Richard Clark 2

If using an old fast charger make sure it can be set to 'Nimh'. as the peak is much smaller than Nicad so if not set the charger may not detect the peak and keep charging until an Nimh battery gets very hot and blows up or melts

GC too far back? Maybe. If so you will be flying with some amount of down elevator (electronic trim or mechanical adjustment) to fly level at 'normal' speed and this may over-compensate the rearward CG as the speed increases resulting in a steepened dive. Alternatively a too flexible linkage. Where possible I set my planes up so the control linkage 'pulls' for up elevator rather than pushes for it.

Posted by Dom (Essential RC) on 22/07/2020 08:09:37: Thanks Ron. Very much appreciated. I do what I and my friends enjoy. It's as simple as that. Believe me it wouldn't be possible to run a YouTube channel for ~15 years unless it was fun. I would be interested to hear from Richard what HE thinks IS impressive. If you generalise to the extent he is then all RC model aircraft go 'round and round and up and down'. I cover most things on the 'Essential RC' YouTube channel so I must be missing something!? Rest assured I have no criticism of the quality of your videos. They are excellently produced..

Wired links are better anyway. I run  very high resolution Hi-Fi on Windows  and wouldn't dream of using a wireless network except for the Apple iPad I use as  a  'controller'. Only the control signals, which are  intermittent,  go though that. The actual music, which is stored  on IBM 'WAV' files (the 'sound'  industry standard) doesn't. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 22/07/2020 06:45:36

Posted by Steve Hargreaves - Moderator on 21/07/2020 15:39:13: I find the lightweight fillers from the DIY store useful for dings & marks. If you pick up the tub & it feels empty you've got the right stuff... This is the stuff currently on my shelf.... **LINK** No good for carving & suchlike but perfect for gaps & gouges. The classic dope & talcum powder mix takes some beating for such application too.... Spot on. Almost all these  'specialist' model plane materials  are  only re-packaged regular stuff anyway, Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 22/07/2020 05:40:39

I use the lightweight version of Polycell filler. It'a cheap, excellent, and you can get it in any DIY store.

Posted by Richard Acland on 31/10/2019 17:47:59: Posted by Dom (Essential RC) on 31/10/2019 13:31:23: Best example you will find of big sky RC aerobatics. This is Rainer Kamitz giving a demonstration with his Pitts S1S with perfect use of smoke throughout. The day I see a full size aircraft prop hanging a few feet off the ground, I will see the point in it   The point of it all is to 'promote' stuff so the industry makes lots of money. And 'Essential RC' with its endless stream of what he thinks are 'impressive' model planes going round and round and up and down is part of it. See one and you've seen  'em all.   Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 22/07/2020 05:22:44

