Futaba radio with
> the Apache if I chose to purchase one of them if I can't get another
> transmitter to work?
I'd be VERY tempted to take the heli to a shop and try a Futaba Tx "on
site". Then, if things don't work, the dude who works at the store should be
able to tell you why. There are a few Tx that are compatible with other
makes, but there are increasingly more that don't, so it's best to"try
before you buy". Avoid on-line shopping until you're sure that what you're
buying will work when you get it.
Danny
have not idea what those letters stand for...yet. But I will search it out.
Google is my friend! The advise to have it checked at a shop is likely good
advice as well. I'm sure if I took the receiver out of the two helo and
switched them it would likely work, but that is NOT going to happen. The
seller would have to flatly refuse to help me resolve the bad transmitter
problem before I would even consider that.
Thanks again Beav.
Danny
"Beav" <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in message
news:F4w_m.176$PV....@newsfe19.ams2...
Steve R.
> Okay. It might be the PPM, PCM thingy. I am so new to this hobby, that I
> have not idea what those letters stand for...yet.
>
Hi Danny,
They're almost things of the past. Way back in the dawn of RC, the systems
operated on AM modulation. As the technology advanced, they started
switching over to FM modulation. It was more stable and a little more
resistant to interference than AM. That rocked along until they came out
with PCM. FM and PCM are both "FM" modulation except that PCM digitally
encodes the flight commands and also allowed for functions like fail safe
that weren't possible with straight FM or AM. PCM was also another step up
in resistance to interference but could still be shot down. It's main
advantage was that, because of the fail safe feature, it wouldn't go crazy,
trying to follow the interference signal, like it would with regular FM or
AM systems. PCM will actually fly through minor interference hits without
the pilot knowing the difference. There's been a lot of "discussion"
through the years as to whether or not that was a good thing! ;-) PCM
transmitters were, in most cases, capable of transmitting in FM mode or PCM
mode (which is what Beav was referring to) so they were backward compatible
with older receivers, a fact that was greatly appreciated at the time
because we could continue to use the equipment we already had. That of
course, worked if you stuck with the same brand. Futaba to Futaba or JR to
JR. The major manufacturer like Futaba and JR used different encoding
methods so they weren't compatible with each other. A Futaba transmitter
wouldn't fly a JR receiver and vice versa although both were capable of
shooting the other down if someone got careless about watching the frequency
board.
As time went on, FM started being referred to as PPM. I don't remember
hearing what PPM stands for but it is, for all intents and purposed, just
the old FM transmitting method. PCM = Pulse Code Modulation.
These days, the standard is 2.4 GHz and is yet another step up in resistance
to interference, not to mention the fact that we don't have to worry about
frequency pins any more. That's my favorite part. I'm just waiting for the
FCC here in the States to take the 72 and 75 MHz frequencies away from us as
fewer and fewer of us are using them.
I think I got most of this right. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I got
anything wrong! :-)
Good luck with your problem & Fly Safe,
Steve R.
Danny
different brands, thus the compatibility issue. Just trying to educate
myself and without an onsite tutor, you guys will be part of that process.
I'm leaving the radios and crystals alone for now. I was trying to fly the
co-axial Apache outside, yesterday. Relatively calm winds. The flybar has
chrome or nickel plate balls on the ends and one was slung off. So I can not
fly it presently. I have two replacement flybars on order.
And as Beav had suggested in his first reply, I had already 'engineered'
some training gear onto the Apache. I must be patient. Going through Radd's
Flight School currently and it stresses a patient process.
God, give me patience, and GIVE IT TO ME NOW!
Thanks again guys for your help.
Danny
"Steve R." <srho...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ceWdnQzNu5KYMKfW...@giganews.com...
Danny
Beav wrote:
> And it needs to be. The falcon 40 is (almost) a "proper" RC heli, while
> the co-ax is something slightly above a fun time toy.
Beav, what would be your choice of a 'proper' helicopter, for my experience
level, considering I am presently sitting at zero hours of experience with
RC Helo flying.
Danny
Steve R.
> Thanks for the concise explanation, Steve. I'm certain my two units are
> of different brands, thus the compatibility issue. Just trying to educate
> myself and without an onsite tutor, you guys will be part of that process.
> I'm leaving the radios and crystals alone for now. I was trying to fly the
> co-axial Apache outside, yesterday. Relatively calm winds. The flybar
> has chrome or nickel plate balls on the ends and one was slung off. So I
> can not fly it presently. I have two replacement flybars on order.
> And as Beav had suggested in his first reply, I had already 'engineered'
> some training gear onto the Apache. I must be patient. Going through
> Radd's Flight School currently and it stresses a patient process.
>
> God, give me patience, and GIVE IT TO ME NOW!
>
> Thanks again guys for your help.
> Danny
>
Hi Danny,
Your Welcome! :-)
I don't know were in the world you are. I'm assuming you're in the States.
Anyway, there's a web site at http://www.pilotlocator.net/home.php that
might help. The people registered here are there to make themselves
available to folks such as yourself. We all understand the frustration of
finding someone who know's what's going on. I'm on the Gulf Coast in Texas
if you happen to be anywhere close. If not, give it a look. Maybe you'll
get lucky! It's so much easier when you're talking to someone in person.
