Jump to content

MattyB

Members
  • Posts

    4,546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by MattyB

  1. Posted by Percy Verance on 23/04/2017 08:42:31: Not seen or heard of that before Matty. It isn't a carry on flying solution, but it does at least get you safely back on the ground, and that of course means the model flies again another day. Nice one. Yes, that's correct. The reason I like it is because a) I know the backup battery will always be charged and ready to go, and b) in the event of a main power failure the Ultra Guard will supply 0.5V less than the main pack at switch on, meaning a telemetry alarm can be set to alert me to a main power failure. I don't see the fact that it doesn't enable you to fly on through the rest of the day as a real disadvantage either - if you believe your model needed resilient power before the failure then it needs it afterwards too, so you will have to troubleshoot the issue/recharge the exhausted pack before flying again anyway. Ps - If you are uncomfortable running such a small pack as backup any sized 2S Lipo with a matching balance plug can be used instead of the standard one; the only disadvantage is weight, but that's not an issue on an 1/4 scale Cub I would imagine!
  2. Some videos of my resilient power (using the Ultraguard) and RF (using an XPS X10+) setup... Posted by MattyB on 15/06/2016 00:20:31: A couple of videos of the X10+ and Ultra Guard on the bench - after 4hrs burn in testing tonight nothing has failed, so it's time to install all this in the model... Overview of setup:     Testing the X10+ and Ultra Guard:     Edited By MattyB on 23/04/2017 09:06:58
  3. Posted by MattyB on 10/06/2016 17:48:14: Even separate UBECs fail occasionally, so I wanted to mitigate that possibility. I am not a fan of separate RX battery packs in electric models though - I always feel like they are the item you are most likely to forget to charge! Instead I did some digging and came up with a little jewel of a device I'd never heard of previously - the Optipower Ultra Guard 430: "OPTIFUEL is building a highly respected reputation for developing products and accessories for the model enthusiast which now covers brands such as OPTIPOWER Ultra Guard 430, a new intelligent concept in model flight safety. ULTRA GUARD 430 is a small lightweight easy to install smart landing system designed to restore total backup control allowing you to land your model safely following a main power failure... The device is plugged into a free port on your RX or FBL system and when you power up the device waits, monitors the system set voltage, then arms at that voltage less 0.5V. The device is then armed and monitoring the system voltage and the state of the buffer pack. If the buffer pack needs topping up it will do that and balance it from the main packs or RX pack and stop when it gets to a nominal 8.1V. The device samples the system voltage every 2mS and if the system voltage drops below the armed set voltage then the buffer pack steps in if the system voltage recovers it drops out, this is seamless. The device when working can and does indicate locally that its operational and if it is charging or not but this is not able to be seen at distance. A separate external high intensity LED can be fitted that shows you are on the buffer pack, this is an option and these can be cascaded if required. The device works across 4.6V to 8V. The combo version (the board and buffer pack) are bound together by clear shrink wrap as is the super combo version (inc LED system). The total weight is <39g inc LED <35g ex the LED. All parts can be purchased separately. The device can go to storage charge if its not going to be used for some time." At £30 and 35g it was a no brainer; I didn't go for the LED though, as I will be able to setup a telemetry alarm on my Taranis if it is ever called into action. Testing this fully will be the next stage of my install.   Edited By MattyB on 23/04/2017 08:30:39
  4. Another option is the Optipower Ultraguard - the advantages with that are that you know your backup battery will always be charged, and telemetry or visual (via high intensity lighting) alerts can be added so you know if you have an issue with your main power supply. From my Sebart Miss Wind thread... Edited By MattyB on 23/04/2017 08:41:55
  5. Posted by Steve Houghton 1 on 20/04/2017 22:10:21: This guy seems to have managed to mix flap & ailerons together. Well yes, but it doesn't prove much - he is using a Futaba 14SG by the looks of it!
