MattyB

Could you not just have bought a new SD card and populated with all the std contents? It’s been a while, but there used to be several repositories online where you could download the SD card content, one of which was the FrSky site.

I personally don't like the ergonomics of the Jets (they just don't fit my hands) and that metal case is very cold and heavy for slope use where I spend a fair bit of my time. Having said that I have to admit they are a lovely looking and high quality bit of kit. I will be sticking with FrSky, but if I was in the market for a premium TX there is no doubt in my mind I would choose Jeti over Futaba, Spektrum, JR et. The quality is great, telemetry integration and functionality unmatched and the competition at that end of the market seems to have melted away in recent times (JR 28X anyone? No thanks, we have all our marbles here...! ) Edited By MattyB on 23/02/2018 16:18:39

Some nice footage, but some of it is rather dull (the downward looking tracking shots along the edge of sea for instance); sorry. A couple of pieces of advice... Prolific posters of videos in this forum are asked to post them all into a single thread to prevent the "Latest Forum Posts" view getting clogged to the point it is no longer useful. I suggest you follow do that moving forward as the mods will probably ask you to do so anyway at some point. Perhaps it is just me, but I find nothing more annoying when watching a video online than being asked to like, share and subscribe throughout. Let your content stand up on its own - if it's good enough people will do those things anyway. If you really feel you need to ask for likes and shares do it once at the very end and in the text description, not incessantly all the way through.   Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 24/02/2018 10:14:36

Those ISDT chargers do look tempting, but for me 200W is not a big enough charger for that size of battery. The max charge wattage for one of those packs at 1C is 4.2 X 4 X 5 = 84W. On average that will probably be nearer to 70W, but that means you can barely charge 3 of these packs in parallel at 1C. That may suit you fine for now, but what if your next model require 6S 5000s, or you want to charge 6 or 9 batteries quickly for a full afternoons flying without field charging? I would therefore recommend you go for at least a 300-350W charger with a 12V DC power supply at minimum. This will give you the chance to charge those packs at nearly 2C, or 5 packs in parallel at 1C. Even better would be a 500W+ charger capable of operating from a 24V (server) power supply - it may seem excesssive, but when you inevitably move on to even bigger packs you won’t be forced into another charging upgrade, plus your charger will be operating at a lower percentage of it’s maximum capacity which should mean it lasts longer too. The T6 looks to fit that bill, though my natural instinct is that 55 odd quid is just too cheap for a charger of that wattage and feature set to not have a compromise somewhere, most likely on the area of QC. The review threads online do seem to be generally positive though. Edited By MattyB on 21/02/2018 23:12:35

Don’t buy a new RX yet - just take another known good RX and test it on the same model memory first, that way you'll know if it’s a TX setup or RX issue.

Not according to Andy Kunz on RCGroups... It’s all to do with the Cypress chipset they use being declared as end of life, but it seems highly unlikely a company like HH has no contingency plan for this. Even so, if you want the inside track on what’s going on at HH I would humbly suggest a Hobbyking news post is unlikely to be where you get it!

Posted by Nigel R on 20/02/2018 13:18:29: I'd hazard the suggestion that on a menu driven style TX, that more channels tend to come with the TXs that have more features. More features mean more menus and both mean more development time and more testing time. It's not all created equal. If you want a bunch of mixes and setups pre-packaged, then you ultimately have to pay someone to pre-package it for you. Or to put it another way, professional software doesn't come for free. Maybe, but when you look at how Spek for example do it that doesn't really ring true. All their most popular TXs can transfer model memories between them i.e. a DX6 to a DX9 or DX18, so at their core the software is developed from the same platform, but with the lower models having "high end" features deliberately crippled to preserve the business model. Jeti also work this way. TBH it makes a lot of sense from a cost savings and testing perspective - develop the one set of software for the top model then just shut stuff off to make a simpler TX - and of course as people upgrade they can also take previous setups with them relatively painlessly, making a brand more "sticky" from a marketing perspective. However once consumers experience a so called "low end" TX with features that blow all but the blingiest models from the big names out of the water they start to realise that the old accepted norms of more channels + more features = more cash at the till aren't necessarily true. PS - Having experienced "professional" software from a number of the big name RC manufacturers over the years I have a lot more faith in open source developers maintaining a highly functional and bug free codebase. I have requested and had integrated a number of pieces of functionality into the codebase within weeks, and on a number of occasions have seen minor bugs squished from a new release of OpenTX within hours of a report being made. Futaba, JR et al have been known to take years to do the same or in isolated cases simply ignore such reports!