Good luck,
Steve R.
Danny
believe I see three other 'locals' registered there as well.
Danny
"Steve R." <srho...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hsWdnatAOM0s96bW...@giganews.com...
Beav
> "Danny" <drm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hhe6pq$cdb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Okay. It might be the PPM, PCM thingy. I am so new to this hobby, that I
>> have not idea what those letters stand for...yet.
>> Danny
>>
>
> Hi Danny,
>
> They're almost things of the past. Way back in the dawn of RC, the
> systems operated on AM modulation. As the technology advanced, they
> started switching over to FM modulation. It was more stable and a little
> more resistant to interference than AM. That rocked along until they came
> out with PCM. FM and PCM are both "FM" modulation except that PCM
> digitally encodes the flight commands and also allowed for functions like
> fail safe that weren't possible with straight FM or AM.
Brilliant idea IF the operator went to the trouble of actually setting the
fail safe so it hlped rather than hindered. A pal of mine didn't and his
X-cell Pro simply fucked off never to be seen again. If he'd set the
throttle to close (at least) then he'd have had a dead heli for sure, but at
least one that he could pick up and nurse back to health.
> PCM was also another step up in resistance to interference but could
> still be shot down. It's main advantage was that, because of the fail
> safe feature, it wouldn't go crazy, trying to follow the interference
> signal, like it would with regular FM or AM systems. PCM will actually
> fly through minor interference hits without the pilot knowing the
> difference. There's been a lot of "discussion" through the years as to
> whether or not that was a good thing! ;-)
Ignorance is bliss :-)
> PCM transmitters were, in most cases, capable of transmitting in FM mode
> or PCM mode (which is what Beav was referring to) so they were backward
> compatible with older receivers, a fact that was greatly appreciated at
> the time because we could continue to use the equipment we already had.
> That of course, worked if you stuck with the same brand. Futaba to Futaba
> or JR to JR. The major manufacturer like Futaba and JR used different
> encoding methods so they weren't compatible with each other. A Futaba
> transmitter wouldn't fly a JR receiver and vice versa although both were
> capable of shooting the other down if someone got careless about watching
> the frequency board.
>
> As time went on, FM started being referred to as PPM. I don't remember
> hearing what PPM stands for but it is, for all intents and purposed, just
> the old FM transmitting method. PCM = Pulse Code Modulation.
Pulsed Power Modulation Steve.
>
> These days, the standard is 2.4 GHz and is yet another step up in
> resistance to interference, not to mention the fact that we don't have to
> worry about frequency pins any more. That's my favorite part. I'm just
> waiting for the FCC here in the States to take the 72 and 75 MHz
> frequencies away from us as fewer and fewer of us are using them.
That's how we got 35mhz over here. Too many "outlaws" using the old 27mhz
forced those in power to do something. Now that 2.4 is here, things have
changed a lot.
>
> I think I got most of this right. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I got
> anything wrong! :-)
There aiontl no-one here can correct you matey boy :-)
Beav
> Thanks for the concise explanation, Steve. I'm certain my two units are
> of different brands, thus the compatibility issue. Just trying to educate
> myself and without an onsite tutor, you guys will be part of that process.
> I'm leaving the radios and crystals alone for now. I was trying to fly the
> co-axial Apache outside, yesterday. Relatively calm winds. The flybar has
> chrome or nickel plate balls on the ends and one was slung off. So I can
> not fly it presently. I have two replacement flybars on order.
> And as Beav had suggested in his first reply, I had already 'engineered'
> some training gear onto the Apache. I must be patient. Going through
> Radd's Flight School currently and it stresses a patient process.
>
> God, give me patience, and GIVE IT TO ME NOW!
Get him to give you a simulator too Danny :-)
Beav
First port of call would be a simulator. As for a "proper" heli, I consider
anything that's equipped with collective pitch and not electric powered to
be getting close. Heli's of choice that I've used for teaching for the past
20 years are:-
Kalt Cyclone. 50/60 powered (nitro). No longer in production.
Kyosho Concept 30. 30 powered (5cc nitro). Again, no longer in production.
Thunder Tigre Raptor. 30, 50, 60 and 90 powered. All good but none as good
as the Concept. Still available.
A thing to bear in mind is size (and weight). The more inertia a machine
has, the easier it is to control and with size and weight comes inertia. Not
as "flighty" as something palm or "sports hall" sized and capable of
handling winds without trouble. Of course, as inertia is the force that
keeps stationary things stationary, it also keeps moving things moving, it's
easier to keep the heli still (hovering), but once it "gets away" from you,
it gets away at a fucking good rate of knots. An instructor is a fucking
good idea as is a well set up machine.
It's well known that I'm not a great fan of electric heli's, even though
I've owned a few over the years and have recently bought another two, but
these latest ones are for farting about with trying to knock one out of the
sky with the other (my son handling the offensive manoeuvres:-). This isn't
to say that they're crap, but they're not noisy enough, not smelly enough
and they don't fly for long enough to suit me. Nitro powered heli's have the
right amount of inertia for their size, but generally speaking, they used to
cost more than electrics although I'm not sure this is true now.