Posted by MattyB on 20/07/2020 12:14:53: Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 19/07/2020 05:23:20: ..It's not that OpenTx is 'difficult' or won't do what people want, it's that by the usual commercial standards of ANY software the user interface is awful. Most people want to do their jobs or pursue their 'entertainment', be it flying model planes or anything else. They don't want to faff around with software or post questions about it on forums. ...Incidentally Multiplex users have no problem with OpenTx as they are both 'object orientated' unlike most other radios. ...I have seen and heard several times that the initial concepts of OpenTx were 'inspired' by the old (first produced in 1998-2000 or thereabouts) Multiplex Profi 4000. Having just read Mike Shellim's recently updated 'OpenTx Key Concepts' article I would go further. The concepts of OpenTx were 'lifted' in their ENTIRETY straight from the Multiplex Profi 4000 with no changes whatsoever except for altering a few names. I am struggling a bit to see how you are reconciling these points of view. You are a Mpx user who likes their kit and acknowledge OpenTX is based on the Profi4000 OS, but you also believe the OpenTX interface is awful? Have you tried OpenTX on a more recent TX like the X10 or X12 with a better screen and more real estate for displaying things? Having used an 35MHz Evo (~10 years) and P4000 (~2 years) in the past I find OpenTX more usable than both. The most straightforward setups were slightly easier on the Evo, but there were significant foibles/limitations to learn not present in OpenTX (one good example is the left/right Mpx channel sequencing rule) to catch you out. It also had limited functionality by comparison (no logical switches, global mixers across models, etc) which did make it simpler but was somewhat limiting. The Profi was for me way harder than OpenTX. It had a similar level of functionality (minus telemetry) but you were limited to setting up on the TX; having Companion makes that process far easier, especially if you are looking to use the more advanced functions. It was an amazing set in it's day, but being born before internet usage was fully mainstream meant it was always going to be niche due to the effort needed to utilise that functionality. By comparison OpenTX and the other open source (and even closed source object oriented systems like the Jeti) have advantages that make them much easier to get more out of - there are PC simulators, loads of templates to download and use/learn from, and a huge community and network of resources to support users. So putting the Mpx comparisons to one side, how usable really is OpenTX? You are right it is not perfect, though some of that is about it's origins; in the early days hardware restrictions (screens and processing power) of the and the demands for more functionality by users meant usability was not a focus. Even now low cost sets with lowish resolution LCD screens make up the majority of sales, but the interface is better on sets like the X10/X12. I still think the main "problem" users have with OpenTX is not a fundamental lack of usability, it's all about unlearning their old system. Object oriented is fundamentally very different approach, and if a new user approaches it from the angle of "How would I do this in my old Futaba/JR/Spektrum?" then it is always likely to be a struggle. I think this is why it has been so popular with complete newcomers to the hobby - it's cheap, feature rich and they haven't had to forget alternative ways of achieving the same results! Understand the flow and you are all good... Edited By MattyB on 20/07/2020 12:19:08 Matty, I'll start with the Profi 4000. It's not 'difficult' to 'configure' ('program' is technically incorrect though we all use the term) bur it very tedious due to the small four-line display meaning you can't do much in one go, you have to keep jumping about. However, enough of that OpenTx. The 'flow  is identical to Mpx for all l practical purposes. However, because I have serious doubts about Mpx continuing as a radio manufacturer for much longer I am beginning to think about something else. Jeti costs more than I am willing to pay as does  Powerbox (who I suspect won't last long). The cheapest Futaba that even comes close to equalling Evo functionality is over £1000. And I would prefer to avoid its 'bus' system even though I only have two models with more than 8 channels at present. So OpenTx it is likely to be. But I have doubts about the quality and 'feel' of the transmitters that support it (though Mpx is nothing special either). And I think 'companion' though not compulsory is too much of a faff to bother with. However, I'm thinking about it. But I'm, not yet prepared to spend the money (including receiver) on what  for me at present would be an 'experiment'. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 20/07/2020 17:29:40

Posted by kc on 19/07/2020 16:52:55: Anyone considering the Jumper T12 or Open Tx should read David Ashby's article " Look before You Leap" in RCME Oct 2019. The article said basically that Open Tx is for those who enjoy such things, whilst if you are just a fixed wing aeromodeller ( and especially those needing the help of an instructor) buy a radio which is more familiar in your chosen club. David Ashby's comments are interesting. Bur though I am sure he did not intend it, some would see his remarks about "just a fixed wing aeromodeller" and "those needing the help of an instructor" as sneers about people who make other choices. He may not intend to sneer  but there are many OpenTx advocates  that most certainly do. However, on to OpenTx itself. I have seen and heard several times   that the initial concepts  of OpenTx were 'inspired' by the old (first  produced in 1998-2000 or thereabouts)  Multiplex Profi 4000. Having just read Mike Shelim's recently updated 'OpenTx Key Concepts' article I would go further. The  concepts  of OpenTx were 'lifted'  in their  ENTIRETY straight from the Multiplex Profi 4000 with no changes whatsoever except for altering a few names.   Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 20/07/2020 03:39:50

Many years ago my free flight Contest Kits 'Inchworm' A2 glider ended up about 35 miles away on 'Tennyson Down' in the Isle of Wight having crossed about 8 miles of land, 4 miles of water, and almost the entire east-west length of the island. On the very first flight. A short 'test' in the back garden from a low level 'kneeling' hand launch. Light the dethermaliser fuse for a quick back garden test? No chance

