wlfk

Have you tried reading the instruction manual? Every ESC is different so we would also need to know what model yours is. If you can't work it out, I suggest you start a new thread as your question is new and not really related to the topic of this thread. Mostly if you start an ESC with the throttle high, you're entering the programming mode. It could also be that you have the throttle channel reversed, or that you need to change the 'throw' on the throttle channel to get a lower minimum setting.

Always enjoy your articles. Given that you're near Newcastle, you might be interested in the Sopwith Camel factory, which is a warehouse near the roundabout to Kenton, on the far side of the town moor (fairly near the flying strip). I never managed to find time to investigate it myself, but one of the local pilots told me about it. They apparently used to land on the moor.

What do you mean when you say 'stopped working?'. Did the motor still beep on startup? did they go up in flames? Did the servos and receiver still work? Did anything get hot? Are you running governor or normal mode?  Another cause for tail twitch is if the low-battery cuttoff is set to trigger at too high a level. As the battery voltage drops, the ESC slows the motor. This reduced load causes the voltage to rise, so the ESC speeds up the motor again, and the cycle continues.  I don't know what the problem is, but I still feel it's likely to be at your end rather than the ESCs. ESCs are perhaps the least reliable electrical component - let's say for the sake of argument they have a 5% failure rate. In reality, it's likely to be lower.  To get 5 bad ones in a row, you would have 0.05^5 = 1 in 3 million chance. Now, I think Align has sold about that many helicopters so you may be one of the unlucky few, but the chances are still much higher that there's something simply wrong with your setup. I'm not necessarily implying that it's something you've done wrongly - there could be a fault in your receivers or servos.  Are you using an UBEC?  My next step would be to fit an UBEC (remember to remove the red lead from the ESC to receiver connector) and see whether it's the ESC or the UBEC that fails next.

Just to cast a little doubt... If one ESC blows up, chances are it's a manufacturing fault. Or (as I once did) you just spent 8 hours building your 450 then soldered the connectors back to front because you were thoroughly addled.  But if you've had 5 go pop, to my mind it either implies that 1) they were from the same batch of duff ESCs or 2) you're doing something wrongly - or there's something about your setup that's caused the ESCs to go pop.  I think isolating the motor was very sensible. I trust there's nothing else about the setup (chafing wires against CF frames etc...) that could explain matters? Have you lengthened the wires to or from the ESC? What motor do you have.  Do you have particularly power-hungry servos? I presume it was the ESC side that went pop, not the step-down. How hot does your ESC normally get, and do you run a flybarless system? What are your governor / throttle settings?  I have to say, I don't see how soldering a plug to the wire could cause the ESC to go bad. I can see how it could make your helicopter fall out of the sky or go up in flames as the connector could either go open or short circuit. But neither of these things would damage the ESC. A motor connector coming loose might, but as I recall these are soldered in position anyway. My best guess (sorry if this seems rough) is that either one of your wires is chafing, causing a short, or you're running a very low throttle setting (e.g. 50%) which is causing your ESC to overheat.      

There's also the story of the man flying a '60 size helicopter (pretty large) when out of nowhere a lightning bolt zips through it on its way down to ground... but he never can find the wreckage!

That's interesting, but I would still go for some form of electronic glitch given the presence of a thunderclap almost simultaneous with the glitch, and given the fact that it doesn't appear to have recurred. Frank Skilbek's explanation makes a lot of sense to me, as a 2.4 system should have filtered out any corrupted control signals. The interference could also have happened at the transmitter end (e.g. interference to the pots).

In my hang-gliding days, the rule of thumb was that you should leave 7 times the height of the obstruction (trees) in horizontal distance before flying behind an obstacle.

