John Robertson 3
-
Posts
209 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by John Robertson 3
-
-
You DO appear to be enjoying life! Tell us . . . the young fellow caught the Weisel at the end of the clip and you appeared to be getting set up for something fancy with your side-on, braced, stance. Then the edit cuts.
What. Happened. Next? Something embarrassing?
-
My spectacles are both light-reactive and varifocals. I haven't noticed any problems attributable to the tints - I think the brain's busy enough flying and dismisses the colour change as insignificant.
I doubt if you'll find clear-lensed goggles at a low price.
Orientation problems at a distance? Me too! I don't think, however, it can be blamed on anything other than my own eyes and level of competency.
-
I was facing the same problem as described in the OP. I bought a pair of these https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0728D6B21/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I went for the "Green" version as its Visible Light Transmission (VLT) figure is shown as 83%, said to be suitable for dark days. I didn't want something that acted as sunshades, as it's rarely sunny in the conditions that I want to slope-soar. The lower VLT figures of 11% for some of the goggles suggests that nearly ALL of the visible light would be filtered out - it's bad enough keeping tabs on the model in normal lighting conditions! I have the goggles on as I type. They are fine in artificial light, and a little yellowy. They work fine in daylight and I don't forsee any problems. Without spectacles, I can see at distance without distortion. With the goggles on, I see no better with or without my varifocals so I think I may well use them without spectacles on the slope, simply for less clutter around the head. My spectacles are fairly large and measure 140mm across the outside of the hinges. Putting the goggles on with my specs already on my head is a bit of an inconvenience, simply because it's a 2-handed job and the sponge has to be negotiated around the frame. At rest, the sponge insert is 120mm. bending the frame of the goggles brings this out to 140mm with no difficulty. It's simply easier to do this with the specs off, fit them into the goggles and then settle the ensemble on to my face.
I note that there is no "relief" in the foam to cater for the spectacle legs. This is provided for in more expensive goggles, but at the price I paid I can live with that - especially after seeing the £150+ versions in a ski-orientated shop! My solution will be, if I need it, to take a pair of scissors and trim away sufficient foam to form a channel to clear the legs. Even with that, my eyes are not going to be subjected to ANYTHING like the battering they get in an in-goggled situation. I don't feel I've wasted my money with this pair, even though they've had minimal use.
-
It seems that "Eneloop" is basically a trade name for, essentially, a brand of NiMh cells, so I'd be inclined to set the alarm to the NiMh level.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eneloop.
What should THAT level be?
A charged (but not recently) AA cell shows around 1.364v.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=110&v=z9Uz9oNcT-8
I would think an alarm setting of 1.15vor even 1.2v per cell would be appropriate from looking at
https://web.archive.org/web/20141129145504/http://www.panasonic-eneloop.eu/home/whats-eneloop.html
1.1v looks like the critical figure for the "cliff edge",
As usual, it is probably worth NOT screwing the maximum capacity out of either Tx or Rx power packs. The loss of a plane surely outweighs the economic benefits of doing so! Setting the limit higher is certainly safer than going too low. If the higher value gives too little flying time then it can be reviewed.
-
This evening, I went. Just to see, you know? I bought. Plus a multimeter (it seemed wrong not to do so). And a pack of zip ties in a variety on sizes . . . just because. Then I went home . . . and just happened to visit my shed first. I wouldn't say I hid it from the wife as she simply wasn't around at the time. Ahem!
-
Funnily enough, I weighed the Box half-houran-hour ago as your post had piqued my interest. 1006grams. I have made a few "improvements", which, as usual, add weight!
Do you HAVE a power meter? If not, I can recommend them, as they remove the guesswork from the equation. I use the HobbyKing HK-010 Power Analyser. it was surprisingly cheap and has power and Lipo balancing functions as well as the simple 1-6S state-of-charge indication.
I wouldn't like to fly the Box with much less power than the 170Watts - the 125Watts on the original 7x5 was marginal on take-off ( no flaps then installed). -
I have a Bixler 2, with the stock motor, stock 7 x 5 prop (NOT 7 x 4 as above). On 3S, I measured it drawing 11.9 Amps, 125 Watts.
I replaced this with a 7 x 6 prop, which drew 15.1A, 171W. Even at that, at first I thought it was badly underpowered, but with experience I find it's plenty - it just requires smoother control work, particularly on take-off.
I don't know what mine weighs - never bothered - but my Radian , which I have only flown once to check it before painting etc, has about 260 Watts/Kg and felt rather more lively than the Bixler (the Radian has had all the "Paul Naton" mods). I also fly a little converted Miniprop Felix IQ XL chuck glider on 3S on rudder/elevator/flaperons.. It's a little rocket ship at 385 Watts/Kg and will climb vertically until I can't see it well enough to keep it in line and have to shut down the throttle.
