Jump to content

MattyB

Members
  • Posts

    3355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by MattyB

  1. What is the Russian one bottom right of the photo? Yak-15 or 17, or something else?
  2. Was it damaged? Difficult to tell from the ending, but looked a fairly innocuous nose over?
  3. They were saying exactly the same thing in Feb with an April 1st target date… ?
  4. I suspect the key difference is in where the two companies are incorporated. Motion are an EU company (based in the Netherlands to be precise), whilst Hobbyking are a Chinese entity - they have never setup companies in any other countries. That in itself doesn’t make it impossible for them to address this issue, but it does mean the solution is likely to be quite different to that used by an EU entity importing to the UK. Alternatively it could just be that HK, are a bit rubbish at admin, and/or are trying to implement a method that bends the tax rules to their advantage…
  5. You are probably right; indeed I will be buying this months for the first time in a few years for the Gyroo plan. Howevert, as the number of modellers who enjoy and have the skills to build from plans diminishes in the coming years will that hold true for much longer? I have my doubts...
  6. Youshould update the title of your post to "VQ Tiger Moth for sale" and add your location, otherwise you're likely to get very little interest.
  7. Update I received from HK CS earlier this week regarding the fact that the EU warehouse has now completely disappeared as an option for UK buyers... "Yes, currently we can not ship to the Uk from the EU WH, but we have not given up trying to get things in order to open up that option for UK customers once more - it is still being pursued. We really hope we can open up to the UK once more from the EU as the UK is an important market for HK and we know there are still many customers there keen to order." No details of what the issue is or timeline though, so I am not overly hopeful - the legislation changed in January so they are certainly taking their time about effecting a fix...
  8. Looked at this again last night. It was a good catch by @Dave Garrett 1 and might have been tricky to fix later once turtle decks were on. Screwing the mount on I carefully tightened all four bolts evenly, and was able to draw in the captive nuts sufficiently (along with som accompanying scruncking sounds...!). I then added a smidgeon of CA to complete the job. Final result looks fine, but would have been easier to do before I had assembled the fuselage - I'm showing the rustiness in my building skills a bit there! Next up I'm changing plan and doing the battery hatch as (reading ahead in the instructions) it's clear fitting the magnets will be easier before the turtle decks are not in place. Hopefully should get that and the majority of the fuselage finished tonight so I can move onto tail feathers or wings.
  9. If it can be avoided then I don’t do it, but I have at least 3 or 4 aircraft where connecting everything up from behind is just not practical. In the main these are undercarriage-free e-gliders which are actually very safe (as long as you assemble on the ground the prop has no clearance to turn), but my HK parkflyer Spad has a battery inserted and connected directly through the prop arc. The worst is the Sebart Miss Wind; it has a ridiculous design where the battery hatch was secured by a tiny screw about 5mm behind the prop arc (since replaced with magnets), on a model with ~1.3Kw of power! It does also happen to have a physical throttle isolation switch on the ESC though. Anyway, some won’t like it but in all these cases I use multi layered software throttle cuts as my primary safeguard. These make it essentially impossible to accidentally activate the throttle, requiring at least three preconditions (i.e stick at zero, flight mode switch to take off, throttle cut inhibited) and often more to be met before arming the motor. However, in some instances like the Miss Wind I go further and use an unknockable safety switch that requires a sequence of moves within a given timeframe to arm the model (in addition to the correct flight mode, throttle position etc.): That is only possible because I use a TX with extensive capabilities based on logical switches though. Anyway, using these methods I’ve never had an involuntary startup in ~15 years of flying electric models. Because of these multi layered safety measures in my TX setups I don’t tend to use physical isolation methods as a) they require you to spend more time in direct proximity to a live model after connecting the battery, and b) compared to software setups on the TX I know I personally would be more likely to make a mistake using a physical plug. However I accept those with less capable TXs may prefer those methods. Could my systems fail in an unexpected way (such as a total uncommanded wipe of the setup)? Yes, I suppose they could, but since I’ve never seen that happen in 35 years of flying I’m pretty comfortable it’s a lot less likely than me forgetting to remove a physical isolation plug at the end of a flight! IMO arguing the merits of one approach versus another is essentially irrelevant - both approaches can work well, or even be used together. The only absolute is deciding on the methods that work for you and applying them consistently to every model every time you fly.
  10. I don't really do IC so am no expert, but suspect you would be better choosing a kit designed for IC - the front end would need quite a lot of mods to accomodate the engine and fuel lines. I suspect it would be easier to just start with a Cambrian kit if glow is your power choice. Also a 10 might be a bit marginal on power, a 15 (with around ~300W) is probably a better match.
  11. Yes, you are right they are not in that far, my concern was that the ply there is quite thin and I was worried if tapped fully home thy might come through to the other side, weakening the firewall. Tightening the mount to the other side will be done before I sheet that area in, and I will add some cyano to the back at that point - good tip.
  12. Looking forward to picking up a copy of RCM&E and grabbing the bits from Coolwinds, though in reality this is more likely to be a winter build (other projects are in front of it in the queue).
  13. Can you not add some downthrust, or maybe pack up the TE of the wing a tad? Nothing wrong with throttle to elevator mixing per se, but if the tendency to climb under throttle is as pronounced as you say it would be better to reduce that substantially through a combination of thrustline and decalage, then fine tune with a mix.
  14. That is next up after the stringers and turtle decks, I’ll tell you once it’s done - thanks for the tip off!