Electrics are easier to get started with, but given the choice between a 50
sized electric and a 50 sized nitro powered heli, I'd go with the nitro
every time. Look at the TT Raptor range as they're possibly the best value
for money nitro machines out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6L-feZnj5k&feature=related
Not bad for not much money.
Steve R.
>
> "Steve R." <srho...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ceWdnQzNu5KYMKfW...@giganews.com...
>> "Danny" <drm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhe6pq$cdb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Okay. It might be the PPM, PCM thingy. I am so new to this hobby, that I
>>> have not idea what those letters stand for...yet.
>>> Danny
>>>
>>
>> Hi Danny,
>>
>> They're almost things of the past. Way back in the dawn of RC, the
>> systems operated on AM modulation. As the technology advanced, they
>> started switching over to FM modulation. It was more stable and a little
>> more resistant to interference than AM. That rocked along until they
>> came out with PCM. FM and PCM are both "FM" modulation except that PCM
>> digitally encodes the flight commands and also allowed for functions like
>> fail safe that weren't possible with straight FM or AM.
>
> Brilliant idea IF the operator went to the trouble of actually setting the
> fail safe so it hlped rather than hindered. A pal of mine didn't and his
> X-cell Pro simply fucked off never to be seen again. If he'd set the
> throttle to close (at least) then he'd have had a dead heli for sure, but
> at least one that he could pick up and nurse back to health.
>
You bet! I fail safe everything. Cyclic and tail go to neutral positions.
Collective goes to about +2 and throttle goes to idle. It won't stay in the
air but if it's level when the lockout happens it'll come down relatively
softly. It'll still get bent if this happens at altitude but the rotor rpm
will be relatively slow and the damage, hopefully, will be minimized. I've
actually had a couple of lockouts from a stable hover and the bird just
landed with no damage at all! :-)
>> PCM was also another step up in resistance to interference but could
>> still be shot down. It's main advantage was that, because of the fail
>> safe feature, it wouldn't go crazy, trying to follow the interference
>> signal, like it would with regular FM or AM systems. PCM will actually
>> fly through minor interference hits without the pilot knowing the
>> difference. There's been a lot of "discussion" through the years as to
>> whether or not that was a good thing! ;-)
>
> Ignorance is bliss :-)
>
Unfortunately!
>> PCM transmitters were, in most cases, capable of transmitting in FM mode
>> or PCM mode (which is what Beav was referring to) so they were backward
>> compatible with older receivers, a fact that was greatly appreciated at
>> the time because we could continue to use the equipment we already had.
>> That of course, worked if you stuck with the same brand. Futaba to
>> Futaba or JR to JR. The major manufacturer like Futaba and JR used
>> different encoding methods so they weren't compatible with each other. A
>> Futaba transmitter wouldn't fly a JR receiver and vice versa although
>> both were capable of shooting the other down if someone got careless
>> about watching the frequency board.
>>
>> As time went on, FM started being referred to as PPM. I don't remember
>> hearing what PPM stands for but it is, for all intents and purposed, just
>> the old FM transmitting method. PCM = Pulse Code Modulation.
>
> Pulsed Power Modulation Steve.
Cool! Now I know! Thanks!
>>
>> These days, the standard is 2.4 GHz and is yet another step up in
>> resistance to interference, not to mention the fact that we don't have to
>> worry about frequency pins any more. That's my favorite part. I'm just
>> waiting for the FCC here in the States to take the 72 and 75 MHz
>> frequencies away from us as fewer and fewer of us are using them.
>
> That's how we got 35mhz over here. Too many "outlaws" using the old 27mhz
> forced those in power to do something. Now that 2.4 is here, things have
> changed a lot.
>
>>
>> I think I got most of this right. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I got
>> anything wrong! :-)
>
> There aiontl no-one here can correct you matey boy :-)
>
Wanna bet? Ask the OTHER Kevin, aka Skiddz over at Helifreak. Besides, I
seem to remember you setting me straight a few times through the years! ;-)
Fly Safe,
Steve R.
Steve R.
>
> "Danny" <drm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hhemp9$8b1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>> Beav wrote:
>>> And it needs to be. The falcon 40 is (almost) a "proper" RC heli, while
>>> the co-ax is something slightly above a fun time toy.
>>
>>
>> Beav, what would be your choice of a 'proper' helicopter, for my
>> experience level, considering I am presently sitting at zero hours of
>> experience with RC Helo flying.
>
> First port of call would be a simulator. As for a "proper" heli, I
> consider anything that's equipped with collective pitch and not electric
> powered to be getting close.
> has, the easier it is to control and with size and weight comes inertia.
> Not as "flighty" as something palm or "sports hall" sized and capable of
> handling winds without trouble. Of course, as inertia is the force that
> keeps stationary things stationary, it also keeps moving things moving,
> it's easier to keep the heli still (hovering), but once it "gets away"
> from you, it gets away at a fucking good rate of knots. An instructor is a
> fucking good idea as is a well set up machine.
