MattyB

Remember you also need a remote ID module if you are flying outside of a recognised site with a model over 800g.

Unless you are regularly flying at full throttle for long periods I think you will be ok - remember that 18.75A is with a fresh pack, it will only get less as the battery is discharged. Also remember that the prop "unloads" in flight anyway, meaning current draw will almost certainly be lower (pretty much always true unless the prop is stalled during static tests which can give you some confusing results). Re: the motor burnout point, obviously you can look up the max burst and continuous currents for the motor if you can find them, but those figures are often unreliable. Instead for the cheaper brushless motors most of us use, then (assuming installed in a standard "tractor" model with average cooling) go with the 3W/g rule of thumb. For your Eyelash that means that if you motor is anything less than ~70g it is probably likely to be under stress at the wattages you are flying at, though obviously it is influenced hugely by cooling, flying style and throttle use.

OK, gotcha. It is threads like these that make me glad I don't use one of the proprietary OS radios - doing what you want to do here would be so much easier on OpenTX, EdgeTX or erSkyTX (or the proprietary Jeti or ETHOS for that matter, but then they have both taken considerable inspiration from the Open source firmwares).

Sorry, but I think you are a little confused on this one... If you want to configure flaperons, you must have both servos on separate channels and utilise mixes; you can't use a y-lead. This is universal truth, irrelevant of the radio brand used.

We discussed this only a few weeks ago - search is your friend...

A quick Google indicates somewhere between 43-50mm back is what others are using... https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?2360052-FMS-Fox-Glider-V2 TBH on a dead straight wing like this I would jsut use one of the many good calculators online, they won't give you the perfect position (only flight testing does that) but they will always get you close enough to validate if a manufacturer has made a mistake or not... https://www.ecalc.ch/cgcalc.php

I would be wary of relying on RTH in the context of a relatively lightweight thermal glider. Sure, it will point the nose in the direction it came from, but if you are in a big thermal (where the best exit is normally at 90 degrees to the prevailing wind) or the direction home is into a headwind (which it normally is when thermalling thermalling as you will have followed lift downwind) then RTH is unlikely to help much. One of the main skills of thermal soaring is judging how far downwind you can safely go before you need to return to find the next thermal; over multiple flights you will learn that (with the odd land-out!), but RTH is not really going toh help you with that. PS - If you are really worried about your eyes you are better off just going for a larger machine of 3m+ (with a 3 piece wing) that you can see better.

Let's wait to reboot it in September, it's a bit early at the moment to consider this "building season" in my book!

Interesting - that's the one that no longer exists, right?! The very fact that the amount is in $ shows this is a not a transaction with a UK entity. I think I'm going to pop them an email to find out more...

See my previous comment. When you buy from HK you are not transacting with a UK entity, so VAT has not historically been applied.

It is never the purchasers job to “sort out” the VAT! Either it is paid at the point of purchase to a VAT registered seller who pass it on to HMRC, or if it’s a direct import by the buyer VAT id collected (where applicable) by the shipper based on the paperwork provided by the seller. The key question is where are the goods being sold from? Did the email say that, or did it give any example items that only became available after the old UK warehouse was shut?

I think there is an element of truth in that, coupled with the fact most people have busy lives and would prefer to fly themselves when they visit the field rather than teach others. Ultimately though it is probably a bit short sighted - as the demographic profile of most traditional clubs ages inexorably it seems to be getting harder and harder to fill positions and get maintenance done. Be careful what you wish for...

Based on HK's current and previous practices, I that would appear to be a pretty big assumption... I have still never seen a single HK invoice with a VAT line.

Random question... In a concerted attempt to get some of my own fixed up for 2023(!) I am thinking of relaunching this in September - do you want a new thread guys, or shall we just continue this one and ask the Mods to update the title and post #1?

Place your bets for the HMRC view on this one....

Any old CA you have, with a kicker for use as and when you need it. Foam safe CA is unnecessary for EPP and is trickier to use on it IMO.

You will always be paying somethng, remember the standing charge does not go away with solar...

NP at all. I think it is important to watch what is happening in other countries, as legislation in this space does tend to have a strong global alignment - look at how registration has become ubiquitous across the world in the last few years. Certainly I am worried about the US Remote ID implementation because we know that UK and European governments already have it on their roadmaps - France is already there, and this is from the Transport Minister Grant Schapps in 2020: Hopefully the implementation will bomb in the US (it certainly sounds like the FAA are doing everything in their power to turn it into a car crash...!) and other countries will postpone their implementations for now, but let's watch and wait...

