XK50

My bad! Andy48 is correct. I was confused by the new Frsky website, where thei tab "Firmware" goes to "their" old versions of OpenTx. I should have been looking under "XJT Firmware" ... something I had, until now, associated with the XJT module only. In fairness, I did say that 20% of what I wrote was likely to be tosh. Any room under that stone, Peter? (now where are those wink emojis, when you need one?) XK50

Dunno where those "winks" came from!

John, A fool rushes in ......... Firstly, there are two separate "firmwares" on the Taranis. There's the firmware for the actual signal transmitting side of things and then there is the "operating system" to interact with the user, provide all those clever Taranis features and store same, before handing over to the "transmitter" to transmit. These two "firmwares" are not the same thing and come from two different sources, but, sadly, their version number systems are very similar and so things can get confusing. The transmitting firmware ("the firmware" is downloadable from Frsky. Your version 2.0.9 has been updated to v2.1.6. Easy ..... except in the process, rc manufacturers have had to accomodate a new European standard, by law. It's fair to say that Frsky took two goes to get this right and much forum traffic was created in the process. Do yourself a favour just skip this historical grief! The latest v2.1.6 (referred to, in its EU version, as "EU LBT" works fine. I assume you are in the UK. So, tin soldiers etc, you might decide to leave things as they are. Problem! If you want to buy new receivers, those sold today, in the UK, will be to the EU LBT condition (not quite true ... but!). So, update. Problem! Your old receivers might need their firmware updating, as a consequence. Just more work - and a cable. On the Operating System side, this is downloadable from OpenTx. The latest is, indeed, v2.2.0. I can't see any reason why you shouldn't, after updating the firmware, go straight to this. One gotcha I know about is the fact that the sound files are generally version dependent. You need v2.2.0 sound files for the latest version. The only other gotcha to be aware of is most stuff on t'internet will now be out of date, and/or not the complete story. Even my stuff, above, will only be 80% due to ignorance or a desire to keep things simple. That notwithstanding, several thousand prople will have made the transition without issue. XK50

Thanks, Donald. How appropriate! I reckon it was money well spent on many, many levels - though, not all altruistic. I was reminded of "The Field of The Cloth of Gold", but that analogy shouldn't be stretched too far. John

Within the setting outlined by Erflog, the fast expanding German navy had been rivalling the Royal Navy (who had "ruled the waves", world-wide, since Trafalgar!) for at least a decade. This was seen as a threat to our Empire trade. Fortunately, the only German ports were ar some hours steaming, across the North Sea, or tucked away in the Baltic - until Germany invaded Belgium. Access to The Channel was a major factor for the Brits, in its decision to go to war. (A similar situation, but in reverse, exists today, between Russia, the Ukraine and the Black Sea [pace]). That's why Ypres was seen as important; it blocked access to the Belgian Channel ports. Returning to today, might I acknowledge the superb performance staged in the Ypres market square, on Sunday. I don't know who paid for it, but at a time of changing strategic direction for the Brits, it was a clear reminder to Belgium (and others) as to who their friends were. Any thread on this theme must pay homage to those members of the Commonwealth, who supported Britain in its endeavours. We have kind of drifted apart, over the last 45 years, but they are not forgotten. Finally, all hail The Commonwealth War Graves Commission! In an ordurous world, this remains a remarkable beacon of decency. XK50

What is an "uninvolved person"? That seems to be pretty fundamental. Now, a person walking down a street and encountering, suddenly, a drone (new, wide definition) can, clearly, be considered to be "uninvolved". No problem. However, is a person, in a field or on a hill, and who is aware - or is made aware - that model aircraft activity is taking place in the vicinity, by virtue of one or more of the following: - prior knowledge (longstanding usage), - the sight of a model aircraft flying, - the sound of a model aircraft flying, - the presence of warning signs (permanent in any car park, temporary at the flying site perimeter), - the flying of a red warning flag - the presence of hi-vis-equipped non-flying marshal (these latter two, as at Sutton Park), be truly "uninvolved", compare with that apocryphal bloke on the south London bus, who will know nothing? Further, if such a person decides to wander over for a closer look, or for a chat (and they do on the hills), has such a person by virtue of his actions become "involved"? Regards, John

Having read Parts A and B of the proposals, I read, finally, the covering note. With its "150kg" and "cross border operations", it does seem to support BEB's earlier assertions that this ain't really about model aircraft, nor even those naughty multi-rotors. It's seems to be about the commerce of fairly big things flying through the air, autonomously - Fedex and Uber for the skies! I reckon we model flyers are, currently, in the position of small dog-cart makers and users, circa 1896, who had little concept of the horseless carriages, the lorries and the charabancs, plus their required network of roads, autobahns, and garagistes that were about to hit them. This is going to be big .... very big. This will be the way the "millenniums" get their pensions paid. But, just like the Great Crested Newt, I suggest we model flyers will be alright, left in our designated areas. John

