The Wright Stuff

Posted by Keith Simmons on 28/01/2019 15:29:50: It's illegal in Germany to have a swastika on any models and I wonder in say another 100 years in the future, will it still be the case? I get the impression that things are already changing. It'll be less than 100 years...

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 26/01/2019 10:10:50: A sensitive subject, yes, but one that is clearly of interest, although I'm wondering if some are delving a bit too deeply into the pyschology of it. After all, it's a fairly simple question, isn't it? Well, some of us haven't seen the question. But it strikes me as two separate interpretations of the question: 1) whether the modeller is internally comfortable with it, or 2) whether they worry about offending others. So, I don't think it's a such simple question.

Just to get back on topic, I agree wholeheartedly with David: acceptable, yes, but distinct from other markings. If I may broaden the topic slightly? Lots of other examples of historical accuracy versus sensitive subjects. Is it degrading to paint naked women on the noses of model B-17s?

Posted by Stearman65 on 25/01/2019 15:22:11: Posted by David Mellor on 25/01/2019 15:01:57: It isn't off topic. To that extent I think I probably disagree slightly when the OP says "applying a swastika is no different to ensuring that other details are represented as accurately as possible". I think it is the one scale detail that is perhaps a little different to all the others. I didn't say that! That's why I think the thread is way off topic, people are getting confused. But you're not the O.P.

Is it illegal to show a mirror image in Germany? Just curious...

Posted by Cliff Bastow on 16/01/2019 16:18:38: This is all very interesting, but I am not sure how relevant it is to my question? That is why have some of my settings become reversed when copying from my tx memory to an SD card? I would think a copy ought to be the same? Everything else such as rates etc seem to be the same. Well, I think we have established and agreed that the differentiator is whether the channel was 'reversed' or 'normal' in the tx memory. Thus although it doesn't actually answer the question 'why', it does at least take away the mystery or the apparent randomness of it. As to 'why'? Well, because someone working at Futaba decided to do it that way. We can only speculate regarding their logic, hence the inevitable differences of opinion. It's sufficiently on topic. It's civilised. I see no problem! jrman, I wasn't implying that any convention was universal, merely that manufacturers had their convention, and thus the definitions of 'normal' and 'reversed' are historical in origin. While there were certainly manufacturers that offered opposite servos, I think this was the exception rather than the norm. there is a nice description in this earlier thread.

Surely the most satisfying approach would be simply to enter the bank details provided into one of the 'my uncle died and I need to pay $90,000 into your bank account' scams, and sit back as the two scammers try to scam each other...

Posted by jrman on 16/01/2019 13:13:50: There are no "conventional" or "normal" orientations of servo mounting. If you decide to connect the moving surface to one side of the servo arm or the other side (i.e. @ 180 deg.) you may have to reverse the servo direction in order to get correct surface direction. No manufacturer can forecast ( guess) which side you will use. This is only true because we DO NOW HAVE the option to reverse the servo direction at the transmitter. Hence the designer or builder pays no regard to convention. Before the option to reverse at the transmitter became widely available (admittedly a few generations ago now), then there would have been a convention, and one would be wise to follow it...

Do the controls that come out reversed happen to be ones that were reversed in servo direction to start with? Think we need a bit more to go on, Cliff!

Can't argue with that! David, are you scaling manually with pencil and ruler, or photocopying to enlarge?

Posted by Chris Walby on 15/01/2019 12:52:02: Will the Warbird have sufficient control surface area especially at low air speeds to maintain control, could it make landing much worse by waggling the ailerons when you normally just use the rudder and elevator on finals? Hence inducing tip stall? Point taken, but I assume that by intervening much sooner than a human pilot would be able to react, the required deflection to correct would be much smaller...

Posted by supertigrefan on 15/01/2019 11:50:43: Posted by john stones 1 on 15/01/2019 11:44:19: Glad you're sorted Stearman, pay n go phone myself, so I agree with your point, if people can take my order via e mail, they can update any issues via e mail. They spot the order quick enough, why not a query. Hobbyking take orders by email but that didn't stop him bombarding them with endless phone calls.....where's the difference? Do we care what the difference is? It's off topic, whatever the answer. I do agree with you on one point, though, which is being fair to the trader. Please may I respectfully request that a mod changes the thread title, now that a response HAS been received?

While I agree that ringing them is what many of us would choose to do next, me included, it isn't always convenient. That suggestion was made in the second post. The OP can either accept the advice or not. I see no need for the subsequent sarcasm. This is supposed to be the friendly forum!

