MattyB

Posted by john stones 1 on 18/01/2017 12:01:43: Question raised at NFC EGM about Country members having no vote on the day, all i saw was uncomfortable people trying to reply, they looked embarrassed to me. So why has nothing been done ? As a man says above "unforseen consequences" there's why nothings been changed. Will be more "unforseen consequences" to come when the EASA ruling is finalised. We going to keep ducking this ? Probably. In reality the system at present if perfectly designed to resist change, so if those at the top don't want to adjust the governance model there is very little the membership can do about it, especially country members who have no say in a vote. As we've seen in this thread those within the BMFA trumpet the "put yourself forward, get elected, bring about the change" argument. Unfortunately but those of us who have tried to work within the system see no evidence that large scale change is possible without wholesale change of personnel at the most senior levels within the BMFA; we know that is not going to happen anytime soon. I can only see two possible outcomes now re: the governance question, and neither of them are that appealing... The BMFA does a good job on the EASA negotiations and delivers the NFC without major financial impact on the organisation. As a result most members remain happy (and unaware/ambivalent to the democratic deficit within the BMFA), membership stays constant or grows and there is no change to the governance model. The EASA negotiations go badly and/or the NFC experiences financial issues. As a result significant numbers of members rebel and/or leave for other organisations when they realise they don't have any democratic power beyond their OMOV to the Exec positions. This situation could of course result in changes being made, but the organisation is likely to be damaged by the process and weakened financially and politically by loss of members.

Posted by MattyB on 13/01/2017 12:39:58: Posted by Chris Bott - Moderator on 13/01/2017 09:17:11: There's a nice video here showing how to flash receivers using Taranis. Just REMEMBER though - it is not a standard cable, the wiring is different at each end. ...to be specific, you need to swap the red and black cables on the end that goes into the TX module slot. Here is FrSky's own guide from their website with lots of pictures. Instructions link above for reference.

Ignore my post above, there was a typo that I now cannot change. Apologies. Unfortunately there is no way of telling what RF firmware you currently have in the internal module in your TX, but we can establish this with a simple test. Here is what you need to do... Download the PDF instructions on updating your RX firmware that I posted on the previous page. I recommend you print them out for future reference. Download both the Int'l and EU LBT firmware for the X6R from the FrSky website and add it to your TX as per the onstructions. You can find it here. Makeup the special flashing lead from a male to male servo extension as per the FrSky instructions. Following the instructions flash the receiver with either the international or EU LBT firmware. It doesn't matter which, if it's wrong you can always flash it to the other one in seconds. Try and bind. If binding is successful, you know the firmware you flashed is what is in the TX module currently. If it doesn't work, flash the RX again with the alternative RX firmware and try and bind again - it should work this time. Once that is done stop and come back here to confirm what version of RF firmware you have. We can then advise you on the best next steps. Don't start flashing lots of RXs or your TX module until you've done the above, as you are likely to confuse things for yourself. Edited By MattyB on 17/01/2017 21:35:47

Posted by Graham Russell on 17/01/2017 10:15:25: Morning all, A darkened room was certainly needed. Spent some time on Sunday going through some of my receivers and also getting reaqainted with the Taranis. So far I have only 1 rx that won't bind - X6R. I guess that this one needs a change of firmware. Is that X6R newly bought, or an older one? If it's the latter that means you are already on LBT and all you need to do moving forward is update that one RX; after that all new ones you buy moving fwd should work. If it's the former you will have to decide whether you want to update all your older RXs and the Transmitter to EU LBT as a one time hit, or update each new RX you buy from now on to Int'l before you use it.

Posted by Mike T on 01/01/2017 15:23:25: The Overlander is my latest charger and I still have/use the others that preceded it. I'm inclined to think that multiple chargers is the way to go ( I could buy at least 5 for the money you laid out!), as long as I don't go over the 47A rating of my power supply (and I have more than one of those!) Yes, multiple chargers is an option that can work well, but (as you've found) the balancing programmes and max balancing current on the cheaper ones can at limit charge rates. There are plenty of places in RC where you can cut costs now with no real negatives, but for me charging is not one of those - given the capacity for fire if an overcharge occurs I'd rather have a known high quality product than lots of cheaper chargers that are often cloned and of uncertain lineage. YMMV.

