MattyB

Posted by Peter Christy on 20/03/2017 15:45:47: MattyB: An excellent summary! However, as one of those who came to the hobby before proportional control was actually available - analogue or otherwise - I feel duty bound to point out that we *had* to install our equipment carefully! Reed and relay receivers (some had as many as 12 relays on board!) had to be mounted "just so", and with as many as seven wires going to each servo, heaven help you if your wiring was not tidy! Yep, I have seen some of my Dad's old 7 wire servos in a dusty "archive" box at the back of one of his cupboards, and by all accounts they sound like temperamental beasts! I am sure that in those days installs were done with extreme care in order to give the best chance of success. Those installs were certainly not the ones that led to complacency in the 2.4 era!

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 20/03/2017 15:55:42: Posted by Martyn K on 20/03/2017 15:27:37: That a good summary Matty and I agree with most of your points apart from this open ended statement.. "What I am trying to say is those who grew up with analogue RC, low power servos and 4.8V NiCads often still install modern digital gear the way they used to back in the day resulting in in all the expected problems." What expected problems? Apart from NiCads are replaced with NiMh and for high power requirements LiPo or similar I am puzzled why digital gear should be treated differently. I understand where Matty is coming from, back in the 35 mhz analogue days the 600 mah AA Nicd cells used to hang on to the output voltage pretty well and the analogue receivers would keep working at voltages which had seen the servos go very sluggish. Now with digital receivers any loss in voltage below a certain value causes the receiver to shutdown and reboot when the voltage recovers, add to that people using high capacity (>2,000 mah) Nimh AA cells which drop voltage under any appreciable load and this can lead to problems. I've seen this on large gliders where a 4 cell AA pack has led to brownouts. Yep, that was exactly my point Frank - digital RXs do not "fail gracefully" when starved of power in the same way analogue ones do. On a slope awayday a few years ago I watched a beautiful scale machine go in as crow plus airbrakes were deployed on landing. It had four digital servos on the ailerons and flaps, two on air brakes and two more on elevator and rudder. Picking over the wreckage it turned out a 4 cell 2000mah Eneloop had been used to power the RX, which was flashing to denote a reboot. Case closed. Edited By MattyB on 20/03/2017 16:38:30

I have not seen anything to dissuade me from the view that ALL modern digital (FHSS) based radio equipment is incredibly reliable, irrelevant of the brand used. The biggest failure point is and always will be the fleshy thing installing the RX and twiddling the sticks. Having said that I think there are a few factors that mean the "perceived reliability" is lower than the actual... Old school installs/lack of understating of 2.4 fundamentals - I still see a disturbing number of RXs just thrown in the fuselage and poor quality/badly thought out onboard power supplies. Often this is newcomers, but the most common culprits are those who are, well... in possession of great experience! What I am trying to say is those who grew up with analogue RC, low power servos and 4.8V NiCads often still install modern digital gear the way they used to back in the day resulting in in all the expected problems. Hangover from 1st generation protocols & power sensitive/slow rebooting RXs - Problems from the early days of 2.4 have now been addressed by all the manufacturers, but there is no doubt that some of the early implementations - the especially the original DSM v1 - did have weaknesses in certain conditions from an RF perspective. Many early RXs also rebooted at disturbingly high RX voltages and took a long time to reconnect after reboot. These issues are gone now (FHSS has really helped here from an RF perspective, and most RXs now operate to lower voltages than the servos they command). The historic problems certainly hang over one brand to this day though, event though (IMO) there is no hard factual evidence to suggest that they have fundamental issues with their products nowadays EU changes - There is no doubt that the ETSI changes in 2015 definitely affected some brands in terms of their reputation for reliability. In particular FrSky made a real mess of their first go at compliant firmware, so much so they had admit EU v1 had range issues and come up with a new LBT protocol. Futaba also waited until the last second to amend FASST to be compliant. This cannot have helped build trust in the products (the different versions of FrSky RF firmware are a continuing point of confusion to new/potential users of the brand, even though both the Int'l and EU v2 protocol are now both incredibly well proven in use). Manufacturer brain fade - The original Spektrum DX8 botched release. Jeti's broken TX sticks. Futaba's 0000 GUID issues. FrSky's perennial love of beta testing new products in production... There are probably more that I have forgotten too! Most manufacturers have one or two of these to provide the "exception that proves the rule" for reliability. The fundamentals of operating in a noisy band - 35MHz was pretty pristine, with few if any other users. 2.4GHz is not. In reality we are operating in wild west, with lots of other more powerful (and not necessarily compliant) RF emitting devices in every home. Our RC systems do a good job of combatting this in the main, but it is undoubtedly tougher for them than their FM based predecessors. Higher percentages of inexperienced users - RC used to be a very tough hobby to get into with lots of barriers to entry; you really needed to pay your dues understanding your equipment and the fundamentals of flight to be successful. Now newcomers can go and by a RTF aircraft or multirotor and be flying in the time it takes to charge the battery, but many of those people will not stay beyond their first crash. That means at any one time we have a higher % of newcomers with little knowledge of their kit and how it works, and correspondingly more losses due to "radio failure" that were actually pilot error or botched installs. Edited By MattyB on 20/03/2017 14:43:55