>
> It's well known that I'm not a great fan of electric heli's, even though
> I've owned a few over the years and have recently bought another two, but
> these latest ones are for farting about with trying to knock one out of
> the sky with the other (my son handling the offensive manoeuvres:-). This
> isn't to say that they're crap, but they're not noisy enough, not smelly
> enough and they don't fly for long enough to suit me. Nitro powered heli's
> have the right amount of inertia for their size, but generally speaking,
> they used to cost more than electrics although I'm not sure this is true
> now.
>
> Beav
>
> VN 750
> Zed 1000
> OMF# 19
>
I agree with what Beav has said here. Definitely get the sim. I taught a
guy a few year ago. We setup his Stinger 30 (a Raptor knock off) with a
buddy box and I took him from raw beginner to soloing on his own in about 6
months. He was actually ready to be free of me before that but just wanted
the security blanket. It was a lot of fun for both of us. He had spent a
lot of time on the sim before we hooked up and was nicely solid in his first
hovering attempts. I figure I saved him a couple dozen rebuilds when he
started moving the bird around. It takes a while to develop the orientation
skills needed when the bird flies away from you and we were able explore all
angles of orientation together. Between me and the sim, he picked up
nose-in hovering pretty fast. I've also found that most folks try to
advance way faster than they should. A sim can make all the difference with
that.
I also prefer nitros to electrics at this point. Lipo batteries can be
expensive, especially for the larger birds, although that's getting better,
and you'll need the charging equipment for them. The batteries aren't that
bad, price wise, for the smaller birds but then you run into the issues of
stability and visibility. They get small, "real fast" when they fly away
from you. The positive side of electrics is that, once you've got the
batteries, you're pretty much done. Nitro fuel isn't cheap either and nitro
birds are messy compared to their electric counterparts. In the case of my
ex-student, I'm glad we had a nitro bird to work with. Unless you've got a
fair number of batteries to play with, you'll be spending down time waiting
for batteries to recharge. That's not an issue with nitro powered machines.
Good luck & Fly Safe,
Steve R.
Beav
Done it myself Steve and like you say, the damage can be minimal.
>
>>> PCM was also another step up in resistance to interference but could
>>> still be shot down. It's main advantage was that, because of the fail
>>> safe feature, it wouldn't go crazy, trying to follow the interference
>>> signal, like it would with regular FM or AM systems. PCM will actually
>>> fly through minor interference hits without the pilot knowing the
>>> difference. There's been a lot of "discussion" through the years as to
>>> whether or not that was a good thing! ;-)
>>
>> Ignorance is bliss :-)
>>
>
> Unfortunately!
That was always the main topic under discussion wrt to PCM being better or
worse. Is it good to know if something's in the air causing a disturbance,
or not. I like to know but I don't like it to fuck the heli up either :-)
>
>>> PCM transmitters were, in most cases, capable of transmitting in FM
>>> mode or PCM mode (which is what Beav was referring to) so they were
>>> backward compatible with older receivers, a fact that was greatly
>>> appreciated at the time because we could continue to use the equipment
>>> we already had. That of course, worked if you stuck with the same brand.
>>> Futaba to Futaba or JR to JR. The major manufacturer like Futaba and JR
>>> used different encoding methods so they weren't compatible with each
>>> other. A Futaba transmitter wouldn't fly a JR receiver and vice versa
>>> although both were capable of shooting the other down if someone got
>>> careless about watching the frequency board.
>>>
>>> As time went on, FM started being referred to as PPM. I don't remember
>>> hearing what PPM stands for but it is, for all intents and purposed,
>>> just the old FM transmitting method. PCM = Pulse Code Modulation.
>>
>> Pulsed Power Modulation Steve.
>
> Cool! Now I know! Thanks!
No probs, you know that.
>
>>>
>>> These days, the standard is 2.4 GHz and is yet another step up in
>>> resistance to interference, not to mention the fact that we don't have
>>> to worry about frequency pins any more. That's my favorite part. I'm
>>> just waiting for the FCC here in the States to take the 72 and 75 MHz
>>> frequencies away from us as fewer and fewer of us are using them.
>>
>> That's how we got 35mhz over here. Too many "outlaws" using the old 27mhz
>> forced those in power to do something. Now that 2.4 is here, things have
>> changed a lot.
>>
>>>
>>> I think I got most of this right. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I got
>>> anything wrong! :-)
>>
>> There aiontl no-one here can correct you matey boy :-)
>>
>
> Wanna bet? Ask the OTHER Kevin, aka Skiddz over at Helifreak.
Do I really want to go to Helifreak? I'll have a squizz and see what's what.
> Besides, I seem to remember you setting me straight a few times through
> the years! ;-)
Never, it's a lie I tell you, a lie. :-) I must've got you confused with
another Steve.
