MattyB

Sounds like you have toasted your second pack by overdischargong it. Check it's IR on a charger that can measure that; I would expect it to be very high based on your description. If it seems reasonable do a slow charge / discharge cycle and measure the real world capacity; if it's less than 75-80% of the marked capacity, discharge to 0V over a resistive load (please, none of this salt bath nonsense!) and dispose.

Any 3S of 1800 or greater should be fine - the stock CG is very conservative on these and there is no need for a high C pack given the wheezy powertrain.

Don't think so. Besides, the Pro really isn't a very good model (it has poor thermaling performance and isn't that much fun on the slope either), so I can't see any real reason to do that. Edited By MattyB on 24/06/2017 00:31:29

This video shows how effective DLG brakes really are - watch for the change to a substantially nose down attitude, but without any pickup in speed...   Edited By MattyB on 13/06/2017 17:35:15

Here is the model - it looks very much like a 2m version of a bagged DLG from the early 2000s (a bit like the famous Taboo GT): On that basis you probably want to try both spoilerons (flaperons reflexed up 45-70 degrees with reverse aileron differential) and extreme DLG style brakerons (flaps down 70-80 degrees with additional differential) and decide which you prefer. You probably want these on the throttle stick so you can modulate it quickly to control glide slope (the throttle can either be on a side slider or on the throttle stick in a different flight mode). When I first saw DLG brakes I could not believe they worked - everything I thought I knew told me they should turn the model into a tip stalling nightmare - but the combination of planform, aerofoil and extreme light weight seems to allow the "rules" to be bent. Hit the brakes and a good DLG just stops in mid air and descends under full control; it's eerie to watch first time! Personally I think the brakerons will work best, but try both at height and see. PS - Remember when you use at extreme flap deflection angles (up or down) the rudder becomes your prime direction control; keep that left thumb mobile or add in a tad of CAR mix as the brakes come in. Edited By MattyB on 13/06/2017 14:39:41

HH have made an almighty Horlicks of their transition to Germany, but it is probably too early to judge whether it can be considered a failure or not - once they get through the huge backlog of service items they have accumulated it may be that they can deliver a reasonable service with only slightly longer turnaround times. However, by that stage the damage to their brands in the UK may be considerable, especially given they have also dramatically reduced the number of LMS stockists. It seems like they are fairly determined to take a position of substantial strength and throw it away with gunshots to both feet! Edited By MattyB on 13/06/2017 10:12:24

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 10/06/2017 23:28:35: jrman, I beg to differ here because I have suffered this twice. How on earth can an unpowered RX drive aervos to the pre-set failsafe position? Sorry, that's impossible; no RX or servos I have ever seen work without power! In a power failure the servos will freeze in their last known position; the only variant on this is a "graceful" battery failure where the pack is nearly but not quite fully flat. In that situation the moving servos depress the batt voltage, the RX turns off, once off load the batt recovers slightly and the RX reboots and control may be regained til the next major servo movement at which point the cycle restarts. You still won't see an RX failsafe in this situation though. Edited By MattyB on 12/06/2017 22:46:44

Just buy them direct from source...

PS - HK did try and revive the layout on the Wingnetic a few years ago, but it did not seem to catch on to any great extent...

Looks like an Obelix by Chas Gardiner. They were popular for a shortish period in the 80s, but are rarely seen now and are somewhat of an acquired taste - being neither a conventional "wing and tail" model nor a true plank with an optimised section they are inefficient and were outperformed comprehensively by the best slopers of their day, let alone now. Edited By MattyB on 08/06/2017 19:41:20

Excellent news Max. Did you build a v2 that incorporated minor tweaks from v1 around batt positioning/CG?

This should help - Kevin Newton's site on the Bwlch, and Steve's site too.   Edited By MattyB on 06/06/2017 08:34:03

I always wondered why the Germans used lozenge - I suppose it is distinctive, but it seems like an awful lot of work for aircraft that in many cases did not have a long life!

Posted by Tony Bennett on 01/06/2017 17:28:41: One bump and then i will let this build slide into obscurity. It obviously does not float enough peoples boats. I like the construction methods and do want to start scratching small electrics in Depron at some point, but for me whilst characterful the looks of this model are not to my taste. Just my opinion, but I think the wing would benefit from a bit more taper or maybe a Schumann style planform (would help both looks and performance) and the front of the fuse could be smoothed out with better integrated ventilation scoops. I do like the F86 style fin though!

...plus once you have your own personal (more complex) template, models of a similar type can be setup up in minutes just by copying it across and tweaking the percentages. I have about three regularly used templates I utilise now, and setup of a new model takes 15-20 mins in general (a bit more for a 4 servo wing glider, but then that would be the case on any other system too as the number of mixes involved is substantially higher). Edited By MattyB on 02/06/2017 11:39:10

Posted by Rob Buckley on 02/06/2017 10:13:53: Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 01/06/2017 21:08:02: Posted by Rob Buckley on 01/06/2017 19:59:50: Where the EASA NPA says 'club' that is not being read by the CAA as a local model flying club, they see an established national association, such as the LMA, BMFA, SAA etc. with an established record of safe operation. How do we know that Rob? I've not read any statement from CAA to that effect? BEB I know that because I have spoken to the CAA about it, as I also put here **LINK** OK - that is new and very significant news to most of us (especially those not in the LMA); that intention has not been shared by the BMFA. If allowed to stand (I expect the commercial interests to oppose it) it does seem to offer a much brighter future for both clubs and lone fliers who operate from public spaces. I still can't see how it would link in with the U-space proposals though.

