Tom Satinet

No I've never used an easier radio than the A9. Pretty nice box as well, ergonomically, I found. The taranis, which is copy of the JR9x2 case, I don't find as nice to hold or the switch positions as good. Last I heard on RCgroups hitec has given up on a new radio and are now concentrating on servos again. The hitec RF system is very solid but lagging behind now in terms of telemtry. I don't really understand how you can go that far wrong with it as all the mix settings are on one screen and all pre-programmed. What I have seen is people using an Frsky module in an A9 so you get cheap receivers but with the ease of programming (And building quality). Although frsky receivers aren't really as cheap as they used to be.

Posted by Peter Christy on 19/11/2019 11:14:39: Regarding FrSky being favoured by the computer literate, I would suggest that it is more a case of NOT having owned a different type of computer transmitter, rather than needing computer skills. Setting up basic models on OpenTx is no more complex than any other transmitter. The main issue is that the OpenTx way of doing things is totally different to the Futaba/JR/Spektrum way, and this is what tends to confuse people coming from those systems. OpenTx is very logical - just different. If you've never previously owned or used a computer transmitter, it is no more difficult to get your head around than the "conventional" way of doing things. Indeed, I would argue that because it is so logical, it is actually easier! And it is certainly exceptional value for money! I have no connection with FrSky, other than being a (very) satisfied user! -- Pete Sorry Pete, but I don't agree with you there. Compared to a "super easy" tx like the hitec aurora 9 or the spektrum dx6i, it takes a lot longer to set up basic models on opentx - not least because the user interface on the taranis is bleep bleep**. Radios with predefined mixes are quicker to start with but less flexible by nature. It's a trade off of what you want. I'm not anti opentx. I've got one of the first taranis' that came in to the country and still use it. And I used to use the multiplex p4000 "back in the day", which basically has the same software as opentx (contrary to popular belief that opentx invented this software type). I used a hitec aurora 9 for a few years, which is probably the easiest TX to programme I've had or encountered, but definfitely limited in possibilities vs opentx. I've never owned a spektrum TX but the DX6i seems pretty easy to make adjustments on from the limited fiddling I've done on them. TBH the hitec aurora 9 is super easy to live with and a great radio for most people. Not that it was limited really. I flew f3b with it for a couple of years and it was good. Pity it didn't sell in the numbers it might have done and that hitec won't be brining out any more TXs or RXs. Although it's probably a fair point that if you go in with no preconceived ideas it will be easier. ** to be fair I hear the later ones are a bit better. On the mk1 one it takes about 0.5 seconds after you press a button for anything to happen (if it does happen.......). The scroll wheel on spektrum is far better. The scroll wheel and interface from the JR9x2 the Taranis case is copied of was of course excellent, as were the sticks.

1). profilm (oracover) or toughlon/lightex are good. Hobbyking film is supposed to be ok but I have never used it. Solarfilm has stopped production. But I feel the others are better anyway. 2) I've never had a particular problem with any "rattle cans". To be honest halfords stuff is pretty good. 3) WIth Frsky you need to ask yourself how good you are on computer stuff. If the answer is not very then I would avoid. The reality is that the software on modern mid-low end TXs is miles better than it was even 10 years ago and every major brand sells reasonably priced trannies that can fly gliders with multi control surface wings, flying wings, electric gliders etc etc. What's really important to understand about the modern situation is that you can ONLY use the particular brand's receivers with its transmitters. So look at RX cost. There are exceptions to this rule as you can buy 3rd party receivers from the likes of hobbyking for spektrum and futaba etc. Also a few TXs (frsky/jumper - both on open tx) allow you to use a different RF module (or in jumper's case come with a multi module). You can't use futaba TX and spektrum TX for example. With regards to the FRsky I would buy the jumper t16 now as it seems cheaper and with a better spec and the software is the same (opentx). And you get a multi rf module.

