Jump to content

EarlyBird

Members
  • Posts

    3009
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by EarlyBird

  1. That's good news for us all Ernie. Thanks for the update. Steve
  2. Same here Ron so the only justification for me to go electric is that I want to help save the planet, assuming going electric will do that but lets not get into that minefield. I am 70 my car is two years old with very low mileage so it could last until I am 90. There is no rush for me to change now but in the future who knows. Steve
  3. More FUD then.
  4. Looking for 1/16" sheet in the UK but SLEC and Balsacabin only have hard grade. I take this to be a bad sign for us balsa bashers. Steve
  5. Not heard about this issue. Where did you hear this from?
  6. Prices have fallen in the last four years, or so I am led to believe.
  7. Looked at SLEC for 1/16" sheet balsa but only hard grade available Not good. Steve
  8. Thanks for the idea Frank here is a link Mini Servo Power Distribution Box - RED for Petrol Engines £49.99 from 4-Max Steve
  9. Yes that's what I said so a separate UBEC is used to drive the servos. Steve
  10. Reading the manual the SPC port will power the Rx but not the servos. On a large model like this I would power the servos from a second battery through a BEC like this 20A 3S-12S LiPo Switching UBEC for £19.99 from 4-Max for example. The flaps can then use a Y lead, orientation of servos permitting. I would also have thought that the elevator servos could use a Y lead. Not that I have done any of this just what I have seen others do. Being here to learn hopefully a more experienced member will respond. Steve
  11. SPC port is interesting power direct from the battery up to 35V.
  12. Good to hear as my Omen is also flying a treat after some setup and trim fine tuning, I must update my build with the details but the short version is that she is flying so well that she has just been made my go to model for the season when the weather is not favourable for gliders. Sounds like there are many happy hours of flying fun for the both of us to look forward to. ? Ballerina next Brian? Steve
  13. EarlyBird

    Taranis X9D+

    ? Thanks for the explanation, I thought I was going mad. Steve
  14. EarlyBird

    Taranis X9D+

    I am totally confused by the references to the on off switch. As I said before my It's not a switch either there is nothing to waggle as it's a push button that has to be pressed until the TX wakes up and vibrates then when I stop pushing on the button the start up sequence completes. To switch off the button is pressed and kept depressed until the shut down sequence is completed when it can then be released. Here is mine. I am beginning to think mine is unique with all the references to on/off switches and associated waggling. Not to worry. Steve
  15. This is the most interesting design I came across for this topic No elevator, engine thrust line at window sill level and wing seat parallel to the thrust line. Most interesting is the tailplane has negative incidence and only rudder under RC control. I am still thinking how did this design fly so well, it was a classic old time FF model. I could build one and find out ? I could build a Buccaneer just to test my method for RC conversion. Steve
  16. I agree it's not a case of right or wrong and has more to do with the way the pilot wants the model to fly. If the model has been built to the design it will fly as intended by the designer. Take on old FF design then I would expect it to climb under power and descend to a gentle landing when the fuel runs out. The perception many make when converting to RC with increased power and control is that there is something wrong with the design when the pilot wants to fly the model in a way that was not intended. Converting to RC is not a problem but changes need to be made particularly with the extra power available. Increasing the power will increase the rate of ascent and in the extreme induce loops. What is the best approach for this model? On the Mini Super down thrust is increased as a more powerful engine is used. I have seen others increase the down thrust so I assume it is the accepted method. I have also adjusted the wing incidence on a couple of models which worked in that they flew better. I have also seen others simply apply a lot of elevator down trim which to my mind did not look correct but it also flew. My preference is to have the elevator in line with the tailplane and to minimise the down thrust adjusting the wing incidence as I feel fit. Another preference I have is to fly in winds over 10 mph which dictates that I have ample power to on hand. Another can of worms? All personal preferences and the consequential adjustments I like to make. Steve
  17. Modelling titles are here Publishing - Mortons Media Group Ltd. The option to buy does not work but purchase and renewals work from here as they always have done. RCM&E login and go to subscriptions. Which is not a lot of help for anyone who can't get it to work. Have you managed to phone them Ernie? Steve
  18. I have just phoned Mortons for help but they will phone me back when they find someone who can help. I did suggest that when they find the right person they get them to join the forum and let us know what is going on and provide the help that is needed. I will let you know of any further developments. Steve
  19. The windowsill is parallel to the tailplane and the engine bearers are at an angle to that line. on some models there is zero down thrust and then I have found the thrust line to be parallel to the tailplane. Interesting that you seem to be saying that the down thrust is the angle between the wing and engine bearers. I will have to think about that. On some models there is zero down thrust and zero wing incidence, Phil Kraft Stik for example, but most of my builds are Peter Miller's designs that have zero down thrust but I never thought of comparing the thrust line with the wing angle, interesting, I will check. Steve
  20. As the tailplane is parallel to the engine bearers then there is no down thrust and 3 deg of wing incidence makes me think this model is a free flight design. If that is the case then they were designed to climb under power and the power would have been marginal requiring hand launch because there was not enough power for ground take off. Putting this all together, a lot of assumptions on my part, tells me your model is doing what it was designed to do. Are we talking about your Buccaneer? There are other topics on here discussing how vintage FF designs are flown when converted to RC. Leaving it as designed then only fly on calm days, climb under power using the rudder to control direction and when at height cut the power and gently circle back down to ground. Otherwise you can fly with more power and control which will require the design to be modified. At my club there are a number of these vintage models converted to RC that have down thrust added, Junior 60 for example, the other option is to reduce the wing incidence by packing up the trailing edge, or a combination of both. I was given a Super 60 that had a lot of down thrust added even though some was already built in and more bizarrely the LE had been packed up, although it flew I could not see any logic in these changes so I removed the added down thrust and the packing from the LE. In my opinion it flew even better and certainly was not any worse. Why did they do it? Maybe taking a design that had been modified to RC and returning it back to FF with the increased wing incidence then adding down thrust to compensate. Crazy? I have not measured the wing incidence and down thrust on the Super 60 but 2 deg down thrust and 1 deg of wing incidence would be fairly typical. Then there is CofG to play with, as it's 3 channel if the CofG is not far enough forward it will tend to wallow when coming out of a turn. Plenty for you to experiment with which will require time to get it flying the way you want it to. Lastly when I was at your stage of learning I could not have done this and it was something like a year after passing my A that I started to notice how small changes in down thrust, wing incidence and CofG affected the way the model flew which enabled me to sort the Super 60 out. It's all good fun and keep us posted as to how you get on. Steve
  21. Pitching down with increased throttle is a sign of too much down thrust. Steve
  22. Not really what I would call nice as I would swap my money for good health any day but we all have our crosses to bear and talking about it does not help because even face to face no one can feel the pain someone else is in and on here it is a waste of breath. In my world Rich it's only money and I can't take it with me, so I am told. The best way I can enjoy it is by standing on the flight line with one of Peter Miller's designs I have built and can fly for a few minutes at a time. Not much but it puts a smile on my face. It's been a grim couple of years but the signs are that I am over the worst as I don't have to take a chair to the flight line now and last week I managed to fly on two consecutive days, I was down to one flight a week. Never had a problem with DWP and my pension has always come through on time with increases every year. I assumed everyone was the same but obviously not. What am I staying safe from Rich, just so I know what to look out for. Steve
  23. I don't understand 'Putin' and how your future is assured ? Maybe I would rather not know. Leave it there Rich. Steve
×
×
  • Create New...