Posted by Rich2 on 01/06/2017 18:13:53: Posted by Steve J on 01/06/2017 15:59:24: Posted by Martyn K on 01/06/2017 15:26:05: I wonder if that is the death of 'Country Member' status in the BMFA I suspect the opposite may be the case and a lot of people will join the BMFA as country members so that they can fly under the CAA/BMFA agreement rather than be restricted to the open class. Steve Is that correct? I just left the BMFA for the LMA!! Nobody knows, we are all just guessing about how this could play out. The LMA may well have an agreement with the CAA on the same terms as the BMFA.

My suggestion would be to base your response on comparing the established risk of model flying within your club (which I assume you can demonstrate with figures) to the activities that are allowed within the park but do no take place under the auspices of a carefully controlled environment - examples might include cycling, skateboarding, horse riding etc. A number of members of the public will undoubtedly have been injured by these activities over the years, so banning model flying if you have a good safety record then looks discriminatory.

Posted by ChrisB on 31/05/2017 22:24:14: It'll be interesting to know how the CAA and modelling organisations will react to the EASA regulations and if the CAA will 'see sense' and allow model flyers to carry on as we are, as its not us who cause the problems. This is nothing to do with safety - the "drone menace" is a smokescreen with no hard data to support that a real problem exists. No, this is all about getting access to allow the commercial exploitation of the airspace below 400ft; see Dave Phipp's comment around U-space in the BMFA article... "Appendix 7 outlines the differences between the U-space blueprint (to facilitate the integration of unmanned aircraft into the airspace) and the NPA. There is a specific comment relating to model aircraft (see page 128): Model aircraft By nature, model aircraft do not have geofencing, electronic identification and tracking functions. The NPA covers also model aircraft operation, allowing some distinction of operations under certain conditions/option. U-space seems to potentially include all UAS categories, without any distinction for model aircraft. We need to remain vigilant on the U-Space development. We must ensure that the interests of model flyers are represented and that the proposed ‘U-space’ does not have a negative impact on our activities." One more key point... Do not take the statements that the CAA will be able to grant exemptions as a get out of jail free card. All the big companies who want to exploit commercial drones below 400ft are going to be lobbying hard for consistent regulations across member states with the minimum of regional variations - they won't want different height limits or operating parameters for model aircraft in different countries whether they are operating within a club environment under a national association or not. Put simply don't assume because this iteration of the proposal got better (if only a little) for model fliers then the next cannot get worse again. Edited By MattyB on 01/06/2017 11:33:16

Posted by David Elam on 01/06/2017 09:11:41: Aircraft are flown in an area where it is reasonably expected that no uninvolved person will be present and that a safe distance is maintained from the boundaries of congested areas of cities, towns, settlements or aerodromes. Maximum height of operation is less than 120 m (or up to 50 m above a higher obstacle at the request of the owner of the obstacle!). Both these will surely affect slope soaring and the altitude restriction will cripple thermal soaring. Surprised no one has commented on this unless I've got it totally wrong and as others have said it is a rather confusing article to get your head round. There has been previous conversation in this thread on pages 2,4 and 5 on this specific topic, and yes it could have huge impact on those operating from public sites without a tenant club such as slope soarers. Much would seem to hinge on the legal definitions of words such as "reasonably expected".

If you want to persevere with FrTX your best hope is ask a question on this RCGroups thread. I agree with Andy though - FrTX at this point has been a failure, with almost everyone who has bought a Horus now using OpenTX 2.2. Maybe in time that will change, but to build momentum behind it they would have to pick up a lot of new users to FrSky from the more traditional menu driven systems like JR and Futaba. IMO if that were going to happen it would have happened by now. Edited By MattyB on 31/05/2017 22:10:26

Posted by gangster on 30/05/2017 21:34:55: Donald. Yes I totally agree with the comments about the range check it's gotta be totally solid regardless of everything at over 30 metres I think we need to be careful with some of the more absolute statements being made in this thread. 30m seems to be being thrown around as a minimum standard for a range test, but that is not true for all systems - Jeti for instance state 50m is their minimum in range check mode. They also state the model should be 80cm off the ground for range testing, not 60cm like Spektrum and most other manufacturers. Drawing a 30m line on the ground at might seem like a great idea in theory, but if a given make of TX reduces the power to a greater or lesser extent in range test mode then you are going to see fails that are actually fine or passes that are not. Add in atmospheric conditions and buildings and other features in the area (both of which can make a difference) then the only true guidance can be to range test in line with the manufacturers instructions and investigate all possible root causes thoroughly if the test is a fail. Edited By MattyB on 31/05/2017 12:51:55

Yep, the jumper is only needed for binding Allan.

Posted by Martin Harris on 26/05/2017 18:07:09: Posted by gangster on 26/05/2017 15:51:25: do not however overlook the transmitter switch and corrosion. Check it carefully. They are a poor quality component on ALL makes of radio Really? Agreed - I cannot see any way a failed or failing switch could reduce range. If that were a problem the TX would be either fully off or oscillating between on and off, either of which would be very easy to spot.