Simon Chambers

I can sort it! I'll message him. I'm in Bristol, but from both the Swindon and Newbury area (family). Si.

I believe multi-bolts spread the load a lot better across the front. Also you don't have the risk of a single fixing that can come undone. Si.

Posted by Spice Cat on 27/05/2013 21:26:39: Couldn't run her any longer as Laundry Woman complained about the noise. She was mowing the lawn at the time??!!?? Haha! To be fair, you are playing with model aircraft engines, while shes busy doing the house work... It was probably a hint that you should be mowing the lawn first.

Posted by Allan Bennett on 17/05/2013 20:28:27: It's always good to use a single power source so that each motor gets exactly the same volts as its companion all through the flight. That way it will run at the same rpm, or as close as you can get. The single power source can be one large battery, or two or more smaller batteries (same cell-count) connected in parallel. Depends on the size of the model! It's not recommended to extend the ESC power wires longer than 30cm/12inches - otherwise it stresses the input capacitors on the ESC potentially killing the ESC. If you must extend them longer, you need to fit additional caps. For bigger models, you're probably better off having separate power packs in each nacelle. Si. Edited By Simon Chambers on 17/05/2013 20:48:47

Don't forget that the bigger aircraft, the airframe cost is a only part of the total cost of the setup. Expect to pay at least ~£150 for decent main brand servos and if you want to keep in the 82dB noise limit, another ~£100 for a decent canister. Virtually all 50cc petrols come with a 'noise deflector', rather than what you would call a silencer. Si.

Some of HobbyKing's larger aircraft are made by Vantex - one of the two 30cc sbach (the more expensive one - incidentally the cheaper 30cc sbach is better) is one. A couple of threads of the different models are on Flying Giants. The quality is distinctively average and the airframes themselves are heavy for what they are. Cheap though. Not heard of BraveHeart engines, but probably just another DA clone (like DLE/DLA/RCG/etc/etc). Of course some of the original DA's are supposedly a clone of 3W's anyway! Generally speaking, the DLE is a well regarded cheap, Chinese manufacturer of 'gas' engines. There is the odd bad engine, but you get that with any brand. Avoid the early ones especially the original side carb versions though. If you want a good 50cc sbach, check out the HobbyKing 50cc version (when its in stock). Large thread on Flying Giants about it. A couple of niggles, but nothing serious. Very nicely built and well designed - it's an old Pilot RC design. Fantastic value at ~£225 too. Si.

A much bigger concern would be for me is if you forget to attach the main parallel pack connection for one pack but connect the balance ports together. This would lead to a portion the discharge current being drawn out of the pack without the main pack lead connected (if two cells in parallel, then half the discharge current). The balance taps (and especially their connectors) are only rated for low current draw (<3A). So drawing large loads through this connector could easily lead to the connector+wiring melting down on load. Even a moderate 40A setup would have 20A drawing through it on a 2 pack parallel setup. This could cause a lot of smoke and/or a fire if the hot wire hits something flammable (wood) or if two melted terminals come together creating a short. Si. Edited By Simon Chambers on 13/05/2013 15:33:47

This is why I was saying about the motor/ESC/battery setup being especially important on this model. The 6S setups on rcgroups looks far too heavy and over powered to me. I think the reason others have said the speed needs to be kept up is that the stall is so violent. Anyway its what put me off initially, as I like doing slow acrobatics which require a stall fairly predictable. Also I like plenty of power on tap for short bursts to get out of trouble. I'm going to wait out and see how you find it flies before I consider getting one again. IIRC the slot on the leading edge is for a carbon strip for reinforcement. I seem to remember someone mentioning it was included in the original kit when it was sold by a big US distributor. Btw, BMFA minimum weight for A test is 1KG including the battery. I can't imagine you'll have a problem not hitting it with this! Si.Edited By Simon Chambers on 12/05/2013 14:10:28

It needs the speed I believe to stop it falling out of the sky! What's the weight of the airframe without the servos, esc, motor & battery? Some have gone light weight setups and keep the power down in the hope the lack of weight will make it fly better, others have gone for raw power. I think this is the type of airframe that suits a balanced power plant, to keep it light. Any idea what setup you're thinking of? Si

Check out this rather long thread: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1239960 I've been tempted on one of these for a while, I'll be interested to see how you get on with it. Apparently they fly well but only fast. Si.

I don't know how useful that is to be honest. As firstly its in US Dollars and secondly it uses Flash which isn't viewable on iPhones/iPads! Si.

0.9v per cell is generally regarded the minimum voltage on a NiMh cell, below which there is no appreciable energy left. Si.

You might be interested in this site: **LINK** They're the guys who look after Concorde and are setting up/running the associated museum. Si.

Didn't even break the prop!

The museum is due to be housed in the old hangers which are listed buildings. Si.

