scott cuppello

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 12/07/2014 12:08:42: Posted by scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 11:30:33: what has previous experience to do with anything? I have seen people who have flown for 40+ years who still cause me anxiety every time they take off. Come on: those 40+ years people certainly exist, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Experience has to count for something: otherwise how else can we possibly judge people's decision making in any sort of context? Totally agree that airmanship clearly isn't just about waggling sticks, but the waggling sticks bit was certainly part of the 'B' test the last time I checked... Stick waggling is PART of airmanship.........decision making is a larger part.......experience didn't count for much in this case did it?

Not really.......there are a fair number of lipoly factories, not two or three, don't assume they are the same, they really are not.

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 12/07/2014 10:59:22: I have to say I find some of the comments here a little harsh: I for one am prepared to believe that the pilot's experience means he deserves the benefit of the doubt until we have found out exactly what went wrong, or at least heard his side of the story. He must be feeling absolutely mortified about the incident. If this was Ali or Steve Holland it happened to, would we be so aggressive in calling 'pilot error', then? I totally agree that the risk assessment and planning in the site layout is evidently completely inadequate and the plane is far far too close to the crowd. However, looking at previous videos, the climb rate and responsiveness of the model suggests that if all had been functioning perfectly, the model should easily have been able to turn away in the climb out. This is a big model with lots of momentum - I think that by the time the need for an abort was evident, it was already too late - that model takes a lot of stopping. To me, that suggests the only other option the pilot had was to keep the model on the ground with down elevator, cut the engines, and accept it runs into the crowd. Interesting moral question: virtual certainty of hitting someone at speed at knee level, versus a reduced probability of hitting someone higher up! The end result is that no-one was hurt. Mercifully: certainly! Lucky: probably. But perhaps the interpretation that 'the pilot's gamble paid off' isn't quite as criminal as people are making out! From a marketing perspective, is it so bad that the public get given a hero rather than a villain? Now the investigation behind the scenes is another matter, there should be no denial or false positives there, and it is important that they get to the bottom of the incident and do absolutely everything they can to ensure this never happens again. But I can't help thinking that the whole 'dirty laundry in public' might do more harm than good. Sometimes you have to look beyond the immediate details and look at the bigger picture. Finally, thank goodness DB wasn't commentating. It would be all about brown trousers and "he's American, you know"...           Edited By The Wright Stuff on 12/07/2014 11:00:07   If you want to fly at displays......you must be prepared for the inevitable criticism when it all goes wrong and what has previous experience to do with anything? I have seen people who have flown for 40+ years who still cause me anxiety every time they take off. Can we clear something up.....airmanship is not how good you are at waggling sticks......that crash was a direct result of poor airmanship......the field was arguably too small, there was a crosswind toward the crowd and the flightline was far too close to the crowd.....that's it, forget the rest of the theories, they are not relevant.......to fly in the first place was a poor decision......that experience you admire is exactly why this crash happened, over-confidence overcame airmanship......that is the basis on which this incident should be judged......which means the flight line director is at least as much to blame. Edited By scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 11:38:44 Edited By scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 12:02:19

The nanotechs are poor, QA is suspect and they have a habit of deteriorating fairly quickly, there was a time that I would reccomend the Turnigy blue, but not any longer......my recent experiences with them have been dreadful......I know why but I am not going into it.......the Zippy's are the better bet (not the lights) I have some recent 4s packs that I am using and they have been solid.

RCG's take on this is very poor judgement, poor airmanship and poor organisation are absolutely to blame, the guy was lucky not to have hurt somebody badly or worse........Jason Cole has shot his credibility to pieces by writing that drivel, RCG would have been better served staying out of it......they now just look partisan at best, ignorant at worst in the eyes of the aviation community...whom US aero modellers could really do with being on-side right now.     Edited By scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 08:27:28 Edited By scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 08:29:41

Running packs in series is never a good idea and packs are so cheap these days that most just dispose of a pack that has lost a cell.......especially as it's actually quite a rare thing.

It is the one from HK, the UK Warehouse doesn't have any, just a few left at Hong Kong.