Beav
I recently watched a You toob vid of a guy who had his "supposedly" first
flight fimed. The clip was up to about 4 minuteswhen he was holdeing a
pretty good stable hover. Unfortunately, he forgot to mention that the clip
wasn't shot "as one", and most definitely not on the same day. One day he
had traing gear on and at the 4-5 minute mark, it mysteriously disappeard. I
knew it was bo9llocks, but the comments showed that others cicn't.
>He was actually ready to be free of me before that but just wanted the
>security blanket. It was a lot of fun for both of us. He had spent a lot
>of time on the sim before we hooked up and was nicely solid in his first
>hovering attempts. I figure I saved him a couple dozen rebuilds when he
>started moving the bird around.
I know I've saved a lot of guys a shit load of money and grief over the
years by rescuing dead helicopters seconds before they died :-)
> It takes a while to develop the orientation skills needed when the bird
> flies away from you and we were able explore all angles of orientation
> together. Between me and the sim, he picked up nose-in hovering pretty
> fast. I've also found that most folks try to advance way faster than they
> should. A sim can make all the difference with that.
Most guys want to fly like the experts on their first day and it comes a a
bit of shock to most when they discover that's not going to happen. Sims are
a must for those types.
>
> I also prefer nitros to electrics at this point. Lipo batteries can be
> expensive, especially for the larger birds, although that's getting
> better, and you'll need the charging equipment for them. The batteries
> aren't that bad, price wise, for the smaller birds but then you run into
> the issues of stability and visibility. They get small, "real fast" when
> they fly away from you.
Yep and I'm not impressed with the ease at which a Li-Po can self ignite
either.
> The positive side of electrics is that, once you've got the batteries,
> you're pretty much done. Nitro fuel isn't cheap either and nitro birds
> are messy compared to their electric counterparts. In the case of my
> ex-student, I'm glad we had a nitro bird to work with.
I wouldn't ever try to teach someone at the field with an electric heli.
> Unless you've got a fair number of batteries to play with, you'll be
> spending down time waiting for batteries to recharge. That's not an issue
> with nitro powered machines.
Persackerly.
Skywise
I've had lots of sim time (20+ yrs), but not RC sim time.
So I know what does what and how it all interacts.
I fashioned my own training gear, and took baby steps.
I crashed quite a few times learning but I took it in stride.
I've had zero buddy time.
A year on I'm still not pushing myself hard. I have yet to
even consider a nose in hover. I can fly back and forth OK,
as long as the turns are nose out.
I just take the attitude that if I were in a real bird, I
wouldn't be pushing my envelope and risking death, so why
should I with an RC?. I'm at the point that if I get squirly
I just point the tail in and hover. I don't crash anymore...
well, I do....once in a long while and it's usually not hard.
In fact, my last one didn't even crack the blades.
To be honest, I don't think I'm all that interested in doing
3D or other stunts with the heli. I think it's cool enough
just to see that tiny machine sitting there in the air.
Now...my P51 is another story. I'm worried the wings are going
to snap off.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Danny
with it before I try to hover or fly the Falcon 40. I did receive the
flybar for the Apache co-axial. But within a few minutes, the teeth on the
main gear (lower most gear) was stripped. Replacements on order. Apache is
disassembled and awaiting parts.
Danny
"Beav" <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in message
news:1iQ_m.2644$Gj2....@newsfe01.ams2...
Steve R.
news:d58%m.20973$pV.1...@newsfe23.ams2...
Hi Brian,
>I guess I'm somewhat unique in the training department.
>
> I've had lots of sim time (20+ yrs), but not RC sim time.
> So I know what does what and how it all interacts.
>
> I fashioned my own training gear, and took baby steps.
>
> I crashed quite a few times learning but I took it in stride.
>
> I've had zero buddy time.
>
> A year on I'm still not pushing myself hard. I have yet to
> even consider a nose in hover. I can fly back and forth OK,
> as long as the turns are nose out.
>
> I just take the attitude that if I were in a real bird, I
> wouldn't be pushing my envelope and risking death, so why
> should I with an RC?. I'm at the point that if I get squirly
> I just point the tail in and hover. I don't crash anymore...
> well, I do....once in a long while and it's usually not hard.
> In fact, my last one didn't even crack the blades.
>
Welcome to the club. Pretty much all of us old timers learned just like you
are. The only difference is we didn't have the option. There weren't any
RC sims back then. Shoot, there weren't any home computers back then!!
Experienced pilots were very few and far between and the radio systems
didn't have buddy box capability even if the experienced guys were around.
Just keep doing what you're doing. You'll get there just fine.
> To be honest, I don't think I'm all that interested in doing
> 3D or other stunts with the heli. I think it's cool enough
> just to see that tiny machine sitting there in the air.
>
No offense, but I've heard that before! ;-) The more you learn and the
more comfortable you get with the model, the more you're going to want to
do. Basic aerobatics like loops and rolls aren't that big a deal and once
you get them down, they're the building blocks toward more complicated
maneuvers. You'll see!
Have fun and Fly Safe,
Steve R.
Beav
> Simulator (FMS) is expected to arrive by Saturday. I will spend much time
> with it before I try to hover or fly the Falcon 40. I did receive the
> flybar for the Apache co-axial. But within a few minutes, the teeth on the
> main gear (lower most gear) was stripped. Replacements on order. Apache is
> disassembled and awaiting parts.