  6. Posted by Bryan Anderson 1 on 15/04/2017 15:40:36: ...I would also want the batteries to be at similar terminal voltages otherwise the transfer of charge between batteries is not well limited. Even 3S 2200maH batteries that have open-circuit terminal voltages that differs by 300mV can sustain currents in excess of 30A for possibly up to a minute when connected in parallel. That is about a 14C charging rate. In theory yes, but in practice that isn't the case because your maths doesn't take into account the voltage dip under load. When real world tests have been done (example, bottom left of page) you always find the equalisation currents are significantly lower than the theoretical values calculated, and the equalisation is pretty rapid (a few seconds before the current gets down to much lower levels). The effective charge current received by the lower voltage packs is also minimised if more than 2 packs are being connected in parallel. Yes it's still plenty enough to fry a balance lead, but with most batteries now rated at 3-5C charge rates connecting them together in parallel should not cause any issues if the difference is less than ~0.2V/cell. Personally I am still going to stick with my 0.1V max total pack difference routine though, as it takes minimal extra time to execute and is proven with zero issues over hundreds of charge cycles. Edited By MattyB on 21/04/2017 00:24:03
  7. If you want the best in durability, current delivery and ability to withstand abuse then buy the HK Graphenes - expensive and rather heavy, but very durable and give great power right to the end of the pack.
  8. If your charger can measure the IR (internal resistance) of your packs do that and stick the result into this online C-rating tool - I warn you though, you may be very disappointed in the real world performance of your packs vs what it says on the label!
  9. Ahhh, the fun of trying to find elaborate workarounds to make big brand radios do what you want, mainly because their marketing department ordered the engineers to cripple the software to protect the sales of the next model up... I do not miss that!  #OpenTXrules  Edited By MattyB on 20/04/2017 23:24:18
  10. Hmmm... down elevator does imply a more rearward CG, but it could just be they have set the incidence too high and/or there is insufficient down thrust. Best way to check is the dive test; climb to height, power off, dive 30-45 degrees down at 90 degrees to the wind and see what it does... Edited By MattyB on 20/04/2017 23:07:10
  11. Sounds to me like your CG is a bit far forward; from memory a few of my friend ends Riots have had this tendency too due to a conservative CG position. Maybe try edging it backwards over a series of flights with a 10-15g weight until the handling is to your taste.
  12. Sorry, ITR was a typo - should have read IR, for Internal Resistance. Some chargers can measure this and the value can then be used to calculate a realistic real world C rating for the pack rather than the fanciful baloney printed on the outside of most lipos! Unfortunately though I don't think your charger has this functionality. Instead the bet thing to do is to fully charge both packs, get your wattmeter out and measure what current they are pulling static - if there is a substantial difference between the two that is indicative that the one that is providing significantly less current is not up to snuff.
  13. Changing to an APC 12x6 might help slightly, but it sounds more likely you have a duff battery if it flew better on the other one. If your charger can measure the ITR of the pack do that and stick the result into this online C-rating tool - you may find your battery is simply unable to provide the necessary current due to previous use and abuse.
  14. Posted by John F on 20/04/2017 12:33:54: I don't think that sending an old Rx and them sending it back saying they no longer support it warrants being "avoided at all costs". No other manufacturer will repair, for free, out of warranty, bits of kit. It is unfair in my view, to expect an old item to be repaired with the proviso that you'll not respect their products thereafter if they don't. Agreed. I always found it somewhat amusing that the people who celebrated HH's habit of replacing out of warranty kit for free in the past were often the same people who decried the pricing of new products . "Free" replacements are never really free, they have to be paid for somehow. Personally I would much rather have high reliability out of the box, decent but not over the top customer support with parts available for home installation, and a lower purchase price. I guess that is why I do not use Spektrum... Edited By MattyB on 20/04/2017 14:03:18
  15. Bob, after reviewing the article itself and your comments above regarding my "viewpoint" on safety I have decided I would like my name removed from the credits. Nothing personal, I just want to avoid a situation where a reader follows (or attempts to follow) this advice, has an accident and tries to hold the authors/contributors responsible. Please confirm with a post here that you have removed my name - many thanks. I strongly suggest you add a disclaimer to the top and bottom of this article stating that whilst every effort has been made to check it for errors, responsibility for the safe setup and use of their charging equipment remains with the reader. Edited By MattyB on 20/04/2017 13:41:39
  16. Membership of the BMFA is not mandatory to fly models, and they don't author the ANO, make laws or enforce them. Their handbook is a set of guidelines, not a list of rules. Based on that is is very hard to see how they can be considered to govern all model flying in the U.K., whatever it says on their website. They are though the best placed organisation to represent the sport of model flying when negotiating with the likes of the CAA or EASA, purely because they are the largest and they have a mixed, inclusive membership made up of all aspects of the hobby, including drone/multirotor pilots. Edited By MattyB on 19/04/2017 19:53:24
