leccyflyer

Posted by Tim Mackey - Administrator on 24/03/2011 18:10:10: I may have used LMP, or just my regular big roll of 60/40 - cant honestly remember.What I can be sure of is that there was no mixing of types - the tinned leads on the ESC were cut back to the correct length of the leads to suit my installation, the bare fresh copper tinned, and then brand new bullets were tinned and soldered on in one stage. I refuse to use that awful lead free rubbish - and stocked up with a HUGE drum of multicore 60/40 a couple of years back. Did you add the extra leads for the data logger afterwards, as a second soldering job?

Posted by Tim Mackey - Administrator on 24/03/2011 12:59:02: The Logger to ESC uses exactly the same cable and connectors as the battery to ESC, ....and as the wire came out of the plug on the ESC side, logger or no logger = no difference. As to a stand alone battery for radio - as I say, it may have saved the model - but apart from the type of story referred to by Danny, my reservation as to whether it would definitely have saved the model was also because of the fact that a dead-stick model, with a high wing loading, a long way off the strip, and possibly in a very unfavorable position at the time maybe downwind, far off, behind a large tree line etc etc - could have still ended up in disaster. I was just going on what you'd posted in your initial flight report, where the loss of power in the air wasn't considered a particularly bad situation.  Posted by Tim Mackey - Administrator on 19/03/2011 09:14:59: Had possibly the worst day at the strip for a long long time yesterday. 1) Transferred GWS Tiggy Moth to DX6i as my DX7 needed memory freeing up - bound it - wiggled sticks, all seemed fine. Take off, rolled into deck - obliterated. Cause? Reversed ailerons - operator error. RIP  2) Flew the F18 Hornet, super flight, after approx 3 minutes motor shut down, and did not restart, despite "re-arming" with throttle stick - hit trees and stubble in adjacent field - Lots of debris. Cause? 4 cell Lipo pack dead back home - open circuit cell. Probably RIP  3)The big PC9, set up for maiden flight, lovely take off, retracts up, 5 minute flight ( slightly pitchy but perfectly controllable ). Looked superb in the air, plenty of power @2.2 kw, all in all excellent. Good landing and taxi back to box. Really really pleased. Repeated with fresh battery, all fine, half way up a large loop - motor cut dead. Called deadstick, not particularly worried ( had height to simply stall turn and recover to land back in the field ) but then realised that all sticks were also dead. She piled in hard and was obliterated.Cause? Full post mortem to be yet completed, but early signs suggest failure of the 5A UBEC. RIP.  Wonderful hobby this sometimes. I'm off to the slope now - back in the saddle and all that. Pictures later.

Posted by Tim Mackey - Administrator on 23/03/2011 23:59:09: I dont use deans Tom.Its simply impossible to make these kind of assumptions - a soldered joint failed, and that joint could easily have been anywhere in the main power supply chain. Whether the logger was fitted or not, and despite where the UBEC connects, that joint failed. It was suggested earlier that had a separate battery been fitted, maybe the model could have been saved - maybe, but certainly not guaranteed at all. The point is, surely, that with a totally separate radio system, fed by it's own receiver pack, the situation would have been as you described in your initial flight report.  Power lost to the motor -oh well, here comes a deadstick landing - model has plenty of height and is well positioned. Deadstick landing accomplished safely. Pick up the model and then seek to resolve the issue regarding loss of power.  I ha a similar situation on Sunday with my favourite model. Loss of power in the air, cause as yet undetermined, but a lost phase on the motor is suspected.  The fact that the radio system was completely separate only caused a minor inconvenience and a short walk to the middle of the field to retrreive the undamaged model. Exactly the same situation as an IC motor cutting in the air for whatever reason.  I'd bought and intended fitting a UBEC to the model several months ago, but hadn't got a round tuit, not least because adding the UBEC into the power cables is not a straightforward proposition in this model . Your experience has made me consider whether having a four cell receiver battery, and having to keep that charged, really is as inconvenient as I'd convinced myself it was.

