Paul Newell 2

The CE mark is part of the declaration that a product complies with relevant EU regulations.   It applies to a vast range of products not just to RC receivers.   A Google search of CE Mark will take you to information regarding how a non EU manufacturer must appoint a representative within the EU to assume responsibility for compliance with EU regulations.    The BMFA advice was there long before such receivers became availableis and is quite clear so surely does not need extra enhancements.  Just because a large number of people have bought these cheap overseas receivers does not change the advice.   The BMFA is simply waring that if you use non certified items and there were to be legal action following an accident, the insurers may deny responsibility and you will be left with the consequences.      

If you buy it from outside the EU, then YOU are the original importer and have the responsibility.  An organisation or individual outside of the EU cannot assume legal responsibility.   In the event of a legal action, prosecution has to be under EU law in a region subject to EU jurisdiction.   Stick with the BMFA advice!

Just had a thought, servo reversing might also come into it somewhere!   The offset comes into play because the mixers work based around centre stick travel.   Sorry I cannot be more specific but it has to be in there somewhere!!!!! 

I have done something similar to have a toggle switch activate/deactivate the motor control from the motor stick on an eSoaring electric model.   The technique I used was to mix the stick to itself as a minus percentage so that the mixer when active gives nothing out.  The switch then activates/deactivates the mixer.  The mixer offset is adjusted to give the required static position.   I think this is the same as what you are trying to do except that you are wanting the output on Aux 4.  Without trying it, may be you cannot achieve the mixing to Aux4 but you could consider putting the on board glow on the motor servo channel and the motor servo on Aux4.   Looking at my program I have switch position 0 set with -100% in both senses and an offset on the mixer of -170.   Hope this helps.    

See post from Richard Wood above.    I fell foul of the this with an apparent loss of bind. I have a 7600 installed in a model and used my DSX9 Tx on this same model program to range check replacement 6255 receivers.  The Tx remembers the Rx type!   So on returning to the model, the Tx bind information was not correct for the 7600.   There is however no problem binding two receivers of the same type to the same model program. Edited By Paul Newell 2 on 23/09/2010 10:06:55 Edited By Paul Newell 2 on 23/09/2010 10:07:43

Best High Street      SMC Best Mail Order       Phoenix MP Best ARTF               WOT4 Mk2 Best Distributor      Horizon Hobby

I use these receivers so it might be worth telling my experiences. Initially I replaced a 35MHx Rx in the nose of a slope soarer with AR6250. The receiver sat between the 4.8V battery pack and two servos. The aerial ends were relatively close to the battery and servos. In approximately 2 hours of flying I had three significant glitches and this was backed up by the Hold LED on the receiver. As a result I moved the receiver to just in front of the wing TE with one aerial directly down the tail boom and the other inclined up the fuselage side at about 60 degrees. I have logged about 10 hours on the model with no further problems. I have two eSoarer models equipped with the same type of receivers and have a similar installation arrangement, with guide tubes fitted to position the aerials. To date, 18 flights on one and 36 flights on the other, all with no problems and I never saw a Hold LED when I checked in the early stages. There is no carbon anywhere near the aerials. My conclusion is that whilst the receiver performance may not be up to expectations as carbon friendly, (and for carbon read chunks of metal etc), careful installation avoids a problem. I guess this fits in with Spektrum's description of the issue. I will of course be exchanging the receivers when replacements are available but meanwhile I am reluctant to alter anything that so far has proven reliable. Anyone else any comments?

Timbo, Reference your comment about using an intelligent charger. If it is of the type that shuts down when voltage peaks, it will only work via the transmitter charging socket if the Tx does not include a series diode.  I was under the impression that Spektrum has such a series diode so to use  a peak detect charger, the battery can only be charged externally to the Tx.  My JRDSX9 and the Tx that comes with the Blade CX2 helicopter certainly have such diodes fitted.   I do recollect sometime ago another club member with a new DSX7 doing something with a wrong charger and apparently blew an internal fuse somewhere that stopped the Tx working.

Just a thought, are the servos actually correct.    Earlier this year I bought 3 identical not inexpensive micro servos of a type widely available through a large distibutor.  Two worked one way and one the other.  Close inspection through the transparent case showed a different looking amplifier in the odd one.

