Jump to content

MattyB

Members
  • Posts

    3355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by MattyB

  1. 18 minutes ago, Chris Walby said:

    Thanks guys and I like Nigel's suggestion, but will need to Y lead the ailerons (only did that as I thought I might play with drooping ailerons for landing). Once I sort it I'll report back.

     

    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.

  2. 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

  3. Quote

    Thanks Wookman for your input, it seems Easy Glider is the better recomendation for my needs, especially in regards to work space available now that I have a much smaller shed.

    Btw I was referring to RTH in case the model got inadvertantly too far away for my eyes!

     

    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.

     

    • Like 2
  4. 3 hours ago, Anthony Scott 2 said:

    Minimum order $1k, to be collected from Elmsett warehouse.

     

    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...

  5. 47 minutes ago, Erfolg said:

    If genuine, I had assumed that the purchaser would pay the VAT and handling fees.

     

    Although it is not clear to me  what is the benefit.

     

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

  6. 8 hours ago, i12fly said:

    Looks to me that the club would have the job of sorting out the vat etc.

    I think let them stew, they've been told what to do.

    If they don't want to bother with sorting vat with HMG they should let the Netherlands warehouse sort it,  as it would appear they are now doing for EU countries(?). Then allow uk to purchase from there. But perhaps EU warehouse don't want the hassle of registering with HMG either.


    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?

  7. 52 minutes ago, kc said:

    Well I don't think the average club member wants to encourage new people into the hobby!   Experienced club members know that flying fields in the south of England are disaappearing fast and the population is increasing fast too, so it's not very desirable to attract more flyers to fewer fields!    Most clubs want to kept the numbers down to give existing members flying time and minimise nuisance to neighbours.    It might be a different situation in other parts of Briitain or in France etc with less population and much more open space but in the south of England many clubs do not want new members!   

     

    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... 

    • Like 1
  8. 33 minutes ago, Erfolg said:

    I am assuming that Vat and a handling charge would be applied?

     

     

    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.

  9. 5 hours ago, RottenRow said:

    I received the following e-mail this morning; I am treasurer / membership secretary of our club and all potential membership enquiries come to me and a couple of other committee members.

     

    Dear Fellow RC Enthusiast,

    Hope all is well with you!

    HobbyKing has been serving the UK RC community for many years. Even though we have closed our warehouse in the UK, we would like to offer continued support to local RC hobbyists and would also love to strengthen the relationship with local RC flight clubs.

    Some of your group members may have been experiencing difficulties in getting RC planes and accessories due to items being out of stock / the high shipping cost.
    We actually do have some RC planes as well as parts and accessories in stock locally (not available to retail customers), which can be made available to your flight club at discounted prices.
    We can also arrange for a special delivery so your club members will be able to enjoy lower shipping costs for items that are only available at our warehouses outside of the UK and EU.

    If that is something that your club would be interested in, please be sure to let us know by replying to this email / sending an email to wholesale@hobbyking.com so that we can provide you with further details.
    If you already have a list of items that you know your group members are after, please also feel free to let us know.

    Looking forward to hearing from you!

    Best Regards,

    Sonia
    HobbyKing Wholesale Team
    https://hobbyking.com/

     

    The address given for any replies is wholesale@hobbyking.com

     

    Perhaps HK are getting desperate and are trying to overcome the lack of availability of their products in the UK by getting clubs to do their work for them?

    I think we may pass on their kind offer....

     

    Brian.

     

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

  10. 30 minutes ago, Gary Manuel said:

    Hi Tim,

    I see that you are still paying for electricity (£12.76) even though you are exporting electricity (£10). Is this because your battery is full during the day, so the unused solar electricity has nowhere to go other than back to the grid? I'm hoping to use or store ALL of the solar energy I generate.

     

    I might try applying for Octopus GO in the hope that they won't ask for proof of EV ownership. If they do, I'll just stay on the capped tariff I'm on now.

     

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

  11. 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:

     

    Quote

    Modernising airspace:

     

    As co-sponsor of modernisation, the CAA has a vital role in ensuring the successful delivery of the Airspace Modernisation Strategy. The need to modernise the UK’s airspace remains clear despite the impact of COVID-19 on the programme. Airspace modernisation will create sufficient airspace capacity to deliver safe and efficient growth, whilst reducing the noise and carbon emissions of individual flights. Modernised airspace is also essential to opening up airspace for all users, and an important initiative being led by the CAA is an airspace classification review and reform project to look at the release of controlled airspace. It is vital that all airspace users can access airspace where it is safe to do so. As part of this, I consider the timely and effective deployment of Electronic Conspicuity to be a priority for delivering safety.