Posted by i12fly on 17/03/2011 01:12:54: Most points are covered in earlier posts, but I would like to add a couple of points: The paltry sum we pay for insurance gives us 2 types of insurance, personal accident whilst pursuing modeling activities (try getting that for the small cost involved, from memory I think it is £2 each), and 3rd party (£8?). As an afilliated club, the 3rd party also includes committee member insurance. Without this, every committee member is risking there home, savings and everything they've got if they are taken to court by a disgruntled member (and it happens). Try getting cover for that for this sort of money! If you organise a club (or BMFA) there is alot of work which is unseen by the members, as I'm sure many forumites know. This does mean that other members can concentrate on the enjoyment of the hobby without the hassle. BMFA have lots of hassle liaising with CAA, FAI insurance claims and much more. Don't forget that without the organised body of BMFA lobbying, the CAA would have banned large models and banned FPV outright. If you organise anything you will be criticised, you can't please everyone. Last Saturday was a chairman's conference, very informative indeed, but very poorly attended. Note that they have a couple of new people now who will make an impact on club matters in particular. With 36k members, and just handful of full time employees to run the business as well they will be stretched. I presume you were holding the joke stick, BEB when you compared BMFA with the AMA -who have about 40 employees and goodness knows how many members. Sorry BEB but I think you're wrong, overall the BMFA do a very important job pretty well. Excellent post - spot on.

There has been a problem for quite a few people this morning. The notice on the pop-up states that the site was migrated to a new server. Try this link http://www.giantcod.co.uk/index.php  it's the only one that I could see the site on, all my othr bookmarks would not work.

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 16/03/2011 11:00:42: O 1. Three of the latest big developments in our hobby have been: large models, IMAC style aeros and FPV. All three of these now have their own separate organisations outwith the BMFA. Why? Well I think because the organisation simply failed to respond to the growing interest, because its out of touch. OK I know that IMAC is an international thing, but the whole IMAC thing could have been done within the BMFA - it wasn't. Most recently our FPV colleagues have been given what must look to them like the "cold shoulder treatment" - talk about lack of encouragement!    Edited By leccyflyer on 16/03/2011 12:06:30 to fix quote tags  Just to deal with that single item, the reason that FPV flyers might have the perception that they have bee given the cold shoulder is entirely because they seem intent on opposing the entirely reasonable means that the BMFA negotiated with the CAA to allow FPV flight to occur within model flying, rather than be subject to the vastly more onerous regulations required by flying as a UAV. The FPV "community" exhibited a response analogous to a toddler being enied a chocolate bar at the supermarket checkout. They lay down, screamed, and drummed their little heels on the floor in denying the entirely sensible requirement that the person in charge of the aircraft  maintain visual line of sight contact and with the ability to take control. Then they ran off down the nearest aisle, towards the ice cream freezers.  That's where the BMFPVA (now FPVUK) originated, from the refusal to accept a mode of operation that allowed them to operate safely AS MODEL AIRCRAFT. If they want to operate beyond visual range as solo flyers at excessive altitudes and over built up areas, then they should do so as UAVs, with all the requirements attached to that.  It is nothing to do with any failure on the part of the BMFA,.   Edited By leccyflyer on 16/03/2011 12:07:13 Edited By leccyflyer on 16/03/2011 12:08:30

Posted by Chris Bott on 14/03/2011 18:47:46: There's one reason I went 2.4Ghz and it's simple. No matter what I tried on 35Mhz I was getting the odd unexplained glitch. On average probably two per flight. Usually very short duration and they would just be a quick blip of one control. Mostly not dangerous but very unnerving and did nothing for my flying confidence. The last straw was the loss of two models within a few months. One was an unwanted quick blip of down elevator during a low pass. Possibly a gust but unlikely. The second was a higher straight pass. Right in front of me the model pitched slighly upwards and then full aileron happened until it had rolled into the deck. on arrival at the model everything was still plugged in and working perfectly. After that I was nervous flying and never brought a model down low ('til I had to) and I stopped enjoying my flying. A great deal of time and money was spent on different transmitters, receivers and techniques suggested by all and sundry., and it wasn't just me suffering. But at the same time the level of glitching came and went and there was never enough for any sort of proper investigation.   Fast forward to having 2.4Ghz equipment. I've had not one glitch yet, ever. I'm still using the same models, the same servos and batteries, but 2.4Ghz Transmitter and receivers. My flying confidence returned and from then on I was back to enjoying the flying. I am now finally starting to fly lower again, instead of always having plenty of recovery height below.     @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); Exactly my experience, as my main interest has long been in flying small electrics I've had models that, no matter what I did, I'd get regular glitches. Since switching those models to 2.4Ghz, not a glitch.  The short aerials are a boon. It's easy to rig 36" of orange wire on a Wot-4 sized model. Less easy on a funfighter and impossible on a really small model. With 2.4Ghz it's dead simple.  As regards old 35mhz gear I donated a pair of trannies and buddy lead to the club, gave another transmitter to a clubmate and still have two (in case I ever do scratch that FPV itch, though that's looking increasengly unlikely now).  Still got a bunch of 35mhz receivers and I'll probably take several to a swapmeet, or just give them away.

