MattyB

I agree with the poster on RCU - there is no way the CG can be as far back as it is marked on the plan, no wonder you had issues. Remember, aircraft with a CG too far forward fly poorly, ones with too rearward a CG fly not at all! His sugggested position looks a sensible starting point to me given you have forward stagger on the top wing. Edited By MattyB on 29/11/2016 08:00:05

Posted by scott finnie on 28/11/2016 21:03:20: Whats the chances it will fly ok on 3 channels? Rudder, Elevator and throttle like the Parkzone Radian The problem may be it flies too well/efficiently and disappears without a way to dump lift! I am not really a fan of lightweight R/E models without any glideslope control for this reason; it is relatively easy to get sucked up in a big thermal and getting down without a structural failure can be tricky. If you can beg borrow or steal a TX that will drive the spoilers I would recommend you do so.

Posted by ChrisB on 28/11/2016 08:16:40: I got mine at Elvington this year. Not sure if its an early model or not. I suspect not as it has the sticker identifying the tech update. Whichever, they are superb gliders and I shall be trying a slope or two with it as well. The release in the EU was behind the US, and was delayed after the issues were found, so in theory the structural issues should have been addressed before delivery. However some of the later models in the US still had issues according to RCGroups posters, so it is well worth going over your model carefully before flight anyway using the HH service bulletins as a guide.

I decided not to bother with this one after it became clear the first batch at least had some structural and powertrain issues, but there are plenty in the RCGroups thread (link in third post on page 1) flying it without AS3X. The consensus (unsurprisingly given it's a big, stable RES bird) is that it flies just fine without. Edited By MattyB on 27/11/2016 22:42:12

Posted by Phil 9 on 27/11/2016 20:47:34: Posted by Martin Harris on 27/11/2016 19:01:39: I think that as his name has been widely circulated, he'd better have been operating legally if he doesn't want to meet some representatives of the CAA! do the CAA actively chase these things up or do they wait until it is brought to their attention by way of complaint? Here you go... "If you have any concerns about drones being used in your area, either from a safety or privacy perspective, contact your local police on 101. The CAA does not investigate complaints of drone misuse."

I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, but to this beholder that has all the elegance and beauty of a house brick! Edited By MattyB on 26/11/2016 19:34:13

Posted by oldgit on 25/11/2016 20:02:25: Matty - I have a load of new batteries thats why I thought I could discount If you changed the batteries and at that point the performance got worse then the batteries should be your first port of call. If performance initially improved with the new batteries and then got worse then I ageee it is likely something else in your powertrain. Either way you are going to have to investigate with a voltmeter/wattmeter/IR meter if you really want to get to the bottom of this - without figures you are fumbling around in the dark guessing at a root cause.

Posted by oldgit on 25/11/2016 15:37:11: Do electric motors loose their power through use, Im sure my tundra isnt as fast as it used to be, obviously I can leave aside props & batteries Err... props you can discount, but batteries no! They are by far the most likely culprit - they can be damaged by excessive discharge, discharge at too fast a rate, being stored for long periods at full charge and just through general ageing in use. Their performance is also dependent to an extent on ambient temp; the colder it is the less capacity they have and the less power they can deliver. Obviously it's not impossible that there is a motor or ESC issue, but check your cell voltages and IR values (if your charger can measure those) first - a test on the wattmeter to understand how the pack is performing under load would also be wise.

Posted by Steve J on 25/11/2016 13:29:15: Posted by MattyB on 25/11/2016 13:07:49: However the regs as they are written would mean that every operation in the specific category would either require a risk assessment to be authored and authorisation from a competent authority (i.e. the BMFA, LMA maybe, BARCS possibly) to be made, or compliance with an agreed standard scenario and set of mitigation conditions set by EASA (not the competent authority). Article 15.2 - "An operational authorisation can be issued without the need to conduct the operational risk assessment referred to in UAS.SPEC.60." ...but (as per 15.1) only to associations or clubs, not individuals: "By [3 years after entry into force of this Regulation — estimate 2020], the competent authority shall issue operational authorisations to associations or clubs for the operations which would otherwise require an authorisation according to Subpart B of Annex I to this Regulation." The questions that we are really debating (and I agree cannot be answered yet) are: Does being a country member of the BMFA make you a member of an "association or club" in this context i.e. can a competent authority effectively grant itself authorisations to all of it's members on a national level to fly at publically accessible sites? If not and a national model gliding club is needed to register and own all publically accessible slope/thermal sites, will the EASA recognise that club as having an established safety record if it has only existed for a couple of years? Even if they do, will they allow any one club to "own" hundreds/thousands of sites as such an organisation would need to do to protect all our existing locations, or would they push back (it would certainly annoy the lobbyists trying to clear the skies below 400ft for commercial use)? Time will tell I guess... Edited By MattyB on 25/11/2016 14:09:56 Edited By MattyB on 25/11/2016 14:22:10

