Chris Anthony

Don't worry Erf, I actually failed to DL the PC software for the TX myself as well. So I haven't touched the PC software at all, I've just got the TX working through navigation of the TX menu screens. Haha, I'll check when I get home BEB. From what I can remember, it's not a signal flow diagram, but I could be wrong. What I can see in my head is a "family tree" type diagram, showing on-screen menu architecture. Can confirm in a bit. Edited By Chris Anthony on 13/05/2014 16:44:16

You kind of have the wrong end of the stick Erf, there is a menu structure, but it is not conventional, it is not as restrictive as other TXs. Rather than try to explain this any more, I will try to edit this post and add in a very good diagram of the Taranis menu structure from one of the instruction manuals. I have the link for the manual stored as a favourite on my home pc, I can do it later tonight. Unless Chris Bott beats me to it, I think it's from the manual that he linked me to once upon a time.. Edited By Chris Anthony on 13/05/2014 16:12:54

Posted by FilmBuff on 13/05/2014 13:03:16: Posted by The Wright Stuff on 13/05/2014 12:52:52: Thanks BEB, a very useful overview. My only query is whether you would recommend this approach to a beginner in model flying. I wonder whether I would have had the discipline to keep things simple, and explore and understand my models behaviour incrementally, rather than leaping straight into mixing everything with everything else, just because I could! No! As said in my comments above, I've only had the Taranis about a month. To expand, I'd only been flying RC planes for around a month before getting my Taranis, this was when I used basic Park Fly TXs. I'd say that makes me new enough to the hobby to answer Ian Wright's question from personal experience. And it is as Andy Butler says very well "you use the features you need and research others if you need them". This applies just as well to the Taranis as any other radio, and indeed anything technical in life, in my experience. I would have had the same temptation to explore mixing etc on any other type of radio, should I have got another type, it is not a temptation that is created exclusively by the Taranis. But the benefit of the Taranis seems to be that it is easier to achieve what you want once you "give in to the temptation" and pursue technical advancement. And to again stress what I said in my first post "this is all optional"! Edited By Chris Anthony on 13/05/2014 14:48:14

Wouldn't warnings on the box/in the instructions of the product inform the buyer/user simply enough?

Thanks for the write-up Flanker. That's an interesting approach to aircraft control; trimming elevator for speed and then controlling any consequential height gain/loss with power. I understand it, and will try to think more along these lines when practising my approaches in the future. Is this the way they teach you flying in the real/non-RC world? As to how this approach translates to my problem. What I would find is that if I added in up-elevator to try and reduce my forward speed to an acceptable level, I would not be able to reduce the thrust created by the engine/prop to stop ascending/begin descending. And so, I would have to set a new attitude again, lessening AoA, having to deal with what I considered to be 'more forward speed than I needed' to stay airborne, until the aircraft would descend enough to land. However, I'm pleased to say that I have progressed with the acrowot since typing up my previous comments a few days ago. I've got the CG nailed and so feel much more confident flying with full throttle and playing about with my airbrake mixes in the air etc. I've sacked off the 11x4 prop as it wasn't really helping to slow my approach speeds as much as I wanted. So I'm back on the 11x7 prop and loving it. My landings seem controlled enough for me by using the airbrake mixes when I need them. I reckon a couple of weeks like this and I'll be looking to move onto a different engine as Paul suggested previously, think I'll go for a 4-stroke next.

Thanks for that practical advice Jon - very useful. The fragility of retracts is something that, as you said, I had not even considered. I'll begin landing training on my acrowot with this in mind. If you don't mind, I have a few questions based on what you said: 1. What kind of mixing are you referring to, with regards to elevators and flaps? Do you mean that some people might add in some down-elevator to accompany flap-deployment, to overcome the extra lift seen by them flying too fast? 2. Can you describe "the dreaded porpoise on approach" to me, this is something I am not familiar with.

For the benefit of others I will testify in defence of the Taranis, having owned one for just over a month or so now. In my case, this is my first real transmitter. I don't know if this is a help or a hindrance, but my experience with the TX has been nothing but positive. I was concerned about the level of knowledge that many people suggested I would need to make the TX work. For this reason, after finally buying one following much consideration, I set aside a full day to get to grips with it, with two large instruction manuals at my disposal. Within an hour I had programmed all 3 of my models into the TX, and then proceeded to go flying for the rest of the day. I probably got through just 6 pages of one of the +50 page manuals - that was all I needed to get airborne. It's good to know that there are heaps of options for me to progress through, and come up with complicated functions for things I don't even know about yet. In this respect, my imagination is the limit. But it's even better to know that this is all optional, and I can improve my technical understanding of the TX at my own pace, and still be able to fly with it in the mean time. Edited By Chris Anthony on 13/05/2014 11:28:25

Thanks chaps. I've got a spreadsheet with all the pro's and con's weighed up for each Spit model at the moment! Come pay day on the 28th I'm sure one of them will be on it's way to me. Which one it will be, I'll let you know when I know. In the mean time, how do you all imagine I will cope with a Spit after an Acrowot? Would anyone suggest any intermediate models that would help me transition between the two?