II'vePosted by David Davis on 19/07/2020 12:21:33: "... Also covering in doped nylon or Solartex is NOT building light. ..."   Agreed, but they are both very tough coverings and and ideal for the treatment which I meeted out to it when I was a novice or indeed the treatment it received at the hands of my current crop of trainees. They were all amazed at how slowly it flew and how easy it was to fly once they'd stopped putting in inputs which were too coarse. I will have the opportunity to report on a Ben Buckle kit in September. My partner is coming over and she is keen to be involved in the building of a Super 60. I expect that we'll cover it in Solartex. She's learning to fly too. She's already a whizz on the simulator! I've got some of the similar Oratex but have not yet used it. I think both it and Solartex are a bit heavy for such sized planes. Bur then I don't use them as trainers as though an experienced and 'adequate' flyer I do not feel confident to train people. And unlike you I very much like the coloured transparent film on vintage models as though it is not authentic I think they look 'pretty'. So much so that I almost covered my recently built Mercury Aeronca Sedan with it. But then I came to my senses and used Oracover solid colours As for my Curare I was on a particularly 'low weight' kick when I built it. But it can get complicated, with tapered wing spars, 'girder' type built up ribs, and so on and I'm not sure it's worth the effort. PS: Your Junior 60 looks lovely. You have captured the 'atmosphere' of the original. Many people don't achieve that. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 19/07/2020 13:04:29

Posted by David Davis on 19/07/2020 07:14:15: I'd just like to endorse Broken English's remarks about building light. A couple of months ago I lost my thirty-two year old Junior 60 built fom a Flair kit. It was my first successful radio controlled model aeroplane. We appeared to have no control when it glided into a wheat field behind two hedges on the other side of a road, and though it was finished over all in orange, we could not find it. I say that it was thirty-two years old but it was like Trigger's broom, it was on its second fuselage and third tailplane! In its first manifestation the fuselage was covered in Olive Drab parachute nylon and the wings and tail surfaces in Natural Solartex. It was powered by a converted Irvine 20 car racing engine. By mistake I had used the hardest wood in the kit for the tailplane and it required one and a half pounds of lead in the nose to balance correctly. It still flew. I built a new tailplane for it and was able to remove all of the lead from the nose. This proved to be too weak so I built a third. Over the years I fitted a number of engines including a PAW 19, an HPVT 20 which usually required a hand launch and an HPVT25 which didn't. I like the sound of four strokes even if they're not period but when the model was lost it was fitted with an electric motor. I feel the need to build another Junior 60 because there are a lot of retired beginners in my club and the Junior 60 was ideal for giving them their first experience of radio controlled flight. Unfortunately I already have two models in build and another, a Chris Olsen Uproar, in need of half a wing, but one of the two models on the stocks is a double sized Tomboy. Maybe that will take over the role of the primary trainer. If I do build another Junior 60 it will be covered in Solartex because I have considerable stocks of this material. To me, vintage models covered in film, even transparent film which shows off the structure, do not look right though I realise that this is a popular way of covering vintage models in the USA. Each to his own. Edited By David Davis on 19/07/2020 07:14:57 I think we would all agree about building light. But getting the C of G in the right place is not the same thing. Sure, building light in the tail area will help to do both. But replacing any of the wood in a kit and/or altering the design partially negates the purpose in buying a kit at all. Also covering in doped nylon or Solartex is NOT building light. Two opposing examples of my building: TopFlitw kit 63 inch Spitfire OS 81 - ten pounds. (TopFlite's own model was slightly heavier.) Similar size/engine Prettner Curare from RCM&E plan but structure somewhat altered by me - five and a half pounds.

Posted by Tim A on 19/07/2020 03:59:39: Thanks Ron, I am actually looking forward to getting the grey matter going on something new, not that I expect it to be a major challenge having been fault finding electronics for the last roughly thirty years before I retired. Will keep you posted. Richard, I think a lot of people have trouble because of a lack of research, reading then following instructions (Manuals are for Sissy's), and the old if I push this button what will it do? Others do not have the ability or mindset to work with these systems, they can be complicated yes but a methodical and logical approach is the only way. The other thing I found in my working life is you always hear all the negatives and very few positives. Auntie Google is great source for depression. Oh Ron by the way, have yet to fly my Radial Rocket and it will have to wait till spring when the grass is beaten to within microns of it's life, plus the image in the July issue's parting shot fades from memory.   Tim, It's not that OpenTx is 'difficult' or won't do what people want, it's that by the usual commercial standards of ANY software the user interface is awful. Most people want to do their jobs or pursue their 'entertainment', be it flying model planes or anything else. They don't want to faff around with software or post questions about it on forums. And humans are neither 'naturally' logical nor want to be. We have to be 'trained' in it. Most animals are logical  as it's all they have.  Manuals. Yes. First nobody like writing them and 'testing' them step by step with a naive user against what actually happens is very time consuming. Incidentally Multiplex users have no problem with OpenTx as they are both 'object orientated' unlike most other radios. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 19/07/2020 05:32:26 Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 19/07/2020 05:34:22