Posted by fly boy3 on 04/09/2016 19:37:49: You are right Steve, much more to it than ic, but I suppose it will come as I can look at an ic plane , easily decide what size, motor and near enough prop size to start. You leccy guys are in a similar position now. With me it will take a bit longer. I have heard the bold text (or similar) a lot from IC fliers, but it just doesn't ring true for me. I don't think there is any more or less to learn; it's just different. With IC you need to acquire a basic knowledge of tank position, tuning, carburettors, fuel type/mixing, engine servicing/maintenance and the auxiliary kit needed to operate them; with electric it's watts, kv, wattmeters, chargers, the effect of the prop, soldering and C ratings. I humbly suggest it is just as daunting for a competent user of electrics to do the learning needed to operate IC models reliably and safely as it is for an IC flier to come the other way. The main reason is because having achieved a competent level in one discipline the prospect of going back to becoming a "newbie" again fills people with dread. That's perfectly understandable - this is a hobby, most of us don't do it for a hard life(!) - but claiming something is difficult or complex just because an individual does not want / need to understand it is not strictly true.

Posted by Steve J on 25/11/2016 08:30:55: Posted by MattyB on 24/11/2016 18:47:22: Not if (as the draft regs propose) you have to to be flying from a registered site tenanted by a BMFA club. Where does it say that in the prototype regulation? You may be thinking about the new French law which does give greater rights to people who fly from registered sites. Steve You are correct - I have checked back and it does not say that explicitly. However the regs as they are written would mean that every operation in the specific category would either require a risk assessment to be authored and authorisation from a competent authority (i.e. the BMFA, LMA maybe, BARCS possibly) to be made, or compliance with an agreed standard scenario and set of mitigation conditions set by EASA (not the competent authority). That means every slope site in the UK would need an assessment, or that EASA would author a standard scenario applicable to slope or thermal soaring that could be applied to each site. Either way it is a huge amount of paper work given the massive number of sites used informally and extremely safely by the gliding community at present. Key excerpts from the Explanatory Note: "Article 6 deals with the ‘specific’ category and highlights that the requirement underlying the ‘specific’ category is a risk assessment leading to an authorisation after agreement by the Authority. Article 6 also recognises that conducting systematically risk assessments would be burdensome for authorities and industry alike and as a consequence introduces the concept of standard scenarios. These standard scenarios will be published by the Agency as Certification Specifications (CS) where the risk assessment for a specific scenario is already carried out and the required mitigation measures are identified. Compliance to a standard scenario is an alternative to a risk assessment. The standard scenario would define if a declaration or an authorisation is necessary. "Article 15 provides the transitional provisions for recreational operations of UA in the frame of associations or clubs (‘model aircraft’ operations).It is proposed that they can continue to operate as of today in accordance with National regulations or practices. After 3 years after the entry into force of the regulation an authorisation shall be issued by the national authorities to associations or clubs taking into account their safety record and defining limitations and deviations to the subpart B. No risk analysis will be necessary as the idea is that the safety record, the procedures, the safety culture of the associations and clubs provide an equivalent safety level. ‘Model aircraft’ are not defined but are covered by the reference to leisure flights, air displays, sport or competition activities. The reference to associations or clubs has been made because they have a structure, procedures and safety culture that created good safety record. This also means that individual hobbyist should either comply with the rules or join an association or club." Key point re: the bold text - It seems unlikely that EASA would allow any new "Slope and Thermal Soaring Club UK" to escape the risk assessment given the short time they would have been operating by the end of the transition period. The huge number of sites we use would also ring alarm bells to them a ) from a safety perspective and b) (probably more influentially) the fact these areas could not be guaranteed to be clear for commercial drone operations by Google et al. Edited By MattyB on 25/11/2016 13:13:53

Not if (as the draft regs propose) you have to to be flying from a registered site tenanted by a BMFA club. Only a tiny percentage of slope sites are managed actively by a club, so if the draft regs are implemented without revision slope soaring would not be permissible outside this handful of locations.