>
> Danny
Simulator DEFINITELY a must :-)
Beav
>
> I've had lots of sim time (20+ yrs), but not RC sim time.
> So I know what does what and how it all interacts.
>
> I fashioned my own training gear, and took baby steps.
Me too, but my training gear was in the form of scale inflatable pontoons (I
was learning on a 61 powered Kavan Jet Ranger)
>
> I crashed quite a few times learning but I took it in stride.
>
> I've had zero buddy time.
>
> A year on I'm still not pushing myself hard. I have yet to
> even consider a nose in hover. I can fly back and forth OK,
> as long as the turns are nose out.
Not a million miles from what most of us old bastards did back when RC
heli's were in their infancy. No sims and definitely no-one to buddy-box to,
so it was go out, crash, go home, repair, go out, crash, go home, repair,
blah blah, until we managed some sort of control.
>
> I just take the attitude that if I were in a real bird, I
> wouldn't be pushing my envelope and risking death, so why
> should I with an RC?. I'm at the point that if I get squirly
> I just point the tail in and hover. I don't crash anymore...
Famous last words :-)
> well, I do....once in a long while and it's usually not hard.
> In fact, my last one didn't even crack the blades.
So it was a landing :-)
>
> To be honest, I don't think I'm all that interested in doing
> 3D or other stunts with the heli. I think it's cool enough
> just to see that tiny machine sitting there in the air.
As your ability to master with one manoeuvre gets easier, it gets harder to
not try something new and before you know it, you'll be doing backwards
tumbling figure eights at 10 feet altitude. Or die of boredom. I LOVE to fly
a scale heli in as scale-like manner as possible, but although it's good, it
doesn't produce the heartbeat raising fear of imminent wallet death or
serious injury.
>
> Now...my P51 is another story. I'm worried the wings are going
> to snap off.
Only a problem if you can't get the canopy open before the ground does its
job :-)
Beav
Indeed. I remember the first ever loop I attempted. It was during the same
flight I did my first ever circuit and it didn't end well:-) Nice circuit,
(well.... under some sort of control) followed immediately by another
circuit and then the thought struck me.... "Will this fucker loop?"
I got it half way round (so it's now upside down and about 50ft up) when I
realised it'd lost all forward speed. The wind was now coming at the heli
from behind (sneak fucking wind eh?) and the bastard thing weather-cocked.
Of course, these days, heli's DONT weather-cock because they've got heading
lock gyro's while mine didn't have ANY kind of gyro (what are gyro's, the
didn't exist when we began).
Anyway... upside down, travelling at a speed slower than the tail wind
results in a perfect 180 degree rotation, so now the heli is flying upside
down and backwards, Just long enough to complete 3/4 of a loop, at which
point, the tail rotor buried itself in the dirt. Sort of like an Ostrich,
but different:-)
I got a nice round of applause, because there were hundreds of people
watching as this was at an early helicopter show and at that time, heli's
were FUCKING hard to fly so they attracted lots of airplane flyers who
thought they may �give 'em a go" and we all know what happened to TTHAT
idea.
They DID "give 'em a go", discovered they couldn't fly these things so built
walls at clubs all over the world in an effort to try to "outlaw"
helicopters as they were "Boring".
Oh those days were such fun.
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
>
Skywise
news:vhm%m.4506$YF....@newsfe09.ams2:
>> well, I do....once in a long while and it's usually not hard.
>> In fact, my last one didn't even crack the blades.
>
> So it was a landing :-)
Most NORMAL landings don't involve striking the rotors on the
ground and tipping the bird over. I'm still flying on those
blades. It messed up the covering a bit, and I figured the first
flight would cause it to shred off. But some dozen flights
later they still work. Just a small dent where they jack-knifed
into the blade grips.
Regarding stunts.... I suppose I'll get there eventually. I'm
just in no hurry. Heck, I've only gone "idle up" but once or
twice.
Which actually brings up a good question. What's the recommended
first thing to try? For some reason I'm thinking autorotation.
>> Now...my P51 is another story. I'm worried the wings are going
>> to snap off.
>
> Only a problem if you can't get the canopy open before the ground does
> its job :-)
Oh, it's done it's job. Twice now. The first time was on maiden
flight day. First hand launch found the ground quickly, but no
damage (that I saw). Second flight was squirly. Way out of trim.
Getting the feel for it and coming in for it's first landing and
the damned prop spun off. Not enough altitude or speed to recover.
(remember I didn't SEE any damage - I figure the prop nut spun
loose on the earlier encounter with the ground)
Steve R.
> "Beav" <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in
> news:vhm%m.4506$YF....@newsfe09.ams2:
>
>>> well, I do....once in a long while and it's usually not hard.
>>> In fact, my last one didn't even crack the blades.
>>
>> So it was a landing :-)
>
> Most NORMAL landings don't involve striking the rotors on the
> ground and tipping the bird over. I'm still flying on those
> blades. It messed up the covering a bit, and I figured the first
> flight would cause it to shred off. But some dozen flights
> later they still work. Just a small dent where they jack-knifed
> into the blade grips.
