jrice45516 Heliman Location: SoCal
| << It was not stated that any of the servos did less ( or more) work in 120 CCPM than another servo. It was stated that there was more available power for a pitch change whether it be cyclic or collective-cyclic since three servos are working together and the load is being shared between the three. >>
Actually your sentence reads:
<< A feature of CCPM is that the servos work together to make a pitch change so there is almost always a surplus of power to work the swash with any GOOD servo. >>
You imply, since the collective pitch is shared between 3 servos in ccpm, that the job of applying cyclic pitch is somehow made easier. This is an oversimplification, not just of the collective pitch work load in ccpm, but of the total situation & that is my interest. Yes, the collective servo no longer has full responsibility for applying collective pitch as it did in non-ccpm. Instead it has new duties. The hope that the new total might be less than the old total remains to be justified. Just saying it's true is not enough. Whether & how average or peak duty cycles have changed (e.g. improved?) due to ccpm remains to be shown, possibly by monitoring servo current draw.
<< The servos are "named" aileron,elevator and collective in the 120 CCPM control system, but actually each servo is a collective servo as well as a part of the cyclic movement. >>
We refer to servos in the 120º ccpm system as "aileron," "elevator," & "collective" because they are plugged into those Rx channels respectively, Not because they are doing those jobs exclusively any longer which they obviously aren't.
<< Remember that the term "collective" pitch means that the cyclic pitch is being moved "collectively" (together) to increase or decrease the blades' pitch at any given point in it's 360 degree rotation. >>
The term "collective" refers to both mainblades being simultaneously pitched an amount equal in magnitude & direction.
"Bad terminology is the enemy of good thinking." Warren Buffet
Dances With Woofs |