Bravedan

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, so whichever way you look at them one broad face is towards the Tx (roughly).

Before someone challenges this as worth doing, they should remember/bear in mind I spent six months working with FrSky improving the Horus 12S and that included RF/IXJT performance measurement and tuning.

Have to say after lots of use I personally do not like the door wedge type, too large and intrusive in many models and so I usually buy wire type or change them for wire type, though the dB recorded from using them if set up well is OK. 

They are quite OK if space allows, but lets face it, if visible they are damn ugly!!!

It's the Daily Wail.................move on, nothing to see here...................

In the last year I have experienced a rising level of new LiPo reaching me in unsatisfactory condition. Since 1st Jan 18 EVERY new supply received has had some significant issues.

This from UK supplier/brands, Chinese supplier direct and from (different) Chinese supplier with UK warehouse, so it seems not to matter where the final supply comes from.

Purely as an example, yesterday I received four 1300mAh 3S. As usual I immediately tested with three differing testers for positive confirmation, but as one is an ISDT unit that has been proven to be reliably accurate, I will only quote its data here.

Pack 1 - 3.75v average per cell with a range of 8mV
Pack 2 - 3.76v average per cell with a range of 11mV
Pack 3 - 3.02v cell one, cells two and three below ability of tester to measure so 0v shown.
Pack 4 - 1.82v cell one with tester resistance causing it to slowly drop further, cells two and three 3.6*v

Pack 3 on a high quality multimeter gave 5.44v across the pack, with cells at 3.02v, 1.24v and 1.15v

I have charged packs 1 and 2 and they completed charge (on a verified good charger) as follows:-

Pack 1 - 4.191v average per cell dropping after an hour to 4.183v, at that time a 2mV range
Pack 2 - 4.18v average per cell with a range of 12mV, voltage has held overnight.

The previous new supply from a different source and brand were three 2200mAh 3S, and briefly one had a shorted cell 2 so pack indicated as 2S, and another was so unbalanced that there was no way I was about to use it. (These were not budget priced items)  When claimed within an hour of tracked delivery they were replaced under warranty, then one of the two sent was badly out of balance but did balance after a couple of cycles.

SO.............checking packs VERY carefully on supply is essential!

1. I hope you are carefully check new packs before charging for use?
2. In the light of above, you may like to review HOW accurately you check new packs?
3. What level of failures are you seeing?
4. Have you had issues getting warranty replacement?  (I have not, which suggests that the suppliers KNOW they are on dodgy ground!)

What does worry me is that in theory the possibility of a failure to thermal runaway (and poss fire) must also be increasing with such erratic supply quality.

Whatever, be careful, supply quality is definitely dropping!!!

Loosened hinges can be secured in a balsa wing by pinning through the complete wing/hinge, and running in some thin CA to fix the pin. I use model railway track pins. (OR done when new of course, not that you could in this case)

4 minutes ago, Pilot Ben said:

BTW I take it that if a hinge pulls out then I can just glue it back in?

B  

Many years experience has led me to the inescapable conclusion that they don't glue themselves back, and are unlikely to complain .............................. 😜

(Put a tiny amount of oil on the hinge proper first in case the glue spreads)

Can of Worms.

Basically, the design allowed for landing lights which swung down under the wing near the inner ammo box (so NOT anywhere on or near the leading edge).  However, there were several wing types (of internal structure layout, not things like clipped tips or extended tips), and of course lots of differing Mks.

Almost immediately the plane flew it and night use was trialled it was found that the flames from the exhaust stack position rendered the pilot blind, and masking was impractical.

It seems to me (opinion) that they tried several times during its service life to widen its use into night operation, probably forgetting the previous bad experience!

As they were generally regarded as a "worse than a chocolate teapot" idea, I suspect few were fitted or remained fitted and even fewer used, though the controls if OE were likely left "in case".

Early Mks did have a downward facing single identification light in the sbd wing underside flush mounted and well outboard.  Whether this helped with dusk landings seems lost in time.

The Chinese in particular seem very confused with plane lighting, the Canadian Swing Wing from HKing has the nav lights the wrong way round, and the Dynam Marauder has the twin (white) landing lights coloured as nav lights!

P.S.  Are the "holes" anywhere a gun would have been?  Could then hide with a patch of yellow in not perfect match and a "red doped fabric" gun port cover to fool the eye?

As confirmation of how old No 4 is, I first heard it told featuring the Roman Legions against the Welsh     😜

The punch line was "It's a trap, don't go, there's two of them............................."

When you look at all the things Red Bull are involved in, and accepting that we'd be worse off without their involvement, the profit they make from their drink is massive relative to costs.

£6.06 BILLION revenue in 2016.

