By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more

Member postings for Peter Christy

Here is a list of all the postings Peter Christy has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.

Thread: solar-lac paint not fuel proof? Help
25/07/2017 15:34:50

All my recent builds have been painted with solarlac without problems. It does pay to leave it a few days to fully harden, before exposing it to fuel.

Mind you, I've been brushing on, straight from the tin. But I have to say that of all the paints I've tried, its the easiest to get a half decent finish with, and once hardened, is pretty tough! (I'm useless with paint!)

--

Pete

Thread: Proposed new drone legislation/registration
24/07/2017 18:15:21

I don't think they would care about us. Fortunately, a lot of the detail will be handed over to experts - presumably the CAA. Now the BMFA have a good relationship with the CAA, so hopefully the worst excesses of officialdom can be avoided. Also, the European airsports people seem to be being taken seriously by EASA, whose rules would almost certainly over-ride ours anyway.

The problem is that so far, no-one has come up with a suitable definition of what comprises a drone - as distinct from a model aircraft. If we can put forward such a definition, a lot of the problems will disappear. Hence my suggestion.....

--

Pete

Thread: FrSky X10 - Taranis replacement?
24/07/2017 13:54:07

Bob & Martin:

I never said that pointing the aerial at the model would result in doom - I just said it wasn't the optimum solution. I often point my aerial at the model when flying on 35 MHz as a sort of "early warning" system. I know that if I get a problem, I can immediately remedy it by simply swinging the Tx around a bit. It also tells me to avoid that bit of sky - for whatever reason!

wink

--

Pete

24/07/2017 12:54:25
Posted by Bob Cotsford on 24/07/2017 11:51:01:

......but why the aerial?

Because you get the optimum radiation pattern for model flying with the aerial pointing down at the ground, at an angle of roughly 45 degrees. That way the "dead spots" are either behind your head (base of the aerial) or in the ground, about 6 ft in front of you (tip of the aerial) - both places the model should never be!

The area of maximum radiation will be an arc in front of extending from horizon to horizon. Watch the F3C heli boys - they nearly all fly like that for that very reason!

--

Pete

Thread: Proposed new drone legislation/registration
24/07/2017 12:31:34
Posted by Rich2 on 24/07/2017 11:58:11:

that's because they haven't come up with a definition for drones - and actually, that's the whole point of this part of the discussion!

Edited By Rich2 on 24/07/2017 12:05:14

Exactly so! And surely the definition must be not its physical layout, but its capabilities.

BEB: I am not disagreeing with you here, but I'm sure that you recognise that there must be some measure of control over any UAS. In the case of the models we all know and love, this is to a large extent built in, as they need a certain level of skill and intelligence to operate successfully.

With "drones", as we repeatedly hear (not least in another thread on here), that is not necessarily the case.

We need to find a definition that everyone can agree on, that minimises the inconvenience to the majority, whilst still allowing the minority to pursue their hobby - even if subject to certain restrictions.

I stand by my suggestion that the capability to operate out of sight of the pilot is as simple and clear definition as you will get. (Perhaps I ought to add human pilot, to avoid any advance in artificial intelligence!)

--

Pete

24/07/2017 10:34:29

Unfortunately there are already fixed-wing "drones" on sale - not least from HobbyKing - so simply specifying a multi-rotor doesn't quite cut it.

That's why I was careful to specify the ability to operate outside LOS as the criteria.

--

Pete

24/07/2017 08:39:34

BEB: I don't think my proposals would cut us off from future development. It would simply mean that anyone wishing to go down that route would need to register. Admittedly that might be a bit of a disincentive, but it would save "conventional" modellers from being forced to register, or otherwise restricted.

Under the present proposals, we are all facing restrictions on our activities, when the only ones causing problems are those flying "drones" irresponsibly.

If we don't find a method of distinguishing, we will all suffer.

My only concern is that my proposed method of distinguishing would prove too simple for the bureaucrats, who love their reams of meaningless paperwork......!