Posted by Martin Harris on 27/02/2011 14:06:33: And mightn't it be significant, BEB, that the "interference" source transmission could be at considerable atlitude while the conventional model is being controlled from the ground?   ...and to expand on Leccy's point, I think any "opposition" from conventional modellers is nothing to do with FPV being seen as different, "not what we do" or any sort of blind prejudice - indeed I would assume that the majority of us wouldn't be averse to having a go ourselves if it wasn't such a considerable financial commitment to get started in what might be a fringe interest. The main concern is of an irresponsible operator causing a high visibility incident that could have negative consequences for the established hobby. Couldn't happen? One of my clubmates has had to virtually give up on his other hobby of pistol shooting, at which he was at a high standard, as a consequence of blanket regulation post Dunblane.Edited By Martin Harris on 27/02/2011 14:21:16 That certainly part of my position Martin and I was definitely keen to have a go at FPV. I have to say though that, having seen the attitudes that are all too prevalent and the routine breaking of all manner of regulations, with regards to maximum power output and endangering other modellers an the public, that I'm now a lot less likely to want to be associated in any way what part of the hobby.

Posted by Mark Rowse on 27/02/2011 22:23:24: Just a thought/query about CofG. Weight of an IC engine versus leccy one? Looking at the weight of leccy ones , not comparable to an IC engine that is hanging out in the breeze, as it where. Are those of us going leccy likely to need the services of the local church to get CofG (65mm) correct? Sorry if this has already been covered, couldnt see it in the thread. I was able to balance my Webbit by fitting the 2500mah 3s1p lipo tight to the firewall. That was after having flown the models for a few years with a .15 cu 2 stroke, replaced by a Mega 22/20-3 i a Moorcraft squirrel cage mount. No church roof necessary.

Posted by GONZO on 26/02/2011 13:58:18: Other FPV video frequencies available - 900mHz, 1.2/1.3mHz and 5.8gHz. First two not legal, but whos checking frequencies and o/p power. I suspect its like most law enforcment - don't cause any major(financial) problems then no one whants to know. On the question of RC for FPV - some use 35mHz with longer Rx aerials for increased range. Others use 430-440mHz UHF frequency agile spread spectrum sets. Which begs rthe question of why would they need increased range, if they are operating legally, namely within direct line of sight control?

Posted by David perry 1 on 24/01/2011 17:29:52: ...Fit fuses anymore? Time was we all fitted blade fuses and the magazine articles went on, and on, and on, and on, and on, about fuses.   Today, no one seems to fit them.   Why's that then?   D The preferred place to fit a fuse, for those who used them, was in the positive motor lead. The fuse would pop if the circuit pulled more than - say - 25amps, or whatever level was selected.  With brushless motors that isn't an option, so any fuse would need to be fitted in the main power lead from battery to ESC. With so many systems set up with a BEC that is really not a good option at all, resulting in the loss of radio control, and the model, if the fuse blows.  Then there is the fact that manyESCs contain internal over-current protection which is much better than that offered by the old fashioned fuse.  A fuse, in most systems, is just something else to go wrong and a point of failure, so, like switches, they are often ommitted in the quest for more reliability and robustness. It used to be an insurance requirement to fit a fuse to all electric models flown under MAAC in Canada. Not sure if that is still the case, but it must be a dozen years since I've fitted a fuse to a model.