Interesting fact that as last declared (the core business is unlisted) the F1 team actually made a small PROFIT.

IMO it more depends on where and how you store your models. If stored somewhere that condensation through temp and humidity changes (inc overnight range) are high and especially with open pipes (vents, etc) then the risks are greater. Fire risk is another matter, for example your home insurance might be invalidated by storing fuel in it (in models). I have seen one policy where the limit applied was a tablespoonful of petrol or similar fuel!

Personally I have never normally run engines out of fuel at the end of use, never emptied tanks, never used after run oil. And I use between 20-25% nitro as a normal fuel, synthetic oil. I would only bother if leakage during transport or storage was likely. 1972 to date, no evidence of issues seen. Can't say its not an issue, but no evidence of one HERE.

Similar debate cyclicly occurs in the heritage transport sphere with both diesel and petrol. Some people insist that petrol should not be used after (say) six months or more in a tank without refill refreshing, dire warnings of bad running and worse. By long experience I have never EVER seen any issues arise.  How about a decade plus, several times over? (solder lined tanks so no rust issue).

Drifting completely off course, I CAN say that leaving 8 plus ton vehicles stood on their tyres unmoved for years DOES tend to produce a bumpy tooth loosening ride till the tyres warm enough to remove the flat spots! 

As they say, YMMV.......................

Lots of confusion in the media over this. Some reports it was an A380.

It was flight 1380 (might explain it!), listed as a 737-700 with CFM engines.

Reports emerging of sheared blades, if true NOT a hub failure per se.

Typical brain dead idiot things appearing, like the male passenger with mask held by hand over mouth only while he selfies and shows cabin on phone. More important to film it than to make himself safe.

DUPLICATE POST

Too many variables for a simple blanket answer.

If the u/c is good piano wire with impact absorbing non-bouncing wheels/tyres, rigid bolting with no shear is valid. If its a super rigid aluminium or carbon composition something has to give in the event of an over hard landing.

Have seen people fit such small nylon bolts that the u/c falls off prematurely nearly every time, even where it then rotates and damages the wing. Yet they just replace and carry on to do it again.

However, it has to be said that too many "pilots" never learn to land properly, too many resist ever practising touch and goes, and even avoid attempting landing at all till on the very last dregs of fuel/battery so they are forced into arrivals.  Too many decide to land, get it slightly wrong, and force it down rather than go around. Under those circumstances it matters not what is holding the gear on as its only affecting where the damage will be rather than preventing it.

Many ARTF are castigated as having inadequate u/c. Mostly, these people should look in the mirror before launching a tirade of abuse and modifications..

Wonder why Weston called it the "Hype", Eh?..................... failed to look in the dictionary?

Slightly off topic but a Heli model I have came under great criticism for having poorly made/designed weak components. One guy in particular moaning bitterly on and on that the tail rotor and main gear were totally inadequate.

Asked the direct question, he said he'd replaced over 30 tail blade sets and nearly as many main gears.

THIS IS ON A MODEL WITH PRESS BUTTON "PANIC RECOVERY" for heavens sake......................

He fitted an after market stronger gear - now of course damage moved to a harder to replace and more expensive component, ripping the head apart in a blade strike.

I'm still on the original tail blades after 18 months plus and have replaced one std main gear due a blade strike which was MY FAULT. And of course it saved the head as intended.

Well, you asked............................ 

Word is spreading that Horizon Hobbies have effectively called a halt on Phoenix. 

What follows is personal opinion on this, and a suggestion. (I was an early buyer of v1, so Phoenix and I go way back!)

Under the original programming team/ownership at the time of the change from v2 to v3, I spent a few months pre-launch as one of the Beta Test team. At one stage I had the program running across four very different computers with differing hardware and OS. I spent many hours a week on it (unpaid, before anyone asks!). Launch issues centered around hardware anomalies, with next to no issues with program operation or features.

Shortly after HH bought it, they launched on a major work over of the base code. Why this was attempted was never fully made clear.

Under HH ownership a very different more closed off operation was undertaken.  As a result, so many third party people drifted away, some talented plane and scenery builders stopped modelling freeware and low cost payware when the base program changes meant the skinning format of their graphics no longer worked. I had models that I had successfully reskinned, yet all of a sudden the fuselage graphic was appearing  halfway down one wing, etc, etc.  I could not be bothered with the rework. I wasn't alone.

Suffice to say the HH rewrite did not go well, and over a year later some models in the old program were still not reintroduced, some features were poor shadows of their former ability, slope soaring gliders and wind effects were for example effectively broken, and the program had lost its way.

With the last official update dating from middle 2016, and some lost aspects of the program still unresolved, it could be sensed that time was not on the side of the program when the parent company was appearing increasingly distracted by other priorities.