  15. It’s a more complex process, but if you want minimum weight and a really good finish you need to be looking at vacuum bagging. It initially seems intimidating but I have a simple setup using a fish tank pump that I’ve used a few times with success - the only difficult bit is getting the Mylars in the right place. It’s scary when you unpack your first part, but the finish is far far better than you can achieve without the bag, with the added bonus you don’t need to use those nasty two pack paints. Pics from my Limit EX build of many years ago… https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=20873214&postcount=232 https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=21050310&postcount=252 Of course you are welcome to borrow my setup if you’d like to Allan.
  16. Sorry to be a pedant, but “density here” seems to have snuck into your pdf… ??
  17. When this thread started I didn’t, but in a bizarre coincidence I inherited one from a distant relative this very week! Weird. Is there a secret password for the Bahco club?!
  18. A few more photos of progress. All fairly straightforward; my only change vs the instructions was the use of aliphatic on the balsa sides in a few places. I did this as a) I thought it might make the final surface prep prior to covering slightly easier, and b) I had already stuck my fingers to both the model and the CA bottle in this session, and couldn't be bothered to do it again...! Next up - rear stringers followed by turtle decks upfront (which will be a mod, I just want that forward fuselage to look a bit smoother and more scale like).
  19. We have been over this (many times) before, as have the BMFA who suggested multiple variants of these options over a period of multiple years. At the end of the day this is not about current state where registered pilots just have to put a number on the side of the model - it is a documented intent of the government to bring in electronic conspicuity (remote ID) so that enforcement can be carried out in real time by any officer on the beat. The national associations (remember this is not just BMFA members who would need to be registered) all have membership numbers in different formats, none of them include a checksum for validity checking, and all have their own separate databases. Those factors are entirely incompatible with a system that needs to be able to handle real time automated queries in seconds from a mobile device. As an IT and information security professional I can tell you that setting up and maintaining all those integrations would be a nightmare; you would be baking in lots of additional cost and complexity doing the configuration and testing required to get everything working to keep it operational. There is also the question of who would be responsible (in practical terms for troubleshooting and legal terms for enforcement) if one of those integrations fail and queries cannot be made, rendering enforcement impossible - the BMFA? LMA? CAA? As a result they have chosen the simpler technical solution of government owning the system and all the data within it, exactly as with every other national ID/registration scheme I can think of. Yes, we have to pay £10 for that, but if the national association dbases had been used the costs of creating and maintainig all the integration and testing would almost certainly have exceeded that (remember it needs to be robust and resilient enough to stand up under scrutiny in court).
  20. I'm confused as to why it is you believe members of this forum owe you a "satisfactory answer"? It's not forumites views that are important; it's those of the authorities in their various forms (UK Government, EASA, CAA etc). Why are you posing these questions to us instead of your local MP, or asking the national associations what you can do to support them? As I explained earlier in this thread, the government/CAA position (as published in many, many documents in the last 5-6 years and discussed at length in the Science and Technology Select Committee in 2019) is that registration is a foundational control for the integration of large numbers of recreational and commercial SUAS in low level airspace. The reason governments are interested in this now is because they think (or more accurately have been told by big 4 consultantancy firms, Amazon and the logistics companies) that opening the door to increased commercial use will bring in tax £££s and jobs to the country. * By "foundational control" they mean something that enables other more specific controls (such as remote ID and more simplified enforcement) to be implemented. Whether you agree with that or not, it is their position, and despite extensive efforts from the model fliers and the national associations over the last 5 years no alternative to registration could be found that the government believed was as effective. As a result it is now a legal requirement, and if you want to overturn that you are going to have to come up with something a lot more credible than "What good is registration doing for model fliers?" - this was never about protecting our rights, it is all about future tax receipts. If you do have a credible idea then great - take it to the BMFA and/or the government in some form, but please spare us the rants about a £1 increase here. I wouldn't expect too much though given Dave Phipps and his team investigated literally every possible option and never found anything governement would accept. No other country has rejected registration either once it was put forward, or rolled it back after implementation (at least not as far as I am aware).
  21. Completely agree. The only people you are going to get interested in a "job lot" like that are the (semi-)professional eBay traders who won't know what indivudal items are worth and will not want to risk overpaying for stuff they might not sell. If you want this to go to modellers who will value and fly these models in future you will have to accept doing a bit more legwork I think...
  22. I love my coloured Wera ones that get used on the bikes and models alike - they do Torx sets too. Not cheap but really good quality for hobby use... https://www.toolstation.com/search?q=wera hex
  23. It could cause a loss of control (due to the RX and servos not being sufficiently powered), but I can’t see how the bind could be lost - re-establish the power and it should reconnect. If the bind is being lost something else is likely the culprit, though the only system I’ve seen that happen on tbh is Spektrum (sorry, not a dig, just my experience).
  24. I can't tell you anything specific, other than I saw one fly once way back in the day and it was very nice. Graceful and elegant rather than an all action powerhouse, the owner flew it in the manner of the Fournier demos that were commonplace at airshows in the 80s. Well worth reconditioning I would say, but defintely stick with the four stroke or convert it to electric; a buzzy two stroke would spoil the effect IMO.
  25. To be fair to VMC I don't think many of their audience will be converting these to glow, and that is where I can see having a plan would really help. If you are building stock for electric power the absence of a plan is much less of an issue - that's certainly my feeling from the couple of evenings building I've done on the Spitfire. PS - Best way to get direct engagement with VMC is via their Facebook group (if you do FB)... I will post a link to this thread there.
×
×
  • Create New...