Martin Harris - Moderator

Similarly, these are what we use - with the LED on extended leads. Very handy as one type can be used for a variety of functions. https://store.flytron.com/collections/led-light-systems/products/strobon-v2-navigation-light The lenses which they sell complement the effect on the nose light but my top mounted one works well without. https://www.flytron.com/products/strobon-v2-polycarbonate-lens

Isn’t the trade name Whattmeter rather than wattmeter? Strictly speaking, they don’t measure watts but calculate them from the product of measured voltage and current.

The wing “trick” is the most reliable. I have a white LED fitted in the nose of my Arrows Hawk (and a strobing one on the top decking) which have their uses when flying in a tight gaggle of 5 or more as we frequently enjoy, but their primary benefit is cosmetic. The downside is while doing an approach in poor light when you can lose the wings in the glare - fit a switch so that you can turn it off!

Several speculative posts (and replies quoting them) removed. Please respect Jon’s request not to post comments and questions about the decision made by the company’s owner. From a personal point of view, I’m saddened by the loss of these fine engines in the near future and wish Jon (and his fellow employees) all the best for the future and thanks for all his efforts over the years. Thanks also to Neil Tidey for the original design and concept of the Laser engine family.

Great that it’s sorted - hope you enjoy flying it.

You can open the throttle after turning the transmitter on - it’s the ESC seeing full throttle when the flight battery is connected that starts the training sequence.

The theory is that the engine runs at peak efficiency to charge the battery which acts as a reservoir for driving the electric motor(s). Unlike a conventional engine which has to run at varying speeds and loads with complex sensor monitored controls. It’s an interesting concept that seems to have value while the electric charge infrastructure is being developed or a better alternative is found. It does nothing to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. While there are batteries to carry, I would imagine there are weight savings on a larger engine and transmission to help balance the differences.

That’s exactly the point. Your ESC and motor have been shown to be working so it has to be a problem with the signal being seen by the receiver. Did you confirm that the other servos e.g. ailerons, elevator, respond to control inputs to confirm that your receiver is bound to the transmitter? If so, then follow Rotten Row’s guidance.

Have you performed the ESC training procedure? If your transmitter’s throttle range isn’t recognised then the ESC may not operate the motor. Before doing anything, check that the throttle range hasn’t been altered from default and that the trim is at neutral.

Reconnected the ESC? I assume you mean reconnected it to the receiver. No - if your motor runs correctly then it may be a transmitter programming problem. Do you have the ESC plugged in to the correct throttle channel in the receiver? It may not be channel 3 as you're used to with Futaba - I don't know FlySky. Do the other controls respond? If not, there could be a binding error.

What? What's a whatt? What's bad in your earlier post? The unit being measured is the watt (note the lack of capitalisation) abbreviated to W (note the capitalisation). Unless you're referring to a trade name, I think you could argue that wattmeter without the space would be the correct spelling for the power measuring equivalent of the voltage measuring voltmeter. An ammeter rather messes up the pattern...

While a servo tester will give a "clean" input to the ESC, you still need your ESC to control the motor so it will be at the same risk of damage from a faulty motor. P.S. I'm assuming this is a 3 phase brushless motor and not a DC one?

I'm a bit confused...it happens...too often these days... Your sister seems to have kept a photo of you boarding G_AHAG - you only flew in 1956 - a current pilot, who I'm assuming wasn't associated with the aircraft in 1956, told you it wasn't labelled as SCENIC at that time? Did you get any further with your research?

While it could be a myriad of things, the first that comes to mind is whether you're using a Futaba transmitter? Why should that make a difference? Futaba throttles work the opposite way to almost everyone else's and need reversing, otherwise most ESCs won't arm. Also, have you calibrated your ESC - usually a case of connecting the battery with the throttle wide open (propeller NOT fitted please!) wait for the beeping to stop and close the throttle - refer to specific instructions if possible. Don't forget that if you're reusing an IC model memory, the end points must be returned to 100% range.

I've pasted this exceptionally clear explanation (I can understand it!) of the technical differences from another thread - thanks Pete:

Not necessarily but FB3 was asking about log in issues relating to his forum account. You could access the contact page and make a note of the contact addresses if you want additional security GG.

Hi - there’s not really any likelihood of you having these problems again but there are contact details on https://www.modelflying.co.uk/contact-us/ that should enable a message to reach the forum owners. You don’t need to be logged in to access this facility

Unlikely if it’s an OS.

It’s not clear whether this was a club or a commercial drone concern but of course the reporting system is anonymous. However, there are clues in the report which would certainly narrow down the location as it seems to be located at around 700 feet altitude.

