The Jan 2010 issue

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Well our new Jan 2010 issue should be with subscribers anytime now so, as always, we welcome your thoughts and commentary.......

 

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 16/12/2009 12:07:26

[ken anderson.]

the postie has just dropped mine through the letterbox(poor lad-it's raining like a goodin)..........had a quick flick through look's as though it's full of good stuff as usual...notice timbo hogging a few page's...have to check if his write up and forum post/thread tally up,.............

 

       ken anderson.....

[Myron Beaumont]

Can't wait for the post at 1 pm ! up here in Ken's county

[Malcolm Fisher]

Mine's not here yet

[Tim Mackey]

Posted by ken anderson. on 16/12/2009 12:07:57:

the postie has just dropped mine through the letterbox(poor lad-it's raining like a goodin)..........had a quick flick through look's as though it's full of good stuff as usual...notice timbo hogging a few page's...have to check if his write up and forum post/thread tally up,.............

 

       ken anderson.....

 

The magazine article focused on the sound module Ken...not the model. My trials and tribulations with the Camel are not really related to the installation, use and results of the sound system, and I did say on the forum blog that I would not be at liberty to discuss the sound system until after publication of the mag, so TBH there is little to compare

[simpson j]

 mine,s not here yet

[Garry Pollard]

Arrived this morning. She can trim up herself now, no help from this end today.

Still think it should be weekly not monthly

Garry

[birdy]

Probably good its not here yet; don't want to be destracted from the miricle that is a Romeo and Juliet essay....

[flytilbroke]

Got it. Need to do a quick glance through as I plan to keep the read for when The Grandkids hog the Computer and TV.

[Chris Card]

I've not yet finished the mag so maybe I've not noticed it, but Shahid's aerobatics article appears to be missing?  I was eagerly looking forward to that after seeing it in the "Next Issue" preview at the back of the Dec issue.

[Doug Ireland]

I'm still stuck in France waiting for the weather to clear. I'm resisting the temptation to read it online.

[nasa_steve]

Interesting answer by the LMA about the commentry at Cosford 2009 so far as I am aware there were quite a few complaints about this very thing and stating that they had not heard any other complaints or critisism about the commentary surprises me. The show as always was good ,but I am at a loss as to why or even how the LMA find it acceptable for four letter explietives to be put out although probably unintentional over the tannoy system. I'm pretty sure this is what the report spoke of . I'd certainly be interested to hear Dave's explanation of this occurance is or is it a case of if we don't mention it hopefully everyone will forget it. Steve

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Mine arrived today, put it away to enjoy over the Christmas Hols! Yea!

 

BEB

[birdy]

Got mine today too. I couldn't help but laugh at the bionic battery adverticment on p132. I'd like to see this magically apearing 600 watts. And what is the graph displaying?

 

Also, the oddly shaped stockings are a great idea. Anyone know where I can get one?

[Bob Everitt]

I agree with nasa_steve regarding his comments on the commentary at LMA Cosford.  I attended the show on the Saturday and as ever thoroughly enjoyed the day, however both myself and my two companions had negative observations on the show commentary.   Inaccurate observations about models and the full size they represented and at one stage a plea over the mike "can anyone tell us whats going on!" Not exactly the perfect presentation that the LMA claimed, but past experience with LMA officials leads me to expect no better.

 

I enjoy Cosford, i wouldnt "complain" about the PA, but i'm sorry LMA it didnt impress us

[Slopetrashuk]

The LMA letter did catch me a little by surprise especially as I was the person who actually told the commentator early on Saturday that expletives from the pilots were being transmitted over the PA by the VOX microphone.

Even this could not beat the most excellent comment I have ever heard at a model flying display over the years which followed the damage to the large all metal model at around midday.

"If anybody has any good Beaver videos, could they please drop them off at the LMA stand".

Oh how we laughed!

Andy

[James40]

Should mine be here ?  I know they come 2nd class and it's a busy time of the year but it seems a little late ?

[James40]

And it didn't come in todays post either  

 

I've walked past the bloomin news agents 4 times now with it on the shelf, this is the first magazine I've subscribed to and it's not really going so well.

[Chris Card]

I've had a chance today to spend some quality time reading the mag and after a couple of hours I'm only 2/3 of the way through.  Had to smile at the irony of the writer of the Star Letter (who advanced the theory that IC flying was the way to go) receiving a lipo charger as a prize

 

Timbo's feature on the sound module was of particular interest to me, one day I'll find an airframe to which such a module would do justice and then it will appear on my shopping list.  And I must say it's nice to see a photo of Tim in the magazine, so I know who I'm talking to.  But David, now we've seen him - no need for any more photos eh?  (just kidding Timbo )

 

Just an observation though, even after David's article about chargers a couple of issues back pointing out the importance of the power rating appearing in a charger's spec, I see a number of advertisers still make no mention of the power rating of the chargers they're selling.  Perhaps they need to read David's article again!

[Tim Mackey]

Hi peevie, and thanks - I think

I, along with the other mods have revealed ourselves before to the unsuspecting public - here for instance.