I suspect such a product would be a complete commercial dead end. The sort of person minded to be interested is almost certain to high quality telemetry radio gear that is installed and powered correctly with models prepared to within an inch of their lives. As a result the usefulness of the device is somewhat moot. Meanwhile those who charge their RX battery once a quarter, throw their RX in any old how and whose entire pre-flight check consist of wiggling the sticks "to check everything moves"(!) will not have the slightest interest in such a device! Edited By MattyB on 19/02/2018 18:40:36

I bet the OP never thought people would be spending time answering this question 10 years after his original post...

Posted by Cliff 1959 on 17/02/2018 20:23:19: This is weird, I've just borrowed a DX6i with the same DSM-X logo on the front as mine, and it works!!! When I went into the menus to see what the setting was for the modulation the option doesn't exist, so the software has changed? Edited By Cliff 1959 on 17/02/2018 20:23:39 Nothing surprising at all about that. Following the change in EU regulations on 1st Jan 2015 it became illegal to sell any DSM2 transmitter, so HH obviously updated the firmware on all newly sold TXs to disable DSM2 even if the hardware remains capable of it. All this means is that your original TX was sold post Jan 2015, whilst your "new" one predates that. More technical and background info here...

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 15/02/2018 14:31:12: Posted by MattyB on 15/02/2018 13:13:40: The legacy concept that customers should all pay more for more channels is simply nonsense in a digital age - extra channels are just a few lines of code in the firmware and cost literally nothing (bar the cost of the pins on an RX on a non-serial bus RX). It's a concept the big name manufacturers continue perpetuate though as it drives valuable revenues. I see no big conspiracy or harm in that, Matty. Even if there is no technical difference, this is just the laws of economics. If people will pay more for more channels, then why would any sensible business wanting to stay in profit not charge more? For as long as they can get away with it you are correct, but customers are steadily learning that it's a complete swizz - value is probably the prime reason FrSky have grown so fast in recent years. A very noticeable trend this year where I am is Spek users going to FrSky and (to a lesser extent) Graupner SJ and Futaba, but that is more about HH's near suicidal approach to pricing, distribution and customer service in the last 6 months of 2017.

Fair point, I did mean adverse yaw - brain fade...

Depends on the TX, but most will be able to do a basic setup. Where you may lose out is in setting aileron differential to avoid dutch roll (important on high a/r soarers; you need both ailerons on separate channels to be able to tweak that from the TX, though you can obviously set some up mechanically). Crow braking will also be out, though in most cases just bringing the flaps down to an extreme angle (70 degrees or more) should be quite effective on it's own; you just won't get the washout effect associated with reflexing the ailerons. PS - The Taranis QX7 is only £107 for 16ch and all the mixing and telemetry functionality you will ever need. As Mrs. Doyle would say... Edited By MattyB on 15/02/2018 13:32:48

Posted by Phil 9 on 15/02/2018 12:28:19: a 4 servo wing gives you a great deal of options but you will need more than 6 channels to get the most of it Only because most radio manufacturers still don't allow the flexible assignment of channels. On FrSky sets using OpenTX you can happily run a 4 servo wing 6ch F3X model with a hugely trick setup on any full range RX because all have 16ch and the channels are fully assignable at the TX. Obviously if it's electric you'll need to use a seventh channel for the motor. The legacy concept that customers should all pay more for more channels is simply nonsense in a digital age - extra channels are just a few lines of code in the firmware and cost literally nothing (bar the cost of the pins on an RX on a non-serial bus RX). It's a concept the big name manufacturers continue perpetuate though as it drives valuable revenues. TJ, in answer to your original question if you like to play with models with more surfaces your first step should be to upgrade your TX. For the very best in functionality and flexibility for the buck consider a FrSky Taranis X9D or QX7, but be prepared for a bit of a learning curve. If you prefer a more traditional menu driven approach there are lots of good options from manufacturers such as Spek, Graupner SJ and Jeti (sorry, can't quite bring myself to say Futa... nope! ), but you will pay a lot more. Steer clear of Hobbyking TXs (not CE certified), Hitec (who recently announced they will not be developing any further TXs) and JR (recently went bankrupt and have a very uncertain future). Edited By MattyB on 15/02/2018 13:22:53