For completeness... It is absolutely 100% certain - it is illegal to sell DSM2 TXs in the EU since Jan 2015. As a result every RX HH have sold here since Jan 2015 is DSMX capable. Here is Andy Kunz (who writes all the Airware software for Spektrum TXs) stating this explicitly in November; if you do a search you will see he has said this many times on RCGroups. Edited By MattyB on 17/01/2017 01:11:17

Not sure why you have started a new thread when I posted the answer in the other one? It is absolutely 100% certain - it is illegal to sell DSM2 TXs in the EU since Jan 2015. As a result every RX HH have sold here since Jan 2015 is DSMX capable. If you don't believe me here is Andy Kunz (who writes all the Airware software for Spektrum TXs) stating this explicitly in November; if you do a search you will see he has said this many times on RCGroups. Edited By MattyB on 17/01/2017 01:12:10

Posted by SuperNash on 16/01/2017 08:32:35: Does anyone know if Lemon/Orange obtained the Spektrum DSMX protocol specs from Spektrum themselves (in a similar manner to how JR did), or have they had to reverse engineer it? If its the former, I'd then assume that they could make a perfectly compatible RX. The latter, I am less sure of. Even for the former case, with the lower sale price, that is going to be less budget going on testing. And with electronic protocols, there is compatible - and there is "compatible"... No, they are all reverse engineered, but not normally by the manufacturer of the compatible RX - in most cases it is the RC community who have done so, and then donated that information back. Since protocols are not protectable intellectual property there is nothing the manufacturers can do about; in some cases (I am particularly thinking of Futaba FASST) the availability of low cost compatible RXs is the only reason many users have not changed TX brand (and yes, I know numerous people for whom this is the case).

It is an error in the ad - all new HH BNF products have been DSMX capable in the EU since well before the ETSI regs changed in Jan 2015. A new Night Vapor will bind to any DSMX capable TX with no issues.

Posted by RC Plane Flyer on 13/01/2017 19:58:03: From my reading and experience in parallel charging it is well advised that batteries need to be of same capacity eg 2200 with 2200.... Having tried parallel charging I found the flight times were worse than single cell charging I did try two different chargers as well. Whatever you are reading, it's incorrect. As Peter B explains above, a 1C charge is a 1C charge for every pack being parallel charged, irrelevant of the notes capacity. As to the lower flight times, if you are charging to the same voltage/cell that can't possibly be the case - duration of flight can be influenced by many things, but if you are getting the packs to the same voltage duration will be identical to if the same pack was individually charged. If you are seeing lower duration you have a charger/setup issue and the packs are not reaching the same final voltage.

Posted by Denis Watkins on 12/01/2017 21:27:27: Woe guys, I am not bashing any makes, just watch the BT advert where a guy is lifted 100s of feet into the air and " he still has his modem signal" ? These things are all around us and cause frequency hopping Errr, no they don't! The hopping sequence is setup between the TX at the initial bind or switch on (methods vary by brand) if the protocol is based on FHSS (almost all are nowadays, but that wasn't always the case). It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the RX is experiencing interference or not. It's high power wideband interference that is an issue for a solely FHSS system - if enough of the spectrum is being simultaneously utilised it doesn't matter where it hops too, the signal won't get through. This is the real reason why wifi signal boosters can in rare cases interfere with 2.4 systems, and why protocols that pair DSSS and FHSS (like DSMX and FASST) are in theory more resilient. In practice though FHSS on it's own works absolutely fine in 99.9999999% of cases.

This is my favourite site for parallel charging info.

Posted by Chris Bott - Moderator on 13/01/2017 09:17:11: There's a nice video here showing how to flash receivers using Taranis. Just REMEMBER though - it is not a standard cable, the wiring is different at each end. ...to be specific, you need to swap the red and black cables on the end that goes into the TX module slot. Here is FrSky's own guide from their website with lots of pictures. Edited By MattyB on 13/01/2017 12:40:26

Completely agree with PatMc; that motor is way too small for your purposes. Remember the 3W/g rule for cheap motors - multiply the mass by three to get a rough real world max power in Watts that the motor can generate without overheating. From that you can calculate a max current at the voltage you are intending to operate it on. Edited By MattyB on 12/01/2017 11:32:38

