GONZO

Latest video from Dr. John Campbell You may find his series of video's on this informative.

This is not scare mongering. I personally have faith in our public health system and health service. But, I like to know what is going on and am not prepared to accept the 'warm words and fuzzy feelings' offered by officialdom to calm the people. Use some 'critical thinking'. What is going on and implemented does not match the claims that this is relatively unimportant. If this really gets out of control I think our problems will possibly be from secondary effects like the world economy, national economy, food imports(we import over 50% of the nations food) from other more affected nations, etc. I have spent many 10's of hours on this matter and I offer just a couple of links. You can dismiss or ridicule if you like, I have no desire to argue or convince you, but consider this; China now has the equivalent of population of the UK under lock -down and quarantine lasting for weeks, many countries around the world have now banned entry to visitors from China. How many of you could exist for 5 weeks, 3 weeks or even 1 week if you could not get out of your house to buy food? The Truth About the Coronavirus This is a general summary that does not get too technical Dr Paul Cottrell If you have the will and the time go back to the start of his videos on this. He is one of many medical contributors I have followed. Edited By GONZO on 02/02/2020 13:18:09

I see 'RT' are reporting two confirmed cases in the UK.

And his follow up NOT A RANT BUT AN ADMONISHMENT

Being nearly 72.5 years old, an insulin dependant diabetic I'm more than interested in this latest bio threat. So, I've done some investigation. This is my take on this so far. 1/ It strongly appears that this virus strain is 'man made' (there is a patent on it) and manufactured for the purpose of investigating immunisation(so the story goes). It has been reported that it was being worked on in a bio lab in Wuhan. 2/ It has a long latency; you can be infected but show no symptoms for up to 14 days in which time you are infectious to others. This makes the spread easy and containment difficult. The mortality rate, as currently reported(?) is on the low side. But, seemingly people remain sick for some time after the initial recovery. 3/ Corona virus easily mutate and this has seemingly already gone through an atypical mutation. With the spread into a large number of people the potential for mixing with a large number of other genes and mutating is increasing exponentially. I think the extreme measures we see being taken(well in excess of SARS and MERS) indicates the concern that this virus could mutate into something that retains the long latency but has a higher mortality rate. Whatever the biological effects/human effects if this continues or possibly gets worse there is the economic(national and world) implications to be considered.

Thanks Bob, yes I realise the OpenTx is the Tx operating system and does not alter the RF firmware. But, it could limit what you could access/get the RF board to do. Anyway' I've decided that tomorrow I'll bite the bullet and update the Taranis to 2.3.5. I've got a shiny new Jumper T16 Pro Hall with an internal multi module all updated to the latest firmware and with the JR module slot available for any unsupported protocols(FASST etc). I'm going to drag it from the dark ages into the bright light of the present day! I'll report back.

Thanks for the replies and information. I'm just trying to ascertain if I can safely update my Taranis X9D to OpenTx 2.3.5 from 2.0.13(I know its old but it worked for me. Don't fix what isn't broke) without compromising/loosing any legacy facilities(internal protocols like LH12 etc) and the ability to accept old external modules like DJT, XJT, Futaba FASST(Robbe 12ch version), ImmersionRC 433mHz, and OrangeRx. I also don't want to flash Rx's(there's lots of them) if at all possible. This would then hopefully allow me to use the recently acquired TP 4in1 multi protocol module(updated to 1.3.0.53) in place of a bag of different modules. Edited By GONZO on 26/01/2020 16:47:50

Bob, thanks for that. Do you know if you can still force X series receivers into D8 mode both internal and external. Peter Christy states that this is prevented by the latest update.

If I update my early Taranis X9D(pre plus) from 2.0.13 to the latest 2.3.5 will I loose the LR12 protocol for my L9R receivers? I've updated the JP 4in1 multi protocol plug in TX module and this protocol does not appear to be there so I would prefer not to loose it off of the internal protocols on my Taranis. All RF is pre LBT.

