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

Craig Rochester johncraigroch at msn.com
Fri Jan 23 12:49:16 PST 2004


Re: [simpits-tech] Viperpit.org SSC project a success.http://www.simpits.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi
  -----Original Message-----
  From: simpits-tech-bounces at simpits.org [mailto:simpits-tech-bounces at simpits.org]On Behalf Of Marv De Beque
  Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 12:21 PM
  To: Simulator Cockpit tech list
  Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] Viperpit.org SSC project a success.


  Forum?  What forum?

  Marv


  On 1/23/04 8:09 AM, "Craig Rochester" <johncraigroch at msn.com> wrote:


    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!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    _______________________________________________
    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/d9fe9460/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Simpits-tech mailing list