START HERE |
|
Register | FAQ | PM | Events | Groups | Blogs | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
Unregistered
|
Blade Helicopters (eFlite) Blade Helicopters (eFlite) CP, CX, mCX CX II, CX III. and others |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-12-2015, 06:47 AM | #1 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Join Date: Sep 2013
|
How about a motorized collective tail?
I was pondering this the other day. I love my 130x fleet because of the size and performance. The downside of course is maintenance complexity. What about a heli sized between an MCPX BL and a 130x with a tail motor and a tail servo? Having the inverted backwards performance of the 130x but smaller size and less complexity?
I would like to see this: - linear cyclic servos because in 3 years of flying my 130's I've only lost one. - nano rotary tail servo like the v120D02s - beefy solid square cf tail boom with external wires - brushless out runner on the tail - brushless out runner for main - plastic frame - solid cf main shaft - cf canopy pins (replaceable) - size and weight similar to the v120D02s - 180cfx like FBL with tuning params Basically a heli you could thrash the crap out of and fix in minutes. Great tail hold and resolution. No drama! |
Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement |
|
11-14-2015, 01:01 AM | #2 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Join Date: Jul 2011
|
Maybe since the mcpx BL is discontinued the replacement will have some of the items on your wishlist. An improved motorized tail could perform well in backwards flight if the ESC has braking.
__________________
nqx, mcpx, mcpx BL, 130X, trex 250 pro DFC iKon, 450X, TBS Discovery, Trex 500 DFC iKon, dx9 |
11-14-2015, 06:28 AM | #3 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
|
If the tail had servo control the tail ESC and Main ESC would be in lockstep with throttle. In Idle up it would be constant, mimicking a belt or toque tube.
|
11-14-2015, 07:15 PM | #4 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Join Date: Jan 2014
|
That's a lot of weight on the boom, would probably make cg impossible without a super heavy heli
|
11-14-2015, 08:39 PM | #5 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
even if you get the cg right it's an added servo. more weight and 1 more failure point.
__________________
Spending time, Paying attention |
11-14-2015, 09:42 PM | #6 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
|
I disagree that I'm adding failure points. I'm deleting 4 gears and a torque tube. It's a huge simplification. Plus, the 130x is nose heavy even with a Lynx quad bearing tail. I'm suggesting a tail box that incorporates a motor mount a pitch slider and tail grips. What is being deleted in this idea is entirely the source of vibes in the delicate 130x tail system.
In the end I'm trying to suggest a remedy for the biggest single weakness of all tail motor micros. They can't fly backwards properly. |
11-15-2015, 12:24 AM | #7 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
your adding servo gears to replace a TT gears.
your getting rid of a rod to replace with it an electronic system. I understand you're frustration with micro's especially the motor driven type. In all honesty that's why I don't go smaller than a 250. the only remedy to your tail issue is finding a good tail gyro.
__________________
Spending time, Paying attention |
11-15-2015, 01:19 AM | #8 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
|
How am I adding a tail servo when one already exists? I'm suggesting a servo driven collective tail powered by a tail motor. The tail shaft normally powered by a belt or torque tube would be the motor output shaft. A pitch slider would be on that motor output shaft. The rest of the arrangement would be a "normal" collective pitch tail except there would be no belt or torque tube. The rudder servo has to be there regardless of how you are powering a collective pitch tail.
I think people are giving up on the idea too easily and overestimating the amount of weight being added. In the end, the CG and disc loading is all that matters and the 130x is nose heavy out of the box. I'm pretty sure this could be done on the 130x airframe (or even a bit smaller like the v120) without screwing up either CG or disc loading. I do agree the MCPX BL is too small, which is why I mentioned something in between it and the 130x (aka the v120). |
11-15-2015, 02:16 AM | #9 (permalink) |
Registered Users
|
Linear servos don't strip gears...