To this end late last year I purchased a few of the Ripmax re issued rubber kits, the ACE, the GIPSY and the INVADER glider. But, I was aware manufacturers were developing sub 250 drones rapidly and thought something might come out aircraft related. Just before Christmas the RCM&E arrived and inside was a market place article on the ZOHD Dart 250g. I resolved to obtain one after Christmas and now have one. I also got myself a new Tx a Jumper T16 Pro Hall and one of their R1+ Rx(S-BUS and 2gm weight). Instead of writing 'war and peace' I'll provide some links and if interested come back. ZOHD Dart 250g Comes with motor, speed controller, 2 props, servos fitted, KOPILOT stabiliser and flight controller with GPS, FPV (Tx+camera+CPaerial) 'piggyback' unit. Just add a light S-BUS Rx(Jumper R1+) and batteries. The KOPILOT + GPS weighs 20g and looks like it could be useful elsewhere, especially at the price. ZOHD Kopilot Lite Jumper R1+(D16) Twist wing INVADER Invader build The Invader with the twist wing control mods can be slope soared from any small slope/sea wall etc.

Where I live a burglary rarely if ever warrants more than just a crime number over the phone. So, unless you fly your plane/drone down the high street of the local small town and through the butchers window I think it unlikely you'll get asked for any paperwork.

Don, the epicenter for this issue seems to be Germany. Does your experience of flying site stretch to there? Is there something specific to Germany? Ah, nostalgia is not what it used to be. Or, in my case it is. That's why I still have and use my Futaba FF8, FF9 and super along with my T12FG all on FASST. Occasionally my Futaba FP-T5LK(modified) with plug in RF boards for 27mHz/35mHz/40mHz and switchable 2.4gHz 'hack' FrSky module, dating back to the early 80's, gets an outing. I still have my original Futaba Digimax 4(mid 70's) on 27mHz in working order. Just can't throw stuff away or sell it. Call me Steptoe!

Mike B Interesting what you found with early Taranis. My Taranis is pre plus. It is the one just after the initial model. So, I surmise from this discovery that updating more than likely becomes a non starter. Even more so as I don't use EU LBT and don't want to. The more who use LBT the more, RF speaking, they'll make way for my transmissions. Martin_K, From my quick scans of the other forums it does seem to be related to LBT(correction from those who know better welcomed). A phrase used to describe LBT I saw in the past likened it thus, 'a mutual and polite degradation of service for users as band usage increases'. Unfortunately in a real time active situation like model flying you can't afford too much degradation of service. Could the FrSky users on the continent be generally operating in areas of greater band traffic/usage(near urban areas) and thus suffering this 'degradation of service'(increased skipped data transmission due to more busy frequency slots) resulting in this deficiency in error detection becoming noticeable? Or, is the up date to the servos position slowing down to such an extent that a momentary 'failsafe' is occurring that would look like a spurious position command? Additionally, I would guess that not all the other band traffic(non RC) is LBT. Due to our 'anti social' status in the UK we generally fly in out of the way locations. Have there been any reports of this problem here? IMO this makes a good argument for users who can to remain non LBT. As a general observation FrSky, to my mind, seems to be using this as an 'opportunistic' way of implementing a degree of obsolescence to complement their brand 'lock in' by way of 'ACCESS' thereby enhancing their commercial position.