Posted by brokenenglish on 18/07/2020 18:58:04: Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 18/07/2020 17:48:15: Posted by bees on 18/07/2020 15:57:18: The old engines were heavier than the new ones. There's a lot of "modern" theorising here... But this remark is definitely wrong. The Brown and Ohlsson, etc. engines originally used in these planes are far lighter than their modern counterparts. The CG problem stems almost entirely from the fact that very few people build light any more. Unless the entire rear part (aft of the wing) is built using high quality "light but firm" balsa, and is covered in tissue or perhaps very fine silk, you will have a CG problem, Period. Could I quote the example of my Junior 60s. My first J60 was built using the kit wood (good but not particularly light), and was covered in Solartex. It needed exactly one pound of lead in the nose (but flew great!). The latest one was built using my own selected wood and was tissue covered. It needs zero weight in the nose and was even slightly nose heavy as built. That's where the "modern" CG problems come from, plus the fact that some people like to have the CG further forward for RC flying, in relation to the original rearward (FF) CG. Well, I agree on the covering (Solartex  is too heavy for a 60 inch plane) and the more forward C of G rc planes tend to use. My Junior 60 is from the Ben Buckle kit so suffers from their usual hard and heavy wood. Nevertheless with the radio as far forward as possible (servos and receiver right against the firewall so under the tank,  5 cell battery under the engine), its quite heavy OS35 AX, the sound of four strokes not being 'in period', and transparent coloured Oracover it's fine with no added nose weight. despite its slightly rearward C of G. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 19/07/2020 04:50:40

Posted by Chris Walby on 18/07/2020 20:49:37: What a bunch of useless answers So much for a nice list models recommended by Laser owners that could tempt people in selecting a model and an engine...oh well it was worth a try. Its enough to drive one to buy a multi...when available! Wotcher mean, useless answers? You didn't ask a question so you got 'responses' not answers. As for your list it's just a few ready made naff Chinese toys. That's not 'aeromodelling' at all Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 19/07/2020 03:07:32

Posted by bees on 18/07/2020 15:57:18: Hi, Just tried balancing the Playboy at the correct CG and wow over a pound of lead is needed, i know you guys said it would need a lump of lead but did expect this much.Got to find a spot to stick it now.Going to move the motor forward even more and the hopefully it will cut down the lead of touch The old engines were heavier than the new ones. And the plane didn't have radio. So put the radio battery right underneath the engine and the three servos side by side next to each other right against the firewall. There might be room for the receiver there too.

I'm about to make a start on a Warbirds Spitfire. When it gets to where I actually need the engine (I always build the wings and tail first) I will probably buy a Laser 70 for it. Because with the rear pushrods and rocker box it won't stick out of the cowl as much as an OS, which are the engines I have always used before. Also using a Laser makes you appear to be one of the learned 'cognoscenti'

Posted by Martin Harris on 18/07/2020 16:27:22: Just for clarification, was the OP asking about lost models (commonly due to pilot error) or genuine fly-aways where the model continues to fly in a stable manner with no response to control inputs? I don't think anyone will be offended if you report on either as both are "genuine" fly aways if the plane flies away

Posted by fly boy3 on 17/07/2020 20:29:37: Hi all, just wondered how frequent fly - aways are at club level, and if so,what would be most common cause. Rare at our club but 90% of those that do are caused by people letting the plane fly too FAR away so they lose 'orientation' and can't see where it's going. Shortly after it vanishes. Letting the plane control them rather than them controlling the plane. It's the same with crashing - "Oh it's tipped over and pointing at the ground, I shall watch what happens"

