500 DFC Swashplate

[GT86]

Originally Posted by Lee2782

I'm not talking about the whole DCF conversion from standard flybarless. I understand converting from the standard flybarless to DFC the main shaft is shorter and you need to shorten your servo links.
But I had assumed you already had the DFC running the standard 500 swash and now you have upgraded to the DFC swash which apparently has the ball links closer to the main shaft giving you some Neg pitch, therefore you would have to adjust your pitch or servo links to get back to 0 deg at mid stick

I measured when I installed the DFC swash, and the distance from ball center to ball center was virtually identical compared to the standard swash. This was the balls for the pitch links, not the servo links. Just a hair over 35mm if I remember right. I'm not at home this week, will check for sure when I get back. But I don't think the balls are any closer to the main shaft.

Sent from my tablet via Tapatalk

[Lee2782]

Thanks GT86 hmmm might just stick with the standard swash then if the new swash wont improve geometry
Cheers

[Deet]

Originally Posted by Lee2782

I'm not talking about the whole DCF conversion from standard flybarless. I understand converting from the standard flybarless to DFC the main shaft is shorter and you need to shorten your servo links.
But I had assumed you already had the DFC running the standard 500 swash and now you have upgraded to the DFC swash which apparently has the ball links closer to the main shaft giving you some Neg pitch, therefore you would have to adjust your pitch or servo links to get back to 0 deg at mid stick

it won't change any link lengths if your just changing the swash

the geometry won't be different as Align will optimise it for the 3G/x, the existing swash with the shorter balls already is, so they would maintain that distance.

[Feeback]

Originally Posted by Deet

the geometry won't be different as Align will optimise it for the 3G/x,

Hey Deet, how do you know this?
I'm just wondering because I had figured they chose this distance to avoid binding the swash at greater tilt angle.

[DesJardins]

Originally Posted by Feeback

Hey Deet, how do you know this?
I'm just wondering because I had figured they chose this distance to avoid binding the swash at greater tilt angle.

If anything it has been updated to work with the head specifically not necessarily a FBL unit...

"Align have now released the new DFC Swashplate to the smaller sizes helis,Trex 250,450 and 500:
● Designed specifically for DFC rotorhead system, improving DFC connecting rod’s strength and minimizing linkage detachment during extreme flight maneuvers."

[Deet]

Originally Posted by DesJardins

If anything it has been updated to work with the head specifically not necessarily a FBL unit...

"Align have now released the new DFC Swashplate to the smaller sizes helis,Trex 250,450 and 500:
● Designed specifically for DFC rotorhead system, improving DFC connecting rod’s strength and minimizing linkage detachment during extreme flight maneuvers."

Because Align wants you to use 3Gx, and nothing else...

the last line says it, linkage detachment, NOTHING regarding geometry

[DesJardins]

The point is that it wasn't a design enhancement to work specifcally with the 3GX, it was enhanced to work better with the head...

Of course they wouldn't design it to have better geometry for a different FBL unit, I know I wouldn't either!

[Feeback]

Well, it's funny that other sizes seem to have more resolution than the 500...and are designed for the same controller. It also seems odd one would design a FBL controller to want less resolution.
I don't know, just wondering. My guess was that the goal was to maintain pitch range without binding.....in answer to the question, "why didn't they do anything to improve it".

[DesJardins]

Since I don't have the ability to test or see better resolution with any of the other swashplates I wouldn't even guess


I don't doubt that Align put more R&D into the larger 550-700+ Heli's though

[Deet]

On the larger size helis there was a resolution issue, they have probably only done this second lot of DFC swashes for the smaller sizes so we don't wing that we missed out

AND they get to sell what really is a cosmetic upgrade

(OK the ball links do have a little less stress on them in this design)

[GT86]

Originally Posted by Deet

AND they get to sell what really is a cosmetic upgrade

That's really all it is, at least for the 500. If you need a new swash, it's probably worth getting. But there are no geometry changes, so there's no functional benefit other than a smaller chance of popping a link.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[DesJardins]

Originally Posted by Deet

On the larger size helis there was a resolution issue, they have probably only done this second lot of DFC swashes for the smaller sizes so we don't wing that we missed out

AND they get to sell what really is a cosmetic upgrade

(OK the ball links do have a little less stress on them in this design)

But was there a legit "resolution issue" on the 500-250 sizes...?

Having less stress on the ball links is the only thing that was ever said to have been changed & the only concern with these sized Heli's from what I have seen posted vs. people always wanting better resolution. Having less stress on the swash balls isn't a cosmetic purchase as people have had the ball links pop.

I haven't seen resolution cause a problem with the 500. Has anyone?

[REDLS2]

sOOOooo ..... I kind of thought it was cool the links just pop off when you send it in the dirt inverted. Saved alot of other stuff by popping off. Just a thought

[DesJardins]

Originally Posted by REDLS2

sOOOooo ..... I kind of thought it was cool the links just pop off when you send it in the dirt inverted. Saved alot of other stuff by popping off. Just a thought

That's the truth!

[Deet]

Originally Posted by DesJardins

But was there a legit "resolution issue" on the 500-250 sizes...?

on the 500 EFL if you use the metal servo arms, yes there is a resolution issue on "other" FBL controllers

switch to the plastic arms, move in the balls to 16mm and no issue

[DesJardins]

Originally Posted by Deet

on the 500 EFL if you use the metal servo arms, yes there is a resolution issue on "other" FBL controllers

switch to the plastic arms, move in the balls to 16mm and no issue

Theeeeeeen there is no issue... Use the plastic arms as mentioned if trying to use a different FBL unit

Or is it the metal arms causing the resolution problems and not the swash? Anyone ever want to blame the metal arms instead? LMAO

[GT86]

Originally Posted by DesJardins

Theeeeeeen there is no issue... Use the plastic arms as mentioned if trying to use a different FBL unit

I like the plastic anyway. Something has to give in a crash, and servo arms are cheap.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Deet]

the metal arms are too long. they are that length because when the DS510 first was released it was noticed that on the flybarred 500 the balls would hit the case if set to 16mm

so the spec was changed to 19mm to solve that issue, but it actually stuffed up the geometry

now the pro kit comes along and it ships with metal arms at 19mm so the balls don't hit the case IF you have the flybarred version

its how Align thinks....

so get the old plastic arms, go back to the original 16mm spec and you fix the geometry

Luckily you dont need as much servo travel on FBL

sorry of the history lesson but it does explain everything

[DesJardins]

It's a good timeline of info, basically if Align tossed out metal 16mm version arms then those running beastX or Vbar will get the better resolution so many search for with set-up.

Seems to me the DFC Swash is just fine as designed to stop the premature ball links from potential pop-off


I should have the new DFC swashplate and head in a week or so to give the set-up a try
Decided I might as well