Something I often see on the model helicopter forums is people with absolutely abominable receiver installations. There are a few ways to stop the receivers from working, ranging from nipping the coax sleeve of the wire to installing the antennae at the same angle or too close to metal or carbon surfaces. I've had only one lockout. I had set up my T-Rex 450 with a video monitor (2.4 ghz) and was flying about 100 feet away using a Futaba 6EX 2.4ghz system. I recognised that I was stretching the system but it had passed the range check with flying colours. The lockout occurred when the helicopter was oriented such that the vertical antenna was shielded by the carbon frame and the only transmission path was vertical transmitter antenna to horizontal receiver. Luckily I was hovering and the helicopter just landed horizontally with very little damage.  The lessons I took from that are that 1) orientation matters and 2) the systems can be remarkably good.  Technically though, I sometimes wonder whether what we actually need is 2 transmitter aerials oriented at 90 degrees, as well as two receiver aerials. With 1->2 there is still one orientation in which the receiver should theoretically receive no signal whatsoever.  Incidentally, somebody mentioned that on 2.4ghz systems you can orient the antenna better than on older systems. This is true, but it's also much more necessary at the shorter wavelengths.

With a background in visual psychology, I'd point out that stereo vision is only one component of depth perception, and at distances over a few metres it's far from the most important one. Over about 6 metres, the amount your eyes need to adjust their angle of convergence is so small that your brain is unable to detect it.  We can judge depth at much greater distances, of course. For example if you look at some mountains in the distance whilst driving, they appear relatively stationary yet the trees at the roadside flash by. Conversely, stars beyond the mountains may appear to move more slowly than them. Stereo vision doesn't come into it at all. There are about half a dozen such cues by which we can infer depth, and I'd wager that for most model flying they're far more important. Hovering helicopters or 3d aircraft may well constitute an exception.  My real problem with simulators is a lack of situational awareness. For example, if I practice autorotations I sometimes need to start my flare well before the ground is on the screen. But because I can't see it, I flare too late and crash.In real life I know that my head is pointing up, so the helicopter must still be high, and of course I still have the ground in my peripheral vision. There are head trackers that should help deal with problems such as these - flight simmers swear by them, but I've never used them myself.  So, I'd certainly give this a go - and for helicopters (my main interest) it may well be extremely useful. However, it seems to me that it solves the wrong problem.

Enough of the WWII planes, much as I love them... And perhaps this is ungenerous of me, but I wouldn't want to build a Nazi warplane either... Too many bad associations.  How about a Rutan design - somebody already mentioned the Starship which would be a fun twin. The Long-EZ would be considerably simpler as it is mostly designed to be cut out of foam to be built by amateurs and is boxy by design - though not unstylish. There are good scale drawings readily available too.     The early jet fighters were very stylish, and my favourite of these would be, without doubt, the vampire:   I understand the intakes would be hard - perhaps they could be supplied as moulds and would have to be enlarged slightly. But what I like about these early jets is that they span the transition between the piston powered fighters of WWII and the ultra-fast modern jets. They have the appeal of jets, but still have relatively long, straight wings. As such, it should be possible to build them with nice handling. I would love an SR71, but I doubt I would love flying it. The good old vampire looks as if it could be a pleasure in the air.    And finally, perhaps something pre-WWII:   The old de-Havilland Comet  

Well, thank you all for your suggestions. I've put in an order for a Formosa. Should arrive at some point after Easter. I actually like the look of the Formosa much better than the parkflyer - and it suits what I'm interested in better too - I'm more a light aerobatics person than a 3d flier. Once I am satisfied I can fly it safely, I see a ducted fan, and maybe a large scale spit to use my 600 helicopter's batteries... But that can wait.

Thanks for all the suggestions... It sounds as if my batts are too small for the parkmaster anyway... which is a very useful thing to know.  I'm very  much tempted to go for the GWS formosa - like the look of it and the price is far better. I may just wait a while though - I see a new stronger-foam version will be coming out soon.  In the long term, when I'm confident of my ability to fly without crashing, then I will go for something built-up as I grew up making balsa models and I like the craftsmanship. But I think I need to get some flight hours first.  