Posted by Tim A on 18/07/2020 01:26:03: Thanks for the feed back, obviously judging by the few replies there can't be many in use yet! Stephen thanks for the offer but my idea is to future proof in case of the terminal demise of my existing TX's. Also I live in New Zealand and the cost of your TX and freight, taxes etc would work out dearer than the TX16s!! After a long and technical discussion with our club electronics guru. at club night on Thursday night I pushed the button on Aliexpress last night for a very reasonable NZ$260.00 (Approx. 130.00BP). The other incentive was the tax man giving me a very nice EOY refund. All I have to do now is get my head round OpenTX, Club Guru said "Oh it's easy" which is all very well for him, he was an RNZAF Avionics Tech!! You can tell how 'easy' it is by the huge question count of the "How do I do this?" or "Why won't it connect to?" or "Why won't it update?" or "Why do I have to update the receiver software?" etc etc etc on this and other forums. Open software is an excellent idea in principle and as a model flyer I was very interested in OpenTx initially. But regarding OpenTx in particular, as a professional programmer who, among other things, has written high end 'mainframe' operating systems for 30 years plus and still doing it I see these endless questions, coupled with the many ways of doing the same thing, as a sure sign of too many amateur cooks

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 02/07/2020 14:41:12: Nigel, you are right provided that the wood in the kit is designed for a light build. In practice, in these older kits, my experience has been that they were built to survive a crash landing so, those of us who learned how to land, pay the penalty in weight. Today's light weight models with formers fretted out to save weight do not survive a robust arrival and tend to have the u/c plate ripped out early on. So, you have to be realistic about the issue of what size engine to fit. I flew a friends TF Spitfire with an OS 90. It was grossly underpowered given its weight. You had to dive at full throttle to work up the speed required for anything other than a tight loop. It was not fun flying it as I was always on tenterhooks lest it stall. Even a pull out had to be gentle lest it tip stalled. On that basis, I decided that the OS 120 was a better bet as I want to be able to fly the Mustang like the full size and carry out large sweeping manoeuvres.. It doesn't need all the power to be used all the time. I fly F3A competitively and learning how to use the throttle properly is something that took me 2 years. OK, I'm a slow learner but when I watch newcomers to aerobatics they struggle just as I did with both throttle, and the other essential control, the rudder. This is not to say that I think it's a good idea to fit a 30 cc petrol in this model but if proper throttle control is used then it shouldn't be a problem. The problem is, what is proper throttle control! Back to my earlier point.   You and Nigel both make valid points, but remember these TF kits were designed for the non-schnuerle ported 60's of the period and flew perfectly well and in a scale like manner. (The  tip stalling you mention may be a 'high speed stall' caused by an over-weight plane  in a high G manoeuvre.) Though your 120 won't do any harm as the planes are strongly built, as you say. The Spitfire wing excessively so - I actually had to boil the top ones of the two gigantic basswood main spars and pre-bend them while hot and wet to fit. A purely personal opinion but I don't think these TF kits were very good originally, and the 'Gold Editions' are no better. The Spitfire has a grossly over-thick wing which ruins the appearance (the Spitfire had the thinnest wing of any WW2 fighter) and there are several other severe  construction faults, all of which would greatly  puzzle those without  enough experience to make their own changes.. And pre-warned about the Cessna Skyhawk tearing its wing  off carrying half the cabin with it in a 'sudden'  manoeuvre I greatly modified mine.     As for 30 cc in the P-51  I think it's barmy Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 18/07/2020 03:40:43 Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 18/07/2020 04:00:53

Robin, Eric, Mad Dave. You are correct and I am wrong. I am within (distant) sight of Salisbury cathedral quite often, am aware of a Do88 crash at nearby Wellow, looked for confirmation and having found it stopped looking. NOT the way to do research

Posted by Keiran Arnold on 16/07/2020 10:21:30: Here a Picture I own by a dear departed friend Nice picture that. It successfully combines aircraft accuracy and 'art', which many aviation artists fail to do well.. I looked up the 'scene' as I recognised Salisbury cathedral. August 15th 1940, an attack on Middle Wallop and Worthy Down airfields. Three JU88s were shot down and it is likely that is the one that crashed at Wellow, half way between Salisbury and Romsey, as it is the nearest to Salisbury Ju88 crash that evening. , .

Chis Golds is an aviation artist. In fact he is far better known for his aviation art than he is for his models and model plans.

Posted by Steve J on 14/07/2020 20:28:29: .. How does the model know when it is 'turning into wind' ?