Capt Kremen

A long shot perhaps, but does anyone know if an Epson ET3700 printer is capable of printing 'A5' size booklets using regular A4 paper? ALL my previous printers of other make e.g. Canon, had a drop down, selectable option for 'booklet printing'. For example printing any of the BMFA guides such as 'A Flying Start' could easily be achieved. Standard A4 sheets being printed with A5 size text on each half of the A4 sheet AND double sided AND in such order that when collated & folded formed a A5 booklet. Sadly, Epson online web pages and help were as much use as a 'chocolate teapot' !

Ashley, My club mate has a 'Tractive' GPS tracker for use with tracking his wayward whippet dog. See link for details: https://tractive.com/en/ He gets 3 days 1 hour dog-walks out of the unit attached to the dog. It does require a subscription though. Also of note: You can set up a virtual ringed zone e.g. your flying field (or home garden in case of a pet!). If the plane/pet goes outside that area you receive an alert. Feedback on your phone is slightly delayed, (appox.2-3secs). Like others have mentioned, in most out of sight/off flying field unscheduled arrivals, the flight pack is often ejected and disconnects with the Rx and power is lost. Using miniature 'Lost Model Alarms' which come with their own mini LiPo, (this is charged when plugged into a spare Rx socket), is a cheap and very worthwhile investment I always use. Example: ViFly Finder V2 https://www.unmannedtechshop.co.uk/product/vifly-finder-v2-lost-model-buzzer-alarm/

Whilst not in a model, a club mate has one on his whippet dog's collar who, as you may well imagine, can run away very quickly into the woods etc. By all accounts, seems to work extremely well at tracking him, (the dog!), down and showing the dogs track visually on the phone display. Will try and ascertain which device he uses and how long its batteries last, range, cost etc.

Also ... At time of writing ONLY 552 views of this announcement, (and possible viewing of the new document?), out of the whole total BMFA membership had been made on the BMFA News page itself.

Incidentally, if you are interested the previous CAA Publication: 'CAP658 Model Aircraft A Guide To Safe Flying' was withdrawn in January 2021. (Source CAA Publications)

Checking my documents were up to date, discovered CAA had just recently published this dated August 2021 (except un-proof read pages in CH8 & 9 - see bottom left of pages!!!!) : CAP 722F Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations - Model Aircraft Operations Policy and Guidance https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=10792

Another, (cheap?), way I noted on a YouTube contributor dismantling a motor. Take some strong but thin twine. (Some types dental floss may be strong enough). Loop one length around one side of the circlip another length of twine on the opposite side and PULL/Stretch the 'arms' of the circlip apart. Yes, it is a bit of a three handed task but with luck you can part the circlip sufficient to slip it over the retaining grove. Assuming you don't loose the circlip in the process, it is still ideal to replace with a new unstretched one.

I fairly recently sent a large (rare) plastic kit model to a modeller/collector in Israel. It was fraught with difficulty in finding a courier who would accept and handle the shipment. It was expensive as others have stated and required a full postal address for delivery as no one would deliver to a P.O. Box number.

Many Moons ago whilst I was wearing a 'Blue Suit', required reading was a column entitled "I learnt about flying from that". This gave aviators insight into the often unusual things that had caught a pilot out in the course of their flying. Whilst not as dramatic as many a full-size exploit, I had been flying a Hangar 9 'Pulse XT 40' low-wing sports, 65" span, 4S electric powered model. It flew well enough, no major trim issues but made an awful 'rough' sounding noise while doing so. I'd balanced the prop, the spinner was clear of the blades, (balanced too). The control surfaces were all secure i.e. no obvious cause of flutter. I suspected a motor bearing although the motor was low time and of reasonable quality (E-Flite Power 46). Nevertheless, I swapped out the motor for an equivalent, (the same motor only much cheaper 'cos of the branding?), Turnigy G46. Flight tests continuing, the noise was still there. Fellow club mates suggested it might be the close fitting cowl resonating against the fuselage nose, much like a 'paper & comb' does when you make a tune through it! Another flight after removing the cowl, still no change in the 'orrible noise. Now Hangar 9 models are generally quite attractively trimmed out with 'go-faster' stripes adorning the airframe, including the wings. It couldn't, could it? Sure enough at inflight speeds, a trim strip on the wing was lifting just sufficiently to vibrate and through the built-up wing be amplified sufficient to make the offending sound. A piece of sticky tape over the trim edges stopped the noise at source and harmonious flight resulted. I learnt about flying from that! And .... Smoothing Tip As a plastic modeller I have had occasion to use a product called 'Johnson Pledge Multi-Surface 5-in-1' , a polish used to assist decal application. Whilst assembling a ARTF, (you hardly build them do you?), the metal control pushrod was rather stiff and sticking in its fuselage tubing. It moved but I could see this causing servo, control surface and trim resolution issues as the input deflections wouldn't return to exactly the same position. I 'Brasso-ed' the wire smooth, better but still not perfect. Then thought to try the 'Pledge' polish. Voila, silky smooth pushrod action. Might be worth a try on your next sticky control run.