4 pin deans connector

Which site you been looking at the old sas site? The old one is still up. I'm sure they will tell you if you email on the new site.Edited By Tom Satinet on 19/09/2017 17:55:49

If you charge at very low current sometimes the charger doesn't peak at all and just keeps charging. I've always charged up to 1C and never had any problems. Usually I charge around 800mah. Depends how much of a rush you are in. The pack last ages.

Posted by Peter Garsden on 21/01/2017 20:43:32: The elevator servo from KST is soooo tiny. I have never seen anything so small for £34.50. It is a miracle of engineering. I used some 2mm stainless steel studding and glued the swivel fitting to it with cyano and accelerant. I then measured the length to make sure I could use an adjustable metal clevis on the other end. I filed down the top of the clevis to make sure it didn't bind on the side of the fin. I ordered a frame for the servo but it is too big, so I am going to make a plywood mount and use that ad this servo has lugs and screws with it. You might need to grind the other side of the clevis to top it binding on the output shaft of the servo. It depends on how much servo travel is used for the elevator movement. I don't see why it was designed with a tail mounted servo - it seems a lot of hassle. I would go with a normal pushrod.

one thing to bear in mind with "high channels", master channels or whatever you want to call them is that you cannot put one channel as the input in to a mixer unless the input channel actually has an input mixer of its own. (you can't on my version of opentx anyway) so you if you want to put channel 20 as the input in a mixer on channel 1, it won't do it unless channel 20 has something in it already. Sure it wasn't like that on previous versions. Not sure I see the point in sbus for most models as the converter is heavier than lightweight servo wire.

Posted by Cuban8 on 11/10/2016 17:35:44: Having read the FAI's announcement in the link posted by JS1, I have to say that I feel much happier knowing that such an august body as the FAI will clarify our situation with the uninformed (as far as our model flying goes) at EASA. Definitely good to see the big boys get on board.

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/10/2016 17:42:29: Posted by Tom Satinet on 11/10/2016 13:51:53: Part of the reason everyone is banging on about open TX is because the hardware than runs it was/is very cheap. A lot of people bought the Taranis who frankly shouldn't have because it was/is really cheap. Well, I think that while there are some people for whom that was true -t frankly I think the statenment "a lot of people did that" is just a little unfair! There was never any secret about the fact that Taranis used OpenTx, and I suggest many people have sucessfully gone over to it. A significant number of them are on here - and the drone world is full of them where it is very much the Tx of choice! Also I might point out that while I use Taranis this thread isn't about the Tx as such - its about the software OpenTx - which as you say is available of other transmitters. BEB Sorry BEB I can't agree with you there. If the Taranis was 500 quid and the RXs cost 50 quid each the popularity of opentx would be far, far less. The success is a meeting of an open source software system, the internet and cheap chinese hardware. A perfect storm, but in a good way, if that makes sense. People have been prepared to go the hard road to learn opentx, because they know they are saving a shed load of money over the traditional top end radios. You don't need opentx to fly a wot4 anyway! Opentx is very good for certain applications (e.g multi rotors). You see threads all the time about how do you programme the taranis/opentx, and threads asking for EPEE files and other set ups, which just illustrates my point. Like I say now the internet is so popular it helps because people can get information they need. There was never much of a storm about opentx in the mags I suspect, so the popularity must have come from online and word of mouth.   anyway, I'm going slightly off topic to where the thread has gone, so apologies. Edited By Tom Satinet on 12/10/2016 10:45:31

Part of the reason everyone is banging on about open TX is because the hardware than runs it was/is very cheap. A lot of people bought the Taranis who frankly shouldn't have because it was/is really cheap. The software is actually available to put on to other TXs, of course. What's important to understand is that the software is basically a new version of what was already in existence on the mulipltex profi 4000, which is kind of funny because a lot people were against that TX because it was "too complicated". It wasn't cheap. If you have used a p4000 successfully you will dive straight in to opentx as it is very similar. Now the problem with the multiplex p4000 was that the internet didn't exist when it was brought out, and the manual was about as much use a chocolate tea pot. The programming is very powerful, but there are a lot of good TXs about these days. In my view the hitec aurora 9 was a very good TX because it was super easy to programme and also fairly cheap. As I say a lot of people wanted a super cheap tx and got burnt because they didn't like openTX (or didn't understand it).