FW 190 put together on the cheap (kit was only $99!) finished and maidened a couple of weeks ago. Engine is 26cc Chinese cheapy and does a great job, it is a really nice flyer

The foamy market is very competetive so manufacturers are wanting to create brand loyalty, one way to do this is to create a "collection" of scale models, just like plastic and die-cast scale models. Everything is molded so it's easy to make an accurate molded part via CAD, even from just a photo.....likewise, the airframe can be fairly accurate because it's molded, the only allowance would need to be for "flyablity" (C of G means fuselages are often stretched slightly, etc) and of course it also means complicated wing shapes are much easier to produce than balsa........BUT...........despite their upsides (easy to fly, scale looks and easy to repair)......they are what they are, they fly like foam.....and that just isn't desirable for many of us. This FW 190 I have just built is one of those "Toys are Us" jobs......but then I used modelling experience to turn it into something a little more scale-ish.....and for not much money.....thing is, this 13lb, 26cc FW 190 will fly better than your 1400mm foam FW 190 (which looks the same as everybody elses FW 190 from the same factory) all week long and it has it's own advantages, for instance it can fly for 15 minutes at a time, has flaps and retracts and can handle the wind and doesn't suffer hanger rash if you just look at it wrong......and I get the pleasure of the work that goes into "building" it.......so the moral of the story is....."Toys are Us"  ARF models have plenty to offer......and if you want full scale...scratch build! Edited By scott cuppello on 02/04/2014 17:25:42

Well I am pleased to say that we now have finally had a decent flying day, we have been able to test! The Cyclops performed well with the expected maiden flight niggles quite minimal. Conditions were sunshine but ambient temp of only 6 c, one of those crisp winter days that have been so rare here of late! Windspeed was around 6kt initially, raising to around 10kt as the morning progessed. The maiden flight was relatively brief as it was a trim and shakedown and we landed after around 20 minutes, during that time I performed a stall test: Stall is good, not suprisingly the Cyclops will drop a wing if it is pushed (full up-trim, no flaps, no power, stall was not induced until basically 5-0mph) but recovers in less than a wings-length. Trim was pretty well drama free, it required some elevator up trim initially (I'll come back to this) and a fair amount of aileron trim (not suprising for a 3 metre foam wing), control surfaces were all at 100% throw. The aircraft is nicely balanced and with all control surfaces feeling quite responsive, the rudder is excellent and does not induce much pitch change, so it's a nice flier! Off power glide is excellent, and this is where the earlier elevator trim changes were cancelled out as I started to use the flaps thoughout the flight, I performed a dead stick landing from around 200ft and quite a way out and was really pleased with how well the Cyclops performed, no drama at all and I always felt in control. Flight 2 gave us the magic numbers, the flight was 40 minutes duration and that was 98% under power, cruise figures varied due to the wind yielding approx 3.5A/33mph down-wind to 7A/25mph upwind (motor being 35/48 SK 840kv, prop 11x7 which I turned out to be a good choice I think and 4s packs)........I used this time to photograph some fields in order to assess flood damage from the wettest winter since recored began and was impressed with the images, the file sizes are huge so I have attached just one image that was heavily cropped just to give you an idea. Problems? Pretty minor, basically the front wheel is too small, I have changed it out from the supplied 35mm to 40mm (which can be just squeezed in) O/E wheel gives 2 potential problems, firstly mine did not want to ROG due to negative incidence when sat on the ground and also on landing, the underside (including the the camera window) have been scratched, the boom must be flexing slightly on landing, which is no suprise, anyway, the larger wheel I think is a must. To sum up, the Cyclops is excellent, I can tell that there is tones more to come from it and I think if you are used to flying gliders, you are likely to get the best from it in terms of efficiency/flight times (flaps really do need to be set up on a rotary dial not a switch) it is not difficult to fly at all, it is stable and efficient (good indicator here was the very close relationship between airspeed and throttle opening/amps, which were very linear) handles cross winds with ease, has nicely harmonised control surfaces and is just a joy to fly in manual mode, some existing APM parameters were used to set up FBWA/stabilized mode flights and they worked really well. On a final note, I am pleased to say that the wvUAVc team (of which I am member).......a project dedicated to developing a cost effective UAS to help Rangers (initially) in the Kruger National Park, South Africa, protect Black Rhino and other endangered species from poachers.......will be testing the Cyclops in SA next month after they were given an airframe by Asiatech.

Well, whatever is going on....it's rather odd as it seems to be going on forever.....this is the mistake Flightpower made, by the time they got their act together the public had moved on......the brand name was worthless, the retail business was worthless when they tried to initially resume business, then sell it....regardless of whether GS are selling it or re-grouping, this delay, empty shop and lack of communication is a disaster. I know better than most what GS are up against......and to be honest, pricing aside, it's nothing they could not take on with some new product ranges, some good (as in active and up to date) marketing and a bit of drive and imagination.

