Bravedan

8 minutes ago, Pilot Ben said:

Just thought I'd point out that emotions is spelt wrong in the writing tools options and has been driving me mad for weeks (just kidding)

B

Might have been spelt wrongly if he'd intended to say emotion but then of course he didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon

So, your point was?? 

 

 

Upcoming Bank Holidays are:-

Friday 14th April

Monday 17th April

Monday 1st May

Monday 29th May

Good Friday?

https://www.gov.uk/bank-holidays

A lot of work!  Good Stuff!!

For info, Rich, your wording seemed to suggest that the old password would not work on Login, however using Firefox mine did.

In Members Only, there used to be a section to discuss generally anything needed to be mentioned away from public gaze. It seems to have gone, with only "Flying Diary", "Newsletters" and "Slope Soaring"  Would you confirm please which bits are accessible to Committee approved Members Only and which are public access?

Could you also have a look sometime at the order that Forum sections appear as some little used sections appear at the head of the list forcing scrolling down to what you want to access regularly, for example (but not exclusively) in the main menu "Southern Model Airshow" and "CAMFC Abroad". I know that's how it used to be on the old Forum but its not ideal, esp when accessing from small screen portables.

Pre-ordered and received mine and flown in the back garden OK. but on the first forward flight circuits at an Indoor it tried to attack the person standing to my left so I grabbed it out of the air, suffering several cuts, but at least the person didn't get it in his face.

It had glitched the tail motor very briefly twice in as many seconds and I was trying to get it down in one piece when it spooled up and came at us. I had no control nor time for Hold to spool it down even if it had worked (Fail safe had been set on all zeros)..

Post Mortem, firstly, the manual recommends to bind to 11mS. While I had read this, it was not warned as essential and my Tx had bound to 22mS three times so I'd given up, thinking my Tx (metallic grey pre Euro DSM2/DSMX DX9) could not manage 11mS.

By Emailing out to my Indoor group that I was later back home able to set 11mS manually without rebinding, I saved another member possibly doing the same with a brand spanking new black case DX8, which had bound 22mS and he had not even seen the tiny manual indication for 11mS.

There are emerging instances of others experiencing tail motor glitching on left turns when the single very short aerial is pretty much masked from the Tx. Only a tiny sample so far but it appears to be worse with the higher "C" rated Nano-Tech, etc type cells. (I'm running 450/460mAh 3S 65C)

(The ESC has a ferrite ring, unusual for Blade, so maybe they have experienced something similar in development?!)

Incidentally, on the recommended 300mAh LiPo the heli balances extremely rearwards, it is still a little rearward on the 450/460 size.

Both he and I flew them today, he on 300s, me on 460s, and they flew perfectly on 11mS.

Suggest you are a bit careful though!

If there is a lot of space for a Rx battery (you have not said what type but assume NIMH) I use Velcro on battery and location, and ALSO a well glued in velcro strap. I have seen people use double sided foam tape with just its own adhesive and that makes me cringe as batteries can get warm enough to weaken that adhesive. Are you using a switch?

Why fill an area with foam? not needed.

Trying to think of the name of the tubing I use for glow fuel clunks, but failing! It's sold for that purpose (ignoring petrol of course which is different).

I never ever use the supplied tube!!

To crimp brass tube onto wire is never easy, and CA isn't great on brass tube where you cannot clean it well or on spring wire. I usually use a specially blunt pair of side cutters if I'm going to crimp but these days usually wick flood lead based solder inside the tube with a very hot iron. I only go back the once, no more.

Ah, don't let it get you. USB sticks are so cheap now I copy anything I don't want to do again to HDD AND also copy to USB stick or SD card in a USB reader as backup (also enables easy transfer to another computer).

Look back at your post two above, and you will see that the formatting for bold is not working, and its wrong because the first "b" has the closing bracket (which should be next to it) way down at the end near the closing correctly bracketed "/b". This looks like you are selecting bold, then trying to write between it? Try as I advised in my other post, write what you want, highlight it, then go and click on the bold button. (I just did this with the last part now bold).

