slippyr4

The instructions for both the pentium and guard series of ESC from hobbywing, in all sizes, are the same. Although i've not got a 25A guard, i've got two in other sizes and programming has never been a problem. Here is a link to the instructions:- http://www.leaderhobby.com/img/menu/ESCManual.pdf If you can't get it into program mode, it could be that your throttle channel needs reversing? (make sure you take the prop off before you play with that though).

You can program brake just fine from the transmitter. Are you having bother with it?

It's only a matter of airspeed until you actually hit the ground though - then it's all about groundspeed. IMO it's not really about the airspeed vs. groundspeed though - if you've lost power on take off, then you're probably only just flying. Putting control inputs in for a turn is going to cause drag, and going to slow the model down, and may well stall the model, which can make for an ungraceful landing.

As I see it, there are two types of "guest". There is the prospective new member who wants to evaluate the club's facilities with a mind to perhaps joining - these guests will expect to, and be happy to be accompanied, and indeed to come to visit the club at a time when club officials are in attendance. The other sort of "guest" is someone like Mark, the original poster in this thread. This kind of guest wants to, in effect, become a temporary member. The committee of a club are tasked with working in the interests of the members of the club. The club might have restrictions on it from the land owner, or from other countryside users. That club might be sensitive to noise, or be handling complaints from members of the public. That club might be making a planning application, or subject to the terms of a planning consent. For many clubs, therefore, there is little benefit to the membership, and plenty of risk of a downside, in accepting a temporary member. However, a guest, who flies initially only when accompanied by club officials, and ends up becoming a full member is a) continually supervised, and b) has a vested interest in the longevity of the club.

Posted by Peter Beeney on 28/09/2012 14:27:44: If I’m feeling frivolous I say there are 10 newtons to the kilogram, but on the other hand if I’m really serious about being pedantic I say there are 9.8066500286 newtons to the kilogram. I'll see your pedantry, and raise you that you're still wrong - A newton is never equivalent to a kilogram, because a kilogram is a unit of mass. What you mean is that at standard gravity, a 1 KG mass is accelerated by 9.8066 m/s/s, and hence has a weight of 9.806 N. <bait> Since our models fly at some altitude, they experience reduced gravity, and therefore our servos are less torquey in the air* </bait>

Surely shahid should know that servo torque is very much not measured in "kilograms per cm" !!!! Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 01/10/2012 14:39:35

My best is probably the Fliton Inspire 60. Sublime.   Worst, probably the Cermark Sammy 3D. Or maybe a wot 4 (i'll put my flame suit on now).     agreed with the OP that the Buzz is a great model, but for me a wing could never be a best model - too limiting not having a rudder. 

Although the internal impedance of (good quality) lipo packs is low, it's not actually a massive problem connecting different charge level packs in parallel - the math works on the voltage difference between the cells.   In crude terms, and an extreme case, two packs with an internal resistance of 25 milliohms each, and say 0.3 V difference between them would result in a 6A current (initially) between cells... that may scare you, but it'll a) tail off very very quickly, and b) it's actually not that big a deal.    If using an adaptor such as the one above (which I myself do), probably the current-limiting factor is actually the copper tracks on the circuit board, not the balance taps. The balance wires in practise are usually capable of taking several amps - their resistance probably causes significant voltage drop (but that doesn't really matter, it only reduces the efficiency of the charge), but they don't get hot, so it's all fine.   The only appreciable risk of parallel charging is what happens if for whatever accidental reason a pack becomes disconnected? In that instance, the remaining packs will experience a greater than rated charged current.   Although that situation is unlikely, I personally like to back off from the maximum current by the charge current of the single largest pack being charged, purely as a safety margin. For example, if I were charging a 2200mAh, 1200mAh and an 1800mAh pack, on paper I could charge (1C) at 5.2 Amps, i'd actually charge at only 3 A, which would result in a safe charge rate if any one pack became disconnected.     A separate note: Most of the modern far east mass produced lipo balance chargers use bleed balancers and require the main leads of the pack to be connected when charging. If you're using a parallel adaptor board as above, but your charger needs the main leads connecting too, you can actually connect the leads of just one of the packs - there's no need to connect all of the main leads in parallel (of course provided that you don't overdo the current which will be flowing down the balance leads - this trick is purely to satisify the charger's requirement to have the main leads connected, no more, no less). 

It does matter which port the bind plug is in: the "signal" pin on the battery/bind port is pulled low by the bind plug, which tells the receiver to enter bind mode. It won't do that with the bind plug in any other port.   Interestingly, the bind plug in the aileron channel would stop a servo in the other aileron channel from working. It's conceivable, albeit very unlikely, that this could cause the servo to fail. Although that'd be an extremely poor design of servo if that was the case.     Timbo, since we're all friends perhaps it'd be worth tidying up the thread so it remains on topic? 

