Ron Gray

Yes they are nicely thought out and well designed. As I said in my vid, the only problem I've had so far is with the downloaded parameters file which wasn't quite correct but that's now sorted.

Yes this is my first attempt at this type of building

Fingers crossed Matty.

I would, and have, quite happily printed cockpit stuff using PLA after all I'm painting the parts so that gives them protection from UV. As a general rule I do not use PLA for any parts likely to be stressed or exposed to the environment (unprotected) for these I either use PETG or ASA / ABS but as you've discovered the latter need a controlled heat environment (enclosure) to get consistent good results. For light weight then PLA-LW is excellent so printing say pilots from this filament offers a good weight saving and it is the filament used for most 3D printed models, having said that I'm using ASA-LW which has the advantage of being more environmentally robust! My advice is to start off with PLA as it is by far the easiest to print with and also the cheapest.

Great stuff Eric, I suppose I’d better start mine now, on second thoughts I’ll wait until the new workshop doors have been fitted!

A textured PEI build plate is included but you can buy other build plates if you want, such as a smooth PEI one. Due to it being an open frame design with no enclosure, printing with filaments such as ABS which require higher and more controlled temperatures, is not recommended. If you have no need for printing with these and are happy with PLA and PETG then it’s not a problem. 90% of my printing using my X1C (and it’s used a lot) is with PLA, PETG and TPU.

But they have very limited control rights to that airspace! This allows the upwards development of the owner's property and stops neighbours building over it but it doesn't extend to air traffic.

Thanks Colin, fortunately the maiden flight (s) went well and I actually ended up flying it on high rates as it needed more control movements than I thought. I was also expecting the foreplane to have more effect on the roll rate so I will have to adjust that before I take it out again. The only problem I had was that it kept going into LVC, I thought that it was the ESC but it occurred on the next flight after I had swapped it out (and checked all the wiring) so I'm thinking that it might just b mean issue with the motor. Bearing that in mind I'm going to get a bigger motor with a higher Kv as I want to fly it with 4s packs rather than 3s. Watch this space!

Loads of Blackbirds and Fieldfares in our orchard making the most of the pears.

Yep, that wasn't one of my better choices, I think B&Q listed it as Shrek and Brewers as Jolly Green Giant.

Colour blind Eric

Looks like green, dark green and grey with bits of yellow, black and white. Sorry, I just couldn’t resist it.

Surely if the portal shows the correct information, or a quick check on the CAA website (https://register-drones.caa.co.uk/my-registration) shows the correct information then all is good irrespective of the email?

We sometimes forget that 'bureaucracy' is not new, many years ago we had to get a Radio Telegraph Licence from the Post Office in order to fly RC. I, for one, can put up with this simple bit of officialdom if it allows me to continue flying much the same as I always have done.

I think I was wrong, the u/c had a separate, shared battery with the sound system, the Rx was powered off one of the motor batteries.

My one had, as I've already said, batteries in each nacelle but the retracts had their own supply shared with the sound system (1300mAh 3S). The Rx took its power from one of the motor batteries but I really can't remember if I had a 'redundancy' battery for the Rx, the new 100 will have it though! Btw, the 110 flies really well on one motor, I wanted to see what it was like so had one on a switch so that I could kill it mid flight.

My 110 had a separate Rx battery and then another one for the sound system and retracts. From memory they were <1300mAh 3s. The 110 also flies very well on one engine!

One motor each Brian.

If you have differential thrust then there is no need for a castoring tail wheel. I would go for 50% power on max rudder throw on each throttle servo (or esc if leccy). So on neutral rudder each IC engine will be on tickover, applying rudder will raise throttle on ‘opposite’ engine leaving the other at tickover. Obviously you can adjust the amount of throttle to see what is best suited to the whole taxi / take off / landing process. Mine was set to 100% and I also had it setup to become active when the gear was down but I changed that as I wanted control of when it was active.

That's exactly what differential thrust gives you

Personally I don’t like a castoring tailwheel but then I do fly off a tarmac runway. Dead easy to link ESCs to rudder.

I had the batteries (4s 3700mAh) mounted in the nacelles on my last WR 110 and this gave me the correct C of G with no added weight. I will be doing exactly the same when (when?) I get around to building this one. I agree with Chris that the landing loads are far better distributed through the airframe with them in the nacelles, I also agree that it’s much safer (arming) with them in the nacelles.

On my previous 110 I had exactly that Chris but with it activated by a switch, that meant that I could switch it off once airborne. It was extremely effective and gave excellent ground handling (there’s a vid of it on my YT channel).

I have now removed the video. Have a nice 2025.

Thanks ED. For those who wish to discuss what constitutes BVLOS please open another thread.