Andrew McKelvey 1
-
Posts
45 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by Andrew McKelvey 1
-
-
Gordon, I completely agree this isn't a new problem, it probably coincides with a change that the web developer has made to the site, I raised a new thread because I thought that in the intervening months / years some thing would have been done to correct the issue and I may have missed it, I am not on here daily..
As far as I know support for Flash Player stops from this month so all those web pages that support flash have had to be changed for some thing that is supported, security and all that, did the old viewer run on Flash, I don't know but something has changed that we can't correct at this end, but to re-iterate there are web sites out there that have secure content that you can view without the hassle we have to endure.
-
The problem described above is a problem with page coding and how the browser reads the html code, not really some thing we can fix at our end, so must be some thing the programmer / developer has implemented, It may just boil down to incompatibility in browsers after all the developer should test his code against all known browsers or make explicit mention that not all browsers work.
The point I was making is that there are viewers out there like Amazon Kindle Viewer which will allow you to see secure items and will remember what page you are on and at what magnification you prefer to read at and repaginate the pages accordingly and do it across a whole library of available items, even if the settings are different for each book/magazine. After all that's what cookies are for!
In my view it shouldn't be to difficult to give us a viewer that satisfys the user experience rather than getting what the developer wants to give us.
Edited By Andrew McKelvey 1 on 09/10/2020 13:34:06
-
Do I assume that with no replies that no one has any thing good to say about the online viewer and that the digital subscription is not fit for purpose?
-
I have two laptops both HP Pavillion one an i5 the other an i7 the i5 is 10 years old and the i7 about 8 years old, both top end in their day. The Blu-ray Disc on the i7 has failed twice now once under warranty, I don’t use that laptop with any dvd drive now as I rarely need one. The i5 laptop is my main one runs Windows 10 all my seasoned software runs under 10, I have three copies of Autocad 2010, 2012, and 2019 all of which run ok, I prefer 2010 and the reason I use the older laptop is because of AutoCads licensing arrangements now, I can’t get it to register even though I have all the correct keys on the newer one. Both have 8gb memory and neither have ssd. The i7 ran like a complete dog after a recent windows update, 5 minutes to boot up etc and it transpired windows had swapped the Radeon screen driver for an Intel one, which the hardware didn’t like. Both would be described as top end gaming laptops, the i7 came to me via a staff purchase scheme and cost circa £1500 drip fed over 36 months, the other cost £40 via an auction of office equipment in my local sale room.
I also run a home use copy of Microsoft Office 2016 on the i5 and 2009 on the i7 just because that is what my employer used and it cost the price of the cd-rom and packaging, £15 both work under Windows 10 without fault and the office packages from the web also, so I have never found any software incompatibility with 10 I couldn’t fix, I have always thought 10 to be more backwardly compatible with software, however a bit more finicky with hardware due to driver issues, the hardware manufacturers don’t update drivers for old defunct hardware that the public hold onto.
What ever you buy is a lottery, so you need good support, you need to spec the thing to do what you want, I have a raspberry pi which will browse the internet and read my email and cost £25. Pick your spot in the market place and shop around, the latest gizmo isn’t always best, although we all like to boast about it. You would be hard pushed to find a laptop without camera usb and WiFi these days and if you do they’ll be dirt cheap because no one wants them.
Edited By Andrew McKelvey 1 on 07/10/2020 11:24:09
-
For reasons I won't go into my copy of the magazine gets held up at the door because of my wife's Corvid restrictions, it could contaminate me. I have over the last few months been viewing the latest magazine via the subscriber page on the website but find the viewer very poor.
I have looked at numerous posts going back to early 2019 of subscribers bemoaning the quality of the viewer and I too have had issues. I normally want to read the magazine last thing at night while settling down in bed by using my iPad but the constant zooming in a out to read the text does not make it an enjoyable experience, even on my desktop computer Windows 10 with a 21" monitor it isn't that good.