Thanks, ChrisB, for your reply. I will take no issue with your comments but let me just misquote John Prescot by saying, "We are all drones, now"! Would that the lawmakers could understand the shear joy to be found in what we do. I'm not a religious person but the closest I've ever been to being "at one with the infinite" has been whilst slope soaring, in a beautiful location, on an ideal day. Further, over 44 years, I've found the concentration involve in building and flying slope soarers to be so therapeutic, and so useful in overcoming work and domestic stresses, that an argument might be developed for making kits available on the NHS! I've witnessed, too, the bonding of father and son through aeromodelling, and the acquisition of many manual and technical skills, so useful in other areas. And yet, it seems all this is to be threatened by a mentality that says, "Everything is illegal, unless we say it's legal"? Hmm. Sadly, you can't argue with people that don't like "The Common Law" or "Habeas Corpus", either! For me, the greatest source for ChrisB's optimism should be the ability of the Member State to implement the regulations, with regard to local circumstances. This suggests that the target for lobbying should now be our friends at the CAA. The BMFA (and please use the title "The Society of Model Aeronatical Engineers" when doing this) should give the CAA those arguments needed to help them to help us. For instance, they might introduce "grandfathered rights" for model aircraft, as exceptions to the main purpose of controlling UAS that "are fitted with a camera and can be controlled remotely or autonomously to hover or to move instantly with 6 degrees of freedom". Yes, it's going to be alright, I'm sure. I'll just blow the dust of my ukuleles. John

I was given a good dose of general anaesthetic, a week ago, so maybe my comprehension is still affected, but have you noticed that: The proposed registrations and competences (we guess like our A/B tests) are to be good only for 3 (maybe 5) years? That should keep the examiners busy! The pilot's age is now a factor; initially for youngsters below 16 it would seem, but how long will it be before someone suggests people over 70 (like me!) should hang up their transmitters? (As has been done in the UK, recently, for drivers) Geofencing? Identification systems? No more receivers for me, until all this is incorporated! All flights to be logged I am reminded that during the 1930s, Stalin decreed that you couldn't buy a camera in the USSR, unless you were a member of a photographic club - in which, your snaps were limited to approved subjects only. Did wonders for the photographic industry. Not! Re my earlier thread, what price 250g, now! John  

Thank you for your input and enthusiasm, Dick. It is most welcome. That linked T-tail is a real beaut, even if its "port and starboard" colour scheme might be a bit confused. It's related thread makes very interesting reading, too. 300+mph! Not quite what those foreign safety regulators had in mind, I'm sure. So, it can be done! Regards, John

Thanks, Gonzo. It shows what can be done. In fact, I do have an old Cox PeeWee, somewhere, but remember it as a high-pitched "screamer" that is bound to upset somebody! However, I need to clear up a misunderstanding. From what I read, I don't think anyone (where it has been implemented) has sought to ban models above 250gm. It's just that such models can incur (again, where implemented) additional regulation and/or paperwork. Maybe, it's just an anarchic streak in me that is seeking ways to avoid all that ...... SHOULD it, ever, be implemented, closer to home. Don't panic, just yet. John

A limit of 250gm, before State regulation kicks in, seems to be gathering traction, worldwide. For me, at least, making and flying stuff without additional bureaucracy would be very attractive, but just what can be done with 250gm? I am aware of the indoor stuff (and particularly impressed by indoor scale) but for the average UK power and slope flier? Would unregulated outdoor flight just get blown away? Ideas and pictures would be appreciated. Many thanks, John

Suggest we don't write off free flight, just yet. If any 250g regulatory "cut-off" comes here, I can see a renewed interest in these lightweight designs, probably assisted by micro radio, just to side-step all the bureaucracy. I've even got a 1950's control-line handle, here, somewhere. XK50

I recall seeing a homemade GG device controlling a model boat, at Bourneville, circa 1961. The required variable pulses were generated, on the Tx side, by a sliding linear contact, operating along a triangular piece of thin copper sheet, wrapped around a quickly rotating wooden dowel, driven by a Mighty Midget motor. Slide left and get 100% mark; slide right and get 100% space. I flirted with copying the idea, but at 14, it never got off the ground (in any sense). XK50  

Tim's advice is good, and the way into the guitar, for me (in my 60s, too), was the ukulele. In this, Jim D'Ville's website: http://www.playukulelebyear.com/category/26-basic-ukulele-lessons/ was very helpful, especially in regards to a little bit of theory - chord progression, 12-bar blues etc - so you have a basic idea of what's going on. In following Tim, Jim and Justin, BBC could find it's turned out nice, again! John