"Heavy" Models that had worked perfectly before were being blown across the runway by a 10mph breeze. Ridiculous! 

There are a few freeware developers left, "rickp" on RCG deserves lots of credit for continuing to make very good models. (I contributed to a few, so maybe bypass them!!).

How long the servers for download and multiplay will continue is a moot point.  I suggest that if you have an interest in keeping your copy running (until a Microsoft OS change wipes it away!), you need to download and store to safety all the files you can. Backup, Backup, Backup!!! 

23 hours ago, orange_rc_pilot said:

I'll do some internet hunting and see if I can find any with the right sort of dimensions which aren't crazy expensive.

Have a look for secondhand Heli stuff , something like Hirobo Sceadu, TRex 700, etc

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TREX-700-ORANGE-LANDING-STRUTS-BLACK-SKIDS/132476002775?hash=item1ed82f61d7:g:9E8AAOSwnsRaYgRs

two 4s 3000mAh ....................   two 4s 3000mAh??  Are you going to sit on it to fly it??  

Hi Sevan,

That is looking very good, I like the Fus style. 

I don't disagree with your figures, the only thing I'd say is that you need to make sure that your cell packs can deliver that current in ACTUALITY for as long as you need without going over weight in pack choice.  Sellers are pretty adept at enhancing the truth!

Mechanically it also looks OK with one reservation. I really do not like the apparently limited flex room given for the wiring from the rotating rear prop bar. I suggest a "loop" of cable to allow greater freedom. It's not only loading for the servos, its also mechanical damage to the inner cores of the wiring flexing back and fore that tightly.

There have been a few Tx makers that have come unstuck (or their buyers have) by not taking into proper account the flex of the wiring going to the gimbals on hall effect sensing assemblies.

Also undercarriage/wheels. These are far too small for grass running, and while its purpose is not to conventional ground run, for easy VTOL a wider spread on the rear gear would be useful i think?  Watch any VTOL or Helicopter and the final put down is rarely level or smooth.

But then both the Spitfire and ME109 survived (though not always their crew!!) with narrow spaced gear. 

12 hours ago, Pilot Ben said:

So just to confirm it would only be uavs flow via fpv a not line of sight?

EASA have been stating all the way through (since 2015 in fact) that they have been unable to find a robust way to split away any form of UAV flying.  The hope is that CLUB activity where a safety record can be long proven can be negotiated out by the BMFA with the CAA as a "local" matter.

Some of this has been hilarious in a cringe worthy way, as an example a couple of my contacts seemed to think that any legislation would not apply to Free Flight.  I pointed out that if EASA thought FULLY CONTROLLED UAV flight even including geofencing, autonomous altitude management, etc, needed severe restriction how on earth did they think that UNCONTROLLED UAV flight would escape?? It went very quiet...................

Did the consultations and much previous info pass you by?  I had an EMail conversation with my MP a long long time ago now on this!

It was obvious from nearly two years back when this all started that EASA would come out with what suited their masters desire to grab the lower airspace for sale to commercial operators, however that article you link is as well as being a day late and a dollar short a pretty poor reflection of where CAA and BMFA have been indicating they are working to gain the best solution including existing club use.

And its NOT multi-rotor (potential) law, it's ALL UAV of ANY type!

HA HA HA!!!

Think again, Easy Jet:-

http://sandiegouniontribune.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=21b6bf2f6

PLEASE, not a pusher, don't even mention it!  There's a pusher jet turbine prop comes in and out of B.H. It is ridiculously and offensively noisy, I really do not know how the operator (and the airport) gets away with it. It is so bad that at the field you can always hear it spool up and identify it LONG before take off.

Piaggio Avanti. Apparently the maker has spent years trying to quieten it with no success at all. The noise impact is far too much.

10 hours ago, Pilot Ben said:

Well if an extra 330 can be powered for 1/2 hour, surely it can be done on a bigger scale?   

Just as well you used a smiley there!  On thrust alone for now, ignore duration, do the maths on how many "Elextra" motors would be required to develop the thrust of a Airbus A319 or a Boeing 737 series.  Then calculate their weight.  This of course ignores batteries/alternate power supply. A jet engine is actually mostly "hole" and actually not that heavy!!

Also an existing jet lands much lighter than it took off, having GAINED efficiency the longer it flies.  And Electric?

10 hours ago, Pilot Ben said:

All we'd get with a jet is a EDF XXXL with flight times of 5 mins  

........................that had to be bungee launched at 10g breaking every passengers neck to get off the ground.  