  17. You could try returning it to HH... then again, maybe not!
  18. Posted by Piers Bowlan on 19/04/2017 12:08:01: I have read the dft consultation document Guvnor and it seems that EASA have taken the easy option of not attempting to differentiate between consumer, stabilised, camera equipped M/Rs and traditional model aircraft. I do remember seeing a couple of sentences paying lip service to model aircraft but then saying it was 'too difficult' to exempt models from the regulations, so by definition they are all UAVs. Job done! Yes, I linked to that and quoted from it in my post further up this page. The statements about it being too hard to define "model aircraft" do hold some water - it's not easy given the broad range of activites that fall under model flying - but to my cynical eyes I suspect it is more about the fact that they want to completely clear the skies for commercial deliveries below 400ft, so there is no incentive to create a distinction.
  19. Posted by Bing on 19/04/2017 09:37:47: learnt a hard lesson today when trannie failed when aircraft in flight, aircraft a total loss, lipo burst into flames and burnt out the wreckage. It happened when the trannie screen went blank during the flight and I lost control will investigate further and try to discover what happened. So let me get this clear... You had a TX that randomly switches off, but decided to go flying with it again without troubleshooting the issue? Edited By MattyB on 19/04/2017 11:43:48
  20. Posted by Guvnor on 19/04/2017 10:25:51: Posted by MattyB on 19/04/2017 10:18:53: What the BMFA cannot afford to do is wash their hands of drones/multirotors in a futile attempt to "save" model flying. Why? Because if they do they will lose credibility with the authorities they are negotiating with. EASA know very well that currently multirotors and drones are governed identically to traditional model aircraft, so the BMFA must maintain an inclusive stance to all forms of SUAS or risk losing their influence at the table. In that case the average BMFA member had better brace itself for a bumpy ride. The costs, the administration and the hassle involved with the influx of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of new members will destroy the BMFA as we know it.... On that one I agree with you - the current governance model and org structure for the BMFA does not look well set up to deal with a huge influx of new members (based on how the NFC was green lighted I am not sure it's even suitable to manage the 30k of current members). That is a separate issue to look at once the EASA regs are finalised though. All I am saying is that given the current regulatory framework deals with multirotors exactly the same as more traditional models, it is not tenable for the BMFA to sit at the table with EASA and attempt to distance themselves from drones - they will lose their credibility and influence if they take that route.
