David Begg

Well, by saying I thought Futaba FAAST was superior technically to the Spectrum 2.4 system I was not implying there was anything wrong with with either system or one worked 'better' than the other system.  Perhaps 'technically' is the wrong word to use, a better or more appropriate word or phrase may be  'in radio principles' or 'in theory' . I arrive at that conclusion as it appears to me that there is less chance of a R/C Tx 2.4 transmission signal being blocked by a stray 2.4 signal. when the transmission is moving continuously as in the Futaba FAAST system, as if a stray signal should block a transmission it is only for a fraction of second and would probably not even be noticed.  In the fixed 2 channel Spectrum system there appears to be a greater chance of  stray signal blocking out the transmission, even if it is remote chance.   Every day there seems to be more and more equipment operating on 2.4gHz, from wireless computer networks to cell phones to cordless phones and goodness what else.  The proliferation of this equipment surely must increase the chances of a blocked signal with either someone using standard equipment near the flying site or using equipment that has been modified to increase the operating power and range,  probably illegally, but people still do it! It is acknowledged that both Spectrum and Futaba 2.4 are really good R/C systems and are an big advance on previous systems. The point made in the forum that FAAST system is more complicated hence use the Spectrum system is irrelevant to my thinking, as both system are very complicated computer operated systems and both will either work or be in the need of professional repair.  Neither  will respond to home tinkering to get them working if faulty. It is not as if there are little men running around changing the FAAST settings or even an electric motor spinning a disc or something to achieve the change in settings that can fail or get tired, both Futaba and Spectrum rely on dedicated I/C chips to operate, and these devices either work or they don't work. I believe the Spectrum has the superior feature of not recognising a receiver unless  the Tx is set to that model, avoiding trying to fly a model using the wrong model set up.  A great anti crash feature for flyers who are not concentrating. These sites are worth a look as they show clearly the difference on how each system operates. FAAST :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWH8KkXhHY0 Spectrum :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ElKP6tu8z4 XPS:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deeQr6RytwU I use Futaba 2.4 but would be equally happy with Spectrum / JR 2.4.  My brother and flying instructor used Futaba so that is what i purchased too.  This discussion is all a bit like the debate on car brands or the best beer, no one will ever agree.   What about private imports of Rx into the UK from cheaper overseas sources, are you UK guys able to do this?  (As per my previous post on this forum) Cheers   David    

Why can't you UK guys just order the Futaba Rx from a US supplier where according to the thread prices are considerably cheaper than in the UK?    I just order another 2.4 Rx from Tower Hobbies for $99 US and with promotional discount get free postage.  No Customs duty will be payable as it is private import under $500 NZ.  Price of RX to me will be approx $147NZ. ( Hobby shop in NZ catalogue price $261 NZ.  Sorry hobby shop, the price difference is just to great. For interest, the catalogue price of a Spectrum 7 channel Rx is $199NZ)   Also I believe the Futaba FAAST system to be the technically superior 2.4 system.  Models are expensive and time consuming to construct and set up, an extra few dollars spent, if it  reduces the likely hood of a radio problems and a resultant crash or lost plane is money well spent in my book.  It is easy enough to crash and loose a plane even when everything is working as it should!   Cheers   David

Finally located and fixed the problem with my Beaver, flew it until the battery went flat this morning, even though the air was 'lumpy' today and there was a bit of wind a few feet off the ground, and Beavers do not like 'lumpy' air or wind. I feel embarrassed to tell you the fault, stupid, stupid stupid!!!!!! I had the engine thrust pointing to the left instead of the right, how I did it and how I didn't spot the error earlier I don't know!!!!! but I still did it!. Thank you for your assistance. There is always a reason, it just has to be located. Cheers David

Not sure where to post this, this seems to be an alright place. Check out this link!!!!!! Completely unbelievable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz1pyMfDPno The actions of these people (and similar thoughtless idiots) make the hobby just that much more difficult for the rest of us. Flying sites are already precious without this sort of mindless behaviour. Cheers David

A year or so back I purchased a GWS Beavers off an auction site. It flew beautifully, and was really enjoyable and fun to fly. However recently it has become a 'dog', with sudden dives, turns towards the ground(to the right), sudden desire to climb steeply and when corrected to swoop suddenly towards the ground, a real handful to keep in the air. Nothing was changed, it just started to do this. I have reset the CG to 2' from the leading edge and checked the throws of the rudder, 3/4' each way and the elevator 1/2" up and down. Flies worse than ever. What have I done wrong? All surfaces are tightly attached , weight is well below the recommended max weight of 14 oz (396 g). It has always had an outrunner motor and lipo battery, so it has heaps of power. Thoughts I have had, to much down thrust or the motor pointing slightly off line???????, my CG figure of 2" from the leading edge is wrong????????? Thoughts and suggestions are most welcome, I enjoyed flying my Beaver and I want the nice docile enjoyable flyer back!!!! Thank you. Cheers David

Fabulous, count me in please.