I have seen latent servo motion in some of my older planes (thankfully picked up in the pre-flight check). I swapped out the servos and it went away. Latent action on the ground (at zero range) is pretty definitely not a loss of radio signal, though in your case I guess it's not quite so easy to make this distinction. Draw your own conclusions, but likely to be either the servo feedback pot dirty or worn, or dodgy connections. I have never seen the issue with new servos.

Posted by supertigrefan on 09/01/2019 12:46:40: Asking a mod to close a thread because you're bored with reading other peoples' comments isn't a view, it's a request to prevent others from expressing their views. That sounds more like oppression to me... That's not quite what I said. I was pointing out that the existence of pointless threads detracts from other, more useful threads. I'm thinking of the overall legacy of this forum as a source of information, inspiration and a record of achievement. Asking a mod to close a thread isn't problem in itself, as long as it's polite, and in any case (as has happened here), the mod always has the right to politely decline to do so. I can think of many examples where the mod has obliged (with gratitude for bringing it to their attention).

The point is that I (along with others) suspect that most members of the public will, along with us, continue to distinguish between a multicopter (drone) and a model aeroplane (toy plane), even if the CAA does not make that same distinction. ...in much the same way that people call a Panasonic vacuum cleaner a 'Hoover'...

Posted by supertigrefan on 09/01/2019 11:40:28: Posted by Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 08/01/2019 23:50:49: Clearly the only way forward is to ban everything that isn't an under-powered diesel single channel cabin monoplane made from tissue and balsa and designed in the 60s. So bored with these threads now. They're just an excuse for forumites to shout uninformed pompous certainties at each other. Will a mod please lock this thread? You guys must be sick of policing threads like these. Edited By Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 08/01/2019 23:51:58 Lock it because you're bored with reading it? What next? How about adding something to the question rather than trying to police the thread to your own satisfaction? Doesn't the 'right to express a view' include the possibility that the view in question is that 'this thread is currently detracting from the overall quality of the modelflying forum'?

Posted by oldgit on 07/01/2019 22:38:11: just wondering if it would be a good idea to ban drones quadcopters from our club to avoid unwanted interest from the authorities in light of the recent announcements I would say that the most neutral and emotionless answer to that question would be: "...only if there is sufficient evidence that banning quadcopters would indeed promise to offer other model flying enthusiasts a more assured future..." I don't see any such evidence in the discussion so far. I don't see 'drone fliers' as any lesser mortals than traditional aeromodellers. However, we have to be pragmatic, too. No point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater if the worst does come to the worst...

Little to say that's not already been said. I didn't see this coming at all! My thoughts are with Dave's family and friends. I will miss debating the finer points of aerodynamics, taunting him via his dislike of 'stall speed', and my all time favourite: whether a 747 on a conveyor belt is able to take off! I won't pretend that we never disagreed, but I like to think we disagreed respectfully. Rest and fly in peace!

Any idea how stiff the valve is? If you double the throw, you'll half the torque of the servo. I think this might be a big ask for a mini servo.

Peter makes a good point, which refers to a question I asked earlier in the thread. Whether to calculate cost per flight, cost per minute of flight, or cost per flying session? Personally, I find that although my I.C. flights tend to last maybe 2 to 3 times longer than my electric flights, I don't fly 2 to 3 times more flights in the session. Therefore for me, cost per flight is the best metric. Others might differ.

To be fair, I made it clear that my numbers were based on new and not second hand. Totally agree with the sentiment that any difference in cost is largely irrelevant in terms of choice. I fly both. Cost does not influence my behaviour at all. However, the O.P. posed a question, and I see no harm in exploring the answer, even if it is somewhat academic.

Chaps, I don't doubt that if you choose the cheapest possible I.C. route with sellotape and and second hand parts, you can arrive at the conclusion that electric is not cheaper. That seems to be the aim amongst you here. You could equally well use second hand electric motors from crashed ARTFs. A £3 ebay LiPo charger. Come on. Compare apples with apples!

Thanks Bob. Point taken about relative sizes. I'm thinking along the lines of a 50" sports model, but I would say a low end 40 would be equivalent to a high C 3S supply, but happy to accept it could also be 4S territory. Of course, there are 'nice to haves' for both I.C. and electric. To balance your post, there are on-board glows, 4-strokes, 20% nitro, rev counters, noise meters, tuned exhausts and all sorts. But in this one example, I was thinking about the minimum required to get a new model into the air... Agree with Percy about >50 flights. I just used Jon's comments from page 3 of this thread to arrive at a 'worst case' scenario...If you get more than 50 flights, electric becomes even cheaper!!!

I should have said, the costs came from Google and are for NEW items, of 'middle of the road' quality. I'm more than happy to re-work the numbers with new figures if I got anything wrong! Surely a healthy discussion based on actual numbers is a constructive way to answer the question in as much as it can be answered!