Quoting rq1...@q7.com:
However, i think the results of a rotary test on our canard idea would
be hard to interpret due to the non-negligible, and mostly unknown
vorticity in the impinging stream that would be present due to repeated
passage through already disturbed air.
I see your point, and I
From: psas-airframe-boun...@lists.psas.pdx.edu
[psas-airframe-boun...@lists.psas.pdx.edu] On Behalf Of rq1...@q7.com
[rq1...@q7.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:26 AM
To: psas-airframe@lists.psas.pdx.edu
Subject: Re: [psas-airframe] Roll control-wind tunnel
A rotary test tra
A rotary test track definitely makes sense when testing performance in
an already turbulent airstream.
However, i think the results of a rotary test on our canard idea would
be hard to interpret due to the non-negligible, and mostly unknown
vorticity in the impinging stream that would be present d
(2009.07.08) kirk...@pdx.edu:
>[..]
>> My experience with off the shelf servos is they won't re-point with single
>> degree accuracy but i haven't tried the more expensive digital servos.
>
> Remember, our linkage ratio is not 1:1. The servo travels (180,,)
> degrees. The fin requires (,36,50) de
Since you're doing the work, you should do it the way that seems best to
you.
:)
The linkage will be hard to get working well, but if it does work well
it will be a thing of beauty.
I don't think it will be hard, but we'll see.
My experience with off the shelf servos is they won't re-po
How about access to a random 3-axis shaker table? I don't know if I can
arrange that or not, but I have a few connections and could try.
-Doug
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Barton C Massey wrote:
> It would be nice if someone just had a paint shaker, to
> start with. We also have been known t
It would be nice if someone just had a paint shaker, to
start with. We also have been known to whirl things around
on long ropes...
Bart
In message <307640010907081713n6a953bbbv4993aaeffce06...@mail.gmail.com> you
wrote:
> Do we have access to rigging/machinery to help us simulate the g
Do we have access to rigging/machinery to help us simulate the g-forces in
the proper axis also while in test-harness mode?
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Nathan Bergey wrote:
> > If i were to pick a root cause: inadequate testing.
>
> If you are saying that we didn't throw enough things out of
> If i were to pick a root cause: inadequate testing.
If you are saying that we didn't throw enough things out of airplanes
then I couldn't agree more. :)
What do you suggest would count as proper testing? Someone (alright,
me) can work on building tests before we even make the thing so that
we
(2009.07.08) kirk...@pdx.edu:
> Quoting rq1...@q7.com:
>> If i were doing it i'd use 4 mechanically independent servos. I estimate
>> the reliability of doing this is about 1/2 of the single servo system
>> being proposed. (Can we put the cool linkage drawing on the wiki page?)
>>
>> Despite the re
Quoting Doug Ausmus :
What has been the root-cause of each of the three failed ARM flights?
I'm pretty sure that two of the failures were attributed to a failed
IO pin on the micro. My understanding was that the pin failed in such
a way that it looked like it was fine, but actually was not
"...if the micro messes up and the servos go out of sync. Keep in mind we
have NEVER successfully flown an ARM micro in 3 airborne tests. I will be
happy to machine both the linked single servo..."
What has been the root-cause of each of the three failed ARM flights? A
robust controller solution w
Quoting rq1...@q7.com:
If i were doing it i'd use 4 mechanically independent servos. I estimate
the reliability of doing this is about 1/2 of the single servo system
being proposed. (Can we put the cool linkage drawing on the wiki page?)
Despite the reduced reliability, i still think the 4 ind
13 matches
Mail list logo
