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

Member postings for Gary Manuel

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

Thread: Sign of the times - funnies
30/06/2020 20:12:43

fb.jpg

Thread: cable tidy
15/06/2020 14:24:38

Try "Spiral Wrap" on eBay

Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread
14/06/2020 21:25:43
Posted by Peter Christy on 14/06/2020 18:10:31:

The BBC are reporting that Sussex police paid out £55,000, but that they are also facing a claim of £145,000 for legal expenses!

**LINK**

--

Pete

Sounds about right. Lawyers get three times as much as the people who deserve it.

Thread: Horus RTC battery
14/06/2020 09:03:34

RTC = real time clock. It's to keep the date and time even if the transmitter battery goes flat or removed.

Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread
13/06/2020 15:54:18
Posted by Steve J on 13/06/2020 15:52:46:
Posted by Gary Manuel on 13/06/2020 15:26:50:
Posted by Dickw on 13/06/2020 15:17:46:

However, I do believe the BMFA offered to the CAA to investigate the use of its membership system as a cheaper way of managing registration rather than the CAA building its own system.

That's what I had in mind when I posted the earlier query about the bold text. It reads like CAA are acknowledging the possibility.

IMHO you are reading far too much into a badly phrased description.

Probably - but fingers crossed eh?

13/06/2020 15:44:43
Posted by Peter Christy on 13/06/2020 15:37:59:

I think what it is referring to is the current system, where the BMFA collects the registration fees on behalf of the CAA, and then periodically uploads the details of those who have paid and their qualifications to the CAA.

Basically, it means that the BMFA has become a "one stop shop" for membership + CAA.

Of course, you can still register separately if you choose to do so.

--

Pete

 

..... in which case, there would be no need for the exemption, so it can't mean that.

edit - ah, I see what you mean. It's to cover any delay between paying BMFA and receiving OP number back from CAA.

Edited By Gary Manuel on 13/06/2020 15:48:36

13/06/2020 15:26:50
Posted by Dickw on 13/06/2020 15:17:46:

However, I do believe the BMFA offered to the CAA to investigate the use of its membership system as a cheaper way of managing registration rather than the CAA building its own system.

That's what I had in mind when I posted the earlier query about the bold text. It reads like CAA are acknowledging the possibility.

13/06/2020 11:18:05

I'm comfortable with what needs doing. I see attaching / checking the labels as part of pre-flight checks in future, so that's not an issue. It was the reference in bold that took me by surprise. It reads as though the CAA were planning on letting the association take over the registration. I if you think back, this particular exemption came as a bit of a surprise AFTER most people had already registered - we could all have waited until June to register.

13/06/2020 10:08:26

I'm planning on going flying tomorrow for the first time in ages. I'm registered etc, and have my OP number printed out on Dymo tape labels but haven't stuck them on my models yet. I thought I'd wait to see what happened before I stuck them on, as I am exempt from registration until the end of June by virtue of exemption ORS4 No1345.

I thought that it would be a good idea to check on the status of the exemption whilst batteries are being charged.

On the CAA website, the description of ORS4 No1345 reads as follows:

"General Exemption which removes the requirement to register as an SUA operator for members of certain UK Model or Small Unmanned Aircraft Associations until 30 June 2020, at which point they will be registered by their respective associations."

Anyone know what the bit that I have made bold means? Are there plans for BMFA etc to take over the requirement for individual registration?

The webpage I am referring to is HERE.

Thread: Dangerous
12/06/2020 15:30:19
Posted by Bob Cotsford on 12/06/2020 15:23:40:
Posted by Gary Manuel on 12/06/2020 15:03:01:
Posted by Andy48 on 12/06/2020 14:57:45:
Posted by Bob Cotsford on 12/06/2020 14:15:00:

Also, if you use a model as a template copying to create a new model it can use the same model number.

If you use Companion, it now highlights in red when any two setups have the same receiver number.

Yes - and a very useful feature it is.

and I refer the honourable Gentlemen to the second post in this thread teeth 2

..... and the example screenshot towards the bottom of page 1 yes

12/06/2020 15:28:15

Thanks Mike. I'll have a look at raising it as an issue on GitHub.

It's not just multi-protocol modules this problem appears with. It also appears when selecting an external FRSky XJT module or any other type.

Edit - done Issue 7721

 

Edited By Gary Manuel on 12/06/2020 15:57:59

12/06/2020 15:03:01
Posted by Andy48 on 12/06/2020 14:57:45:
Posted by Bob Cotsford on 12/06/2020 14:15:00:

Also, if you use a model as a template copying to create a new model it can use the same model number.

If you use Companion, it now highlights in red when any two setups have the same receiver number.

Yes - and a very useful feature it is.

12/06/2020 14:23:04
Posted by Bob Cotsford on 12/06/2020 14:15:00:

Also, if you use a model as a template copying to create a new model it can use the same model number.

That's actually what I do. I have a template model with every feature I can think of - all exhaustively pre tested. I copy this to a new model and remove features I don't need.

12/06/2020 14:19:13

Hopefully Mike will be along soon.

One thing that makes me think that this might just be an oversight is that the number assigned to the internal system follows on from the previous one assigned to the external system. They both therefore must be sharing the same numberring sequence.

12/06/2020 13:30:20

Back to the original topic of model match - but on OpenTX, if I may.