NP at all. I think it is important to watch what is happening in other countries, as legislation in this space does tend to have a strong global alignment - look at how registration has become ubiquitous across the world in the last few years. Certainly I am worried about the US Remote ID implementation because UK and European governments already have it on their roadmaps (France is already there), and will be watching their progress with earnest. Hopefully it will bomb(!) and they will decide to postpone their implementations for now, but lets watch and wait...

For what? Posting on the topic this forum is actually about rather than spam sales posts?! Hilarious.

Don’t conflate two entirely different issues - the cancer meds ad is just a single spam post from a new user, it’s nothing to do with the new owners and their strategy for the forum. I’ve reported it to the Mods and I’m sure they will remove the thread and squish the account later today, but this sort of thing happens in most forums from time to time. The mods cannot be expected to take action 24x7 within minutes every time - they are only volunteers after all. If you don’t think they are acting quickly enough I am sure you would be welcomed as a volunteer to improve turnaround times!

Yes, essentially after 16th Sept 2023 all aircraft without a broadcasting module that are >250g can only be flown at a FRIA, IF the FAA have actually sanctioned any Community Based Orgs to run them and registered any FRIAs by then... Precise current status regarding <250g machines here...

From that doc it does appear that way, but that isn’t the case - it’s just that the dates of compliance are different for manufacturers versus pilots flying self and kit built aircraft:This doc is a bit clearer…

Fair enough @Don Fry(though perhaps not from the perspective of your dog...). However, the AMA blog from Jul 16th does clarify that the no process for egistration of the FRIAs has yet been established... In addition the FAAs own information page for Industry and Standards bodies confirms that the final rule does not explicitly state the means of compliance, but that kit manufacturers will need to comply (see bold italics)... Make of that what you will, but it's not clear to me what would be required if I were sitting down to design a Remote ID broadcast module. With ~6 weeks to go it will be interesting to see ow many of the BNF/PNF manufacturers have been preparing behind the scenes, my bet is that HH in particular may be releasing a raft of new products to comply...

Sorry all, but there is another regulation story emerging that we all should be keeping an eye on, as it could influence what happens in the UK and Europe in the coming years... A major legal hurdle for the FAA's remote ID deployment in the US has been passed - the sources below explain the background to the RaceDayQuads vs. FAA lawsuit and how the judges ruled, though apparently there could still be an appeal... https://dronedj.com/2022/07/29/faa-remote-id-drone-rule/ https://insideunmannedsystems.com/faa-just-won-the-remote-id-casethank-you-next/ If we assume this is not successfully appealed (by far the most likely outcome), this gives the US modelling industry (including HH with their many RTF and BNF products) and part 107 operators who derive income from model flying (including aeromodelling Youtube reviewers) with some major issues... All RTF/BNF (and possibly even ARTF - that requires clarification) models >250g are supposed to have remote ID fitted as standard by Sept 16th in order to be legally sold. DJI say they can do it via software updates, but for everything else on shelves and in the supply chain that is clearly impossible in the timescale, especially as it appears the full specs of how remote ID must be technically implemented have not been published by the FAA. Part 107 (commercial) operators appear to need "standard" remote ID fitted to everything they make (even scratchbuilts and <250g models) because the way the rules are worded means that the exceptions for homebuilt models don't seem to apply to commercial operators. So what does this all mean? Bruce (of course) has a view... Hold your nose and watch this 12 min video, as it is a bit more accessible than reading the 470 page Remote ID regulations in full...! I know Bruce is a marmite character for many and prone to hyperbolae. In this case I doubt the shelves will become bare overnight (comments against that video indicate the rule applies to products manufactured after Sept 16th, not those already in the supply chain), but there are undoubtedly some worrying signs here. If Remote ID is pushed ahead this quickly in the US without specs being fully defined and with manufacturers and pilots unprepared, it could criminalise both vendors and pilots at a grand scale overnight. It could also turn the heads of politicicians in the UK and Europe to accelerate their Remote ID legislation. I don't have enough information to know if his pointed views on the AMA are valid, but looking at the AMA site today it is surprisngly absent of content on the upcoming regulation changes. A bit of further googling did dig up this blog which has their view on the latest announcements - it appears they agree with Bruce and see a delay as likely given the amount of missing information on how this will actually be implemented from the FAA. Even so, it does appear the BMFA, FPV UK etc have clearly been more active than them in defending our corner to the authorities for which we should all be thankful. Let's hope they continue to be successful in the future as the pressure from authorities inevitably increases...