Talk:Cyclic/collective pitch mixing

This whole page and pretty much all the edits before I put the "disputed" note up have just been part of an argument from an on-line RC heli form. I think the whole thing should really be deleted unless someone can give a proper write-up on it and back it up with some proof. — Soupisgoodfood 11:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

How's this? I need to go look up the sources, because I don't think I can cite "from memory" :-P Pinano 09:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Much better :) I might remove this though: "Each servo's control ball is separated by 120 degrees or 140 degrees from the other two" as it's not quite true. I know there are quite a few different setups. — Soupisgoodfood 13:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Move to Cyclic/collective pitch mixing

I'm going to move this to Cyclic/collective pitch mixing so we can start a disambig page for CCPM if needed. Pinano 10:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this approach used for full scale helicopters?

is it something to do with the forces or what? --njh 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I imagine some do, in their own way. It's probably because overall, there are many more variations in control systems compared to the RC world to the point where CCPM is a relatively meaningless term. But I'm just guessing here. Soupisgoodfood 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern helicopters are driven by jet engines which are set up to turn at a constant rate which translates to a constant rotorhead speed (NR). The spool up time for such a set up is prohibitive of using NR in conjunction with collective pitch. Not only is the reaction time slow but as the pitch of the blades increase, the load on the motors and transmission increase thus actually slowing the spoolup time even further. Robtheengineer (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)