Thanks for adding this feature, I've used it already. Sometimes we as users don't know what we are missing until improvements are suggested amongst us. Nothing wrong with a bit of technology push.

Posted by Robin Kearney on 10/05/2014 17:30:50: Maybe it's just one bloke at the factory who missed the wood selection day in training

Hi Robin, that's encouraging to hear, thanks. If that works out to about 0.28kg, then that's pretty much the same amount of ballast as me. Did you find performance suffered much with the added mass? Take-off, aeros etc? Yes I had wondered why it seemed to need so much ballast, but am not experienced enough with model design to speculate.

Hi guys, I just went to try and adjust my carb's high-speed needle and it is pretty much stuck fast where it is. It's on an SC52 2s nitro, which I've only started around 5 times, and only gone through around 3 tanks of fuel on. First start up was only a few days ago, I got the engine new the Wednesday before last! It will move very slightly when you really exert yourself, but it never used to be like this, and it's impossible to turn more than 45 degrees either way. It feels like it's been glued, but I can't remember having any epoxy/cyano near it at all. Luckily it's set in a position where the engine currently runs OK. Is this a common problem many of you are familiar with?

I would find this useful too

Appreciate the reply Paul. I've limited throttle as I'm worried about over-revving the engine on such a fine prop. I'm not experienced enough to recognise when this may occur. Do you think this is likely to be a problem with a .52 on a 11x4? I understand your concern regarding having power to get me out of trouble. The plane still takes-off comfortably with ~60% throttle on this prop though. I don't use the throttle as a switch. With the 11x7 I was flying at around 30% throttle the whole time trying to get used to the plane. And for landing I was at 0 throttle (idle) and still going too fast for my liking. Steve confirms that the plane is able to fly a lot slower, so I'd like to get into that region of airspeed whilst still having my engine running. I've probably been at 100% throttle for around 30 seconds so far. So again, I'm not going to be getting a bigger engine yet. But I'll bare what you said in mind for when I am ready to upgrade. It seems you currently have a much greater confidence level while flying than me.

Thanks guys. I managed to mount the steel to the engine forks very similar to the way you described Steve, except I made my own new hole further forward. I've now got 0.2kg in instead of 0.4kg and have the CG just right. I've also reduced my prop down from an 11x7 to an 11x4. It revs very high on full throttle so I've restricted myself to 75% on the TX just in case. Aircraft air speed is much more manageable at the low end of the throttle now though. I'll keep this prop just for a couple of flights until I'm happy circuiting and landing the thing, then I'll switch back to the 11x7 and try some aeros.

Congratulations on the buy Masher. How are you getting on with the build? Did you order the Seafire off LMS's website? As I can't see it listed there atm, nor on their eBay shop. Also, could I possibly hi-jack this thread, and encourage people to continue posting Spitfire options, even though Masher the OP now has his model. I have exactly the same requirements as Masher; an ARTF Spitfire that must be wood and IC. Around the 40 size would suit me well. Thanks!

I've re-checked the CG position inverted and even with the 0.4kg mass where it is (behind firewall), the CG position is only just in spec! So I'm going to have to move this mass into the engine bay to have any chance of reducing the total mass used. I'm surprised by how much is needed for my model. RX battery and RX are as far forward in the above-wing compartment as is possible. Any practical tips on the furthest point forward I could put the mass John? Somehow mounted to the plastic engine mount forks perhaps? Edited By Chris Anthony on 10/05/2014 00:34:04

Thanks John, I appreciate your reply. Yeah I suspected it was a bit too much mass. Yeah I'd rather have less mass put further forward to achieve my CG position but don't know if putting it in the engine area (in front of the firewall) is a good idea. There also may be a problem with the way I'm measuring CG position, I'll have a go measuring it upside down. It might just be the patch we use is a bit small then John, all the aces at the club use a small amount of airbrake/flaps so I won't feel too ashamed giving them a try! The finer pitch prop recommended was a 12x6 so I'll give one of those a crack as well. Yep I can't wait to feel confident enough with the thing to get in a load of stick time John. I'm almost there I think. Paul, well I've just moved up from a 25 so at the moment a 52 is more than enough for me!

