MattyB

  Cross post, question no longer relevant. Edited By MattyB on 26/05/2017 13:42:50

Posted by Chris Walby on 26/05/2017 06:33:42: I lost a model a couple of weeks ago (vertical decent into ground after failsafe engaged) Habu efd with AR500 RX & DX8 (old) which was quite a long way out but still clearly visible. Somewhat unlikely after such a long time, but the AR500 did have well documented issues on release. Could this be an old RX that was affected by QC issues? I believe Spektrum never did recall the 500s, but they did replace them with the 600 series. Might be worth replacing it with a different RX model. Edited By MattyB on 26/05/2017 13:20:06

I know vintage designs often have forward rake on the undercarriage, but that looks extreme... Ground clearance looks marginal for the prop and fuselage underside. Is it awaiting modification/repair, or are you hoping to fly it like that? If so I suspect the take off roll may be "interesting"...! Edited By MattyB on 26/05/2017 01:01:04

Posted by Martin Harris on 25/05/2017 10:27:29: A good point. It was interesting to see a long time exponent of the capable, but budget Taranis transmitters say that he wouldn't trust these modules because they were cheap! Perhaps I should have qualified my comment a little better... What I was trying to say was that a $36 multi-protocol module is not going to worry the established players as it can't be easily used to adapt their TXs. Based on the current pricing of FrSky telemetry RXs I see no need to buy a multi protocol module like this. If I was interested in the BNF FlySky/WFly etc quads and helis I suppose I might get one, but there is no telemetry and FrSky RXs are still pretty cheap so for outdoor use in parkflier up sized models there are no pressing reasons to get one. If I ran a system that had more expensive RXs I might feel different I suppose, but those systems don't generally have a module bay any more so they are much harder to adapt.

Posted by flight1 on 24/05/2017 10:25:07: Days of having to be stuck to one Manufactures 2.4Ghz protocol are coming to an end with this module kit It won't be long before you can buy a Tx with this capability already built in, the manufacturers better be aware, long live freedom! This is potentially useful for being able to utilise your main TX with some of the sub-hobby grade indoor toy helis and quads, but I would not trust $36 module like this with more expensive and heavy models operated outdoors. Also the market is somewhat limited to FrSky owners, as they are almost the only TXs available new that still have a module bay. I will also be pretty slow (high latency) too, and I strongly doubt it will be CE marked. Shorter answer - I don't think any of the big manufacturers will be losing any sleep.

Posted by Rich2 on 24/05/2017 11:18:10: I get the impression that most on the forum accept the proposals and will just fall in line. At this point I am not sure there is enough detail here for any of us to "accept the proposals and fall in to line". There are large areas of uncertainty that will need to be clarified before that can be the case, especially under operations under subcategory A3 and the specifics of how the CAA choose to implement the final result in the UK. I cannot see us getting that clarity for 1-2 years (I fear there is plenty of lobbying to be done on both sides before a final ratified document emerges).

Assuming you are looking for an ARF/PNP, a balsa 3D model for a 3S 2200 is going to need to be very small to be adequately powered. I think you will have accept it needs to be a foamie or be prepared to migrate to a bigger 4S batteries if you want to go the electric balsa route. If you are prepared to go with foam the Voltigeur might be a good fit, though not available from the UK warehouse at present... Edited By MattyB on 23/05/2017 12:38:16

Posted by Geoff Sleath on 22/05/2017 16:02:33: Also invest in a wattmeter. They're pretty cheap these days (a lot cheaper than a burnt out esc or model!) and they help to ensure you're not over stressing any of the electric drive train (motor/esc/battery). To reduce the current just go down in prop size as a first step and vice versa to get more power but always be aware of the current draw. Heed this advice - here's an example of problems that can await if you don't check your setups carefully on the ground first...

Whatever the root cause turns out to be the lessons here would seem to be: Do some basic calculations on your powertrain before buying components to make sure they are in the right ballpark for your model, and; Once installed always test your setup with a wattmeter before flying. The fact the OP did neither is I suspect going to be a costly lesson... Edited By MattyB on 23/05/2017 09:56:51

There will always be exceptions but 95%+ of our slope sites are accessed via some kind of public access agreement. I am not expecting you or anyone else to answer what those terms mean at this time; all I am pointing out is that the terms will have to be defined explicitly otherwise the legislation will be completely unworkable and modellers will have no idea whether or not they can operate legally at a given site under subcategory A3.

