Andy Gates

Does the Archer receiver not require LBT? It may be that your external module does not have LBT unless the firmware has been updated to include it. If not, use the internal module which certainly can be updated to LBT.

I agree with Phillip, calibrate each one separately before linking them up in a plane. However if you are using different receiver channels for each speed control, then you can still calibrate each one individually via each channel.

I missed the digital servo bit earlier. How many servos are there and what is the BEC current rated at? It might be the BEC is trying to supply more current than it can so the voltage is dropping out. Analogue mini servos to standard digital servos is quite a jump in power required

If you are really getting weight critical, then closed loop connections to the rudder will be lighter still and more in keeping with "vintage" machines

I would overlay the RSSI values over your graph, that would show the reception strength from the receiver

I did have issues with the fingers on my trainer port having worn slightly so not making good contact. Resolved by use of a pin to distort the fingers very slightly

911, If you have put standard size servos in the tail it will need LOTS of nose weight. Each standard servo weighs about 35g. The photo with the servos in the tail are small servos about 10 - 17g each. Either way, I would fit the servos in the fuselage as far forwards as realistically possible then use push rods or snakes to move the surfaces. This way the amount of weight required in the nose will drop and the plane will be much more pleasant to fly. Good luck

Flimsy foam ailerons springs to mind. Alternatively are the servos strong enough for the surface size / speed? We did have an issue like this recently at our field which was traced to a poor servo extension causing one aileron servo to "wave" after returning to centre. Only happened when full deflection was used and stick was allowed to spring back to the centre, other servo never did it.

I would love to replace my WR Spit so I would be interested.

Have you done a range check with the motor running?

If you dislike that method try this one. Add another ply former in front or behind the original depending on the wire location with a gap the thickness of the wire + 2 x 1/32" Now bend your UC wires as 2 separate legs with the tops at 90 degrees. Cut 2 pieces of 1/32" ply big enough for the top angles to fit nicely and to fit in the width of the fuselage. Lay the legs over a piece of balsa the same thickness as the legs and the same size as the ply and cut out the leg shapes. Now glue the balsa to one piece of ply. Fit the legs to the ply / balsa layer and glue the other ply layer on top of the legs. You should now have a leg sandwich which will fit in the fuselage slot made earlier. Hopefully my scribbled diagram will help explain better until I can find the plan it came from. I have copied this idea from a Stevens Aero RV4 quite effectively on larger planes.

Pardon the stupid question but is the prop the correct way round? Looks like it may be back to front in the pics although not clear to be definitive.

Richard, I am currently building a Canberra from English Electric Models which works on the pattern you are suggesting.

I may possibly be able to answer your question Basil. Futaba have I believe 3 different protocols in use, maybe 4. Which protocol(s) your transmitter uses I will leave you to sort out. You then use receivers to match those protocols. Buddy boxes are a different game. I suspect by "other" you are talking about transmitters which use multi protocol modules internally. These can wirelessly buddy with any other transmitter providing you can find a receiver to match the buddy transmitter protocol that also has a cppm output. Have a look at the FrSky Delta 8 receiver. This will bind to Futaba (not FAAST protocol), Hitec and FrSky transmitters and has CPPM output. Fit one into an empty module casing to go in the rear of a MPM transmitter and away you go once wired up correctly and bound. I carry 2 modules to the flying field, one as above and one with a Spektrum receiver which has both protocols supported. This way I can switch modules and buddy with almost any transmitter at the field. I am sure wired could be used but I don't know if there would be voltage issues when connection. I use wireless, if we walk in opposite directions no damage is done when we run out of wire.

+1 on Franks comment. Go to a local club and talk with them as they will be best placed to assist and to make sure that she flies legally & safely.

Any transmitter on the market could be described as suitable. I assume she will learn to fly at a club nearby. Visit that club and listen to what the likely instructors suggest. If you buy something which is not compatible with the equipment they use to teach with, then the new transmitter will not get use until she can fly on her own.

Stunned. Little I can add that has not already been said. RIP

Don't give up Keith. If necessary look on it as a winter project. Are you trying with the Tx or Companion, the latter is way easier? We will chat at the field or club night.

Now that is a scary beast! How come the left hand side of the tailplane is in front of the left wing tip? Or is this a modelling version of an optical illusion to confuse the brain?

If you are having approach direction / lining up issues, take a moment when no one is flying - stand in the centre of the runway and look at the horizon in both directions for features that align with the centre of the ends of the runway. You can use these features to assist in lining your model up. Far too many final turns are far to early meaning realignment of the model. Get it right and your work load drops drastically on finals meaning a better landing.

Having gone through a few sets or retracts in one way or another, I have found that if I fly the plane to a wheeler type landing rather than trying the 3 pointer - the retracts definitely last longer and don't pull out so often.

Instant answer is no. Software as per Shauns suggestion will give a close prediction, E calc and MotoCalc will do similar. For real term results, a tacho with the exact units in use (motor, battery, ESC & prop) will give an exact answer, but personally I would not get too hung up with RPM. Watts per lbs is more critical but again, using a set up that gives the desired performance is what is required.

Maybe a daft question coming up, but could the tailplane / elevator assembly have been fitted upside down - especially if it is a non symmetrical section? The ones I have come across fly fine. Try this. Grab a length of string slightly longer than the fuselage. Fix one end with tape at the centre line of the motor to the side of the nose. Gently pull the string tight and tape the other end of the string at the rear of the fuselage just below the tailplane. Now measure the centre points of leading and trailing edge positions of the tailplane and wing in relation to the string line. That will provide a rough idea of your setup.

For me it is a variety. So gliders, 1950, 60, 70's models, WWI, WWII, some fun-fly and some experimental stuff. Most of all, flying these as appropriate to the machine.

Back to the OP question, yes I believe we do over power our models. As some have stated, sometimes there is a good reason for this - extreme aeros being one that comes to mind. However if we go down the line of scale machines, then a warbird that has to be dived to gain momentum is possibly about right depending on the machines original characteristics. With a trainer machine a little extra for the instructor to get the machine out of trouble is about right. Unlimited verticals probably a bit too much. As to structural strength, I think most of our machines are built like brick outhouses - to excess. I fall under the thinking of "build in lightness". My recent build - an electric powered TN FW190 from the free plan, current weight just over 4lbs with no battery but requiring more paint. Flies beautifully and scale like. A beginner I teach is currently going through a phase of thinking about lightness on his Boomerang EP. Changing ESC and servos has saved over 1/2 lb already, which means less power needed giving longer flights, or smaller battery reducing weight further.