Hi all, I have a few Acrowot related questions. I've been struggling to get the CG position right in mine since my maiden a few days ago, with an SC52 2s engine. First I flew it without changing the CG, with it around 35mm rear of where it should have been! Needless to say it didn't handle very well. I've found I've had to put in 0.4kg of ballast just behind the firewall in order to correct this. This seemed like a very large increase of mass relative to the plane, and it definitely showed on take-off. I didn't like this set-up either, and need to find some ideal middle ground between the two options I've already tried. What have you guys done to correct the CG position? Do you put your ballast forward of the firewall, somewhere in the engine bay? How much ballast do you find you need? I'm also struggling with the minimum speed of the thing. For those running a similar engine to me, what kind of props are you using? I'm on an 11x7 at the moment, and am hoping that changing to a 12x5 will help lower my idling air speed. I've also seen guys at the club use a "flap" or "air-brake" TX mix in order to slow the thing to land on our patch. Do any of you guys use anything similar? Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks, Chris

Top job, thanks very much Frank. This was indeed the case, I was in high-speed mode. Must have done it when trying to set my fail-safes one time and pressed the button too long. All sorted now; no servo noise and full control! Had a successful maiden tonight! Cheers!

I thought I'd post an update on this, as this interference problem seems to be apparent on my new Acrowot model, and has actually worsened to the point where performance is degraded. In my previous posts, I've described the problem as seen on my Seagull Jumper 25 with 4x Etronix Digital ES092 standard servos. My new Acrowot has 5x Futaba 3001 servos (these are not digital servos). Basically, the servos will make noise amongst themselves when controlled by the TX/RX on the model, even if not attached to control surfaces (ruling out joint friction problems I've read about before). When making the buzzing noises, the servos are stalled (confirmed by ~0.6A current from them when they buzz). It is not just one servo that this happens to, sometimes it is none, sometimes it can be all, sometimes just one or two. The performance is degraded on the Acrowot, as I can be moving the control surfaces via the TX for a few seconds with smooth responses, and then suddenly the control surface movements will become all laggy and delayed. It actually seems to me as if a brown-out begins to occur. This is accompanied by the offending servo beginning to buzz and stall. Telemetry shows RX voltage drop momentarily too (not below brown-out voltage, though), even after a full charge. The problem also seems to correlate with current. I initially used a 6V battery with the RX on both models. When swapping down to a 4.8V battery the problem became worse on both models. When using the 4.8V battery on the Jumper, the buzzing became worse and the same brown-out-ish symptoms as with the Acrowot were also seen on it. Then, I used the same receiver on my tiny little park-flier with micro-servos drawing much less current and there will be no interference/stalling/lack of response at all. Finally, the Acrowot servos have all been individually tested with a servo tester whilst fitted to the plane. No buzzing, stalling or lack of response occurred At the moment myself and some helpful guys at the club have therefore deduced it to be a problem with the RX. Has anyone ever come across an RX problem like this before? It is an FrSKY D8R-II Plus (with telemetry).

Hi Simon, The flight video looked good, well done. Can you say any more about the 3-axis gyro in your RX? How exactly does it add stability to the aircraft, does it modify servo output somehow? I have not come across them before. Chris

"I'm afraid that just indicates you don't understand what expo is then!". No it doesn't. I know what expo is and what it does, don't think that I need you to explain it. It's just another form of rate gain, but happens to be non-linear. Stop trying to hide the fact that you read my post wrong, or made incorrect assumptions and that you don't like to be corrected. And that's fine, don't answer my questions. I'm sure you know it makes you seem as though that you cannot answer them. It's a shame, because you seem to know lots, and I've appreciated your advice in the past. Hopefully Peter will have a go without being so worried about protecting an ego. And please don't try to stir a negative response from Phil against me. If he has one to give then he's free to do so, and doesn't need you coaxing one from him. I'm sure he realises that I meant no offence by the remark, and can see the point I was trying to make. Edited By Chris Anthony on 30/04/2014 01:13:02

