[simpits-tech] Viperpit.org SSC project a success.

Fri Jan 23 08:09:18 PST 2004

Marv,

Thanks for the compliments.  Noticed the link for the mechanical deflection amplifier got chopped of:
http://pages.zdnet.com/johncraigrochester/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ssc_base_02_flex_bar.jpg

I wish we'd move over to the forum.  I don't understand the preference for this email based "list" format. :-(

Craig R.

-----Original Message-----
From: simpits-tech-bounces at simpits.org
[mailto:simpits-tech-bounces at simpits.org]On Behalf Of Marv De Beque
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 7:35 PM
To: Simulator Cockpit tech list
Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] Viperpit.org SSC project a success.

Devilishly simple!  Now I understand, I think.  You made a mechanical
solution to the differential forces requited to operate the stick.

Nice work.

Marv

On 1/22/04 6:42 PM, "Craig Rochester" <johncraigroch at msn.com> wrote:

> The 3 axes besides pitch-down use a 1/4" rod for a bending beam.  The "tube"
> bottoms out against a
> 0.035" thick piece of feeler gauge stock.  Here's a sketch:
> http://pages.zdnet.com/johncraigrochester/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictur
> es/ssc_base_02_flex_ba
> r.jpg  The smaller pitch-down deflection(0.022") is mechanically amplified to
> actuate the LVDT about
> the same as the pitch-up(0.17").
>
> We haven't done the hysteresis tests yet.  The prototype had about 1% IIRC.
> I'd guess that Dave
> excellent machining a heat treatment of the components will reduce the
> repeatability.
>
> Craig R.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: simpits-tech-bounces at simpits.org
> [mailto:simpits-tech-bounces at simpits.org]On Behalf Of Marv De Beque
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:55 PM
> To: Simulator Cockpit tech list
> Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] Viperpit.org SSC project a success.
>
>
> Tis the beauty of "Male Answer Syndrome".  You simply cry that you are
> disabled.  :-)
>
> I did not really look at your final design, but I did remember you had an
> idea using a bending beam as the main spring system and a secondary beam
> that amplified the amount of movement at the LVDT slug.  Did you choose that
> design?
>
> Also, did you take repeatability measurements to see if the beam returns to
> center reliably?  You remember all of those headaches I went through.  :-)
>
> Marv
>
>
> On 1/22/04 3:25 PM, "Craig Rochester" <johncraigroch at msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Marv,
>>
>> "...Physiologically, it may be that as you experience negative G loading that
>> one's physical strength may alter.
>>
>> What do you think?  :-)"
>>
>> I don't have a clue. :-)  Last time I speculated on this, I was 100% wrong.
>> ;-)
>>
>> Craig R.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: simpits-tech-bounces at simpits.org
>> [mailto:simpits-tech-bounces at simpits.org]On Behalf Of Marv De Beque
>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:41 PM
>> To: Simulator Cockpit tech list
>> Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] Viperpit.org SSC project a success.
>>
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> That is a good question and I don't know, but I agree with your logic.
>>
>> Since I don't know, I'll succumb to Male Answer Syndrome.
>>
>> I think our frame of reference is based on a 1 G environment in a static
>> seating position under normal physiological conditions.  It may well be that
>> under negative G loading that the torso rides up in the seat and the pilots
>> ability to push forward on the stick is likewise diminished.
>>
>> Physiologically, it may be that as you experience negative G loading that
>> one's physical strength may alter.
>>
>> What do you think?  :-)
>>
>> Marv
>>
>>
>> On 1/22/04 7:54 AM, "Craig Rochester" <johncraigroch at msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Marv,
>>>
>>> It has been great fun working with the Viperpit.org guys.  A community
>>> project
>>> where many people
>>> brought their expertise to bear the project.
>>>
>>> Question Marv, I still don't understand the design rationale behind the
>>> pitch-down axis(16 lbs. at
>>> .030").  I have some info that calls for 29 lbs. at 0.030".  The higher
>>> value
>>> makes more sense to
>>> me. I've read that the pitch-down is more susceptible to over controlling
>>> and
>>> that's why the set the
>>> smaller deflection.  Why would they not use the higher force?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Craig R.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: simpits-tech-bounces at simpits.org
>>> [mailto:simpits-tech-bounces at simpits.org]On Behalf Of Marv De Beque
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:41 PM
>>> To: Simulator Cockpit tech list
>>> Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] Viperpit.org SSC project a success.
>>>
>>>
>>> Congratulations!  You guys did well!
>>>
>>> Marv
>>>
>>> On 1/21/04 9:34 PM, "Craig Rochester" <johncraigroch at msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave has finished building the rig:
>>>> http://falcon24.users.btopenworld.com/ssc05.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Dave tested the SSC's performance and we met the specs for the SSC:
>>>>
>>>> Pitch Down 16.0 lbs @ .027" ± .013"
>>>> Pitch Up 25.0 lbs @ .171" ± .058"
>>>> Roll 7.7 Kg = 17.0 lbs @ .110" ± .030"
>>>>
>>>> The bench results were:
>>>>
>>>> Pitch Down 7.3 Kg = 16.06 lbs @ .030"
>>>> Pitch Up 11.4 Kg = 25.08 lbs @ .170"
>>>> Roll 7.7 Kg = 16.94 lbs @ .118"
>>>>
>>>> Will be publishing drawings, BOM, etc. soon.
>>>>
>>>> Craig R.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Simpits-tech mailing list
>>>> Simpits-tech at simpits.org
>>>> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
>>>> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above
>>>> page.
>>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Simpits-tech mailing list
>>> Simpits-tech at simpits.org
>>> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
>>> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Simpits-tech mailing list
>>> Simpits-tech at simpits.org
>>> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
>>> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
>>> Thanks!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Simpits-tech mailing list
>> Simpits-tech at simpits.org
>> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
>> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Simpits-tech mailing list
>> Simpits-tech at simpits.org
>> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
>> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
>> Thanks!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simpits-tech mailing list
> Simpits-tech at simpits.org
> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
> Thanks!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simpits-tech mailing list
> Simpits-tech at simpits.org
> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
> Thanks!

_______________________________________________
Simpits-tech mailing list
Simpits-tech at simpits.org
http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.  Thanks!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.simpits.org/pipermail/simpits-tech/attachments/20040123/4675a2cf/attachment-0001.html