BeltFedBrowning

My JR gasser had something similar. I considered it MCCPM

I would agree and I think that is how many people use the terms mCCPM or eCCPM. How are the servos mixed to achieve the desired swash control - mechanically or electronically?

I believe the point TMoore is making is that at no point are pitch, roll and collective mixed. In fact, great lengths have been taken to see that roll is just roll - no pitch or collective input required or desired. Same for pitch and collective - no mixing involved.

Still, there a question mark... have I got that about right?

"Well, Nothing bad can happen now."

wjvail

As it applies to model helicopters... The outer ring of most of our swashes has three control balls. We also have to achieve three control functions - pitch, roll(cyclic), and collective. Very conveniently we have three servos to achieve these goals. 3 servos, 3 input points, 3 functions. It would seem pretty simple to hook one servo to each of the input points and call it job done. Obviously that isn't going to work. We need some mechanism to mix these three servos to input the proper control to the swash. We need a mechanical mixer (to achieve the desired Cyclic/Collective control). We need a Mechanical Cyclic Collective Pitch Mixer.

No, we don't need a mechanical cyclic collective pitch mixer. I would think that someone that flies full size would understand what you just said is not mixing? Why does a swash have to have 3 control balls? Schluter didn't for years using the System 80. Where is the mixing in your scenario above? There isn't any mixing. The control functions you describe aren't mixed they are separate. It doesn't matter how collective pitch is input to the rotor head, whether you do it through a moving swashplate, pitch slider or sliding washout base, the fact remains that THERE IS NO BLOODY MIXING GOING ON in that system. Collective pitch is a standalone function just like pitch and roll. There is no radio mixing, no mechanics that are mixing anything. Mixing means that two or more inputs are combined into one output. That's not happening in a mechanical collective system. Here's the acid test. The system you describe can be flown with a 4-6 channel airplane radio while a CCPM heli with directly connected servos to the swash cannot be flown with an airplane radio. (I'm not going to include an FBL controller in the argument because most FBL controllers take the radio inputs and mix them to the flight control system which is a completely different subject)

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

wjvail

BeltFedBrowning

My JR gasser had something similar. I considered it MCCPM

I would agree and I think that is how many people use the terms mCCPM or eCCPM. How are the servos mixed to achieve the desired swash control - mechanically or electronically?

I believe the point TMoore is making is that at no point are pitch, roll and collective mixed. In fact, great lengths have been taken to see that roll is just roll - no pitch or collective input required or desired. Same for pitch and collective - no mixing involved.

Still, there a question mark... have I got that about right?

There is no mixing going on in the JR gasser anymore than with an R90 or R50. Each individual servo controls one function on that helicopter. The terms mCCPM and eCCPM were made up terms by some magazine writer from the UK. CCPM is actually a software function not just an electronic function; case in point; if you take an old analog radio and try to use purely electronic channel mixes to make a CCPM system work on a heli good luck to you. You need software to make it happen and that's what the 8SGHP and the Multiplex as well as the old Royal EVO's and CM Rex'es of the world had, they had software that enabled CCPM, not eCCPM, just CCPM. Even the Japanese in their manuals don't use the term m or e. Spektrum and Futaba doesn't use it, Sanwa, no one. Why is that?

There is no amount of mixing that you could do in a old radio with just mixers to drive a directly connected swashplate unless you had software that was written specifically for that function or you had some form of macro variable based mixing and free programs that could essentially be used to mix the servos into the proper control functions and then map the end point controls to pitch curves and EPA's for fine tuning. Is that electronic? Partly but mostly it's software. CCPM has always been software, the only electronic part is the hardware the software ran on. That's what modern radios can do, they allow you to connect 3 or 4 servos directly to a swashplate and interpolate the stick inputs to meaningful outputs at the rotor head. Adding the "e" to the term CCPM does nothing. CCPM was already well defined and needed nothing more to be added to it to make it mean more than what it already meant.

As I said earlier, if you can fly a heli with a 4 to 6 channel radio, there's no mixing going on.

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

I think we are getting hung up on the literal use of the word "mixing".

Let's come at it from another direction. I think we can agree that the "device" at the front of the below helicopter is required for it to fly as it was designed. I cannot remove it and expect the helicopter to fly. The 3 electromechanical devices we call servos are combined (not mixed) in such a way as to tilt, roll and lift the swash in the desired fashion.

I think we are hung up on calling this a mechanical mixer.?.? I agree - semantically we are not mixing the servos. Then what - we are combining them? That isn't it. We aren't combining in the literal sense. We aren't ganging them together.

What would you like to call the device in question? What could we call this control system? If not a mechanical mixer (and I think I see your point) what should we call it? Mechanical Cyclic Collective Pitch Controller? What would you call a system that combines the input of 3 servos in such a way as to achieve the movement of the swash. Mechanical mixer is out. Mechanical controller? mCCPC?

"Well, Nothing bad can happen now."

wjvail

I think we are getting hung up on the literal use of the word "mixing".

Let's come at it from another direction. I think we can agree that the "device" at the front of the below helicopter is required for it to fly as it was designed. I cannot remove it and expect the helicopter to fly. The 3 electromechanical devices we call servos are combined (not mixed) in such a way as to tilt, roll and lift the swash in the desired fashion.

I think we are hung up on calling this a mechanical mixer.?.? I agree - schematically we are not mixing the servos. Then what - we are combining them? That isn't it. We aren't combining in the literal sense. We aren't ganging them together.

What would you like to call the device in question? What could we call this control system? If not a mechanical mixer (and I think I see your point) what should we call it? Mechanical Cyclic Collective Pitch Controller? What would you call a system that combines the input of 3 servos in such a way as to achieve the movement of the swash. Mechanical mixer is out. Mechanical controller? mCCPC?

