Jump to content

MattyB

Members
  • Posts

    4,542
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by MattyB

  1. I think I may be back on the buddy lead this summer.about 30 years after I last used it!
  2. I had no idea til it happened to me that it coul happen at such a young age. I am generally pretty fit for my age too…
  3. The worst bit was this happened on Monday, and ir was 45th birthday on the Friday!!!!
  4. Hi everyone- as some of you have no doubt noticed, I’ve not been posting here for the last week or so due to circumstances beyond my control. M starting my rehab now though and will be back as ugmwnted by a 3d printed titanium plate in my head to protect my bran over where the surgeons removed a section of skull to relieve pressure!
  5. Not personally, I've sen plenty of FlyFly models down the years though. Once suitably reinforced they fly well, so I don't doubt this one will too. Certainly spend some time reading that RCGroups thread @Dickw and I linked above though; there is lots of first hand experience in that thread.
  6. I’m not a huge fan of 125s as the geartrains were always a little fragile, but they will be more than man enough for the job torque wise. If you have them already, might as well give em a go. PS - This is the RCGroups monster thread, I’ve linked to a search for “servos” that should hopefully help. https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/search.php?searchid=94711995&query=Servos
  7. No need for anything special servo wise on a FlyFly IMO - anything that fits should do the job torque wise, the airframes (particularly the tails) tend to be the limiting factor on these.
  8. Remember, this is practically the only flyer in the country who appears to be in love with the idea of RID, despite the fact the regs as proposed pose a significant risk of his flying site being barred from use. I wouldn't waste your time expecting a fully reasoned rationale from someone who believes an increased volume of unenforceable regulations results in increased compliance...
  9. Indeed. The only common link I've seen between RF "failures" is in the humans in charge of them - those people who actually take the time to understand their kit, read the instructions and install (and power) their setups almost never have problems. Those who don't often have a failure on one brand, bad mouth it to all and sundry, then have a similar issue on their new transmitter. Strange huh... 🧐 PS - OP @David Davis 2, don't forget the added advantage of all the challenger brands like Frsky, Radiomaster Jumper is that RF and RX battery telemetry is built into all the RXs pretty much as standard, so if you have done a poor install or something has gone awry with your power supply, the TX will chirp to let you know automatically.
  10. I take it that is the TX16S you are talking about. I don't disagree that it would be too big for some, but they have other TXs too that are smaller (the TX-12 and Boxer) that all feature the same RF functionality and programming (e.g., way more than any mainstream brand mid-range set), so this is not really an issue any more. UK Supplier HobbyRC - https://www.hobbyrc.co.uk/radio-transmitters Boxer TX12 v2 (only seems to be available in ELRS form these days though, so probably won't suit the OP)
  11. PS- Playing with the variables on eCalc can also be a good way of learning the relationship between prop size/pitch, motor Kv, cell count, and motor mass. They also have a setup finder tool as well, though not all the services are free... https://www.ecalc.ch/
  12. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of the "just ask George" approach. Sure, he is knowledgeable on sizing powertrains, but shouldn't a newcomer really develop some knowledge of how their model is powered and why we size stuff a certain way? Without developing this they will be forever reliant on others and/or are much more likely to have an escape of magic smoke?! Far better to teach the man to fish... Hmm, suggesting a motor isn't terribly useful either without a prop or cell count recommendation - remember, the OP appear to have no experience of electric flight. @PeteC, here are some resources that should help you to pick up some of the basics - get a brew on and spend an hour or so leafing through them, then come back with questions and we will try to help: Crib sheet on powertrain selection from 4-max Another decent article on core concepts and sizing kit (the example at towards the bottom is useful) Threads on ESCs. motors and batteries in the beginners e-flight forum:
  13. MattyB

    Electric Cars.

