Peter Smith 12

Posted by Ron Harrison on 16/08/2012 14:04:19: Have had a couple of Easy Gliders and have never had a problem with the Servo Leads coming adrift in normal flight. Neither the Electric version or the Slope/Flat Field one. Should you have a 'sudden arrival', it is advantageous that the leads separate I have found. I think you are worrying unnecessarily Peter Ron Yes you may be right Ron about ease of parting is quite useful under those circumstances!!!

Posted by Myron Beaumont on 16/08/2012 13:27:20: With the Easy glider I'm "assembling" at the moment,you push the wings almost in ,connect the aileron servo leads to the female sockets fixed to the fuselage ,then push the wings fully home .Maybe you have an earlier version that folks on other forums have had problems with . Yes same as mine. But its just that the connections once made seem very easy to pull apart as there is no mechanism in the body of the servo lead plug to postively locate them well.

Posted by ken anderson. on 16/08/2012 09:15:17: hello peter ...most of the ones i have seen just have the lead dangling out to connect on to.....normal male and female connections..... ken anderson ne..1 .dangling dept.... I assume then you must use the extension leads with the retention clip on them as the probelm doesn't seem to lie in the auto connect by Multiplex but more so on the extention lead connectors not clicking positively together???

I've just been building up an Easy Glider Pro by Multiplex. To enable the aileron servo leads to connect to the fuselage they suggest you arrange a servo extension lead on each side of the fuselage in a special notch at the wing aperture to engage with the aileron servo leads. All very well in practise but the plug / socket connection at this point is not very positive i.e. no "click" in the connectors and I'm sure they will disconnect in flight. Has anyone found a positive way of ensuring the connectors do not come apart in flight?

Posted by kc on 03/07/2012 16:26:04: A fellow club member has electrified this model. He reduced the dihedral in order to fit ailerons . It seems a very practical electric conversion. I think he will reply with further details. Oh thats good news indeed. Thanks

Posted by Tom Wright 2 on 03/07/2012 16:04:31: Peter depending on the weight this type of model would fly well on a 900-1100 kv motor rated at 250-350 Watts .If you are not to familiar with EP check the BRC web shop and have a look at motor specs and come back to the thread if you have more questions . Tom. Edited By Tom Wright 2 on 03/07/2012 16:06:46 Thanks for that. With a prop size of..............?

Skulking around in my loft I have a very old 90% finished 60" span Aeronca Sedan built from a kit by Mercury models. It was originally intended as a free flight model for use with ~1.5 - 2.5cc IC engines with 11 x 5 or 10 x 5 props.. With the "summer" weather the way it is (!) I'd like use the time to convert it to radio with elevators, ailerons, rudder and throttle, plus put a brushless motor in it. Not wishing to re-invent the wheel I wonder if anyone on the forum has done this conversion? The radio installation should be no problem as there is ample space but I'm particularly interested in what brushless motor and prop size was used? The are one or two items about it on the Web but nothing too detailed.

Posted by Ben B on 25/08/2011 21:46:15: We fly next to a hospital (lots of lovely bleeps and other RIF noise), a mobile phone mast (chucking out lots of lovely 2.4Ghz (ish) noise), and a prison (with a mobile phone jammer). And just to add to the fun there's a mahusive mains cable running under our site which supplies most of north London. So have lots of fun Still, you get used to the glitches after a while.  The main source of problems is the person who turns up with the FPV 2.4Ghz rig.... I have just tried a rough and ready bench test with my Futaba 2.4G radio by placing a sweeping 1.8Ghz milliwatt signal about 6" from a receiver then walking away 5 yards with the transmitter on low power and it does block the receiver most definitely as you might expect. However moving the 1.8G source a further 6" away and controls are restored. A pretty severe test though. I would expect similar results with a 2.1GHz signal too

Posted by Daithi O Buitigh on 25/08/2011 12:27:34: Ouch!!!!! 29.5 dBW is almost a 900 Watts of RF  But the antenna gain is 16dB so it only represents about 20 watts into the antenna

Posted by Daithi O Buitigh on 25/08/2011 00:50:10: There's one possibility - is there a military base in the area? We had a lot of problems on VHF (I live in Belfast) and the army pumped out a lot of hash on the IF frequency of 10.7 MHz (to jam any two way communications and/or radio contyrol bombs). If that is pumping out on the IF frequency it will wipe out any reception No we are well away from military bases, but yes they could pump out lots of rubbish.

Posted by James40 on 25/08/2011 07:48:19: It's all too easy to blame a crash on anything other than human error. The chances of the mast hitting the same frequency devision and time burst your bound tx/rx are operating on is almost non existent and even if it did get lucky, it would be a micro second of interference, not enough to cause any harm. If you made a phone call from under a phone mast, you don't receive all the other phone calls travelling through that mast, the phone locks on to a particular carrier wave and a particular time slot within that carrier wave, just as a tx/rx works when it's bound. I fly on an RAF base with 2 phone masts, a radar, ILS, TACAN and god knows how many high power radios transmitting, the only crashes I've had is through my own lack of skill. But if the signal is big enough it will make the receiver deaf momentarily no matter what frequency its hopping too?

Posted by Daithi O Buitigh on 24/08/2011 13:31:20: It sounds like the 2.1 GHz transmission is de-sensitising the receivers - 300 MHz may seem a large amount, but up in the top end of the UHF segment it's close enough. What is possibly happening is that the AGC on the receiver is simply being swamped and unable to reject the signal which then blocks the weaker signal from the hand held transmitter.  It happens a lot to me on the HF bands - where a very strong signal in the same segmant on, say, the 10 MHz band, that is 5 KHz away from me simply wipes out any weaker signals .  Daithi, GI7OMY Yes this is the sort of action I was thinking of. It all depends on how good the filtering is in the receiver and how well it rejects unwanted signals. I don't ever recall seeing figures like that for a 2.4G receiver?

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 24/08/2011 21:26:28: I thought that mobile phones were either in the 900 MHz or 1.8 GHz bands. I was not aware of the 2.1 GHz band being used by mobile phones. Does anyone know for sure what are the bands used by mobile phones?@import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); I believe phone-to-base station in 1.8G and base -to-phone can be as high as 2.1G Posted by Allan Bennett on 24/08/2011 20:12:54: There's a phone mast on our field -- don't know what frequency it's on -- but we've had no known instances of radio problems.But is it on 2.1G...it could be a 900MHz one. Do you know the post code for the site?

Posted by Allan Bennett on 24/08/2011 20:12:54: There's a phone mast on our field -- don't know what frequency it's on -- but we've had no known instances of radio problems.But is it on 2.1G...it could be a 900MHz one. Do you know the post code for the site?

Does anyone know if there have been any proven instances of mobile phone base stations in the UK perhaps on 2.1Ghz interfering with 2.4Ghz model control planes in the form of blocking the receiver when flying near a mast? My local flying field has some such masts close by all on 2.1Ghz and a number of recent crashes of models are being blamed possibly on such interference.