MattyB

That is absolutely possible from an HA perspective once you have the myenergi plugin. I suspect Octopus might catch on though after a bit...!

OK, but a test with (say) a Frsky TX and the Frsky compatible receiver can still be valid in discounting the RX as a root cause if it passes as per that TX's range test instructions. After all, all we are trying to do initially is discount the RX(s) from the "suspect component / potential root cause" list. Anyway, I still think the telemetry logging is the key step, in particular to look at the SWR ratings - see this post for some explanation... https://www.openrcforums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=115049&sid=ab1ce0f371a21e4770ced405a0ca7c47#p115049

If you have a Givenergy system, I would recommend you just install PredBat which uses solar predictions, past usage information and upcoming tariff info (including your IO periods which it can get via the Octopus plugin for HA) to top up the battery intelligently to the minimum levels to get you through the day at least cost. I have ben running it for just over a week now, and it seems to be pretty good so far. https://springfall2008.github.io/batpred/ What is predbat, and what does it do? Setup videos on Loom Introduction video GivTCP Facebook group for help and support

You don't necessarily need a Radiomaster TX. You should be able to test the Spek receivers with Spektrum, Frsky compatibles with Frsky etc. Doing the test with telemetry logging is still important IMO before @Graham Davies 3 replaces the board and antenna, otherwise he won't know be able to determine any differences with the new setup once it is installed.

I am still waiting for the Zappi IO integration to go live "proper", then I think I will move to Intelligent. We will lose out a bit on export, but have much lower cost home battery and car charging. I'm not sure it will make a major difference to our bills, but it should be more convenient.

Had you enabled telemetry logs on the flight with the R88 receiver? If so that may be instructive. Based on your diagnosis so far I would say the most likely issue is with the aerial, but if you don’t have telemetry logging setup I’d do that now, then do a full ground range test with the R88, then provide that to HobbyRC for their review.

You are quite right, there isn't. My only point is that I personally would not put my Op ID on an aircraft that was to be flown regularly by others when I am not present. Others may be fine with it, and it's certainly not breaking the rules, but for me the legal risks associated are too high for me to accept my number going on a club trainer that could be flown by anyone in the club. YMMV. PS - Organisations (e.g. a club in this case) can register as an Operator too if you prefer that route, but it looks like the the ultimate responsibility to ensure operator requirements are met does still sit with an individual... Who can register your organisation The person who completes the registration must be authorised to be the accountable manager for drones and model aircraft in the organisation. The accountable manager will be responsible for making sure that the organisation flies and uses drones and model aircraft safely and legally. You can change the accountable manager at any time. Before you start You'll need: the accountable manager’s home address and contact details the organisation’s registered number, for example its registered company number or charity number

I would personally never put my Op. ID onto a club model that could be flown without me being present. Remember, by adding your ID you are formally accepting legal responsibility in line with Andy Symon's post above, even if you aren't present to check the model over or supervise the remote pilot(s). I can't see any of these responsibilities that I would be ok to put my hand up for unless I was present at the time of the flight... Ensure the remote pilot is in possession of the relevant remote pilot competence requirements Ensure that the model aircraft is sufficiently maintained, and that any repairs carried out to it are satisfactorily made, such that it is in a safe condition to be flown; Ensure that the remote pilot is aware of the limitations and conditions of the BMFA Article 16 authorisation; (assuming Article 16 flights) Ensure that the remote pilot is aware of the rules and procedures of the BMFA; Ensure that any necessary additional permissions or authorisations are obtained for any specific flight; Ensure the remote pilot is aware of any relevant airspace limitations. Far better to utilise something akin to the old 35MHz "peg on" system - the model has a small transparent panel made out of a bit of old display wallet or similar glued to the side, into which bits of paper can be placed with the relevant Op. ID for that day, then the holder gets taped shut. Then do all the normal pre-flight checks as if it was your own model, and fly. Finally the Op. ID is removed by the pilot at the end of the session and put in his flight box so it can't be used without their presence. Problem solved.

Aerodynamically they fly pretty well, but Max Thrust models do seem to be built down to a price. Nothing lots of careful checking and the odd mod can't address, but they may have a short life if those steps are missed.

If you ever need to find your old content, just go to your profile and click on ... https://forums.modelflying.co.uk/index.php?/profile/2932-diamond-geezer/content/

Very neat. Presumably the spinner is removable so that you can swap the battery out if needed? It doesn't look like it could be extracted via the fuselage once that former with the cross shaped reinforcement is in place. How is it secured to the carbon tube?

Annoying, but I can officially tell you it is less so than living for a few weeks with a mouse that the cat brought in... This monster took up residence underneath our kitchen cabinets, then ran all over the place nibbling cereal and toast crumbs until I eventually snaffled him with nutella and Aldi fake Kinder bars!

Just found some videos of these flying oun Youtube, do look quite fun for minimal investment...

It absolutely does if the EV is charging. The key question is whether you get that same low rate as per the schedule even when it isn't. If you do, it's an even better deal than I thought and I might switch over even before we swap the second car for a pure EV...

If you buy the BNF (Bind and Fly) it comes wtith a Spektrum RX that you will ned to replace with a Frsky one. However, the Timber X (I presume that is the variant you are looking at?) does also come in PNP (Plug and Play) format where the RX is not provided for a slightly cheaper price - that is what you should go for. https://westlondonmodels.com/product/e-flite-timber-x-1-2m-pnp-a-efl3875/ Bear in mind you will obviously not get the gyro stabilisation (AS3X and SAFE functionality) in the HH blurb if you go this route, but you can fit a Frsky stabilised RX if you want.

