FlyHirundo Yoke: introduction

[oemlegoem 29]

In my previous thread showing the FlyHirundo Rudder Pedal  (https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/560219-flyhirundo-rudder-pedal-introduction/  ), I mentioned the development of a yoke. The yoke uses the same engineering choices as the rudder pedal: robust stainless steel construction, sealed roller bearings, widely spaced linear tracks, metal springs (no rubber bungees).

Presently the yoke is not completed yet: the final design of the yoke handle and a clamp to fix to a table still have to be developed. But in the present configuration the yoke is fully functional. The yoke can be attached to a table with webbing straps, that will also be a feature of the final design.

In one of the pictures, you can see metal springs attached to a plate on the central shaft. The design is optimised so that the torque-rotational movement is almost linear. Bolts on the shaft plate can be repositioned so that the yoke handle movement is limited to a 90degree, 60degree or 45degree turn (to one side, double that amount side to side). Different springs for different turn angles are supplied, and can be easily replaced.   

I will exhibit the rudder pedal and yoke at the flight simulation event in Lelystad, the Netherlands, on the weekend of 2/3November.
Looking forward to hear your comments.

PS: the bottom side picture shows bearings with a shield, but the final design will use sealed bearings.

Edited October 26, 2019 by oemlegoem

[oemlegoem 29]

I could not edit my first post anymore, but I have to add some important info. The total pitch travel (from full forward to full back) is 186mm 7.3inch. The pitch and roll movement is smooth, with low friction and  without central indent. 

Edited October 26, 2019 by oemlegoem

[oemlegoem 29]

So far, when showing the rudder pedal (https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/560219-flyhirundo-rudder-pedal-introduction/) and yoke, nobody has asked yet here whether potentiometers or Hall sensors are used. I was a bit disappointed. So I will ask the question myself. And the answer is: neither, nor.

I use a load cell attached to a spring, that is attached to the platform that is moved back and forth for pitch. The movement changes the spring extension and the resulting force is sensed by the load cell. See picture below. I use the same system for roll. The system is very precise. E.g. using the output values in X-Plane, I could sense movements of 0.01mm. The same system is used in the rudder pedal.

Now for the reason why I chose this design.  Normally, a linear movement is transferred with a plastic gear wheel and rack to a potentiometer or Hall sensor. This already requires accurate positioning of all the components. Suppose then that after a few years, a tooth of the plastic gear breaks off. Then it is very difficult to find a replacement on the free market, because the gear components are not standardized. However, the type of load cell I use (80mmx12.7mmx12.7mm) is widely available on the internet. And is easily replaced without needing accurate positioning.

I explained this at FSweekend in Lelystad, and always received approving comments.

Edited November 6, 2019 by oemlegoem

[ark 1,290]

A major yoke design issue for me is the arrangement and types of buttons/switches that are on the horns of the yoke handle. Although I don't like the Saitek/Logitech Pro Flight yoke itself because of the well known pitch and roll axes problems, I do very much like their button/switch arrangement that is provided on the yoke's horns.

Al

Edited November 6, 2019 by ark

[orchestra_nl 927]

Interesting choice to use load cells instead of Hall sensors. I like the idea that in the long run it's easily replaceable but I hope that shouldn't be needed. I do wonder about your choice for springs vs bungee cords. The springs in my current yoke sometimes make unsettling noises and you say for the load cells you can easily find replacements, what about those springs?

You might make the yoke handle removable so future enhancements might be a matter of replacing the handle. As @ark said, the Saitek yoke is nice but I think the 8-way switch should be lower, to the right of the elevator trim switch. The trim switches could be more pronounced as well. In real life I noticed that pilots have started to mount iPads onto yokes so it might be interesting to cater for that too.

[oemlegoem 29]

4 hours ago, orchestra_nl said:

Interesting choice to use load cells instead of Hall sensors. I like the idea that in the long run it's easily replaceable but I hope that shouldn't be needed. I do wonder about your choice for springs vs bungee cords. The springs in my current yoke sometimes make unsettling noises and you say for the load cells you can easily find replacements, what about those springs?

