Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!scott
From: scott@opus.UUCP (Scott Wiesner)
Newsgroups: net.rec
Subject: Re: RC modes (Mode III)
Message-ID: <945@opus.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Nov-84 11:35:14 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.945
Posted: Mon Nov 12 11:35:14 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Nov-84 02:41:05 EST
References: <287@haddock.UUCP> <11700008@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 26

Mode III?  Well, I guess I can live with calling it that.  I suppose
it makes more sense than Mode 1.5 or reverse Mode 1 like we used to
call it.  

I really think it makes a lot of sense to have the ailerons and elevator
seperated.  I suppose part of my reasoning is simply based on the way
our transmitters are designed.  The typical stick has 2 springs to control
the tension on the 2 axis of movement.   In a roll for instance, you are
holding aileron some fixed amount, and moving the elevator to keep the
plane on track.  Every time you give the up or down movement in mode II,
you have to fight additional spring tension.   The same kind of thing 
happens when you're making a landing approach, holding elevator, and
have to level your wings.  It's very likely you're going to be unable to
hold the setting (alierons in first case, elevator in second) while using
the same stick to make variable motions AND fight different spring tensions
at the same time.  

The problem is that nobody (percentage wise) flies this way.  I feel an 
obligation to teach people to fly next summer after I've had more experience
with my own planes, and I'm not sure it would be too good an idea to teach
people this Mode III when nobody else in the club uses it.

-- 

Scott Wiesner
{allegra, ucbvax, cornell}!nbires!scott