Holy Grail - Full House Electric

[TJ Alexander]

It seems that there are quite a few electric models around. And lots with 4 channel set ups. And some with flaps.

But...what are the choices if I wanted:

Throttle, Rudder, Elevator, Ailerons, Flaps, and Spoilers? In a manageable 2m-ish size

I know of the Arcus M, but that also has a retractable undercarriage (cool feature, but I only have a 6-channel TX currently).

Any suggestions?

[Phil 9]

Sounds ike its time tu upgrade your TX for one with more Channels l

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

As I see it, unless you go with Phil's suggestion, you only alternatives are to Y lead the ailerons (assuming the flaps aren't slaved to the ailerons) or fly it with the undercarriage permanently up or down.

[Don Fry]

Hobby King Phoenix 2000 springs to mind, currently has some money off.

Full house gives your age away, haven't head that phrase for years.

[MattyB]

Why would you want flaps and spoilers in a 2m model? Pretty much pointless, crow will be far more effective than spoilers in all situations, hence why you are not really finding anything that meets your requirements. The only reason for spoilers these days is for scale fidelity IMO.

Edited By MattyB on 15/02/2018 11:33:48

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Good point - I have a cheap and cheerful 4m Discus which didn't come with any form of approach control capability - after considering options to modify the wing with spoilers or airbrakes, I simply arranged the ailerons to deflect upwards up to 45 degrees or more (I can't remember the exact amount and it's wintering in the loft due to its size) on a slider control, which gives excellent approach control while retaining adequate roll control. If your transmitter can perform an appropriate mix, this could solve your dilemma...

Edited By Martin Harris on 15/02/2018 11:49:35

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Phil 9]

Posted by MattyB on 15/02/2018 11:32:48:

Why would you want flaps and spoilers in a 2m model? Pretty much pointless, crow will be far more effective than spoilers in all situations, hence why you are not really finding anything that meets your requirements. The only reason for spoilers these days is for scale fidelity IMO.

Edited By MattyB on 15/02/2018 11:33:48

a 4 servo wing gives you a great deal of options but you will need more than 6 channels to get the most of it

[MattyB]

Posted by Phil 9 on 15/02/2018 12:28:19:

a 4 servo wing gives you a great deal of options but you will need more than 6 channels to get the most of it

Only because most radio manufacturers still don't allow the flexible assignment of channels. On FrSky sets using OpenTX you can happily run a 4 servo wing 6ch F3X model with a hugely trick setup on any full range RX because all have 16ch and the channels are fully assignable at the TX. Obviously if it's electric you'll need to use a seventh channel for the motor.

The legacy concept that customers should all pay more for more channels is simply nonsense in a digital age - extra channels are just a few lines of code in the firmware and cost literally nothing (bar the cost of the pins on an RX on a non-serial bus RX). It's a concept the big name manufacturers continue perpetuate though as it drives valuable revenues.

TJ, in answer to your original question if you like to play with models with more surfaces your first step should be to upgrade your TX. For the very best in functionality and flexibility for the buck consider a FrSky Taranis X9D or QX7, but be prepared for a bit of a learning curve. If you prefer a more traditional menu driven approach there are lots of good options from manufacturers such as Spek, Graupner SJ and Jeti (sorry, can't quite bring myself to say Futa... nope! ), but you will pay a lot more. Steer clear of Hobbyking TXs (not CE certified), Hitec (who recently announced they will not be developing any further TXs) and JR (recently went bankrupt and have a very uncertain future).

Edited By MattyB on 15/02/2018 13:22:53

[TJ Alexander]

These are all good points, and I am planning to up the channels a bit when I can afford that.

I do see the argument on spoilers being ineffective at that scale, and perhaps I am overreacting to the difficulty of slowing a big glider (Radian) without flaps to land. Given that, I am somewhat reconciled to a simpler system. I reckon 6 channel can handle split ailerons and flaps, can't it?

[MattyB]

Depends on the TX, but most will be able to do a basic setup. Where you may lose out is in setting aileron differential to avoid dutch roll (important on high a/r soarers; you need both ailerons on separate channels to be able to tweak that from the TX, though you can obviously set some up mechanically). Crow braking will also be out, though in most cases just bringing the flaps down to an extreme angle (70 degrees or more) should be quite effective on it's own; you just won't get the washout effect associated with reflexing the ailerons.

PS - The Taranis QX7 is only £107 for 16ch and all the mixing and telemetry functionality you will ever need. As Mrs. Doyle would say...

Edited By MattyB on 15/02/2018 13:32:48

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by MattyB on 15/02/2018 13:13:40:

The legacy concept that customers should all pay more for more channels is simply nonsense in a digital age - extra channels are just a few lines of code in the firmware and cost literally nothing (bar the cost of the pins on an RX on a non-serial bus RX). It's a concept the big name manufacturers continue perpetuate though as it drives valuable revenues.

I see no big conspiracy or harm in that, Matty. Even if there is no technical difference, this is just the laws of economics. If people will pay more for more channels, then why would any sensible business wanting to stay in profit not charge more?