I call it nothing. There's no mixing going on. There are three separate functions there. What two functions are combined into one output?

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

Again, I see your point but I think you're being very literal.

Years ago model helicopters had a fly bar. They had two control systems - Bell and Hiller. One controlled collective and the other controlled cyclic. These two systems met at the mixing levers. (You knew all that.) I think what you are saying is that this too was a misnomer. The "mixing" levers were, in fact, designed to prevent the two systems from interacting. At no point did a collective input "mix" with cyclic and vice versa. One side of a "mixing" lever was responsible for collective and the other for flybar cyclic controls. No amount of flybar displacement resulted in collective. Likewise, extremes in collective would never result in a pitch/roll input. Literally these would be better called anti-mixing levers.

V-Tail mixing? Nope - no mixing. Rudder is Rudder and Elevator is Elevator. Mechanical and electronic "mixers" don't exist. There is no mixing. No amount of up elevator will result in a rudder input. Hard rudder will not induce a pitch command.

Similarly what has become commonly called mechanical mixing in helicopters is actually carefully designed to preclude mixing. I suppose we could call it Mechanical Cyclic Collective Pitch anti-Mixing.

No mixing. Got it. I see your point but find the reality cumbersome. The terms mCCPM and eCCPM may be grammatically incorrect but they do serve a purpose. They have come to mean a specific thing and with their use, everyone knows what you are talking about.

Am I getting close to understanding your message?

"Well, Nothing bad can happen now."

wjvail

Again, I see your point but I think you're being very literal.

Years ago model helicopters had a fly bar. They had two control systems - Bell and Hiller. One controlled collective and the other controlled cyclic inputs. These two systems met at the mixing levers. (You knew all that.) I think what you are saying is that this too was a misnomer. The "mixing" levers were, in fact, designed to prevent the two systems from interacting. At no point did a collective input "mix" with cyclic and vice versa. One side of a "mixing" lever was responsible for collective and the other for flybar cyclic controls. No amount of flybar displacement resulted in collective. Extremes in collective would never result in a pitch/roll input. Literally these would be better called anti-mixing levers.

V-Tail mixing? Nope - no mixing. Rudder is Rudder and Elevator is Elevator. Mechanical and electronic "mixers" don't exist. There is no mixing. No amount of up elevator will result in a rudder input. Hard rudder will not induce a pitch command.

Similarly what has become commonly called mechanical mixing in helicopters is actually carefully designed to preclude mixing. I suppose we could call it Mechanical Cyclic Collective Pitch anti-Mixing.

No mixing. Got it. I see your point but find the reality cumbersome. The terms mCCPM and eCCPM may be grammatically incorrect but they do serve a purpose. They have come to mean a specific thing and with their use, everyone knows what you are talking about.

Am I getting close to understanding your message?

Collective pitch is totally separate from a servo rotor(flybar) and besides this discussion has not one thing to do with that. The terms m and e are misapplied and don't mean squat. CCPM is software mixing of the swash motion and mechanical is separate functions that allow you to drive the swash. If you unplug aileron and elevator, does collective still function on your X-Cell? Of course it does, hence NO MIXING. Same applies to elevator and aileron channels, unplug the collective and you can still operate pitch and roll, hence NO MIXING.

If you do the same test on a CCPM heli the machine is unflyable because there is mixing to achieve input to the blades. Same coming out of an FBL controller. Like I said, why don't the radio manufacturers use those terms? They don't for a reason.....because they don't apply.

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

This used to be my favorite RR topic to debate. I'm with wjvail... just wanted to chime in for old times sake

_____________
Align
Thunder Power
OS Engines
Castle Creations
Futaba

I have to tell you Mark has a big smile on his face, thinking just like the old days, that you two put there. I think it is great for Mark. You are arguing semantics, and it must be raining because you both have too much time on your hands. I am going flying.

Jerry K

I have to tell you Mark has a big smile on his face, thinking just like the old days, that you two put there. I think it is great for Mark. You are arguing semantics, and it must be raining because you both have too much time on your hands. I am going flying.

A few of us in this thread have been here a while. Terry and I have exchanged thoughts here for more the 15 years - sometimes more pointed than others but always respectful. Of course Mark has been here the longest - but not by much.

Colin... Thanks for the support and may I add it's good to hear from you.

Sometimes I just feel like writing. It clears my head and forces me to focus. Very often I feel like writing when it's better to stay indoors. Often that means it's raining but most times, here in Mississippi, it's uncomfortably warm (i.e. really friggen hot).

"Well, Nothing bad can happen now."

I agree that it is semantics. The helicopters that we call MCCPM are mixing, just not with electronics. The mixing happens when the pitch servo moves the mechanical outputs of the ele and ail to change the pitch of the blades.

wjvail, likewise! I completely understand where you're coming from. Reading/writing is a stress reliever for me, plus it's raining outside.

We all understand how it works, and it comes down to debating the wording. There are tons of mechanical mixers available for a number of applications. The mixing valve in your shower is one (two inputs, a mixed output). At the end of the day we all know what it's doing.. but I'm gonna keep calling it mechanical mixing

_____________
Align
Thunder Power
OS Engines
Castle Creations
Futaba

now that is how you "rain" on an argument/debate/opinion/theory, whatever, good one Colin.

RapRexSynLogo Pilot

I always enjoy when the helicopter theory and / or fundamental subjects get resurrected. Not for anything other than forcing us to review what we have learned (and for some of us to learn more yet), as well as serving as the perfect example to newcomers (and reminder to us old dogs) of what makes this forum such powerful database to support the hobby. I see both sides of this one completely.... but with an engineering and machinist mind, I will always favor literal accuracy.... I'm team TMoore on this one

Signature