I'm well aware that technology advances, spent my whole working life at the front edge of automated process control. I have told this tale but will repeat.   Stagecoach got their first "new technology" electric powered bus about 10 years back, a std sized 40(ish) seat single decker, and were so proud they wanted to bring it to us to photograph it on our Museum site with our electric drive 48 seater double decker 1914 bus.  Theirs had a small diesel generator to keep charge.

Days before the press launch, they rang to say it wasn't going to happen. They had to admit when pressured (I was speaking direct with their Engineering Director) that they had tested it but found it would not be able to climb the hill from Fontwell up to Five Ways.

I offered to bring our 1914 bus to them, but they refused the offer.  

The Hybrids on the 119 route now have electric available at under 11mph, then the diesel cuts in. Unless driven very conservatively, they spend a lot of time on engine power.

A friend has just brought a new design Hybrid BMW Mini. This is 4WD, engine FWD, motor RWD. either or both can run. He was ecstatic the other day as it had managed to recover most of the charge back in a 6 mile journey, carrying only him. It started with over half a charge as he has yet to add the fast charge facility at his home as the input cabling to his 1930's house is not capable.

That was running the petrol engine into the resistance of the motor load as a generator and carrying the extra weight of the batteries at a punitive effect on consumption and ejected pollution. Batteries that give it an abysmally small boot space with the rear seats up.  This is state of the art current progress.

I note with great interest that the Tesla as sold now in the USA requires a THREE PHASE supply for its charger! Few UK homes have Three Phase, and the cost of modifying the infrastructure to cater for that need would be massive and cause pollution in traffic restrictions that would never be re-couped by the "savings".

Electric commercial sized planes would require airports to have their own power generating stations or there would be huge requirements for cabling/pylons! 

SO much written and acted upon is total rubbish. One example, I also note the press statements of alleged Govt intent to crack down on diesel cars by reducing their allowed co2 emission per tax band.  Scant years ago they promoted diesel cars because they did (and still do) emit less co2 per mile than the equiv petrol engine. It is PARTICULATES that diesels are potentially poorer for, but this is not mentioned.

I could drive every day for the rest of my life and still my existing car would not emit more pollution than the making of a hybrid replacement would cause!

AND, at the same time, everyone and his dog is being allowed (nay promoted) into buying oversized overweight high drag crossovers or 4x4s that do not fit our roads and cause traffic to slow, causing much more stopping, acceleration and braking avoiding each other, and as a result a great deal MORE pollution.  Take a "family" five seat sized car of the late 1960's, lets say a Mk1 Ford Cortina, and measure all its whole life impact on the environment against a Hybrid BMW mini, which barely seats four, let alone (say) a Nissan Qashqai.

While waiting on Friday in Gatwick Orange Car Park level 1, a constant string of vehicles, many recent petrols, most people carriers or crossovers, all just started and throwing out offensive fumes while idling with their Cats well below working temperature, were using the otherwise deserted electric charge point spaces to load up, right by where people inc babies in push chairs were waiting.  Do you think these people will be able to operate hybrid technology well enough to gain ANY advantage?

Sorry to be blunt, but if you youngsters do not step back and look at history and learn from it, I'm really glad I'm not going to be around!!

Like Amazon and the delivery drones, this has nothing whatsoever to do with real world practicality,, and everything to do with gaining free advertising exposure, in this case using the lure of commercial electric flight, which of course they just have. 

Some bright young thing in marketing had a brain f*rt and the people who should have squashed it were off playing golf.

Just do the maths. Try just two parameters, thrust required and duration required for.

I can hear the engineers cringing from here.

If you can get photos on here or a solid link, and an indication on weight, we may be able to help more thoroughly, but the "we" won't be me though as I'm about to go offline for a few days.

Don't know the model and cannot get to see your pics.

On 4S (nominal 14.8v) a running current of 23.2A gives in excess of 343 watts.

Your figures of 27.4A means the motor on 4S is dissipating over 400 watts.

Either way that is a long way past their max stated, as HK states their max power being 243 watts.

You would need to be sure that the steady state running current would be below that by a margin, then (maybe!) a brief surge above might be OK

In the words of Clint Eastwood  "Are you feelin' lucky, Punk?  Well, are ya??"

I know the Suppo 2300kV 2212-6 motor well. That can be pushed well beyond that stated for it. On quads I have 2S motors running on 4S and 3S motors running on 4S, and there the load is fairly constant. I do not however know what reserve your chosen motors have, but as they are only 950kV, I doubt the conductor size would cope well with large overloading

Have you resolved this??

Since last post I have been sent a zip said to contain loadable v5.5 in toto. (Have not needed to test)

Yea, but what, all the ones I have tried are either iffier than Phoenix or are trying to be flight sims rather than RC flight sims?