MattyB

Posted by ben goodfellow 1 on 10/06/2015 22:42:06: would any one in the proper north of england have a jeti ds 16 ... i ask because id like one but i would like to hold one first . or is there a jeti stockist in the north? You are wise to try and hold it - the Jetis are superb quality, but for my relatively small hands neither model was comfortable or ergonomic (they feel very square in your hands). Even more significant for me was the weight - they are very heavy. If you fly DLGs like I do that is a major issue; I do not want to be chucking my £1k investment into a nearby hedge during the twirl phase! In the end I went with a Taranis, and have no regrets - the physical quality is only average (though still better than the early model Mpx Evo it replaced), but the ergonomics (for me) are fine, the functionality is out of this world and the weight is much less. Being plastic it doesn't get as cold on the slope either! Edited By MattyB on 11/06/2015 17:31:46

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 11/06/2015 06:47:18: If this is reported in piecemeal fashion it will simply lead to more questions. Let's be patient for a bit longer and give people a chance to present us with a worthwhile proposition. Fair enough, but it needs to be a two way thing. If they want to convince members of the case for an NFC and the validity of the LLF site the BMFA should provide the information by multiple channels (BMFA News and on the website), and then allow the members sufficient time to absorb it and provide their feedback via club and area meetings. Time will also be needed to allow clubs to ensure they are represented at the EGM and agree all the logisitics (this is particularly important for clubs that will need to send someone a long way to attend). Assuming most clubs and BMFA areas meeting on a monthly basis (not sure if that is correct or not?), that would mean at least 2 months and more optimally 3 between release of the information and the EGM being held. Edited By MattyB on 11/06/2015 10:32:39

Posted by Steve T on 09/06/2015 18:17:45: I have had a rather busy last few days so lost touch with this posting. I have caught up now and cannot see for the life of me where it is going. Just mindless repetition. Sorry, all of you who still care, I don't anymore. You are right, there has been a lot of repetition amongst the last few pages - I guess in the absence of any new information from the BMFA (feasibility study, minuts etc) this conversation can't really go any further.

Lots more e-glider eepes on RCSettings too...

Posted by Area 51 on 09/06/2015 10:50:46: Posted by john stones 1 on 09/06/2015 10:24:44: I think the discussions and differing opinions were expected, it would've been naïve not to expect it. However if you look at the view count on the various BMFA information threads, the uproar will be drowned out by the apathy by a massive amount. And no I don't blame the BMFA for that you can't combat it at club level either. The only overwhelming majority I've seen through all this is the numbers that are not interested in the slightest. I very much doubt there will be any substantial uproar unless you put their fees up. John It does seem this way John, however what if this apathy translates in poor footfall at any chosen NFC? Surely the whole plan is based on a "certain annual revenue" being achieved?.. I cant imagine having been to it once, it being any sort of regular venue with exception of NATS type events, but even then with more local shows competing for our time, access to traders and entrances fees.... Would you go more than once every few years?, i.e. income from the supportive few maybe there, but certainly not guaranteed annually! Yep, I totally agree. If the purchase goes through (which I think is more likely than not given the articles of association make it very difficult for the members to oppose any motion put forward by Full Council) I suspect there will be pretty much total apathy from the members - most are unlikely to think about it again until the centre opens. The acid test will come if and when footfall and commercial activities do not meet expectations and the begging bowl needs to come out to the members; I suspect many of those who were previously apathetic will be less than impressed and could vote with their feet if an alternative insurance option presents itself. Posted by john stones 1 on 09/06/2015 15:03:38: To be absolutely honest comments like they don't have to consult or give you a vote etc etc etc do more to create an anti BMFA feeling and resentment than any of this whole situation regarding the NFC. I'm sure prospective new members will be tickled pink to read it. Perhaps I aught to be telling new members that before I ask for their £32 Here here! Edited By MattyB on 09/06/2015 15:17:41

