First taste of the sky

[GrumpyGnome]

@totoby 'switch' I think Ron's referring to the on/off switch between your battery and receiver..... these are often cheap, and can get oily and gritty inside

Edited September 11, 2023 by GrumpyGnome

[toto]

Hi Grumpy,

 

I just caught onto that 

 

The switch I am using is the type with the built in charging point in it. You just plug your charger into a port on the switch plate and it saves disconnecting the battery. .... it may be a JR product ..... I'd need to check.

 

I joted from the videos above that the accessories ..... RX, battery engine, fuel tank should be seperated as much as possible to prevent any kind of signal block. This maybe something I can play around with because at the moment my TX and battery are maybe only an inch or two apart. Both pretty much near the end of the fuel tank as well. 

 

It is possible that I could separate these out better. It may not be the exact answer .... but could be part of the total sum.

 

I am awaiting a call from my instructor to discuss the way forward. I suspect that will entail continuing with the club trainer as he thinks that it's now set up correctly. If that is the case, I can safetly decommission the Arisng Star ...... completely strip it out of all accessories etc to allow me to check over the whole structure and make why furthervrepairs that maybe necessary. I noticed the firewall was starting to separate from the fuselage at one side which obviously concerns me. I need to strip out everything to get proper access to do a full repair. 

 

When I do this, I'll do my best to ensure that I am completely happy with the structural integrity prior to re- installing the various accessory parts in a more " considered " manner. Otherwise .....I dont know where to go with it. At least this way, I can try and rule out the model.

 

Let's wait and see what my instructor has in mind as ultimately, If I want to continue with him (  which I do ) then I will need to follow his lead.

 

Toto 

[Learner]

I am not an instructor but I have helped a few people progress from the basics. I'm amazed in my clubs the instructors allow beginners to fly so far away that when an issue occurs regaining control becomes a problem and they end up in the next field.

Surely smaller circuits with more frequent turns are better with the benefit that if anything happens your in your own field.

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, Ron Gray said:

In my experience analysing flight ‘failures’ should follow the following sequence of checks:

 

1. Pilot error, the most common of all faults but often blamed on radio gear. Be honest.

2. Airframe failure, sometimes difficult to prove if everything is in a bin bag.

3. Radio failure due to faulty switches, quite common as there are some very dodgy switches out there. Test and re test.

4. Radio failure due to poor installation. I’ve seen an awful lot of awful installations, I’m no super builder but I wouldn’t fly some of what I’ve seen.

4. Radio failure, very rare and almost impossible to prove (go back to 1) even with telemetry. Spektrum gets blamed a lot for this usually by non Spektrum users and is, therefore an easy excuse. 
 

 

Two quick points...

• I would add in power supply failure to this list, as that is by are the most common route cause of issues branded as "radio failure". On-board power switch failure is actually a subset of this. Have you done an on-load test of the RX pack and switch for that model after it crashed to check it has not got a dud cell, or the whole thing has gone high resistance? If not you should definitely do so before flying it again.
• Radio failure is very difficult to explicitly prove, but easier to disprove with telemetry. Example - with the RX you have, from the logs you should be able to clearly see whether the power supply failed, and how many frame losses and holds it experienced, and whether it went to failsafe. If it did experience holds then yes, it is difficult to ascertain why that is (noisy RF environment, faulty RX etc), but at least then you know it was an RF issue. If there are no holds and the battery voltage telemetry showed the pack continued to perform, then you know you can focus elsewhere on causes such as pilot error or structural failure.

 

PS - Have you confirmed your failsafe is setup correctly? If it were not that might explain the sudden change in orientation in the crash on Saturday (e.g. model loses signal form some reason, RX goes to failsafe, controls and engine go hard over because they weren't set correctly). Unlikely, but still possible. Again, the telemetry should be instrumental in understanding what actually happened.

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by MattyB

[Ron Gray]

32 minutes ago, toto said:

I doubt it would have mattered as it was such a violent change in orientation. I don't think it was anything I done either which leads me to think it is genuinely a communications issue between the TX and RX .... a failure of some sort

Funnily enough I heard similar things from one of my trainees yesterday, I said "UP" and he said "I did but it didn't do anything" - strange that, when I applied up the model responded. The point is, and this isn't a criticism of you, things that we think just happen are usually a result of pilot input, nothing else but we tend to look for the problem elsewhere.

[toto]

Equally as funny ...... I was that student yesterday ..... same thing really ..... more throttle ...... but I did ....... well .... we all say that eh. ..... until my instructor tried the same thing ......... thud.

 

There seems ... at times .... to be the notion to believe the student isn't listening or actioning instructions ..... whilst they actually are ...... very frustrating as we can't prove it.

