3 ms·

This depends a lot on the cost of the model. For a powered model costing hundreds, or thousands of dollars, this is a wise addition because it protects the moto

This depends a lot on the cost of the model. For a powered model costing hundreds, or thousands of dollars, this is a wise addition because it protects the motor in the event of something going wrong (usually the control link dying) However in RC gliders (slope especially) it's not necessary - the plane is made of foam and will bounce off any obstacle with minor damage, and they don't fly at long range. It's quite uncommon in this type of flying. I've flown flying wing gliders that didn't have a flight controller - they work just fine. They're very aerobatic, though, which is less than ideal for carrying passengers. The main issue I can see with this flying configuration is that the Centre of Gravity is extremely sensitive. You have quite a lot of leeway with a conventional airframe, but with a flying wing the CoG has to be spot-on or it becomes uncontrollable.

pedrocr 7y ago
>However in RC gliders (slope especially) it's not necessary - the plane is made of foam and will bounce off any obstacle with minor damage, and they don't fly at long range. It's quite uncommon in this type of flying. If your reference is simple foam planes this is true. But in high-performance applications like F3F people will run on-board accelerometer based control units that stabilize flight. The whole discussion is a bit silly though. The standard for toys is clearly not the same as for a passenger carrying commercial airliner, even if sometimes they are very expensive toys...
- elliottkember 7y ago
  Oh sure. Those F3B/F3Fs sure fall under the expensive category! I would probably add one for anything not foam. > "everybody" puts a flight controller between the servos and the receiver these days This was the point I was trying to address. It's definitely commonplace, but not essential, and the plane is aerodynamically stable without one.

pedrocr 7y ago

>However in RC gliders (slope especially) it's not necessary - the plane is made of foam and will bounce off any obstacle with minor damage, and they don't fly at long range. It's quite uncommon in this type of flying. If your reference is simple foam planes this is true. But in high-performance applications like F3F people will run on-board accelerometer based control units that stabilize flight. The whole discussion is a bit silly though. The standard for toys is clearly not the same as for a passenger carrying commercial airliner, even if sometimes they are very expensive toys...

elliottkember 7y ago
Oh sure. Those F3B/F3Fs sure fall under the expensive category! I would probably add one for anything not foam. > "everybody" puts a flight controller between the servos and the receiver these days This was the point I was trying to address. It's definitely commonplace, but not essential, and the plane is aerodynamically stable without one.