The Bixler, I find, is a really nice plane to fly in a relaxed manner. I have absolutely NO complaints about it, but shudder at the thought of trying to fly inverted - it just doesn't seem right! A 7 x 6 prop seems the way to go.
-
THAT material looks interesting - I only have a Homebase locally, but will have a looksee at what they have. Such alternatives appeal to me!
Returning to old posts - my Felix IQ XL (Lidl alternative) is still going strong. Now on 3S, rudder, elevator, flaperons (following a 2S rudder/elevator iteration cartwheel landing which caused a crack which 3 flights later caused the wing to depart at 200' - the wing landed perfectly later, the fuselage in 4 pieces after a vertical "Landing". All on hatcam video. This, of course, necessitated a bit of a re-build. With "improvements".). It'll climb vertically until I lose sight of the reactions to the sticks - then a closed throttle brings it back down nicely.
The "Proplex" above looks ideal for knocking up a couple of Delta and Delta/Canard models for a bit of fun, before I get serious and start on the Pete Russell 362 and 363 Radio Modeller designs.
Sooo many plans . . . Sooo little time!
-
"G-JIMG: Back on subject.......
Does anyone use Rudder/Aileron mix on the Tx?"
Yes . . . and . . . No! I have had my old Fleet XP/FM converted to 2.4 (Thanks, Rob @ RCModelGeeks, you did a very nice job). It has a switched in-or-out CAR function which is also variable by a rotary switch and I liked it when I was originally flying in the 80/90s. I have yet to install the Rx in a model, but I DO like fondling the old girl of an evening and clicking the switches on & off. She even has separate switches for bringing up high or low rates on the elevator and ailerons. Ooooooooh!
-
Posted by Colin Leighfield on 08/01/2018 18:40:26:
The gloves recommended by Geoff that I ordered yesterday arrived today! I ordered a 5,000 mah power pack from Argos this morning and it arrived at 4.00pm! It all works. Also I remembered that sitting in the wardrobe unused is a battery heated under-jacket waistcoat that my son bought me a while ago and I’d forgotten! I’ve put the batteries in and that’s working. Bring on the freeze, I’m prepared.
I, too, have purchased a set.
For information, each pad draws just over 600mA. I find that when I have the pair working off a small power pack of the type mentioned in an earlier post, which is rated at 5V/1A, the current draw of 1.2A causes the pack to shut down after about 5 minutes. There is no mention of the pack's capacity on the case, but it was fully and freshly charged. A 20% overload shut-off protection level seems reasonable enough to me. Pulling the plug from one of the pads drops the current to 0.6A and the pack will handle this without problem.
I also have a larger power pack, marked as 7000mAh. This has 2 USB sockets, one rated at 1A "For iPhone 4S" and one rated at 2.1A "For iPad". My main use is for off-car use of my satnav when away cycling in foreign parts - "just in case", as I have a rotten sense of direction. The heating pads work perfectly off this 2.1A socket, so that looks like the type of power pack to go for.
The pads definitely heat up well. The gloves are just a little bit neat for me, but perfectly wearable. I have a 9" palm measurement (around the base of the thumb/first finger joint, excluding the thumb). As mentioned previously, the pads are separate from the mitts and can be worn with any glove you choose.
I may have lost mine - my wife tried on the pads with a pair of her own gloves. And liked them . . .
-
Josip - thanks for the explanation (08.38.oohrs). Once I cleared that mind-bug out of my brain I had a look at the original posting more comfortably! How on earth the laddie can fly like that beats me - I nearly expire flying my simple drone inside the house, I have to work so hard to keep it under control. The few occasions I have flown outside in near-calm conditions have shown me that it's not for me.
James JAB - as a former wedding videographer in a small way (albeit using three camcorders and a couple of DSLRs for stills) I have had a fair bit of experience of cutting video and getting paid for it. I rather enjoyed the original posted edit as I thought the cutter mixed the shots to the music rather well. I couldn't watch too much of this sort of thing as, like Josip (I think), I prefer more of a storyline. Zoom - zoom - whoosh style of presentation I leave to others, but then I AM getting on a bit! Nevertheless, I had no trouble at all watching the original post as the wife and I used to really enjoy fitting scenes to music and can appreciate other people's efforts.
On the question of location, I was going to ask where it was, but a quick Google cleared that one up. Which just leaves the question of the "thin wire cable". Sure enough, it's in shot at 01.52.
-
And THIS is an interesting thread! I have 3 old diesels sitting in my shed. I have absolutely no use for them, but it would be fun to see if they can be revived. Model fuels and a motorhome don't mix well, hence my total conversion to electrics, but still . . .
-
Josip - you have me there! What are "cadres" in this context, please?
-
Yes - thank you. I have indeed stre--e-e-e-tched it.
