you'd be better off using both of the outer holes on the flaps set up , any play in the ball links allows more angular slop the nearer to the pivot point you go , the further out you can make the linkage from the servo output splines the better.
@@MartinPickering-PickeringRC it doesn't affect 'torque' at all , if the servo is rotating 60 degrees and the surface is rotating 90 degrees it doesn't matter what length the levers are that connect the two because if the rotational movements remain the same ratio the torque required remains the same also. if the ball joints have no play it is academic but i always use the the outer most holes that i can that give me the movement i require rather than inner holes. a bonus of this is that the servo has to rotate more before the ball link has any chance of bottoming out against the wing surface.
I had written the below reply, and they re-watched the video and realised that the flap wasn't already on the outer most hole, well spotted and I agree with your assessment, will rectify it! My original train of thought: "I may be blanking on this or missing something, but: -Move the ball link on the servo arm out (longer): I have more travel than I need, I have to reduce servo travel, and the whole process has lost me servo torque -If I could also move the ball link out (longer) on the surface control horn, then yes I could get back to same travel and same torque, but I am already using the outer most hole... so I don't have that option..."
What about titanium bolts for attaching servo to L brackets and brackets to panel of wing. The weight of steel screws does add up. If I were afraid of titanium being brittle, I would use 2 steel and 2 titanium screws per application.
Hi Martin, cool idea with the 26D in the tail. I will probably do the same with my pilot-rc F16 1/5. Do you know if the gyro runs on the rudder if connected on the PB pioneer?
observations it appears that the flap servo arm position at zero deflection is wonky. :30 control horns appear to be not correctly located. the location of aileron servo(s) is less-than ideal. the poorly located masses/servos result in the model having a less-stable dom. d
Any ideas or suggestions for improvement are always welcome guys, let me know and lets make this the best FC1 out there!
Some nice tips build. Thanks Martin.
That was an excellent build video Martin! Glad to see you finally have the time to build this beast!
Thanks dude!
Very good project rc plane, thank u video
you'd be better off using both of the outer holes on the flaps set up , any play in the ball links allows more angular slop the nearer to the pivot point you go , the further out you can make the linkage from the servo output splines the better.
That just sounds wrong though? Compensating for bad links by extending the servo arm position at the expense of servo torque?!
@@MartinPickering-PickeringRC it doesn't affect 'torque' at all , if the servo is rotating 60 degrees and the surface is rotating 90 degrees it doesn't matter what length the levers are that connect the two because if the rotational movements remain the same ratio the torque required remains the same also. if the ball joints have no play it is academic but i always use the the outer most holes that i can that give me the movement i require rather than inner holes. a bonus of this is that the servo has to rotate more before the ball link has any chance of bottoming out against the wing surface.
I had written the below reply, and they re-watched the video and realised that the flap wasn't already on the outer most hole, well spotted and I agree with your assessment, will rectify it!
My original train of thought: "I may be blanking on this or missing something, but:
-Move the ball link on the servo arm out (longer): I have more travel than I need, I have to reduce servo travel, and the whole process has lost me servo torque
-If I could also move the ball link out (longer) on the surface control horn, then yes I could get back to same travel and same torque, but I am already using the outer most hole... so I don't have that option..."
Completely agree with your comment!
@@MartinPickering-PickeringRCdont forget about the resolution loss when moving it out.
MKS for every build in my Hangar now 💪🏻.
Lost an expensive build a few years back to cheap servos.
How I like your videos 😊😊😊😊💪💪💪💪💪💪
Thanks dude!
Very nice looking jet. I want one .
To save weight don't use bolts and nuts but put thread in the aluminium profile for the wing servo's ;-)
Totally agree with that! Need slightly thicker alu profile though so I guess peace of mind is worth the 10g 😄
What about titanium bolts for attaching servo to L brackets and brackets to panel of wing. The weight of steel screws does add up. If I were afraid of titanium being brittle, I would use 2 steel and 2 titanium screws per application.
Not a bad idea! Need to find titanium nuts and bolts!
Hi Martin, cool idea with the 26D in the tail. I will probably do the same with my pilot-rc F16 1/5. Do you know if the gyro runs on the rudder if connected on the PB pioneer?
I think Savox 1270TG would be a good choice also? Same weight.... That would be my choice i think.
And to save more weight lose the connector between the tail receiver and the powerbox. just solder these wires ;-) (but still love the build) LOL
That’s no Build that’s an assembly lol❤
lol
observations it appears that the flap servo arm position at zero deflection is wonky. :30 control horns appear to be not correctly located. the location of aileron servo(s) is less-than ideal. the poorly located masses/servos result in the model having a less-stable dom. d
Pesawatnya sangat bagus, tapi mahal
I’m used to spektrum electronics. Having a receiver in the tail just made me go brain dead.
'Promo SM' 🤔
You seem like a smart guy cut the bloody bolt down!
But leave the nut on when you cut it so it acts at a die when you take it off 🫡
Its the width of the nut thats the problem though, not the bolt itself… 😄