Bad day with bullet blades

[The Mechanic]

One thing I’m realizing today as I was thinking about it is that it’s not negative pitch on the collective that causes a blade folded back to intersect the tail boom it’s positive pitch. If you fold the blades back and apply full up collective the blades move down.

That makes more sense now as I thought I had broken the habit of yanking the collective full down “to stop the motor”. A carryover from learning on fixed pitch helis. I can see myself however adding positive collective in an effort to “fly ‘er out of trouble”.

Add to that something I hadn’t thought of before is I must of added a bunch of cyclic in the direction I wanted to go to get away from the wall or the blinds or whatever I had drifted too close to. See, I wasn’t out of control when the main rotor blades contacted the wall I just unexpectedly got too close. Closer than I thought I was.

If I added positive collective in addition to a healthy cyclic input that apparently puts the rotor blades in an intersecting plane with the tail boom. Once the leading edge of the blade strikes a resilient surface it rebounds backwards and if the blade grip is rotated down in the direction of the tail boom the trailing edge of the blade strikes the boom.

This is nothing new as I fly pretty much with the same skill all the time. What is different is the fact that my plain non-bullet blades can take a strike like this without damage but these new bullet blades cannot. They are possibly more brittle and the added mass of the leading edge weight most likely also adds energy to the boom strike.

The leading edges aren’t damaged because they struck a flat, relatively soft, resilient surface. The trailing edges are damaged because they struck a hard surface of very small diameter (the tail boom). My tail boom is full of splits that I didn’t realize until this incident was caused, at least in part, by strikes from the rotor blades. I repair the tail boom splits by just wiping it down with wet epoxy while twisting the boom to work the adhesive into the fibers separated by the splits.

Audacity; as far as leveling the swash plate; you are correct that once the aircraft is airborne any miss-rigging will be compensated for by the gyro. However, in the transition from spooling up from weight on the skids to weight on the rotor any miss-rigging will impart a tendency for the heli to make a sudden drift in the direction of the miss-rigging. In other words; if your swash isn’t level the heli won’t lift straight up off of the floor when you lift off. This doesn’t include the natural tendency for any single rotor heli to drift left as it lifts off. They all do that.

My conclusion would be that bullet blades are more likely to be damaged by rebounding back into the tail boom than the plain blades but the bullet blades that came with my Nano were much tougher than these new ones I just destroyed in one crash: twice. Therefore my conclusion is the new bullet blades are made of an inferior material compared to the batch that came with the helicopter from the factory.

[JonJet]

Sure seems to be something going on...it might be time to consider alternatives that shy away from putting blame on a manufacturing defect and focus on real solutions

Perhaps additional time spent on a simulator would help...or...
Fewer flights near objects...or...
Fewer pilot errors...or...
Fewer incorrect stick inputs...or...
A larger flight area with fewer objects to interfere...or...
A self-imposed rule that results in banging the pilot's skull on a hard object immediately following any crash...or...
A "time out" of at least 8 hours after any contact with a non-moving object...or...
The immediate donation of the offending defective helicopter to the nearest dumpster...or simply...

The stark realization that fewer crashes = fewer broken blades and it might just be safer to buy (and care for) a goldfish

[The Mechanic]

JonJet;

I’m confused by your post because clearly I wasn’t complaining about any “problems” until I wasted $20 on these two particular sets of blades that did not perform as the same parts I had purchased in the past. You seem to be trying to create a problem I did not describe.

[JonJet]

My post did not mention any problems...only a set of solutions that would cure what you've had happen in the past

You cannot change the past...what you do in the future will reflect your ability to avoid repeating what has happened in the past

If the blades you complain about performed as expected while the heli was airborne, they were doing what they are supposed to do and would continue to do so until YOU piloted into an airspace that did not exist...that is when you found reason to blame something other than pilot error

To place blame on a product that does what it should is a focus poorly placed

I offered no problems, only solutions

I'll quote several others responding to other posts in other threads on HF...

"Grow a set"

When your pilot skills improve, the results will be different (even with blades from the same batch) and you will be able to do what we all strive to do in this hobby...Enjoy !

Peace Out

[The Mechanic]

JonJet;

You’re denying the discussion at hand and you’re just being rude. There’s no place for an attitude like that on this forum.

[JonJet]

If you crash your heli and break blades, just realize that they did not break until AFTER you crashed...that is My whole point

You can however, be grateful that nothing else broke...

But nowhere in any post in this thread is that mentioned

My responses were made in a "lighten up" mode, Sir...

You cannot blame your pilot errors on a product that performs well until You make an error and it breaks

Would you complain that your steering wheel, tires or some other part was defective after you wrapped the car around a telephone pole?

Would anyone listen to that complaint if you did it TWICE?

Would the resulting penalty persuade you to drive the car differently?

Lighten up, man...and realize the source of your complaint...it's your kettle that is black

Just pointing out the obvious and offered numerous solutions

[Dustin Mustangs]

I'm with the OP on this one... I am not sure I could do that to a set of blades in one crash even if I tried. Let alone twice in a row.

Maybe you're just an expert at crashing, JonJet???