I currently fly only helicopters, and I'm a competent sports pilot able to do light aerobatics: loops, rolls and stall turns as well as figures of 8 and the like. I would like to try flying fixed-wing and I have been looking at the multiplex parkmaster as an aircraft that I hope might be suitable for someone who already has some transferrable flying skills, but who at the same time doesn't want to buy anything too demanding.  I currently have a spare 15A ESC knocking around, and I have lots of 850 mAh batteries for my T-Rex 250. I had been thinking of buying the Multiplex Parkmaster 3d but the price puts me off slightly.  I'd be interested in people's opinions on whether the parkmaster would be a suitable first model for me, and whether it might be possible to  fit it with a cheaper motor than the stock one which seems to come in at £40ish! I'd also consider alternative models that might be suitable for me and that could use batteries that I own already.  Seems to me it would be really nice to search through models by battery size rather  than by manufacturer, if any shop owners are reading!

I'm amused to find so many people who think the video is fake - it's impressive, but not unusual. My personal view is that some things are more fun to do than to watch. And of course, different things float different people's boats anyway.   Also, as regards how people do it... Most of it is probably down to stereotyped , 'automatic' movements rather than reaction times. The pilot knows the stick movements to do a piroflip, or whatever, and the only 'reactions' are slight adjustments to altitude or orientation between maneuvers.

Do you have personal experience of the Walkera helicopter in question? I don't knock people's products lightly, but in the past my flatmate bought a Walkera helicopter and it was truly appalling. It hardly had the power to take off, and even though I can fly a collective pitch helicopter with ease, I couldn't control it. Quality was very low and the parts, when they broke, were actually quite expensive and hard to get.  It's always possible their recent models are better, but I would buy with caution.

One difference between helis and planes is that you can fly helicopters in a big garden or field if you have one. Seems to me that going for 2.4ghz where there is no need for frequency control means that you can fly in more places. Note - I'm not advocating flying a 450 size in populated areas.

 I think that budget is a bit low for a properly fitted out blade, even if he already has the radio. Helicopters are expensive if done properly, and a real waste of money if they're not.  Running costs are rather high too - I think it cost me about £100-£150 in parts to get to a point where I could fly about in a rather staid manner, and not crash except when I was trying something new.   How about a good helicopter/fixed-wing simulator?

I disagree with Eric on a lot of points:   I know people who've had bad experiences with a lot of the cheaper little helicopters (single rotor fixed pitch) though I understand there are some good ones now. It sounds like you are enjoying the MCX and there's nowt wrong with that.   However I think that a 450 size collective pitch such as the T-Rex or Century is the way to go in the long term. They're very capable, and can handle strong winds. I've flown my 450 in winds so strong it struggled to make headway, and probably far rougher than most people would consider flying a model aircraft in (except perhaps a slope-soarer). You don't need to go nitro in order to get a very capable outdoors machine.   There's also my 600, which is electric and as capable as anything out there powered by an IC engine. But that would involve getting new battery packs.

I buy all the regulars (feathering spindles and main shafts) from Ebay... Far cheaper than any of the online shops and quality seems OK. CNC parts are often not 100% compatible though.

Another problem is that these little helis have built-in batteries that are damaged if they run flat. Even if you could find it, I don't think you could get it to work again.   In bigger helis you would be able to configure throttle-hold so that when the signal is lost it will fall out of the sky, which is better than having it fly to the stratosphere.    Answering the title rather than the post, take one to the top of a mountain and see how it flies at that density altitude. Provided a helicopter can fly out of ground effect, it will be able to continue climbing until the battery runs out or the air gets too thin or the radio runs out of range. You can test all these things at ground level, except for how it flies in thin air.