--

Pete

23/07/2017 18:31:09
Posted by John Bisset on 23/07/2017 18:20:48:Anyway - this is a red herring story, designed to make it look as though government is 'doing something' when in fact they have all swanned off on holiday.

Quite right! Although some of the suggestions that have emerged here might be of interest to those negotiating on our behalf.....

--

Pete

Thread: Engine spares
23/07/2017 18:28:40

I would suggest Just Engines:

**LINK**

I think the Sc and ASP engines all come out of the same factory (a bit like Austin and Morris used to be!), so I would imagine the ASP bits would fit.

--

Pete

Thread: Proposed new drone legislation/registration
22/07/2017 22:55:06

The problem with which the authorities seem to have some difficulty (as well as many modellers) is defining the difference between a "drone" and a "model aircraft" (as we understand the terms).

The difference is quite simple. If it can ONLY be flown successfully when the pilot can see it (LOS), then it is a model aircraft. If it CAN be flown whilst out of sight of the pilot, be that autonomously or FPV, then it is a "drone".

Note I say say "CAN" be flown - that means that even if it is being flown within LOS, it still qualifies as a "drone" if it is capable of being flown whilst out of sight.

Once you have that definition, the rest becomes simple to legislate. Actually enforcing any regulations is another matter entirely, and on the evidence so far, pretty much impossible!

As so often, the law abiding will face restrictions that will be ignored by the "villains".

I was brought up to believe that a law that was unenforceable was a bad law, as it brought good law into disrepute. The proposals that I have read strike me as being completely unenforceable, and hence bad law.

--

Pete

22/07/2017 14:27:50
Posted by Cuban8 on 22/07/2017 12:48:48:

I say again.............where are all these drones that are causing all the trouble? Just taken a look out of the window and........ no, not one in sight. Not seen one in the park, or the fields..........ok a bloke had one flying it illegally beyond LOS on the beach last year - never saw him again.

Well, I had one hovering so low over my house about a week ago that I heard it indoors, over the TV! And my hearing is nowhere near as good as it used to be! He then flew it up - over several other people's houses - and followed a steam train along the nearby viaduct!

I *think* I know where it is coming from, and if I catch it again, I shall have words! I think it is the same idiot that delights in sending spectacular videos to the local paper, over-flying a pier full of holidaymakers, as well as nearby beaches and coastal haunts.

I'm getting black looks from my neighbours, because they think its *me*! (They are aware of my hobby)

I fully accept that a lot of the reports of drones following airliners on their approach are nonsense, as are those reporting them at over 10,000 feet. But the ones that annoy Joe Public the most are the ones overflying their property in quiet residential areas. And it annoys *me* because I'm suspected of being the pilot!

Grrrr!

--

Pete

22/07/2017 12:16:27

I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy with Brian's views on this (see previous page). We thought CB was a problem back in the late 70s / early 80s, but that was nothing compared to this.

What I cannot comprehend is the difficulty the powers that be seem to have distinguishing between a drone and a model aircraft (as we understand the terms).

Surely, all they need to do is specify that any UAS (unmanned aerial system) capable of operating out of sight of the pilot must be registered?

No need for any technical specifications, its simple. If it can be operated out of sight (doesn't matter if it is or not), it must be registered.

That leaves traditional models in the clear. Simples!

--

Pete

Thread: How has my brushless motor killed my RX?
21/07/2017 10:23:20

Looking at the damage in the motor, and knowing how much current they draw, I can understand how that may have fried the electronics in the speed controller.

Now that *shouldn't* get through the BEC, but bearing in mind that these things are built down to a price, not up to a specification, I can understand that it might!

Personally, on anything more than a small model, I prefer a separate battery pack for the Rx, rather than rely on a BEC. At the heli world champs a few years back, the reigning world champ had a solder joint on one of his LiPo connectors melt part way through his flight, shutting the motor down immediately. Luckily, he was running separate power for the radio, and was able to make a safe emergency landing, thus preserving a very expensive model! (He went on to retain his title!)