Posted by Johnny Kirkham on 08/05/2013 18:11:38: I dont think it will ever be a collectors item as there were millions made and millions still being used today.....also do you still have the original box and instructions?? Thats the exact reason why a unused example could become a collectors item! As the many engines wear out and are chucked with little value, they become more scarce. Si.

No engine expert either, but a brand new ABC piston and liner in my SC 46 does this too! Si.

Posted by jeff2wings on 03/05/2013 20:07:45: Hands up all those that have built a model and said " blast ! this thing is nose heavy, needs lead in the tail........ " *puts hands up* I usually start adding weight to the tail (or removing weight from the front) to make the airframe more fun! Si.

4 stroke Rotos: **LINK** **LINK** Nice looking, awesome sounding but heavy. These engines are pretty sexy too: **LINK** Si.

I usually get an iPad screen protector from eBay (as I know it will be big enough) and then cut it to size with a scalpel.

Posted by Erfolg on 03/05/2013 16:32:12: Particularly how small many were. Particularly some bombers. I am too! Always when I go to museums, for some reason I expect the fighters (especially the Spitfires/P51/BF109) to be twice the size that they actually are in person! Unlike our models which, to me, look huge in the house but tiny outside. Si.

Are you a plastic remover sort of guy, or will it stay on the LCD until it falls off on its own? I personally like leaving them on until they get really tatty after a couple months/years. Then I can remove it, getting the brand new look to it. Si.

Posted by Olly P on 02/05/2013 16:06:11: Classic metal fatigue failure It was only the third flight the chap had used it for. He was flying a Sebart 2.2m Sbach - so I guess he may have been banging the sticks back and forth pretty hard, especially if he was flying 3D manouvers. Jeti apparently made changes to their production methods. What they are, I have no idea. Not seen any more reported instances, so hopefully a one off. Si.

Posted by Lee Smalley on 02/05/2013 15:44:24: the quality of their stuff can not be moaned at, it really is very good stuff   Yup, can't moan at their quality - I'm sure this chap thought the same thing when this happened to his DC-16 when flying his €2600 model!  Forum post here. Si. Edited By Simon Chambers on 02/05/2013 16:06:21

Like many have said, CE mark or no CE mark, if you are using something you are still required to meet the necessary standards. Having a CE mark on something like a transmitter isn't enough alone for putting something onto the market. You need to at least have Declaration of Conformity that states what standards it has passed and just as crucially for a transmitter, the Notified Body (who did those tests). To give an example, the FlySky T9X transmitter (also branded Turnigy, et al.) DoC: **LINK** In here, not only do you see which tests were performed, but also who signed off those tests (EMCC DR. RASEK with the Notified Body no. of 0678). Now if you're importing these to sell, it would be foolish to not do a bit of due-diligence and contact the NB to ensure that is valid - after all, it would be easily forged. Also it would be strongly advisable (I think you need to legally anyway), to obtain the Technical Construction File from the manufacturer with the documented evidence that it passes the required standards. Now if you are importing for personal use, I'm not a lawyer, but I would be personally much happier that something meets the relevant standards if a DoC is included that is genuine. Of course, a quick call to the NB will inform you if it is or not. Now if no DoC (or CE mark) is included, let me pose a question. As the average consumer, with no access to calibrated lab equipment (to test it yourself), how do you know that the transmitter does pass the relevant standards? How do you know the transmitter doesn't exceed the spurious emissions limits (not just in the 2.4Ghz band, but the whole required 30MHz to 12.75GHz) set by the standards? How do you know that the transmitter meets the immunity standards from 80Mhz-1GHz and 1.4GHz to 2.7GHz set by the standards? The answer is you don't. As the importer, you are directly liable for it. So how would you argue (to ofcom/court/etc) that you know it met the required standards, if you were involved in an incident (not just causing an accident but also causing interference to other parties)? That innocent transmitter could happen to be radiating, past the set limits, its fundamental oscillator (or harmonic of) frequency. Now if that happened to be on, or around a certain frequency (for example 35MHz would be of concern near other flyers), this could cause issues with other users of this frequency band. Alternatively that transmitter could be susceptible to interference around the 800/900/etc MHz frequency of a mobile phone that is transmitting 50 metres away in some ones car, causing the transmitter to crash/malfunction, thus loosing control of the model. How likely is that some thing could cause interference to do something like that? Well not so long ago, a couple of faulty Freeview boxes happened to send a distress signal leading to the coastguard being sent out. Of course, as that woman wasn't the importer or manufacturer, Ofcom would then go speak to the importer/manufacturer of the box in their investigations. I would certainly imagine that they would be required to show their Technical Construction File at the first instance to prove that the design didn't inherently transmit, past the limits, at the distress beacon frequency. Si.