[The Mechanic]

JonJet;

The problem you’re trying to create is an attempt to conclude my expectations are unreasonable. You have not disclosed what your irrational defense of these particular blades could possibly be. Your denial of rudeness only exacerbates the behavior.

[The Mechanic]

Mustangs,
Thanks! That’s a funny comment! I hadn't thought of that one. I don't think I could do it with my old blades in one crash if I tried either.

[audacity]

your first post is you had pulled negative pitch and hit TH and the blades hit the boom on the trailing edge. this is not possible.

your setup is mechanically perfect...your radio is per Blade specs. all you did was flip a switch and magic destruction happened.

so now are you saying the blades hit and reverse disk rotation to strike the boom?!?!?
i'm going with highly, highly,,,,very, not probable.

the leading edge of a blade can make contact with the trailing edge of a blade.

all jonjet is saying...it's nuts to blame BLADE for our mistakes. the nano was engineered to be the smallest 3d copter. it's not a starter copter. nor was it designed to be crashed.

your blades do NOT fold back with any radio inputs! resistance on only ONE blade would have to be greater than the centripetal force...kinda like in a crash...not hit'n TH

[audacity]

"The problem you’re trying to create is an attempt to conclude my expectations are unreasonable. You have not disclosed what your irrational defense of these particular blades could possibly be. Your denial of rudeness only exacerbates the behavior"

unreasonable?...they are ridiculous! your story starts as you flipped a switch and blades broke...it's horizon's problem. later down the thread it's; the blades are sticking something resilient and bounced back on the boom...so your boom has strikes on the port side and not starboard. i would really like to see that....please post those photos

thanks

[JonJet]

Originally Posted by audacity

your first post is you had pulled negative pitch and hit TH and the blades hit the boom on the trailing edge. this is not possible.

your setup is mechanically perfect...your radio is per Blade specs. all you did was flip a switch and magic destruction happened.

so now are you saying the blades hit and reverse disk rotation to strike the boom?!?!?
i'm going with highly, highly,,,,very, not probable.

the leading edge of a blade can make contact with the trailing edge of a blade.

all jonjet is saying...it's nuts to blame BLADE for our mistakes. the nano was engineered to be the smallest 3d copter. it's not a starter copter. nor was it designed to be crashed.

your blades do NOT fold back with any radio inputs! resistance on only ONE blade would have to be greater than the centripetal force...kinda like in a crash...not hit'n TH

Another voice of reason...excellent perspective in the proper place

[The Mechanic]

jonjet & audacity;

By all means feel free to buy as many $10 blades as you want that last one light crash. I ordered them direct from Horizon if you want to make sure you get the same batch.

[audacity]

Originally Posted by The Mechanic

jonjet & audacity;

By all means feel free to buy as many $10 blades as you want that last one light crash. I ordered them direct from Horizon if you want to make sure you get the same batch.

my offer still stands...i will mail a set of free blades right out if you can show me how your original statement could be possible???? you hit TH and the trailing edge of the blades hit the boom.

[JonJet]

Save your $10 next time you crash...and buy some cheese to go with your whine
Or just take one of My suggestions >>>

Better yet, just post a pic proving your theory like Audacity says...

and I WILL MATCH HIS OFFER

[ephit]

I would also be angry if they lasted one crash. I know they are not designed to "crash". Then again. I crash all the time. The nano is my sim. Sim flying is sooooooo boring. I hate it. I'm taking both sides. :-)

[Mr-Mike]

Looking at the picture that was posted, I would say the blades are no different than the originals. That bent up section still intact and splits that don't completely break the blade in two, is exactly how Nano blades fail.

They are pliable. If they shattered like a set of microhelis or chipped I would suspect a quality issue. The blade with multiple cracks has been crashed a number of times. The center blade can still flown.

The picture speaks for itself. This isn't a manufacturing or QA deficiency. +1 for ridiculous.

[JonJet]

Hey, I just had a great thought...

What if we all encouraged one of those Sim Environment Guru's to create a 3D scenery that had bodacious babes in bikini's cheering our every move?

I'd buy that for a dollar !

[JonJet]

Originally Posted by Mr-Mike

Looking at the picture that was posted, I would say the blades are no different than the originals. That bent up section still intact and splits that don't completely break the blade in two, is exactly how Nano blades fail.

They are pliable. If they shattered like a set of microhelis or chipped I would suspect a quality issue. The blade with multiple cracks has been crashed a number of times. The center blade can still flown.

The picture speaks for itself. This isn't a manufacturing or QA deficiency. +1 for ridiculous.

Another Voice Of Reason !!

[The Mechanic]

audacity;

I’m not trying to be smart when I say I think you’ve missed a part of what I’ve posted including the link to another thread I referenced. If you re-read maybe you’ll see something I’ve tried to explain, just not very good perhaps. This isn’t something I figured out; I’ve read about it in other threads. It is the only explanation that can explain a blade strike on the trailing edge. The blades bounce when they hit something resilient and forget about the throttle hold; if the swash is tilted the wrong way the blades can bounce back into the tail boom. Obviously we can see that in the picture.