There are significant problems with the (now quite ancient) CAMFC site for Phoenix Simulator, its not a matter of the T.W.A. unsightly and illegal crap not being there in view!

Sadly, it's not a question of putting a camera on a tripod and clicking away, if anyone thinks they are up for it. Its a task needing the right conditions and patient accurate set up and operation.

On the current set:-

1. The occasion when the photos were taken to compose and stitch together the visual landscape was unfortunately a time of day with extremely flat dull light, so the result was the numerous photos to make up the set were all extremely poorly lit with poor depth indication and definition. This was not helped by a low exposure setting on the camera (for this purpose all the pics need equally to be marginally over exposed on a good contrast day).

2. The height of the camera was well below eye level. (Most hobby user tripods are inherently unsuitable, would need additional help to get the height required, and it matters).

3. The camera and tripod were not levelled and fixed accurately enough, so when rotated did not give correct angular perspective to the overall sloping site.

4. A accurate Indexing Head was not set up and used to keep the cameras photo focal point exactly the same regardless of angle of inclination and rotation.

Having at that time recently built a large number of sites for Phoenix (more than 30), sometimes from other Sim generated pictures to a very different standard, sometimes from freeware panoramas not intended for Sims, and been a Beta Tester for Phoenix 3, I offered to take the site set over part done when the originators hit issues and try to produce a result. With the above issues dogging every attempt, I spent a LONGGGGGG time over it, but failed.

I spent ages trying to lighten but retain usable contrast in the photos but getting a matching set proved impossible even with £500 software I was well used to using.

The published site was as good as it could be got at that time but ultimately was crippled by the photo set issues and also Creator limitations. There were also issues at that time as Creator could not accurately create a site map which had an overall slope (our site is down right to left as you fly even before the valley which most people will recognise, but is more than your brain will register!)

Since then Phoenix Builder has replaced Phoenix Creator. Its possible, but only a "possible" given the other problems the current "programmers" have created themselves with the main Sim and been unable to solve , that this would create a better result, but the photo set issues make an attempt unproductive. I have not used Builder on making a site, only models.

If anyone has a professional quality digital SLR with (essentially!) a fully lockable high quality indexing head, and wishes to have a go, I can assist with more info on how and when to do the task, the above might make it sound impossible, its not, but needs a patient and accurate approach, and the right conditions when nobody else is around to spoil the view .

Ideally it needs to be done mid morning in late spring/summer when nobody else is there so a Bank Holiday is good for that, but as we all know, waiting for good weather to happen on a BH is like looking for rainbow gold.

Well, I very briefly got interested, then saw the pics, firstly those surface areas are still WAY too small to gain my interest, secondly (and actually more worryingly), the engine does not look like my existing 39. I agree the "old" 39 is a superb engine, has a reliable idle that's super slow, yet decent power (on 20%) and a wonderfully progressive throttle.

Bottom line is that I have to bite the bullet of replacing my Cougar airframe before it gets too soggy and all the film falls off, and that's not long off.

Don't suggest an Evolution, as I have no interest or time to build one. Really don't want another Cougar either, I hate the scheme, the too small Fus section, the desperately off biased rudder, but this Wot is not looking good as a replacement (at any money let alone £200).

I need a modern slant on the Hangar Nine "Tango", now THAT was one nervous, fast reacting lunatic plane, super stuff with a 52 2St. (Looked awful, but don't really care about looks). I had two. H9 "Twist" came close, not as well made though being Vietnamese not Chinese.

Hi ChasePlane,

A brief explanation as to the "C" Rating(s) of a LiPo Battery.

The "S" rating of a LiPo is a hard thing to disguise or mistake, as the number of cells can in most cases simply be seen and counted!

The two "C" ratings are a VERY different matter. Poetic license abounds, not to mention downright lying!!

