MattyB

Posted by extra slim on 15/09/2015 17:08:33: Hi Dai, being new, I will offer the advise of changing your batteries depending on what they are. If they are Nimh, a charge the day before and 1 flight to dead = dodgy pack IMO, and no matter how many top ups, they have warned you they are dodgy and so could give up at any point. Personally I wouldnt risk it, and get them changed. There are many alternatives nowadays but that is for another occasion as not to complicate things. +1. Do a trial discharge on your new charger at 0.5C (for a 2000mah pack that would be a 1A discharge rate) and check the capacity. Recharge and do another one at 1C (2A for a 2000mah) and compare - that will give you an idea of how your batteries perform under load. If they struggle you will have a clear sign to replace the pack. Edited By MattyB on 16/09/2015 15:38:34

Posted by Jon Harper on 15/09/2015 21:40:44: O'Leary is rubbish on that stargazing live show as well. Just shut up and let Brian Cox do it! Err, that's Dara O'Briain, not Dermot O'Leary!

Blimey, there is more Dermot O'Leary droning than Merlins! If only the Beeb had been covering this instead...

All LSD cells have high internal resistance, so aren't recommended for high current draw applications; I believe Sanyo only rate the Eneloops at 1C. If you are going to use them for an RX I would always go with a 5 cell pack for safety if there is room.

Yep, all looks right to me - I hope you have a big charging bag/ammo box, that's a lot of power stored up!

Posted by Phil Green on 13/09/2015 22:06:49: Posted by MattyB on 13/09/2015 00:39:10: ...the supply of V8 RXs must be about to dry up here given their import has been illegal since Jan 15th, How can Importing a receiver be illegal Matt? (a strictly receive-only receiver) I rather think they'e just obsolete in Frsky's eyes, unfortunately Fair point, but unfortunately I suspect the answer is "maybe, maybe not". Technically I suppose there is no reason the V8 RXs could not be (re)certificated to ETSI v1.8.1, but I don't think they have been. This is probably partly because modules or TXs transmitting V8 do not comply, and partly because it does not make commercial sense for FrSky - they would prefer we all just switch over to the X series. Edited By MattyB on 14/09/2015 00:28:36

Ok, I now see your problem. Unfortunately that module is a dead end now - the supply of V8 RXs must be about to dry up here given their import has been illegal since Jan 15th, and FrSky do not make an XJT in the Futaba module form factor. Probably the best solution is a DFT from T9; alternatively I believe there are Spek RXs that output CPPM if you were able to get hold of an Orange DSM2/X module from HK. FASST modules do exist, but from what I have seen are very expensive by comparison. Edited By MattyB on 13/09/2015 00:42:47

The V8 series are not firmware updateable, but can you not just use a D or X series and disable or ignore the telemetry? D4RII should do the job... Edited By MattyB on 12/09/2015 22:54:37

Sorry, that should have read ice cream stick, not cocktail stick!

Posted by Martyn K on 11/09/2015 20:10:27: I think it was called Mirralite Not Mirror... MattyB - what do you use as a release agent using your technique of laying up glass cloth on a sheet of glass? Thanks Martyn First time I think I used a standard paint on furniture wax; it worked fine but didn't give the best finish (it's what I have used for lost foam fuselages in the past, but obviously that is on the inside so finish doesn't matter!). The last time all I did was give the glass a thorough clean, polish with a std glass polish then stick a cocktail stick under one corner of the layup to get it started; from memory a gentle lever on the stick popped it off the glass in one go. I don't use this technique so much now though as I have a basic vac bagging setup using an old nebuliser that has given even better results (and also coz I lost my workshop to a garage conversion when our latest child was born!).

Any news on the progress of the 180 Jon? Based on the figures so far and Lasers faultless reputation I think this cold be a big seller if it is priced between the NGH and OS offerings. Also after all the debate of petrol engine silencing how does the noise compare to the glow version? Will in pass the 82dba test on the stock silencer do you think?

You can make a similar, cheaper material by laying up 3-4 laminations of thin fibreglass on an old pane of glass with laminating resin. Not as bendy (though you can tune that with experimentation by adjusting the directions you lay the weave), but fine as a wing skin. Factor in your time though and it probably works out more expensive!

Very very nice work Martyn - I particularly like the shape and craftsmanship in the fuselage, and the classic "Foss-ish" tail feathers. This is going to be a lovely looking model when it is finished! Two QQs... In the 3 view on page one it looks like you have very long flaps and quite small ailerons; have you stuck with the original proportions, or made the ailerons longer and the flaps shorter? In my experience 60:40 works best on the slope for a model like this, though obviously you may be intending to set the wing up with Quattro flap meaning the proportions are much less critical. It looks like you glued the horizontal tailplane already, before the wing was built and attached. Is there a reason for doing it this way? I have only built a couple of wood models, but have always understood it is easier to set the decalage once the wing is in position, "fudging" the tailplane incidence until you get the right AoA relative to the wing.