Posted by John F on 09/06/2015 13:36:21: I don't know about the 'urgently needs publishing' bit. What is so urgent? Don't forget they don't have to tell us anything anyway and can build the whole venue on what ever land they choose in total secret, if they so choose to. Obviously they won't and will engage and inform as and when they have info but is is really "urgently'" ? You are right, it isn't urgent that the report is published. However it is very important (not urgent ) that the feasibility study and video is published far enough in advance of the proposed EGM to: allow it to be cascaded through the BMFA governance structure; be publicised in BMFA News; be read and analysed by members, and; to allow the clubs to meet with their members to decide on how they wish to vote. No doubt you will remind me that they don't have to do this - you are almost certainly correct, but if they do not want to create a substantial "anti" movement from the start they would be well advised to consult fully and openly with members and give them sufficient time to form an informed view. 10-15 years is a long time to keep people enthused and on board, so they cannot afford to be firefighting the membership from day 1 if they really want to deliver this. Edited By MattyB on 09/06/2015 15:06:43

Try Mike Shellim's thermal soarer setup - just add a motor control and it should be perfect for a Cularis (I know he used his as a test bed for that setup). He will be publishing a version with a motor shortly according to this... Edited By MattyB on 09/06/2015 14:21:07

Remember this? (from the May 5th update)... Initial focus of the study was MOD/ex MOD airfields as these were felt likely to yield opportunities. This route proved problematic and ultimately fruitless as current airfields listed for disposal already marked for development/housing and former airfields either already developed or in alternative use (gliding, skydiving, general aviation or industry) All this talk of MOD or ex-MOD fields is interesting, but I know someone on the team that was evaluating potential sites for the NFC; they trooped round a lot of these and talked extensively with the current users. That they moved on to focussing on brownfield farmland etc is a direct result of issues securing ex airfields in the right locations at affordable prices. We may not have visibility of all the issues at this point but I do not doubt they are there - after all, the BMFA are not going to be able to pay the same as one of the big housing developers. Still doesn't make LLF a good idea to my eyes though! Edited By MattyB on 08/06/2015 15:06:17

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 06/06/2015 12:32:51: Posted by Steve T on 06/06/2015 12:23:26: I despair when it comes to the 'younger pilots' who practically do not exist. I have tried letting teenagers have a fly with one of mine, general opinion it's boring. I tried letting them have the virtual experience using Pheonix, now that was much better! Much more like it, for about 15 minutes then that was boring as well. Building a model of your own, that resulted in a look of absolute disbelief, was I some sort of moronic idiot, they all had far better things to do than build a plane. Out of a class of 20, 14 year olds the interest level was a whopping zero. It just does not appeal to them. I know the place does not even exist yet but what could a NFC do to prevent our hobby dying out with us in the next 15 ish years? Edited By Steve T on 06/06/2015 12:24:18 Sadly we live in an age of "instant gratification" and "disposable consumer products" - those of us at or approaching retirement probably grew up in an era where things were repaired rather than replaced, things that were beyond repair became things for the kids to dismantle and play with, we had construction toys all of which I think created a mind set that was more in tune with building things - of course I think we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the likes of Airfix and Kielcraft for giving a lot of us the first steps into model aircraft Today its all about gadgets, communications and instant action - pick up an xbox and jump "in" a Spitfire or F-16 and become immersed in a virtual dogfight - I am not sure how a humble trainer plodding round circuits competes with that Personally I think we need to stop mourning the passing of the hobby as we have known it for the last 60-70 years, and embrace the change - the BMFA certainly need to do this in their planning for the NFC. Within 10-20 years the number of people building wooden scratch builds, plans and kits will be miniscule, but that doesn't mean the death of building - it will just be different (look at the large number of people building in foamboard of creating their own 250 FPV mini quads). Traditional modellers may not like it, but it is happening and will only continue. We also need to stop thrashing around trying to engage teens and twentysomethings with traditional modelling - with so many other exciting options that require less investment and sticking power, building and flying is always going to be an extremely tough sell. Instead we should be thinking about the "new beginner" in their 40s with kids away/finished university and more disposable income and time on their hands. The only way of engaging youngsters is I think through the increasing number of RTF/BNF toy and hobby grade products that might drag them in; they can investigate building later if they are enthused, but pushing that is not going to help. The old model of "Build a BMFA Dart and capture them forever" is now broken and simply cannot be fixed. PS - I went on a slope soaring awayday last week, and ended up discussing the NFC with about 15 friends in the pub afterwards. Being glider guiders they obviously aren't truly representative of the likely "average" NFC user , but their views are worth reflecting on... All but a couple were aware of the NFC and the latest update from the BMFA (which did surprise me, even though it has been discused on our internal club forum); Nearly all supported the concept of an NFC; several were extremely enthusiastic; All though LLF seemed a highly compromised option vs. the rather nebulous vision expressed in the Powerpoint deck. The absence of planning permission for our intended use was highlighted as a particular worry to many; No-one thought the proposed purchase of LLF was a good idea at this time given the information distributed to date (interesting given LLF is actually quite accessible for this group in general - we live only an average of ~30-40 miles away); No-one believed that an NFC at LLF could be funded in the long term based on loation and information we know so far without a substantial increase in contributiosn from the wider membership. Edited By MattyB on 08/06/2015 14:52:00