Looking at the T&Cs it is a bit grey... My previous understanding was that any electricity you use within the schedule they give you will be at low rate provided your EV is plugged in at that point, but that if the EV is not charging you would be charged as per your std rate at that particular time. I still think that is what is most likely, but you could certainly read it either way - I'd ping them an email to check if I was you (we are still on Flux for now as 3hrs of charging is enough for a plug-in hybrid and the export rates are better).

It’s not that hard, but is expensive on a one-off basis - £90 seems to be about the going rate for a single film, though the rights to screen lots of different content for a whole year in the same venue is dramatically cheaper (£130 rings a bell from when I researched it a few months ago for our Scout group).

Indeed. Whilst ongoing changes in the hobby (particularly regulation and demographics) will have an effect on the BMFA and other national associations (and therefore a secondary effect on their members), those clearly weren't the changes the OP was talking about in his original post, so digging into the BMFA's finances and mission seems rather OT for this particular thread.

Yep, was looking for some small 2S packs for the FX707 conversions, but no dice...

Sounds like a power supply issue to me - have you consulted the manual to see what it would do in the event the battery is clapped out, or checked the pack voltage under load? Those would be my first ports of call.

Thank you, that is very helpful. PM sent! 🙂

Maybe, but exchanges like this one in this very thread make meinclined to believe he's also including this forum and it's members too. Whether that's the case or not, I can't see any point point is in calling people out like this in BMFA News - it is only likely to get peoples backs up more and increase the volume of the posts that he is describing.

Good stuff, thanks for posting that. I have logged back into the Octopus site, and have found the content that correlates to the second of yourpics on the FAQ page here: https://octopus.energy/blog/saving-sessions-faqs/ However, whilst I am not doubting that you are correct, but there is clearly something screwy going on with the T&Cs links they are using on some of their website pages. If I log into my account, click on Octoplus rewards, then Savings session page, I get to a page with the URL https://octopus.energy/dashboard/new/accounts/[AccNoGoesHere]/saving-sessions (I remoived my account number for security reasons). If I scroll down that page, I get to the following: Click on the T&Cs link and I end up here - https://octopus.energy/saving-sessions-terms-conditions/ - which as you say looks like it is the old 2022/23 T&Cs. I can't find the T&Cs you have screenshotted above anywhere on their site - it's baffling! Can you post up a direct link to see if I can get to them? Thanks. PS - Can you share your Home Assistant automation so I can adapt it, assuming they ever let us participate in savings sessions? At the moment the website is telling me I can't despite meeting all the criteria on smart meter readings etc).

One additional point... In general I thought it was a good issue of BMFA News, but I wasn't impressed by Andy's somewhat snarky remarks about members who have discussions on this forum and other social media platforms regarding regulatory matters: "...When you read some of the comments from a small number of people on social media and internet forums you would think the hurdles in front of us were almost insurmountable and take a huge amount of time to get past, then you get the internet 'know it alls' who quote chapter and verse from obscure sections of various bits of legislation, usually out of context and that do nothing but feed in to the incorrect perception of a massively overbearing regulatory framework affecting us. I often find myself thinking that some of these people, rather than spending time damaging our sport online with their negativity, should get away from their keyboards and find a hobby to take up instead. Model flying for example, a great social activity with great benefits for mental health and general wellbeing, great value for money and really easy to get involved with. " Being grumpy at members who actively engage by reading, understanding and discussing the various whitepapers and proposals from the CAA, UK Gov, EASA et al. would seem to be completely counter-productive. Yes, the regs we have today are not too onerous thanks to the work of the national associations and their members, but our rights have still been eroded (and are significantly more fragile) than in pre-registration/Article 16 days. If we do not act collectively against regulatory over-reach those rights could undoubtedly be eroded further in the coming years (see what has happened with RID in the US for example). With that in mind the BMFA would be far better looking to work with those who are already engaged to help spread the word about responding to consultations like this; the more engaged members we have, the better our long term prospects. PS - One of the reasons there was so much discussion on social platforms like this was the lengthy period (>2 weeks) between the CAA's launch of the RFI and guidance from the BMFA on how we should respond. That time period represents more than 50% of the available response time for the RFI. Yes, the CAA probably gave them little warning of the RFI's release, and yes the BMFA only have a relatively small full time staff available to respond, but it was entirely predictable the CAA would launch a consultation or set of proposals along these lines given the global regulatory landscape. This was one of those times when dropping other things in order to move at pace (as one would in a commercial organisation) and get guidance out within a day or two would have been extremely worthwhile, giving the BMFA far more time to publicise the guidance and mobilise members to respond.

Good point - those T&Cs do seem to cover the winter 22/23 period, I had not noticed that. They are definitely the T&Cs that are currently linked from Octopus Savings Events page, though. I will send them a question about this, but in the meantime can you point us to a source that talks about the payment for export during these periods? I've done a bit of Googling but can't find one anywhere... Yes, I get it's not primarily about financial savings to customers, but every little helps, especially for those who are struggling in this cost of living crisis. The bit I am really puzzled about though (assuming you are correct about people being paid more for export during these periods) is that lots of people with home batteries will charge them just before as you are proposing, creating an new artificial increase in demand just before the event. That doesn't sound like something they would want to do, but maybe the grid effect is relatively insignificant given demand in that period should be slightly lower and only a relatively small percentage of homes have a battery at present.