RottenRow

I’ve used Rustin’s Plastic Coating for several decades now. Back in the 1990s we had a couple of club talks given by Ian Peacock. He told us then that the usual go-to fuel proofer, Tuf Cote, was actually Rustin’s just rebottled. Genuine Plastic Coating is only available in gloss finish, though they also do a similar sounding product, intended for floors, that can be bought as satin or I think matt. Brian.

A couple of things come to mind Geoff… Firstly, have you set the internal RF to ‘off’ in the settings for the Vapor? I have noticed that you get a different set of protocols for the external MPM if the internal RF isn’t turned off. I’ve no idea why that is. Also, as Spektrum uses model matching in DSM2 and DSMX perhaps that is somehow affecting the binding process. Brian.

Have you left enough room between the snake fixing plate and the servos for you to fit clevises or whatever method you are using to connect the snakes to the servos arms? Don't forget that the servo arms should really be at 90 degree to the servo case when at neutral, to give an equal amount of throw in both directions. Also the snake inners will have a slight side-to-side movement as they move in and out, due to the servo arm moving in an arc. You don't want to cause any binding with the snake outers being rigidly fixed so close to the point of actuation. I would give it a dry run before installing it in the fuselage. Good idea to mount the servos in the forward position though; I have the Mk1 Phoenix 2000 and that is where they are fitted. Like you I dislike tail-mounted servos. The moulded fuselages on these models is quite heavy, so don't add more weight that you have to as the ability to rise in thermals will be reduced. Brian.

The area of the tailplane has been increased by making the tailplane outline larger than scale. This has been done to improve the flying characteristics of the model. The same goes for the wing to a lesser degree. This is often done on 'sport scale' models. You could build to either of the lines, depending on whether scale accuracy or slightly improved flying qualities appeal most to you. You will also notice that two different C of G positions are shown, depending on which outline is followed. That's quite a decent plan, because although it was originally supplied with a kit, it includes the wing rib and fuselage former outlines. Most kit plans don't have these. Enjoy the build. Brian.

One 50W lamp run at 24V would draw 2.1A (50/24), so if all three lamps lit the current draw would be 6.3A. I don’t know what the black box does, whether it just measures current to the lamps or if it steps up the battery voltage to 24V to increase the discharge rate. There isn’t much information given. Brian.

Well there is your issue. You are running 24V lamps on 12V… they will consume much less than 50W each on half of their design voltage. If they were linear loads (which they are not) they would only consume 12.5W each lamp. You can’t work out the actual consumption apart from measuring voltage, current and power, as the lamps are operating outside of their specifications. They will of course still work as an effective discharge load. But the above explains why you didn’t measure the high rate of discharge that you initially expected. I would have imagined that the lamps only glowed dimly. Brian.

What was the voltage of the LiPo at the start of this test? Your wattmeter reading suggests that it was around 12V (50/4.2). I'm assuming that the three 50W lamps are connected in parallel, and that all three lit up brightly on your test. Are you sure that they are all 12V 50W lamps? If they are car lamps, they might actually be rated at a little above 12V though that wouldn't account for such as variation as you are reporting. Brian.

That's useful information Mike, thank you. There is no mention of it in the 'manual' for the receivers nor the specifications. Not that I can see anyway. If Henry's G-RX8 doesn't have the little round EU LBT label on it then it's probably FCC and won't bind to his LBT tx without changing its firmware. The MPP module has different versions of ACCST-compatible firmware (FrSkyX2 is V2), both FCC and EU LBT, so the rx would bind with it in one of these modes. If you don't want to load the UNI firmware yourself, you can send the RX to T9 who will do it for a small fee plus return postage (or order something else at the same time and save the postage). As you have a genuine XJT module, it makes sense to use that wherever possible. Brian.

Yes, sounds like the G-RX8 is on a different ACCST protocol to your XJT module. I run my D16 FrSky receivers on the excellent UNI firmware, which will bind to any of the four possible combinations that there are for ACCST. If there is a UNI firmware download available for the G-RX8 then loading that will solve this issue. I can look into that when I’m back later. Brian.