I learned a lesson from that, as did many others who were present!

--

Pete

Thread: Devcon 1 cuts the hedge at Ash Park Flyers
20/07/2017 22:51:30

I detect a caption contest coming.......

devil

--

Pete

Thread: Man on the moon. Really?
19/07/2017 08:52:19

One point that often gets over-looked is that Apollo was never designed to be the optimum way of getting to the moon, nor was it done for any real scientific benefit. It was done simply to beat the Russians to it. Once that goal had been achieved, it had served its purpose and was redundant.

Of course, it *should* have been followed up with a proper programme of exploration, but now it looks like some privateers may be about to take up the challenge, and good luck to them.

I remember a quote - I think from one of the astronauts - on being asked why we never went back. He described how one of his neighbours had a dog, and every night when he drove home the dog would chase his car down the road, yapping furiously. One day he wondered what would happen if the dog ever caught the car, so he slowed right down, and eventually stopped. The dog wandered around the car, sniffed at it, and then cocked its leg against the wheel, before going home! It never chased his car again!

His conclusion was that that was pretty much what man did to the moon......

--

Pete

18/07/2017 10:46:52

Actually, I've suddenly realised that Martin may be on to something! I recently discovered this:

"Many people have claimed down the years, that the Apollo moon landings never
took place, and that the whole thing was secretly filmed in the Nevada desert...


Actually the filming took place in Accrington Stanley by two British inventors
in their garden shed.

NASA realised fairly early on in their endeavor that if they were unable to
bring the astronauts back, there would at the very least be a hanging.
To ensure plausible deniability, they approached two British inventors, Arthur
Gilmartin and Ernest Maypole, who were leaders in the field of miniaturisation.
They took full size everyday objects and reduced their mass by the clever use of
a meat grinder, 3 valves, an electro magnet and a variable focus Tesla coil
with lens. This technology is still leading the field in CPU manufacture but
due to it's highly classified nature, no one outside the military has ever seen
it in action.

Nasa shipped the lunar lander to the UK where Gilmartin and Maypole minaturised
it in their shed. Unfortunately the inventors found that reverse miniaturisation
of live objects, resulted in the unfortunate subject being fully restored except
in the head and tackle departments. This was known as "globular size of a pea
syndrome" whereby anything round remains in miniature (a solution has still not
been found to this unfortunate problem even to this day) As a solution was not
available, NASA decided not to send Armstrong or Aldrin for miniaturisation, as
an astronaut with a pea sized head would be noticed during the post landing
interviews. It was also felt that Mrs Armstrong & Aldrin would be a bit peeved
in the bedroom department. Instead they sent two unknown actors (it's widely
believed that Tom Cruise is the illegitimate child of one of those actors) who
were given their scripts to commit to memory prior to miniaturisation (they
would have been crushed by them if they were given to them after they were made
small)

Luckily, Maypole and Gilmartin were also involved in the filming of Captain
Scarlet, one of the most realistic SCI-FI programs on TV at the time.
NASA wanted the filming of the moon surface as realistic as possible and
suggested that the inventors used Swiss cheese. However Gilmartin and Maypole
chose to use the ash and clinkers from the grate of their coal fire, as they
didn't think anyone would notice and anyway, cheese was expensive and in short
supply at that time.

The scene was set and again Gilmartin and Maypole came up with an ingenious
solution to another problem, that of the delay in communications between NASA
and the moon. They used carrier pigeons to fly their messages to Mrs Entwistle
at number 34 who had a telephone. It was her job to phone a chap with an
American accent who relayed the original message over the airwaves. Gilmartin
and Maypole found that this worked out to be exactly the same amount of time for
a message sent by radio from the moon to earth.

The only real cockup was when Mrs Maypole turned up with a pot of tea for the
two inventors and opened the door of the shed, this was the infamous "flag
waving in the breeze" incident that NASA still has problems to explain even to
this day.