You might make the yoke handle removable so future enhancements might be a matter of replacing the handle. As @ark said, the Saitek yoke is nice but I think the 8-way switch should be lower, to the right of the elevator trim switch. The trim switches could be more pronounced as well. In real life I noticed that pilots have started to mount iPads onto yokes so it might be interesting to cater for that too.

@orchestra_nl  , Allard: my first yoke was the Saitek, and it also had spring noise. But there is no spring noise on the FlyHirundo yoke or rudder pedal. I do not know what makes the difference. There is some noise however from the stainless steel rollers rolling on the stainless steel tracks. Metal on metal noise is hard to avoid though, and the arrangement makes for smooth running with low friction.
I would not be concerned about steel springs breaking. Tension springs have a defined fatigue life, and for the yoke and rudder pedal, I design for a fatigue life with a minimum of 500'000 full movement cycles. In any case, I will publish the spring specification, and any other component that could be expected to break down.

Regarding mounting an iPad, there are 4 holes on top of the cover (see picture in the first post) that can be used to mount a platform to support an iPad, keyboard etc. Or do you mean to mount an iPad on the yoke handle? 

Edited November 6, 2019 by oemlegoem

[oemlegoem 29]

@ark and @orchestra_nl : Al, Allard, thanks for the suggestions for the arrangement of switches and buttons on the yoke handle.

[MarkJHarris 128]

This all looks very well designed and thought out Sir. Well done. My 10p thought is that for high end, the ability to customise switch placement and yoke size, shape is pretty important. With a Boeing 737 moulding, it should be fairly straight forward to mimic the genuine switch location with a quality HAT on the inner side, and make the switches able to give right side layout too. A smaller Beech or Cessna type yoke moulding and you should have most bases covered. I know Austin at X-Plane has now has enabled dual trim switches which is excellent. The Popularity and success of the Warthog shows a swap capable stick is very useful for enthusiasts, and let's face it it's these folks who seem to have the money to spend. 

The Brunner Yoke is let down by the actual yoke moulding and switch placement as well. With a simple front cover to access a card to connect the switches and cable from the main body, it's perfectly doable.

I wish you success. 

[oemlegoem 29]

Some more information on the yoke resolution and precision. MarkDH published recently an excellent YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwLK2b49MXQ )   on the precision of mechanical movement and measuring it (on a different yoke). So I wanted to publish details on the FlyHirundo yoke.

The FlyHirundo uses a 16bit measuring/controlling system. But the loadcells do not use the full range.

For measuring the 186mm pitch (full forward - backward), ca 20031 steps are used. That is more than 14bits. So it measures down to a movement of 0.01mm, and jitter free.
Important is to have a low friction in the system, so that the yoke handle returns to the same neutral position without detent. I measured this by giving the yoke handle a push and let it return to rest position without touching it. I did this 10 times, and used the maximum and minimum value. The difference between max and min is 142bits, which is 0.7% of the total range, or 1.3mm in absolute value.

For the roll (when set to total 180degees), ca 16370 steps are used, one step equalling 0.006degrees. The precision of returning to the same neutral position is 32bits = 0.002% of the total range = 0.4degrees.

Of course, no detent and no dead zone is used.

These values were measured on one yoke and can change from yoke to yoke due to tolerances.

Edited November 18, 2019 by oemlegoem

[fairwinds47 0]

I am constructing a cockpit setup and want to add to the Virtual-Fly TQ6 throttle quadrant I already have.  I was considering the VF yoke and rudder pedals, until I came across  Flyhirundo.  Is there any new information on the development or availability of the rudder pedals and yoke?

I am replacing Saitek pedals and PFC Cirrus Yoke (PCATD).

/Len

 

 

[oemlegoem 29]

Hello Len,

Presently I am working on an update for the rudder pedal, and soon I will publish the technical details here on the Avsim forum. Limited units are available for the updated version.
I kept the units of the first version and the initial production of the update version low, because I want to make sure the features and quality is right.

The yoke is still under development and not yet available for sale.

If you need more info, you can also contact me under info@flyhirundo.com

regards
Jozef

Edited December 1, 2020 by oemlegoem