Kevin Wilson

I don't think I would try putting 10A through a JST. My gut feel is they would be okay for 3-4A You could try it and feel how hot they get.

To my understanding the ESC relies on the (low) impedance of the battery to clamp voltage spikes generated by rapidly switching the FETs. Lengthening the cable between battery and ESC increases the effective circuit impedance allowing larger voltages spikes to appear across the electronics in the ESC. I can only surmise the back emf generated in the motors is not such a problem. The common advice is therefore to extend motor connections by preference, alternatively to add additional smoothing capacitors or oversized battery conductors. In power engineering we see similar problems on sensitive equipment where the earth path is more than adequate for circuit disconnection times but has to be massively over coppered to reduce the earth impedance to clamp mains born interference.

I have this info on my facebook page so I have it to hand, but I will see if I can find the link. They do bury the info quite well. land known as Roundshaw playing field Monday, Wednesday, Friday 9am to 1pm Tuesday 9am to 7pm (or sunset, whichever is earlier) 1st and 3rd Saturday & Sunday 9am to 1pm Any other Saturday, Sunday, Bank Holiday or Christmas Day No Flying IC to have a silencer acheiving 82dB (A) at 7metres, unless it is not po Please ignore my reference to Beddington park; the bylaws state that is for control line only.

Yes, you can definitely fly at Croydon. It is a public flying space with a pair of runways cut by volunteers. Flying times are in the By-Laws, but from memory most weekdays are available. Being of working age I only have the weekends free which is limited to 1st and 3rd w/e in the month. There is folk law opinion that the restruictions only apply to IC power but that is not how the I read the By-Laws. There is also a space in nearby Beddington Park, however I haven'e identified the area or visited to see if it is still used/useable. I will see if I can dig out the times and/or a link.

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 28/04/2016 12:31:04: Well, it's on the BBC news website today, so it must be true! "Drone unlikely to have hit BA plane near Heathrow, government says" And even after this correction the BBC still have misleading information in their boxout 3/4 way down the article. Headed Drone Incidents it bullets this incident as 17 April 2016 - A British Airways plane approaching Heathrow is believed to have hit a drone while in midair. Incidentally the list of Incidents is a list of times where a 'drone' didn't hit an aircraft. It would have been nice to see some balance by way of a list of Incidents over the same period where things DID hit an aircraft.

I am glad its not just me that went off the thread title without reading from the begining. Even so, I still doubt any of my suggestions would hold popular support. Grumman Tigercat or a Mitchell perhaps?

Anything I would suggest is hardly likely to be a seller. Everyone seems to focus of war machinery whereas I think there are a lot of nice civils out there. There is a BN Islander thread currently running on this forum and coming along nicely. Piper Archer, Lockhead Electra or a Beech 18 anyone?

Posted by Simon Chaddock on 25/04/2016 19:16:46: Google Earth does have a "UK Airfields" option which shows the location of every known airfield past and present. How does that work Simon? I tried putting UK airfields in the search bar but there were noticable ommissions. Croydon and Elvington were but two that I could readily spot missing. There must be a trick I am missing. Kevin

The park itself, which is a reclaimed coal tip, is on my doorstep, but sadly there is no R/c flying allowed. This guy must have had special permission. He did well to get permission to fly. I have trouble getting a response from my local authorities, let alone a positive one

I haven't read the latest RCM&E so hopefully I dont contradict. I have expo set up in the Inputs (sticks) page, all the rest I have set up in the mixers. Bear in mind that I am only basing this on setting up one model with flaps and also using Crow mixing on the ailerons. Although I have done it a bit different using a slider for variable crow on top of the switch activation, so have got my head round the mixing to a degree.

The running high power LED's shouldn't be a problem. Plenty of ideas from the Arduino community to add a transistor for higher loads than the 40mA that the Arduino can handle.

, I'm just an RC flyer and DIY cheapo builder. Hey Chuck, we need to form our own group.