Posted by Olly P on 26/02/2011 16:45:34: A Steve of Webbits, in honour of the designer? Then it would be a Peter of Webbits.....  I happened across the Webbit kit assembly line today, with hundreds of wing ribs being extracted from the CNC-cut sheets and stacked into piles, ready for boxing up.  More Webbit-bits than you could shake a stick at.

The styrene solvent based adhesive so beloved of plastic kit modellers does a good job. If you are rich then Stabilit Express is another possibility, and is a two part, immensely strong adhesive for many different types of plastic. It'll stick almost anything to almost anything in the plastic arena, except the waxiest of polypropolene.

Posted by mal brewer on 01/10/2010 21:17:02: Hi Ton, thanks for the link, I will have a go at uploading some pics tomorrow. In answer to your question, the model is built from a plan which was published in 'Scale Models' magazine about 12 years ago, and is still available from RCME plans service. I had a bit of fun moulding the canopies for the cockpit and observers positions. Yes I agree with you about electric power, but I actually like messing about with,dare I say it, 'proper' engines, anyway its nice to live a bit dangerously, don't you think ? I'll try and upload the pics, here's hoping......................Mal. Hi Mal  I've got the John Deacon Beaufighter as well, originally intended for 2x10FPs but which will be electrified with a couple of 450 sized outrunners. Could I be cheeky and ask if you have still got the mouldings for the cockpit canopy and observers position if you could put up a picture of those as well? The canopy on mine is a bit of a dog's breakfast and I could really do with carving a new plug to make a better job of it.

For transmitter storage and carriage I use one of the lightweight aluminium carrying cases from B&Q - they do a pack of two, one black one blue. The black one will fit a pair of transmitters (DX7 and FF9) in, fully rigged, with aerials in place, with a bit of dense foam packing, cut to shape.  You could use the smaller blue one to carry lipos in, if you were not too bothered about the fire risk. My flying pal uses the blue case for his lipos and it's a great improvement on the biscuit tin that he used previously  Those cases used to come in a pack of three for £20, now you get two for £22, but they are pretty good for the job.  I've previously used the plastic clamshell tool cases, also available from B&Q, that have a compartmentalised top, into which you can fit a few screwdrivers, allen keys and other simple tools, as well as necessary spares, with a transmitter aeven a couple of batteries inside.  For lipo storage and transport I use a couple of sentry firesafes and a genuine LipoSack (not one of the inflammable knock-off ones). The lipos that are not going to the field stay in the larger sentry fire safe at home and the ones that are going to the field are transported in the smaller firesafe and in the lipo sack. In winter I chuck a couple of chemical handwarmers in the containers, to keep the chill off the lipos. I only ever charge at the field, not indoors.  

Every single time. Not that I've managed to get to the field yet this year.  That;s one reason for putting the leisure battery on charge as soon as it comes back indoors.

Posted by Simon B on 29/01/2011 10:38:52: The bit that says 'Arrests: 0', coupled with the rebel vibe of the images suggest this wasn't done with approval. Posted by Martin Harris on 29/01/2011 11:04:18: ...and everything in sharp focus until the shots that could identify the perpetrators.   Can you imagine anything more likely to focus "official minds" against first party view flying in particular and model aviation in general than the this sort of irresponsible behaviour. The identity of the pilot - an Austrian who flew to New York just to make that flight in order to "make a point" in an internet argument - is well known, having been widely publicised in the media. There isn't the slightest doubt that the authorities know exactly who he is and in the unlikely event of him trying to fly to the USA again he'd better be ready for some serious probing.

The flight was not done with the approval of the authorities, broke FAA rules in flying in controlled airspace without permission and potentially set the efforts of those trying their very best to ensure that the hobby is not subject to stringent regulation back by years. Rest assure, that video will be aired in the deliberations as to how many, and how tight, the restrictions to be put on small unmanned aircraft are going to be. The flight was incredibly irresponsible and detrimental to the hobby in general and FPV in particular.