>
> Regarding stunts.... I suppose I'll get there eventually. I'm
> just in no hurry. Heck, I've only gone "idle up" but once or
> twice.
>
> Which actually brings up a good question. What's the recommended
> first thing to try? For some reason I'm thinking autorotation.
>
>
When I learned to fly and "finally" got comfortable with forward flight,
autorotations were the first thing I started working on. I was totally
paranoid about crashing just because the engine quit. As it turned out, my
first "oh sh**" situation requiring an auto was a tail failure, not an
engine failure, so what did I know. I saved it by the way. It was
definitely one of those "better to be lucky than good" situations but I
wasn't complaining at the time. What a rush! :-D Autorotations should be
very high on your list of things to master. Besides, they're tons of fun!
You might want to look up some reading on the aerodynamics of rotorcraft if
you haven't done that already. I did way back when and it helped me
understand a lot of things I'd been experiencing. Things like translational
lift, translating tendency, settling with power or vortex ring state, and a
wonderful little thing called a height/velocity chart that pertains to
autorotations. I'm a rated private pilot and was still active flying
Cessna's back then so the book I used was, I think, the version of this one
that was available back then.
http://www.amazon.com/Rotorcraft-Flying-Handbook-FAA-Handbooks/dp/1560274042#noop
Much of it was pretty dry reading but it had a lot of good info about how
helicopters fly. Even though it's talking about full size and we're flying
models, the info still applies. Just a thought if you're interested! :-)
As far as aerobatics go, the loop is the simplest to do IMO but as with all
things helicopter, work up to it slowly. I've seen too many people spend
way more money than they needed to (including ME!) by trying to advance too
quickly. I don't get the impression you're having that problem yet. ;-)
Fly Safe,
Steve R.
Beav
> "Beav" <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in
> news:vhm%m.4506$YF....@newsfe09.ams2:
>
>>> well, I do....once in a long while and it's usually not hard.
>>> In fact, my last one didn't even crack the blades.
>>
>> So it was a landing :-)
>
> Most NORMAL landings don't involve striking the rotors on the
> ground and tipping the bird over.
They don't? Fuck, I've got some learning to do.
>I'm still flying on those
> blades. It messed up the covering a bit, and I figured the first
> flight would cause it to shred off. But some dozen flights
> later they still work. Just a small dent where they jack-knifed
> into the blade grips.
>
> Regarding stunts.... I suppose I'll get there eventually. I'm
> just in no hurry. Heck, I've only gone "idle up" but once or
> twice.
>
> Which actually brings up a good question. What's the recommended
> first thing to try? For some reason I'm thinking autorotation.
The likelihood of pulling off a successful first auto is pretty low. At
least an auto right down to the ground leaving the heli capable of taking
off again. None "full down" auto's are easy to practice, but not a full
down.
First aerobatic manoeuvre to try is the loop because for the first (and
hardest part) entails the heli GAINING height, rather than losing it. No
concerns about weather-cocking fucking the job up these days, and it's the
only manoeuvre that DOES start with a height gain. That leaves you room to
sort things out if they go tits up.
The next is a "climbing" roll. By climbing, I mean *JUST* climbing (about 10
degrees is plenty) because if the heli is climbing the slight nose up
attitude means you do NOT have to change collective as the heli rolls. It
won't be pretty, but it will go the full 360 degrees, If the heli is
perfectly level, you'll need roughly 4 degrees of negative at the inverted
stage to stop the whole thing dropping and if the nose is DOWN (like it is
when it's flying straight and level under power), then you'll need closer to
10 degrees negative at the inverted stage or you'll be picking up the lawn
dart very soon.
For a loop, things are far easier. Get up some speed, pull a little back
stick, take off a little pitch (no neg) and gradually pull full back stick.
It can't do anything BUT loop if the heli is set up properly. If it's not,
youo'll just end up doing a nice stall turn.
One bit of advice... If you've got the facility to use "rate" instead of
"heading lock" on your gyro, use "rate" for doing your first loop just in
case it DOES only want to stall turn. If you've got HH switched in, then you
could witness a heli reverse smoothly into the ground:-)
>>> Now...my P51 is another story. I'm worried the wings are going
>>> to snap off.
>>
>> Only a problem if you can't get the canopy open before the ground does
>> its job :-)
>
> Oh, it's done it's job. Twice now. The first time was on maiden
> flight day. First hand launch found the ground quickly, but no
> damage (that I saw). Second flight was squirly. Way out of trim.
> Getting the feel for it and coming in for it's first landing and
> the damned prop spun off. Not enough altitude or speed to recover.
> (remember I didn't SEE any damage - I figure the prop nut spun
> loose on the earlier encounter with the ground)
Ahh, the reason for a proper pre-flight once again becomes apparent.
Check it once, check it twice and when you're sure everything is hunky dory,
check the twat again.