Sorry for the typos in the above posting - did not proof read very well!!!!

Thanks guys.   My Luna is glass but has a substantial carbon tow area under the wing seating.  It is the lead ballast in the tube under the wing that concerns me.   When I firsy got my 2.4GHz I put an AR6250 in an old balsa fuselaged model with the receiver between the noseweight/battery and the servos. i.e. where a 35MHz Schulze had been.  The aerila were at 11 and 2 o'clock above the servos.  I got 3 fades in about 2 hours flying and out this down to the noseweight/battery blanking the signla when noseon.  Moving the receiver behind the servos so the aerial are near the wing trailing edge has seen about 10 hours problem free use.   I have two AR500s in models where the long aerial passes over hte top of the servos so the active end is under the wing - again no problem.  A pity that the AR6250 does not hav ethe longer aerials but I guess it is intended for things like discus hand launch models.   Crwo braking is not a problem with ny JR DSX9 tx - in glider mode it is a preprogrammed function on a 6 channel rx.   I think I will run with the AR6200 and carbon friendly satellite combination.  If I fit an aerila guide tube before assembling the fuselage parts I can route the long aeril down the inside of the tailboom and keep the active bit clear of the CF pushrods.  This seems to be what the eSoaring guys are doing on their models to get the aerials away from the lipo batteries.

Even with the aerials outside the fuselage they will still be close to a 16mm diameter slug of lead!

Looking at Spektrum 6 channel receiver choice for use in a Luna II and am having difficulty in working out positioning of aerials away from the large slug of lead ballast.   Choice seems to be AR6250 carbon friendly Rx with aerials forward of the ballast but close to two servos.  Alternative could be AR6200 with the satellite receiver changed to the SPM9546 which would allow its long carbon friendly aerial to be in the tail boom behind the ballast.  Problem with this is that the pre-installed carbon elevator pushrod might end up close to the aerial.   Anybody had any experience of this or similar installation?        

It is unbelievable!  In spite of my shop notifying them of additional batch numbers with a problem beyond that listed on their website,  Ripmax are still shipping faulty product.   They have now made two additional shipments with resin in the hardener bottle.   If you have some of the product check the hardener has a pinkish colour and is more fluid than the resin.   I do just wonder what Ripmax would say to someone who glass skinned a wing and found it did not cure.

See my post under All Things Flying - SP113 Epoxy Resin.   Still awaiting the promised call back.  Web site is still showing only one affected batch when there is DEFINITELY a problem with at least one other batch.  You could ruin a perfectly good wing if you try glass skinning with a  wrong mix.  (Or in my case loose £80 of exotic carbon cloth).   Shops are none the wiser as they only have the web info.    I tried to help by advising them of the ongoing problem but got the impression they thought they had done enough.  Edited By Paul Newell 2 on 17/06/2009 16:58:16

Ripmax have a prodcut recall on 500gm packs of SP113 resin because the hardener bottle contains resin not hardener.  Their website specifically states that only one batch is affected and quotes the batch number.  HOWEVER yesterday I went to purchase a 250gm pack and this has the same problem.  (The batch number was D279).  DO NOT USE this product unless you are sure you have hardener or you will end up with a sticky mess.   Hardener can be identified by being more fluid than the resin in the other bottle and has a pink tint to it.   I have spoken to Ripmax customer service who promised to come back to me but I think watching paint dry might be a more sensible use of my time.

The Spektrum AR500 receiver has two aileron outputs.  Are these simply a Y-lead type connection or are they independently programmable from say a DX7 of MacGregor JR DSX9 transmitter?  None of the advertising makes this clear.

Banning of NiCads by the EU and other world wide regulation authorities has been on the agenda for a number of years - reason the toxic effect of cadmium.  We simply have now reached the date by which it had to be implemented.  The long term warning by the authorities has been such that high power rated NiMh cells have had time to be developed.  Development of LiPo variants has similarly benefitted from the regulatory pressures. A similar situation existed with lead free solder.  The withdrawal date was announced long before a replacement had been developed.  We might not like the way some regulations are introduced but the 'democratic' procedures are in place and rest assured industry does fight its corner.  Just look what was achieved recently to protect the use of 2.4GHz for model control.