Obviously this is all highly classified, so please don't tell anyone or I'll get
in a bit of trouble with the MOD, CIA, NASA and Intel."

--

Pete

17/07/2017 22:10:01

Martin: I learned long ago never to question the beliefs of others - however misguided they may appear to me! However, why stop at the moon landings? Why not go the whole hog? May I recommend this link for further reading:

**LINK**

wink 2

--

Pete

17/07/2017 12:29:57
Posted by Tony Bennett on 17/07/2017 12:19:56:

i believe the Russians used punched tape readers to run their early space craft.

Well I remember reading that the Soyuz uses something akin to the mechanical timer on a washing machine to control re-entry! And someone spoke earlier about "Moon Machines". There was a fascinating programme in that series showing how NASA did it.

Bear in mind that at the time, a disk drive was the same size as a washing machine, and not very reliable! RAM was mostly built around ferrite cores on a matrix of wires. Apparently the firmware was "written" on so-called "rope memory" - a bunch of wires bundled together into a rope, some containing ferrite beads (1) and some not (0)!

Simple, reliable and robust - and it worked!

If ever they repeat "Moon Machines" (usually on one of the more obscure channels), its well worth a watch!

--

Pete

17/07/2017 09:15:54

Posted by John Privett on 16/07/2017 22:45:21:

For the live TV coverage they were limited by the technology of the day and the comms bandwidth available for TV from the moon's surface for Apollo 11 was limited to a mere 700kHz. The solution was ti use a slow-scan (10fps) 320-line B&W camera transmitting its signal back to Earth, which is why the live video was not great quality.

Indeed! And for the later missions that were in colour, they used the same B&W camera, but put a spinning coloured disc in front of the lens. The disc was split into three segments, red, green and blue, and synchronised with the frame rate of the camera, so you got one frame of red, then one of green and finally one of blue. Back on earth this was re-assembled into a colour image, and explains why, on rapid movements, you got a rainbow stripe effect behind the movement.

The reassembled video was then converted to 525-line NTSC (Never Twice The Same Colour) for American broadcasters, before being beamed over a transatlantic satellite to Europe, where it was converted yet again into either 625-line Secam (System Essentially Contradicting the American Method) for France and Russia, or PAL (Peace At Last) for the UK and rest of Europe.

Its no wonder the pictures looked so grotty after all that mangling!

I read that recently some of the original slow-scan video tapes turned up at a ground station in Australia (?), where they had been recorded during the missions. The hunt was then on to find a machine capable of playing them and someone who knew how to operate it!

The original images were supposed to be quite good quality, despite the limited resolution and slow scan speed. Most of the deterioration occurred because of the requirement to feed them to the American public - who had paid for it all - via the rather poor quality US broadcasting system.......!

Oh, and that spinning coloured disc was something that many early TV experimenters played with. Indeed I seem to recall that when colour TV transmissions started in the UK, one of the hobby electronics mags did a construction article showing how to convert your B&W TV into a colour one using just such a system!

I have no idea how many people actually tried this, but I would have thought there were severe safety implications in having a large and rapidly whirling disc in front of your TV.......! surprise

--

Pete

Thread: DSM2/DSMX
16/07/2017 21:30:18

Martin,

Yes, you can force it into other modes. Th early ones were switch selectable. Later ones can be forced by pressing one of the buttons on the back and holding it - but don't try this without reading the manual, you'll be working in the dark!

--

Pete

Email News - Join our newsletter

Love Model Aircraft? Sign up to our emails for the latest news and special offers!

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
TJD Models
SHREK
Expo Tools 14 July
Gliders Distribution
CML
Overlander
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
How many metres do you have to walk with your models and gear to the flying area?
Q: How many metres do you have to walk with your models and gear to the flying area?

 Less than 20m
 20 to 100m
 100 to 200m
 200 to 500m
 More than 500m

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us