Well I'm in a bit of quandary. Got an early Taranis on an early OpenTx which needs to be updated to work a multi protocol Tx plug in module, the module also needs to be brought up to the latest spec. The module has various useful protocols including LBT (required for my Meteor65 SE indoor FPV quad). Also got a new Jumper T16 running OpenTx with an internal multi protocol Tx board, both of which need updating as I seem to have a problem on set up, AETR and mode 2 selected swaps aileron and rudder on Rx outputs.. I was aiming to get them all up to the same spec before using. For all other use I only run RoW RF on FrSky not LBT. I have many D series Rx and X series Rx which I don't want to loose the use of or go through the considerable trouble of re flashing. Plus, I have 'D' TX modules for my Futaba Tx's and a spare 'X' external module for the Taranis. I need to retain compatibility throughout. I've been to the OpenTx site and read the publication dated 15/1/20 but, is the problem just with the Tx operating system, or with the RF system as well? Looks like I've chosen the wrong time to get new bits and update. I'm drowning in update options. I could just sit back and hopefully let things sort themselves out and get a clearer picture but I've got itchy fingers. As I know the Taranis etc all works I'm thinking I'll start with the Jumper T16 due to its odd channel behaviour and work on logically from there. Unless anyone has a better idea. Is there any further info and whether updating affects earlier protocols?

Oh how I long for those past times when you bought a Tx and Rx plus additional Rx and just kept on using. Now it seems a constant treadmill of chasing ones own backside updating firmware. Its become a hobby in its own right.

Steven Jones, a tracing of the larger parts(fuselage, wings, etc) and photo copies of the smaller parts put together and submitted to Outerzone would be welcomed by all of us. The guy who runs the site can do quite a lot with the info/plans/drawings he receives. I myself have submitted various plans and books. Its good to get all we can saved and made available to all before it gets lost in the mists of time. If you contact him by email he'll advise what is required contact

Google 'Freemake Video Converter', and 'Freemake Video Downloader' if you want to 'rip' YouTube videos.

Posted by i12fly on 05/01/2020 21:39:37: Only muppets won't register -it could damage the good work of the BMFA and jeopardise the next stage OK, I'll get my coat and those who only fly CL and/or sub 250g? Or, do you class these people the same? Edited By GONZO on 06/01/2020 06:53:22

It equates to it exactly. In both instances if you have doubts about the legality of either then the correct approach is to report it to some one who has the authority to insist on proof of legal compliance. Taking the law into ones own hands can give rise to derision at best and unforeseen potentially unpleasant events at worst..

Further to my previous post. The correct procedure would be for any club member, including committee members, to call the police and report a possible infringement. As just members of the general public no one has the right to demand any information/proof from any one else, they do not have that authority. They can only request and if the request is not granted report it to the authorities.

Ha Ha john. But, as can be seen from some attitudes expressed here it will cause an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion and possibly anger at the field. I can see a situation where some one is flying a sub 250g plane and then being ordered to prove it is sub 250g. In that situation I would demand that they in return prove their car is insured, taxed and if necessary MOT'ed as I will be using the same roads as them. This is the very reason why the BMFA stated that neither they or the affiliated clubs would be policing the legislation.

You only have to have your models labeled up with your reg number when you FLY it, not just to own it and keep it at home or have it in the car or even at the flying field. It does not infringe the legislation unless it is flown without you being registered as the operator, the number on the model and you having attained a competency qualification.. The key action is FLYING the model.

Thanks.

Martin_K, AFAIK there is no 'Air traffic management used by maned aviation' unless it is in controlled airspace(commercial main airports, air lanes etc) and that would be by commercially qualified pilots flying suitably equipped aircraft. GA manned flying in open airspace is 'uncontrolled'. As an example from when I was flying planes out of a farm strip in East Anglia I rarely spoke to anyone on the radio and the plane did not have a transponder. I flew all over the East of England and frequently flew to the Isle of Wight for a day out. When I flew to Holland I took off and filled my flight plan over the radio, a requirement to file a flight plan as I was transiting international flight regions. But, I was not directed or controlled throughout my flight by any ground based controller. It seems to me that there is a push to impose a very much tighter control on UAV's than manned flight.

I have a Taranis on a very early OpenTx. Can I use this multi protocol module used in the Jumper T16 Jumper 4 in 1 SE Multi protocol in my X9D Taranis after updating the OpenTx. I presume that this module is derived from the one in the RCGroups thread DIY Multiprotocol Tx Module (over a 1000 pages of info and things get buried). TIA