Skywise
> You might want to look up some reading on the aerodynamics of rotorcraft
> if you haven't done that already. I did way back when and it helped me
> understand a lot of things I'd been experiencing. Things like
> translational lift, translating tendency, settling with power or vortex
> ring state, and a wonderful little thing called a height/velocity chart
> that pertains to autorotations.
Thanks for the thoughts. I'm already familiar with most of those
and have even experienced a few. I know about the "coffin corner."
But there is one I've not seen before, "translating tendency", so
I obviosuly still have things to learn*.
I've been an armchair pilot for 20+ years. Getting my private is
still on my list of things to do.
*a phrase I made for myself long ago, and it's an important one
for all intelligent folks to recognize, is, "I know enough to know
I don't know enough."
Skywise
news:VIG%m.7037$Ma2...@newsfe04.ams2:
> "Skywise" <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in message
> news:1Nz%m.5730$0%7.4...@newsfe27.ams2...
>
>> Most NORMAL landings don't involve striking the rotors on the
>> ground and tipping the bird over.
>
> They don't? Fuck, I've got some learning to do.
That's what makes you such an expert!!!!
Thanks for the instructions. I've marked your's and Steve's
posts for future reference.
> Ahh, the reason for a proper pre-flight once again becomes apparent.
>
> Check it once, check it twice and when you're sure everything is hunky
> dory, check the twat again.
I sure do now!!!! Lesson learned. Fortunately it only cost me
a week of gluing.
Steve R.
> "Steve R." <srho...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:QKadnUBKa5R9SqPW...@giganews.com:
>
>> You might want to look up some reading on the aerodynamics of rotorcraft
>> if you haven't done that already. I did way back when and it helped me
>> understand a lot of things I'd been experiencing. Things like
>> translational lift, translating tendency, settling with power or vortex
>> ring state, and a wonderful little thing called a height/velocity chart
>> that pertains to autorotations.
>
> Thanks for the thoughts. I'm already familiar with most of those
> and have even experienced a few. I know about the "coffin corner."
> But there is one I've not seen before, "translating tendency", so
> I obviosuly still have things to learn*.
>
>
Cool. Didn't mean to dwell on the blatantly obvious for you but I've met so
many people through the years that didn't know about translational lift was.
It's funny though, they tell ya all about hovering the model and doing so
good when all the sudden it just shoots straight up and "they" didn't move a
thing???? All mother nature has to do is give em a little puff of wind and
that's all it takes. The look of relief on their faces when they finally
"understand" what's going on and that it's perfectly normal and something
they've just got to learn to deal with has also been a lot of fun for me
through the years! :-)
Translating tendency is simply the tendency to the model to slide in the
direction of the tail rotor thrust. You'll notice that a model with a
clockwise rotation rotor system, is always leaning a little to the right in
a hover. The tail is thrusting to the left side while it counters the
torque reaction and the slight lean to the right creates an component of
thrust from the main rotor in the opposite direction to counter the effect.
Models with a counter-clockwise rotor rotation will lean to the left.
You'll see this in the full size birds too. I discovered all this the first
time I tried to fly off a smooth hard surface. As the model got light on
the skids, it would start sliding in the direction of the tail thrust but I
didn't understand why. I tried countering with opposite cyclic but at that
instance, I wasn't carrying enough power for the cyclic to have enough
control authority to help. As I increased power, it finally got to the
point where the cyclic started responding. Of course, the model was
tracking sideways pretty good by now and I was holding a lot of cyclic.
When it all came together, the model just rolled over in place while still
essentially the ground. It happened very quickly and I was in full "what
the....." mode. The book I pointed you to in my previous post is where I
learned what was going on. After that, I just learned to go ahead and bring
it off the ground first, then worry about the sideways drift. These days, I
can balance it all out where the bird lifts one skid first and then comes
straight up off the ground. It's just a matter of coordinating cyclic,
tail, and collective to do it. It's not hard, once you learn how! ;-)
Skywise
> Translating tendency is simply the tendency to the model to slide in the
> direction of the tail rotor thrust. You'll notice that a model with a
> clockwise rotation rotor system, is always leaning a little to the right
> in a hover.
Ah....I knew that one. Just didn't know the name for it.
And I know what you mean about getting translational lift in a hover.
It doesn't take much of a breeze with this little electric.
Beav
> "Beav" <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in
> news:VIG%m.7037$Ma2...@newsfe04.ams2:
>
>> "Skywise" <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in message
>> news:1Nz%m.5730$0%7.4...@newsfe27.ams2...
>>
>>> Most NORMAL landings don't involve striking the rotors on the
>>> ground and tipping the bird over.
>>
>> They don't? Fuck, I've got some learning to do.
>
> That's what makes you such an expert!!!!
I'm glad I never called myself an expert then.
>
> Thanks for the instructions. I've marked your's and Steve's
> posts for future reference.
>
>> Ahh, the reason for a proper pre-flight once again becomes apparent.
>>
>> Check it once, check it twice and when you're sure everything is hunky
>> dory, check the twat again.
>
> I sure do now!!!! Lesson learned. Fortunately it only cost me
> a week of gluing.
You wouldn't believe the thousands of dollars I've seen blown in a single
day with these things.