Joe Hunt
150cc
Yeah, he's got 8 on the ailerons to my 6. We both have 4 on the elevators, but he has 4 on the rudder to my 3. Sure am glad he noticed the rudder tray mount. It's way better now!
Pilot RC 107" Extra 330SC
- Thread starter Joe Hunt
- Start date
Yeah, he's got 8 on the ailerons to my 6. We both have 4 on the elevators, but he has 4 on the rudder to my 3. Sure am glad he noticed the rudder tray mount. It's way better now!
Joe Hunt
150cc
For you guys that program your Hitec servos... the new brushless servo programmer is not WYSIWYG after all. The "RC MODE" let's you switch back and forth between programming and radio control without plugging and re-plugging cables. Which is nice, but not as nice as if they would figure out WYSIWYG.
Last edited:
Xpress
GSN Sponsor Tier 1
All our servos have to be plugged into a programmer to program them. Mostly the programmers are for the guys who gang the servos onto one lead where you have to match end points and center points, or if their transmitter isn't a computerized transmitter and you want to access more functions of the servo. When you put the servos on their own channel with a modern computer radio you don't need the programmer, you can do all the programming in the transmitter.
Deadband might be about the only reason you'd want the programmer for our servos, but you typically don't mess with that out of the box.
WYSIWYG is What You See Is What You Get.
Deadband might be about the only reason you'd want the programmer for our servos, but you typically don't mess with that out of the box.
WYSIWYG is What You See Is What You Get.
.
Terryscustom
640cc Uber Pimp
Biting my lip......... Watching the flying being done with them, I am completely failing to see the reason for all those servos unless you have extremely flimsy control surfaces (or enormous thrust vectoring surfaces like Tavis). If the plane needs to be tail heavy to 3D and harrier around it has some serious design issues. I know that's the old school way of thinking when surfaces were small, airfoils were thick, servos were weak, voltage was 4.8-6.0 and planes were h e a v y.......but planes set up like that can't draw a line in the sky worth a damn. When you convert that servo torque into lbs/sq ft and measure the square inches of surfaces area......then consider the weight of the plane itself that just does not add up and even common sense clearly shows a design flaw somewhere.
Sorry, guess I learned to fly about the time you took a break and this is just my $.02 in case there are any new guy's watching this thread.....tail heavy sucks. Tail heavy makes coupling for most people that don't mix the plane almost uncontrollable. Tail heavy also makes landing for less experienced pilots difficult and clumbsy. You will also find almost every major competitive pilot these days files their planes at somewhere between neutral or slightly nose heavy for XA to down right nose heavy for precision / 3D mix.
Sorry, just had to add my thoughts as this is driving me nuts when new guys look at these threads and think this is needed. You will always get better results with a good combination of wing loading, horsepower and mechanical setup as long as the plane is structurally designed well.
Again, sorry for the rant, just lots of guy's are impressionable and there are issues involved with flying heavy and tail heavy planes that need to be considered before trying it. 30-50cc planes (although very small) are the most popular size in the hobby closely followed by 35%'ish planes. If you fly a 30-50cc plane tail heavy many people will not make it past the maiden flight without needing garbage bags.
Naughty Monkey
100cc
Joe Hunt
150cc
For me mine is setup pretty sweet. Although one more rudder servo would be better. 
I didn't buy two more after flying my first one because I thought they flew bad the way I set them up, you know? haha
I changed from a Mejzlik 32-10 original standard, to a Falcon 31-12 today. The plane didn't "fly" nearly as good, but crankshafts, poptops, pinwheels, and torque rolls were way better!
It's always a trade off! I would like to try a 3W 3D prop, that's all I used to run for Freestyle and IMAC. @Spats was running one at my event on a Zed E Zed 180. Could be the ticket. Although on all 3 of my 170cc class planes this year I keep settling in on the Falcon 31-12. Overall I really like it.
Torque rolls today were throttle fixed slightly over idle (no having to jockey it around at all) and the less I did (nothing was best) with the rudder and elevator the better. Pretty much set the throttle stick and go hands off! It really locks in. Although, yeah, just need that one more rudder servo.
I didn't buy two more after flying my first one because I thought they flew bad the way I set them up, you know? hahaI changed from a Mejzlik 32-10 original standard, to a Falcon 31-12 today. The plane didn't "fly" nearly as good, but crankshafts, poptops, pinwheels, and torque rolls were way better!
It's always a trade off! I would like to try a 3W 3D prop, that's all I used to run for Freestyle and IMAC. @Spats was running one at my event on a Zed E Zed 180. Could be the ticket. Although on all 3 of my 170cc class planes this year I keep settling in on the Falcon 31-12. Overall I really like it.Torque rolls today were throttle fixed slightly over idle (no having to jockey it around at all) and the less I did (nothing was best) with the rudder and elevator the better. Pretty much set the throttle stick and go hands off! It really locks in. Although, yeah, just need that one more rudder servo.
Last edited: