I stopped using aileron bellcranks maybe 40 years ago, as I was tired of the added slop and had just buzzed an aileron off a fast aerobatic bird (it was fine). Since then have always dedicated a wing servo to each aileron. The first time I did I was immediately impressed by the improvement in control tightness, and that was the end of linkages for me.
@@richardmiddleton7770 weight is on the wing wherever the servo is in the airplane. A servo with a short pushrod is much less likely to cause flutter than this linkage is. Way too main failure points. Also a servo under a hatch on the wing is far easier to access than one buried in the center of the wing inside the fuselage.
@@cavediver2579 The only difference in flight characteristics would be the roll axis stability, since a plane with mass further out will have a harder time rolling.
@@deathlocus1571 negative, I haven’t flown RC in about 5 years but I’m 62 and started flying RC when I was in my early teens. I progressed through the regular sport planes to, Q500’s, pattern, and ultimately to Jets. I started flying Jets with the JPX and Turbomin turbines so I have a little bit of experience with RC. You’ll never see the difference in roll rate. That more of a function of control surface flows than the mass of the wing.
The ouly thing of putting servo in the wings is it add weight toward the outer wing . That is not good if you think about it . The wood thing . If that is the case then wood spars would not be good ether .
This wouldnt work since the crank arm sticking out of the wing on the ailerion will cause issues with air flow. One option is to mount the crank arm on the bottom and make it quite small.
@@shelbyseelbach9568 Maybe he was worried about gross weight and running both ailerons off a single servo was the objective. Also keeping the moment centered on the longitudinal axis probably gave a quicker roll rate.
No offense, but I would not trust that design. Wood is not a good material to make push/pull rods, and having that long piece not guided will just make it deform if the force gets a bit higher. And having the cornerpiece as an L is really bad design choice, it creates unnecessarily high loads around the bearing which will lead to it breaking quite easily. A quarter disk would be a lot more robust and has a diffentiable flow of force. Corners like that are deadly. Overall, don't use wood on high load moving parts, its is really not suited for that. Nice job on the structure itself tho, it looks very clean.
I stopped using aileron bellcranks maybe 40 years ago, as I was tired of the added slop and had just buzzed an aileron off a fast aerobatic bird (it was fine). Since then have always dedicated a wing servo to each aileron. The first time I did I was immediately impressed by the improvement in control tightness, and that was the end of linkages for me.
me too
smooth. like how the aileron joint is round and concentric
What a great technology …
Thanks from japan😌💓
beautiful craftsmanship. Makes me want to go back to stick building.
유격이 발생할 수 밖에 없기 때문에 중립 정밀하게 잡기가 힘들어서 다중링크는 잘 안쓸건데요... 괜히 무게만 늘어나고.
The invention of the wheel, this one has a flat spot on it for parking.
Great idea. Thanks!
that design has the potential to create huge flutter in that control surface that can result in the loss of the aircraft.
Thanks for your interest in this video, I will upload more vids of this plane
awesome))
Nice CGI, Blender?
The camera shake was a bit extreme, but otherwise it looks great!
Much more robust if you’d just bury a servo in the wing. I wouldn’t use all the wood either, but I was a jet guy for years
I guess it keeps the weight off the wing and checking or changing the servo is easier.
@@richardmiddleton7770 weight is on the wing wherever the servo is in the airplane. A servo with a short pushrod is much less likely to cause flutter than this linkage is. Way too main failure points. Also a servo under a hatch on the wing is far easier to access than one buried in the center of the wing inside the fuselage.
@@cavediver2579 The only difference in flight characteristics would be the roll axis stability, since a plane with mass further out will have a harder time rolling.
@@deathlocus1571 negative, I haven’t flown RC in about 5 years but I’m 62 and started flying RC when I was in my early teens. I progressed through the regular sport planes to, Q500’s, pattern, and ultimately to Jets. I started flying Jets with the JPX and Turbomin turbines so I have a little bit of experience with RC. You’ll never see the difference in roll rate. That more of a function of control surface flows than the mass of the wing.
The ouly thing of putting servo in the wings is it add weight toward the outer wing . That is not good if you think about it . The wood thing . If that is the case then wood spars would not be good ether .
Clean.....
why?
This wouldnt work since the crank arm sticking out of the wing on the ailerion will cause issues with air flow. One option is to mount the crank arm on the bottom and make it quite small.
Will this plane fly?
Hi, this plane was sold unfinished but it was intended to fly
Use RDS.
RDS?
Seems REALLY unnecessary?
@@johnnichol9412 LMFAO! No, not ailerons, my confused friend. The ridiculous complexity of the linkage.
@@shelbyseelbach9568 How would you have fabricated it?
@@stuntmanmike37 I wouldn't have. I would have simply put one servo in each wing half as pretty much all modern RC planes do.
@@shelbyseelbach9568 Maybe he was worried about gross weight and running both ailerons off a single servo was the objective. Also keeping the moment centered on the longitudinal axis probably gave a quicker roll rate.
@@stuntmanmike37 LMFAO!
No offense, but I would not trust that design.
Wood is not a good material to make push/pull rods, and having that long piece not guided will just make it deform if the force gets a bit higher.
And having the cornerpiece as an L is really bad design choice, it creates unnecessarily high loads around the bearing which will lead to it breaking quite easily. A quarter disk would be a lot more robust and has a diffentiable flow of force. Corners like that are deadly.
Overall, don't use wood on high load moving parts, its is really not suited for that.
Nice job on the structure itself tho, it looks very clean.
Maybe just a prototype to test angles and movement?
Thanks for those suggestions, I would definitely use metal for the moving parts for my next model. Interesting about the quarter disc shape