After using one of the cheap ones I wouldn't be spending ?20 on servo tester. Pretty much essential modeling tool for centering servo's

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 21/04/2016 20:55:18: Ah but, kc, just think of the embarrassment if a wayward WOT4 brought down Air Force One...... Pete That would be just one of the numerous 'Drone' strikes that are bringing aircraft down weekly. We need a closure of all 'terrorist' outlets, supplying dangerous plastic bags immediately. Ooh! I think I may have a career in knee jerk media, I could quite warm to spewing over hyped hysteria There is a valid point being made about greater awareness of flight activities and restrictions from both sides. We on the SUAS side do not as a community engage with the GA or Commercial flight operators. And likewise they are fairly ignorant of the rules and practices of our activities. I will have to sign up to the BMFA notifications mentioned by Martin. I was unaware of that service.

At risk of a 'me too' post. I would certainly give it a few cycles and see what the capacity (out) is looking like. You say you don't give your cells a hard life Chuck, so an increased internal resistance may not be that important to you. I always consider the recovery up to a voltage that a LiPo charger will start a balance at (>3v) to be the most dangerous as that part is usualy done in NiCd or NiMh mode. After that I use my normal LiPo rules balance@1C in a fire resistant space. Edited By Kevin Wilson on 21/04/2016 18:10:40

I cannot wait until she gets to 100 and has to send herself a card.

Posted by Kevin Wilson on 21/04/2016 17:57:34: Yee Gods! a minister talking sense... Perhaps he has tried flying combat Although the Mail also inserted in the article a bold boxout detailing other times 'Drones' have not hit aircraft.

Yee Gods! a minister talking sense... Perhaps he has tried flying combat

Thank you for that informnation. Luckily I am just South of Area 2... And the weather forecast is poor anyway The location of this info would be more use than some of the current BMFA question set. An additional question perhaps.

How can you compare someone who researches a prototype, scales up drawings, orders ply parts and steams wood, crafts turnbuckles, etc., with someone who goes into Maplins and buys a ready made drone? I think it is wrong we are all tarred with the same brush- just because some irresponsible person flies a drone over a built-up or restricted area, should not lead to blanket legislation that bans all rc models. Or compare somebody that buys balsa from the model shop to somebody that buys a foam ready to fly from the same shop? How many 'real' modelers at your patch with a Wot4 Foam-E? There are people far more skilled than I creating multirotor craft from scratch The same multirotor technology is being used to create fine scale models of craft such as the Boeing Osprey or the Fairey Rotodyne. It is a very narrow distinction to draw. By the definition of the CAA they are all SUA

Getting back to the original post...... Has anybody seen confirmation of what collided (or not) with the aircraft at Heathrow? Has anybody seen evidence (photographic or otherwise) of the result of the reported impact? It has prompted some good discussion but as far as I am aware this is not yet a confirmed collision.

I wonder if a simple radio operated dethermaliser would go someway to alaying fears. The craft would then be under control, albeit a rudimentary failsafe. ​ ​

Quoting from the BBC report on this recent incident; a comment from the BALPA rep just reinforces my view of that organisation. I am not sure what version of the ANO this professional has been reading. Mr Landells from Balpa added: "The law as it stands says you're not supposed to go above 400ft (122m) or 500m away from the base unit, depending on the drone you're using, but we've been seeing incidents up at 8,000 feet, where drones just have no place to be, so we've got to do something.

Unfortunately there has been a precedence set by EASA defining a drone as what we all fly, it is a very broad definition. A-NPA 2015-10 does not use the term SUA or unmanned aircraft but defines the term ‘drone’ to mean: ‘an aircraft without a human pilot on board, whose flight is controlled either autonomously or under the remote control of a pilot on the ground or in another vehicle.’ Full details of the A-NPA can be found at http://easa. europa.eu/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendment/npa-2015-10.

BALPA representative on Radio 4 sometime this morning to hype up the hysteria. Probably promoting their well publicised stance on Multirotors. Funny how the headlines are not screaming "Unidentified object bounces off plane causing no damage" Ban all large birds thats what I say; there are more of them and they are under less control