The EASA isn't a well loved organisation in the wider aviation community. amusing moaning thread on full sized aviation - worth a read: http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/514817-easa-kill-general-aviation.html   Quote made me laugh: Europe continually tries to reinvent the wheel at vast cost, then finding that the traditional round one we have lived with for decaades actually works well! Edited By Tom Satinet on 07/10/2016 11:52:09

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/10/2016 09:45:25: I think we could agree on all of that Piers. I too have generally found both CAA and EASA to be reasonable organisations just doing a job. I also think Gonzo is correct - this is one of the driving forces behind registered sites - as the low altitude airspace gets busier then confining models to a small number of well defined sites becomes very important. An interesting thought here is that, once the initial transitional period is over (during which I envisage that the registering of existing clubs and their sites will be pretty much a "rubber stamping" exercise), I can see it becoming very much more difficult to add more sites. There would be a lot of resistance to that as it would mean updating maps and routes etc. So that means that when the transitional period comes we would be well advised to notify the use of every site we might possibly want - not just those we actually use. To piick up Ian Jones's point about how does this help with rogue fliers or terrorists etc. Well in the case of terrorists I don't believe it does, However it is possible to argue that it does help with rogue fliers. Consider the current situation - a police officer sees someone flying a "drone" - is this person committing an offence? Its almost impossible for the policeman to know. Firstly, the nature of any offence is very technical, we might understand it but the general public (including policemen) wouldn't. And if the person is doing something wrong (and under the current rules that's by no means certain or even likely) what would you charge them under? The ANO is very specialist legislation - not the standard bedtime reading of the CPS! So the result is probably that said policeman continues on his way - its too complex and messy for what might very well not be an offence anyway, even if it is an offence its unlikely to be prosecuted, and even if it was prosecuted the result would probably be a fine a couple of hundred quid - tops. Not worth the effort. But now think on three years. As an example look around where I live - on the Wirral. Here we have two RC flying clubs; one in the north of the peninsular and one in the south. Both would now be home to a registered club under the new rules so their flying sites are effectively registered. Easy to know them then, well documented and only two of them. Now, any UAV (model, drone, whatever you want to call it) seen in the air on the Wirral outside of the area of those two sites is almost certainly breaking the law. Simple. Its possible that it it is a professional/commercial flight and they have a permit - but if so they can show it, and if not an offence is being committed and you can bet your bottom dollar there will be a nice simple law to prosecute said miscreant under. Now the whole thing looks a much more attractive proposition for our policeman. Simple yes/no decision on "is there an offence being committed" and a straight forward law to prosecute under. This is why I believe, contrary to what some others have said, we will see prosecutions and a number of them if and when this comes to pass. Now EASA will argue this will go some way to tackling rogue fliers that are a danger to themsleves and others. You may, or you may not, accept that. But it is an argument they will make. BEB Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/10/2016 09:49:15 The EASA can say what it wants, it doesn't make it true. Everything the drone regulations are based on is supposition. EASA isn't backing up what they are doing with accident statistics or studies to show the dangers, because there aren't any. What a Kafkaesque world we live in where I can get arrested for flying a DLG in my own field. Maybe we should have to wear some sort of yellow badge to identify us as model drone/ UAV/RPAS pilots operators so we can be nicked more easily. It's absolutely risible. And the EASA is "reasonable". More than reasonably good at paying salaries and expenses to itself, no doubt. We're supposed to believe it's more dangerous to fly a model foamie than a foot launch micro light or paraglider. Pull the other one! Safety is just a catch all "think of the children" excuse to bring in laws that restrict what we are doing, or more specifically extract more money from people to fund more government, more bureaucracy and more rules - so the circle goes on. Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/10/2016 10:33:05

So slope soaring essentially outlawed in most places. Good job too, they're a public menace /s

