Talk:Radio-controlled helicopter

Clean up
How about moving all this safety stuff to a Wikibooks article, in a similar way done on Radio controlled airplane/RC Airplane? --phatmonkey 12:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds smart. Um. Is there a description somewhere of the difference between Wikipedia and Wikibooks? I can partially understand the difference, but I've been unable to find any comparisons... like which is better for what sort of content? Zebruh 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is for describing what a radio controlled helicopter is, Wikibooks can be used for describing how to use a heli, amongst other things. --Phatmonkey 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * hey. thanks.Zebruh 23:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, this was getting a bit old. I've removed all the safety stuff, it's in the history if anyone wants it. --Phatmonkey 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Bell-Hiller mixing and other technology unique to RC
Is it worth mentioning the hybrid Bell-Hiller mixing system? As far as I know, this is unique to RC helis and might be worth mentioning. There are also a few other things that are more common in RC helis than in fullsize helis that many people don't know much about, such as heading hold gyros, and flight performace characteristics such as sustained inverted flight etc. --Soupisgoodfood 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, i'd be interested to know the details of how RC helicopters are able to fly inverted. --born against 14:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Bell-Hiller is a head design. The mixing system is still (e)CCPM.  Full sized commercial helicopters can't fly inverted because their collective pitch is limited.  3D RC helicopters control their vertical speed via collective pitch not by how fast the motor is running.  The motor is kept running at the same power, pitch is increased to ascend, decrease to decend.  If the pitch is negative, it's actually being pushed down.  If you flip the helicopter at this point, it'll fly inverted. --NYC 19:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a section mentioning Hiller and Bell-Hiller style rotor heads, after I was frustrated to find that this information didn't exist on Wikipedia. However, I think it might be a little too much to describe the specific functioning of these systems (the flybar, mixer arms, etc.) so if anyone knows a good external link describing these things, that might be a good addition. --Squeakywaffle 22:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos
I think we need to replace the photo of the MS Hornet. It's not the best photo, and we already have an electric heli. I'd like to see a photo of a Raptor 90 hovering inverted. I'll post a topic on RunRyder.com asking for a free image to use and see what turns up. --Soupisgoodfood 13:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the heli photos here are out of date. If anyone would like to contribute with better pictures, go ahead!Mba83 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

F3C
I'd like to make an F3C page, linked to from here. We already have the 3D Masters and the FAI. It would be nice to describe it, compare it to 3D and list the previous locations and winners. If you have an opinion please respond, otherwise I'll do it in a few days. --AndrewDonaldson 09:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Radio gear
Prices (not just for radios) should be removed or atleast dated. Prices change constantly. I known a simple basic 4 channel radio can be had for less then $40. This is only for the transmitter since in RC community, radio refers to the transmitter. There is really no upper limit on the cost of a complete radio system including, tx, rx, gyro, servos etc. Also on the PCM resolutions, it lists (512 values 10 bits) (1024 value, 11 bits) etc. Mathmatically it doesn't sound right, 512 values is 9 bits, 1024 values is 10 bits. I don't know if start/stop/parity etc bit is used but it's wrong to imply 10 bits have 512 values. --NYC 19:47, 13 April (UTC)

Electric helicopter
The following was part of a stub article titled "Electric helicopter" which pretty much refers to electrically powered R/C helicopters and a model or two of UAVs:


 * Advantages of this type of are:
 * Improved maneuverability due to the greater availability of torque of the electric motor.
 * Improved safety due to lower risk of mechanical failure.
 * Less risk of explosion or fire in the event of a collision.
 * Somewhat quieter: no exhaust noise, but the rotor will make the same noise.


 * Their disadvantages are:
 * Shorter flight range and air time

These advantages/disadvantages are unsourced and I don't have the time to verify them. Basically, everything else from that article other than what I left in the Commercial applications section is already covered in this article. --Born2flie 16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The disatvantage in a few years may prove to be an atvantage, speaking as in advancing technology in batteries.xx.xx.xxx.xxx (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Lithium Polymer/Ion, exciting stuff. Theres lots of sources out there confirming this, if we only look. I actuly am a huge supporter of Electric RC Helicopters!

