Martin_K

If you read up on propeller thrust angle you will find that down and right is common on 'planes with a single front mounted motor. It is impossible to generalise, however, as the design of aircraft and selection of motor will change what works best, i.e. that the aircraft flies straight and climbs appropriately when the power is on.

Gonzo, I get your point that to comply a club's private field would itself need to be inside a substantial private 'buffer zone'. I am still being thick however. Which test are you referring to? Gonzo, hold fire! The penny just dropped! Edited By Martin_K on 10/10/2019 15:55:37

Keep your hair on, let me have another go at checking I understand. The still to be confirmed fee for registering as a drone operator is the least of our worries. For future operation of model aircraft (self builds, not RTF drones) there are two scenarios; * The EU wide Open Category in which subcategory A3 is the best fit for Privately Built models, but the requirement to prevent 'uninvolved persons' from entering 'the area of flight' effectively makes this impossible on public land, i.e. where people roam. So only clubs with private fields are left standing. * Alternatively at the national (not EU) level, operation authorised in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations. We are pinning our hopes on the BMFA getting some sort of collective exemption granted by the CAA under the Specific Category. Worst case for me if the BMFA do not deliver; All the places I fly, including those requiring club membership, are public land so I am limited to Privately Built models as defined in subcategory A1 for models of less than 250g, but hey, I don't have to pay the registration fee!

Posted by Steve J on 08/10/2019 20:16:28: Posted by Martin_K on 08/10/2019 20:10:43: It looks to me as though the specific category would impose extra burdens on the aero modeller. You need to read article 16 of the implementing regulation. Steve I have just read article 16 UAS operations in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations. It makes no reference to the specific category. Dave Phipps does not make reference to the specific category, Matty does. I still think that looks wrong.

Posted by MattyB on 08/10/2019 17:09:25: So I just asked a question to the BMFA FB page for their view on this topic and got an almost immediate response from Dave Phipps (thank you sir): "A3 is within the 'Open Category' so would apply to those operating outside the framework of Associations. The only thing mandated in the EU regs for those within an Association is the requirement for registration. Absolutely everything else should be defined in the authorisation negotiated with the CAA for which CAP658 will be our starting point." From that I take it that all National Association members will be operating under the Specific category, with the authorisation for that having been negotiated by the BMFA, LMA, FPVUK and SAA with the CAA. If that authorisation includes exemptions to the distance requirements and "reasonable expectations that no uninvolved personnel will be present" then we should be good, though that will make it comparatively confusing for the authorities who are looking to enforce the regs. Matty, I am not confident about your interpretation of Dave's statement. From the Implementing Regulation; (8) Operations in the ‘open’ category, which should cover operations that present the lowest risks, should not require UAS that are subject to standard aeronautical compliance procedures, but should be conducted using the UAS classes that are defined in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 (2). (9) Operations in the ‘specific’ category should cover other types of operations presenting a higher risk and for which a thorough risk assessment should be conducted to indicate which requirements are necessary to keep the operation safe. It looks to me as though the specific category would impose extra burdens on the aero modeller.

Posted by MattyB on 08/10/2019 16:02:39: Here you go Gonzo - I pulled it from FB and cut and shut in your description text... Thanks Matty and Gonzo. (I have no FaceBook account so cannot see things on FaceBook as they cover a third of the screen with an invitation to join). It will take me some time to digest the implications.

Posted by Steve J on 08/10/2019 15:46:08: The document that you link to outlines the EU Implementing and Delegated Regulations. There are links to these regulations on page one of the document. What you do at the moment is probably A3 privately built. Steve Thanks, I see the links now.

Can someone confirm I am correctly understanding CAP 1789, operation type A2 and A3? I cannot find a document CAP 1789, only CAP 1789 - The EU UAS Regulation Package – Outline, which I assume is an explanation of CAP 1789, not the document itself? Extracts below taken from pages 4 and 5 of the document linked above. The closest to what I currently do seems to be Open Category - Sub Category A2. My concerns are the three parts in bold. What do they mean to somebody who builds their own models? A2 (Fly ‘close to’ people) – Operations in subcategory A2 can only be conducted with an unmanned aircraft that is compliant with a specific product standard (and a maximum mass of less than 4kg), but this unmanned aircraft can be flown to a minimum safehorizontal distance of 30 metres from uninvolved people, or down to 5 metres horizontally when its ‘low speed mode’ is selected. In addition, the remote pilot must have successfully completed an additional competency examination in order to operate in this subcategory. Sub Category A3 looks to me to rule out any operation of models over 4Kg on public land, which is every flying field available to me. A3(Fly ‘far from’ people) – This category covers the more general types of unmanned aircraft operations. The intent is that the unmanned aircraft will only be flown in areas that are clear of uninvolved persons and will not be flown in areas that are used for residential, commercial, industrial or recreational purposes (roughly equivalent to what is currently referred to as a ‘congested area' Edited to explain - I had to slightly change the text copied from the CAP because the forum software is substituting an emoticon where a combination of punctuation marks appear! Edited By Martin_K on 08/10/2019 15:34:45 Edited By Martin_K on 08/10/2019 15:37:03 Edited By Martin_K on 08/10/2019 15:37:59 Edited By Martin_K on 08/10/2019 15:40:36

By "funfly" I am imagining something that is going to be doing multiple short flights, possibly with low level aerobatics, touch and go, etc. It follows from that prettiness, if it has any to start with, may be short lived. Exposed servos no problem there. For a soaring glider I would want something different. The wing profile looks nearly symmetrical but the convention of the pushrods exiting the bottom of the wing sounds O.K. as you say the plane has undercarriage. If you were belly landing on rough grass you could make a case for the servos and horns being on top of the wings. Would probably still get vegetation jammed between the fixed and moving surfaces however, which happens to me all the time!