  21. Posted by Guvnor on 19/04/2017 10:27:18: And thereby hangs the problem! Any mention there of traditional model flying??? No - there never will be, nor has there ever been! What is "traditional model flying"? How do you define it? Put simply if the authorities are targeting improved safety (the stated aim) or aiming to free up the airspace below 400ft for commercial use (which I personally think is the main objective) there is no advantage to them in differentiating between drones and traditional model flying; to do so just makes the regs harder to write and more difficult to enforce. The very best we can hope for is a framework that will apply to all sUAS, but where restrictions are eased for those operating in line with guidance from an overseeing authority for model flying such as the BMFA or LMA. Edited By MattyB on 19/04/2017 10:48:28
  22. Posted by Guvnor on 19/04/2017 09:04:25: Posted by John F on 19/04/2017 08:49:33: ALL model aircraft are "drones". What you are referring to are Multi Rotor aircraft (MR). People have been killed by fixed wing model aircraft quite a few times over the years, sadly. Someone being killed by a MR will not change the balance. Why is there no room in the BMFA and within our hobby for multi rotor aircraft? No, all model aircraft are NOT 'drones'! This is the issue. Model aircraft are flown by TOTALLY different people to the average drone flyer. Most drone flyers are members of the public who want to get a camera in the air, with NO interest in the flying bit. Suggesting they go off and expore a model aircraft flying site is bizzare - it won't happen. But I fly fixed wing LOS and multi rotor FPV drones - what "type of person" am I? Sorry Guvnor, but there really is no doubt on this point - all sUAS are subject to the same ANOs and regulated by the same laws whether fixed wing, heli or multirotor. The interests of the individual operating them are completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. The only differences come above when a camera is carried and/or if the aircraft is above a certain weight, but once again that is totally independent of the type of craft. In addition there is nothing in the current EASA proposals to indicate they have any intention of changing this stance and legislating for model flying separately; they are on record as stating that is "too hard" to do so (see page 8): " ‘Model aircraft’ are not defined but are covered by the reference to leisure flights, air displays, sport or competition activities. ...The option of excluding ‘model aircraft’ was seriously envisaged taking into account their good safety record. We had several attempts to make a definition that could accurately separate classical ‘model aircraft’ from unmanned aircraft. This has proven difficult as a ‘model aircraft’ is indeed an unmanned aircraft, and the variety of model aircraft goes far beyond manually controlled fixed wing aircraft. As we could not identify a satisfactory definition, the option of a transition period combined with an authorisation taking into account the good safety record has been adopted. In our reflexions, we also took into account that the official Fédération Aéronautique Internationale policy is to attract unmanned aircraft hobbyists. This will allow hobbyists to benefit from the experience of ‘model aircraft’ associations and clubs. excluding ‘model aircraft’ may not be in line with this principle." The BMFA understand this and are working on our behalf to get the best deal, but let's not kid ourselves - the cat is out of the bag. There is no longer any chance that the current rules and framework will remain unchanged, especially given the (theoretical) taxation opportunities available to governments to free up the airspace below 400ft for Google, Amazon et al. Additional legislation is coming, the only question is how impactful it will be on the traditional model flying disciplines. What the BMFA cannot afford to do is wash their hands of drones/multirotors in a futile attempt to "save" model flying. Why? Because if they do they will lose credibility with the authorities they are negotiating with. EASA know very well that multirotors and drones are governed identically to traditional model aircraft and all other sUAS, so the BMFA must maintain an inclusive stance whilst negotiating the future framework or risk losing any influence they have at the table. Edited By MattyB on 19/04/2017 10:30:40
  23. The BMFA will not be recognised by newcomers as a governing authority (whether they are or they aren't), and the CAA have stated publically they do not investigate or enforce anything to do with drones. As a result to have any influence with Joe Public I suspect any note would have to be signed by the Police, a group whose purpose and role is understood by all. The chance of that happening though must be near to zero... On the two occasions I have tried to engage law enforcement to address illegal drone flying the officers in question have had no real knowledge of the law with respect to SUAS, nor any conspicuous desire to enforce it. I suspect this is part of the reason the current EASA proposals aim to make most flying legal only in predetermined places, that way any officer can quickly and simply identify if a drone is being operated illegally simply by location. Edited By MattyB on 19/04/2017 02:09:54
  24. The above explains why you do not see many low Kv small motors - they are harder to make with very thin wire and can't carry enough current to be useful on lower cell counts (no-one wants to run 6S on an indoor F3P model!). The reason bigger motors tend to have lower Kv is I guess more about limiting max currents and RPMs - it's much more efficient to minimise I squared R losses (heat) in your motor and battery by operating at higher voltages and lower currents. An added bonus is that it's easier to engineer a heavier motor to drive a larger prop if it's turning that prop more slowly. This is important to the budget manufacturers who can produce more affordable large motors that don't require the absolute best quality bearings etc. Edited By MattyB on 19/04/2017 01:50:34
×
×
  • Create New...