For completeness... New BMFA Buckminster (the new name for the NFC) website launched... Modelflying thread about the new site (started by Andy Symons) Edited By MattyB on 20/03/2017 13:55:01

Posted by DH 82A on 20/03/2017 13:00:24: I see there is no mention of a tarmac or concrete runway. Yep, there has never been any indication of if/when a tarmac runway would be provided in any of the materials distributed since the Buckminster site was announced - they go to the end of phase 2, but that de The latest information available is on the full BMFA site here; I also posted a précis it in the definitive NFC thread in case that presentation later became unavailable as with some previous NFC materials. Andy - I may be missing it, but that presentation is not linked/displayed on the new site. It may be a good idea to get it posted up there too, and/or have the materials on the main BMFA site point people straight over to the new site.

Posted by Guvnor on 19/03/2017 00:08:52: There's one other thing. HH will in future only be selling through a selected group of 'premier' dealers. The rest will not be able to sell HH products... Who the chosen elite are nobody knows yet... What is the source of this rumour Guvnor? Sounds like a Hari kari strategy to me if it is true, hence my slight scepticism...

Posted by Steve J on 18/03/2017 09:10:03: Posted by Gordon Whitehead 1 on 17/03/2017 20:56:33: the acquisition of Stauffenbiel is hinted at. Horizon bought Staufenbiel in 2014. Steve Indeed, just like they were back on page 1 of this thread! 😂😂😂 Woosh!

Posted by Peter Christy on 17/03/2017 16:03:59: Referring back to comments I made earlier about having edited a newsletter, and comments others have made about going on-line.... After I retired, my successor decided that the newsletter would be distributed electronically, by making it downloadable from the website, thus saving money. Now it may have been coincidental, but shortly afterwards, membership numbers began to fall, and the usual chorus of "What do I get for my money?" and "Why wasn't I told about that?" began. When it was pointed out that all the information requested was available in the downloadable newsletter, the responses came back: "Oh, that! I couldn't be bothered to download that!" The basic rule of life, "You can't win!", proven again! Yet again, I don't think anyone is suggesting the magazine should be online only anytime soon. All that I and others are requesting is the option to opt out of the paper copy of the magazine if we don't want it. And as for not bothering to download it, there are lots of ways that content could be actively pushed to people rather than relying on them pulling it - it does not need anything custom to be developed, off the shelf solutions exist today that will do the job.

News story detailing the restrictions... What laws did Canada have before for controlling drones and model flying? Could some real enforcement of those have been sufficient? Edited By MattyB on 17/03/2017 13:48:49

Posted by Peter Miller on 17/03/2017 12:03:08: Well one downside is that if you print fewer copies the price will rise per copy. so no saving there so eventually the decision will be made to go for the online copy only and that will deprive us traditionalists of our copy because as has been said, a lot of us will not read the BMFA News. One of the clubs I am a member of chose to move to partial electronic distribution a few years ago. It has been a great success. People who want hard copies of the club mag dropped off quickly initially, but then have stayed firm at ~30%. Those who still want a copy pay slightly more in membership to cover postage and printing costs. Nobody ever complains about this, and it seems to work for all. Another good example is SAM 35, who as I understand it are now 100% electronic for their magazine for some time now with no downside reported. According to the website the BMFA has 36k members, so even if 50% chose to take it electronically you would still have a print run of 18k per issue. I struggle to believe we could not find a way to print that economically, especially given there would be savings from the electronic distribution that could be used to subsidise the printed copy to an extent. So what happens if 70, 80 or even 90% choose to give up the hard copy? That would be a different situation I agree, but a) that's currently a hypothetical case given nobody currently even has the option to opt out of the paper copy, and b) if it were to occur we have been reminded on numerous occasions by those high up in the BMFA hierarchy that the governance model to handle such tricky situations . I doubt that would happen within 10 years, but even the outside possibility that it could does not to me seem like a reason for not offering people the option now. They could even just do an experiment for a year to see how many people choose to opt out of the paper copy. Edited By MattyB on 17/03/2017 13:43:27