It's the same principle of the range of coffee prices in Starbucks. They all basically cost the same to make and serve, but the way to maximise profit is to charge what customers are prepared to pay. So yes, because it drives valuable revenues is surely a good enough reason?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by MattyB on 15/02/2018 13:26:15:

Where you may lose out is in setting aileron differential to avoid dutch roll (important on high a/r soarers; you need both ailerons on separate channels to be able to tweak that from the TX, though you can obviously set some up mechanically).

Sorry Matty, Dutch Roll is something completely different from adverse yaw which is what you are describing. You would be extremely unlucky if you ever suffered from Dutch Roll with a model aircraft. Also, while full size gliders have differential on their ailerons you still need a bootful of rudder, in the direction of turn, to fly a balanced turn.

[MattyB]

Fair point, I did mean adverse yaw - brain fade...

[MattyB]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 15/02/2018 14:31:12:

Posted by MattyB on 15/02/2018 13:13:40:

The legacy concept that customers should all pay more for more channels is simply nonsense in a digital age - extra channels are just a few lines of code in the firmware and cost literally nothing (bar the cost of the pins on an RX on a non-serial bus RX). It's a concept the big name manufacturers continue perpetuate though as it drives valuable revenues.

I see no big conspiracy or harm in that, Matty. Even if there is no technical difference, this is just the laws of economics. If people will pay more for more channels, then why would any sensible business wanting to stay in profit not charge more?

For as long as they can get away with it you are correct, but customers are steadily learning that it's a complete swizz - value is probably the prime reason FrSky have grown so fast in recent years. A very noticeable trend this year where I am is Spek users going to FrSky and (to a lesser extent) Graupner SJ and Futaba, but that is more about HH's near suicidal approach to pricing, distribution and customer service in the last 6 months of 2017.

[TJ Alexander]

As a result of this, I've spent a lot of time on YouTube looking at mixing, and at electric gliders with flaps. I rather fancy something like the Staufenbiel Mistral V, but may end up with something rather cheaper like a Walrus.

One more question remains for me: Why do people use two channels for the flaps, when they always seem to work together?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[TJ Alexander]

That seems reasonable. Sorry if it was a daft question.

[Nigel R]

I'd hazard the suggestion that on a menu driven style TX, that more channels tend to come with the TXs that have more features. More features mean more menus and both mean more development time and more testing time.

It's not all created equal. If you want a bunch of mixes and setups pre-packaged, then you ultimately have to pay someone to pre-package it for you.

Or to put it another way, professional software doesn't come for free.

FrSky with its multitude of possibilities and all that jazz, pushes all that development of the setup onto you, the end user. So they don't have to develop so very much. And there is a community of users feeding back to contribute toward working out common setups for you to copy. So all the 'features' tend to happen in the aftermarket area.

C'est la vie.

[MattyB]

Posted by Nigel R on 20/02/2018 13:18:29:

I'd hazard the suggestion that on a menu driven style TX, that more channels tend to come with the TXs that have more features. More features mean more menus and both mean more development time and more testing time.

It's not all created equal. If you want a bunch of mixes and setups pre-packaged, then you ultimately have to pay someone to pre-package it for you.

Or to put it another way, professional software doesn't come for free.

Maybe, but when you look at how Spek for example do it that doesn't really ring true. All their most popular TXs can transfer model memories between them i.e. a DX6 to a DX9 or DX18, so at their core the software is developed from the same platform, but with the lower models having "high end" features deliberately crippled to preserve the business model. Jeti also work this way.

TBH it makes a lot of sense from a cost savings and testing perspective - develop the one set of software for the top model then just shut stuff off to make a simpler TX - and of course as people upgrade they can also take previous setups with them relatively painlessly, making a brand more "sticky" from a marketing perspective. However once consumers experience a so called "low end" TX with features that blow all but the blingiest models from the big names out of the water they start to realise that the old accepted norms of more channels + more features = more cash at the till aren't necessarily true.

PS - Having experienced "professional" software from a number of the big name RC manufacturers over the years I have a lot more faith in open source developers maintaining a highly functional and bug free codebase. I have requested and had integrated a number of pieces of functionality into the codebase within weeks, and on a number of occasions have seen minor bugs squished from a new release of OpenTX within hours of a report being made. Futaba, JR et al have been known to take years to do the same or in isolated cases simply ignore such reports!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Steve J on 20/02/2018 12:00:12:

Posted by TJ Alexander on 20/02/2018 11:31:58:

Why do people use two channels for the flaps, when they always seem to work together?

1) Having every servo on it's own channel make setup easier.

2) Using two channels for the flaps means that you can use them as ailerons.

Steve

Yep to get the most (fun) out of a four servo wing then mixes that allow, full span camber flap, snap flap, crow braking and aileron/flap mixing are nice things to have. Even on gliders that have conventional air-brakes I put the airbrakes on separate servos otherwise adjusting the mechanical linkage to get them in sync is a real pain.