Posted by Erfolg on 04/06/2015 20:08:42: One of my clubs flies on NT land. I know a few others do. Yet the NT is one of the biggest land owners, who hold pop concerts, drag hunts, car shows, garden shows on their land. One or two aeromodellers users is not a lot. In our case, our being there is historic, that is before the NT gained ownership, Tatton Park is the same, and probably the Great Orme could become another. What would really be beneficial is wider access, for new fields. This is an area with great potential, we are good users of a national asset. May be even something like the Nationals could be held in one of the great parks. There is potential here at little to no costs. I would nto get too excited about that if I were you - apparently the NT requested a meeting with the BMFA recently as they are very worred about the use of camera carrying multirotors on their land. Preserving the access we already have is probably more important than gaining rights to fly electrics more extensively on NT land.

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 03/06/2015 21:43:10: Friend has bought a couple of Frsky Fasst Rxs for his FASST 10c (i.e. Tx is pre the update) and they seem to work fine, but we have no way of knowing what firmware they have on them. If they were imported into the country this side of Xmas they will have the new firmware - they could not be legally sold otherwise. If they wer old stock from 2014 or earlier, they will be the original firmware. Edited By MattyB on 03/06/2015 23:28:43

Posted by Erfolg on 03/06/2015 10:46:35: I am not interested in updating my Tx or Rxs to be compatible with the latest EU regulations. My reasons are, that it remains legal to operate equipment which was comply ant with the previous regulations and just as importantly my existing equipment continues to operate effectively. It is on this basis i am asking the question, will new, (that is in the foreseeable future), purchases of Frsky Rx continue to operate effectively. Yes - even if you had issues binding your TXs to the new RXs, they can still be flashed with the old pre-ETSI change firmware.

Latest update on the release of the feasibility study and minutes, plus confirmation of the proposed EGM... @MATTHEW BRETT: Matthew. Thank you for your further posting, the information for release is currently being worked on, however it has fallen in amongst staff leave (I have been off for a few days). We recently filmed an abbreviated version of the presentation made to Full Council and this is now in the final edit, how this will be received is difficult to tell, it was actually surprisingly difficult to do but the idea is to try and give a flavour of the work of the study and provide a similar set of information to that provided to Council. The video presentation will be backed up with a copy of the study documentation and a copy of the financial summary from the treasurer. All of this will be on line as soon as possible but there is a fair bit to tie together and some areas are evolving on a day by day basis. As you will be aware a summary report from the meeting was published within a few days as an interim measure. In addition to the information referred to above the next step will be the calling notice for the EGM, again this is an area of current work. I hope this is of assistance. Kind regards Manny W Seems like they are making rather hard work of it all to me - I'd be perfectly happy with justt the feasibility study and minutes, no real ned for a video. Still, at least this information is on it's way... Edited By MattyB on 03/06/2015 02:14:22

