Here is a list of all the postings The Wright Stuff has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Fire Extinguishers?|
With the exception of the requirements for jet turbines, I can't see that an investment in a fire extinguisher for the flight line is all that useful. For clothing fires, I would say water and/or a fire blanket would be better, more reliable and less maintenance...
For Lipo fires, a bucket of sand.
For anything else. Let it either burn itself out, or get the experts there...
Edited By The Wright Stuff on 15/02/2019 08:34:25
|Thread: Electric setup advice|
I think one overlooked point of comparison is flying habits, proximity to your site, and available time.
I fly both I.C. and electric. If I'm spending the whole day at the club, I'll take I.C. If I am stopping on the way home from work for a quick flight, I'll take electric.
I personally think the causes of prop accidents from I.C. versus electric are so different you can't really say one is safer than the other. The precautions you take are specific to either discipline...
|Thread: German WW2 Insignia|
I get the impression that things are already changing. It'll be less than 100 years...
Well, some of us haven't seen the question.
But it strikes me as two separate interpretations of the question: 1) whether the modeller is internally comfortable with it, or 2) whether they worry about offending others.
So, I don't think it's a such simple question.
Just to get back on topic, I agree wholeheartedly with David: acceptable, yes, but distinct from other markings.
If I may broaden the topic slightly?
Lots of other examples of historical accuracy versus sensitive subjects. Is it degrading to paint naked women on the noses of model B-17s?
But you're not the O.P.
Is it illegal to show a mirror image in Germany? Just curious...
|Thread: Controls reversed when copying.|
Well, I think we have established and agreed that the differentiator is whether the channel was 'reversed' or 'normal' in the tx memory. Thus although it doesn't actually answer the question 'why', it does at least take away the mystery or the apparent randomness of it.
As to 'why'? Well, because someone working at Futaba decided to do it that way. We can only speculate regarding their logic, hence the inevitable differences of opinion. It's sufficiently on topic. It's civilised. I see no problem!
jrman, I wasn't implying that any convention was universal, merely that manufacturers had their convention, and thus the definitions of 'normal' and 'reversed' are historical in origin. While there were certainly manufacturers that offered opposite servos, I think this was the exception rather than the norm. there is a nice description in this earlier thread.
|Thread: Scam alert|
Surely the most satisfying approach would be simply to enter the bank details provided into one of the 'my uncle died and I need to pay $90,000 into your bank account' scams, and sit back as the two scammers try to scam each other...
|Thread: Controls reversed when copying.|
This is only true because we DO NOW HAVE the option to reverse the servo direction at the transmitter. Hence the designer or builder pays no regard to convention.
Before the option to reverse at the transmitter became widely available (admittedly a few generations ago now), then there would have been a convention, and one would be wise to follow it...
Do the controls that come out reversed happen to be ones that were reversed in servo direction to start with?
Think we need a bit more to go on, Cliff!
|Thread: Roy Scott's BE2e: a little mathematical problem.|
Can't argue with that!
David, are you scaling manually with pencil and ruler, or photocopying to enlarge?
|Thread: Gyro assisted CofG|
Point taken, but I assume that by intervening much sooner than a human pilot would be able to react, the required deflection to correct would be much smaller...
|Thread: Contacting retailers|
Do we care what the difference is? It's off topic, whatever the answer.
I do agree with you on one point, though, which is being fair to the trader. Please may I respectfully request that a mod changes the thread title, now that a response HAS been received?
While I agree that ringing them is what many of us would choose to do next, me included, it isn't always convenient.
That suggestion was made in the second post. The OP can either accept the advice or not.
I see no need for the subsequent sarcasm. This is supposed to be the friendly forum!
|Thread: Latent Servo Response|
I have seen latent servo motion in some of my older planes (thankfully picked up in the pre-flight check). I swapped out the servos and it went away. Latent action on the ground (at zero range) is pretty definitely not a loss of radio signal, though in your case I guess it's not quite so easy to make this distinction.
Draw your own conclusions, but likely to be either the servo feedback pot dirty or worn, or dodgy connections.
I have never seen the issue with new servos.
|Thread: club drone ban|
That's not quite what I said. I was pointing out that the existence of pointless threads detracts from other, more useful threads. I'm thinking of the overall legacy of this forum as a source of information, inspiration and a record of achievement.
Asking a mod to close a thread isn't problem in itself, as long as it's polite, and in any case (as has happened here), the mod always has the right to politely decline to do so.
I can think of many examples where the mod has obliged (with gratitude for bringing it to their attention).
|Thread: Gatwick drone incident|
The point is that I (along with others) suspect that most members of the public will, along with us, continue to distinguish between a multicopter (drone) and a model aeroplane (toy plane), even if the CAA does not make that same distinction.
...in much the same way that people call a Panasonic vacuum cleaner a 'Hoover'...
|Thread: club drone ban|
Doesn't the 'right to express a view' include the possibility that the view in question is that 'this thread is currently detracting from the overall quality of the modelflying forum'?
I would say that the most neutral and emotionless answer to that question would be:
"...only if there is sufficient evidence that banning quadcopters would indeed promise to offer other model flying enthusiasts a more assured future..."
I don't see any such evidence in the discussion so far. I don't see 'drone fliers' as any lesser mortals than traditional aeromodellers. However, we have to be pragmatic, too. No point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater if the worst does come to the worst...
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!