Dafydd Bevan

Andy, thank you - they are really valid points. From my own experience I would caution anyone who thinks FPV will let you fly anywhere for any amount of distance. The video image transmitted is only semi-reliable, interference from a wireless network can be seen clearly, as can the interruption of all TX/RX signals from mobile phones and of course trees, buildings etc. The mobile phone issue can have a dire effect on one's aircraft as well - a video shows you the cause but doesn't stop you losing control of the aircraft!. I currently use/test the FPV system to check the video being received - this is done after flying or viewed by a "buddy". Dafydd

Thank you Richard, I read with interest your comments. Just to make this clear - I fly with insurance and I fly safely. I think FPV should be with a co-Pilot and I have no problem with that. I've just been flying with buzzards today - that's all. I look forward to others comments. Dafydd

Richard Sharman, Thank you for your opinion. Please don't impy or infer activities are criminal with out due reference to the acts and sections of written or case law. I feel affronted that you should have implied I was carrying out or even participating in such an action. I'm appalled! I am entitled to question an organisation (BFMA) that attempts to impliment a bafoon policy without due reference to the growing technology and great desire of those who are FPV minded.  I should have written "take up RC again" as I flurted with it some 28 years ago.  With all due respect for your "time served" and the 40 year sentence. It doesn't mean an old lag cant learn something new and it doesn't mean you've learnt anything. Thank you for your opinion - while I disagree with it, I respect your right to write it, though greatly disappointed by an inference within the content!

I would like to donate the prize if I win to...... me!!!! Thanks for reading the answer

Right, I'm "off PC" and I'm out to fly my plane in my airfield..... Dafydd

Hi, I realised while "off PC" an additional point and it seems that Stuart is touching on the very same point. The Head Tracking device I use, MagTrack is linked to the TX using the same connection a "buddy box" would utilise and I presume other head Trackers would also utilise the same set up. I question whether the BFMA has actually used, or have use of, the FPV systems that are functioning today? Insurance is also relative to the contributors and the risk element. In my opinion the risk of endangerment from a RC flying object is significantly low, certainly less than a Tractor driven on road. I wonder therefore whom in the BFMA (insurance set up) came to the conclusion that FPV's have to adhere to a buddy system. I'm raising these points as I have an interest in FPV and it is what enticed me to take up RC - I saw the potential. Stuart, I fully agree with you. The headtracking element will give the FPV Pilot the peripheral vision needed to retain additional control of the situation. To look along the wing of your plane to sweep along the whole area. Besides being a delight  linking your head to camera movement adds an additional dimension to RC flying. Who wants to fly a Spitfre? Hands up! I would recommend an FPV Pilot have an OSD set up - it is essential information displayed in a readable format. Dafydd

I hope this magazine questions the BMFA to find out what systems they have tested? I doubt they are even aware of how good some OSD displays are and their use with FPV. Has the magazine tested..tried out the OSD devices yet? Perhaps a report could be given to the BMFA. Setting up a buddy system to comply wont be a big issue just an inconveinience. A spotter and a mate to participate and talk to is always good - that's what I like anyway. Side event: 2800 metresflight  - yep way out of sight from what I've seen of the video. Up as high as Google and field mapping planes. The video also reveals the additional electronic equipment used and that wasn't off the shelf FPV. Dafydd

Hi all, I have an FPV system called Fat Shark and an OSD device (BlackStork) and a magnetic driven Head Tracking device (MagTrack) by AvionicsRC.com. Using the OSD should negate the disorientation aspect which a flyer could find themselves in. I'm still trying out the FPV and the OSD will be fitted soon to create a short video. I'm currently using FPV set up to look at the weaknesses and the benefits - finding out before I go full FPV/OSD. 1. Flying and videoing is absolutely fantastic capability - you have the pilot's perspective and for those who want to fly a "warbird" then this is a smashing tool 2. The transmission can be affected by a wireless network set up - my own Laptop caused interferrence with the network card trying to connect out in my "airfield".  3. The buddy system, that made me smile. FPV will mean you can go higher and still be in control and still be in line of sight. OSD (SatNav+ info) with full information of direction, height, battery strength, location, where to fly back to the TX point, angle of decent/rise means you have MORE information than the buddy who's supposed to be the "master"!! In Spain recently a record was set with OSD and FPV of 2800 metres height, the RC plane was landed within feet of the operator.  http://seemyworldonvideo.com/view/201/highest-fpv/ 4. Flying beyond view. Well that's sort of impractical, it's ok when flying high BUT you have to remain within your close local area as trees etc will knock  into the signal if you fly low and this can be seen with the interferrence on the display screen. I've been experiencing this in the video I did yesterday, I tucked behind one of my trees and the signal broke up. I'm in favour of FPV, it adds another dimension and will appeal to users. The equipment is cheap for in the air but dearer for on the ground stuff. I'll make an OSD video soon Dafydd

Hi, I converted my EasyStar with the intention of adding a video platform. After a bit of calculation a selection of motor (Scorpian 2215-18 plus 25amp ESC) was made and prop. Turned out the prop we used was hell for the EasyStar. The torc of the 10x3.8 was problematic and the same can be said of the 9x3.8 we then tried causing the EasyStar to be really difficult to control on take off. Fitting a 7x5 proved way better and put the "easy" back into Easy Star. Adding some 5 oz of plasticine to cover the weight of the camera unit and adding a 2 oz plasticine counter weight on the tail the EasyStar flew really well even in a 6 to 7mph wind. Prior to adding the weight the plane weighed 1lb 15 oz. The EasyStar has had some bumps during my training period and has been named "Phoenix"  due to the amount of glue and additional sticky backed plastic holding it all together. The changes I made: http://seemyworldonvideo.com/view/206/fpv-easystar-video-platform/  An OSD device I have will be tested when I'm ready. I will need to carry out a similar weight check and then I may consider an slightly larger prop. My thanks to my friend Colin who's help in this has been super. 2008-09-12 The changing to the 9x3.8 prop has helped resolve a take off issue... and give a lot more spare capacity. Dafydd