Although the weather forecast was not looking great for Saturday here in southern UK, (heavy rain forecast), it hasn't been that bad. I ventured to Popham Airfield, a full-size site closed especially for the week-end duration of the event. Sadly, my overall impression was one of an opportunity missed. A huge well kept/mown airfield offering a southern area chance for modellers and vendors alike, attracted very few traders. The busiest I noted was the 'Cheap' Tools chap of the kind found on most town/high street open air markets. Maybe the 'crowds' are waiting for Sunday's supposed better weather(?) On this showing, I doubt the organiser(s) would invest in another next year.

As previous commentators have mentioned, many ways of looking at the 'Classic/Great' designs of previous years and what influenced their renowned status. Depending on the era you choose: Materials available Earlier e.g. Silk & Nylon Doped coverings, mostly balsa, ply & maybe spruce V Contemporary supplies e.g. carbon, kevlar, glass fibre, plastic film coverings. Spare time to design, build and construct assuming finances/'pocket monies' allowed. Today, greater demands on spare time plus other interests, hence the ARTF. Design itself e.g. Airfoils often derived from the shape of a drawn 'shoe outline' & poor structural ideas as knowledge base was less widely available with no internet to spread the words of wisdom, sometimes heavy over engineered too v Today's Computer drawn, CAD, Wind tunnel tested airfoil, designs, stress tested etc. Power systems available - Early less powerful engines, material supplies restricted post 1945, short(er) motor runs, home brew fuel V Current Powerful, light engines & electric motor systems, quality fuels, longer, smoother operation & duration(s). Reliable Radio Control equipment. Types of model flier: Earlier times more free-flight, rubber, control-line including by youngsters v Today many niche types flown and specialities but overall fewer participants, probably an ageing demographic too viewing their yoof-full halcyon flying days and models through 'rose-tinted' specs etc! Classics (I know everyone will have one or more I miss), Here are just a few which still seem popular as ever and can be seen on flying fields up & down the country 'WOT4', 'MR Gangster', 'Junior 60', 'Some of Boddingtons Designs', 'Cambria/Cambrian' Range', Other classics are there but in lesser numbers e.g. 'Curare/Prettner designs', 'Dave Smith Models', 'Bowman', Galaxy/Pegasus Models', 'MFA Yamamoto', 'Precedent Hi & Lo Boy', 'Chris Foss Gliders e.g. 'Middle Phase' etc.

I recently acquired a ISDT "BatteryGO BG8S" battery checker. (It has other functions too but that is the primary reason I bought it). The instruction manual quotes a Voltage Measurement accuracy of +/- 0.005mv @ 4.20V and a Balancing Cells accuracy of <0.005V Over the years I have accumulated a variety of other LiPo battery checkers, from various sources, some of which include cell balancers. Also, a few small stand-alone battery cell balancers. Add to which, the digital readouts on several LiPo battery chargers incorporating balance charge/discharge settings as well. To add further to the measuring mix, a fairly expensive digital voltmeter. When checking, ALL the above give different readings of individual LiPo cells, some of which are noticeably at odds with each other. OK, I appreciate they are not science laboratory or industrial quality and calibrated items but the typical devices 'Joe Bloggs' electric flight operator would buy and regularly use. With safety uppermost, (as well as getting long life and best performance) from our LiPo, we may inadvertently be relying on incorrect readings. Perhaps the best we can do is stick with one measuring device and then at least the variances/errors are consistent across our flight battery management. What thoughts others?

