copperclad
Elite Veteran
Location: ..
| hi jfint
running a longer boom and blades was an option talked about to compensate for the lower gearing i have , but a longer belt was proving as hard to find as the mod 0.7 pinion , if i had a pro kit it would be easy to extend the tail boom , but i have the sport kit , there is a thread in the Align forum where they are running a stretch kit on the 600n though
the long and the short of it is i will be running the stock belt and either 600mm or 620mm main blades , i like the idea of seeing if a smaller 50 sized gasser would be viable , so i'm am jumping in , with about as stock a kit as i can ( other than the power train )
hi Invrted1
thanks  , the geometry looks good , you have to see the swash move , it looks great
hi Peter
yes , the long standoffs , would be a problem with standard plastic arms i think , probably not for plastic wheels though , as wheels have less tendency to flex , another thing to think about , the servos output shaft is on two bearings , i believe they are on either side of its drive gear , and with the standoff under the arm , puts the ball on the same plane as the gear , zero twist servo arms work this way , by moving the ball closer to the plane of the arms spline , i feel it is better to move the ball in the direction of the gears plane than to have it move the other way , i suppose it is splitting hairs though , and that i could be all wet with my logic , i know there have been whole threads on it posted before
there are things that work out great on some kits , and things that are not so great , it is like this with every design , and this idea of using longer stand offs to bring the linkages in to parallel is one of those issues i worried about with this kit , and tried to address in my post above , the tradeoff of
having the linkage rods lean in to reach the swash , might not be that bad , but i like to see the geometry of the swash linkage rods being all three parallel to each other
and having the servos mounted from inside the frame would bring two of the servo arms in close enough to not need the standoffs , at the expense of a wider frame with harder maintenance and a longer standoff on the elevator
so using the standoffs seemed to be the lesser of the three evils , and i think that using the CNC servo arms , compensated for the issues of the arms flexing
what's funny is , once i saw the arms and standoffs in place , and watched the servos and swash travel though full throw , i pretty much relaxed that the standoffs were an issue
with the alloy frames done , and the servos in place , it hit me that i had not verified the clearance between the elevator servo arm and the clutch case , and it was looking like it was going to be bad news , as i could see the arm was swinging by the plane the top of the case used in the drawings , so i was installing the case and thinking "oh my god , i have totally blown this  " , and of course , dumb luck , the arm swings past by about 2 or 3mm , i got lucky 
thanks guys , i really appeciate all the support and interest , dana  |