Personaly I know theres alot more exciting things that could be said about Nitro as well. The mechanics of it(nitro) truly intriuge me, Its exciting stuff. But, electric is somewhat innsuficent as well.

For example: (mechanical failure taken farther); Brushless Motors are only one moving part, and theres very simple transmission, and the electronics to power it (such as the battery) are (making a unckecked statement) lighter than the fuel tank, exhaust, but I dont know for sure, as I only own Electric. This makes the matinence way less. I ask a more avid editor find sources to cite this, I truly think its worth putting. Example 2: Greater avaibilty of tourqe somehat explained; Brushless motor is based on electric power and is only one moving part. When you turn up the throttle, it does it that second, literaly. Add pitch and we can shoot it off higher even faster. Example 3: Risk of explosion: Mechanical explosion (like an exploded chart or something), hehe, that is the only I can think of. Maybe the Gosh only knows how many cells LiPoly goes off... But ive never heard of that midflight or anything, only when charging or handled inproperly, or overheating possibly, but alas I am no expert in the matter. For this, I agree with you, less chance of explosion Example 4: Less Noise; Oh yeah! Though when I take up my Trex 450 SA.... Its still realatively loud. Sounds like a real heli almost lol. But, alas, Ive seen few nitro's flown up close, so I cannot support you directly. (added)Example 5: Dont forget, In the long run its much cheaper. Maitenence and fuel, its expensive over time. The electric heli: its expensive up front but you still get a long battery lifetime (chargings), And theres less moving parts, less mateience. This sould be cited and added if found too.
 * Alas after all my examples, If cited and edited, to make it unbiased, there should also be something for the nitros.xx.xx.xxx.xxx (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

--

Coaxial R/C helis
The following was removed from the coaxial article, as it is not a referenced or notable discussion of coaxial rotor systems, but could probably be incorporated into this article...possibly. --Born2flie (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to the complexity of the coaxial system, there are relatively few commercial hobby-grade model helicopters using a complete collective pitch coaxial rotor system, most of them being DIY projects or limited production editions. Nevertheless, there are some simplified coaxial designs which eliminate certain mechanical parts, resulting in commercially viable and mass-producible designs.
 * Variants used in radio-controlled helicopters
 * Differential rotor speed control with fixed pitch blades



In recent years, many radio-controlled helicopter manufacturers started adopting a simplified coaxial design for their beginner models, which results in relatively easy to fly and stable design compared to a traditional single rotor design with a tail rotor. This simplified design typically consists of a coaxial rigid rotor system with fixed-pitch blades and a single swashplate controlling the cyclic pitch of the lower rotor's blade, while the upper rotor is not controllable but only inertially stabilized by a set of counterweights called a "flybar". Due to the lack of a collective pitch mechanism on either rotor, two separate motors are used (one for each rotor) and yaw control is achieved by differential speed changes between the motors. This design eliminates much of the complexity due the use of a single swashplate and no collective pitch mechanism, resulting in easily mass-producible and relatively easy to control helicopters. However, while mechanically simpler, this design has some limitations like limited maneuverability and aerobatic ability. In particular, there is an increased risk of blade clashes during maneuvers (the upper rotor colliding with the lower rotor due to inertia). This is caused by the upper blades not being directly controlled, causing their plane of rotation to remain stationary and resist any induced changes during maneuvers, while the plane of the lower blades can be controlled directly. Also, exceeding a certain pitch or roll angle results in the upper, heavily stabilized set of blades rendering the helicopter unstable and unresponsive, usually resulting in an uncontrolled speedup and crash in the direction of the roll as the top blades "drag" the rest of the helicopter, a condition commonly referred to as "death roll". The differential rotor speed control design also has the drawback of not scaling well to larger and more powerful helicopters, due to the increased weight of more powerful motors with separate running gears and its reliance on precise differential motor speed control, something more difficult to achieve at higher powers and with internal combustion motors.
 * Fixed pitch coaxial rotors with tail rotor

A different simplified fixed-pitch coaxial rotor variant using a single gas motor has been proposed, which achieves yaw control with a traditional tail rotor, while the majority of the torque is being canceled by the counter-rotating rotors themselves, which can now share the same running gear (mechanically interconnected) and necessitate no differential speed control.