"C" Rating applied to CHARGE or current IN. (Usually in the range 1-5)

This is a multiplier applied to the capacity and determines the manufacturers statement as to maximum charge rate. Saying a battery is 5C charge Max is saying for example a 2200mAh battery can in the right circumstances (not always defined!) be charged at 5x2.2A=11Amps. This presumes the charger can deliver 11A into the battery (most could not). Charging at higher than 1C rate (for the example 1C is 1x2.2=2.2Amps) pushes current into the battery faster IF the battery is capable of allowing it.

The problem is that the battery offer resistance to the current flow, which limits current and causes heat, heat that might damage the cell structure/chemistry and in worst case ignite the battery. So, obviously a low resistance (sometimes also wrongly called impedance) high "C" rating is good, right??

Well, not always. Having a very low internal resistance is great for current flow in and out, but potentially bad for long term life and ability to deliver a lower steady current for a longer part of the discharge time. If it CAN deliver current and does the battery voltage will sag earlier.

Which brings us to "C" Rating applied to USE or current OUT (usually in the range 15-150)

This is why some camera drones, where current load is pretty constant and duration time is most needed, actually have relatively low "C" rating for discharge, in the range 15-20C. The motor and prop and ESC are chosen to draw the minimum needed with a safety margin.

On the other hand a Pylon racer or Race Quad needs max possible current or close to it (depending on the motor and ESC being able to take it of course). For example a Race Quad with four 2204 motors and 30A ESCs may ACTUALLY need a current flow of 80A at wide open throttle (WOT), yet the battery will only be around 1800-2200mAh, possibly for sprint racing only 1500mAh. For the middle range as a crude example 80/1.8=approx 45C.

Finally for now, the cell pack discharge "C" rating will often be given as (say) 35-120C. This means the manufacturer claims it will stand 35C current drain CONSTANT, and 120C in a brief SURGE such as when launching, pulling vertical into a loop with wide open throttle, etc.

SO, to sum up.................

1. You cannot trust manufacturers in claiming accurate "C" rating.

2. You cannot ascertain true ability rating before purchase other than by experience or taking account of others experience what any cell packs max charge and particularly discharge "C" ratings are!

As the cell chemistry breaks down over time (as they ALL do eventually), the internal resistance will alter. SOME packs will show this by charging normally at 1C, holding normal voltage, but when asked to deliver current will sag badly after only a few seconds as the pack is asked to give up its charge and cannot because its internal resistance prevents it, i.e, the pack is for recycling and useless.

Rough and Ready Advice......................

CHARGING - Stay at 1C unless extremely pushed for time. IF the pack states 5C charge, its usually OK for 3C.......... BUT whatever you decide upon monitor it and DO NOT LEAVE IT ALONE, keep it in at least peripheral vision sight and with a get me/it out of there backup plan THE WHOLE TIME.

DISCHARGE - While a function of what the motor will take and the ESC handle, take the stated motor max current, and ensure that the cell pack "C" rating is higher with a decent safety margin.

REMEMBER, the current a motor will take is a function of its load, and the load is the propeller. The nearer you prop to the max current the closer to issues/destruction you will get (and again manufacturers are prone to exaggeration as to their motors abilities, and typo's abound too!).

Run out of time now...............more later..................

And I'll watch the gate for the ambulance.

3.3x20 is 66 Amps. The high sounding Amperage for the motor size is due to the 4S supply voltage "forcing" more current. It all sounds OK to me.

On the three times I tried it from 45 side bank it placed the Heli level and in very slow forward flight. There are videos of it on Youtube, company and private ones.

I would expect so, yes.

I remember reading that in WW2 the Lancs got into difficulties if the flame shields fell off or were lost through flak, either from becoming more visible or seriously restricting the pilots night sight ability if inward facing.

And they are worried about us...................

http://www.flixxy.com/the-incredible-flyboard-air.htm

Well, TBH not wanting to risk the Heli, I have not tested recovery with the 230S beyond a 45 degree bank, but it did that perfectly.

The biggest "fault" is that the panic button is the bind button on a DX9, and that is not easily reachable to a finger while thumbs on sticks, so I have meant to swap switch "A" and the button over, a round tuit job.