     

    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...

     

    • Like 1
  12. 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...

    • Like 1
  13. 9 minutes ago, RedBaron said:

    Hmm I see that today we have an advert for Indian cancer medicines inserted as a topic, no doubt to avoid adblockers???

    I really do object to this whole business of adverts - this is a model flying forum not a forum for adverts.

    After years of generally a trouble free forum within weeks of a new owner we have all this stuff in the way.

    I thought that there were moderators that were supposed to decide on the appropriateness of posts?

    What can we expect next??? With the loss of so many writers for RCM&E and the Forum now invaded by uncontrolled advertisers I really begin to think about whether to renew my subscription for the magazine

     


    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! 😉

    • Like 2
  14. 13 hours ago, Don Fry said:

    So that means 16/9/93, onwards, non broadcasting machines are confined to registered sites?

     

    12 hours ago, Outrunner said:

    You're living in the past Don, I think you mean 16/9/2023

     

    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...

     

    Quote

    At the end of December 2020, the FAA released the final rule on Remote ID. In this regulation the FAA says that the Remote ID requirements apply to any UAS that is required to register with the FAA. This means that recreational use of a sub 250g UAV will not be required to comply with the remote ID regulation because they are not currently required to register. However this could change at any time. The rules for operating a UAS in compliance with Remote ID will take effect in October of 2023.

     

    The rules are different for anyone flying commercially, often called Part 107 after the certification required. If you are flying under Part 107, the aircraft you are using must be registered with the FAA no matter how little it weighs. This means that under the current remote ID rule, even a 50g UAV, if flown under Part 107, would be required to comply with the remote ID and registration regulations.

     

  15. 4 hours ago, Andy Stephenson said:

    This appears to mean that any amateur home built models over 250g won't require remote ID. In which case, how would they differentiate between an ARTF model and one that's been constructed from to look identical to one.


    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…

     

    Quote

    There are three ways drone pilots will be able to meet the identification requirements of the remote ID rule:

    • Operate a Standard Remote ID Drone (PDF) that broadcasts identification and location information about the drone and its control station. A Standard Remote ID Drone is one that is produced with built-in remote ID broadcast capability in accordance with the remote ID rule's requirements.
    • Operate a drone with a remote ID broadcast module (PDF). A broadcast module is a device that broadcasts identification and location information about the drone and its take-off location in accordance with the remote ID rule's requirements. The broadcast module can be added to a drone to retrofit it with remote ID capability. Persons operating a drone with a remote ID broadcast module must be able to see their drone at all times during flight.
    • Operate (without remote ID equipment) (PDF) at FAA-recognized identification areas (FRIAs) sponsored by community-based organizations or educational institutions. FRIAs are the only locations unmanned aircraft (drones and radio-controlled airplanes) may operate without broadcasting remote ID message elements.

     

    Quote

    Effective Dates

    Almost all of the final rule on remote ID becomes effective April 21, 2021. The subpart covering the process for FRIA applications from community-based organizations and educational institutions becomes effective September 16, 2022.

    Here are other dates of note:

    • September 16, 2022:
      • Drone manufacturers must comply with the final rule's requirements for them.
    • September 16, 2023:
      • All drone pilots must meet the operating requirements of part 89. For most operators this will mean flying a Standard Remote ID Drone, equipping with a broadcast module, or flying at a FRIA.

     

  16. 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...

     

    Quote

    The FAA Final Rule stated that the FRIA application process and manufacturer requirement to implement standard Remote ID will begin September 16, 2022. However, at the time this article was written, the FAA has yet to publish AC 91-57C, which establishes a process to recognize CBOs.

     

    Because CBO status is a requirement to apply for FRIA status, it is likely that the FAA will miss this September deadline. Please keep in mind that UAS operators have until September 16, 2023, before Remote ID compliance is required, and that date could be extended if the agency fails to meet current and future deadlines.

     

    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)...

     

    Quote

    Declaration of Compliance

    A declaration of compliance is a record submitted to the FAA by the producer of a Standard Remote ID Drone or remote ID broadcast module to attest that all production requirements of the final rule have been met. The final rule establishes minimum performance requirements describing the desired outcomes, goals, and results for remote ID without establishing a specific means or process.

     

    The final rule requires drones and remote ID broadcast modules manufactured for operation in US airspace, regardless of where the module or drone is manufactured, to meet the performance requirements for a Standard Remote ID Unmanned Aircraft or remote ID broadcast module. Manufacturers will produce drones and broadcast modules that meet these performance requirements by following an FAA-accepted means of compliance. See below for information on FAA-accepted Means of Compliance.