2.4GHz section
I've deleted parts of it, because what was there is complete non-sense. I would type my own view on it but it seems people can't handle that.

What was there was not true, it doesn't frequently change frequency, FUTABA radios frequently change channel, channel hopping. But others such as Spektrum radio systems DO NOT do this, they select two channels and then lock into them, no switching.

Futaba:

http://2.4gigahertz.com/

"Other 2.4GHz systems hold firm to one or two frequencies. The frequency of Futaba 2.4GHz FASST shifts hundreds of times per second."

Spektrum: (Link as drescritpion is a image.)

http://spektrumrc.com/DSM/Technology/spekTech.aspx

http://spektrumrc.com/FAQ/tm.aspx?m=70

(There are others but I do not know how they work)


 * That some manufacturers (according to Futaba) don't use a full implementation of spread spectrum doesn't mean that the description of spread spectrum given in the article should be removed. All you have to do is note that some manufacturers use a limited implementation of the technology, others a more robust form.--Father Goose (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me this section is very Futaba vs. Spektrum DSM2 and doesn't give an unbiased view. Therefore i would say it needs a complete rewrite. As far as I can see only dsm2 is not true FHSS all other common protocols in this band eg DSMX, FASST, DEVO, FrSky etc do use various implementations of FHSS. Since DSM2 is no longer marketed I would suggest the 2.4ghz section mentions no manufactures and only FHSS described in simple terms. Leave discussions of x vs. y. vs z for the rc fourums86.161.2.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Well done
Well done guys, I like this article and the sensible way it is written, I added the navbox earlier and had a surf through the RC articles. Would be nice to get an RC or modelling WikiProject together as all of these articles are trundling along without leadership. I know that the Aviation project is reluctant to take them on from past discussions. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   00:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed
I've added a citation request for the line 'Controlling these in unison enables the helicopter to perform most of the same manoeuvres as full-sized helicopters'.

In actual fact, what manoeuvers can an modern RC helicopter NOT perform that a full-size helicopter CAN? I can't think of any, hence the citation request.

James / leeph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeph (talk • contribs) 09:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger
I propose that Miniature helicopter be merged into Radio-controlled helicopter (this article). The two are quite similar and can be described without separate articles. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 18:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Great idea, I have completed the merge. Dawnseeker2000   02:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Flybar vs Flybarless
Guys, we need to at least mention that the old style of using Flybars is slowly being replaced with "Flybarless" controllers - it's like the yaw-axis gyro they used to use, however there are gyros for each axis which constantly hold the entire heli's orientation for a "locked-in" or "gliding on rails" feeling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PcChip (talk • contribs) 03:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a section on multi-rotors?
It seems quads and other multi-rotor RC helis are becoming more common, and this article does not even mention them. Thoughts? Mihaister (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Multirotor section name
I don't think the word "multirotors" is common enough to be used by itself as a section header. Thoughts? Mihaister (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Globalizing Commercial applications
This section talks exclusively about the FAA, whose remit is solely US. Some mention could be given to the policies of other major authorities around the world, in particular those of Europe whose air traffic is not insignificant. 2.102.172.62 (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Drones
Some drones might be RC. There should probably be some work done to differentiate and explain the difference between an RC helicopter to a drone. Drones itself doesn't differentiate that well between the quadcopter design often referred to in the media (and official sources) as a drone and the Predator-style machines. --109.159.90.50 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)