Nigel R

What's your history with glow and/or diesel motors?

Ebay fakes and scammers, there's a different rant for a different day.

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.

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.

Some analogue servos do not like the 11ms frame rate, do not like it one little bit, magic smoke kind of not like.

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.

Well... I guess probably the more complete / correct picture is - "it depends." (apologies for slightly 'devil's advocate' question earlier BTW) Standard size digital sport servos like Bas is talking about, I'll wager not, they'll be on a standard RX/servo PWM interface. "Digitals" in this context have no extra smarts over and above analogue servos, only the position feedback/control method is digital. Fancier expensive (and certainly digital) servos can provide health status via a digital bus. Not - AFAIK - widely implemented (yet), probably manufacturer specific (e.g. Futaba SBUS... Futaba servos, Futaba RX, Futaba TX), certainly top drawer product line features (after all, why would any manufacturer put this latest stuff on their basic product lines). What use is that telemetry? Temperature, position, current draw, probably you can determine and set limits and alarms. Proving out the kit install chain during first flights, health warning limits for future flights. Large models? Yes. Very fast stuff? Yes. Operating at public demos? Sure, why not. But. Investment in time setting it up, and you probably need to know how to interpret the data. Maybe the servos know enough to do sensible default warnings, I couldn't say. Sport flyer, club size model? I'm not seeing it yet myself. It's another thing to set up and monitor. Sometimes there is a place for that stuff, sometimes you want quick and simple. Those of us grabbing a 3S foamie from the boot? Probably not...

Some cost about the same. Savox standards spring to mind. Difference is, max current draw is higher, accuracy under load is better, can you tell? A small bet you couldn't, in a "proper" scientific test, double blind, etc etc. Humans are pretty good at convincing ourselves we've made excellent choices . "Digital' can be used as a pretty good sales pitch. Much better than "those old analogue things". Etc.

To the average sport flyer, next to no detectable difference, I would say. That said. In like for like cases, a digital version of an standard analogue servo will more accurately hold its position when force is applied and (usually) has higher torque - but you pay for this in terms of extra power being consumed by the servo. If you already have some, just use them. Fancy servos that can be individually reversed or have their speed adjusted or whatever, are always digital. And expensive. Why are they better if you use telemetry? Or indeed how do they affect telemetry?

the hubs are a brilliant touch, like it

Short version, yes, when it comes to outlines and profiles, just scale everything equally in all the dimensions. Material thickness is a different question.

Ok. Sorry about that. I didn't intend to alter the meaning of your post from hypothesis to assertion.

OP is asking about aliphatic and you're talking about something else. That said - I'm not sure how I'm misquoting your post, I quite literally pressed the 'quote' button. I'm not even trying to argue your point, rather I'm agreeing with it. No offense intended.

...but may dry to a more rubbery consistency, may contain something to etch nylon, etc. maybe not "just aliphatic" ? 🙂 I use the stuff on those thicker nylon hinges (without flocking) in much the same manner you describe (fill the slot, then insert the hinge) - it has never failed me. I have destruction tested a couple of test pieces - and both times the nylon hinge ripped before the wood / hinge joint would let go.

As far as I know, the flocked hinges are inserted first, you get everything all lined up in place, and only then you drop CA onto the hinge to fix it all in position. There's no 'repositioning' going on...?

I found the same. I think I concluded it was because the tailplane is relatively large compared to the wing. The design is quite docile, in my experience, not prone to dropping a wing at all. I also moved the tailplane up, and went with a bolt on wing and 2 micro servos on the ailerons. After 2 regular servos go in, there is not a lot of space in the fuselage for an aileron servo to waggle some torque rods about.

Tough call to make if sitting at the other end of the country on the other end of a PC. If parts of the board have exploded, it's fit only for the bin. If others from the same batch have failed, trust in them will rightly be zero. There is no way any of us can diagnose the exact extent of circuit damage in the ESC over this forum. Which means the sensible advice is, don't use them. Anyway, that's my take, it's not worth trying to reuse a failed single component, it seems to fail the "is it safe to fly?" question to my mind. However they would need to be totally unmodified - I seem to recall toto changed the main connectors on these ESCs. My money is on static damage to components. A normal manifestation of static damage is a delayed failure, under regular use. Usually this is caused by inadequate handling procedures, i.e. bare hands without static protection. Sometimes (e.g.) dodgy soldering iron or other tools.

Toto posted a photo of one showing blown output fets, if I remember rightly. That one, at least, would be complete toast.

Apples and oranges, and not the kind of scenario I described. Take off damage lead to mechanical failure with a subsequent electrical overload. As noted, separating the retract power supply would have mitigated this risk and allowed a controlled landing.

I agree. Servo connectors are the very opposite of heavy duty. A Y lead and separate retract battery achieves the necessary separation perfectly well, and isolates the likely mechanical failure away from the main flight controls.

It was also fixed by improving the tolerance of supply voltage in the next generation of receivers, if I remember rightly what I have read about the subject. If I'm honest, there was no way a healthy 4 cell nimh pack (and a decent switch with good wiring) would have dropped below the original operating voltage range - providing the pack was not overstressed. Of course, one could take a knackered old 4 cell pack, a dodgy old switch with dirty plugs or an icky solder joint, and combine them with some fancy new high power digital servos - trouble is being requested and would no doubt be delivered.

Cannot add much to the advice above. Cleanliness is everything. Copper from mains cable, bind nearly as you can.

Note, pva, not all pva is created equal, in that topic much has been written by folk more knowledgeable than I.

I'd be a little careful before flinging legal language around. Did the ESCs need any mod before use, eg soldering on a connector? Did they genuinely fail or were they broken, eg by connection with a faulty motor. Or through a faulty power path that put voltage spikes into components that could not handle them? Have they been subjected to damage from a faulty soldering iron that has caused the failure under stress of real use? I'd identify the common factor first.

Given that the low discharge Nimhs lose so little charge over time anyway, and can be fast charged in an hour from flat, I'm not certain I see a practical advantage of a lipo.