Please don't try and be-little me BEB. I have expressed nothing but an eagerness to listen. I have asked to be corrected in my assumptions. Would you care to do this? As it still hasn't actually been done. If you don't want to or can't then that's fine but don't try and turn it into a failure on my account. "which on the basis of your comments above don't always appear to be as strong as you might think" Correct me if you think I am wrong! I don't even know what you are referring to here! I am not trying to "flex" any engineering credentials, actually you just did this yourself. I have said that I will understand if something is explained to me clearly, so I am asking for people to do this. If I point out something that doesn't make sense to me, or if I point out what I believe to be failures in a theory or description, then I expect to be acknowledged and corrected. That's how a learning process works. I already know you are an engineer, which is why I thought you might be a little more receptive to this kind of testing and questioning. "You said 25% elevator unless you have a truly crazy amount of expo in - that's still not a "small amount of elevator"." BEB, I actually said "a small amount of down-elevator (25%) on my TX stick", you seem to have interpreted this as 25% of throw at the control surface. Either you mis-read what I originally posted, or you made assumptions about my rates (what if I was using a 0.5 gain function on the TX?) Regardless of actual rates, as this was not the real point here, did you read what I said about the plane's ability to roll inverted with 100% of down-elevator? This I think puts things into perspective. Phil, I appreciate your take on this. But "no reason for it to happen", with no disrespect to you or your boy, we both know this is just not true. Maybe you don't know what the reason was, but there was a reason. Would this be an acceptable statement on a super-bike team? No. The difference is of course how seriously each party decides to take things. You may think I am being too finicky trying to establish the cause, but I on the other hand don't want to send up another plane until I know what I did wrong the last time, so I can correct it, and think it would be silly to do otherwise. I know you understand this. I entered the hobby expecting crashes and loss, do not be mistaken. But I also expect to be able to understand why any accidents happen and to learn from them.

OK, I see how this is panning out. Off the bat, I would prefer it if "the stage in my RC career" was not brought into the technical side of any discussion. I can accept that it will be used against me when giving my account of flying situations and descriptions of what I think happened in the air, and what I say is likely to be treated as "racing driver's excuses". I guess this can't be avoided. But don't be afraid to explain technical details to me if you think what I have said is wrong, I am more than capable of understanding them. I am not trying to big up my experience, but I do not like getting fobbed off with "you're too inexperienced you won't understand" either. Just because I am new to the hobby, and haven't held TX sticks in my hands for as long as some, it doesn't mean I won't understand the engineering principles. John Muir, good observation (did you ever write a book called "How to keep your Volkswagen alive"?). Perhaps the engine did cut out first. I'll be honest I can't remember. And to be more honest, now I have pretty much given up hope on establishing what actually went wrong. Whilst all these suggestions are good, my memory isn't becoming any clearer and unfortunately I don't recall enough about what happened to be able to point my finger at any of the suggestions with confidence and assign it as the probable cause. BEB you said "Chris you say you had a small amount of elevator in - in the OP you quantify it as about 25% - that's not a small amount of elevator!". Firstly, I meant 25% at the TX stick, though I did not make this clear. But if this is how you had understood it BEB, you'd also realise that your comment is a little presumptuous, considering you do not know what TX rates I was using. Let me be clear, this is not the first time I have flown this trainer around inverted. I have done circuits inverted before, at much higher altitudes, and at throttle positions/speeds of around what I was using when I crashed. With this plane I was able to use near to 100% "down-elevator" at the stick and push over from inverted back to level flight. So assuming my air speed was around the same, and everything else was constant, how can 25% elevator cause a stall? Peter, first of all, you are talking about stall speeds and how they vary under different conditions, yet you also say that stalling only occurs when a critical angle of attack is exceeded. If the latter is true, can you explain how a "stall speed" can even exist? This is the very idea that BEB was trying to dis-spell, and yet you have also said that BEB is right? And Peter again, you do not seem to have grasped the point I was trying to make in the quoted section. So read the following paragraph and tell me which part is incorrect. First picture this. I can fly my trainer at full speed and hike on 100% up elevator. It doesn't stall. This must be because at full speed, with full elevator, the wings are not presented at an angle of attack past their critical angle. As I was trying to explain before, this must be down to aircraft design. More specifically, the design of the horizontal stabiliser, the elevator control surface sizes, and other general characteristics (I have presumed). But, it all comes down to the fact that the critical angle of attack is not exceeded. Now picture this. I am flying my aircraft at near engine idle speed, say 1/4 full speed. I then hike on 100% elevator, and the wing stalls. This must have occurred because the wing was taken past it's critical angle of attack. Now we agree that the critical AoA in both cases is common. So why then does 100% elevator at full speed not cause the wing to go past it's angle of attack? I am saying it is due to the interaction between hori-stab and elevator control surfaces at varying speeds. This essentially means that there is correlation between maximum AoA achievable and speed. And we know that there is correlation between AoA and stalling. Hence, there is correlation between stalling, and speed. And I feel that essentially the reason that you cannot cause a high-wing trainer, at least my trainer to high-speed stall is because of the aforementioned tail-plane design details. And this is why I am sure that it was not a stall that initiated my loss of control. So, again, please tell me which of my assumptions above is incorrect. Sorry for the change of tone in this post, but it reflects the way I feel. Chris