Bravedan

Mike, I have sent you a Private Message as this section of the Forum is PUBLIC.

No, sorry, but nothing at all like the Dysan fan, which has LOADS of extremely conventional moving parts, from a bladed fan hidden in the "stand" to a brushless motor and axial fan blades inside the head. The Dysan is in some respects a magicians trick, new technology that really isn't, and is not anything like the scientific advance this technology offers. The problem with this new "drive" will be getting the power to weight ratio and where have we heard that before with electric flight?

Now, I was beginning to like you and then you mentioned Sk*****er radio gear........(SPIT) 🤣 (Their display team were a "hated competitor" back when Fred Flintstone and I went flying, and WE of course used THE best, Futaba M Series, TEE HEE) I still use a T7CP 35MHz for Phoenix Simulator operation. With no crystal there's no power drain on the RF so it lasts AGES between charges. I have to say though its menu system is total rubbish and extremely constraining compared to Taranis and Horus!! I still have my 27MHz "M" Series (two transmitters and a clutch of Rx and a big pile of

To reinforce Ben, cost is of course not just the Tx but also the cost of the Rx's, but FrSky Rx are very reasonably priced.

Well.............. I'm not sure why you find the 6EX difficult to input, but that in itself is a worry since most (if not now all) transmitters are going to seem more complex initially till you get your head round them. While FASST is a robust system, it's long obsolete and support is now fast disappearing. I have two 6EX (well actually six but the others are 35MHz!!) and a 10CG, so do have experience and am not just spouting regurgitated internet rubbish!). As FASST was going obsolete (near five years back!!) I converted to FrSky with a batch 2 early Taranis and bought a FASST Modu

That is the normal frame effect coinciding with rotation speed! 😉 Watch this spool up.................

I particularly liked the way the pilot eventually decided the launcher was never going to hold it at the right angle and grabbed the tail!!

Great progress, Mike. I have more chance of running a Marathon than having the time and patience to build one of those!

I have had a reversing pitch prop for about five years, but never put it on a plane as it coincided with me no longer going to Swanley (because of the iggits going there then flying dangerously, it had a netted off pits, they though it was funny to fly through it flat out and were not stopped, also they'd start flying combat or "pylon" with others up with ultralight slow flys and decimate them). SRFC also stopped Indoor Meets as the very large Lancing hall had risen to £120 an hour. Also while I can use Langley's sports hall anytime its not in use it has full netting on all walls so even a lig

Well, I have two Horus X12S and an early (Batch 2) Taranis to be accurate. Trevor and Gerard both have Horus 10's. FrSky long ago joined the "mainstream" manufacturers in terms of sales, though if you mean overpriced overhyped bloatware of course, they have not! 🤐 My Taranis, being smaller and lighter, carries all the slope models. It has (from just after purchase) a Futaba FASST module to use all my old but extremely reliable receivers. Vinyl looks good. I was at one time thinking of swapping the front for a water dipped one, but decided not to bother on the grounds I was too

Pilotul iscusit.mp4

Agreed, but the as viewed shade of a painted metal cowl was often quite different to the painted doped fabric, especially after a hot engine and exhaust system close to the panel had existed for a few hours running. We often over strive to get matches that actually did not exist in reality. It was war, they were not building concours. Often the fabric painted over quickly matted more that the metal. An example is all the best looking "bare metal" finished models have differing shades/textures on panel to panel finishes. Subtle but definitely not a match. Then add scale effect.

Nice. You could always pick one where the cowl was a different colour, and use an acrylic aerosol. Or in halfords find a suitable matching red from the big range of shades.

Hi Mike, Lots of effort gone into that SE5A. Not that easy to see from your picture, but it looks like you have loomed the aerial (at least one) in with other wiring. This not ideal. The silver end section of the wire aerial is the actual signal receiving part, and this at minimum should be located as far away from wiring, battery, or anything else metal or carrying signal/voltage. Also the wiring not pulled so the receiver exit wiring is pulled tight. Something moves and it pulls apart! Looks as though you have maybe correctly located the aerials 90 degrees to each other,

Only near $12 dollars written off for them, they could add it to the trillions someone took around 9/11 and still not notice, but for us a little more serious? Do they still do Lease/Lend?? 😀

Unfortunate naming as the first time around the Typhoon was also technically outgunned by the Tempest, but which was more successful and lasted better?

They also did a SE5A and a couple of others inc Spacewalker, but may have dropped or just OOS, quick search did not turn them up. SE5A flew very well, balsa with just paper roundels so not as cosmetic as the Model Aces one. I note they now do a 400mm balsa frame Zero but that is unlikely to be OK Indoor!! I maidened an SE5A for Clive in our group and it flew excellently. Have also flown the TRIPLANE and that flew well but didn't like right hand turns much (allegedly quite scale then!!)

A little less fiddly and quite a bit less fiddly, depending on model chosen, are the micro range of balsa planes available from Banggood. While I have not built any, those I fly with have, and they have on occasion successfully tested their robustness to beyond that reasonable to ask for(!). I have flown/trimmed a couple and they do fly well in a none too large sports hall. https://www.banggood.com/Flea-Balsawood-358MM-Wingspan-Micro-RC-Airplane-Newton-Kit-With-Power-System-p-1122905.html https://www.banggood.com/Tiger-Moth-K10-400mm-Wingspan-Micro-RC-Balsa-Wood-Laser-Cut-RC-Air

Micro Aces really have got the printed finish off to a Tee, haven't they Don! I "put up" with the Ares products as I simply do not have the time for better. I keep looking though!! One day................................................ SIGH

What gets me is that a drone/UAV under control going over 400 feet high is regarded as the devil incarnate and the pilot should be locked up, yet these get "isn't it wonderful" press reports for getting right up past the highest airliners under no control at all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-44536052

When operating from Fickleshole, presumably likewise Sevenoaks, and from slopes like "The Trundle" and Shoreham Mill Hill, the 400' / 120 Metre height restriction will continue to apply, though in the case of Mill Hill a 50' over top of hill limit by agreement with ATC overrides. What is not made fully clear (yet) are matters such as minimum distances from airport for ANY UAV flight, and given its only about six weeks off implementation, it's cutting it fine to get the word out. On paper and from stated intent, CAMFC is (just) outside the proposed distance limit.

Gerard and I discussed this, but for wider reading. The material FrSky use is a silicone sealer electrical product, designed to be high resistance and fully moisture resistant. While Hot Glue may do the job, its electrical properties are harder to be certain of, especially its conductivity in damp conditions. It might also make removal difficult. I have used Aquarium Silicone successfully (as its easy to get hold of), and at least its water resistance is ensured!! However, the CORRECT stuff is:- https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/silicone-sealants/0555588/

I have placed this in M/rotor but the FAA are aiming at VTX ending up on ALL video transmission for models, no doubt a test case (and a nice little earner if they make it stick, not that they have a very good record. A point is that many means of transmission have the CAPABILITY to transmit illegally in some places, and its normally regarded as a user function to ensure compliance. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-351279A1.pdf

Aerials on 2.4GHz should ideally be at 90 degrees between the two. The aerial is only the short usually silver part at the end, the rest is just co-ax. The problem with PCB aerials (I call them "door wedge" type) is that "edge on" the aerial thickness is the depth of the track, i.e. not a lot! If in flight the edge of both aerials is facing the Tx then signal strength does suffer, and while usually nowhere near problem levels, its not the BEST possible. The CORRECT orientation for PCB aerials is therefore so the LENGTH of the two aerials is 90, BUT ALSO that the PCB faces are at 90,