Giantshark is currently a prime example of how "not to do it".......this business should be thriving, especially given the potential Euro customer base......with a little investment and a 21st century business model, it could be a great business.

Posted by WolstonFlyer on 20/02/2014 18:08:36: Very interesting review and build so far Scott. It is a nice looking model, loads of room under the canopy! Yeah, suprising amount of room for a pod/boom design, initially I thought it was going to be a wee bit tight but as is so often the way.......I was wrong! I think it's going to be a great camera platform.

Much progress has now been made but the first thing was to decide on the final configuration with C of G in mind, with such a long tail and large empannage it was clear straight away just how "tail heavy" (desirable for FPV/UAV's) the Cyclops is so the configurations I have ended up with are front mounted Go-Pro Black 3 and 10,000mAh (2 x 5000mAh) 4s packs OR "shoot-down" Sony NEX 6 with a single 4s pack......impressive stuff, especially when you bear in mind that flying weight is 2.5kg max ("dry" airframe weight is 1.5kg) so one thing is for certain......duration is going to be excellent, as well as the quality of the images/video! I have not fitted any type of FPV set up in there for now, my Cyclops is equipped with an APM 2.6 which lives in the rear of the fuselage pod with the 60A ESC and 5A UBEC (see earlier images)....the APM ideally wants to be placed directly over the C of G point so this has worked out quite nicely. Motor is a Turnigy SK 840kv 35-48 Outrunner......nothing to do with my ex-HK status.....I know the factory owner, great guy, great motors....prop choice will be 11-12" and power in the order of 700-800w, I am expecting cruise amps to be really low (as little as 2-3 amps on a calm day) as it's clear the Cyclops is going to be efficient.....even without that dome up front!! Yes, I have decided not to use the dome, more of an FPV thing...this is no reflection (sic) on the quality of the 2 x supplied domes, it's just that the footage I have seen on You-Tube has been less than convincing, regardless of the aircraft used. Also, the Go-pro cases are as tough as old boots.....important when the camera is worth more than the platform........it also makes for a versatile set up. The APM has been set up and ground tested, we are balanced, built and ready to go.....all we need now is some weather!!

The wings are now complete and there was a few observations to be made, firstly the hardware which I have to confess, I have only used around half of, it's no better or worse than the usual stuff supplied with foam kit's from China and I am sure will do the job fine but as is the case 95% of the time, it can be improved on, the other minor thing was the servo pockets for the flaps......why do so many designers arrange these pockets in the same configuration as the ailerons? Needless to say I had to cut the pockets (which is clearly no big deal) in order to fit the servo's so that they operate in the same direction, no biggie but it's a curious approach....designers take note! The end result is that the wings are really stiff now completed, a 3 metre foamy would be asking for trouble if it was not done well but I can honestly say that I have seen composite wings that are not as rigid as these. So, next was the empennage, the Cyclops rather neatly comes with a choice of T-tail and V-tail, they are bagged seperately with their own hardware and mounts and so can be interchanged at any point. I have opted initially for the T-tail, main motivation for this being that the Cyclops will used for still shots in "stabilised" mode and I suspect there will be less pitch change with the T-tail. The tail has been really well designed with extensive use of round and square CF rod, assembly is very straightforward and as you can see, the ultra-stiff square uprights in the vertical stabilizer hold the assembly together. The servo wires very neatly sit behind the square rods and feed down the CF Boom via the neat looking mounting bracket, which comes complete with a skid. I have added a fixed tailwheel (and much larger wingtip skids) to the rear skid as this will give me the option of soft and hard surface landings (the kit comes with a nosewheel)......very handy! The only odd thing is the molding for the servo pockets which I suspect were designed with a specific servo type/make in mind, needless to say the type I have used did not fit at all so once again, the pockets had to be cut out, UAV/FPV kit's need modding, especially as everybody is using very different equipment, so not really a criticism, more an oberservation. Now the wings and tail are complete, we can configure the equipment/battery layout, unlike a lot of other airframes, the fuselage pod at this stage is still in 2 halves so we can mock up the final configuration without being committed, the battery will sit over the C of G point and so will not influence this much, main thing now is the camera's, RX and APM, let the fun begin!