via PMslickporsche's PM to me
since you ask nicely, I'll explain myself:
Hi synodontis Personally I can understand your frustration at having to re-explain yourself several times,but you do need to calm down, and not be so abusive to others. I do not know how long you have been flying, but I know if someone has been doing something for a long time it takes time for them to adjust to a new bit if information. Some of these guys have been around flying along time I think,and they are slower to make a judgment based on that experience.What I mean is they are not hasty. I don't think they all were in disagreement with you.Mathmatical theory is just that, and there are many other components to consider.I think you may have a real grasp on this, but others are struggling with for sure.
I was involved in the silly God thread at off topics section for some time. In that thread we (eSmith and others) ended calling user Dennis a moron, idiot etc. . . (and never got pinked). There is a recent God Created mankind thread, where also we continued in the same vein. I got pinked at jeering at the Aurora guys with needing women to be at their stands etc, declaring just how pathetically sad it must be (which it is, btw).
Now, you see greenboot had been on that God Created mankind thread and just made some silly commentary - which annoyed me no end. And that was that, I called him an idiot in the following context: It was exasperating to know that this whole issue of religion (I said religion NOT God) was actually resolved in 1859. Me and a few others puts in WAY TOO many arguments to show what a load of totally utter nonsense it all was (and is). We were shocked, and totally dumbfounded, at the level of stupidity, idiocy, moronicness (if there is such a word), at what the "believers" are like. The issued is resolved, and has been resolved since 1859 and maybe a whole lot earlier if you are so philosophically inclined.
Note that greenboot and whirlyspud have made no contribution to this thread and yet have a cheek to comment. I personally think whirlyspud is a pekerhead for not understanding the context of my replies. If you know nothing, at least have the decency to say so. It doesn't give you the right to call me sick, disgusting names when you don't even bother to understand the context of my replies.
Top experts don't really engage in "debates" because, to put it really bluntly, they don't NEED to.
I have nothing against Paul (pwood, I actually like the guy, had a pleasant exchange with his friend Gorgin or whatever his name is regarding Sylphide blade grips a while back) nor Four Stroker, but they are wrong in their "opinions". My understanding of CCPM can be taken to a much higher level that any posters here (with maybe a few exceptions). Whilst the rest of you just post the same old silliness and get through circular arguments, I actually push forward more understanding of CCPM.
On the 140 vs 135 issue ask yourselves: why isn't there a 140 SWM? Hirobo uses SWM, you have one central axis for all 3 CCPM bell cranks to rotate. So in 120 you use 75% of swash size for bell cranks. For 135 you use swash size. For some reason all 140 CCPM implementations are not SWM and the only real reason is software bias. If we had 140 SWM, all things being equal, the distance between the two back balls in 140 would be less than 135. This would make aileron throws a lot more in 140 than 135 and the software would have to compensate for that (however that is done). Futaba never stated 135 or 140 in their program menu, just show a diagram with back and front throws the same as CCPM mode. This might be where people get the missconception of "branding" coming in.
If you want to be really, really deep about it there is no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect" CCPM (with notable exceptions of course), it's basically down to software and geometrical implementation and the control bias that you want.
I agree, I thank the the Lord I'm an easy going guy. I'm almost 50 years old and I don't have to take medications for anything. Glad to be stress free.
you know nothing about me, and yet you have the cheek to infer that at my door. That I find disgusting.
I didn't know a few degrees could cause such a controversy (140-135=5)
there's no controversy: there's those that know, and those that don't have a clue.
That's not meant to be an insult - just blunt statement of fact. The sad thing is that some of those that don't know that they don't know somehow think their "opinions" are valid.
Which is tragic.
Do you guys have any clue on what FAI flight and hovering means?
I have been flying FAI for 17 years and mechanic, 120, 135 or 140 mixing doesn't matter at all. What matters is one heck of a pilot, a decent rotor head.
this is an interesting point to which I would have responded. The fact of the matter is, dire software, servos aside etc. . good pilots will "fly around" the issues of 120 CCPM. They won't know they are doing it until they fly something that is perfect mechanical mixing (i.e. Eagle 3 VPUS). It becomes an ingrained, unconscious reflex. Given all other factors the same, I'll know if I'm flying CCPM because my hoovering will be crap compared to VPUS. I hate CCPM and always will, but software and servo precision have allowed it to almost be on par. But then again, top pilots probably change their servos every 30 or so flights (and I know Hirobo does this), so you got to ask yourselves from a practical point of view what would you have. CCPM is a no brainer to implement (but there have been really bad implementations). I'm surprised that Sanwa (who own the patent to SWM) doesn't charge Align, Blitz, and even JR for using SWM on their heli.
Well, about the factual parts he is right, except for that width part and how much it differs between 135 and 140 degree CCPM that he fumbled with above.
I didn't fumble on anything, Tomas, read it again. My knowledge of CCPM is quite deep, and far exceeds most here, the majority of which know absolutely nothing because for some strange reason they can't be bothered to do a few trivial calculations here and there.