Interesting one. Having read the thread I can see issues (and some good things too) in multiple areas: The OP made a good decision to join a club in the first place; EITHER the club didn't do a good enough induction, otherwise he would have taken his first flight whilst accompanied by an experienced pilot, OR; The OP made a bad decision to go against the advice from his club and take his first flight unaccompanied and (probably) in unsuitable conditions for his model; The OP made a good decision to post his experience here to get help and guidance; Some respondents were probably a little too vociferous/combative in the way they expressed their views on his decision to fly alone, however well meant; The OP made a bad decision to take these comments at face value and disengage from the forum. This challenge is (IMO) the key one facing the hobby today. No, not "drones", the increasing average age of modellers, the death of "real building" or the BMFA... it's knowledge transfer. How do we take the enthusiastic newcomers of the future (whatever age they are and interest in aeromodelling they may have) and turn them into experienced, responsible pilots? Why is this a problem now? I guess it is because modelling (or at least getting to the stage where you can have a go at actual flying) has got much easier. In the past there was lots of complexity and barriers to entry - newcomers had to build a flyable model from a kit or plan which took time, patience, skill and normally some tutelage from a parent or mentor. This meant those entering the hobby normally had a practical bent and were by nature fairly patient and pragmatic in general. It also meant they were starting out from within a club environment in the vast majority of cases where they could soak up information from experienced modellers; going it alone was just too difficult and the chances of success were very slim. Fast forward to today, and most of those barriers are gone. Modern radios and the ARTFs, PNPs and BNFs that go with them are cheap, well made (in the main) and reliable. Electric flight is safe, clean, lightweight and (mostly) quiet. Gyro stabilisation has meant active safety aids can be added to fixed wing aircraft to make "go it alone" self trainers a viable proposition, and of course they have also opened up a whole new class of aircraft in terms of the multirotors. Social media and forums provide a wealth of information to newcomers when they get stuck. Finally the majority of working age people are now time poor, making the ARTF/PNP/BNF pathway even more tempting. All except the absence of usable free time are (IMO) good things that can be used to help build a healthy future for our sport. However, there is one negative result... To a newcomer the local club now looks a far less tempting proposition. Why would I pay all that money and have to travel for ages in the car to tootle about with an instructor on the buddy lead when I can organise an informal group of friends via social media to fly the multirotors we bought from Maplin in my local park? It's a difficult sell. Newcomers are not scared of the implications of the ANO, CAP658 or flying without insurance simply because they do not know anything about them and do not perceive what they are doing as potentially dangerous. Of course those with experience know that you cannot learn airmanship online, and that there are things that are picked up far easier and quicker under the guidance of an experienced structure - how much wind is too much for my model, how do I adjust my heading to give the right track on landing approach, how do I prevent a stall during the circuit etc. Modern "teach yourself" models are getting very good and undoubtedly offer a safer route for parkflier newcomers in the past, but it remains the case that you have a much higher chance of learning successfully and without accidents with an experienced helper alongside. The answer? I am not sure, or even if there is one. All I know is that it is going to take a multifaceted approach from the likes of the BMFA, CAA and model clubs - just trying to get everyone who buys a flying model in their local toyshop to join a club will not work. For as long as "just go fly" products are on sale without restrictions there will be people who buy them, charge them and attempt to fly them in their nearest open space, so I suspect we are going to have to steel ourselves for increased regulation in the future in the form of mandatory insurance and/or competency testing, like it or not. Even so, I think it is up to all of us with experience to assume positive intent whenever we see a newcomer starting out (be that in person or online) and offer help politely and without any hostility; if we don't we might encourage that person to fly in an even less suitable manner or location. Remember, we were all newcomers once, and we all made plenty of mistakes whilst we were learning - even the club safety officer... Edited By MattyB on 11/09/2015 13:47:55

Apparently this is just the way it works - AGM/EGM minutes are ratified by the Exec Committee first prior to publication (but interestingly not by Full Council; there is no mention of the EGM result or NFC on the Full Council agenda for Sept 12th). Nothing wrong with that I suppose, though most businesses nowadays would review minutes virtually in order to speed up the process. I was however a bit surprised they had not met much sooner following the EGM, such was the emphasis made on moving quickly in the run-up - I would have thought there was lots to discuss and agree re: next steps (potential site reviews, fundraising plans etc). Edited By MattyB on 10/09/2015 10:30:34

A quick FYI to those interested... I attended the South Midlands Area meeting last night where it was confirmed the EGM minutes will be ratified by the Exec Committee the day before the Full Council meeting on Sept 12th. The minutes will apparently then be published on the BMFA website shortly afterwards.