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 06/10/2016 14:19:30: Fine, it's your neck. You wouldn't have thought that catching speeding cars on the very quiet prom near my house would warrant the presence of 5 police officers but yesterday it obviously did as they were there! And there will be nothing like a nice big potential fine to encourage them BEB ? I didn't say I was not going to follow the law

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 06/10/2016 13:24:20: Ah - the positive voice of model flying eh Tom! The compromise had in mind is exactly of the sort Martin outlines above. Suppose we were to propose that flying on slope and other "informal" sites should be allowed provided: 1. All persons doing the flying held some sort opf competancy qualification that meant they had established that they knew the law and were able to make a sensible safety assessment regarding a flying site. Such a "qualification" could be for example a slightly extended A-cert type test. 2. There were insured. 3. They were licenced and all models carried their licence numb er and so were tracable back to them. Now OK - before you loose your rag an start saying these are "restrictions on your freedom" and you've been flying for 423 years at this site and never had an accident and it all officialdom gine mad,..... yes I might agree with all of those sentiments,....but if accepting those conditions (or something similar) meant you could do go on enjoying your hobby, maybe it time to be a bit pragmatic, zip-up and accept it. I know what I would do! By the way - I wouldn't asume you could carry on flying at non-registered sites and the authories wouldn't be able to enforce it. If we don't win a concession such as that above then think on this - it will be very easy indeed for Mr Plod (or the local authority) to know the very small number of sites were model flying is allowed on their patch - anyone flying anywhere else (unless they have a higher catagory permit - basically commercial operation) would be breaking the law. You will stick out like a sore thumb and be very easy to identify - that's the point! BEB Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 06/10/2016 13:27:25   I consider my self a fervent optimist. I love the government  / public sector too.  Licensing of model flying is bonkers when you consider there is no such thing for say flying a paraglider, as far as I am aware. Another point I would raise is the idea that everyone can fly under the bmfa and it's all fine for 3 years until 2020. The information put out by EASA states that this is a transitional period. It doesn't say this will go on for ever. No one seems to know what will happen after this. People who have been flying for a long time aren't going to be that bothered by having to do an A cert type test as they are largely going to be competent pilots anyway. The inherent problem with licensing though is that it puts a barrier of entry for people to the sport. The kind of people who fly in well organised bmfa clubs are the type of people who are going to follow the stasi's EASA's rules to the letter, but they're also probably not the type of person who is a rouge drone operator, if such a thing really exists.   Edited By Tom Satinet on 06/10/2016 14:16:23

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 06/10/2016 10:26:51: Yes John, I think clubs have relatively little to worry about. Yes there will be a flying site approval process, and there will be one or two additional restrictions - but nothing that matches the "Threat to model flying" banner headlines that some parties have been promoting. But the same unfortunately cannot be siad for those flying outside of the embrace of a club. Slope soarers, parkfliers and those who just fly at a local flield they have access to will all have issues with this. Let's hope that some compromise can be worked out to allow those activities to continue. But we have to recognise that "compromise" is a two-way street - we will have to be prepared to accept changes in how those sort of activities are run in order to have any hope of continuing them. If we adopt a "die hard" attitude then that is exactly what we'll do - die-hard! BEB A compromise works if one side is actually being reasonable. If I decided to come and build a house in your garden I doubt you would want to compromise by sharing the land. The whole thing is based on the supposition that there is a big danger to police when in reality there isn't. Well in fact that is the reason given, but the reality is the powers that be have seen an opportunity to tax and control something, which is all they ever do. By that I mean license air space for commercial use of a drones. Safety is just the "think of the children excuse" at a daily mail readership level. The EASA lacks understanding of model flying, or deliberately pretends not to understand, that a lot of model flying takes place outside of "clubs". It's ambiguous whether they mean the bmfa is a club or a club is a club.