For now I have bluetacked a 3mm nylock to the button top, a horrendous bodge that actually works pretty well!!

I can flip the nano without crashing (much!!) so its not a priority.

Motor : Emax 2826-6 (your figure)

ESC : 60A (your figure)

LiPo : Number of Cells(S), Capacity(mAh), and "C" rating (max discharge rate as a multiplier of the capacity)???

Differing manufacturers use differing battery connectors, you may have to change to pair to the ESC, though its more usual for ESCs to come without connectors on the supply pair and you will have to add them/it. This will not normally come with the ESC or battery.

Don't assume that battery manufacturers know what they are doing, for example a "big name" was recently selling 1500mAh 60C 4S race quad packs (so in theory capable IF as stated to be able to discharge 1.5x60=90 Amps, and they were supplying them fitted with red JST plugs. Even if this were an exaggerated discharge claim, they were selling these batteries for 250s that would suck at LEAST 30 amps on full throttle. Now the punch line - Red JST plugs are known to have a max of only 6 Amps continuous, 10A surge, the manufacturer rates them at 3A!!!!

Connectors : Its usual to have bullet connectors between the motor and the ESC on the three wires, these come in many different sizes, and its usual to have the female connectors on the ESC, male on the motor as these can be better insulated. They sometimes come with the motor. You can solder these wires together and heat shrink insulate but its convenient to have connectors for maintenance and reversal when connecting only to find the motor going in reverse to needed, swap any two to get it the right way!

Finally for now, and VITAL..................do NOT repeat NOT have the propeller fitted to the motor until you know everything else works properly, the Tx works the throttle from no rotation upwards, you have fail safe set, and you have a working and easily used throttle cut/hold set to a Tx switch.

If not now totally confused, lets deal with the suffix number. Some list this as the number of Poles, but I can assure you (since I have rewound a couple!) that the Suppo 2212-6 has 12 Poles, so Pole Pairs is the nearest to accurate way to describe it.

A DC 5 pole brushed motor has five Poles (not five pole pairs) on the Rotor and a permanent magnet with two Poles. One more pole to create rotation.

The general purpose 2212-6T 2200kV pulsed DC brushless motor has 12 Poles on the wound Stator with pole pieces that are 22mm dia by 12mm long, a sandwich of thinner iron sections, and the rotating magnet outrunner has 14 pole segments. The three wires lead to windings which are more usually delta connected.

Hi ChasePlane,

Nobody is going to shout at you, and you have every right to be confused!

One MAJOR problem is that some manufacturers state dimensions by external size (as Martin intimates) and some by the STATOR dimensions (the internal rotor max dimensions). EMax is a case in point as they identify the motor as 2826 by title, but this is not its overall size without shaft, which is variously stated but is on their own site stated as 47.5x39, with a drawing published showing these overall dimensions!

Generically the suffix number does relate to the number (and gauge wire) of the windings, with if there is a range of winds on offer with the SAME SIZE rotor a higher number being more turns of thinner wire, lower number less turns of thicker wire. Generically a 2212 rotor sized motor of 06 wind motor will have a kV (no-load rotation speed) of around 2200kV, and an 09 wind will be around 1400kV!

Lets take an example of a motor I know very well, and have used for many years, the Suppo 2212-6. This motor is/was widely imported and "branded" with re-labelling by a number of resellers like RobotBirds/BRC. For a while it was even anodised in other than gold and sold with other trade names inc by HobbyKing. They may use 2212/6 or 2212-6, same difference!!

If you measure the case you will find it is 28mm x 26mm. Some resellers therefore re-label it and sell it as a 2826-xx, some as a 2212-xx. If you buy a direct supply or Chinese reseller item it will usually have a silver label with black print simply stating (say) 2212-6. and its kV is alternately stated as 2200 or 2300kV.

Speaking for this 2212-06 motor, the prop sizes are around 7x5 down to 6x4, I run either depending on the planes weight and drag.