Clive,   I'm sorry if I offended you, it wasn't intended at all.   I'd put it to you that if your servo appeared to be damaged during bind, then it's a red herring - perhaps it was already faulty, or an act of god etc. For the reasons stated above, bind cannot have done anything untoward to your servo.   Having said that, there are a couple of (old) digital servos which don't behave properly when they receive no PPM signal - although i've not heard of them being damaged in such a situation.   thanks   slip 

The "little kick" is simply the servo moving from it's rested position, to the position represented by the signal, when the signal is applied....   When you turn on in bind mode, the servos are powered up but there is not PPM signal sent. As soon as bind completes, the signal starts, sending the servos to the position set by the sticks.   The "little kick" is functionally identical to the kick you used to get with PPM receivers at switch on.   The servos are not driven to any position other than what is set on the sticks, so it could not cause a linkage to bind, or break, that wouldn't have done so anyway just from waggling the sticks.   Regarding connecting the battery to the aileron port - all of the power pins on ch1-5, aileron 2, and the actual battery bind connector, are all connected together on the PCB. They are electrically identical. And, given that a battery connects with only 2 wires, and thus has nothing to do with the signal line, it's therefore functionally impossible for it to actually matter which port you connect the battery to, at bind time or any other time.   You could of course disconnect the servos for bind, but there's absolutely no need to do that whatsover, and it could be rather inconvenient. Sure, the first time you bind a new receiver it might be on the bench with no servos, but you should always rebind, in the model, in order to set the throttle failsafe - something which you can't reasonable do until everything is set up. At that stage disconnecting all the servos is simply a waste of time. 

Put the bind plug into the correct port on the receiver, and turn the receiver on.   The LED on the receiver will be flashing quite fast.   Now, depress the bind button on the transmitter and keep holding it down. Turn the transmitter on, keeping the button held down.   Watch the LED on the receiver: it's blinking pattern will change, and in approx 5 seconds, you'll hear the servos twitch and you'll have control of the model.   At this point, you can let go of the bind button on the transmitter, and then turn off the receiver, turn off the transmitter, and remove the bind plug from the receiver. 

Firstly, this has nothing to do with the airframe being a Panic. The usual explanation for an apparent "unbind" is turning the transmitter on with the bind button held down, inadvertently. If that happens when there is no nearby receiver with a bind plug in waiting to be bound, then the transmitter actually reconfigures itself to DSM (as opposed to DSM2). This will manifest itself as an unbound receiver when it's actually more an unbound transmitter. The reason behind this is that during bind, the receiver actually transmits, and the transmitter actually receives (they negotiate things such as channel order, number of channels, etc). The original DSM protocol's bind sequence was one way transmission only; therefore if a DX7 or above transmitter it put into bind mode and does not receive a signal from a binding DSM2 rx, then it assumes it's being bound with a DSM1 rx, and switches to DSM mode. 

They always delaminate within a few flights, sometimes even on the first.   Sometimes it doesn't seem to matter and the cracks aren't too bad, but sometimes they are so severe that the undercarriage fails.   If you've got a nice looking alternative then fit that instead.

for sure, some pictures of the modified design would be great. the fun-fly was a howler of a design (looks wise) so any improvements sound great!

There's obviously a debate about the merits of using advanced mixes to tweak the flying characteristics of a model.  But, in this day and age, anyone who doesn't see the benefit of features such as model memories, wing type mixes, travel adjust, dual rates etc, in my mind is a Luddite. Following their logic, why bother with "modern" proportional radios at all? They should still be using the original R/C - single channel +escapement.

The JR is spektrum compatible: every spektrum DSM2 air receiver to date works with it. It being Spektrum, it's got modelmatch, servo sync etc, which the futaba won't have. Plus, it being JR, it's easier to program too. I've actually got a DSX9, despite posting this thread, but i'm always interested to read about the radio in RCM&E

Who wants to read that then? I like the look of the trimming article, not read it yet but looks like this is set to be one of the more interesting issues of late.

Was promised that the second part of the DSX9 review would be in this issue, but no sign....  Publishing gremlins?

Torque is not kg/cm - it's Kgcm - ie Kg multipled by centimetres.  Not to mention that Kilograms are a unit of mass, not force...

me too please, i'd not mind winning!

Hi RCM&E People, Since you seem to be soliciting feedback, I thought i'd chuck my 2p in... Reviews make up a large proportion of the page space of the magazine, and they're important. There are a few things that bother me about the average review:-  1. Reviewers very often will change something in a model on a whim - They'll add an extra bit of ply to reinforce a bulkhead, or change linkages because they don't like the ones included etc. This dilutes the value of the review, and I think it should stop. Unless 100% necessary for safety reasons, the models should be built out-of-the box and tested as such.  2. Reviews are too nice. I can't remember a review in RCM&E where the reviewer was negative about a model. You'd think that eveything reviewed was perfect. What's wrong with saying that the build quality is atrocious, it flies like a pig, is overpriced - avoid?!  3. Reviews could benefit from a second opinion box - it's always useful to know what someone else thinks about a model or product. I hope my comments don't come accross as too negative - that's not my intention. Overall, RCM&E is a great magazine. Thanks Jon 

I hope the little ASBO youthes obey good field sense and use a peg board, otherwise they could easily down the police chopper.

anyone know if spektrum plan to release a radio based on the pcm9xII ? that's when i'll bite.

I can't answer your question, cos i'm not looking for one, but I think inwood's have got some at the moment.