gangster
-
Posts
1,252 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by gangster
-
-
Hi personally I would build as per plan. It's not a pilot racer so work on the principle that if it flares when you give it throttle you are overpowering it. Mine is built from the Ben Buclkle kit once aloft throttle right back and it is so lovely to fly. Even in strong wind. I have programmed in a throttle elevator mix so as the throttle is advanced a little down elevator is added. For level flight I have got a few degrees of down elevator. I have added a couple of ounces of lead to the nose. If electrc powered make sure the battery goes as far forward as possible which is easiest done with an open fronted battery box in the nose. Beautiful model to fly but please don't try to fly it fast. It will float forever just on tick over mine is electric powered but I wonder what the electric term for tick over is?
-
I started a very old kit a few years ago and then put it on the shelf I am now inspired to continue. I wish to build it as electric and can find various references on the web that this has been done but can find no specific details. I believe Nigel Hawes did one which he featured in his column over several months. Has anyone got any advice please of can anyone advise which back issues contain the really important bit ie motor mounting and battery fitting Anywhere I can find pictures etc. Thanks. Gordon
-
Thanks for that Phil. It was good to see the video certainly a fascinating project. Interesting option with regards the Hitec RF module, I had no idea they were available so cheaply. I don't however intend to go down that route for a couple of reasons, Firstly I would like to retain it in its original form, If I were to go down the RF module route I could be tempted with the RF sky 2.4 hack module. Secondly space in the case is at a premium as I have a full suite of Viking add on boards in there, I might be able to free up enough space by relocating the charge socket.
First job though after the RF changes is to sort out the sticks by locating some new springs and repairing or replacing the plastic plates they hang on, got a feeling that will not be easy at all
Thanks again for the interest and the insite into your project
Gordon
-
Hi Gavin Wow that was a lightening fast reply. Thanks ever so much got it printed ok Cheers Gordon Thanks for your help as well Chris.
-
Has anyone got the 35 MHz conversion details for the transmitter and receive please. I believe it involve a couple of turns off of the oscillator coils and a capacitor change.
Although I probably wont fly this again I would like to restore it to working condition. It was a very good friend and I flew with it regularly for years. I put it back onto 27 years ago for a boat and want to put it back to 35 now
-
Over the years I have repaired a few older JR transmitters with either non functioning or even worse still intermittent power switches.
As well as being a very small switch JR have in their infinite wisdom used the switch to separate two positive supplies.. I believe one pole of the switch feeds the RF board and the other the logic believe this is so that the logic can be powered from the receive battery without powering the RF when using the DSC facility.
I have an old but good x-378 transmitter that, whilst showing no signs of a switch problem I would still like the security of using both poles of the switch. Since I never use and never will use DSC is there any other reason to stop me linking both poles of the switch
-
Your input please. I am curently building this model from an old kit that had been in my possession for 15 years and its previous owner had it a similar amount of time.I am building it without dihedral with aelerons.
Being by nature a "heavy" builder, and flier for thta matter I am struck that the plan as designed is taking it right back to its free flight roots and could do with some modification for 4 channel RC flying. So before I get carried away with sheer webs sheeting etc has anyone built this for RC and what are your experiences and modifications. Also what motor did you use?
The benefit from your experiences of this model would be welcome please.
-
Ok, so whatever happened to linear servos,? why are they no longer popular and readily available.
It cannot be size, the old Skyleader SRC1 were no bigger than a standard 148 type servo today, it cannot be cost either.
In my opinion they were perfect ,why have a rotary movement to create a straight movement.?
Your thoughts please
-
Wow gotta try for this one
-
Ah beehive trimmers, yea reckon I could lay my hands on a couple of those somewhen together with a few germanium pnps
Bob re the Micron DSP stage yea I added it to a very elderly Micron RX , and agree its as good as any commercial RX
Re the PL6 many moons since I have used a closed gimble stick, Skyleader clubman was the last one I had, but tell you what \i went all flash and bought the PL7D when it first came out, big mistake those open gimble sticks really were open and the rain got in, should have had a PL6.