Now, I also use Suppo 2212-14 motors, bought direct from China and labelled 2212-14. These are the SAME case size, 2826, the same rotor size (2212), but have more windings of thinner gauge (which is really noticeable by observation!), and will generically run a larger 8 or 9" prop.

This is within a single manufacturers range.

SO, looking now more overall all offerings, a 2826 ROTOR sized motor will subject to windings naturally have more power and torque than a 2212 ROTOR sized motor, yet both might be sold as 2826's!!

Yes, I know this may not seem helpful, but it is very important that you understand that there is no single reliable system used to state what a brushless motor is by title, you have to look into the full spec and if possible cross reference as mistakes in print abound!

As an example (in a different sphere of model flying entirely) the widely published tables of FPV Video frequencies available on video transmitters are SO often wrong it's laughable, even to the extent of wrongly copying and publishing two identical rows of data for differing bands.

When you start out it is always best to look around to see what people are actually using on their planes of the type/make/model you want and copycat! Over time you will see through the jungle, and yes, it is worth the effort!!

With the seemingly all conquering multicopter and its ease of use, Heli's have gone on the back burner.

The most recent "best attempt" has been the Blade 230S, which simplifies the mechanics down to a minimum while still providing a means to fly collective pitch including 3D, with a recovery mode for when it all goes wrong. Sneered at by many, its a much much better machine than they give credit for.

Now Blade are announcing that the 130X is being superseded by the 130S, which follows the same path of brushless power with motor driven tail and robust simple structure in a smaller lighter package even better able to take knocks and yet still come back for more.

If they have as I suspect achieved in that smaller package what they managed with the 230S, it will be a very suitable machine for indoor event and back garden use.

I'll let you know.......................

Now if they'd only properly update the Nano CPX in the same style, rather than the travesty they last produced to "update" it, we'd REALLY be happy!

Re: "Uploading the photographs onto here will delay things a bit as I will have to reduce the size of the photo,s to post them on this website. Bit of a nuisance really, but unavoidable."

Firstly, how do you reduce the photos? I use a program called Irfanview. http://www.irfanview.com/

This allows batch conversion to a pre-chosen size and format that will remain active for the next time, and is free.

Secondly, Don't know if you have noticed, but I never upload pictures here anyway, I put them to a website that allows them to be accessed (IF you have passed the link to them) anywhere, so one upload permits long term access by any person or organisation needing to look. I then just post the link for a picture and up it pops. One time action for any user. It also allows update if required, again one action changes all.

Alton Towers

http://

http://dronelife.com/2014/06/05/guilty- ... flight-uk/

And yet they allow video of him doing what was if anything a worse infringement of UK law to remain on public access to "promote others doing it"

Blackpool

But then it wasn't intended to promote safety, it was to show the technology's front edge both in development and what is now commercially available.

In reality they broke a number of current UK laws, and potentially gave credence to flying in areas that should not be. Wasn't long ago when the CAA managed a successful prosecution against a man who flew a multicopter into Alton Towers from the car park. Now the BBC show everone how easy and fun it is to do, effectively luring people towards doing it. No, they didn't SAY it was closed and not operational (you could see that if you wanted). They didn't say the permissions they (presumably!) gained to film there. They should face prosecution for inciting crime.

Just like a few weeks ago BBC were happily promoting really VERY dangerous flying at high altitude over a city with no permissions at all (the married couple on the roof garden film). They even interviewed the pilot on the basis of him being a hero and managing a wonderful picture - no mention at all about safety or UK rules. The pilot admitted the quad was out of range and was RTB on low battery....... passed off as just a normal part of getting that "magic shot!!"

Then only yesterday they have a major piece on national news about the rapidly increasing severity of drone incidents and likely regulation/extra laws, quoting numbers that were totally erroneous and flashing dramatic newpaper headlines "Drone hits plane landing at Heathrow", an accident that NEVER TOOK PLACE, as this was the "Tesco carrier bag" incident.

Stupid braindead journalists or manipulative management of the situation to help create much greater freedom from non commercial use of lower airspace to sell commercial airspace sub 400'? Your call.