Linear vs audio taper pots for flight controls

[mauriceb]

I know that linear taper pots are the way to go for many functions, but I'm wondering if audio taper might be more useful for rudder & yoke inputs. With FSUIPC you can change the response curve of the yoke & rudder inputs & make it look more like audio taper, but doing it with an audio taper pot instead may be a better way I think.

Has anyone used audio taper for yoke &/or rudder, and if yes, were you happy with the results?

Thanks,
Maurice

[JBaymore]

Maurice,

The pot for a joystick sits about physically in the center of the PHYSICAL range of travel of the pot when the yoke or stick or whatver is "centered" or "neutral". With an audio taper pot...... if you look at the resistance variation curve fopr the pot versus physical position ......you'd just be making your work harder to "tune it out" with the FSUIPC function.

best,

...................john

[Trevor Hale]

Hey Maurice,

I made the mistake of using Audio taper pots for my 3 engines. And the biggest problem I have is getting them synced together. When I get a chance to do it again, I will change them to linear pots. For yoke and Rudder, I don't see any issues.

Just my thoughts!

[mauriceb]

Maurice,

The pot for a joystick sits about physically in the center of the PHYSICAL range of travel of the pot when the yoke or stick or whatver is "centered" or "neutral". With an audio taper pot...... if you look at the resistance variation curve fopr the pot versus physical position ......you'd just be making your work harder to "tune it out" with the FSUIPC function.

best,

...................john


John,
I think you are 100% right. I forgot about the fact that the pot travel will start in the centered position, so the resistance will not change by the same percentage as you move right & left off the center for a given physical movement of the yoke or rudder.

What I was trying to accomplish was a more gentle & gradual change when you move the rudder or yoke a small amount, but I guess using FSUIPC for that is the right way to do it.

Thanks,

Maurice