Thanks to all for their learned replies. Digging around t'internet I find on one of the official Radiomaster pages the following in their 'FAQ' section (See below): DSMX Range issue? Many DSM receivers have what is known as "fly-by" telemetry, this is a very short range telemetry system intended to give telemetry data only at close range. The problem presents its self most noticeably in small BNF models which may have as little as 30m of telemetry range. This issue does not however effect the range of the actual RF link and the telemetry warnings may lead some pilots to think they have a range issue with the model when in fact they do not. There is a setting in OpenTX that allows for these telemetry warnings to be disabled and the topic is covered on the Multi-module website. Disable the telemetry warnings with the check box below.

Early Bird, From the Spektrum AR620 User Guide, quote: ' The Spektrum AR620 receiver is a full range telemetry receiver featuring DSM technology and is compatible with all Spectrum aircraft radios that support DSM2 and DSMX technology' .

From checks with other Rx e.g. Radiomaster R168, once 'Signal Critical' is announced the next announcement can be 'Signal Lost' and all control is lost until you either come back in range or have fine tuned the Rx. Hence, our heeding caution and not continuing our flight trials for fear of such a terminal announcement. Cassandra, Frame losses, please enlighten me, do I activate the 'Flight Log' - 'Frame' & 'Hold' in the Tx menu set-up to record these? I see 'Tone or 'Tone+Vibe' in my DX8 menu (yes, trying the AR620 with another Spektrum radio). You also suggest we swap roles and enable the DX9 wireless set-up and use the TX16S as a Rx(?)

Thanks one and all for your valuable info. However ... today the puzzle goes further ... We buddy lead coupled the Radiomaster TX16S (Master) to the DX9 Sektrum using the (one) lead that worked. Before flight we taxied our club trainer fitted with a Spektrum AR620 Rx, (that's the external aerial-less one), to extremities of our strip just to verify control. We kept getting 'signal critical' announcements and the RSSI bars drop out on the TX16S Tx. So one of us picked the plane up and held it at waist height whilst repeating the merry dance at range around the boundaries of our patch. Still getting some 'signal critical' but not quite as many. Plucking up courage, (or foolhardiness!), we flew a tight fairly low level circuit or two; ditto, still 'signal critical' call-outs from the TX16S. Following a hurried but safe precautionary landing, I directly bound the Spektrum DX9 to the Spektrum AR620 Rx and flew again. The signal bars, on the DX9 fluctuated from full to virtually none so again a landing was soon made. Re-checking the Spektrum AR620 instructions apart from the obvious no fitting inside a carbon fuselage, no orientation or special installation instructions are given. Our AR620 was in the balsa/ply fuselage of a 'Boomerang II' trainer, mounted securely and as far away from motor/ESC as any installation normally allows. What more should/could we do?? We are now baffled with the Radiomaster and Spektrum buddy box combo and the AR620 Rx, at present we have little confidence in risking a model further. I am not a Spekky basher, (I own two Spektrum sets and have flown successfully with these for years). They are, whether you/we like it probably the market leader/most commonly available R/C gear now that Hitec, JR and even Futaba are less frequently seen or indeed available anymore. Users of AR620 Rx, what are we doing wrong or should do? Your experiences please. Many grateful thanks to all that respond with positive and helpful info.

