Replies to This Discussion

DeveloperPermalink Reply by R_Lefebvre on May 30, 2012 at 10:13am

I have never had an APM reboot unexpectedly in all my testing.  

That spring will not close a throttle controlled by a standard servo.  It is only there so that it closes if the linkage fails, and it helps make the throttle control a little more precise.  It is NOT a failsafe for radio failure!

Here is a discussion where airplane pilots are talking about REMOVING the throttle return spring on gas engines because of the problems they cause. 62% of them say they disconnect it.

http://www.rccanada.ca/rccforum/showthread.php?t=120782

A really good discussion on the topic from heli guys.  You'll notice he mentions at the beginning that nitro powered helis have not spring at all, this is only for gas engines.  He talks about the pros-cons of the spring.  One con is that it can CAUSE throttle servo failure, and that it cannot close the throttle anyway if the power is removed from the servo.  The little springs can only close an unpowered CORELESS servo, as I have said.  So, do you run coreless servos on your throttle?

http://www.helifreak.com/showthread.php?t=325891

Another talking about springs preventing proper operation:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10104241/anchors_10110610/mpage_1...

We're not talking about full size cars here, Kevin, so recalls to Fords do not apply.

Permalink Reply by Jake Stew on May 29, 2012 at 2:32pm

I'm aware of no case where pulling the plug is not considered an acceptable last ditch effort.  A good return spring can probably return the throttle to idle.

I also fail to understand your point of view.  On the one hand you think that it's acceptable for the APM to hold WOT on complete signal loss, while on the other hand you seem to think that the 9X dropping the signal isn't good enough because it doesn't actively force the servo to return the throttle to an idle position.

Don't take this as a personal slight, but your argument is asinine.  It seems clear that you will rail on in the same manner despite any facts or logic, no matter what the circumstances.

• ▶ Reply

DistributorPermalink Reply by UnmannedTechShop.co.uk on May 30, 2012 at 6:48am

You might want to consider something like the WFT 7 channel radio, it is quite cheap, but is still a great radio!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jake Stew on May 30, 2012 at 11:52am

I'm quite happy with the 9X, as most other people seem to be.

Before this issue came up I hadn't thought much about failsafes and range issues.  When I finally did research the issue I found out that the 9X does exactly what I expected a transmitter would do on signal loss (at least on the throttle).  If a RX isn't receiving a signal, it shouldn't put one out.  If it is and you didn't somehow specifically set that up somehow that's runaway behavior IMHO.

So I don't really see any reason to switch to a system with some odd behavior or pay extra for one with extra options I don't need.  If I'm going to go to the trouble to set up some special failsafe options I want to do it right in the APM where it can be handled in a smart way.  

Updating the PPM processor doesn't really seem all that difficult.  It needs to be done anyways as the throttle line disconnection bug is essentially the same issue and also needs to be fixed.  I'm pretty much grounded anyway until that is fixed and I can fly safely without risking an out of control plane endangering someone, which I don't feel is the current situation.  For my application I have to be able to guarantee that the system will shut down if it loses control or goes haywire.

When this bug is fixed I'll have a failsafe system 100's of times better than anything out there.  At that point it will be the people with expensive transmitters that are crying because their expensive receivers can't do the most basic and logical option of turning off the throttle signal when they aren't receiving one.  On my 9X system it will be very easy to detect RF signal loss.  Everyone else will have to figure out how to do that with their systems because my advice to them will be to buy a proper transmitter, like the 9X, that is smart enough to turn off it's output when it's not getting input.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ellison Chan on May 30, 2012 at 12:03pm

Jake, if you're up to it, why don't you have a look at the PPM code and suggest some improvements.  There are developers following this discussion, so any positive suggestions would be appreciated.  Also, if you have the time and desire, PM Chris Anderson about joining the dev team.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thomas Gregg on July 6, 2012 at 12:10pm

My brother and I started ParkeFlyer.com, a small company focused on helping people get the best transmitter for your money. Although we're biased, we strongly believe the 9x transmitter is fantastic for UAVs, airplanes, quads, sailplanes and helis. It's what we use (along with all of our friends and customers).

It's the open source firmware that is the key. The teams behind er9x, Gruvin and Open9x enable the 9x to compete with transmitters that cost $500 or more.

For anyone in the market for a new radio...

We stock the FS-TH9x (9B) transmitter as well as a 9x Upgrade Kit that includes the latest SmartieParts rev 2.2 solder less programmer, a backlight, upgraded thumb sticks, shrink tube to color code your switches and a neck strap. The upgrade kit makes modding your 9x really easy. The only tool required is a phillips screw driver.

Additionally, for 9x owners who want to add better range, failsafe and telemetry, we stock the FrSKY 2.4ghz TX module and associated receivers. The TX module plugs into the JR-style socket on the back of your 9x. It's plug-and-play. No additional configuration is required (and it works with the factory or open source firmware).

Checks us out at http://parkeflyer.com. We're available for any questions (regardless if you buy from us or not).

Good luck building your UAV!

Thomas

suppprt@parkeflyer.com

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bahloul on March 8, 2013 at 5:01pm

Finally are they working together?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M3one on March 28, 2013 at 8:45am

I have the same doubt...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bahloul on March 28, 2013 at 8:46am

I tested it, it works!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• Next ›
• Page