OK, Peter, that is fine - you prefer to consume the content via a hard copy, and that is your choice. The reality is though that the number that prefer hardcopy is going to diminish over time, whilst those who prefer electronic delivery is only going to grow. Why should members not be offered a choice of which they want? Where is the downside to providing both options? Edited By MattyB on 17/03/2017 11:54:27

Posted by Steve J on 17/03/2017 10:07:58: I seem to recall a comment on a previous topic that stated that the CAA like the fact that the BMFA regularly send a magazine to their members. If this is the case, then I am perfectly happy for the BMFA to keep sending out the mag despite the fact that I only spend a few minutes scanning it before putting it in the recycling bin. That may well be true, but do we really think the CAA would be bothered if the BMFA started distributing it electronically to those who prefer it that way? I strongly suspect they have more pressing things to worry about... Edited By MattyB on 17/03/2017 11:26:06

Posted by Dave Bran on 17/03/2017 10:40:33: The point above about having a formal and regular way to communicate to ALL members being important as far as CAA, Et Al, is a very good one and worth the cost of the magazine. Do I read it, yes, Do I read ALL of it, No, no interest in a fair part of it from Club reviews to FF to CL. Do I want it stopped or electronic only or anything that means that ALL members do not get it regardless of their perceived "need"? NO! I did not say I wanted it stopped, or to go electronic only. What I did say was that those who wish to opt out of the paper copy and receive it electronically should be able to do so, even if it does not garner a discount (I don't really care about that, I just don't want the paper cluttering up my house when almost everything else I read comes via electronic means nowadays). Why is that such an unreasonable request? Surely those who take the step to actively request an electronic version instead of a printed one are therefore more likely to actually read the content put out, not less? Edited By MattyB on 17/03/2017 11:27:51

Posted by Guvnor on 17/03/2017 11:02:10: Posted by Erfolg on 17/03/2017 10:48:33: Would I be reasonable in thinking that HH will still retain a sales and distribution team in the UK? It's a reasonable thought, but no, everything is moving to Germany... Forget any soothing words. This is about hard cold money... Correct. Put simply they are of the view that cutting costs to preserve lower prices is more important than retaining a UK presence for support. Time will tell if they are right. PS - For those thinking of jumping ship, all of FrSky's UK support is done out of the premier dealer T9Hobbysport - they even stock spares so you can DIY if you want... Edited By MattyB on 17/03/2017 11:18:53

Posted by fly boy3 on 16/03/2017 23:11:41: I am with Martin and Percy on this one. Perhaps a tick box as to who requires the magazine, and if the answer is no, perhaps a reduction of £5 in subs instead. Just a thought . Cheers Been suggested many times, but I wouldn't hold your breath whilst this generation is in charge at the top of the BMFA. It seems the leadership are (not unreasonably I suppose) keen to protect the right of those who want to receive the magazine in hard copy, but do not believe those of us who would far rather consume it electronically have the same right to choose, even though it has the potential to cut some costs. Posted by Andy Green on 17/03/2017 08:45:54: ...Personally I'd be happy paying an additional £5, to support the NFC. Andy Nothing is stopping you from contributing, but please don't speak for the rest of us on this one. The BMFA has set out the funding model for the National Centre (i.e. development beyond the initial phases is funded only through the revenue it generates plus donations/grants) and they need to stick to that, not come round with the begging bowl to the wider membership.

I just downloaded the DX9 manual to see and you are quite right. The interesting thing is that Bachmann's own brand (which emerged in 1988) definitely is Spectrum with a C. Maybe it was one of these opportunistic legal moves where HH released Spektrum, Bachmann threatened/took legal action on the grounds it would "confuse" their customers and devalue their brand and HH had to settle because they had already invested too much to change the name? Who knows, but it seems very unlikely Bachmann really have anything to do with the Spektrum brand or its distribution.

Full details of the HH buyout in 2014 are here - looks like the CEO bought out the company with venture capital money. Spectrum (with a C) the brand is owned by Bachman, but I thought Spektrum with a K was wholly owned by HH, is that not truer? Either way HH seem to do all the development and global distribution themselves, they are not just franchised distributors, so you are unlikely to see any changes in that model following the UK site closure. In summary, it's just business - if you don't like what they have done then you don't have to buy their stuff. I can see why they have done it though - if it allows them to keep costs down that means lower prices for consumers, which is important given a lot of their competition now comes from companies like FrSky and HK who don't have all the middle layers of cost they have. Personally I think it is going to take a lot more than a move out of the UK to knock HH and Spektrum out of their current position; there are still plenty of people ready to pay a premium for the convenience of an end to end ecosystem of radios and models that reduce the knowledge required to get out there on the field quickly. Edited By MattyB on 17/03/2017 02:18:00

True, but it's self fulfilling to an extent - they need to full copy, those are the contributions they get, they publish, the majority who have no interest in those disciplines complain and/or bin their copy and don't contribute ("Why bother, all they want is free flight stuff and awards reports" ) and the cycle repeats. Edited By MattyB on 16/03/2017 20:10:29

My understanding is that HH are venture capital owned these days, so I am sure they are just doing what all businesses do when times are hard and competition is fierce - they're consolidating sites to cut costs and stay competitive.