The 9ms servo update rate should not be used with analogue servos. As you are also using an ESC, unless the manual for that states that a 9ms servo frame rate is acceptable I would set the bind to CH1 - 16 18ms. You won’t need the high update rate on the Chief. The GR6 rx has what is described as ‘smart matching’ of the protocol during the bind process. This presumably means that it will automatically detect the version of ACCST transmission (EU LBT or FCC, probably either V1 or V2). What exactly isn’t happening with the bind process here? Brian.

The Norcim website contained some circuits for the Fleet XP FM transmitter, plus lots of other useful and interesting information. The site started out as a source of information on the Micron radio systems. It looks like the site has been archived but the information is still accessible. The Fleet diagrams are definitely there. Have a look here; https://www.norcim.org/ Brian.

Is the problem possibly the tissue itself? I bought a few sheets at one of the Old Warden events last year, for use over the sheeted surfaces on a scale model. I am attaching it using traditional thinned dope. Normally on brushing through the tissue, it goes pretty much transparent and softens sufficiently to comply with reasonably curved surfaces, but in this case it seems that the tissue is loathe to absorb the thinned dope, resulting in both wrinkles and in some areas failure to attach to the underlying surface. These show up as white areas once dry. In the worst areas I sanded it back and reapplied using some tissue donated by a friend using the same technique, and it was much better. In other areas I was able to rescue the panel by brushing on neat cellulose thinners. Brian.

I refer to my posting following your previous question JD… If you already have a valid RCC then just pay your £11.13 and sit back and relax. If you don’t have one, take the test on here… https://rcc.bmfa.uk/ Although you might be able to put it off until November, why bother? Just do it now and be done with it. You don’t need to request or renew your Flier ID… that will happen automatically once you have completed and uploaded the RCC (I don’t know the timescale here though). The only other variation would be if you have always paid the CAA directly and completed their own online test (DMARES), in which case none of what has gone before in this thread affects you. Brian.

JD8 do you have a valid RCC? You can check that on the portal. If you do, then just pay your £11.13 and everything is sorted for you. You will receive a confirmation e-mail almost immediately (from the BMFA), and if your CAA registration hasn’t expired quite yet, it will be renewed from the expiry date. On the other hand, if you have, up until this year, been relying on an A or B certificate as proof of competency, then you will need to take and pass the RCC test before a Flier ID will be issued to you. I don’t believe there is, or has ever been, any ‘interlocking’ in the BMFA system that has checked that a member has proof of competence before allowing them to pay their CAA fee. So you could pay first then take the test, or vice-versa. Brian.

Yes but that comment has been banded about a number of times over the five years or so that we’ve been required to comply with the CAA’s regulations. I really can’t see the relevance of the top hat scenario… sorry. Perhaps you should take that up with your MP. See how far you get. We have to accept that the regulations are here to stay, irrespective of their effectiveness, as we’re not going to change that. What we can do, however, is to attempt to prevent them getting more onerous in the coming years. With the help of the BMFA of course. Brian.

I suspect that most on this thread will agree with that, but it is where we are and have been for the last five years, with relatively minor inconvenience. The changes introduced recently (the requirement for a Flyer ID and removal of the A and B grandfather rights) are really only minor and those of us who already took the RCC or CAA test really have nothing more to do than keep the Flier ID with them. And the BMFA have now included the Operator and Flier IDs on the membership certificate, so that is easy. As soon as those who, until now, relied on their old As and Bs have been brought up to date then everything will be sorted. Brian.

Yes I’d think a LiFe battery would be the best option, both from the lower voltage and greater safety. Brian.

If you look on the previous page of this thread ED you will see that many of those e-mails were sent out by the BMFA in error. Andy Symons has stated that those with a valid RCC shown on the portal can ignore yesterday’s e-mail. Hopefully the BMFA will be sending a further e-mail to rescind yesterday’s one for those that don’t frequent this forum. No explanation yet for the extension in the expiry dates of many people’s RCCs until 2029 but as it coincides with the expiry date of the recently issued Flyer IDs it looks likely that some kind of database error has crept in. Brian.