 

I'm just glad my instructor took over and experienced the same thing at the time ...... and later during another flight.

 

I get that things may get confusing for students at times through maybe stress and fright etc but sometimes we are not actually necessarily to blame. ..... maybe more times than not though. 

 

In this hectic journey ..... there has been so much failure, many instances of which may have been initially ( silently) been attributed to myself .... only to have later to have been proven incorrect. I .... like most trainees have a more than large ability to mess up .... part of the learning process ...... but I must admit it demoralises me when you can see folks take the word of an instructor over me ...... just because he is the instructor.  .... you know ..... experience over the inexperienced..... demi God status ....... maybe an office holder ........ the old school tie.

 

 

I just suck it up in the hope that sometime soon I'll break away from this reliance , gain my wings , even if just solo status to enable to practice towards achieving my A cert and abandoning the reliance on other people.

 

Meanwhile Inappreciate all the help I can get as unfortunately ...... I cant do it myself .... or it would be a far longer and dangerous journey.

 

Toto

[Cuban8]

1 hour ago, Learner said:

I am not an instructor but I have helped a few people progress from the basics. I'm amazed in my clubs the instructors allow beginners to fly so far away that when an issue occurs regaining control becomes a problem and they end up in the next field.

Surely smaller circuits with more frequent turns are better with the benefit that if anything happens your in your own field.

Absolutely correct. I used to find that most new learners would allow their model to gradually get further from them until if I'd not intervened, the model would have gone AWOL! Very occasionally, I've taken back control of a model in a circuit and simply kept it in a tighter turn for a few seconds or so when it was drifting away, and quite unbeknown to the learner who was blissfully unaware that he never had control for a brief time. Clearly in the initial stages, there's a certain disconnect that diminishes with increased experience, to a point much later when any control problem is noticed instantly.

BTW, I don't think I've ever had to remind any learner to make his circuits bigger!

[toto]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with the above. I am fairly constantly voicing my concerns about being to high or to far away. Sometimes I get .... well you are in control ..... not strictly speaking true as the instructor usually determines the size and height of the circuits....... and other times I get ...... 3 mistakes high. I would like to bet that the estimation of 3 mistakes high are a little bit out.

 

I would rather take the risk of 2 mistakes high and take complete responsibility for any additional risk to the model. If the model comes down as a result then fine. It's when the model is coming down due to the unknown / unexpected / unpredictable that I'm not so happy. 

 

My flying , generally , and as stated by my instructor has become more reliable only with the mi mum of intervention required in  most flights. Apart from when things take their own course die to unreliability issues. If that's the case, let's bring it down a bit and also as mentioned above ..... make the circuits smaller even if that may make it a little more boring. As things I prove in terms of both experience and reliability we can widen both the height and the range.

 

Everyone has their own thoughts on thag so ... no right ... no wrong.Its all about comfort levels I suppose 

 

Toto 

[Cuban8]

I add these comments as a general point of discussion, not as criticism or any form of advice that may contradict or try to oppose what you've been shown by your instructor or to be contentious here. Just trying to be helpful.

 

Trainers are designed to be boringly safe to fly............. providing that they are set to fly in a boringly safe manner. The beauty of buddy boxes is that the instructor is able to have control responses that give him a fairly lively response that would be too much for a beginner, while the learner should (must IMHO) have control responses that are no more than able to steer the aeroplane around - certainly not enough control response  to perform either a roll or loop of even the laziest kinds and certainly not enough to develop a tight spin.  As time and competence  rack up, then responses can be tailored to suit and flying in less than perfect conditions can be considered more often. Essentially, a learner doesn't need too big a shovel with which to dig himself into a hole that can't be easily climbed out of, even with the helping hand of an instructor - if you see what I mean.

I worries me that the two and three mistakes high mantra is mentioned. You haven't been flying for very long Toto, so with the safety net of your buddy instructor at this stage of the game, your model shouldn't be set to be capable of getting you into deep do-do anyway to need a three mistakes safety net. True, height is safety but if taken to an extreme then it'll work against you. Your instructor will know exactly what he's able to cope with, and I would be careful to not have the beginner's controls set so responsively in the initial stages, that even if they'd tried to deliberately crash the model from normal circuit hight (full down/ full aileron/full rudder) the response would be so sluggish, I'd have to have been asleep not to have caught it. Equipment reliabilty is another issue and one that we're all at the mercy of.