Not a lot to be cheerful about in that update - I have always believed this is far more about clearing the airspace below 400ft for commercial use, and there is nothing there to change my opinion. Pilots operating power models in a club environment affiliated to a National authority may get away with only the inconvenience of registering their models, but for individuals and non-affiliated clubs it is far more onerous. I also cannot see how slope soaring can be conducted legally under this proposal unless a National slope soaring club is created in the next 3 years that registers all of our current sites in use.

Posted by Gary Vinten 1 on 23/11/2016 12:36:42: Posted by MattyB on 22/11/2016 23:56:26: I would need to work out the numbers on ecalc to be sure which I can't do on my phone, but I still wonder how you're getting to 1700W on a 200Kv motor, 6S pack and a 17x10 prop. Are you sure it is not a pitchier prop? I think you are going to be disappointed with the speed if your prop really does have a 10" pitch. On a fresh pack the max theoretical pitch speed is only ~45 mph; that's a thrust optimised setup more for a Cub or 3D model than a rocket ship! According to Overlander that motor can run an 18x10 on a 10S(!) pack, so a 17x10 is way under propped on 6S. If you are after speed a square or over-square prop would be a good bet; a 16x16 might be in the right ballpark. Even so I do wonder if your Kv is just too low for serious speed on 6S whatever prop you run. Edited By MattyB on 23/11/2016 00:14:07 Hi Matty I dont think there is a listing for the overlander motor on ecalc but iam sure I will get very near to what I want from this motor Gary ECalc used to allow custom motors in the free version, but looks like they removed that now. The only other free e-calculator I found gave a ridiculous result (max wattage of only about 300 on your setup), so unless I pay for eCalc I guess the theoretical max wattage value will remain a mystery. Not so the pitch speed though - 200kv on a 6s pack is a max rpm of ~4800, so on a 10" prop you have a max pitch speed of 45mph. Given drag losses you are probably looking at a max airspeed of only 40mph. I wish you luck, but suspect it's going to be like driving on the motorway in first gear on that prop... Edited By MattyB on 24/11/2016 00:11:51

Posted by Peter Miller on 23/11/2016 08:27:03: Nice one Gary. Should be popular. As for power, fit a .52 FS. Simples. That's right, anything that does not have a glow four-stroke on the front is not a "real model" / an act of satan... Edited By MattyB on 23/11/2016 11:38:53

I would need to work out the numbers on ecalc to be sure which I can't do on my phone, but I still wonder how you're getting to 1700W on a 200Kv motor, 6S pack and a 17x10 prop. Are you sure it is not a pitchier prop? I think you are going to be disappointed with the speed if your prop really does have a 10" pitch. On a fresh pack the max theoretical pitch speed is only ~45 mph; that's a thrust optimised setup more for a Cub or 3D model than a rocket ship! According to Overlander that motor can run an 18x10 on a 10S(!) pack, so a 17x10 is way under propped on 6S. If you are after speed a square or over-square prop would be a good bet; a 16x16 might be in the right ballpark. Even so I do wonder if your Kv is just too low for serious speed on 6S whatever prop you run. Edited By MattyB on 23/11/2016 00:14:07

I cannot find any specs for your motor online - is there a typo in there? What is the Kv? I suspect you may struggle to get 1700w out of a 17x10; my Sebart Miss Wind has just under 1100W on a Hacker A50-16S on a 16x10 and 6S at just under 60A. Besides, I would have though 100-1200W would be absolutely find for a model like this which is very low drag. Beware of magic smoke...   Edited By MattyB on 22/11/2016 16:43:48

Agreed, with decent lightweight servos for a model like this so cheap now bellcranks really aren't worth the effort. Still it would be trivial to mod for two servos, looks like there is plenty of room. PS - I really do like the looks now the cowl is finished. Maybe that could be modded to form a battery hatch for an electric conversion?

Posted by Dave Bran on 21/11/2016 13:57:13: The Inside rear cover full page advert by Horizon Hobbies UK for the Spektrum "Theory X" quad racer both pictures and lists an illegal in the UK Video Transmitter, SPMVT200 of 200mW. Hopefully, they will actually sell it with a UK legal one like their 25mW SPMVT025EU. Or are they actually going to sell a product nobody in the UK can legally use?? If supposedly "responsible" companies like HH cannot make the effort to proof read their output so as not to mislead and misinform, with the current attention from legislators looking to see if we ARE a responsible law-abiding body of people, RC flying is definitely doomed!! Without any correcting information/comment, I suspect RCM&E will additionally appear to many to condone/add credence to this Ad, so maybe time for a quick rebuttal/correction, David!!?? Indeed. Their UK website listing features the same error too... Posted by Bob Cotsford on 21/11/2016 14:03:18: Young Shaun Garrity is getting through to me - the Flugboat is very tempting, and I already have a Galahad ready to start on. With today's weather the Flugboat might just take priority. Wrong thread Bob? Edited By MattyB on 21/11/2016 14:17:10

Looks like the EMFU has now officially been formed with the BMFA and LMA both actively involved...