Trying to remember but I recon I did the same as you with the cycler/charger
-
Just wondering who has build the electronic projects from way back. and are still using them
I have the battery checker still in use every flying trip,
the on board version in one of my models
the charger/cycler still used
and I used the RCME FM digital radio system from 1979 way into the 90s, it still works but not used now
-
I definitely agree with Howard there. The crystal determines the frequency and nothing else. Slight differences in circuitry could cause a foriegn crystal to cause the unit to be off frequency a little bit. This may not show up on a range test but lets assume that the rx frequency was a little bit low and it encountered a transmitter on the ajacent channel that was a little bit high, and it does happen, there could be isues there.
In the case Les quoted the TX needs a Futaba crystal and the RX a Sanwa
-
Eric
OK Guilty as charged m'lud
-
Hi
I had a little chuckle with the question " Had this been asked or discussed before"
You bet it has been argued on flying fields, pubs, magazines, web forums since well before the Wright brothers were even born.
As you can see from the debate it inspired (always does) there is no answer to it.
I fly mode one, cos that is the way I was taught, and at one time I was the only one in the club on mode 1 .
My advice is stick to whatever you learnt on, you will gather from the above there is no answer to the question.
I must admit I love the old mode 2 chestnut that it emulates the real thing. Certainly it does, provided you sit on your plane with the TX in front of you
Good on you for raising it again we love this debate, always will
-
I though I had heard all of the crash excuses but that is a new one on me. No way was it the cause
Much more likely to be the nicads, where were they stored? They are like me they do not like the cold and damp.
-
Hi I cannot answer for the Focus but do know it is a relatively simple job on the Prism-X It is a case of changing the ratchet over and doing the rest in software. The book, although not over explicit does detail this. I suggest if the book gives details it can be done without surgery. If you have no book it must be possible to download one from the web.
-
Sorry That last post got away, lets try again
The bleed over problem with CB was nothing to do with the IF frequency or even dual or single conversion. Difficult to explain without doing the maths, and that makes the answer confusing
With regards CB the reason for dual conversion was, the second IF gave the selectivity ie it is easy to make a cheap filter that would give 10KHz channel spacing if that IF frequency was low ie 455KHz, to prevent image problems ie from another transmission 2x455KHz away ( well within the passband of the early stages of selectivity ie front end filters) A high IF was chosen to move the image frequency 21.4 MHz away .
The adjacent channel bleedover was possibly due to the inadequacy of the 2nd IF filter and more widespaced bleedover due RF stage overload. 4 watts is not a high power neither is 40 watts. Interference is a "sods" law situation, if an unfortunate mix happens it happens.
So what has this to do with RC, this next point might cause debate. I believe there is no advantage whatsoever in this country in using dual conversion, I did know the calculation once but have forgotten it. I believe an unfortunate image can exist when using the 72 Mhz band, do the sums on 35 MHz and they show no issue. I use DC/SC or PCM in equal quantities and am happy to put any one of them in any models. I have been flying for 30 years and am still waiting for genuine interference, ie that which comes down the RX aerial and not through the TX stick
To answer your other question Yes they will work with the same TX indeed with 35MHz PPM you can easiy and safely mix Futaba, Hitec and JR combinations although you must use the correct rx crystal, ie a futaba xtal with a futaba rx etc etc . Obviously SC and DC crystals are different ie use a Futaba DC xtal with a Futaba DC receiver
-
Deleted by me I made a mess of it!!!try the next one, maybe a mod can delete this completely please
Canadian Lancaster in the UK
in Full Size Aviation
Posted
Adrian. Have you looked at the BBMF site. Having said that I am not sure that the total of 2xlanc displays adds up to 60. Maybe it is doing some solo stuff as well.