BTW, those annoying engine troubles............if you can't find a definitive fault with the installation and a 100% fix and the unreliability continues,  you might recall my earlier comments about similar issues that I encountered with some trainers with upright mounted engines/low tank position. I know my suggestion regarding a side mounted motor (hence lower carb) was dismissed, but I have first hand experience of similar unreliable models who's engines just weren't happy until they were fed from a lower carb  position. I don't know why some were OK and some weren't (carb size and suction may well be a factor) but I've seen your engine issues before and can only offer a remedy that I found effective in a certain past set of circumstances. Hopefully you'll find some issue lurking within your present setup.

Good luck, and beware getting too deep into all of this and risking becoming fed up from burn out.

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Cuban8

[Nigel R]

3 hours ago, toto said:

As far as telemetry goes, I am not aware of anyone at my club that uses it. I don't ask as anytime I have in the past , the conversation gets shut down ..... if it's not balsa and glue ...... not standard servos's ........ if it's not  " the way it's always been done

 

This, is not entirely reassuring, I have to say.

 

Flight log data on Spektrum is (a) easy to get to and (b) worth it's weight in glow plug elements.

[Learner]

2 hours ago, toto said:

Equally as funny ...... I was that student yesterday ..... same thing really ..... more throttle ...... but I did ....... well .... we all say that eh. ..... until my instructor tried the same thing ......... thud.

 

There seems ... at times .... to be the notion to believe the student isn't listening or actioning instructions ..... whilst they actually are ...... very frustrating as we can't prove it.

 

I'm just glad my instructor took over and experienced the same thing at the time ...... and later during another flight.

 

I get that things may get confusing for students at times through maybe stress and fright etc but sometimes we are not actually necessarily to blame. ..... maybe more times than not though. 

 

In this hectic journey ..... there has been so much failure, many instances of which may have been initially ( silently) been attributed to myself .... only to have later to have been proven incorrect. I .... like most trainees have a more than large ability to mess up .... part of the learning process ...... but I must admit it demoralises me when you can see folks take the word of an instructor over me ...... just because he is the instructor.  .... you know ..... experience over the inexperienced..... demi God status ....... maybe an office holder ........ the old school tie.

 

 

I just suck it up in the hope that sometime soon I'll break away from this reliance , gain my wings , even if just solo status to enable to practice towards achieving my A cert and abandoning the reliance on other people.

 

Meanwhile Inappreciate all the help I can get as unfortunately ...... I cant do it myself .... or it would be a far longer and dangerous journey.

 

Toto

Do I remember you saying there's another club offering there services?

Maybe time to investigate further!

Edited September 11, 2023 by Learner

[toto]

I'm heading out to the shed to check the flight log data. 

 

Quick question ........ the data shown in the flight log ....... does this data only reference the very last flight undertaken. Ie all errors belong to the last physical flight ?

 

Thanks

 

Toto

Edited September 11, 2023 by toto

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Others flying when you lost control Toto, I.C, noisy lecky ?

Could be you where deadstick and didn't know, easy to stall if you was, and not a lot instructor can do if he doesn't know.

Vast majority of trainers have engine upright, and they cope with tank height, is the tank padded with sponge to damp vibration causing air bubbles ?

[toto]

Hi John,

 

control lost once with me at the sticks and then the fatal version with my instructor at the sticks. I suspect dead sticks are happening  .... briefly and not being picked up as they may be momentary. the reason i say this is because i have had the feeling that the stick movements have become unresponsive at times when I put in thumb movements.

 

I have mentioned this from time to time to my instructor but they seem to kick in again. The engine is upright and is surrounded by foam inserts to dampen vibration.

 

here is the flight log from my last flight yesterday ......

 

 

if my understanding of this is correct there were 90 " losses " 2 x frame losses and 2 x holds.

 

This may make sense as there were 2 instances of " uncontrolled behaviour " one with me and one with instructor before she came down. Signal 32% DBM.

 

I am assuming that the above data log refers to the " data readouts " from the last recorded flight.

 

toto 

[Don Fry]

Read the instructions brother. A hold is 45 or so consecutive frame losses. That’s about 2 seconds loss of signal, assuming it’s at default frame reception. (A frame is a data package, you get about 20 a second in default, 40 if all the servos are digital)  

The receiver goes into failsafe mode. You lose control until it reboots. The manufacturers advice, thou shalt never have a hold. Sort that problem.

Now ,note well, I’m starting to assume, don’t know that RX. It has one aerial? All the fades, 90, are there in A. That’s the A aerial. No one worries about fades, they a minor, and that is not a lot. Mind, you have not provided a time frame of the log. Suggest, 2 holds  from that data, intermittent power loss? Weird. I think if that was my kit, I would look at the power supply. 
I spend serious money on switches. But never assume the battery plug is good. Good battery, probably has a good plug. Amazon special, bets off. 

Game of blood and tears. That’s why the survivors are cynical.

[Ron Gray]

As Matty asked earlier, what are the failsafe settings for the model?