    No, the problem is multi faceted, and essentially boils down to : The economics don't work for most private buyers (especially since the government have removed all the subsidies now) The infrastructure to support EVs isn't increasing fast enough. This is especially true if you have no way of charging it at home off-peak. Potential buyers are worried about fire risks and insurance costs since Luton and the recent London bus fires The most "affordable" current EVs don't have sufficient range to allay the fears of people for whom it would be their primary vehicle (and I say that as someone who likes the EV driving experience and would like to own one). Add in the fact that the government has pushed out the date that new petrol and diesel cars can be sold til by 5 years, and it's not that surprising that EV sales have stalled. I suspect UK Gov are going to have to start incentivising again if they want private buyers to start making the jump in more significant numbers...
  14. Yeah, I'm pretty sure my Dad still has a copy on his bookshelf too, though haven;t seen it for a few decades.
  15. Yeah, those don't have the famous Duralene fuselage (from Bob Martin models in the states) the original did, though. The story of those is quite interesting... https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?1853243-What-ever-happened-to-Dura-lene-Rumors-and-Facts
  16. You don't even need to check the CAA site - if you paid direct you will have a confirmation in your email of the payment and the valid dates, then you will get reminders direct from them to renew. Far simpler IMO than renewing via BMFA (and also means can take full responsibility at renewal time), but I do understand why the BMFA wanted to offer this, even if it makes the Sec's job a little trickier. Each to their own.
  17. Yeah, towards the end of the EPP60 era he built and flew his own designs, the best of which I seem to remember was the Balistik…
  18. Welcome to the BMFA JustGo portal, powered by Fujitsu... 😉
  19. Yep, them thistles would easily take out a lightly built up wing at the height of summer! The stuff of nightmares they were... Do you remember Greg Dakin and his Dad who used to fly there a lot, and Ron Broughton who used to fly a wide range of home brews and a very tricked up SAS Apache? The most memorable model we had was my Dad's PJ Models Red Arrows Hawk PSS, but it only flew there a few times - it's Clark Y wing wasn't really efficient enough unless it was a booming day.
  20. I did learn to fly (aged 8 or 9 I think) to fly on the slope (Burrough Hill) in the mid 80s. We didn't have EPP models or a buddy setup, just a 2ch 27MHz ACOMs set (green crystal) and a Rookie 72 R/E barge: ...which I followed with a (crunchy foam, not EPP) SAS Thing 1.5m (with a mechanical sliding tray mixer!): This approach had it's pros and cons... Pros: Lots of flying - got to solo pretty quickly (I flew 4-5 hours a session most days once I got the initial hang of it, and converted to an aileron equipped model within a few weeks) Learn to read the air and conditions better and fly efficiently (you learn most on light lift days, scratching around) Don't get scared of wind Simple, cheap models Nice view! Very sociable atmosphere, and standard of flying on well populated slopes tends to be pretty high the slope, so had the benefit of a number of good instructors. Glider pilots tend to know (and share) a lot more about aerodynamics, so I learnt a lot more about CG position, trimming, wing sections, tail volumes etc. earlier than if I had learnt on a powered model. Trimming for performance is ingrained early in glider guiders! Cons: Reliant on wind direction - if it's blowing the wrong way, no flying. When you do get it wrong, it can be a big smash (S.L.O.P.E = Smashed, lost or pulverised, eventually!) Often have to adapt the landing pattern to the site and conditions a lot more (which a beginner won't understand if they aren't instructed how to do it) You don't do as many landings, so if you later want to convert to power the "do 100 circuits" phase can feel very strange. Can be rather cold! Personally I believe I got better quicker flying slope than I would have on power, primarily due to the hours I racked up quickly. Also as a kid I never liked the scream of two stroke glow engines (no real electric power back then!), so that meant I was not as keen about power flying either. Having said that if I am recommending someone the easiest way to get started today, it's probably a combination of a sim + an unstabilised electric foamie or traditional glow trainer, depending on what types of site they have access too. It's still completely possible to learn on a slope though if that's what you want to do. PS - It's definitely easier to take up power flying after slope than the other way round. I've seen many good power flyers struggle to deal with the less controlled and predictable environment of the slope; they also tend to do too much with the sticks too much of the time, which kills efficiency. That, and they tend to whinge about the cold and the wind...! 😉🤣
  21. More labels... If you want to call it a sport fine to secure funding etc, fine, go ahead. I will continue to unapologetically call what I do a hobby, because that is what my activity is to me.
  22. He doesn't answer questions EarlyBird, only poses them - normally in ways that are near impossible to understand... 😉
  23. It really doesn't, but you've done it anyway... Oh no, it's "Your hobby is not my hobby" again... 🙄 Drawing this distinction only seems important to a (thankfully shrinking) subset of flyers who predate the advent of ARTFs, and seem to resent the fact newcomers can now learn to fly without having to build if they wish. What precisely is wrong with that anyway? It has always been true that the flying aspect was the biggest motivator for the vast majority of participants. Sure, there are people who come to love building their own models, but only a small number start off that way - for most building was just a necessary requirement to be able to fly. Let's not forget all those who left the hobby in the past after their third or fourth crash because they couldn't face yet another rebuild of a balsa model. Besides, if recreational cyclists, motorcyclists, car enthusiasts, runners, photographer aren't required to build or make the equipment they need to participate in their hobbies/sports, why should model flying require that? This hobby has enough problems to deal with without long standing participants sneering at newcomers because of the models they choose to fly (yes, that's what comments like "...$2 worth of plastic drink cooler material" amount to). As long as people are having fun flying safely and responsibly, they should be welcomed - what they call themselves and whether they constructed their model from scratch using traditional materials is immaterial.
  24. Completely agree. If the BBC made the programme that many in this thread are espousing, the mass audience would turn off within the first 10 minutes. These days programmes have to pay their way (see clip below from Richard Osman's new podcast where they talked in detail about this subject), and that wouldn't be the case if they this was s uper detailed, engineering focusseed show.
  25. Interesting. I guess the only way to tell for sure is do a flight minus the cowl - it sounds like that is the most likely candidate. If that does stop it, adjusting the cowl to allow air to exit from it directly (rather than solely back into the fuselage) would be a logical next step.
×
×
  • Create New...