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 07/09/2015 12:35:53: Is there any official mention of this proposal?   Its only (as far as I know) being on this sole German web page ..... Yep, sadly  it all seems to be confirmed beyond any doubt - see here. Posted by Bob Cotsford on 07/09/2015 12:51:01: I guess it's only likely to be an issue for those of us still running the pre-2015 non-EU XJT module firmware. Then again, in practical terms it's not going to be an issue if you buy non-EU receivers sold outside the EU is it? From the wording, it would be ok to buy non-EU gear and load EU firmware if you are in Europe but equipment supplied for the EU market would have to have some inbuilt check that any new firmware loaded was EU compliant to stop you whacking the ROW firmware onto it. Maybe, maybe not. In theory you are correct, but given the FCC are likely to follow suit with similar legislation in the US it may be that for ease of manufacturing all future RXs and TXs have the "region lock" on them; from FrSky's perspective they probably don't want to maintain those controls on only a subset of RXs. Posted by Martyn K on 07/09/2015 11:56:48: Worrying, but sadly Inevitable. I have already bought the cables, however, I suspect that these may become redundant as this looks like we will be blocked from downgrading to earlier versions of firmware. Martyn Worth noting that this will not retrospectively apply to old kit, but it will affect users of pre-2015 ETSI regs TXs because they may not be able to buy new RXs without ditching their old V8 mkII and D8 RXs. Of course FrSky could choose to release an EU compatible D8 mode, but I personally think that is unlikely for commercial reasons - get behind the appeal here... Edited By MattyB on 07/09/2015 14:19:20

More fun and games are potentially on the horizon for FrSky users in the EU and US...   Extract from my original post on RCGroups: ...this time they are looking to require manufacturers to actively prevent users installing RF firmware that is not compliant with the regulations in their jurisdiction  see this Google translation of a German article. EDIT- For some reason that direct Google translate link directs you to the heise.de homepage instead of the article, so here is the direct link - you will need to manually input it into Google translate or similar for an English version. Implications as far as I can tell: Users will be able to download and install RF firmware updates to transmitting devices (i.e. TXs and telemetry RXs in our case), but the manufacturers will have to have taken reasonable measures to prevent them installing firmware from another jurisdiction/geography that may not comply with local regulations. This requirement will begin from June 2016 in the EU, and from a date tbc in the US; As a result some legacy TXs and RXs may end up as "orphans" - if past regulation changes are a guide, they suggest old kit can continue to be used legally under grandfather rules, but there may be problems operating old TXs with new RXs that have revised firmware (manufacturers will be prevented from releasing new firmwares for such combinations because they would not be compliant with the new regs). Conclusion - it could get very difficult, confusing and costly to ensure you can continue to buy RXs within your jurisdiction and remain in full compliance for the users of some current manufacturers (FrSky for one, and maybe others). :eek: Environmentally this looks fairly disasterous too - a lot of perfectly good kit could end up going to landfill.   All rather ugly... Thoughts from our RF experts? Edited By MattyB on 07/09/2015 11:14:02

Posted by Charlie Knill on 03/09/2015 20:10:29: Posted by kc on 02/09/2015 12:09:54: I think Charlie is one of the newer members of my club and I have a set of digital luggage scales verified by the Essex CC weights and measures Dept! ( you dont need to send off the scales, here in Essex they came round to my house by appointment - good service ) But that's not really the point - it's just important to have a plane that satisfies the BMFA Examiner on the day. Whether the Glasair also has a Rx that has some aids that prevent it being suitable for the A test is the question. Presumably just replacing the Rx with a normal Spektrum Rx would solve the problem. What a small world! At some point I will discuss with Pete about disabling of the gyro stabilization on my plane! Based on the online instructions I don't think there is any question the stock model is suitable for the test - the "Virtual Instructor" can apparently be disabled, but not the 2 axis gyro so it still doesn't comply. Probably all it will take is a new RX, but don't do that straight before the test - do it now whilst you are practising, otherwise you will not be ready when test time comes. Edited By MattyB on 03/09/2015 22:44:35

I have had a couple of good days of soaring in Tintagel - easy landings on a nice flat top, and the shape of the coastline allows a bit of flexibility if the wind changes. Not an "official" site, but I was never questioned. Edited By MattyB on 28/08/2015 22:29:21

RBAR is certainly very exciting, but I wonder if this event will be affected next year by the investigation into the Hunter crash - even if the CAA do not clamp down on aerobatic monoplanes, I can see the insurers hiking their premiums significantly for an event of this type. The public and media perception of the dangers of airshows may also work against it. Edited By MattyB on 28/08/2015 14:33:14

Guys guys, danger danger - make sure you clear your browser history, you do not want your other half finding this thread!!!

Maybe it bought new wings and a tail from Hobbyking...

No need to buy the unobtainium and no doubt overpriced motor from Ripmax; just uninstall it, measure up and order and equivalent brushless from another supplier. Having looked at the Dragonfly/HK Skipper thead on RCGroups no-one seems absolutely certain on the Kv of the stock motor; one guy estimates it at 1500-1800Kv. Many are fitting a 2200Kv park jet style motor instead though, but check the amps on your wattmeter and reprop/upgrade the ESC as necessary. Alternatively they also sell motor shafts too. Edited By MattyB on 26/08/2015 01:21:17

Yes, absolutely fine - my old one had HS-81s or 82s (can't remember which) back in the 90s, and it experienced no issues. Phase 6s are pretty slow, so servo loads are relatively low, especially compared to a modern moldie. Edited By MattyB on 25/08/2015 21:33:53