  ... Edited By MattyB on 03/06/2015 02:13:41

Posted by kc on 02/06/2015 14:05:13: The situation is the BMFA is really the SMAE and the shareholders of the SMAE are the clubs. Sometime in the 1980's SMAE affiliated clubs were required to force all their own members to also join SMAE. So we are forced to be SMAE (BMFA ) members or we have no flying fields available to us. But we get no vote. The Voting at BMFA AGM's is by club representatives attending the AGM.. So it's only those clubs that can send a rep to the Midlands venue that vote. Here in Essex it's too far to drive for a day in mid Winter and it's so expensive to stay at the designated hotel venue that my 2 clubs don't send a rep. In addition my clubs hold their own AGM a week or so after the BMFA AGM in order to collect the fees for the BMFA once the latest fees are known. So we would need to know about 50 weeks in advance what was going to be voted on at the BMFA AGM in order to gauge our own club members views and appoint a rep to attend and vote representing their views. If we had known in Dec 2013 that the BMFA was going to vote in Dec 2014 to spend a huge amount of money on something which would be of no regular benefit to London & Essex based members then no doubt my 2 clubs would have thought it worthwhile to appoint a rep and pay his hotel costs. But we didn't know sufficiently in advance. On the other hand those clubs that were within an hours drive of the BMFA AGM no doubt sent a rep anyway. Those clubs would represent the members who WOULD be able to benefit regularly from a Midlands based NFC. No doubt they are the people that support vast expenditure on a Midlands site. So the BMFA committee know this and managed to get this vanity project through. I am no fan of how the BMFA have handled this, but I think what you propose is perhaps a conspiracy theory too far! They have said an EGM (not an AGM) will be called to vote on whether to proceed or not prior to any purchase; they have not "got this through" yet. Provided sufficent information (the full feasibility study with details of the long term business model plus minutes of the Full Council meeting) is given to members sufficent time in advance that should work fine - members will then have time to digest the info and instruct their club representatives to vote. What would not be aceptable is if the info was not released online to all or was witheld until the meeting - hopefully that will not happen, but to date nothing seems to have been forthcoming, and the confidentiality card seems to be being played repeatedly and (IMO) erroneously. Finally, attendance... Normally I would agree that those travelling the furthest are the least likely to attend, but since in this instance they have the most to lose (i.e. they will be contributing to a centre they are unlikely to attend) I suspect the opposite could occur - I know I will be going out of my way to ensure both the BMFA clubs of which I am a member are represented. As was noted before, they may need a very big venue and an extremely large packet of biscuits!

Posted by Martin Dilly 1 on 01/06/2015 22:33:28: Be in no doubt that it is not only model flyers who read the model press and scan the various websites, including this one. What the BMFA Council is doing on your behalf is exercising commercial confidentiality. You, the members, elected the people who work on Council and on your Area committee, and you, the members, surely don’t expect that every detail of the work they are doing on possible sites and their pros and cons should appear in the public domain to be read by all and sundry while negotiations are in progress, do you? I asked a series of non-commercially sensitive questions on the BMFA site a few weeks ago. Manny acknowledged these were perfectly reasonable and would be answered publically after the Council meeting by the minutes and feasibility study, but neither have yet been released. Why? Who knows, but it does not foster trust in the process. Besides, the fact remains that if a feasibility is deemed worth doing it should be completed and shared as promised with the membership before any negotiations on a site begin - if not, why bother in the first place?