To Set The Scene ... My fellow club instructor and myself both have 'Radiomaster TX16S' Tx. I have an ancient, (first edition probably), Spektrum DX6i. He has a new Spektrum DX9 to set up on behalf of a new trainee in our club. I successfully set up a wired lead buddy box connection to my DX6i using a twin mono plugged 3.5mm lead - DSC socket to DSC socket in both radio. In a recent 'rainy day' session, we successfully also set up a Radiomaster to DX9 buddy-box connection using a stereo twin 3.5 plugged lead. (We believe this is a Spektrum brand original lead but it has no distinguishing labels or marks on it, just it's a stereo plugged lead). Wanting a degree of back-up for the working lead used in the DX9 we tried the mono lead which had been used successfully with my DX6i buddy-box set-up. No joy, yes it powered up the slave Tx but no control signals were possible either way. So we tried another (different) stereo lead thinking that was probably why it didn't work, again power up of the slave Tx but no transfer of control possible. Puzzled, we tried several other mono and stereo 3.5mm plugged leads, all which work perfectly in their audio operations with phones, headphones etc. Returning to the 'Spektrum' stereo lead, we also discovered it would only work in one direction i.e. the same 3.5mm plug had to be inserted in the same Tx DSC socket, swapping ends and nothing happens. (However, there are no arrows or 'insert this end' etc. on the lead, we only discovered this by pure chance!). Trying one of the other leads again, we discovered a very flaky/intermittent operation could be established if we jiggled the plug in the DX9 socket, almost half way out but this is obviously not satisfactory for safe, reliable training purposes on the flying field. Yes, we know it is possible to go wireless with a module in the Radiomaster but we're trying to keep costs down for the trainee and keep things simple too. So, Is the required lead wired differently pin to pin in the plug(s) and/or DSC socket(s)? Does it really have to be a (comparatively expensive, circa £20-00) Spektrum one or can we make a reliable working one out of either the stereo or mono leads we have or similar that we can obtain at any component shop or even phone spares outlet? Has Spektrum or Radiomaster for that matter, now have poor quality DSC sockets? (Remember my ancient DX6i works perfectly with the TX16S and with a mono lead!) Apologies for the lengthy post but I wished to attempt to show we tried our best to cover the obvious solutions such as trying other mono & stereo leads and swapping around. Thanks in anticipation of the knowledgeable advice I know this community can deliver.

Mmm ... perhaps I had a brain fade ... don't use NiMH much/if at all, just on the bench powering a test set-up. Maybe I misdialled the 'Toolkit' when looking to charge a NiMH. (I have other chargers which do NiMH so no big issue for me anyway) Will have another look. Thanks for heads up. Enjoy your new charger.

Touch wood, no issues with 'Toolkit M8S' charger to date. Does everything I need up to 6S LiPo, charging & storage discharge Li Ion as well as LiPo, no NiMH though if that's an issue for you. I do charge at conservative rates at home using a mains PSU. Have used lots of other chargers too e.g. Schulze, iMax B6, iCharger306B, the little 'Toolkit M8S' box seems just as adequate and consistent when comparing using model spec meters to cross check all results/individual cells. Balance across cells seems pretty good when comparing with other chargers too.

Beth Many thanks and I'm sure that goes for all of us missing our latest favourite read. Thank you.

Ditto with me too: https://www.modelflying.co.uk/popup.php?iid=202108 Ah well .... a step closer (perhaps?) May we assume the IT wizards are on to this issue Beth / Mods / My Media / IT Team? An update would be appreciated and put the ever growing number of subscribers missing their digital August RCM&E issue, minds at rest.

To reply to Martin Harris (Moderator): Here is the link I received from 'MyMedia': https://www.modelflying.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/47090-logging-on-to-the-new-site-and-forum-important-to-know/#comments Which, at least on my PC just opens this forum. I now see there is a yet another subscriber without access to the August RCM&E issue.

Yet again the MyMedia team have referred me back here to resolve this issue affecting at least 3 Digital Subscribers. Can someone at RCM&E / MyMedia P-L-E-A-S-E sort this issue out for us. We are paying for a service we cannot receive Argh!!!!!!!!

Ditto Gordon Contacted help line by e-mail and they just referred back to here to enquire!!!! Tried logging off / logging back on, no joy. Tried several devices, (another PC, Phone, Tablet), still no August issue, so it doesn't appear to be a specific IT device software issue. ALL issues up to and including July are visible and all other forum functions appear to work as normal.

As a digital subscriber I view my RCM&E via the Log In and have been doing so totally successfully since subscribing (and under the 'new' system too). Suddenly, the latest (August) issue does not present itself for viewing. I log in no problem and click on the archive but ONLY all issues up to July are showing and accessible. I thought perhaps my log in was 'stuck' so completely logged out then logged in a fresh, no change. My subscription is up to date and with issues to run. I can access all the other features, (obviously the forum pages or I wouldn't be able to write this!). Wrote to the 'Contacts' team and they've referred me back here. Help! Please I'm suffering withdrawal symptoms for not seeing the latest fantastic issue. Thanks in anticipation of a solution.