Count me in the draw please.

Count me in please.

Please count me in, wanted try gliding.

  Yes please, this will be my lucky month??????????????

Please include me in the draw.

  Count me in please. Cheers David 

Please count me in, loks EXCITING!!!

I luv cubs!!. Please count me in.

Count me in, looks an exciting project.  Cheers David

Here is my entry.  Love to have a Tiger Moth.

Timbo, don't know why the irrelevant links have occurred in my reply, one of those computer mystery I guess. I have found the "Smart Starter" article by Kelly R Regan on the internet. It is an excellent idea enabling the plane to be started from behind the engine. Once I get all the dressings off my hand and it has healed up I will be constructing one of these and won't be starting a plane without using it. I believe apart from a sore hand, impressive bandages, a great deal of frustration and annoyance along with probably some good scars, I have "got away" with my stupidity of forgetting the prop while trying to adjust the needle valve on the engine. There won't be a next time, I might not so lucky (fortunate may be a better word) if there was a next time!! A moments inattention, focusing upon something else, or just a brain ‘dead’ moment, and then that sound of your fingers getting chewed up by the propeller, it is so VERY distinctive, such a unique sound. I won't ever forget that sound, a sound I never want to hear again!   I have seen some old videos of flying in the 1950s and engines were started by pushing the spinner into a rubber fitting rotated by an electric motor all enclosed in a box. This is probably along the lines of what Peter Millar talks about in his response and similar to what he uses to start his engines.  Kelly's design emulates this idea and will be much safer on hands and fingers, by always working behind the engine. The cheap hand held starters are a considerable leap forward over trying to hand start stubborn engines, but maybe we have not actually progressed from a safety point of view by starting the engine from in front of the engine and plane.   If you are in front of the plane it only takes one lapse of concentration or fucusing on another problem with the engine and bang, chewed up fingers and hands.  I was thinking electrics may be the way to go, but from my reading of internet articles electrics appear to be as bad if not worse in their own different ways, being capable of starting to rotate with out warning and not stalling as an IC engine will, keeping on rotating and causing further damage. You just have to always be very careful of props that are rotating or could rotate without warning, or bang the prop will get you. PROPELLERS ARE VERY DANGEROUS TO FINGERS AND HANDS. My finger is sore but most annoying is the bandage and finger brace which get in the way all the time still I will have plenty of time to get used to them. Kelly's article can be found @ http://www.reganspace.com/Planes/hands_free.html Cheers David

I have just come home from the Accident and Emergency department with 15 stitches in one finger plus a minor broken bone and 2 sutures in another finger. The pain killer is beginning to wear off!!! What was I doing? Having a great fly with my trainer on a warm still summer afternoon(Southern Hemisphere) The plane landed and was refueled. I restarted the motor, the plane was securely held by its metal restraining clamp. I was doing all the right stuff. The motor was just a little off song, have to adjust the needle valve slightly, finger in to the invisible prop whizzing at around at about 12000 rpm. Bang the motor stops, blood is flying in all directions, all over the plane and me, that was the end of the flying for a while. I was excited at getting the plane into the air again, probably a bit tired, it was lunch time, I FORGOT TO THINK AND WATCH WHAT I WAS DOING AND TAKE ENOUGH CARE!! Remember propellers are very dangerous, modern props are very hard and sharp, even with the sharp edges sanded off slightly. YOU DO NOT GET A SECOND CHANCE!!!. Bang it is all over. Accidents are a combination of errors, I was thinking on the way out to the flying field that I should paint the tips of the prop a bright colour to make them stand out, but I didn't do it. I know the prop is spinning close to fingers, stay behind it, be careful, did'nt remember to do this or think it was necessary to do this for a minor simple adjustment.......... I didn't chop the end off my finger, the Doctor did some good sewing and my finger should heal up fine with no lasting damage, it could have be a lot worse, but also I could not have done it in the first place! Is glow fuel a good antiseptic?