__________________
Nano CPX x2, MCPX BL, HP05 MCPX(retired), 130x, Trex 250 SE(retired), Blade 300x, Trex 450 SA, Blade 450x, Trex 450 PRO, HK500 CMT(retired), Blade 500 3D, Assault 700 DFC |
11-15-2015, 03:37 AM | #10 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Join Date: Jan 2012
|
The 130x linear servo if given any reason to overheat (easily done it's low torque in order to be high speed), motor gear will melt and fall down
Check this out somebody did it on a bigger heli https://www.helifreak.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=17 |
11-15-2015, 06:59 AM | #11 (permalink) | |
Registered Users
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
|
Quote:
In regards to the pic below, obviously you'd want to design the tail such that the motor fits inside the tail box not on the outside. But the mod on that 450 is pretty slick! |
|
11-15-2015, 09:52 AM | #12 (permalink) | |||
Join Date: Aug 2015
|
Quote:
|
|||
11-15-2015, 12:17 PM | #13 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
|
To be honest I really don't see the point of running a heli that big with a tail motor. That's not the problem I'd like to see solved. I'm talking about micros smaller than a 130x.
But that aside - I've never flow the 230 so maybe it has better tail performance than other motorized tails. In that video the tail hold is certainly very impressive and piro comp looks great. But I can't help but notice a few things: - James is flying on the powered side of the tail when he is flying backwards inverted in his clockwise circuit - which he does at 48 seconds and again at 2:40. He never goes the other way. - When I try the same thing in a Nano CPX or MCPX BL they tend to devolve into a inverted tail in funnel. Maybe James is doing it intentionally (he is a pro) but thats what happens at 48 seconds if you watch Bottom line is that If you can fly inverted 8's backwards try it on your 230 so you run the tail on and off power. I can do it all day long with a collective tail but I cannot do it an anything with a motorized tail. It either becomes an inverted tail in funnel or just loses it outright - 100% of the time going counter clockwise in the 8. |
11-15-2015, 09:28 PM | #14 (permalink) |
Registered Users
|
What you're refering to is a DDVP tail..direct drive variable pitch, (lots of hits on Google) there was quite a lot of interest in them a few years ago when people weren't happy with belts and torque tubes were still giving problems
It does look as though brushless technology is pretty much getting there for direct drive tails like on the 230s, a lot of this is down to the very fast response of the ESC's which has developed a lot with quadcopters I think a 450 size with a main belt drive or even a "Funcopter" type direct drive and a direct drive tail would be cool......easy to repair and quiet to use. OK maybe not the ultimate in performance, but the equivalent to a park flyer in the plank world |
11-15-2015, 09:38 PM | #15 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
|
The most sophisticated double BL I've owned is the Trex 150 running BLHeli but it still had problems. I did dredge up old posts about the MCPX running dual tail motors so I'm pretty sure if someone wanted to engineer a DDVP MCPX it could be done. If the 230 is that good though it will be interesting to see what they do replacing the MCPX BL.
|
11-17-2015, 09:09 AM | #16 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Join Date: Jan 2014
|
I wouldn't be surprised if all you see is a mCPx BL-S
|
11-17-2015, 01:07 PM | #17 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
|
That's my expectation as well since I have low expectations from Blade. All they are doing is dumbing down the micros smaller than the 180. Sad. Meanwhile the XK K110 (WLToys V977 design) has Piro Comp. I never thought I'd buy another Chinese brand but they are clearly innovating.
|
11-17-2015, 01:51 PM | #18 (permalink) | ||
Registered Users
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
|
For example, this has Piro Comp in both 6 Axis and 3 Axis and its smaller than the Nano
|
||
11-17-2015, 03:32 PM | #19 (permalink) | |
Join Date: Aug 2015
|
Quote:
As for piro comp, a new version of the mCPX BL very well may have it. The new Nano cPS has piro comp. Or at least Blade says it does. |
|
11-17-2015, 04:14 PM | #20 (permalink) |
Registered Users
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
|
China is perfectly capable of manufacturing at any quality level they are specified to manufacture at. The U.S. designers are entirely responsible for specs and unit cost. Blade is a U.S. design.
Hisky operates in China and the HCP60 & HCP80 are designed and manufactured in China. The 6 axis / 3 Axis switchable boards were first put into production by Hisky more than a year before Blade (HCP80 v2). Blade is of course owned and operated here in the U.S. with manufacturing in China. They are behind the technology curve with small micros. I haven't flown a Nano CPS but by all reports piro comp doesn't exist in 3 axis mode but I'd be happy to be corrected. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|