Posted by Peter Garsden on 09/01/2017 22:23:02: I have set it up at the aerobatics setting with the CofG at 96mm (recommended 92 - 100mm) instead of 80mm for the standard version. I have also coupled the elevator and ailerons as flapperons. Looks like such a lot of movement. It doesn't say but I have dialled in 50% expo as per the recommendation for most 3D models, which is what it is. Oddly the brakes are flaps down and elevator down, which seems bizarre. From all accounts it doesn't fly very fast anyway so we will see. I have come across both ailerons up to brake but not both down. Don't worry about the brakes. Flaperons down at extreme angles doesn't appear to cause tipstall problems in these very light models (DLGs brake exactly the same), and the thing is so light you are highly unlikely to need them anyway! Posted by Peter Garsden on 09/01/2017 22:23:02: I think that what I need is a breezy dune site, which is where these types of plane seem to fly. In my experience these VTPR ships tend to be marmite models, but that is more to do with the site you fly than the model themselves. They need high compression (i.e. a steep slope), but not a lot of wind. This is why they work well on small steep dunes. A larger, more rounded top hill is nowhere near as good as they cannot penetrate away from the venturi. Posted by Peter Garsden on 09/01/2017 22:23:02: I have been amazed on how easy this plane was to put together, and how little construction there is. I have also been pleased how many bits are included in the kit. I fear however that it is a bit flimsy for a slope soarer. I am somewhat bemused by the piece of wire which goes through the wing to hold both halves together. I suppose that only flights will tell. Weather will depend on plans this weekend. Don't worry about the perceived flimsiness, it will be fine - it's light weight protects it. Just don't expect it to fly brilliantly in >10mph or on large, rounded top hills. This is the kind of site you need... Edited By MattyB on 12/01/2017 10:28:45

Posted by Chris Bott - Moderator on 11/01/2017 21:47:02: I think you should test your receivers and let us know what works and what doesn't. We can then deal with upgrading Tx and X Series receivers to EU-LBT. This only affects X series receivers. Seconded - try and bind your RXs as per instructions and if they don't work come back here for advice. Updating the module and RXs is actually easier now you are on a more recent version of OpenTX though.

Posted by RICHARD WILLS on 10/01/2017 18:13:13: ...Not sure what to make of that only that if we could eliminate those "virtual customers" then a subscribed batch of something in the future would be far more likely to happen . For example if all of the genuine Hurricane prospective purchasers chatted amongst themselves and said , right , there's ten of us who are not going to back out , lets bang on Richards door (push sweep out of the way ) and say we want our bloody Hurricanes and we are prepared to pay for them . The same would apply to Darren's more obscure funfighters . That style for the future may mean that some designs that would have otherwise become permanently unavailable will still be obtainable in a way that is more efficient for the Kit Manufacturer . Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 11/01/2017 08:48:49: ...One thing that came to my mind recently is a site called massdrop. They sell computer bits, audio components, all sorts of stuff and the way it works is the website says to a manufacturer what price can you do for XXX product if i find XXX number of people who will buy it. They get their price, put it on the website, the punters commit to buy and boom. Once they hit the magic number the whole thing is triggered, the manufacturer supplies a batch, they get instant cost recovery and the customers get a better price on their gear. We are not far off this type of system. Daren is offering it, Richard is saying 'who wants a Bf110' or 'its Hurricane time, who wants one?' and if we put our hands up, he runs off and makes it, and we get our models a short while later. The only snag, as we have seen again and again, is agreeing on a model and that people can put their hand up but when it comes time to actually part with the folding its tumble weed in the wind sort of stuff, which is not great for a manufacturer, especially if they are operating only to supply demand and dont carry stock. In general people wont commit to an idea, they want it physically finished, done, under their nose. But in this 'massdrop' situation, the idea is what you need to commit to and then you will get it under your nose a little while later. But, if you hold on waiting for it to arrive without the commitment in the first place it wont happen at all Posted by Daren Graham - Cambria Funfighters on 11/01/2017 09:07:22: I totally agree. I think your difficulty is getting the offer out there to enough people. What you could do is set up a time frame for it. People are much more open to this sort of thing these days. For example you could tell everyone that you are going to produce a Hurricane, you'll take orders until a set date. On that date you will require payment but only if sufficient orders have been placed. Then you go into production. The orders must be taken properly by downloading a form to be filled in and sent to you, so they are a binding contract all very easy to do and you dont need to take or return any deposits if you don't get enough orders. All that's required then is for you to advertise. If you start now you should be ready to go for next winters building season. Guys, what you are effectively describing is the model that Kickstarter have used so successfully to generate funding for startup projects. A great recent RC example was the Bat Safe which has a lot of promise and after a successful first run has been picked up for distribution by Hobbyking. I see no reason why this should not work - you could even use Kickstarter itself as the mechanism you gather the commitments from buyers and take payments once the goal is reached. Doing that would mean you don't have to build your own web solution to do this or keep track on paper. Edited By MattyB on 11/01/2017 11:22:41