Something else to say if you film directly over lam-film you will end up with a huge amount of bubbles. Some people don't bother with a covering film over the lam film. It's purely decorative as the lam film forms a smooth  layer on the model.  Unless solartex has holes you will get the same issue. I did my m60 is 175 lam film and it made it quite a bit heavier. Which is fine as I have models for other conditions (like I do much slope flying!)., but obvs. the grade you select will have an impact on the weight and the required nose weight. (hard to fit in the fuselage). With specifics to the moth/m60 if you use a thick film it also makes the fuselage fit slightly more difficult although it shouldn't be a problem. If I was building from scratch I would forgo any covering film. not spackle and accept that it would not look as  nice.  As it was I refured an m60 that had crashed DSing, which I had built to the previous, at the time, best practice of spackle and profilm. Edited By Tom Satinet on 03/08/2016 16:42:41

spackling and lam filming are slightly incompatible techniques. The dust created by spackle means that lam film won't adhere well to the surface. As the lam film gives a smooth finish, it's somewhat unnecessary. That being said I have lammed a model that was previously spackled and rebuilt, and it turned out well, but you will need to use a fine mist spray adhesvie like 3m 77 spray. The other issue with the moth, is that due to the plan form the cg is near the front of the wing. If you lam film that whole wing it will end up being difficult to get the cg back to the right place. Again while not insurmountable, it's something to think about. Generally when people are lam filming foamies they don't spackle them first is what I am saying.

the hitec is a great set and completely under rated. If it said pootaba on it would probably cost 750 quid and sell in large numbers. The reason I left hitec is because the telemetry is inadequate (the sensor stations totally impractical for gliders).

It makes me laugh people going on about it not being CNC aluminium when it's a £240 quid TX with a strap, metal case, and a 20 quid RX included.

Posted by Andy Meade on 23/07/2015 13:52:56: A bit disappointed on the X9E internals. I was seriously considering it due to the Horus having (what looks like) a large delay. X9E User manual here ..I guess this is because there is OpenTX online help somewhere instead? Do you think HALL sticks would make a big difference to your flying?

one that sues each other for liability? It sounds like the mother had said the daughter was on the verge of a break down and might start attacking people, if she didn't get a hot meal. It's not as straight forward as someone getting kicked off because they were autistic.

that's good. The bfly mix is not well named if you don't have flaps (crow), but it works easily. You can adjust the ailerons and elevator easily to anything you want.

Posted by Peter Miller on 18/04/2015 11:19:22: I was trying to set up ailerons that could be drooped, (Flaperons). I just could not work it out at all. In the end I contacted Hitec. This was about as useful as asking Gordon Ramsey. I did solve the problem in the end very easily..... I fitted a Spektrum radio.     If you mean as brakes then see above. If you mean as camber changing flaps you need to use the CAMBMIX menu. There are two ways the cambmix works. 1) don't assign a control to the mix. The values for aileron, flaps and elevator are fixed for the flight mode you are in (i,e the surfaces will move and stay there and don't respond to any control). This is what you should use if say you want a thermal,normal,speed 3 flight mode setup where the flaps and ailerons (and elevator) just moved to set position in each flight mode. 2) assign a control to the mix (e.g right slider). The values for ail,flp,elev, move proportionally in response to the control as above (higher numbers = more movement). Again without the TX in front of me I forget the procedure but I think in the mix on the middle left you press something to assign a control. Actually there are 3 ways because if you go option 2 you can still put in set values for each flight mode per option 1. But we are talking advanced setups here.  In fact you can use the cambix as brakes as the effect is basically the same as the bfly menu if you assign a control to it. Most menus are basically the same tbh (e,g launch, landing etc). A function/mix in the A9 will usually have settings for aileron, flaps and elevator. so if you want spoilerons it will be all be in the same place, not spread out in the TX. Same for camber. The other mixes like vtail and aileron to flap mixing are specific to the surfaces in question (e.g aileron to flap mix only has settings for the flaps, vtail mix only has settings for the tail servos). You don't need to use any pmixes to do normal glider model functions. Even high end contest models don't require Pmixes. I think the problem you are both having is that spektrum radios must be quite different in the way the setup works. The a9 is super easy to use to be honest, and quite powerful.   Edited By Tom Satinet on 20/04/2015 09:32:17 Edited By Tom Satinet on 20/04/2015 09:34:24