Looks like Futaba are finally launching an entry level telemetry set - no English language specs yet though, and it looks somewhat plasticky. It also seems to be missing a few switches compared to it's main competitor the DX6, and €229 is not indicative of a change in pricing strategy... Edited By MattyB on 02/06/2015 08:06:57

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 01/06/2015 15:25:46: ...The main reason that the Horus won't appear with Open Tx is because the Open Tx team don't have the time/resources to port the Open Tx system to the Horus, it's also mentioned on another forum that the X9E (Tray Taranis) is slightly delayed due to delays in updating the Taranis Open Tx to run on the X9E. This is going to be a challenge to the Open Tx team to keep their software current with the latest hardware and sensors etc all in their spare time, bring in several different spec'd transmitters and it just increases the workload. I agree keeping up with the demand they have created is going to be a challenge for the OoenTX team, but I don't think that is the reason HORUS will not ship with it. FrSky want their own closed source "traditional canned mixer" firmware because a) That's what the vast majority of their target "big brand" users know and prefer, and; b) Developing any front end for OpenTX that delivers a traditional JR/Futaba/Spek style would have to be put back into the public domain under the terms of the GNU license. This would be a very valuable FrSky funded asset for the competition to use. Not likely! Result - we get a TX that is far more like the competituon than the Taranis before it. Personally I think this makes a lot of commercial sense, but there is no doubt it will make a subset of existing FrSky user grumpy that their perfect set featuring premium hardware and OpenTX still does not exist. Edited By MattyB on 01/06/2015 21:57:25

I am a Taranis owner and a huge FrSky fan - the gear is unmatched for the price. However, I do have some worries about the next phase in FrSky's development, and what it will mean for existing users. Firstly, the recent issues around the ETSI regulations and what it means for the "old" D series RXs. FrSky really made a mess of this; they had years to inform users of their plans, but left it to the very last moment, and the comms have been appalling. Now it appears the D series will no longer be distributed in the EU and all current and future sets will only use the D16 mode that works with X series RXs, though they have not totally ruled out a "D8 EU" mode in the future. For current users with lots of D series this is a major issue - they either have to retire them and buy X series replacements, or flash old RF firmware to their new set, which could cause insurance issues. Not great planning or communication; if they want to compete with the big boys they will need to improve this. Secondly, the new X9E and Horus TXs. Both have great specs, but are clearly strongly "inspired" by the Jetis and have marmite looks. Some will undoubtedly deride them as "clones" and "knock offs" as a result. Will they sell? X9E (the "Tray Taranis") looks to have a ready made niche market waiting in the form of disillusioned Mpx users, and should do well in Europe. Horus though may have a difficult birth - it is entirely new and unproven hardware, and will be the first FrSky set to use a closed, in house developed firmware (though OpenTX may still become available for it at a later date). A more instantly accessible "canned mixer" approach may be exactly what users of big brand sets (their main target with Horus) are looking for, but will it actually be any good? V1 is bound to have some foibles, and however polished it is the traditional JR/Futaba/Hitec style approach wil disenchant Taranis and OpenTx fans. Those Devs are a big risk for FrSky too - yes there are quite a few of them, but they are all working in their own time to transition the software for the X9E. Goodwill only goes so far, and I suspect FrSky will need to invest in them some more if they want OpenTX for the Horus. Finally, the transition from young upstart to major player. This is not easy, and many promising companies have tripped up at this point. FrSky have a great chance to become one of the top 3, but to do that they will have to capture a large number of users from the big brands without alienating or losing their existing customers. What's more they have to find a way to start making some money - margins on their existing RXs and the Taranis must be wafer thin, so the new sets need to be much more profitable to pay back their R&D costs. Tricky stuff - I hope they can pull it off. Edited By MattyB on 01/06/2015 00:04:05

Posted by Glasshopper on 31/05/2015 19:24:43: Is it practicable to use the signal from a Taranis RX as the basis for finding a lost aircraft? Yes, very much so - just walk to roughly the right direction, then sweep the TX horizontally and use your body to attenuate the signal is required as you get closer. Here's a great example from Mike Shellim of exactly that...