Posted by Peter Christy on 09/01/2017 14:25:59: Percy: Sadly, I'm afraid you are partly correct. Apathy rules, and many will stick with it even if they *don't* feel its a well run organisation. Those who leave will simply weaken it. Apathy is prevalent amongst members of the BMFA because the vast majority just want affordable insurance which allows them to fly at their club or public access flying site. This is a hobby or pastime for them, not a religion - they just want to be able to get on with it with minimal interference, and to the credit of the BMFA they have historically done a good job of protecting our rights. They have also not done anything that could rock the boat financially, meaning subscription and insurance have fees have only increased very slowly. Result - no need for any controversial votes until the NFC EGM, the Articles of Association remain mostly unread by members and everyone gets on with their day to day flying without worrying about governance. That status quo could easily change though. Apathy from members will swiftly evaporate if the BMFA is unable to protect our rights against the threat of onerous new regulation from EASA, and/or the NFC project reaches a point where fee increases are needed to support it. There is no doubt the BMFA followed the letter of the Articles of Association in getting the NFC approved, but that process did not engage the members across the country in a way that built enthusiasm for the project, especially amongst the country members who did not get a say. If members are asked to fund the NFC through the membership fee some time in the future I would be very surprised if country members in particular do not rebel (though as some have observed there is a chance the regulations may mean country membership changes or disappears by that point, though no-one can really know until the EASA regs are formally agreed and we understand what the implications are). Posted by Peter Christy on 09/01/2017 14:25:59: ...I would be much happier to see those who are dissatisfied standing up for election to promote change. They would certainly have my support, and I think they would be surprised at the amount of support they would get from within "the establishment". It needs someone to start the ball rolling, and others to rally around that candidate. I've lost track of whether its the Chairman or Vice-Chairman up for election this year, but I'm sure one of them is. Why doesn't one of the critics from here stand for the post? I have two young children and a demanding job in a major company, and am already Secretary of one BMFA club and Treasurer of another. Even so I would be prepared to stand for one of these positions for 1-2 years if I believed there was a realistic chance of successfully reforming the governance of the BMFA. Unfortunately nothing observed in the past few years since the NFC was first mooted and the EGM called leads me to believe that is possible from within. Peter, you suggest above we would all be "...surprised by the amount of support we would get for reform from "the establishment" if someone stood with the aim of reforming BMFA governance. Surprised? I would be absolutely amazed! If support for governance change really existed amongst the Exec surely those individuals would not have allowed the idea of reforming the voting system to be dismissed without at least consulting clubs or the wider membership on the topic? They consulted with members prior to moving ahead with the NFC feasibility study, so why not do so again now on the governance question? Couple that decision with the manner that the NFC EGM vote was called giving the bare minimum of time required by the AoA, and the only conclusion I can come to is that the BMFA Exec know the current system, they like it the way it works and have no interest in changing it. I have no interest in spending huge amounts of my time and effort trying to push water uphill, so for that reason (in Dragons Den parlance ) I am out. Edited By MattyB on 10/01/2017 10:59:24

Posted by LUKE GRICE on 09/01/2017 17:27:55: I believe all BMFA members should have a vote. Did the Country members have a vote. Or was the voting changed some years ago . Rather than traipse through it all again here probably best that you read this thread Luke.