Why would you want flaps and spoilers in a 2m model? Pretty much pointless, crow will be far more effective than spoilers in all situations, hence why you are not really finding anything that meets your requirements. The only reason for spoilers these days is for scale fidelity IMO. Edited By MattyB on 15/02/2018 11:33:48

Posted by Sam Longley on 14/02/2018 21:20:30: Apologies. i have not been reading the full thread & I had not picked up the difference between a model & a flying RC controlled object such as a drone, helicopter or model plane being flown irresponsibly. Perhaps i had a different view of "non- organised site" to others- ie Street on an estate,children's playground, back garden, layby near an airfield, retail centre car park??? You can see all of them on You tube. Glad to hear that they do not cause any issues Nobody is disputing those examples exist, but what EASA are acknowledging is that members of organisations such as the BMFA, LMA and FPVUK that actively promote safe operation of UAS are not the problem. Collectively these organisations and their members have an excellent safety record whether operating at a private club field or public access site. As a result the new regs offer less restrictions to those operating within such organisations compared to those that choose to operate alone.

A quick update... Had a very good email back from Dave Phipps from the BMFA earlier this week. I will not reproduce all of it, but in summary: EASA now seems to accept that not all model flying takes place at organised sites and that there is no evidence to suggest that this gives rise to any problems. The tweak to UAS.SPEC.055 reflects this and is helpful in that it means members of an association holding Competent Authority status (such as the BMFA, LMA, FPVUK etc) should be able to continue to operate from public access sites where there is no tenant club. As a result the BMFA do not think there is currently a need to establish an overarching national club to "own" such sites. The CAA remain supportive of maintaining the status quo. The BMFA are also engaging with the DfT who are looking to bring forward changes to the ANO for unmanned aircraft in the near future as has been mentioned earlier in this thread. Even though the outlook does look better there are still likely be other battles ahead even after the EASA regulations are finalised (such as looking after the interests of model flyers during the implementation of U-space). So all in all I am a little more optimistic now. Nothing is done and dusted yet and it may still not be our ideal outcome, but the likelihood of an acceptable outcome emerging does seem much better than it did a year or so ago. Thanks to Dave and the BMFA team for the work they have done (and continue to do) on our behalf. Edited By MattyB on 14/02/2018 15:03:05

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 13/02/2018 11:28:38: Same thing happened to BEB yesterday evening, Matt - he couldn't find the thread in the Latest Posts page either but after he'd made a test post it reappeared..... no, we haven't a clue why it happened! I've been able to view the thread all the time. Has it reappeared again for you after posting this morning? Yes it did, but then I came back mid morning and it had gone again from the Latest Posts view. It's there currently though. Very strange! Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 13/02/2018 12:24:16: It's happen to me again today, after I thought I'd sorted it. Very strange, not seen this before. Just for now while we investigate, I can still find the thread through the forum "topics" board, presumably so can others? Yes I can, though when I was looking for it this morning I realised I had no idea what subforum it was actually posted in so that didn't help much!

Test post (for some reason this thread is not currently appearing in the Latest Posts view...

Posted by Steve J on 12/02/2018 14:53:17: Posted by MattyB on 12/02/2018 14:01:02: It seems that the earliest that any rules would be rolled out will be 2018 and then they will take three years to implement taking us to 2021. I think that the UK government's schedule is a lot more aggressive than this. It's also worth noting that U-space foundation services (registration, e-identification and geofencing) are supposed to be in place next year. Posted by MattyB on 12/02/2018 14:01:02: Based on the latest announcement in 2018 it would appear the BMFA and the other European modelling authorities have been successful in getting the concession that any member of the BMFA/LMA/FPVUK etc. should be covered to fly at public sites without a tenant club. What concession? If you are talking about changing "framework of" to "member of", I don't see that as a concession and anyway, the wording in the draft regulation hasn't changed. Agreed, it remains open to interpretation hence why I put tbc in my statement and am going to ask the BMFA for an explicit statement on this matter .