HK also have a tasty looking 1450mm 6S powered version of this bird coming under the Avios brand - it will (initially t least ) be a Mk V in both ETO and tropical versions. There is even more scale detail on this one plus all the linkages are fully internal. There is also a full drop in FPV cockpit option (see first video below). The first video is the announcement daily, second and third have flying footage of an early prototype and two pre-production samples...     Spitfire section of this video begins at ~3.04:       Footage of both the ETO and Tropical versions starts at ~5.05:     Edited By MattyB on 16/03/2017 09:59:07

I love my FrSky gear, but dear oh dear... they really need to get better at launching properly finished products and not beta testing them on paying customers. Horus RF firmware, faulty software on the early Redundancy Bus, now S8Rs missing LEDs - they make great stuff in the end but errors like these make it easy for their detractors to point out that they're "too cheap to be any good". I have made a personal rule I don't buy anything from FrSky until at least 6 months from launch; seems to be working, but I wish I didn't have to do it. Edited By MattyB on 13/03/2017 13:40:19

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 13/03/2017 10:43:48: If you look at the radiation pattern from a single aerial you will see that it is zero when viewed directly down from the tip, therefore if it is pointing directly sideways there can be no received signal at the model when it is flying straight towards (away from) the tip no matter what or how many aerials are installed. This is exactly the same as 35mHz. Thought everyone knew that. We do, but do you or anyone you know regularly stand at 90 degrees to the flightline, flying over their own shoulder with the tip of the aerial pointed out towards the model? I've never seen that, but that is the only use case I can think of for LOS fixed wing flying where an aerial on it's side would be at a substantial disadvantage. I do however fly some of my thermal gliders very high, sometimes directly overhead, and in that instance a sideways orientation is far superior to one in a vertical. Conversely FPV racing pilots tend to orient their TX and RX aerials in the vertical plane as they need wide, flat propagation of the signal as they will not be flying high nor turning their bodies to face the model as it flies. In summary there is no hard and fast "right" answer - it's horses for courses. The only thing that is categorically correct is to think about the type of pattern that particular model is going to fly, then orientate your aerials to give best performance for that pattern. For the models I fly that means everything in the horizontal plane, and I have never had any issues in ~6 years of flying 2.4Ghz systems with inbuilt signal strength telemetry.

Posted by Andy48 on 13/03/2017 11:50:17: Posted by MattyB on 12/03/2017 21:56:41: So let me check my understanding... you were discharging these packs individually one after the other using a 12V bulb connected across the main power connector? Very strange... I have done that whenever I've been disposing of a battery and have never had any issue getting all cells down to 0.1-0.2V, by which point there is essentially zero energy left in the pack anyway. Did you actually check the voltage of each cell? Yes, I always check the cell voltages before disposal and I have never seen a cell higher than 0.3V following this method. However I should also say that compared to many people I do nanny my batteries throughout their lives (always discharged to storage if going to be left unused >24 hours, lots of attention paid to battery cooling in installs and and I don't have any planes that really push battery performance other than an EFXtra which is as yet unflown). As a result when I dispose of them it is generally because their general performance is not matching expectations after a long cycle life (I have at least 300 cycles on several of my packs and a couple recently disposed of that had gone >500), not because they have been abused by high C discharges to the point of puffing and individual cell failure. They are normally still well balanced at the time of the final discharge, which I guess makes a situation like you observed less likely. Edited By MattyB on 13/03/2017 13:14:18

Unless you are intending to use it in serious competition I would say that falls into the "just trim it out and go have fun" category; no need for any major surgery, it is not going to cost you any meaningful performance.

Posted by Andy48 on 12/03/2017 20:22:58: I had a batch of old lipos to recycle and used my usual method for discharging fully, a 12v car bulb. I then checked all the voltages were at zero, which they were. Out of curiosity I then checked the individual cells at the balance lead, and found that while every battery had at least one cell at zero, many other cells were as high as 3.8v. So let me check my understanding... you were discharging these packs individually one after the other using a 12V bulb connected across the main power connector? Very strange... I have done that whenever I've been disposing of a battery and have never had any issue getting all cells down to 0.1-0.2V, by which point there is essentially zero energy left in the pack anyway.