Dickw

If anyone wants to know more about dynamic soaring, how these speeds are achieved, and the technology involved, there is an excellent you tube video of a talk given by the world record holder Spencer Lisenby. It is an hour long but completely fascinating and I have watched it several times. Dick

Long and hot but enjoyable day flying GPS Triangles with a group of fellow enthusiasts. A shelter was needed to keep me and the models (mainly the electronics) cool. Black/orange 4.7m span plane is a Chili from Valenta models for the GPS Sport Class, and the white/orange 3.9m span is a Prestige 2pk from Samba models for the GPS Light Class. The windsock shows a welcome breeze to help keep us cool. Dick

Actually perhaps I should come back on that to avoid a wrong impression and add that it isn't that complicated and anybody could do it without using a computer. All I did was re-arrange your own calculations a bit. In the still air condition, if 100 feet of height loss gives 4000 feet glide distance, then it follows that travelling only 1000 feet would be the result of 25 feet of height loss. Applying the same pro-rata calculations to your headwind and tailwind calculations shows that if you fly downwind 1000 feet then turn and go back upwind 1000 feet the heavy model would arrive back home 11 feet higher and 40 seconds earlier than the light model. You are correct that a lot of "common sense" assumptions are sometimes misleading and reality can be different, so sometimes it is good to add in a bit of simple maths 👍. Dick

I would have thought that the main driver behind RID and/or designated sites was to allow autonomous drones (commercial or otherwise) to fly across the country without hitting unexpected model aircraft or other autonomous drones. They can be programmed to avoid designated sites, or can detect and avoid other flying machines with RID. I don't think nuisance flying or cameras is any part of the driver for the legislation, although it may be a side benefit for politicians 🙂. Dick

For a transmitter based "kill switch" I use a switch with a locking lever so it cannot just be knocked off. This is the Jeti one for illustration, but other brands are available! https://www.jetimodel.com/katalog/dc-vymenitelny-prepinac-tx-2-zamek.htm Some transmitters allow you to program the throttle so that the throttle does not work when the kill switch is released unless the throttle is first put to zero. When using a separate Rx battery the simplest system I use is to not connect the motor battery until you are ready to fly. You can turn on the Rx and check everything out, and then when you are ready connect the motor battery as the final operation. I have also used an external plug system to make that final connection of the motor battery. If none of those appeal, it may be possible to put a small switch in the Rx to ESC line but a lot here would depend on the functionality of the ESC and what it expects to see on that signal line. It would probably be better to connect the signal line to ground rather than just leave it open as an "un-commanded" ESC is perhaps more of a risk. I am with others here who have advised that once the battery is connected treat a motor as if it were actually running. Dick

That all looks quite reasonable. If you now add in a calculation of "height loss per 1000ft ground covered" you start to see why flying a defined ground based course favours the heavier models. Dick

You have already had a reasonable wiring diagram for two receiver battery packs if that is what you want, however, I am unclear from your post if that is actually your question. You mention buying a motor and ESC so I assume this is an electric powered plane, in which case the "two battery packs" could just mean the motor battery and the receiver battery rather than two receiver battery packs. Can you clarify which it is please? Also, what do you mean by a "kill switch"? More information could lead to alternative answers. Dick

It is interesting that in 'GPS Triangle Racing' the trend is to use as much ballast as possible/allowed. The plane I am currently using for GPS "Light Class" is available in different layups for F3J, F5J and GPS, and it is noticeable that the GPS version has the heaviest RTF weight on the manufacturers website. Ballast is then added to get to the max allowed weight! Given that the objective of the GPS Triangle Racing is to fly the most times round a virtual triangular course in the allotted time it does seem obvious that the heavier model will benefit by being able to fly the course faster. However, since the allotted times are 20 minutes for the Light Class and 30 minutes for the larger Sports Class, the ability to stay in the air using any available lift is also a major requirement. Here again that is helped by the ability to fly through the sink and get to lift again as quickly as possible. My other gliding interest is F5B - again a competition where high speed distance covering is as important as the ability to use lift. It always surprises me how good a slippery 1.5Kg 2m span moulded glider can be at using lift. Obviously a similar size glider at 500gm will out-soar it in the lowest lift conditions, but in this windy country I am happy with my high wing loadings. A fascinating subject, and weight is definitely not always something to be avoided. Dick

I suspect EB has been influenced by a discussion in an earlier thread where I posted a photo of a system that has worked reliably for me in a number of high performance gliders over more than a decade. The attached photo is of a small volume but commercially produced glider (Speedfire 2) with the flaps down about 80 degrees. The glider at 2m span is too small for a completely internal linkage, so the system chosen is a compromise offering minimum drag. If done properly it is fine. Dick

I sometimes fly at a friendly farmers private microlight strip with a few other guys including the farmer who is also an aeromodeller. While he is happy for us to fly with him (as long as we have BMFA membership/insurance), I doubt he would want his field included in a list of approved model flying sites. That being the case I will probably end up fitting RID units to the planes I fly there. As it is an active airstrip it is probably already on another list of locations that commercial drones would need to avoid. Dick

It would be great if this worked out, but playing Devil's Advocate for the moment : - Isn't the point of having identified flying sites to allow commercial drones avoid them? I can't see them agreeing to avoid the whole of the UK 🙂. Dick

A modified Warbird Replicas Spitfire kit based on the plane I was lucky enough to have a flight in, so I suppose I should claim that is me in the back seat. Dick

Karate 🥋

My McAfee anti virus subscription has been expiring "tomorrow" for several months, and I don't even have a subscription. Similarly, I am about to lose access to all my online data on sites I don't use I get several reminders a day for both of them. Dick

Not if you use the "bone conduction" type of headphones, or the "clip on" type of earpiece. We do it all the time in GPS triangle racing where it is essential to hear both your own telemetry information and what the other pilots are saying when you have half a dozen large gliders in the same thermal. Dick