Judging by the amount of work they are undertaking to help shape the EASA regs with the other national model flying bodies across Europe I guess the NFC may have taken a bit of a back burner. I personally would have supported a rise this year to build some additional funds to help with potential future lobbying and legal fees - getting the best result possible regarding from the EU probably requires more resources than the BMFA or any of their sister organisations across Europe currently have at their disposal. ps - Looks like the EMFU has now officially been formed with the BMFA and LMA both actively involved... Edited By MattyB on 20/11/2016 02:14:18

I strongly suspect the "how and why" was really all about mobile. Like all websites an ever increasing % of their hits come from mobile devices with touch interfaces, and their old site was deeply suboptimal if browsing on a tablet or phone. Their IT and/or marketing leads probably sold a tale of increasing revenues if this was addressed, and the new site does render much better on these devices which is great... Or it would be if they had not broken just about everything else (search, batt finder, browse by warehouse, forums, comments, user uploads....)! Jean-Luc says it best... Edited By MattyB on 20/11/2016 02:02:01

PS - As noted in the table above, not all Li Ion packs are the same. There is a fair variety of construction types amongst those we use, but it does seem in general that the higher C rated packs are more vulnerable to degradation due to high voltage storage, presumably because they have more of the gel layer in them through which dendrites can grow. Perhaps this is the reason some people do not see any significant degradation over time, though with so many other variables in play in addition to the storage voltage (cell construction, variable QC, discharge and charge rates, number of cycles, time between discharge/charges, ambient temperatures etc etc) it is exceptionally difficult to prove anything through comparison between different peoples results in this area without taking a truly scientific approach and controlling most of these variables.

It is interesting that reputable RC battery manufacturers themselves believe in the damaging effect of storing Lithium Ion packs at elevated states of charge, as do electric car makers (Nissan found this out to their cost with the Leaf; more technical info here) and consumer electronics providers (chargers in laptops and mobiles are often configured not to charge their batteries to the full 4.2V in order to extend their cycle life). If you go over the Batteries and Charging forum on RCGroups there is also a wealth of users who have very demanding applications for their packs (high amp discharge in EDFs and RC boat racing for instance), and all of them seem to believe in reducing unused packs back to storage too to maintain their performance for as long as possible. All of the science backs this up - dendrite growth at the anode occurs more quickly at higher cell voltages, and there are studies available that show capacity degradation can be pretty severe in the medium term if stored at full voltage (as capacity reduces IR increases too, reducing the batteries ability to provide the current requested by the powertrain): Clearly the real world effect of degradation through storage at full charge on battery life will also depend a lot on patterns of usage - if you fly regularly (every 2-3 days) in a cool climate like Britain it probably is pointless returning your packs to storage, but if you only fly every other weekend it becomes much more important. Others in this thread have a different view, but in my opinion the OPs packs were held at elevated voltages for a significant enough percentage of the 1-2 years that they have been used in a pretty hot climate, and the combination of those factors has aged them prematurely.

Posted by Denis Watkins on 18/11/2016 07:54:54: I think we are all on the right track, and with models, the ailerons tend to be most effective on the outer 3 to 4 inches of the wing. Looking at JDs model the least amount of aileron is out there at the tip, exactly where it is needed. Coupled rudder will help, as would clear plastic extensions to the rear of the outer ailerons. That does of course spoil the look of a beautiful scale model. I hate to say this, and will endure the backlash, but this model would benefit with the addition of a stabiliser. A stabiliser might help to improve pitch stability, but only once the aileron response problem is addressed. The stab is going to find it difficult too if the nothing happens til the ailerons reach 75% or so of their movement, at which point it suddenly rolls hard left or right! PS - I once saw a short coupled slope soarer that flew very well back in the late 80s or early 90s; when I asked how they'd got such nice handling I found out it was set up with a flying wing aerofoil with a very low pitching moment, stabilised by reflex. The tail had no elevator and was essentially just for show!