It would certainly be sad if such attitudes and obvious misunderstanding of the NOTAM system jeopardises the hard work behind the privileges granted to the BMFA.

From the latest CAA CHIRP publication - an outlet for anonymous reports to help enhance safety - I’m very concerned if the report reflects the attitudes of the club concerned accurately: Initial Report I was planning a flight from [Airfield 1] to [Airfield 2]. As part of my planning I saw a NOTAM raised in the [Town] area, 4nm diameter, surface to 3200ft amsl, 24/7, for the flying of drones and model aircraft. It’s a very congested piece of airspace constrained laterally by [Airfield 3] MATZ and [Airfield 4] ATZ. Vertically it is adjacent to the London TMA. I always try and follow the GASCo advice of take 2 miles laterally and 200ft vertically, so I was pretty interested in what might be out there to bump into. As a courtesy, I elected to call the number given to see if they were operating. The person’s tone at the other end was demeaning, became insulting and finally threatening by demanding my details because they were going to immediately contact the CAA. As the conversation had become threatening, I advised I would not continue and terminated my call. I’m glad I was operating as a rear-seat pilot not as P1 because by this point I was thoroughly irritated and distracted. Their understanding of NOTAM use and the rights they give is different to mine. They considered that: the NOTAM had been raised by the CAA to protect my life (if in error I apologise but I thought NOTAMs were raised by the originator); I was not permitted to fly through that airspace; there is no requirement for the drone operator to maintain lookout; the drones are not required to be kept in line of sight; they had no concept that they were also responsible for separation and avoidance action; in no uncertain terms they advised that I should hold outside their airspace and climb above before proceeding; they could fly their large heavy drones 24/7 with no consideration of other airspace users; and they had no requirement to manoeuvre away should they sight an aircraft. I remain certain much of the above is not true. I believe the size and use of this NOTAM’ed airspace is inappropriate and have raised that direct with the CAA. CHIRP Comment This report highlights misunderstandings that might exist about NOTAMs versus restricted areas and TRAs. Although published by NATS on behalf of the CAA, NOTAMs are compiled by the requestor of the activity. In this particular case, the NOTAM was a navigation hazard warning with no requirement to avoid it although sensible to do so given the activity likely to be conducted within with small models/drones. For their part, those operating drones/UAS within such NOTAM’ed areas still have a duty to avoid collisions with other aircraft and so they must maintain visual contact with their drone/model at all times – all airspace users have a duty to avoid collisions and must give way to aircraft to the right of their own. Given the often small size of drones/models, there is extra importance in drone/UAS operators avoiding aircraft that they see given that their drone/model will likely be very difficult to detect by an aircraft pilot. In short, unless specific arrangements have been made to operate BVLOS[1] (which requires a TRA at present), a model/drone operator is required to maintain lookout (either themselves or by an observer if using FPV[2]) and must keep any model/drone within their line-of-sight. [1] BVLOS – Beyond Visual Line of Sight. [2] FPV – First-Person-View, i.e. using heads-down video or virtual reality goggles. The NOTAM itself was poorly drafted with a number of errors in heights. The upper limit was erroneously described as the surface altitude in one part and 2500ft agl in another (implying a top height of 3200ft amsl). The intended top-height was 1500ft agl (2200ft amsl) and this was corrected in a subsequent issue of the NOTAM. Whilst we’re all prone to mistakes and errors at times, it shows the importance of understanding the NOTAM compilation process and double-checking any entries to make sure they are correct. NATS have produced NOTAM Guidance Material (see also QR code), wherein Paras 3.2 and 3.3 (reproduced below) give an explanation of how to decode NOTAMs. Although many electronic navigation and planning aids do this automatically for users, those compiling NOTAMs need to understand the various entries and what they mean.

I’d love to see that video without the music. Some excellent flying!

Get well soon Matty and fingers crossed for a full recovery.

I thought it was just me. I’ve had numerous punctures over the years - everything from screws, nails, blackthorn, to the operating bar from a Yale lock! The first thing I did when buying a new car was to buy a spare wheel and jack to replace the stupid inflation kit - use of which means that most places won’t repair a puncture! One wouldn’t have been much use when I slashed a huge gash in a tyre on a stone while pulling into a Cornish passing place a year or so ago.

Only the receiver crystal is dual/single conversion and the correct type needs to be used for either a single or dual conversion receiver. Unless your receiver is marked as dual conversion it’s almost certainly single conversion - in the case of Futaba, SC normally used orange aerials and DC had white ones.