The Webbit prototype had full sized gear - four S148 servos all shoehorned into the fuselage and a banded on wing. On electrification I replaced that with 2xHS81 for elevator and rudder, but kept the single s148 on the ailerons, via torque rods. I also made the wing a bolt-on wing, but with those torque rods there was little space for a rear wing bolt mounting plate. Putting two servos in the wing would solve that problem, but if sticking with a single central servo you could do as I did and use the plastic wing bolt mounts that are bolted to the side of the fuselage. Just be sure to add a couple of 1/32nd ply doublers to spread the load. That kept the wing on my Webbit for many years, until her final crash.

That's actually US improv comedian Greg Proops in the first picture. He was Steve's stunt double for a time in the 1990's That's right isn;t it, Ste?   Edited By leccyflyer on 29/01/2011 17:17:17

Posted by Danny Fenton on 27/01/2011 09:27:06: Leccy just sits there waiting to chew your arm off lol    No I don't Sounds like a few lessons to be learned here and, as Simon pointed out, making such a change with an IC model with the engine running ght have had a similar effect and every electric model that is live should be thought of as being a tiny step removed from having the engine running. So - prop off when working on a model on the bench. Every time. No exceptions. The only time you need the prop on, with the model on the bench is if you;re balancing the model or, if you;re bonkers enough to run the motor to measure current draw on the bench. At all other times everything can be done with the prop off, much more safely. Major changes to the set-up - model memory, model type etc, should not be made with the model live to the extent that the power to the motor is enabled.  If the motor is to be run at all, make sure that it is completly free to turn and cannot foul on anything and stall - so, for instance, don;t try to run a motor in your hand, just for a second, just to check rotation direct. It could be done, if you were bonkers enough, in the days of sp400s, but it's asking for it these days with so much power at the prop.  Running the motot on the bench is to be discouraged anyway. Unless your bench is spotless there a very good chance of sucking something into the prop, or blowing something away with the prop wash. Things get even more serious with a ducted fan. A clubmate had a serious hand injury last year when he reached out to feel if the ESC was getting warm and the fan just sucked his hand straight into the fan.   

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 26/01/2011 14:45:50: The reason I don't use a Dremel for this is that the body of the drill "gets in the way" and stops me making a square cut. Don't you have that problem leccy? Or am I just being obsessive!   BEB   I did also once have a cutting wheel "explode" on me doing this sort of thing, a piece hit my cheek bone, just missing my eye. If you are going to use a Dremel on piano wire or similar hard materials for heavens sake learn from my lucky escape - use safety goggles, I always do now. Never encountered that first problem BEB - I put the wire in a small table vice and "attack" it from above. can't say that I've put a set square on the finished cut though.  I have, however had that second problem, of shattering the very thin cut off wheels - which is more likely of they are not square on to the workpiece - and the advice to wear eye protection is very sound and well timed.

Posted by fly boy3 on 23/01/2011 18:45:13: Hi all,As I do not own a Dremmel tool, Is there a better way of cutting 8swg piano wire than a hack saw. Is there anything I could fit to an electric drill 'and,would the drill be fast enough anyway. Cheers Best advice I could give is to just bite the bullet and get a Dremel-type tool with a cut-off wheel. Aldi or Lidl regulary do cheap versions for about ten quid, complete with attachments, which are more than adequate for the job. It transforms the task of accurately cutting piano wire.  For the thinner stuff I use the scissor-action cutting hole on a pair of electrical wire strippers. Insert the thin pianowire through the hole and squeeze. Anything above 18SWG and it's out with the Dremel, with a cut off wheel.Seconds later the job is done. Also handy for squaring off the ends of the toffee allen keys that are supplied with some prop adaptors and the like. The multitool comes in very handy for all sorts of jobs and I wouldn;t be without one - or three.

I might well do that Dave - it's a good idea. The way that the new kit is put together it might be possible to splice a new front end on the old fuselage, using that jigsaw puzzle keyed joint, and to maintain that as a surviving prototype for old times sake.One for me and one for my boy - though he really doesn't like to fly the Webbit as he finds here to be set up very twitchy and tail heavy for his tastes. They'd both have to be electric though, I don't do any IC these days.

I don't have a plan BEB - like I said, this one is Peter Kent's prototype - I also have the prototype MAF Mini Flying Machine, still in the fleet, now electric - and had the prototype Searching 400 (now sadly gone) - but no plans for any of them.I'll probably end up getting a kit, a bit nearer the time, just to support the effort.