Konrad

Cellulose makes a good base for other paints. It will often cause lifting issues if put on top of other chemistries. so it looks like you are going on the right path.

This is to close the loop. Here is my fix for FrSky's oversight with regard to the proper location of the bearing retension feature. I really wish firms would use their product before releasing them to the public. Firms have to learn that we aren't paying for the 5 cents of plastic but rather the engineering that makes the plastic usable/valuable! Here I removed the misplaced lip with a #11 blade to allow the bearing to be installed from the servo side of the tray. I've added a 0.5mm thick piece of plastic sheet to the outside of the pillow block to retain the bearing. The bearing is help captive between the servo arm and this 0.5mm sheet of plastic.

Have you looked at the more modern Archer Plus RX? https://alofthobbies.com/collections/frsky-archer/products/frsky-archer-gr6-access-glider-receiver

Ethos supports this FrSky module. https://alofthobbies.com/collections/modules/products/frsky-tw-lite-pro-module I use this with a lot of my older full carbon gliders as I don't know how to route the tandum 900mhz antenna to the out side of the fuselage. Be this as it may, going to another model location in the TX often address most binding issues I've had with Ethos.

Yes, My fix was to start the binding process with a new model location. This has worked 3 times for me.

Light slope work is perfect for the Sophisticated Lady! It is nice to explore the lift away from the face at the same time knowing you can come back to the lip and find lift if need be. One of the real joys of this type of soaring is catching a thermal out in front of the face and the specking out after the thermal breaks free of the slope.

Venom? I just don’t tolerate ineptness. FrSky has tried to discount, on social media, the input of their dealer network who are warning of the flaws in the update. This is the wrong way to address SW problems. Even more so with FrSky’s SW/FM history and its impact on the end user. We as the end customer can’t (shouldn’t ) accept mediocrity in our products! I’m not suggesting that we all have to have the latest high priced products. Just that the products and support meet specifications and safety concerns. The only way I know to get firms to meet (maintain) this lowest of requirements is to make sure those that fail suffer in the marketplace. Is this too much to ask of our hobby providers?

With “bricked” hardware there is no safety issue as the brick won’t fly. But yes the regulatory agency assumes the OEM has properly validated the FW/SW release. With our toys (sorry drones) this is often a false assumption! Our toys are not built/ managed to the level one would expect with life critical of financial systems. Again that is the fallacy of the regulation. If you can show that the update is not robust then you are in the clear when going up against the regulatory courts.

None. I heeded the advice of my dealer /importer. The bricking is only one of a long list of reported bugs in the release of RF FW 3.0.1 that have been known by FrSky since January. My concern is how unresponsive FrSky is to the issues. I’d also like to direct FrSky and her customers to follow the advice of her dealers. I’d have thought after the problems with getting a stable ACCST v2 that there would have been some lessons learned on how to validate a software release. With all FrSky software releases I’ve learned to wait 2 or so weeks to see it the fix/ upgrade really is a fix of just another bag of bugs. I have to admit that with RF PROTOCOLS I loathe to wait. But as I don’t think it is a safety issue, I again will wait awhile to see if the reports back to the dealers is indicating a robust software release. I have no faith that FrSky has or will have validated the release. This is based on historical data.

Don’t recall any other FW upgrade with credible bricking reports. Even the fixes for very dangerous ACCST D-16 V-1 USM (Uncommanded Servo Movement) with its 900ms reboot time didn’t brick the RX. We (I) should be thankful that there isn’t the rapid fire trail of poorly vetted upgrades that was the ACCST v2 fix. But if leaving the known buggy 3.0.1 Rf firmware up, FrSky should list the known bugs and risks associated with the firmware. As I think the risk is to hardware and has no operational risk it isn’t a safety issue, unlike the ACCST V1 D-16 issue was. FrSky needs to implement some kind, any kind of FW quality program. And when problems arise trust the reports from their dealers.

Maybe a stability issue? Sometimes it works other times it bricks the RX. I’d like FrSky to be transparent with the issues. Mounth plus and nothing. I like that dealers such as T9 have the customer’s back. FrSky has been stabbing their dealers in the back. This is real bad news for us the customer! Mainly because FrSky hasn’t a clue how to deal with us the end user. While I’m not ready to throw FrSky out of my stable. (I still see value in the product). Their management of software and firmware is atrocious. This is something to keep in mind when selecting the ecosystem for your next radio. in the last 5 years I have thought of jumping ship. But I’ve received exemplary service from their USA importer Aloftgoing all the way to the X9D. While I love the mixer base OS (much like the Profi from Multiplex) it has been the customer support from the dealer that knows the problems and how to deal with them from the end customers perspective. FrSky sucks but their dealer networks have been able to make up for it. I hope FrSky learns how to manage software/firmware before finally say enough is enough. Until then FrSky need to recognize that the only reason that are a viable RF option is because of their legacy dealers.

What is going on at FrSky? Late last year FrSky introduced a firmware update to the TX RF module along with a corresponding RX firmware. This was listed as V 3.0.1. Almost immediately there were reports of "bricked" RX's! It was later learned that the common thread with the bricked RXs was that the customer tried to update the RX using the much touted OTA (over the air) feature. In early January conscientious dealers (not FrSky) put out a warning to not update to the new RF firmware v3.0.1. It is now March and this RF issue hasn't been resolved! This is typical Frsky not having a robust quality system in place for firmware updates. (Using their customer base as unpaid beta testers!) This is unacceptable for a consumer product. I knew FrSky had employed a professional software engineer to develop their fantastic Ethos OS. I had hoped that the discipline need to write solid code would have trickled down to FrSky's engineering house. This fiasco that is the latest RF debacle is so disheartening proves to me that this is not the case. What is going on with FrSky? Are they working on the issue? Tis RF issue is hampering many of the upgrade features that were to come out with the Ethos 1.6 upgrade. Has FrSky abandoned the RC market? I love the dual RF bands of the Frsky product line! But the it is clear to me that FrSky still lacks the corporate structure to effectively manage the software and firmware side of the product line. These corporate and cultural issues of discounting the customer, customer experience is really getting old! Anybody know what is going on at FrSky and more to the point what is going on with the follow up the RF firmware to v3.0.1? Where's the link to Jeti?

I thought this was the FrSky forum. FrSky and OpenTX have parted ways years ago. What is this Radiomaster question doing here? Should it be moved to an appropriate section of the RCM&E Forum.

Yikes! The words should have read; replicability = replaceability expensive = expansive As an apology to Servorahmen here is a link to their site. http://www.servorahmen.de/Servorahmen/ Since it was mentioned glueing in the servo and I generally don’t recommend glueing in servos. Here I show how I do it. For reasons I won’t go into here I’ve decided that this glider isn’t worth the effort to use servo trays. This brand’s products are known as one flight wonders on the slopes I fly. I honestly expect the servo to out last the airframe by a wide margin. I hope you can see that the servo is encapsulated in a heat wrap sleeve. I then used a thick bodied epoxy to make a bed. I hope to have used enough epoxy as to allow it to rise up along the case corner radii, to key in the servo should the need arise to replace the servo.

If going that way, purchasing servo mounts. I like the many mounts (trays) with external bearing supports of the servo output shaft. Servorahmen has an expensive line that covers most brands and sizes. But this is a step up in performance durability and yes cost. But so worth it!