MattyB

On R/e on the flat I always prefer a traditional cruciform tail, as they are easier to build and trim. On the slope I like V’s as they are hardier against slope abuse and you generally don’t need the rudder that much. Even so, the aerodynamic “advantages” of V’s are largely theoretical imo, especially at model sizes.

It’s not just in towns it’s everywhere there used to be a 30 across the whole Welsh nation!

Is that charging in the TX, or via your charger?

Yeah, I have heard about that, and frankly couldn't believe that any club would do so but there you go. Presumably they had forgotten the days when we all used 35MHz and you could always use pretty much any TX and RX together, bar the single/dual conversion bit.

If it is setup similar to @Peter Jenkins pack described above with a PCB charge board under the heatshrink, you'd think it would do. For the money Spek are charging for these I'd certainly expect that!

99% of motors at the value end of the market are rebadged. I wouldn't criticise Overlander per-se for doing that, as they aren't being enough to be designing and manufacturing themselves. Just be aware that unless you are buying a higher end motor like a Hacker or Axi, it's highly likely the product you are purchasing is a rebadged one that you can get cheaper from the likes of AliExpress, but without the UK support. You pays your money, etc.

Read the instructions first Ernie. They aren't the easiest to understand, but as far as I can tell you do need to configure the lithium batt type first from "User set program". Don't start charging without conducting this step, or you could overcharge the pack. And definitely check the starting voltage before you begin, as that will be a good indicator of the cell chemistry (I am guessing it is going to be 3.6-3.7V/cell, but lets see).

Yep, it's all there in the manual, seems pretty clear to me... Choose the nominal cell voltage for your pack from "User set program" (in green below), then go back and initiate the charge via "Program select LiXX Batt" (in purple): http://manuals.promodels.be/Plus Power 80 manual_ENG.pdf

What is the model number of the pack? The one I linked above is a lipo ewith a nominal voltage of 7.4V; that model number is SPMB4000LPTX. You can see it printed in the pic:

Well aware of that, I was just pointing out that Spektrum's version of inflation seems to be more extreme than most of the other manufacturers of RC gear. It is unfortunate for those who bought into this ecosystem when it was far more affordable, as now they are pretty much operating at Jeti/Core levels of pricing, except the quality of the TXs is not the same.

PS - Want a laugh? Check out how much Spektrum charge for a 2S 4000 Lipo pack these days...! https://wheelspinmodels.co.uk/i/80400/

What is the nominal voltage of the pack? If you can charge it to 4.2V/cell, then it's safe to use the standard lipo programme. If its an LiFePo4, lithium iron phosphate pack (as@Phil Green notes) then you'll need to use the appropriate programme as they are only charged to 3.6-3.7V/cell. Simplest answer - please post links to the your charger and the battery pack in question then we can answer with more confidence.

Yes, all that info is in the RCG thread linked above. Simply search the thread for the model name of the PSU you have/are intending to buy, and the instructions will pop up if they are there. There's also lots of conversion videos on Youtube; again just do a search with the PSU name.

Having taken a look at that piece of research, at first glance it does seem logical and pretty well done for the scenario it is modelling. For instance, they point that it's the accelerating in stop start conditions that is the really polluting bit, so any model that evaluates pollution at (say) a constant 30mph versus a constant 20mph is likely to paint an incorrect picture because there is more time spent accelerating with a higher speed limit. In these stop start conditions it also points out the average speeds achieved and journey time figures are only very minimally affected with lowered limits, something I suspect all of us would agree with. However, I do see a major flaw in applying this research to the Welsh example. That study was done for Future Transport London (not sure exactly who they are, but probably a UK Gov quango), and was focussed on simulating the effect of changes on urban traffic in London. Yes, they did a lot of work to validate their models with real data for that scenario, but the scenario itself really isn't that applicable to the majority of welsh 30 zones IMO. Of course there will be areas of stop start urban conditions in the cities and larger towns, but a far higher percentage of the (now historic) 30 limits were in uncongested rural areas where speeds can be far more constant with minimal acceleration and braking. The effect on journey time and average speed of a drop to 20 limits will also be more significant in these spots. In that light, any improvement to air quality from a 20 zone does appear far less likely, a fact that the Welsh pilot study I linked to earlier seemed to validate. Ultimately though, none of the above really matters at this point. The limit is here to stay now, unless it proves so unpopular that the main parties in Wales come to believe that overturning the change is a vote winner at the next GE in 2024. Until then, our welsh friends will need to get used to driving rather slower.... 😉

Not a big fan of the commercial bench/charger supplies - I've had a couple, but they never seem to be that robust. I now utilise a dual server power supply, and that is absolutely rock solid. Lots of posts about that on this forum, here's one thread that should help... The definitive thread (including huge listings of usable server and PC PSUs) is over on RCGroups here... If you don't want to make your own, Coolice can sort you out with a ready to go version.

It seems like this semi-rant 😉 stunned everyone into silence! Apologies if that was the case, reading it back it does seem a little abrasive. Having said that, I do still believe that a range test was mandatory in your situation, a) to give you the best chance of a successful flight, and b) to fulfil your legal responsibilities as an operator. Given the work you had done it was effectively a new model from an RF perspective, so should have been treated as such by your instructor. Given he is presumably an experienced modeller, I can't understand why he would have skipped that step.

20mph speed limits - I humbly predict we’ll be able to add them to this list in fairly short order…

On the upside that speed bump does make a marvellous little raised area for a picket line. Out with the gilets jaunes...! 😉

This pic of proactive reinforcement of my Durafly Excalibur rear fuselage shows how it looks after a repair using the description above… https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=36865610&postcount=1686

Toto, based on the skills you have shown in your refit of the Arising Star you have nothing to worry about. Repairing in this instance is really this simple…. Put tailplane flat on bench, underside pointing up Cut 3x 2-3” sections of narrow carbon strip with a razor saw or similar Take a ruler and cut three slots in the foam going across the split the same length as the carbon (see diagram in the other thread for suggested location, but in all honesty it doesn’t matter that much if you get enough in there) Push the carbon into the slits until the top edge sits at the same height as the bottom of the foam Wick in some thin cyano and leave to dry Refit tailplane and reconnect elevator Check elevator actuation, then go and fly! The whole repair should take 15 mins, and that includes starting by getting a brew on…! 😉😂

Oh, hello… @Nigel R, if you are struggling to sleep later tonight, I think I’ve found you a cure…! https://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/CPC_Speed_Band_17092019_v2.pdf

It’s nowhere near as comprehensive as you are requesting, but the Welsh government’s results from pilot areas where they tried this does make interesting reading. Most of it is a case study in choosing metrics very carefully to support the change you’ve already decided to make 😉, but interestingly they were not able to demonstrate any improvement in air quality in these zones at all. https://tfw.wales/sites/default/files/2023-03/Phase-1-20mph-Interim-Monitoring-Report_Final-publish-17-March.pdf

The quickest way to get that elevator repairable is to repair it - as we noted in the original thread, all it would take is a few short length of carbon strip, some thin CA and 5-10 mins of time. There is absolutely no need to build a new tailplane, that is complete overkill given the damage you have. This type of repair is done all the time and results in a stronger result than it was originally.

Looks like you wil get away without any nerves for the last quarter. How is Eddie going to explain this away as someone else’s fault?!! 🤣

They’re doing that, and the Aussies are rocking. Will that missed chance just before HT cost them though? They really should be 15 up…