Posted by Andy Green on 29/05/2015 12:23:42: Just been informed of this - Out of the fire rises the Phoenix.... Andy Interesting that they have D4R-II RXs for sale when it is now well known the D-series are illegal to import into the EU since the change in the ETSI regs in January - unlike T9 they cannot have been in stock prior to the change... Edited By MattyB on 29/05/2015 23:07:47

Posted by Jon Harper on 26/05/2015 08:47:30: Hi Matty The master plan was to have the engine ready in febuary but that went a bit pear shaped for reasons external to the company. Now I have a carb setup that I am happy with I can get on with the 5 pre production engines and test them for a bit longer until the new parts for the production spec engines are ready. I would like to see the engine available before the end of the summer. As for the NGH38, the laser 180 on petrol out performs it by a considerable margin. That said, depending on the 5th scale warbird you have in mind you might need something larger than a 180. Which model do you have in mind? Not 100% certain, but the Seagull Spitfire (which my Dad has and is already flying nicely on an NGH 38) or the H9 Spit are the two most probable. Nased on your previous posts I think both should fly fine on the 180, correct? A German(!) Seagull Spit on the NGH38 (ignore the crash at the end, he had a Powerbox power supply failure ): Edited By MattyB on 29/05/2015 17:41:06

Posted by extra slim on 29/05/2015 11:13:23: Just an idea for the moderators. There have been many pages of enthusiastic debate on this subject. Couldn't we use the collective power of the contributor's to derive a "Summary" in the form of a consolidated list of 1) Pro's expressed, and 2) concerns expressed. It may be very useful information for not just all forum members, who can view other opinions perhaps not thought of ourselves, and perhaps provide an interesting, free and constructive market research exercise which you never know, someone close to the project at the BMFA finds beneficial. There are just a lot of good points made either way....couldn't we use them in a really constructive manner??. Just thoughts It doesn't seem to me to be the job of the forum moderators or contributors to summarise the arguments for and against an NFC - the BMFA are driving tis project after all. All that is required is for the BMFA to present their analysis (which they have asured us on many occasions is an impartial feasibility study conducted by qualified though so far unnamed individuals) for everyone to read. Once that is done people are free to reach their own informed opinions, but at this point it's impossible due to the absence of financial and logisitical information and a lack of clarity over the funding model and timescales.

Posted by Martin Harris on 28/05/2015 23:55:17: I think I can post here because I have stated several times, on the thread that I'm assuming you're referring to, that I'm in favour of the idea of an NFC. In fact, I think it's probably fair to say that very few (if any) posters on that thread are actually set against the idea. I will support any reasoned proposals that are put to the membership but we have yet to see any. I've held back from posting on the other thread since the outline details of the 16th of May meeting were released as we've been promised details from the feasibility study and an EGM before any financial commitment and I'm happy to wait and see some details before discussing my thoughts with my club representative. What are you looking for from this thread? Hopefully some reasoned and detailed suggestions as to how a NFC can support itself, what it can be used for, where would be the best location etc..but if the thread is only to be used for expressions of blind support and optimistic comments then I can't see how it can add any value. Oh yes, one other thing - could you please explain where this huge majority vote from the membership is documented. I'm sure you're not referring to the small low key web survey drafted to exclude any questioners by a strong supporter of the proposal and responded to by a tiny minority of the membership. +1. When I see a fully costed and risk assessed proposal showing such a centre can be built and sustained in the long term without putting the future of the association at risk I will happily give it my full support. However, the vague, aspirational materials that have been provided to date are a long way off that, and the continued delay in providing the minutes and feasibility study do not build confidence - if the numbers really were compelling surely we would have seen them by now? Hopefully I am wrong, but this has all the hallmarks of a pet project being driven forward by a small core of individuals committed to proceeding whatever the data tells them. I've seen plenty of these at work over the years, and they never tend to end well...  Edited By MattyB on 29/05/2015 01:01:59

Still no meeting minutes or feasibility study - why not release them now? And yes John, I know they don't have to release the feasibility study under the terms of the Articles of Association, but since they have SAID they will after the meeting I can't see a real reason why there would be further delay. Question posted to the NFC conversation on BMFA site... Edited By MattyB on 27/05/2015 17:58:56