Andy48

One thing to try is putting a wattmeter in the system, and using an accurate luggage balance hooked over the tail and experiment. Look at the sort of power curve you get and the current used. It is normal for the current to rise significantly in the last third of throttle increase, with the static thrust rising far more slowly. Try different props with that system. That is a common battery/ESC/motor combination I use, and with an all-up weight 0f 2.7kg it should be absolutely fine. Actually I think your second posting does indeed solve the problem. Most of my planes with a similar combination fly brilliantly on just half throttle, with power in reserve for when its needed. Its a very draggy plane, and flying faster will have very limited impact in terms of speed in the ait, but will burn through your batteries faster.

Surely if using OpenTX you don't need anyone to help with the range check. Just watch the RSSI figures on the tx screen, nothing else is needed. Watching servos move is old school these days.

It is very annoying, but then its been a good chance to get each model out, update it, check all the programming, and update that so that each model is consistent (I must be OCD ?), and then check over the model itself and tidy it up. After that its a few test flights and all good to go. All in all quite worthwhile in the long run, and at some point the move to V2 will have to take place. Its been quite an interesting exercise overall. One or two models that will get put into a swap meet, but a number of other problematic ones that now fly far better than I realised.

Once upgraded, the new firmware no longer recognises the existing telemetry. The only option I found was to search for telemetry again, and delete the old ones. You then need to check carefully through all your programming to see what has happened to the telemetry. Sometimes that needs resetting too.

I think one needs to decide on what one wants. A simple system that gently ages with time until the whole lot needs replacing. A simple system that ages with time, and instead of replacing the whole lot one simply buys a new system and works with multiple transmitters, or you get something that is upgradeable. The Horus falls into the latter category, and yes it has its pitfalls. However, its easy to replace a few V and D series receivers with the latest Access ones, and the price is not bad, under £25 for a 6 channel stabilised rx. You can upgrade the tx quite cheaply too, and have virtually the same as their latest transmitters, and run Ethos with it if that's what one wants, though personally I shall be waiting a year or two until it matures into a finished reliable product before trying. Yes at times it is a pain, but I still have an extremely versatile system that is as good as anything out there, and for me its been super reliable.

I use the clear self adhesive book covering.

I'd be interested to know how the balance was correct on a 3S. I put a much larger motor in and use a 5S battery to get it balanced, and there is still a heavy lump of iron included in the electric conversion. I would suggest 3S is woefully underpowered. You can always fly at 1/3 throttle, you can't fly at 4/3 throttle, even for a beginner. It behaves just the same at 1/3 throttle and full throttle, except it goes quicker, and beginners do need to learn to use the throttle. I do use my Wot4 as a trainer sometimes when it is too windy for my normal trainer. With reduced rates it works well for them. I bought one a few years ago and it was an absolute pig. Every flight was a nightmare, and no matter what I tried it never got any better. In the end I collected a bin bag of bits. A year later I bought an identical one, and it flew beautifully straight out of the box, and still does. I'm still no wiser.

Sorry to say but the Neurons ESCs are just as bad. The sensors need to be deleted and then new sensors added because the new version no longer recognises the existing sensors. It makes what was quite a simple task a pain in the ?.

Yes, Flash internal module. No need to go back, it works well. Its easy to do, and you've backed up your models. Do note ALL your receivers will need updating too, which beautifully mucks up any telemetry programming you've got.

Just don't ask about male and female plugs and sockets. ?

I run mine on 5S. It is well overpowered, which is fun, but the main reason for doing so was to get the balance right. Heavier motor with a larger prop, and a 4000/5000 battery saves putting too much lead up front. There is already a big chunk of metal in the electric conversion. There ought to be a "proper" electric version, which would then be lighter and a dream to fly.

I've been part of Biobank research for years, if it helps future generations all for the better. That data is shared, so why should I care about the doctor sharing some data?

Out of interest I have 2 old receiver batteries that came with a JR 35Mhz set that I bought in the late 80s and horribly abused since. Surprisingly they both still hold a good charge, ideal for setting up equipment on the bench such as installing new servos, setting up stabilised receivers etc.. Don't need them for my models as they are all electric and I use BECs in them, but I take your point I would never use them in a model I was going to fly.

