Cordless servos?

For one, a direct hardwire connection is less suceptable to electromagnetic interference. Also, it is the easiest way to route power to the servo.

Weight of an R/F (radio frequency) section, extra battery for the servo would negate the advantages.

Separate power for a servo in a quarter scale or larger that operates say, retracts might be doable and make sense. Smaller aircraft it doesn't.

On 18 Mar 2006 08:05:02 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@toast.net wrote in :

Every servo would need its own battery.

Marty

You're right. I thought about each servo needing it's own power supply after I made this post. It is a major problem.

We're able to have remote everything including orders to commit a romote controlled flying bomb from thousands of mile away.

With all the brain power out there, why could not this hurdle be solved?

Wan

| You're right. I thought about each servo needing it's own power supply | after I made this post. It is a major problem. | | We're able to have remote everything including orders to commit a | romote controlled flying bomb from thousands of mile away. | | With all the brain power out there, why could not this hurdle be | solved?

What hurdle? That our radio gear requires power to operate?

Sure, they could put an antenna/RX/battery/servo into a servo-sized box, so it would be self contained, but what would be the benefit? You'd save a little trouble with routing wires, but then you'd have four (or so) batteries to charge seperately, and loss of any of them could result in the loss of the plane (maybe) and the cost would go way up, and the `smart' servos would be a lot larger than what we use now and ...

As I see it, the solution would be worse than the problem. Running your wires is usually not a difficult task (and when it is, that just means that the plane wasn't built/designed with that in mind.)

I'm going to drop this idea for now. "Mother is the invention of necessity." Quoting you in reverse, perhaps the necessity is not here yet. It's not a bad idea but maybe in a few years, who knows?

I have another idea that may be more feasible. I'll post it and see....

Just go ahead and set them up on 802.11g and fly the plane from the laptop.

Ed Cregger

Remember the Ace R/C Pulse Commander with rudder and elevator rates, quick blip throttle and a Rand motorised Galloping Ghost actuator back in the late '60s?

It was hard on batteries, with variable rate for elevator and variable pulse width for rudder, the plane would "gallop" because of the slower rate at one elevator extreme.

Reason why I mention this is the need for reducing weight and cost back then, for those who could not afford proportional multi.

Nowadays radio gear is extremely affordable, not like in the "bad old days" and extremely compact. And before required an FCC license in US to operate a radio control transmitter. I still have that license somwhere.

Days of inventiveness is pretty well over. (I still remember remnants of tube gear, escapements, reed equipment.)

I remember that stuff too, mostly because it was in the era of non affordable R/C gear, if you weren't up to building your own from scratch.

After my discharge from the USAF in 69, I landed a good paying job. Even then, R/C was really expensive, as I'm sure you know. Most folks that I knew flying R/C had one "good" radio. No extra receivers or servos. Too expensive back then.

A good servo was around $40 each in 69-72. That was in dollars that were worth many times more than what they are today. There wasn't much goofing around down low to the ground either, for obvious reasons.

Ed Cregger

Perhaps that is why I saw less Figure 9's back then. However, some of the dope finishes back then were fantastic in the pre- Monokote era. I remember a nicely finished Shoestring Racer multi take off at the end of the inactive runway and stunt there at Keesler AFB back in 1965.

Since Single Channel was relatively inexpensive and 1/2-A planes flown in tall grass tended to rekit themselves less, one could be more gutsy on R/O, whereas multi had more forethought per flight.

-- HPT