Normal Switches vs Heavy Duty Switches

Quote:

Originally posted by RC4toyz
" I have been using the JR heavy duty switches all the way up to 40% aircraft, and batteries to 3000mah. "

Stephen, how do/did you know that this switch was strong enough to support the loads you are subjecting it to? This is what I am driving at...how do we know that "heavy duty" actually constitutes something of value?

Conversely, I suppose I could also say that even the standard Futaba switches are fine. I know of quite a few out there flying with these standard switches, and they aren't having any problems either. Come to think of it, the 40% Giles I had did in fact use the Futaba standard switch with the Du-Bro charge jack setup. It had well over 200 some odd flights on it before it met its demise (not electrical), and the switches were never an issue.

Matter of fact (sound of me running down to the basement....grabbing the switch from the old Giles and a new JR switch, the digital SLR and macro lens, a few tools...sound of me coming back upstairs), it seems that we can do at least a visual examination and make some informed assumptions.

Refer to the following photos;
www.giantscalerc.com/technical-switches.htm

It appears that the Futaba normal switches are a sort of wiper type. It uses two contacts, and the wires are connected to each contact. There is some redundancy which increases its reliability somewhat. The case of the standard Futaba is a snap together, and was easy to get apart.

The JR heavy duty switch is built more rugged for heavier duty usage. The switch it self is larger then than the standard Futaba, and the case was a bear to disassemble. The switch housing is actually soldered to the board, so its not a snap together item and can find itself unsnapped. In fact, I could not disassemble the switch housing without completely destroying the board and soldered connections for the housing. The connections used multiple contacts just as in the Futaba standard switch, but they were somewhat larger. The on and off positions had a definite snap, as provided by the two holes seen in the side of the casing. I doubt that it would be able to vibrate itself from on to off on it own. The Futaba had a good snap action also, but not as positive as the JR switch.

I think the JR switch is definitely more robust and heavy duty. While I think there is an advantage to the JR switch in a high vibration environment, I don't think there is that much difference between them as far as current carrying capability. I could be wrong, but from the surface it doesn't appear to be so. The JR switch internal contacts only appear to be very slightly larger. Maybe that is enough to carry a fair bit more current, I really don't know.

My conclusions. I would go with the JR switch because of its better overall construction. The wiring appears to be less prone to chaffing and a short than the Futaba. The Futaba has the black wire running right over the positives when the switch is encased, with only the clear insulator protecting it. Chaffing could wear away the insulator and cause a complete short. The JR leads are all separated, and are further secured with a soft glue to the board itself for strain relief. There are no wires crossing that could chafe and cause a short.

Based on the condition of the Futaba switch that was in the Giles for two seasons and a couple hundred flights, I would change the Futaba switches every two seasons or so. On the JR, I would feel comfortable leaving them in for double that period. However, this is based on their construction, and not from a current carrying capacity, which I didn't measure.

A few tools, 20 minutes, and we are all just a bit more educated on what's inside those switches. Now if someone would be so kind as to run some current tests through them, we would be very well informed. Any volunteers?

This was a worthy exercise for me.

Unfortunately we don't. However, we have the feedback from those bold enough to venture into uncharted waters before us. I only put some trust in the JR heavy duty switches because there were a number of people out there flying their 40% airplanes with them installed, and they were not having any difficulties attributed to the switch. I just duplicated what they had, and crossed my fingers. So far so good after hundreds of flights and multiple seasons.Conversely, I suppose I could also say that even the standard Futaba switches are fine. I know of quite a few out there flying with these standard switches, and they aren't having any problems either. Come to think of it, the 40% Giles I had did in fact use the Futaba standard switch with the Du-Bro charge jack setup. It had well over 200 some odd flights on it before it met its demise (not electrical), and the switches were never an issue.Matter of fact (sound of me running down to the basement....grabbing the switch from the old Giles and a new JR switch, the digital SLR and macro lens, a few tools...sound of me coming back upstairs), it seems that we can do at least a visual examination and make some informed assumptions.Refer to the following photos;It appears that the Futaba normal switches are a sort of wiper type. It uses two contacts, and the wires are connected to each contact. There is some redundancy which increases its reliability somewhat. The case of the standard Futaba is a snap together, and was easy to get apart.The JR heavy duty switch is built more rugged for heavier duty usage. The switch it self is larger then than the standard Futaba, and the case was a bear to disassemble. The switch housing is actually soldered to the board, so its not a snap together item and can find itself unsnapped. In fact, I could not disassemble the switch housing without completely destroying the board and soldered connections for the housing. The connections used multiple contacts just as in the Futaba standard switch, but they were somewhat larger. The on and off positions had a definite snap, as provided by the two holes seen in the side of the casing. I doubt that it would be able to vibrate itself from on to off on it own. The Futaba had a good snap action also, but not as positive as the JR switch.I think the JR switch is definitely more robust and heavy duty. While I think there is an advantage to the JR switch in a high vibration environment, I don't think there is that much difference between them as far as current carrying capability. I could be wrong, but from the surface it doesn't appear to be so. The JR switch internal contacts only appear to be very slightly larger. Maybe that is enough to carry a fair bit more current, I really don't know.My conclusions. I would go with the JR switch because of its better overall construction. The wiring appears to be less prone to chaffing and a short than the Futaba. The Futaba has the black wire running right over the positives when the switch is encased, with only the clear insulator protecting it. Chaffing could wear away the insulator and cause a complete short. The JR leads are all separated, and are further secured with a soft glue to the board itself for strain relief. There are no wires crossing that could chafe and cause a short.Based on the condition of the Futaba switch that was in the Giles for two seasons and a couple hundred flights, I would change the Futaba switches every two seasons or so. On the JR, I would feel comfortable leaving them in for double that period. However, this is based on their construction, and not from a current carrying capacity, which I didn't measure.A few tools, 20 minutes, and we are all just a bit more educated on what's inside those switches. Now if someone would be so kind as to run some current tests through them, we would be very well informed. Any volunteers?This was a worthy exercise for me.