Ben Kenobi

Trying to journalise I think. Most criminal types or those that are going to do irresponsible bad stuff will do it anyhow. I guess my point is more that there are many that commit flying 'sin' simply out of ignorance. You can't educate and exclude, OK some don't like multi rotors, but many do and they are opening up flying to many that previously wouldn't even try. They then move on to say if I can fly this I'm going to try that, I really don't think an us and them mentallity helps. I'll fly anything, I have quad, hex, I also have helicopters and fixed wing, each has its own fun factor - try hanging an SLR off your fixed wing ... hell I'd fly a tea tray if I thought I could make it fly ... have fun, because that's what it's about. Simply excluding technology out of some elitist ideal is crazy, I'm with the guy that says why when you say but I can do that manually - if a hi tech onboard computer can stop me putting my pride and joy into the ground I'm all for it.

I'll probably be shown the door but many responses demonstrate for me just how clicky and closed shop some things can be. The 'it isn't done my way' therefore it is unacceptable type responses. Had the 'community' been a little more open, a bit more interested and welcoming, not to mention a lot less blinkered perhaps the 'drone' community wouldn't have dropped the 'flying' community right in the political spotlight. Tricopters / Quad / Hex / Octo are here to stay whether the luddites like it or not ... I wonder if the numbers of 'drone' owners is a bigger readership - if the aeromodelling community aren't careful they will become the minority group who will get neglected since at the end of the day no profit = no mag - digital or otherwise.

I guess a lot depends on your priorities - I'm primarily scale, build my own, I'm not about to put something 'questionable' at the front of something that took 250+ hours to build. Having a "Rolls Royce" available raises the profile of any company but it doesn't mean you can't have mass market in your catalog too, the presence of the Roller will do the mass market reputation no harm at all.

I'd be happy enough to see a competitor to the Saito FG21 / OS GT22 and sizes upward from there. I would like to see a boxer in a similar size though (RCGF make one so it must be possible) I do appreciate the commercial aspects but I think it is about which customers you target - Rolls Royce for instance aren't interested in the 'mass' market.

I'm pretty sure it is noise related I reckon if the engine was quiet enough nobody would be interested, I've never asked mind you but I can think of no other reason. I heard a Saito FG-30b running and it was impressively quiet even at higher RPM - whether this was exhaust or timing related I have no idea. For what it's worth I plan to install something like the FG-30b in my TopFlite Cessna (despite many saying it's too big I could offer my reasons but this isn't the venue I think) The only thing I am dead set on is 4 stroke and petrol, cost isn't a consideration. Edited By Ben Kenobi on 16/11/2015 22:35:22

Guess I just need to build bigger - ah well - can't win a coconut every time. If I go much bigger than 26cc in my area the places you can fly disappear faster than a politicians promises post election - problem is that  the small engines tend to be too noisy (I don't like flying chainsaws). Edited By Ben Kenobi on 16/11/2015 21:33:38

Personally I'd like to see a multi cylinder petrol of 20cc and up say a twin at 20cc - more cylinders if it can be done though - 4 cylinder boxer with 5cc per pot ? - a 6 cylinder 30cc (almost a lycoming), should be 4 stroke with more attention given to exhaust note and keeping the noise down maybe a longer stroke and more torque with less emphasis on huge RPM, I'm in agreement with the pump thing too since it allows flexibility in tank mounting.

I decided on a Cessna to model and it's a 182T, it uses a three bladed prop. I'm really struggling to select a suitable prop / engine combination and can find no efficiency data on the three bladed props found so far. I'm also now committed to 4 stroke / Petrol because of noise - I just don't like high revving 2 stroke noise. The Cessna worst case will have a 28oz per sq ft wing loading, stall speed 29.5, max speed required 79. It's looking like I need a 16x10 which seems OK and matches the scale for a 182T ( 79" ) but it pushes me into a bigger class of engine than I expected (recommendation of TopFlite is for maximum 1.20 four stroke but that's a bit borderline on such a prop). Any ideas? Edited By Ben Kenobi on 26/10/2015 19:43:02 Edited By Ben Kenobi on 26/10/2015 19:44:21

See if three of four turns around a ferrite core on the power feed from kill switch to the CDI does the trick.

Could do a lot worse than a Panasonic Lumix G series, the DMC-G7 is a nice camera, a friend has one and I've had a play with it - almost tempted me away from Canon.

Yup - separate power is mandatory, nothing less than total electrical isolation.

I second both the above, composition and glass really matter, for video / motion then it also depends what sort of resolution you are looking for, I'm assuming that some sort of 'still' camera capability is needed ?. What do you regard as good priced ?

I don't know much about your saga but I wouldn't be so sure that radiated interference is causing your issue, 2.4GHz as a rule handles this pretty well. I'd be interested to see what is escaping on the power supply side - do you have it on a separate battery to your RX / Servos ? Could this be a servo lead acting as an aerial feeding a signal into the RX ? at what distance / signal strength does the glitch manifest ? There are quite a lot of posts out there re interference from CDI systems, so much so that I asked O.S. the question (as I am in the market for an engine like the GT22) - the response was a typical 'non answer' - a buck pass of the highest order. "There is no electrical noise specification for the ignition systems. They are built to be as noise-free as possible, but the open spark in the engine could be a source of problems if the RC system you're using is prone to problems." Worst case you could make a metal shield to fit over the ignition module and ground everything ignition related to that - don't share the 'ground' with the RX etc ... Edited By Ben Kenobi on 25/10/2015 16:21:15

Did you source parts in the UK - I've been trying to get the mechanics of it clear in my mind. struggling to see how it works without binding, but clearly it does work - just can't get the grey cells to function. You mention in your build 'slop free' - do they stay this way? - how much maintenance - looks like the only way to adjust position is via the servo too. Nice job on the flaps - I thought mine was complex !!

Is there any rule of thumb to determine the best hinge quantity / type for any particular surface - primarily scale with the constraints that appearance and potential for maintenance applied. Before commencing the build of my Cessna 182 ( Top Flite 81" ) I'm looking at the hinging methods available so that I can incorporate into the build plan. For the flaps I have 4 Robart Fowler hinges but two seems to be too few on each flap, Robart seem reluctant to answer 'how many per sq cm area', looks more like three would be the optimum. Also having looked at them it is going to be hard to make the flaps removable and should repair be needed it won't be easy. Normally I'd use the Robart hinges inserted and pinned in pockets which makes removal easy - but these don't provide the scale effect I'm looking for. For the remaining surfaces (aileron / elevator / rudder) I was going to use the miniature piano hinges, but how best to do this since once fitted the maintenance etc again looks like it would be an issue. On another note has anyone ever managed decent control of ailerons by driving from the ends 'internally' instead of via an external linkage / horn ? - this is the kind of thing I'm exploring **LINK** Edited By Ben Kenobi on 24/10/2015 10:29:03