Posted by Steve J on 22/05/2017 14:59:49: AMC1 UAS.OPEN.60(b) Operations in Subcategory A3 (a) Operations in Subcategory A3 may be conducted with UAS: ...... (6) privately built. the technical requirements of the technical requirements of the technical requirements of the technical requirements of the technical requirements of ...(c) The remote pilot should assess that reasonably, no uninvolved person will be present in the area and airspace where the UA is intended to be flown, during the entire time of the UAS operation.   Some of the slope sites that I have flown fail (c), so I wouldn't be able to fly them under subcategory A3 and will have to see what deal the BMFA gets from the CAA. I am quite sure prosecution lawyers will argue that any site with public access fails (c). Since the sites needed for sloping must by definition have public access for us to use them it will all hinge on the legal definition of the word "reasonably". Does that mean less than 10 people an hour traversing the area on average? Less than 5? Or less than 1? Edited By MattyB on 22/05/2017 15:12:16

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 22/05/2017 14:18:13: Subcategory A3 = Geofencing, SSR Transponder, Approved course of training (probably recurrent tests), 'flight controller redundancy' (presumably RTH and autonomous flight), Minimum age limit of 14 (I don't need to worry there!). Sounds very expensive and unnecessary and the list is probably not complete either. All this just to enable you to chuck your balsa glider off a hill or cliff; probably miles from anywhere and virtually zero risk to the general public or other airspace users. Piers, read the table again - none of that applies to self built models if you meet the requirements I outlined above (click below to view it at a readable size). The problem though is meeting those requirements is very hard as they are so vague! Edited By MattyB on 22/05/2017 15:02:05

Maybe, but as I pointed out a few pages ago to operate in that category the aircraft must be flown "...in an area where it is reasonably expected that no uninvolved person will be present" and the operator must "...keep a safety distance from the boundaries of congested areas of cities, towns or settlements, or aerodromes". What do "reasonably expected" and "safety distance" mean legally? It's massively imprecise and open to interpretation. They are going to need a lot more detail in these areas in order to create a workable outcome or else the first transgressor is going to embroil them in a lengthy precedent case. Edited By MattyB on 22/05/2017 14:23:32

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/05/2017 12:02:20: ...The big disadvantage for us of course is what happens to those not in a club, or participating in an activity like sloping that doesn't tend to be club orientated? The fear is that such flyers will have to comply with the full gammit of controls on commercial fliers to operate in U-Space - that would be difficult. While we can hope that Sloping Sites will be able to be registered - even without a formal club (that's a job of work for BMFA et al), I can see little able to save the lone flyer in a local farmer's field I'm afraid at the moment. Agreed, I think prospects for the lone flyer are now pretty bleak - irrelevant of price I am not sure the tech even exists to allow many fixed wing model comply at the present time, and certainly not gliders. Selfishly it is slope sites I am really concerned about as that is my favourite form of flying and so many sites do not have a tenant BMFA club to look after them. When I floated the idea of an over-arching "UK Soaring Club" to look after these sites the BMAF stated they did not think it would be needed given the direction of negotiations, but looking at the latest NPA draft I think such an organisation may have become more likely with this iteration, not less. You could be right though, there is no reason that the BMFA could not just ask it's members (country and club) to mass register slope sites centrally online without such an organisation being required; every BMFA member could then use them legitimately. Even so some sites will be missed and some pilots will end up flying illegally, whether aware or not. Edited By MattyB on 22/05/2017 12:43:21

This thread is also useful, as are the Gibbs guides (you have to pay for those though!). There is also a glossary of model flying terms on the forum too.

It is just a sports model; semi scale means based on a full size prototype, but with departures to improve handling and performance, and/or ease building.