I can't tell you what is 'best'. My intention was to encourage you to consider the options. Denis's first picture is probably the simplest. I would be happy to go with that, you may want a sleeker look. As for the setup, do the plans give no suggestions? I would think about what throw (range of movement) is desired on the aileron and try and work back from that. Then pick servo and aileron horns of an appropriate length to avoid interference with the wing and adjust the 'gearing' of the levers. I do use z-bends in my pushrods, and make them up to the desired length. Easy to cut out another piece of piano wire if the result is not good. If you prefer screw adjustable fittings go with that. There is no ideal method.

From me only questions, not answers. Do you intend the servo horn to be outside the wing, or inside the wing with pushrod emerging through a hole in the sheeting/covering? Do you intend the servo to be oriented with it's horn parallel to the wing, probably if a 'standard' servo, or with servo horn perpendicular to wing, probably if thin 'wing' servo?

The BMFA document A Flying Start may help with terminology. See Module 1.

Posted by Chris Walby on 01/10/2019 12:55:02: Its the landings that get me. Trying to get a feel of how slow it will fly and what its about to do (pleasant or unpleasant) with out the benefit of high and speed for recovery just adds to the pressure! Cuban8, Chris, I understand that if you are flying too slowly to generate lift stabilisation is not going to prevent rapid descent. That got me thinking, is a model with a low stall speed the best type for use with on-board stabilisation? That sounds daft, which raised the question, do on-board flight controllers also detect speed and control the throttle? Answer, yes some do, using either an airspeed sensor or speed computation from other detectors. The catch is calibration of the flight controller is done in the air so you need to be a good pilot, to think about software setup while managing the plane and collaborating with an assistant. Easier for companies building setup files for mass produced models, rather than the club modeller with a unique plane. I learned about this looking at parts of the ArduPlane documention, i.e. firmware that runs on a flight controller board.

Could the solution for nervous pilots be the stabilising RX? Test one out on an unloved plane then fit to the new beauty? I have never programmed such an RX but my understanding is you can limit roll and have hands off self levelling. The maiden will still be a thrill!

Mel, I took your question to mean what are the rules for bungee specifications in competition. I cannot answer that. If you are asking what works, in addition to what the guys have already said, it depends on the weight of your glider. My first attempt using rubber tubing was far too viscious for ~250 gram models. I bought a made up set which may be this, plus a good ground stake from a kite shop. The Graupner web site appears to be down so I cannot find the details. I think mine was only half the price now quoted. Germany is the home of RES competiton, with emc-vega a well known supplier of Hi-Starts. Absurdly expensive but it will show you the range of options.

O.K. That gives me plenty to think about. My builds so far have all been from kits as per the instructions. No hacking required. I reckon fuselage in the passenger compartment, wing halves and tailplane in the boot would fit. (The car is old, building model aircraft new). Paul Jones, sorry to hijack your thread!

Thanks Piers, Putting a 4 foot wing in the passenger compartment and the fuselage plus radio and Hi-Start in the boot is what I do now. (But these are narrow and thin glider wings). Looking at the photos it's not immediately obvious to me how to make a slide in tube connector when there is so much dihedral at the wing centre. I will swot up on it.

Do the traditional free flight inspired designs like the Junior 60 and similar typically have a one piece wing? I might like to build something of this type but a 5 foot wing into an MX-5 or bicycle carrier does not go!

There has been no change to the document regarding fees. See under "Operator ID". Fee: Currently under consultation

The CAA Drone and model aircraft registration and education service web page has been changed. The text; Go-live date: 1 October 2019 has been removed. Edited By Martin_K on 29/09/2019 10:20:55

Posted by Foxfan on 28/09/2019 14:45:55: So I still can't really see a difference twixt Model Match and what everybody's doing when they select the model they want to fly   Martin My final attempt; Model Match - pairing of RX and TX Model Memory - setup of your aircrafts controls If you replaced the RX with another of the same type the Model Match would change, requiring a rebind (first bind of new RX) but everyting else in the model memory could stay the same. Edited By Martin_K on 28/09/2019 15:14:54

Posted by Foxfan on 28/09/2019 14:06:02: .... what are people doing when they select a model on their pootah screens? Martin leccyflyer has explained what Model Match does but not what it is. Spektrum radios are manufactured with a unique ID, the GUID (Globally Unique Identification Code). When you bind the RX to a radio with only 1 model memory, like the DX5e, this ID is saved in the RX's memory. Any RX with this same ID will respond to commands from the radio. For a radio with multiple model memories that supports Model Match, at bind time the radio modifies the hard coded GUID, producing a different ID to be saved by each RX paired with that radio. The radio now has multiple ID's, one for each model. In all cases every packet in the RF data stream from the radio starts with that radio's (or model's) ID. More than one RX can be bound to any radio, or model memory. All these bind related matters are a function of the RX. As Frank Skilbeck explained above, model memories let you switch models, in the process restoring unique configurations of servos, trim, and mixes for that model. These model memories are a function of the radio.

Don, Martin, The memory for the bind is in the RX. Something else is going on.

Try it and see. I have a DXe and have no need to rebind every time.

Foxfan, Ignoring any discussion about a new radio, I am confused by your need to rebind when you swap aircraft. Just to confirm, this is with a DX5e? When you bind a Spektrum (or compatible) RX to a radio you save the ID of the radio in memory on board the RX. The RX then 'knows' to listen to that radio. Unless you rebind that RX to a different radio, the ID of the radio that is stored will not change. The question is, what happens when you swap models? Edited By Martin_K on 27/09/2019 19:53:26