| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name
 | Date | Lines | 
|---|
| 1350.1 |  | USRCV1::BLUMJ |  | Fri Aug 23 1991 15:42 | 8 | 
|  |     Sounds like an interesting project.  About a year ago Model Aviation
    did a construction review on a 2 meter pivoting wing slope ship called
    "ORCA" which is a Harley Michaelis design.  It might be worth looking
    at it if you have not already seen it.  Good luck!
    
                                                 Regards,
    
                                                 Jim
 | 
| 1350.2 | Flying wing with servo reverse switch? | KAY::FISHER | Stop and smell the balsa. | Fri Aug 23 1991 15:58 | 36 | 
|  | >                                       <<< Note 1350.0 by MR4DEC::ANKER "Anker Berg-Sonne" >>>
>                                                       -< Pivomano project >-
...
>                The  trouble is that you need some strange mixing.    You
>        have  separate  servos  in  each  wing  controlling  the angle of
>        attack.   When the aileron stick is moved one wing increases  and
>        the  other  wing  descreses its angle of attach.  When you jiggle
>        the elevator  stick  you  change  the angle of attack in the same
>        direction.
>        
>                I  hear the  poor  naive  sould  yelling  "That's  elevon
>        mixing used on flying wings".  "Nay"! I yell, "the elevator servo
>        moves the wrong way"!  So all those fancy, preprogrammed computer
>        glider radios can't do it.   Well,  I  finally found and bought a
Sounds like elevaron mixing to me.
What am I missing here - when you pull back on the stick you want both wings to pivot
backward (trailing edges to go down) just like a V-Tail reversed.
When you give left Aileron you want the left wing to pivot forward (trailing edge to 
come up) and the right wing to pivot backward (trailing edge to come down).
Still sounds like elevrons to me.
Anyway I'm interested since I have a Pivot Plus in my building queue and a Camano
on order.  Fyi - Dodgson tried pitcherons on the Pivot proto and said they made
the plane too unstable and hard to handle - too many unexpected snap rolls.
P.S.  Glad to here you got the ACE radio
P.S.S.  For you glider/computer radio nuts this months RCM has a chart comparing
        all (most) computer radios including ACE 8000, vision, and JR 347.  Check
        it out.
Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
 | 
| 1350.3 | The 8000 is the assembly coder's radio for the nitty gritty | ZENDIA::REITH | Jim Reith DTN 226-6102 - LTN2-1/F02 | Fri Aug 23 1991 16:07 | 13 | 
|  |     Well, what did it say, Kay? Which radio did they rate highest?
    
    FWIW: The X-347 will do this mixing. I did it inadvertantly. If you use
    the directions for elevons and then swap the plugs on the servos and
    reverse both servos, this is what you get. I know, I got it on my
    Gremlin and it drove me crazy until I found that I had reversed the two
    servo leads (the instructions tell you where to plug the left and right
    servos) I've seen the Ace radio and got a LONG discussion of it with
    Ray at his shop one night. It truely seems to be the programmers radio
    since you can combine everything imaginable. The 347 has a better
    interface to the standard combinations but the one-on-one mixing is
    hidden behind preprogrammed standard mixes. Good luck with it and your
    project. We'll be watching for yopu in the contests.
 | 
| 1350.4 |  | UPSENG::WALTER |  | Fri Aug 23 1991 19:55 | 5 | 
|  |     Why bother trimming the horizontal stabilizer for incidence? Won't the
    "elevator" trim do essentially the same thing?
    
    Dave
    
 | 
| 1350.5 | No radio get's first place... | KAY::FISHER | Stop and smell the balsa. | Mon Aug 26 1991 14:00 | 10 | 
|  | >    Well, what did it say, Kay? Which radio did they rate highest?
He didn't rate the radios - just make a very detailed chart listing all
the features and which radios had them and which didn't.  Very informative
to see them all side by side.
Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
 | 
| 1350.6 | Airtronics MD7 SP works just fine | BZERKR::DUFRESNE | VAXKLR - You make'em, I break'em | Wed Aug 28 1991 15:11 | 9 | 
|  | And MD7SP has a the mix function you want for this plane.
The one to use is the Elevon mix.
I have an ORCA on the bench (fuse done, ready to start on wings). This 
is built like a tank. HAley Michaelis has a updated design wth has ailron and 
flaps with pitcheron system. Plans appeard in Model Aviation about a year back.
md
 | 
| 1350.7 | Wing Twist Down-Under | SNOC02::FIELDEN |  | Tue Oct 15 1991 00:39 | 21 | 
|  |     Anker,
    Greetings from australia. I built a wing twist/pitch control for a
    small slope soarer last year. It worked well. Roll authority was as
    good as regular ailerons but pitch was a bit sluggish but controlable.
    There was an article in UK RCME some years ago where the builder put
    sevos inside the wing roots of each hinged wing and he reported similar
    results to me = pitch slow, roll ok. Used TX mixing.
    
    My small sloper had inside fuselage mechanical mixing - bit bulky but
    it worked ok.
    
    How about pitch and roll control with fixed flying surfaces and mobile
    ballast fore and aft as well as (separately) side to side!!!
    
    Keep us informed re progress
    
    
    Rgds
    
    
    Roger
 | 
| 1350.8 | Wing Warp - Mind Warp - Etc | KAY::FISHER | If better is possible, good is not enough. | Tue Oct 15 1991 09:12 | 34 | 
|  | >                     <<< Note 1350.7 by SNOC02::FIELDEN >>>
>                           -< Wing Twist Down-Under >-
...
    How about pitch and roll control with fixed flying surfaces and mobile
    ballast fore and aft as well as (separately) side to side!!!
...    
Roger - what have you been smoking (reading) :-)
Makes the mind wonder doesn't it.  Consider this.  CG adjustment is
constantly fighting trim.  If you change the CG a bit you must adjust
your trim to compensate.  If you have no trim adjustments only move 
ballast around you have eliminated one of the variables.  
But...
You know how when you fly inverted ailerons are normal and only the
elevator is reversed.  With a moving ballast control system this
would be backwards.  Inverted ailerons would be reversed (actually
wing ballast movement in this case) and pitch would be normal.
Attempting a roll would be interesting!
Knife edge flight would be a piece of cake - just add weight to the
port wing and leave it there - this should drop the wing and keep it
dropped.  Now moving the for/aft weight will control the rudder (sort of
since there is no rudder).
The only functional moving ballast I have ever read about was in relation
to compensation for retracts that go for and aft.
Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
 | 
| 1350.9 | I will be using camber instead | MR4DEC::ANKER | Anker Berg-Sonne | Sun Oct 20 1991 13:04 | 11 | 
|  |         Re: <<< Note 1350.8 by KAY::FISHER "If better is possible, good is not enough." >>>
                My idea  is  to  mix  in camber control to make the pitch
        control more sensitive.   I have camber control anyway and mixing
        in camber could have a couple of desirable side effects.  To hunt
        for thermals one would only  have  to give a bit of down elevator
        stick and both camber and pitch  would  be perfect.  The same for
        thermalling,  just a bit of up and  all  the  surfaces  would  be
        ideal!
        
        Anker
 |