[Don Fry]

1 hour ago, toto said:

I'm heading out to the shed to check the flight log data. 

 

Quick question ........ the data shown in the flight log ....... does this data only reference the very last flight undertaken. Ie all errors belong to the last physical flight ?

 

Thanks

 

Toto

Data on my DX9 relates from when it switches on, and is lost when you turn it off. Yours, different generation might be different. 

[toto]

Hi Ron,

 

With regards to the fail safe I will need to check. I'll try to get back to the shed later tonight to get the transmitter. I'm confined to the house for the moment.

 

Cheers

 

Toto

[Ron Gray]

Good man, as Matty suggested, if signal was lost and it went into failsafe then the various failsafe control settings may well have forced the behaviour that you and your instructor experienced.

[Peter Jenkins]

The BMFA state that a Fail Safe check should be carried out at the beginning of every flying session.  Do you do that?  If yes, you should have it set up to move an IC engine to idle (electric to stop or idle) and the controls to what ever you decide.  I generally leave the controls at neutral as I don't want the aircraft doing odd things in case the radio cuts back in again only to find the aircraft headed to terra firma.  If the controls aren't set up to a set position the default is for neutral.

[GrumpyGnome]

I believe failsafe is another thing your instructor should be drumming into you via pre-flight checks - especially important if you've changed anything on the model or transmitter.......

[Outrunner]

8 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

The BMFA state that a Fail Safe check should be carried out at the beginning of every flying session.  Do you do that?  If yes, you should have it set up to move an IC engine to idle (electric to stop or idle) and the controls to what ever you decide.  I generally leave the controls at neutral as I don't want the aircraft doing odd things in case the radio cuts back in again only to find the aircraft headed to terra firma.  If the controls aren't set up to a set position the default is for neutral.

I do a failsafe check after my range check at the start of every session. Club rule as well as BMFA recommendation.

[Kim Taylor]

Toto, just a thought.

I've scanned through the build thread for the Arising Star and couldn't see how, and where you've got the receiver mounted.

It needs to be in as much 'free space' as you can get (bearing in mind the 'aerial' is built into the case and it needs to be isolated from the airframe vibrations (much more important with an i/c engine, rather than an electric motor.

Could be you've got the above covered, but thought I'd mention it 'just in case'!

Hope you get to the bottom of it. 

Kim

[toto]

Hi Kim,

 

That's something that I am currently looking at. My RX is mounted on the side fuselage about 2 to 3 inches from the battery. 

 

I'll post up some pictures later today as I need to go out to the shed to get my TX to check the fail safe settings.

 

It could be that the way things are laid out inside the fuselage have maybe not been thought through well enough. From memory, I mounted the RX as shown in the destructions ( I think ) again..... monkey see .... monkey do. I would have thought that the many sets of eyes that have seen this though would have had words of advice is if it was not the best. 

 

I have been thinking of doing a complete strip out of the interior electrical set up and reorganising it with a bit more thought going into it. It would do no harm. Taking my time from start to finish instead of potentially making changes and building one mess on top of another in a rush to get it airborne.

 

Believe it or not ( I'd prefer you did though ) I am all in favour of forgoing flying time in order to get the set up right. I'm not sure if all that is being done at the moment is a load of I'll conceived knee jerk reactions. Blaming everything and anything with no logical thought going into it.

 

Get the model set up right .... ie .... equipment layout. Test the functioning of all the equipment ..... servo's ...... engine ...... control surfaces. Then ..... go through the transmitter settings ..... functions aligned to correct throws / switches ...... throttle cur of ..... fail safe ....... expo settings ......... buddy system aligned etc etc.

 

Make sure all these things are happy .... then ...... maiden u der these conditions ...... trim where necessary ...... test on buddy system.

 

The latest opinion is to blame the TX and RX.  Ok fine ...... but on what basis. These do seem to be talking to each other. We have occurrences of control loss where things go a bit hairy but cant explain a set of variables to identify exactly under what circumstances they occur. ( as far as I am concerned). 

 

My mentor is very committed and is tireless in looking for a solution and I appreciate that totally but I am  not sure we have the right way forward. We are now talking of using one of his receivers ( maybe futaba cant remember ) and two of his transmitters to try any see if this helps. I'm just at a loss. 

 

The intention is to send  oth my NX6 and NX 8 back to the supplier to ask them to test them. I really dont like the idea of sending them back .... potential for them going missing ...... how long will I be without my transmitters etc. If I knew they were the issue .... not so bad .... but I'm not convinced.

 

Sorry for the whinge.

 

Toto

 

 

[PatMc]

If the signal to the Rx was being intermittently blocked wouldn't that be easily picked up by the telemetry record  ?