Jump to content

Nigel R

Members
  • Posts

    6,963
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Nigel R

  1. Make some hatches in the wing from thin ply, fix some wood blocks to the hatch, mount servo to the blocks. Or some pre-rolled: https://www.elitemodelsonline.co.uk/More/Radio-Equipment/Radio-Accessories/Servo-Mounts/40994-/Micro-Wing-Servo-Mount-2pcs?fo_c=3984&fo_k=582ee6f617e198858da484827152f322&fo_s=gsuruk&srsltid=AfmBOopx3hG4j84BGbo3vgVmwtsCecIvy_U7Z-MjinW5ZodtKAdJm3Adx6E Lots of ways to skin the cat. Or, just fit the upright and let the servo arm stick out into the breeze, this is usually the quickest way.
  2. Not every aviation company is in that place.
  3. I should say, despite what you might think given previous postings, I do find the whole field of manned multirotors interesting. I simply don't think that going off half baked, with people inside these things, over places with people living in them, is the right answer. It isn't 1903, we're not the Wright brothers, this isn't precisely a new field of knowledge we're exploring and discovering, and we do know how to do safety critical engineering.
  4. Because replication and redundancy comes with its own issues, it's not necessarily easy, and in life-or-death scenarios such as this, a glib sales pitch means squat. If there are two spare rotors going up, now you have a problem regarding re-routing power around between the other rotors? You've added complexity to the control systems now. Are the rotors truly redundant? As in, any and all mission scenario is possible with one or two not working or not present? Or "redundant", as in, not really redundant, but you can limp down to the ground without fatal impact? Whatever the answers - taking three copies of multiple systems up into the air is cargo you don't want to be carrying, that's reduced range or time. End of day, I wouldn't say it's extra safety in the slightest - far from it, they're doing this in order to meet basic safety needs of the cert basis. Why repeat a system three times otherwise? Customer pays extra for extra copies. As an aside, and this is a total straw man argument - the kind of language you are seeing from these kind of places is exactly the same as was seen from that ill fated Titantic tourist submarine. At its core, it was a sales pitch of "it's brilliant, because <waves hands like Paul Daniels> technology". They also thought taking multiple copies of mission critical systems onboard was "extra safety", too. And don't even mention the technology (or total lack of) in the hull of that death trap.
  5. Not going to go into much depth but I will say that including the redundant copies of various bits of hardware makes me extremely suspicious of the quality of the parts being duplicated in this manner. Another way of putting it is, they are so certain these critical parts will fail, they are fitting extra ones to take over when it happens. This doesn't feel like a project that is inspiring confidence in its basis for certification.
  6. You cannot (and, nor can I) simply look at a picture and say "I see more redundancy therefore must be safer" because the actual safety and actual engineering behind both those craft is totally invisible to a casual observer, which, I think, is what you and I both are. The real value in any aircraft is in the guarantees that certification provides. Neither of us know what Velocopter have got in the bag so far - although I will note they are late with their TC. Splat. Or more likely, a parachute pops out the top and it lands on the nearest field/person/house. Got it in one. If, and it does look like quite the big if right now, multirotors can beat helicopters as an overall package, then they will win out. And I will fly to my job at the nuclear fusion power plant in one. 😈
  7. The necessity of Certifying a multi rotor for use in anywhere you'd actually want an air taxi will quickly sort out the dreams and reality. We already have multi rotor full size aircraft. Count them on the fingers of one hand. Then compare to the numbers of single rotor helicopters. Minimum viable thing here is basically a Hughes 500. Etc.
  8. Routine emergency does are already a reality. Bunch of horse manure from an mp.
  9. Well done to all involved with Laser for bringing some true quality engines to our hobby. As the late great Douglas Adams said - so long, and thanks for all the fish.
  10. brilliant bit of kit yes, makes dust, and this needs dealing with (somehow)
  11. Bought an engine. Os40fp i think. It was exactly as described. Pretty sure it was apod i bought a silencer from, it which battered by parcel force, apod did a full refund. Happy customer.
  12. What airframe are we talking about here?
  13. Red case Irvine 40 or 46 would be ideal for the Sky. I'd avoid the older silver case ones, bit of a minefield - although they are good runners, they do not have particularly effective silencers, and many of them have plastic carbs which are not great. The red case ones are a good engine all round, such as: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/166626726799 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/355438298923 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/276354592841
  14. Sounds reassuring. Don't blame you for binning those off. I wonder if New Power will still be around when I've finally worked my way through my sizeable pile of JR 507s that refuse to give up the ghost...
  15. Nice. I almost did a scaled up Chilli instead of the Challenger. Electric or IC?
  16. Recent (ish) build for new, maidened a few weeks ago. Steve Burgess Challenger, 1984 plan in RCME: Power is an OS 61 SFP with a Brian Gardner liner and Macs pipe.
  17. Resistance doesn't dictate their heat rating. The colours on the cards might simply be related to volt range for driving them? Or as Paul says, cold might be blue etc.
  18. What's your history with glow and/or diesel motors?
  19. Ebay fakes and scammers, there's a different rant for a different day.
  20. TX control sticks also rotate around a point... That said I don't know what exact effect that has on the whole chain of controls.
  21. Savox 351 have very similar torque to the 422. In fact their quoted stall current (800mA) is the same as Hitec's quoted stall current for the 422 (and most of their other analogue standards). Usually it's a selling point... I'd have to assume not.
  22. Some analogue servos do not like the 11ms frame rate, do not like it one little bit, magic smoke kind of not like.
  23. For reference, the "standard" Savox servo is a digital: https://servoshop.co.uk/index.php?pid=SAVSG0351PLUS&area=Servo and not particularly expensive. Futaba standard servo now also digital: https://servoshop.co.uk/index.php?pid=FUT051026711&area=Servo End of day, if you want a standard servo, buy a standard servo, don't worry about the buzzword.
×
×
  • Create New...