Posted by Peter Christy on 11/06/2020 16:53:53

.......... As far as this numbering of the receivers goes, every time I have created a new model, the system has automatically attached an unused number to the receiver on binding. Yes, it is possible to over-rule the system, and make it use a number of your choice, but if you do that, you must take responsibility for that choice! It is not easily done by accident! If it were, I would have done it by now...! wink 2

That answers my earlier question about why OpenTX users don't "need" to know about assigning a unique receiver number. Thanks for that.

I have another important query though, but first some background. I have just switched from JR/DSM2 to Horus and have added all my existing 25 or so models with original DSM2 protocol / channel assignment etc to the Horus. Nearly all of my models therefore use an external multi-protocol RF module, with the internal module switched off.

I have just tried adding a new model (on Companion) and if I set the Internal Radio System to D16 or LR12 protocols, it does indeed assign the next available receiver number (as notified by Mike Blandford near the top of page 2 of this thread, setting to D8 protocol does not assign a receiver number). If however, I set the External Radio System to ANY of the available protocols, then the receiver number 0 is assigned i.e. no model match. The receiver number needs to be assigned manually in order to make model match work. It is therefore important that OpenTX users who use an external RF module are aware that they do need to assign this manually.

I am wondering whether this is an oversight by the OpenTX developers. How difficult would it be to automatically assign a receiver number to the external module, in the same way that they are assigned to the internal module?

Thread: Things that have dropped off in flight
11/06/2020 19:41:52

This one is going to take some believing!

I wouldn't have believed it myself if it hadn't have happened to me and was not witnessed by several members.

I started my Saito 150 as normal in my Slipstream MXS and took off. Just after take off, the engine cut and I managed to land OK with no damage. Post flight inspection revealed that the prop was turning with no resistance. Obviously no compression, so I feared an expensive repair. On closer inspection, there was no glow plug in the cylinder head. Ah that explains it, the plug has unscrewed and fallen out after take off. New plug fitted, refueled and ready to restart.

Glow clip would not fit onto the plug. Wait! There's a plug already inside the glow clip!

The only way to explain this is that I started the engine and the glow plug came away from the engine as I removed the clip. The engine ran for long enough WITHOUT A GLOW PLUG for me to take off, before cutting. I still don't believe that this happened, but it did.

Anyone have an explanation? I feel like someone who has reported seeing a UFO or being spoken to by God - nobody is going to believe me.

Thread: Dangerous
11/06/2020 11:10:28
Posted by Steve J on 11/06/2020 10:18:21:

I despair of this forum some times. The OP has a DX7 that doesn't seem to know how to use and most of the replies are on the merits or otherwise of FrSky/OpenTx.

The OP did not state what transmitter was being discussed. The 2nd post assumed OpenTX, hence the confusion.

I have recently converted from JR to OpenTX, with an external multiprotocol module. It hasn't been easy and I am quite tech savvy. There are plenty of traps to fall into and each model needs to be thoroughly tested as a result. OpenTX is definitely NOT suitable for everyone, but is brilliant for anyone who likes to dabble.

The repeated brand bashing that goes on in this forum is futile. ALL modern transmitters are pretty good and reliable. You pays your money......

11/06/2020 00:24:55
Posted by PatMc on 11/06/2020 00:08:20:
Posted by Peter Jenkins on 10/06/2020 23:36:37:
Posted by Geoff S on 10/06/2020 22:37:55:

I assume Barrie Lever considers anyone using a Frsky radio a low calibre modeller with a poor reputation dont know

Geoff

It seems to me Geoff that anyone using Frsky radio apparently needs to know that you have to assign numbers to each Rx used.

No we don't.

Why don't we?

I genuinely don't know. I have gone to great lengths to do this (easy once organised), because I thought it was necessary.

10/06/2020 21:51:06

Please forgive me if I am missing something here, but surely the key to ensuring that only one receiver responds to each transmitter model setting is achieved by assigning a unique receiver number to each receiver.

From version 2.3.x onwards, OpenTX companion even highlights if you have not assigned unique numbers (unless you use RX #00).

Attached image shows on the left, an old draft setup where RX #01 has been used multiple times and appears highlighted in red. The ones with no number shown are set to RX #00 (see next paragraph). On the right is my latest setup with all RX's having a unique number. I have made the RX number the same as the Model number (i.e model6.bin has RX #06).

Note that using RX #00 is a special case which overrides any attempt at enforcing unique receiver numbers. This allows for multiple models to respond to a particular TX setting i.e. you might want multiple quad copters on a common transmitter model setting. Use Receiver number 0 with extreme care!

10-06-2020 21-31-17.jpg

 

The receiver number is changed from within the "Setup" menu. For example, this sets Model number 6 to RX #06.

 

10-06-2020 21-32-14.jpg

Edited By Gary Manuel on 10/06/2020 22:05:35

Thread: Sign of the times - funnies
02/06/2020 15:05:35

I'm pretty much there Dave - now what was I meant to be doing when I sat down at the PC?

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Sussex Model Centre
electricwingman 2017
Slec
CML
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Has home isolation prompted you to start trad' building?
Q: The effects of Coronavirus

 Yes - for the first time
 Yes - but Ive bashed balsa before
 No - Ive existing projects on the bench
 No - Im strictly an ARTF person

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E!