 

As for the charger  /power issue, you are dead right, and if I may, I would remind folk that I highlighted this also some time back, in this piece, which was both a magazine and forum article.

For those peeps who cant /wont be bothered to read the whole thing, heres an extract.

POWER IS WATT MATTERS

Many chargers claim to have the ability to charge batteries at very high charge rates, and if you're one of the growing number of modellers who are using high capacity cells in your electric flight packs, this may seem very worthwhile, and, of course, it is. However, all may not be as it seems, indeed it probably wouldnt do any harm to remember the following:

Charging a number of cells at a given rate of current, to a specified level of voltage, obviously requires power, and the charger and its associated PSU (Power Supply Unit) must be capable of supplying this power in order to get the job done. For example: a charger may claim to be capable of handling up to 10 lithium polymer cells, and have a charge rate of up to 8A, and if your latest power-hungry electric model is going to use a 10 cell 8000 mA hr battery, then you might think youve found your ideal charger. However, for this to be so, the charger will need to have a power capability of over 330 watts; for your battery to be fully charged up to its final voltage of 42V at the normal 1C rate of 8000 mA hr requires a hefty 336 watts of power.

Now, this may well be an extreme example, but the principle remains the same. A charger might indeed be capable of charging at up to 8 amps, and it could also be capable of handling the 10 lithium cells, but not necessarily together - this is limited by the total power capability of the unit (as shown above) and not all chargers readily admit this limitation.

 

[Doug Ireland]

Just finished a good look through the mag today in the pub, one thing though on page 98. Barrie James is talking about crosswind take-offs and says (sic) "Remember, then, to lower the into-wind aileron to spoil this unwanted lift". Wrong way round Barrie sorry. I can remember when I was a student pilot and having to use full aileron deflection (full left for wind coming from the left and vice-verse from the right) to keep the wing down until picking the aircraft up off the ground and then rapidly centering the ailerons for the climb-out. Then applying rudder to get the aircraft to "weather-cock" into wind.

[Doug Ireland]

Good write-up on the sound system for your Camel Timbo, shame the video didn't do it justice though.

[Tim Mackey]

Thanks Doug.... I know - but we had limited recording equipment available on the day - not really planning to do the sound recording stuff . At least it proves we didnt "cheat" by trying to dub it out etc, or falsely raise the levels etc, and it was pretty windy. It actually sounds even better "in the flesh" I assure you.

However, its all we have now.

Dont ask.

[Andy Gates]

Another great magazine, shame it does not last longer but it will be reread numerous times.

 

However I have to take a certain Mr David Ashby to task over a comment he made in the Tigercat piece.

 

The paragraph relates to the radio used in this plane and can be found directly above the ALL TOLD heading. I do not wish to open up the 2.4 / 35 debate all over again but this I felt needs addressing.

 

 I quote

 

"I wouldn't recomment flying an electric version on 35MHz, since you'd be inviting too many glitches"

 

Where exactly did this come from?

 

This would imply that all pilots who fly electric planes should have them fall out of the sky if they are using 35MHz especially the smaller ones where recievers and power units are so close together.

 

Looking at the model we have a machine with a 82" wingspan, with power components in the nacels which are spaced some way from the fuselage where I assume the reciever is housed. This spacing should be plenty enough to stop glitches providing a reasonable layout is used.

 

If that combination is asking for glitches on 35MHz, then how do people fly 36" wingspan single engined machines without the plane being uncontrollable?

 

From personal experience I have not had any issues with twin engined electric machines and 35MHz, or infact any of my electric planes.In amongst the planes I fly is  a 74" wingspan twin engined Mosquito powered with 2 Lipo packs mounted in the nose of the fuselage supplying 2 ESC's (one of which has the BEC running to provide radio power) one in each nacel behind the motors.

Never had a glitch.

 

Now if the reason is that DA feels the plane is more secure on 2.4 then that is fine and he should say so. But this is a personal preferance and unless he has tried 35MHz and found glitching to be an issue then the comment made has no factual basis.

 

End of rant!

 

Having said all that, the Tigercat looks like a great plane but not for me at that price!

 

PS I assume the prices have been printed the wrong way round or is it really cheaper to buy it with the retracts?

Edited By Andy Gates on 20/12/2009 13:03:33

[David Ashby - Moderator]

LOL, nIce one Andy 7/10 for the rant there - could do a bit better

 

Ok, perhaps you didn't realise that 'a certain David Ashby' funnily enough happens to be me and he replies......  take it at face value, I'm not implying anything at all other than I've had substantial glitches flying larger electric models on 35 and yes, I do feel more secure flying my electric models on 2.4 as I think the majority of electric flyers who've used both will testify, EDF flyers especially.

Anyhow, it was a throw away comment really and I'm happy to have my hat put firmly straight  

 

Incidentally the retracts are a separate item. Cost = Kit + retracts.

 

Just a comment on Tim's video - I thought it was fine and reflected the amazing sound the system makes.