I have no problems with things like Kindle viewer and PDF viewer I have bought more than a few books to read during lock down on my iPad and the quality of viewing is excellent.
I even tried pocket mags thinking my subscription may let me get at the mag but no joy.
I was thinking of going to a digital subscription but if this is the quality of the viewer, I won't be, am I missing some thing is there an add on I'm missing, how can I improve my viewing satisfaction, this seems to have been complained about for a long time now so surely there is a solution.
-
I tend to use old bicycle spokes which are about 2mm, or just less so I’m not limited to 300mm, run a threaded die up it and you can have a thread both ends, nylon clevises don’t seem to care whether it metric or ba, you just need to source some old wheels. The bent end is good in servo horns you don’t need keepers! You can join the ends using 5 or 10amp electrical connectors (chocolate blocks) if you don’t want to go to the hassle of rethreading, annealing the end helps with cutting new threads
Edited By Andrew McKelvey 1 on 18/08/2020 10:58:10
-
I was beginning to wonder where my copy was, my subscription according to the website expired last month but as I pay quarterly I see it is now October so my guess is I am ok their. However I did discover I can read the current mag online through the subscriber pages so I have had a good browse all ready, just would rather have copy in my hands to flick through and the print is bigger!
-
Basically I have gone for this as a design looks like most other wings I've ever seen.
I have gone for 11 wing ribs with 45mm gap at the root (3 off) one actually sit over the fuselage, the gap is 65mm otherwise, they are all 3mm ribs with 6mm cap strips. It is D section sheeted leading edge with 1.5mm shear webs, spars are 6mm balsa. I haven't decided on aileron construction because it isn't stock size 48mm. Also I haven't made my mind up to make it two piece with a joining tube or one piece, its about 620mm each panel.
I have also redrawn the section and gone for a 14% depth S8035 section, the idea was to go thick because I didn't want a ballistic missile just something that potters about, but would pull the shapes but nice and slowly. A sort of cross between a Wot4 and a Ripmax Jive if there can be such a thing, however I haven't got the resources to test every little change, spose I could make a thick one and a thinner one!
I am surprised there isn't more science to this design malarky just seems to be preference and what has gone before and it's if it looks good it should be ok
Any thoughts
Edited By Andrew McKelvey 1 on 06/07/2020 17:16:02
-
I am designing a sport model which will initially be about 52" wingspan and I have decided to use a built up wing rather than a foam core one, cutting foam cores is hard work on your own! I haven't any foam and I'm not going out, got loads of balsa.
So the question arises for a wing that will be about 620mm each panel and about 300mm constant chord with full length ailerons give or take the bit in the centre and about 15% depth, how many wing ribs would you build into the wing. Had selected a NACA 0015 or 0018 section.
I was thinking something like a Wot4 built up wing but as I don't have one I cant count them.
Is there a rule of thumb I don't know about it looks to me the spacing can be as small as 50mm and as large as 80mm for this size wing, my Panic Bi Plane has them closer at the root and further apart at the wing tips.
Any thoughts?
-
I get there eventually
-
It is always a bit difficult knowing when to reply to one of your posts because I think it deters people from then adding their weight behind the thread.
However, I thank those of you have responded and I take on board all the comments, the bec issue I summarily got 4max view on the subject when I perused the site last evening and conclude that I will disconnect a +ve from one of the esc, in fact depending upon where the cd comes out I might just disconnect both and power the receiver via a nimh in the nose if it needs some weight.
When designing a scratch built it is interesting how many decisions have to be made some will affect the flying ability and some become aesthetic, like the above thread it is some times nice to have some one else's thought when you in the shed.. just to confirm your own thoughts or the opposite.
My intension is to do the normal preliminary checks put it on the strip and let it go and see what happens, most things I can probably compensate for on the sticks but if I wreck it I'll get some practise repairing a foam board model, what can do wrong!