I've got a top of the range car with all the bells and whistles, but no sat nav or music function, yet a high quality sound system fitted. You plug your phone in for sat nav and music. Sensible really, why have loads of separate expensive bits of kit all doing the same job.

If it had OpenTX on it I would be more than a little tempted.

Nobody's mentioned the most obvious thing for testing failsafe with an electric model. Just remove the prop, and run the motor at a very slow speed. No restraint necessary. ?

If you are flying electric, its a current sensor that is a no brainer not the voltage sensor. The current sensor will tell you the actual battery consumption. Voltage sensors have their uses for identifying failing cells early, but different types of lipo have somewhat different voltage/capacity discharge characteristics and you can be caught out. Higher C batteries tend to maintain a fairly constant voltage and then drop off suddenly.

I remember the many weeks in school woodwork classes perfecting the perfect tent peg. ?

Tent peg.?

Basically, you are suggesting that your crude ground range test with motor running and not running is better than a standard range test followed by monitoring and recording the signal strength every part second of several test flights going out in every direction and at all sorts of different heights as far as one is able to fly. On top of that you are suggesting that your ground range test is better than getting a signal strength warning on every flight long before a loss of signal? I don't need a written guarantee from elsewhere, I have one instantly from the telemetry of every single flight I've made. Going onto your minimizing the unknowns, components in a receiver can begin to fail in time, or even after a hard landing and component values can drift. On the OCD scale one should do a range test before every flying day for this reason. However, telemetry is constantly monitoring that on mine and an unexpected low signal strength indicator gives an early warning of this. I have actually had this after a hard landing, the loss of signal strength being not enough to really show up on a range test, but enough to affect overall range. Better safe than sorry and the receiver got binned. Your crude range test still has plenty of unknowns, and walking 30 metres is far far less than the 130 metres I range test to, even though my transmitter reduces the signal by the same amount as others on range test. At one time it was the best we had. Today we have far better. Our flying site has a microwave link running directly across it. Would you like to tell me how your ground test ensures that you still have an effective signal strength flying through it? I sometimes get a low signal strength warning when I fly through it. I have to be exactly at the right height to do this, as it appears to be a narrow beam. I can look back at the telemetry and see these low peaks and just how low they get. Thankfully they never get anywhere low enough to lose the signal, but they certainly did with 35MHz gear, and my first Spekrum radio. Incidentally if I do get a low signal strength warning, I can double that distance away from me before the plane will go into failsafe. That is quite some safety margin. I know my system and trust it.

Cheers Matty, this is what I am going to do, along with swapping out and testing. The puzzling part is the same instability in the Neuron ESC, that must originate in the ESC as far as I can see, for the ESC to go into reduced power mode.

I cannot install the old software again as this requires uninstalling that software on the transmitter too. No the receivers are a different batch. I really don't understand it at all, but probably similar to your thinking I will try one of my new Access stabilised receivers instead, and possibly replace the ESC and run the plane up and check the telemetry each time. Job for tomorrow as it is due to rain all day.

Again I disagree. After doing a range test with a new model on the ground (engine not running), what can be better than examining the telemetry of a new model after a few test flights in the air. A ground test is just that. As I say, I get immediate telemetry warnings anyway, so what is the point of doing a range test on the ground with the motor running? It simply isn't needed. Add to that a range test for me is walking to the edge of our field, a distance of 130 metres, and it is still in range.

This is the BEC voltage, which should be 5v throughout the flight. Then there are the + and - spikes which I cannot explain. The first graph doesn't register 0 volts, its just that the graph is scaled to include the peaks, and as such the normal current drawn 20-40amps is insignificant compared to the 90,000,000 amp spikes. Definitely not my computer handling the download, never seen this problem before, and downloading older files do not show this spike effect. Similarly the same firmware does not give problems except with these two receivers, and yet a third similar one behaves perfectly.

Sorry, but I disagree about having the motor running for range test. I have telemetry on my system so on every flight I have verbal warnings long before the model goes out of range, and on a new model I check the telemetry after a couple of test flights to ensure all is well. This is a far more comprehensive test for the range test, and yes I am well aware the motor has to be running to test the failsafe. Newer systems with far enhanced capabilities need a rethink of 70s approach to such things as this.