Re: The subject of slope pilots bandying together to create an overarching organisation to protect the public access sites without a "tenant" club... I brought this up in late 2016 on the BARCS forum, and reached out to the BMFA at that time. Dave Phipps responded and I placed the highlights in that thread here... (extracts from my original email in italics, Dave's responses in blue)... Based on the proposed EASA regulations there appears to be a possibility (though by no means certain) that model flying may only be possible from registered sites tenanted by a club under the wing of a competent authority (such as the BMFA, LMA etc). This is not the current line of thinking. The hope is that you would need to belong to a recognised organisation and would fly under a blanket authorisation issued to them by the National CAA. At the present time there is no formal plan to restrict flying only to registered sites (the UK CAA does not want to become involved in any more admin than it is at present!). If that were to occur slope and thermal soarers who fly from publically accessible sites not tenanted by a club would be breaking the law and would not be insured. EASA also recognises that they have to find a way to accommodate this type of activity, so our hope is that the situation will not arise. I therefore suggested a new BMFA affiliated club might be formed to register and “own” all the currently used public access slope and thermal sites that do not have a tenant club at present... Obviously the requirement to create such an organisation is based mostly on supposition and guesswork at this point; no-one outside the BMFA team really knows how the negotiations are going or whether this is likely to be required... My question is (based on your insight as to how the negotiations with EASA are proceeding) should the soaring community setup such an organisation at this time, and if so would the BMFA want to get involved? At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that the above course of action would be required. The next draft of the EASA rules will probably be launched for consultation towards the end of May, but at the present time they still don’t have the formal competence to produce any actual rules. It seems that the earliest that any rules would be rolled out will be 2018 and then they will take three years to implement taking us to 2021. On this basis, there is no need for urgent action.   Based on the latest announcement in 2018 it would appear the BMFA and the other European modelling authorities have been successful in getting the concession that any member of the BMFA/LMA/FPVUK etc. should be covered to fly at public sites without a tenant club. They will of course have to meet all other requirements set out by the class of operation they are operating under (pilot registration, height limits etc), but if that is the case (tbc) at least we should not be arbitrarily banned. I will send another email to the BMFA to get an updated opinion on this. Edited By MattyB on 12/02/2018 14:08:36

Posted by MattyB on 08/02/2018 17:09:50: "...The delegated and implementing acts adopted under this on the basis of Regulation and concerning unmanned aircraft should take into account that such model aircraft have so far had a good safety record, especially those operated by members of model aircraft associations or clubs which developed specific codes of conduct for such activities." Posted by Piers Bowlan on 09/02/2018 10:13:17: What slightly irritates me is the 'so far' bit. Either model flying has a good safety record or it hasn't, the 'so far' is superfluous. Model flying has been going for over a hundred years, the so far bit sounds like they are saying it has only just become popular. Why should model flying suddenly not continue to have a good safety record, with or without the proposed legislation? Am I being oversensitive? (probably!) Good spot. Goes back to my final point in the original post - even if we get a good deal from the CAA that agreement will remain at risk from legislative creep in the long term. The 120m limit is another example - initially it may be approved with no mandatory telemetry system required, but all it needs is one incident/near miss and the law could be changed mandating that kit be carried.

Latest announcement from the BMFA... I think this does look a little better than before. As noted registration of individual models is gone, and it looks like Country members of the BMFA and other associations that are not members of a club will come out better as the wording has changed to: "...The delegated and implementing acts adopted under this on the basis of Regulation and concerning unmanned aircraft should take into account that such model aircraft have so far had a good safety record, especially those operated by members of model aircraft associations or clubs which developed specific codes of conduct for such activities." It also sounds like those operating at shared public access locations (such as the vast majority slope and thermal sites) should be able to continue to do so providing they utilise a smartphone app to notify the authorities they are doing so. The 120m limit is going to be a killer for thermal soaring though. Ultimately it seems it will all come down to the relationship between the BMFA, LMA etc and the CAA. Even if we get a good deal initially there will always remain the risk that incidents could cause a rethink/reinterpretation at the CAA, especially if they are put under political pressure. The BMFA and others will have to remain constantly vigilant from now on to protect our right to fly in the long term.

Only to be expected - it's simply supply and demand. There must be far more people exiting the hobby in their later years selling extensive engine collections than there are newcomers looking to take up IC aeromodelling. I know a few enthusiastic glow heads, but I don't know anyone who has bought a new 2S glow in the last 5 years as there is such a healthy supply of cheap unused/nearly new engines available on the secondhand market.

Ahhh, the Ridge Runt, a true blast from the past! Flew pretty well for it's size as I remember, though I'm sure now it would feel woefully dated given the mouldies I've flown since. A friend and I used to fly informal pylon races with ours back in the late 80s as schoolboys. Lots of fun and you learnt to repair stuff too! Edited By MattyB on 05/02/2018 16:07:45