I flew again this morning, having adjusted the downthrust, and am delighted that it's still useable. There is bags of power from a 140W nominal motor (I haven't bothered to measure it yet, but now I think about it, it's on the list for a rainy tomorrow) and it will stand on it's tail without problems. It's rather difficult to fly smoothly, but that's good from my point of view (a returnee and retired) as I have to be delicate with the sticks and throttle to make progress. As I have not set the brake on the motor the windmilling of the prop acts as an airbrake and a very steep angle of descent is possible - I can drop it from almost directly above me into a landing if there is any sort of a breeze. Touch-and-goes are fun, as is a powered dive. As soon as any speed is obtained the middle sections of the wing start fluttering violently and very noisily. It's intrigueing to watch! I fancy glueing a couple of carbon fibre rods across the chord (leading to trailing edges) to see what effect this might have e.g. transferring the flutter out to the tip sections. Fun! It's easily recoverable - just kill the power and let the prop arrest it almost instantaneously.
It was so quick to build the original that I may well test this one to destruction then use the spare parts in the shed - I cut out 3 complete sets in the one operation - to explore the concept further. After all, when one burst out laughing at least once in every session there MUST be something worthwhile going on!
-
Aye. She's a fine-looking beast indeed, especially when doing a prop-hang. You KNOW it's not right, but enjoy it anyway!
-
I know what you mean. I have a little trouble that way myself. However. My thumbs are beginning to recover the muscle memory and I managed to get it up last week. I had to steel my nerves and stiffen my backbone too, but eventually it all came together. A bit like riding a bike, I suppose.
Now that the Radian has had its maiden, time to think about painting it, perhaps.
-
I want one of those . . .
-
Whoops! Forgot to add these:
-
The material is a bit fragile and doesn't take bad landings well, but greasers? No problem. It glues well with Gorilla Glue (polyurethane) and I plan to build a few more "interesting" models in the future.
The 'plane? A Jedelski-ish wing which holds up well, but flutters VERY interestingly if a bit of speed builds up. As pictured, it was rebuilt after a low-level loss of attention resulted in a power-on nose-dive into the magnetic ditch. The wings were almost perfect, but the fuselage was in 3 large bits and many small bits. Lollipop sticks were simply glued on to join up the 3 big bits and I just left the "open areas" where the many-small-bits had been as they were. A 3mm carbon tube joins the bottom of the fuselage together again to give it some integrity, so all that was left to do was re-maiden it following the photographs.
A successful flying session followed, revealing a need for a hefty dose of downthrust to be added (4 off 3mm washers is my high-tech solution). It even survived a landing exactly on top of the fence wire attached to the post of the photo. Bang-on the wire, longitudinally, one mark from the barbs, and it fell off sideways, when stopped. Picked it up, quick check, then off up into the sky again. Touch and Go? No undercarriage. No problem.
This 'plane looks absolutely ridiculous on both the ground and in the air, but it cost very little and, so long as the motor & radio gear survive crashes, it owes me nothing. I cut out 3 sets of blanks when I first built it (it seemed rude NOT to), so a re-build is probably quicker than a repair session, but I DO like the "steam-punk" nature of the beast. I laugh every time I fly it. What more could you ask for?
-
I've used this 5mm Vitrex (see David Mellor above):
https://www.homebase.co.uk/vitrex-5-star-sound-reduction-underlay-9-76-sq-m_p100707
to build this:
"The Fish" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kobJpBQO3hs
-
Flying twice today - mid-morning and at dusk. Morning, -5C. Dusk - a balmy +1C.
As a change from the "posh" models above, today's offering are a Robotbirds chuck glider conversion and a re-built, re-maidened slow-flier made from laminate-flooring underlay, 5mm. Plus quite a few iced lolly and Magnum ice-cream sticks. Jedelski - ish wing, which flutters beautifully at "speed".
-
"I don't know if John's DX6 is of the newer generation - mine is a pre-2015 basic DX6i - but I don't suppose it would make a lot of difference, if any." - Yes, they are both Gen2 models.
"if you are watching lights on the satellite, you are too close to the receiver." I would agree with that - stay away and watch the screen. By all means angle the Rx for 2-3 metres distance visibility, otherwise too close "swamps" the Rx.
-
I now have my 34mHz DigiFleet Tx back from RCModelGeeks with a 2.4gHz board and new batteries. It felt lovely to have the old girl back in my hands again, fully functional. I can't give any further details as it is wrapped up, with a couple of Rxs from T9 for my Christmas present FROM my wife. She doesn't know what it is, just that it's what " . . . I want, what I really really want . . .". Got to cover one's backside, eh?
-
I have a couple of DX6s - binding is as per Paul C's post above.
Keep Those Old Cordless Tools Going
in Hints and Tips
Posted
Gary - Thanks for posting this. For some reason It never crossed my mind to use LiPos for the job - I'm in exactly the same position as you were, with decent machines and old NiCads. Majik.