PatMc Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 4 hours ago, EarlyBird said: Has that ever happened? Only to Youtube "influencers". 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Griff Posted February 15, 2022 Author Share Posted February 15, 2022 Was not the Titanic said to be an unsinkable ship ? Did it sink ? Would I have had to have been a passenger on the ship to comment on it ? A comment on here said that a lipo went off in a model plane whilst in flight, impossible ? Even though we are told not to put our hand in a fire, do you do that, to test the "theory", or accept the advice ? Anyway, I will be putting the op id number in a place, and character size, according to the rules, just like the rest of us. I was just checking by posting the question, just in case I had missed any amendments. Thanks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Cooper Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Frank Skilbeck said: Is that correct, from my reading it only applies to models over 7kg and models below that where a failsafe is fitted. So if you are still flying models below 7kg on 35mhz with PPM receivers then you are still legal. https://bmfa.org/Info/Why-join-the-BMFA/Failsafes But I often test other club members models for them and as part of the pre-flight checks always test the failsafe, it's surprising how many aren't set correctly. Yes indeed, you are correct. I was referring to modern radios. None is made without failsafe nowadays. And if it has a failsafe, it has to be set and working, regardless of the size or weight of the model. I can't conceive of any situation where someone would use old 35Mhz PPM radios purely to avoid having to use a failsafe. ... lol. . . . . but you never know. Yup, I have also encountered far too many failsafes which are not set correctly (if at all). Worrying, isn't it...!! It's amazing how far a thread can drift from displaying a simple ID label on a model. . . Lol. Edited February 15, 2022 by Brian Cooper Spelling error 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 22 minutes ago, Rich Griff said: Was not the Titanic said to be an unsinkable ship ? Did it sink ? Would I have had to have been a passenger on the ship to comment on it ? No, but you also wouldn’t have been asked to be in the team investigating what happened or been part of a design team building improved ships unless you had the right skills and experience to do so. The problem I and many others on this forum have with your posts on lipos is that you present your views as facts and best practices yet they are actually almost entirely recycled FUD from unreferenceable sources. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EarlyBird Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 35 minutes ago, Rich Griff said: A comment on here said that a lipo went off in a model plane whilst in flight, impossible ? I have not seen that comment could you post a link please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Rich Griff said: A comment on here said that a lipo went off in a model plane whilst in flight, impossible ? No, not impossible, but incredibly unlikely to occur spontaneously without the pack giving previous signals of a likely failure that can be observed during charging or after flight. Yes, if you really wanted to you could pick a totally inappropriate powertrain that pulls massive current from a brand new low capacity pack and get it to combust, but that is the electric equivalent of smoking in the pits whilst filling up a petrol model! Those of us who actually use lipos know that they give these signals well before a catastrophic failure will happen; increased IR, cells failing to balance, cell swelling etc. If you read those signals you will always be able to retire ageing packs well before there is a failure under load or on charge (the latter being the more dangerous IMO). Carrying out these simple, regular checks as you charge and fly combined with choosing power train components to give sufficient headroom so nothing is over stressed are the keys to successful electric flight. Edited February 15, 2022 by MattyB 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leccyflyer Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 Thanks MattyB - and apologies for opening this particular can of worms ? My understanding - solely from reading these threads - is that the OP isn't actually currently flying or operating any flying models, whether electric, IC or slope and is not commenting on personal experience at all, but insists on spreading a large amount of incorrect, poorly understood, often misleading advice and disinformation. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 Can we stick to the topic gents please, I.Ds. We don't want no spontaneous combustion and worms getting burnt. ? 2 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff S Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 The main reason I lashed out and bought a Brothers printer was because I need to print the Operator ID strips. I still have a very old Dymotape machine with a few plastic strips we used at the shop (which closed in about 1985 IIRC!) but they do tend to fall off in time. The Brothers printer has proved to be very useful generally, particularly to my very organised and paperwork hoarding wife so I can now find all the files containing the documentation modern life seems to demand. Obviously there are cheaper ways of creating the labels (like printing them on ordinary A4 sheets and using Sellotape) but the printer is a useful addition to organise our domestic clutter. On my electric models (which is the vast majority) I stick the labels inside the battery bay where possible. I think that's permissible and keeps them out of the weather. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 I get mine free of clubmates, can't beat free stuff. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bran Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 There's a whole lot of posts here that are totally off topic and should be moved/removed...................... ? As with most things nowadays, people seem to have a need to over complicate and prevaricate. Its a stupid infantile number sticker that can legally be effectively "hidden", part of a pathetic attempt to "Control" a non-evident issue that is totally ineffective as nobody in the bracket willing/going to err is going to follow any of it anyway. Lighten up guys, Go Flying....................... PS - Those whinging about where to put the sticker should be made to try to add one to a toothpick type quadcopter, especially as its now got EVEN longer. ?? PPS - Thought for the day - The huge world of commercial/civil aviation gets by with a XX-XXXX or very similar code, don't they? ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 I just bought some from ebay. £3 for enough to last years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lee Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 53 minutes ago, Dave Bran said: PPS - Thought for the day - The huge world of commercial/civil aviation gets by with a XX-XXXX or very similar code, don't they? ? No they all have codes in this format: ICAO 24 bit aircraft address: Binary: 0100_0000_0100_0010_1011_1110 Hex: 4042BE Octal: 20041276 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, John Lee said: No they all have codes in this format: ICAO 24 bit aircraft address: Binary: 0100_0000_0100_0010_1011_1110 Hex: 4042BE Octal: 20041276 I am not going to pretend I understand the transponders in full size aircraft to any extent, but the interesting piece about those codes is that (unlike the EASA UAS format) they don't appear to have been designed to include a checksum for validation. I guess that wasn't deemed necessary/important at the time the standard for transponders for manned aviation were agreed, but it does show that remote ID for modellers/UAS operators could end up going further in some aspects than that applied to full size if the authorities get their way in the coming years. Edited February 16, 2022 by MattyB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 I don't know the specific ins and outs of ADS-B but I would assume a reliance on a CRC for entire transponder packet for the over air comms. Plus there would be regular retransmission. Etc. Ground side, any ATC systems dealing with the IDs will be 278A cat 1 with lots of internal consistency checks. For unmanned IDs, maybe lower grades of software will be dealing with those IDs, so a built in checksum was considered a sensible defence against certain possible misbehaviours of less strictly written and reviewed software. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nigel R said: I don't know the specific ins and outs of ADS-B but I would assume a reliance on a CRC for entire transponder packet for the over air comms. Plus there would be regular retransmission. Etc. Ground side, any ATC systems dealing with the IDs will be 278A cat 1 with lots of internal consistency checks. For unmanned IDs, maybe lower grades of software will be dealing with those IDs, so a built in checksum was considered a sensible defence against certain possible misbehaviours of less strictly written and reviewed software. Thanks, that is good info. TBH I don't really see why they bothered with the checksum for UAS - if remote ID does come in someone who wants to operate under the radar is going to do so by either using a stolen (legitimate) OP-ID or just by not fitting the remote ID at all. In neither instance is a checksum helpful, but they (EASA, but possibly not the CAA!) have gone with it in the standard now so it won't change. Edited February 16, 2022 by MattyB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 Intra-ID checksum is generally a good thing across all sorts of systems. But I agree, dodgy operators will have dodgy cloned/unmarked kit. PS 'cat 1' might not be the correct term for the varying grades of 278A SW, I'm used to airbourne stuff not ground based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.