RRC2+ Settings

JDcluster said:

You might want to recheck your settings on your RRC2+.
If you read what is printed on the PCB and set the altimeter; you might be programming it incorrectly.
I flew mine 3 times about 3 weeks ago without issue except: it deployed lower than expected.

Reason being: the settings are reversed.
Mine was printed as if the 500 ft is default.
When actually it is set stock at 300 ft.

The current manual ( Rev 1.03) seems to be correct.

This concludes today's PSA


JD

Click to expand...

onebadhawk said:

I know for sure Jeff is gonna make me sorry for asking this but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

What's a PSA ?????????????

Teddy

Click to expand...

fyrwrxz said:

oh...sooo many jokes....
Seriously it's Public Service Announcement.
Or a defunct Airline Company.

Click to expand...

onebadhawk said:

Now I just hafta hope Jeff doesn't see this till after tomorrow.........

Teddy

Click to expand...

5x7 said:

You can edit the post and ask him about his Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Test

Click to expand...

matthew said:

I have one of these on the way. Just to understand you correctly, are you saying the 300 and 500 screen printing is reversed? Or that the switch is in the other position as delivered compared to expected settings in prior manual versions?

Click to expand...

MWC said:

Hey Jeff, and TRF...

I've finally had an oppurtunity to look at this.
Jeff's email to me yesterday mentioned he observed deployment "lower" than what was set via DIP switch:

"I flew my RRC2+ about 3 weeks ago with stock settings.
The main deployed a little lower than expected.
I checked the settings and the dip switches are correct. It looked like 300 ft not 500. "

Also Jeff, your post here:

"Mine was printed as if the 500 ft is default.
When actually it is set stock at 300 ft."

This is all true and correct...
The User Manual and silkscreened legend on the PCB also concur with this:

View attachment 168071

Here's the code snippets (which also concur) as well for everyone's review:

// DIP3 assignment
if (DIP3_OFF)
{
// 300' Main
Setpoints.MainElevation = 3;
}
else
{
// 800' Main
Setpoints.MainElevation = 8;
}

// DIP4 assignment
if (!DIP4_OFF)
{
// +200' for Main
Setpoints.MainElevation += 2;
}

I believe the anecdotal observation of a "1-off" lower than expected deployment was due to ambient conditons at the "near sea level" launch site.
My reply to you yesterday Jeff:

"If you can ascertain the ambient pressure conditions for your launch day at your location we can see how far off this could skew the AGL calculations.
Lower pressures can do this, especially when flying at virtual "sea-level" elevation."

We ship them with all the DIP switches OFF, so the unit has a 300' AGL default for Main.

Can you snap a close-up pic of this altimeter legend, Jeff?
Perhaps the silk-screening got smeared or did not set up properly.

Click to expand...

JDcluster said:

The way it reads on the PCB is that: 500 ft is default.
Just like the original RRC2's .
That was the problem.

JD

Click to expand...

JDcluster said:

Ok.

Apparently the issue here is really me.

I was under the impression that default was 500 like the previous versions of the RRC2.
Dating back to the first RRC2 in 1999.

I must have misread the PCB.

Not trying to cause an issues just trying to get things straight.

Jeff

Click to expand...

MWC said:

I appreciate your pursuit of "straightness", so for the sake of straightness, the default is 300' AGL for the RRC2+ Main Event (as I ship them with all switches off).
You believed the default was 500' AGL, which is what motivated you to inquire by email in the first place. I get all that now.

I'm still unclear about this statement, however:
"Mine was printed as if the 500 ft is default."

I'd like to see this, please.

Click to expand...

JDcluster said:

Right click on the box that should be a picture...
open in new window as " Pop-up Blocker" will nuke the picture link.

I mis-read the PCB as I was still under the impression of 500 ft default.

JD

Click to expand...

MWC said:

Jeff, unable to see this picture... sorry. Maybe you can email it to me?
All is clear, now... Can I ask you to change the first post content and perhaps the "title" of this thread so everyone who might read this is straight? :wink:

Click to expand...