Posted by Alps Elyule on 08/01/2017 20:09:32: Excellent Tony.. How did you chaps with the RXL go with your COG? The best I could manage do with the 3300 (Turngiy) pushed all the way upfront was 95mm, no chance of a 91mm COG, so my 2200's are out of the question, unless I put a C type battery in the cockpit as well!! Try doing a quick search of the RCGroups thread - there is lots of discussion about CG on there. Unsurprisingly the stock CG appears to be very conservative, so you will probably be fine with your 2200s; many are flying with even smaller batteries to minimise weight. Try a test glide over soft grass with your 2200 pack and see. Edited By MattyB on 09/01/2017 13:52:38

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 08/01/2017 20:15:52: I concurr 100% John. In my view this answer amounts to "there is a democratic deficit for all members. This deficit is extreme in the case of country memberts (ie no voting rights at all - not even by representatives). But fixing it for country members would expose the remaining deficit for club members - ie the lack of a simple 'one member, one vote' democracy. So we are going to perpetuate the unfairness all round so as to avoid that embarassment" Exactly. The Exec committee are probably correct that giving votes to country members would give them more influence than an individual club member if the current block voting system was retained for clubs, but chucking out the whole idea of reform on that basis is ridiculous when their concern could easily be addressed. I agree that OMOV for every decision is probably not logistically practical for BAU decision making in a volunteer driven association like the BMFA. However there are other options which are practical and would still be more democratic. For example we could retain the current club block voting system for BAU decision making, but for the really huge items (such as changes to the articles of association or spends over 25% of the Associations value, as was the case for the NFC) use OMOV for everyone irrelevant of membership type (decisions that qualify for a OMOV process would of course have to be predefined in the Articles upfront of course). Alternatively country members could be represented within the block voting system as a "club" of their own; they elect regional representatives in biennial elections as per other elected BMFA positions, and these people cast their votes as a block at AGMs or EGMs. Perfect systems? Definitely not. Better than what we have already? In my view and I suspect that of the vast majority of club and country BMFA members, yes. At this point the voices of the BMFA will no doubt suggest these ideas are taken up through the current governance - in fact Peter has done just that in a post above. Interestingly I tried that around 12 months ago following the NFC EGM. My area were supportive of achieving reform in the governance model, and when we took our concerns around the lack of representation of country members up through the tiers were told there is a group working on it, to send our ideas in and that we would hear back "soon". We never did. I had hoped that following the NFC EGM the BMFA would consult with members of all categories to establish whether they wanted governance reform and if so what the model should look like. They could have done this online as they did in the early stages of the NFC project, and/or as an additional questionnaire with the next AGM voting pack. Doing so would have shown an openness to change and that they took the discontent on the topic of country member voting at the EGM seriously. Instead it seems an Exec committee meeting was held where they decided not to progress the idea, full stop. But then turkeys don't vote for Christmas either, so I'm not going to waste my time being surprised. Can't think what this all reminds me of... Edited By MattyB on 09/01/2017 01:51:28

Yes, this is complex but it's not really FrSky's fault - the ETSI legislation change is what caused them to have to release new RF firmware in the EU. My recommendation would be as follows: Buy the new RXs you want in the EU with the current EU LBT firmware. Try and bind them in D16 mode - if they work out of the box that means you have EU LBT firmware in your internal RF module already and you don't need to do anything further. If that doesn't work you are going to need to update the internal RF module in your TX and all your existing RX to the latest EU LBT spec. This will be a one time exercise; once done you should never have to do it again, and you will be able to buy EU LBT RXs off the shelf and use them straight away. If you give me some time I will link you to resources on updating your internal RF module and RXs. This no longer requires specialist USB leads/devices, as you can do it all from the TX itself with a servo lead that has been slightly modified (two pins are swapped over, that's it). Edited By MattyB on 07/01/2017 16:13:42

DSM2 transmitters have been banned from sale since the ETSI regulations changed in Jan 2015. They still sell it elsewhere in the world however, hence the content on that link. The UK version of that page clearly states the Rx that comes with it is EU spec and DSMX only. Edited By MattyB on 07/01/2017 15:24:28

Lots of good info here...

Not exactly difficult to see why Futaba have fallen so far behind in the sales stakes is it? They have a special skill for creating the most confusing products (protocol soup anyone?) and documentation around... Edited By MattyB on 06/01/2017 19:44:17