Posted by ChrisB on 20/05/2017 10:52:46: The CAA will be able to regulate airspace as they do now and make their own decisions about heights and areas that flying can take place, hence the ability to delegate to a competent authority within member states. The CAA aren't stupid, they know that for decades all has been well with the world. Its only in the last few years that tings have changed...whats the variable? Multi-rota/drone aircraft and who are the people causing the problems...the toy brigade. All will be well Erfolg...the world won't end! Posted by Steve J on 20/05/2017 14:48:01: A £5 registration scheme and either join a club or do some online training and a test is not "the beginning of the end for aeromodelling". Steve My copy arrived on Saturday. Having had a read (it didn't take long; half a page tucked away near the back that sadly most will miss) it seems the BMFA have adopted a more conciliatory tone compared to their response to the prototype rules; based on their interpretation there does seem reason for cautious optimism. I think we are a long way from being in the clear though. On paper delegating that authority to the CAA (who have always seemed pragmatic and not overly worried when it comes to organised model flying) seems a good outcome for us. However I just cannot see the commercial interests involved who want access to that airspace below 400ft (Amazon, the logistics companies etc) supporting this approach. Allowing each country CA to negotiate and define it's own exception criteria for the rules with their local modelling associations will make the "U-Space" concept more costly and time consuming to legislate and implement; it would certainly make cross border operation far trickier. As a result I fully expect these organisations to put out lots of publicity and deploy employ expensive lobbying groups to set out why a top down, centralised approach across the EU with far less local variance is critical to the success of the commercial drone industry. It then becomes a political decision as to which way the EU/EASA want to go - problem is all the £££s are on one side of the argument, and it isn't ours... Edited By MattyB on 22/05/2017 11:13:12

Posted by Debbie Rooney on 18/05/2017 14:15:40: notice the word basher ,referred to above ..... id also like to draw attention to the fact that the organiser of Weston park has put a statement out saying dx 20 tx will not be allowed unless they have been serviced by HH and come with proof that they have been. why is it that futaba jeti jr ,or any other don't need the same treatment? Probably because those brands don't have a current, unspecified product recall out against them. I am sure this is just the organisers doing the sensible thing and mitigating a known risk - understandably they do not want to be held liable if something were to go wrong.

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 19/05/2017 16:15:09: Posted by MattyB on 19/05/2017 16:02:13: Still nothing from the BMFA on this one - I guess with all this rain they must be out mowing the grass at Buckminster... Edited By MattyB on 19/05/2017 16:02:49 You didn't read this months BMFA news then? My copy has not arrived yet. What does it say?

Still nothing from the BMFA on this one - I guess with all this rain they must be out mowing the grass at Buckminster... Edited By MattyB on 19/05/2017 16:02:49

Posted by bouncebounce crunch on 19/05/2017 07:36:07: Thank you very much Mark. I had given up with my failed posting. There are instructions here about posting Youtube videos. It is very complicated though compared to most forum templates that just require you to post the URL and the template does the needed to embed it.

Posted by Cuban8 on 18/05/2017 07:52:49: I've made a note of the email contacts for service from HH Germany, just in case - thatnks for posting them. HH's UK website is still hopelessly out of date however, and is still saying refer to your manual for contact info! I don't buy any modelling magazines, has the modelling press covered this debacle in any detail? Why would the modelling press risk talking about this when HH make up a substantial component of their advertising revenues?

Forget % of charge - just look for 3.75-3.85V/cell. Exact value is unimportant; the main thing is you should not be storing it above 4V/cell, otherwise anode degradation will be occurring at an increased rate and your battery will lose capacity and increase it's IR. Edited By MattyB on 12/05/2017 23:21:35

Posted by Nightflyer 2013 on 11/05/2017 12:53:10: It always amazes me that in any club or organisation no matter what wonderful ideas or facilities they have there are always some who decry them. I for one applaud the efforts of what the BMFA team have done to develop an idea into a reality. Sports/hobbies all should have an identity and boast some facilities as a national centre. I don't think anybody here is decrying anything. Ultimately I want the National Centre to succeed, just not at any cost. All many of us are asking for is more detail on the expected operational expenses so we can be reassured the NFC remains viable in the long term. A single slide detailing annual opex estimates is all that is needed; that these basic figures are not forthcoming is a bit of a mystery. Look at it this way... In the next few days the news will be awash party manifestos making lots of claims about what each party will do in the next 4 years. Those claims will all have to figures against them or they will be dismissed by opposition parties and the media as uncosted pipe dreams. Should we not apply a similar test here? Without any knowledge of the annual opex requirements is it really possible for the average member to give their full support to the project? Would you put down a deposit on a house if the purchase price and monthly repayments were not known? Edited By MattyB on 11/05/2017 15:40:29