Except that as the qualifying Achievement Scheme ‘passes’, being prior to 2020, were mostly obtained before any of the drone and model aircraft regulations were introduced, meaning that those relying on As and Bs from before that date weren’t demonstrating that they were aware of and understood these regulations. Brian.

It seems that the RCC expiry dates on the portal profiles have all changed to October 2029. Brian.

Over-running the LEDs will reduce their life but as they will only be powered for short periods that won’t be a problem. Also as the LiPo discharges its voltage will reduce, lowering the current and therefore wattage. If you were to fit resistors, the best place to fit them would be near to the LiPo rather than in the wings, so they would be accessible at a later stage. Or fit them on the microswitches if you are switching the lights on with the flaps. Brian.

That current is about right John. Your LiPo is probably a little over 7.4V if fully charged, which will put the current and hence the wattage up a bit. It works out a bit over 3.5W per LED. If you wanted to reduce the power to 3W per LED you could add a resistor in the wiring; a 1 ohm resistor, rated at at least 1W, for each wing would do the trick. They do look impressive. Good to see the progress that you've made. Brian.

Microaces make a nice Rapide kit, larger than your proposed model, but for comparison here are the specifications. If you work out the wing area of your model, you can then work out a suitable weight to give you a similar wing loading. A heavier wing loading doesn't necessarily mean that it won't fly, but it will fly faster. At 350mm wingspan, and assuming that both your and the Microaces models have the same wing outlines, I'd expect your wing area to be in the region of a third of the Microaces one, so a flying weight of about a third of theirs would give a similar wing loading. That means around 35g. Airframe 1/24th Scale Controls Rudder, Elevator, Throttle, Aileron, Diff. Thrust* Length 450mm / 17.7" Wingspan 615mm / 24.2" Wing Area 6.96 sq dm / 77 sq in. Flying Weight. 99 - 110g/3.5 - 3.9oz Wing Load ~14.9 g/sq.dm / 4.9 oz/sq.ft. Brian

This was hinted at in an e-mail to BMFA members from Andy Symons back in October, but not specifically pointed out by any means. Have a look back in this thread to October 26th, about half way down. I commented on this back then but there were no other comments. Sadly relying on the BMFA's various different publications and notifications can only confuse matters as they are often not all up to date and can contain conflicting information at times. For example, on renewing my CAA registration fee along with my BMFA early in December, the confirmation e-mail included the following statement, which is clearly out of date and wrong, as we all now need (and hopefully have) Flyer IDs: 'If you hold a BMFA achievement certificate or have passed the BMFA Registration Competency Certificate you are exempt from needing a Flyer ID. If not you should complete the test at https://rcc.bmfa.uk/rcc to ensure you are flying lawfully.' Also, the 'Quick Start Guide' that was attached to my confirmation of BMFA renewal, contained the following, also incorrect, statement: 'You can register as an Operator through the BMFA and existing BMFA Achievements are accepted as evidence of competency. Those without a recognised BMFA Achievement must pass the BMFA or CAA online test before they fly.' That was the same Quick Start Guide as was issued at last year's renewals (it is dated July 2023) but needed updating before being sent out this year. From the CAA's point of view it make sense not to rely on what could be years-old Achievement Scheme passes as proof of competency and knowledge of something that has only been introduced in the last few years, but removing these so-called grandfather rights needs to be much better publicised. A friend who was using his 'A' as proof of competency was recently at Buckminster and when he went to renew his annual season ticket subscription was told that he needed to take the RCC test. I think he did it there and then, as he doesn't have a computer or internet at home. Brian.

Check the soldering of the connector that mates with the Tx Geoff. On my MPM this fell out due to almost no solder having been applied during manufacture. Resoldered and all was well. Probably unlikely in your case as it appears to allow firmware flashing, but worth a look. Brian.