     

    Manufacturers of remote ID broadcast modules and most producers of Standard Remote ID Drones are then required to file a "declaration of compliance" with the FAA stating that their product meets the remote ID performance requirements and has been produced using an FAA-accepted means of compliance. Manufacturers of Standard Remote ID Drones who are seeking a design or production approval under part 21 will show compliance with the remote ID requirements through that process rather than filing a declaration of compliance.

     

    The FAA has developed an advisory circular on the declaration of compliance process for remote ID of drones. This advisory circular 89-2 provides guidance on the declaration of compliance process described in part 89, and outlines the required information for submitting a declaration of compliance. Please visit our DOC website to submit a declaration of compliance.

     

    Also, producers of a kit that contains all of the parts and instructions necessary for a drone must meet the production requirements of the remote ID rule and submit a declaration of compliance. The person that puts together a "kit" drone does not need to submit a declaration of compliance if they are building it for their own recreation or education but must still meet the operational requirements of the remote ID rule when flying it.

     

    Means of Compliance
    A person designing or producing a Standard Remote ID drone or broadcast module for operation in US airspace must show that they have met the requirements of the remote ID rule by following an FAA-accepted means of compliance. A means of compliance describes the methods by which the person complies with the performance-based requirements for remote ID.

     

    It's important to note that producers do not need to develop and submit their own means of compliance for FAA acceptance. They can use any means of compliance accepted by the FAA, including one developed by a third party.

     

    How to Submit a Means of Compliance
    A means of compliance describes how a manufacturer may comply with the performance requirements for a Standard Remote ID Drone or a remote ID broadcast module. Anyone may submit a means of compliance for FAA evaluation and possible acceptance. In particular, the FAA encourages consensus standards bodies to develop means of compliance and submit them for acceptance because these bodies generally incorporate openness, balance, due process, appeals process, and peer review.

     

    However, FAA-accepted consensus standards are just one way, but not the only way, to show compliance with the performance requirements of this rule. The FAA emphasizes that although a means of compliance developed by a consensus standards body may be available, any individual or organization can submit its own means of compliance for consideration and potential acceptance.

     

    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...

  17. 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...

     

     

    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...

     

    • Like 1
  18. 14 hours ago, Phil B said:

    I've inherited this model. It has the extreme manoeuvrability thrust deflectors installed. Does anyone have experience of how flyable this is for someone with limited reactions!


    Just set up a few flight modes, one with the vectored thrust disabled, one with them enabled and coupled in pitch with the elevator only, and another with the full 3 axis coupling (you could even configure rates for the vectored thrust effect when enabled). Get three mistakes high, switch modes in turn and see how you like them. Job done!

     

    Ps - The above assumes the thrust vectoring uses separate servos; if it doesn’t I guess you are stuck with trying it out from flight one. I would certainly try and limit the gain to the minimum possible mechanically for first flights though.

     

  19. 4 hours ago, kevin b said:

    I have noticed that adverts are appearing within the postings in threads.

    I know that they are for the magazine itself, but am concerned that that this is just the beginning of a trend.

    It reminds me of the old American magazines where the editorial was a single column in the middle of every page.

    The advertising was squeezing out the real content.

    If you were having a conversation with somebody you wouldn't appreciate a third party suddenly piping in with "does anybody want to buy an ice lolly ?", or something similar (ARTF).

    In my opinion not very professional.

    I have two schools of thought.

    1.   Wait and see what happens and if I am right exercise my rights.

    2.   Wait and see what happens and then have some fun before I am thrown off  the forum.   🙃 

     

    4 hours ago, Tim Kearsley said:

    I agree Kevin, a retrograde step.  Not helpful and not desirable. 

     

    4 hours ago, Solly said:

    Couldn’t agree more. There is a separate section for goods for sale, they shouldn’t be advertised on the forum.


    This forum may be free, but it is still first and foremost a commercial enterprise. As a wise man once said, if you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.
     

    Ads are undoubtedly critical to this sites existence, so if you do enable an ad blocker or leave to post elsewhere be aware of what that could mean in the long run. Remember what has happened to many UK forums in the past, most notably RCMF, who couldn’t cover their costs. Is there even an “ad-free” alternative anyway at this point? I’m not aware of one. If we all want a free, UK focussed, general RC model  flying forum to be available long into the future then a few ads are worth stomaching IMO.

    • Like 7
×
×
  • Create New...