Ps I did take some photos but do not seem to be able to add them here keeps asking me to browse a library which means nought at the moment
-
Long Story severely shortened. I have designed my own twin engine high wing plane which I am calling a cartoon scale Bristol Freighter, only because it has roughly the same bits in the same shape but not necessarily exactly the same size.
I wanted to have a go a building a model with foam board using simple building techniques and see what I ended up with. The dimensions roughly the same as a single engine high winger I 'inherited' and put back in the sky.
I have a couple of questions still nagging in the back of my mind which someone in the know might answer for me.
I am using two brushless motors with two esc and one battery and I had it in the back of my mind I am supposed to isolate the live from one 'BEC' so It works, well I didn't initially and it does, in effect the bec's from both esc is feeding a regulated 5v to the receiver, I was told I had to isolate a +ve from one so it didn't confuse the esc? the receiver? So first question why do I need to isolate one of the supplies from the esc's because both mine work ok without. I must be missing something.
The motors are configured one to run CCW and the other CW does it matter which wing they are mounted on?
At the moment neither has any side thrust they both point straight ahead so do they need side thrust and if so in which direction?
Lastly the wing the engines are mounted on is Clark Y because of simplicity as it is made from blue foam. The flat bottom has zero incidence with the tail plane so in effect aerodynamically they will have a couple of degrees down thrust.
The plane this model is based on has exactly the same setup and flys quite well ie little or no side thrust and only a cople of degrees down thrust on the engine, clark y wing bottom at zero incidence to the tail plane.
I would be interested in your thoughts otherwise I just put it down on the strip when the wind subsides and open the throttle and see what happens. Think I might take a few photos for you
-
Colin
Not sure you remember me but we exchanged emails a few years ago regarding a PFM Team Special which I still haven't built but still on the wish list to kit.
As you can guess I am a bit into 70's 80's models
Edited By Andrew McKelvey 1 on 15/10/2016 18:57:21
-
Thanks for the feedback guys
I Was never intending using the props I stated they where what was on the plan, I am flying a Bowers Fly Baby at the moment on a 91FS using a 13.5 x 8 which is about 4 kg and it takes off nicely on half power and will go vertical for ever on full bore, just not scale like though.
I just got to wondering if it would be OK for the Zlin which is 82" wingspan so I'm guessing it will be, I do have a 120 FS but that would mean butchering the cowl to get it in, which I don't really want to do.
The watts per pound comes from sizing leccy planes that's all, which I thought might transfer to ic models
-
I am in the process of completing a Pat French Giant Zlin and began thinking about the engine size and wondering if the chosen one would be enough.
I had built it confidently with an ASP 91FS installed inverted, then I began wondering if it would be enough to give scale aereobatic performance, the recommended prop size on the plan 13x5 or 12x6 so the 91 will swing one of those easily.
The thought process wondered what does the real thing fly on and I was surprised to find that it has a 158hp engine and max AUW of just less than 1700lbs which works out to 69 Watts per pound!
My model weighs a little more than the plan weight and with a 91FS tips the scales at just shy of 5kg and that would give 118 watts per pound.
With a 120FS installed the weight would be 5.2kg and that would be about 138 watts per pound.
I also considered a 91 two stroke with a tuned pipe which would get us to 196 watts per pound but I might have noise issues with that.
Any way you look at it this looks to me to be far more power than the full size had available
So which is it to be or am I misguided in my theory
Logging on to the new site and forum - important to know
in Report A Problem
Posted · Edited by Andrew McKelvey 1
After three hours messing around I am still not sure I'm doing this right. Yes I have logged into the forum but when trying to login to the main site and I go to subscriber services it wants me to sign up, I already has a subscriber number and it is in my login details. I am not stupid I did IT support for 15 years but really, this new site to me is untested, and all the problems should have been ironed out at acceptance testing or a big article on the home page on how to rectify these issues, I have changed my password six times today and I am still not sure what my credentials are. Not Good