Well, I taught myself. I probably spent £100 in parts on my T-Rex 450 before I could hover all orientations and do circuits. I could have saved a lot had I realised that you can buy cheap parts for the 450 on Ebay - spindles and main shafts and tails. The local flying club didn't make me feel welcome and as you can learn to fly a helicopter on your own land, I didn't see any reason why not to.   Can't really comment on the 325. I've seen them and they fly nicely, but I can't compare it to the 450 in terms of price or durability.   Hitec 65mg servos have a good reputation - metal servos save a huge amount of money and work when you crash. I have yet to damage mine, even in quite severe crashes. I gather there are digital versions available now. Nice but not necessary for a beginner. Logictech 2100t gyro - mounted underneath the tail. I have a futaba digital servo on the tail too. I forget which one.   I think 2.4ghz is a must - but I don't have strong views on which system is better. They're all pretty good. Avoid 2nd hand early Futaba or Spektrum systems - they both had teething problems that have now been fixed.   I went for A123 packs which I would thoroughly recommend. I use an Emax 40A ESC (cheap from Ebay - I have had a 30A in the past and I like them) and a scorpion -6 motor.    Most importantly get a sim. If you're on a budget, clearview is good enough for learning to fly on. www.clearviewrc.com as I recall.     2 things that could have saved me time and money starting out - make sure you don't ever fly until the packs are flat. And land by hovering then cutting power to the motor. If anything goes wrong you are far less likely to do serious damage to the helicopter like this. 

Helicopter CoG doesn't need to be spot-on in the beginning. I don't know how far out yours is, but there is some latitude. It becomes more important when you try to fly inverted. If your helicopter is nose-heavy the right way up, you add back-trim to hover nicely. If you're flying upside down and your helicopter is nose-heavy, you need to add forward trim!

On a full-size helicopter, the fins are a more efficient way of countering torque at high flight speeds than the tail rotor. They keep the helicopter flying efficiently, nose pointed forwards... Some helicopters and autogyros are known to be pitch-unstable when flying without damping, and I guess the horizontal stabiliser is likely to help on this score.   And as suggested, they also help keep the tailblades away from the ground when landing. I have flown without, and I think this feature is useful.   Most model helicopters fly better forwards than backwards, so I reckon the fins must be doing something significant. Having said that, most helicopters have the bulk of the canopy in front of the nose, so I reckon that if it wasn't for the tail rotor acting as a disc, they would actually have a natural inclination to fly backwards.   Really, it's a question of balance. Some Bell helicopters don't have enough tail authority to hover in gusty sidewinds, and this has led to accidents. You probably want the helicopter to be more stable flying forwards.  than backwards, but you don't want it so stable forwards, that you can't override this. How you find that balance will depend on the helicopter and in particular the canopy it uses.   I also suspect some of the value in going 'finless' is that much of the tail rotor's output is often blown against the side of the fins. Presumably a finless helicopter tail is likely to be more efficient when not in FFF - i.e. 3d. Look at eurocopter Fenestron designs for one way round this.

I still disagree about the metal upgrades. Or at least I half disagree...   My experience was that small dings rarely damage the metal components, but frequently break the plastic ones. But it depends very much on the component. I've found that the metal rotorheads are much more resilient than the plastic ones, and can also save the plastic components (e.g. mixer arms) in a crash. On the other hand, a metal tail is just as likely to break as a plastic one, but much more expensive.   The most important thing is simply to hit throttle hold whenever you think you're about to crash.   I agree entirely on the sim. Try Clearview, if you're on a budget.   Glad to hear you went for a proper helicopter, which the blade is. Have fun.    

If you are moving from contra rotators to conventional, go for cheap all up. eg twister v2.   I really disagree with this.  My experience with cheap flying things is that you get what you pay for. I have yet to see a cheap helicopter that was truly controllable. Perhaps experts can do it, but that's also to say it's not a good helicopter to learn on.   My flatmate bought two or three cheap helicopters and spent more than I did on my good one. I couldn't control any of them, yet I can fly my T-rex pretty well.   Support your LMS and buy what they have spares for. Again, if I followed this advice I'd have been stuck with a really crappy artf. If you have a good model shop that sells what you want, then by all means. But Ebay spare parts for the T-Rex are 50% what the model shops charge. Proper helicopters are notoriously expensive and you need to save money where you can.   With the internet, you can get next-day delivery for less than the cost of a bus ticket to the model  shop. And a lot of the ebay dealers are small businesses. I don't see the ethical difference in supporting a small internet business or a small local business. Both are laudable aims, but only if they sell what you need.