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: FrSky Taranis - user chat
21/11/2019 15:30:03

The new 2019 version supports ACCESS or D16 (ACCST), as I understand it (I don't have one, so just going on reports!).

I don't know if ACCESS is the same for EU and Rest Of the World (ROW), but certainly D16 is different.

Unfortunately GG hasn't told us exactly what type of receiver he is trying to bind to it, so until we know that, we can't really advise. If he bought it at the same time (and from the same supplier) as the Taranis, I would expect it to be compatible. However, if he bought one from Banggood and the other in the UK, I would anticipate issues!

The naming system (ACCESS and ACCST) is also confusing. I usually refer to it as D16, although the older D8 system is also referred to as ACCST! I've no idea what the ACCESS protocol comes up as. Maybe D24? Its supposed to be 24 channels.

--

Pete

21/11/2019 08:40:20

GG: You haven't done yourself any favours by buying from outside the EU. It may have been cheaper, but you are now paying the price!

It is probable that you have an international version. This *can* be flashed to EU standard, but this means flashing the RF board, NOT the OpenTx operating system. Do not confuse the two! There is no easy way of telling which version of RF firmware you have.

You don't say what kind of receiver you are trying to bind. If you bought it along with the Tx, I would expect it to be compatible. However, the Tx you have bought uses the new ACCESS protocol, along with the older D16 protocol. If you are trying to bind, say and X8R or X6R, it is quite possible that these are using the D16 protocol. Did you select that correctly before trying to bind?

Basically, more information needed!

--

Pete

20/11/2019 22:06:44
Posted by Steve Balaam on 20/11/2019 20:22:46:

Hi Bob

I've done everything you have described above checking and double checking each move.

I hooked a Rx Output checker to my X8R and found the Tx is outputting SBUS signals but there is nothing on the PWM pins. I also bound to an S6R and got it to work from the PWM outputs so the plot thickens.

I thought I would try reverting to FROS but this process doesn't work either.

If you have a normal X series Receiver could I ask if you could see if it outputting fro the PWM pins ?

I'm still thinking something happened on the Rf Board

I'm sure you mean " that the RX is outputting SBUS signals".

That tells me that the Tx is working perfectly. Its the RX that is not correctly decoding the signals to PWM.

The RX is clearly receiving the signal correctly. If it were not, there would be no output at all. What it is NOT doing is correctly splitting the SBUS signal down to PWM. (For the benefit of any pedants out there, I know this isn't the correct terminology, but lets stick with what Steve understands.)

I would suggest leaving the Tx alone, and concentrating your efforts on the Rx. Are you sure you got the correct files for the Rx? Try downloading them again, paying particular attention to EU Vs international, and making sure that the correct file is flashed to the correct receiver. It may be worth trying an older version of the Rx firmware, again paying attention to Eu Vs international, and the correct receiver file (X8R, X6R, S8R, S6R, etc...)

Best of luck!

PS: I may have older files for the X8R. PM me if you are still stuck and I'll send them on to you.

--

Pete

Thread: Returning to the hobby
19/11/2019 13:55:02

Funny you say that. I have a selection of computer Txs - mostly JR, though I did have a Spektrum DX-7 when they first appeared. I also have three Ace Micropro 8000s, an early Taranis and bought a X10S a short while ago.

We have one club member with a Hitec transmitter, and he is always coming to me asking how to program it. I find it a total pain to work on, mainly due to a lack of familiarity (he is the only person I know using HiTec!), but also the completely illogical sequence in which buttons appear to have to be pressed to get it to do anything. It would probably help if he brought the book of instructions occasionally, but he never does. I'm not alone, as no-one else in the club can figure it out either!

On the other hand, we have another member who has just bought an X10S (latest version) after years of Spektrum use, and has taken to it like a duck takes to water! Even swapped it from mode 2 to mode 1 without a problem.

I guess it just goes to show that what is logical and simple to one person is confusing and non-senseical to another. I guess it just depends on your previous experience, as I suggested earlier.

--

Pete

19/11/2019 11:14:39

Regarding FrSky being favoured by the computer literate, I would suggest that it is more a case of NOT having owned a different type of computer transmitter, rather than needing computer skills.

Setting up basic models on OpenTx is no more complex than any other transmitter. The main issue is that the OpenTx way of doing things is totally different to the Futaba/JR/Spektrum way, and this is what tends to confuse people coming from those systems.

OpenTx is very logical - just different. If you've never previously owned or used a computer transmitter, it is no more difficult to get your head around than the "conventional" way of doing things. Indeed, I would argue that because it is so logical, it is actually easier! And it is certainly exceptional value for money!

I have no connection with FrSky, other than being a (very) satisfied user!

--

Pete

Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread
19/11/2019 10:59:15

Exactly! The BMFA scheme also appears to enable specific statistics to be gathered differentiating between drone pilots and model aircraft pilots - something that may well be to our benefit in the future.

I detect a lot of anti-BMFA bias in some of the posts on here. While the BMFA may not be perfect (and the solution to that is in the members hands), it is by far and away the best support organisation that we have. All the smaller organisations derive considerable benefit from the work carried out by the BMFA, yet contribute little or nothing back in return. Indeed, the only reason they are able to offer reduced membership fees is because the BMFA is doing much of the donkey work.

I think a little more support for our national organisation would be in order. Were it not for the efforts of David Phipps and others at the BMFA, we would be in a considerably worse position than we are now.

--

Pete

Thread: Let down by FMS again
17/11/2019 15:23:16

A good reason for avoiding ARTFs - especially those manufactured outside Europe or the USA - as this seems to be an all to frequent occurrence.

--

Pete

Thread: BMFA numbers. Is this true, or a gross exaggeration?
14/11/2019 10:12:04
Posted by Wilco Wingco on 14/11/2019 09:51:19:

Well said Peter. How many of the current BMFA members remember the SMAE ?. We all started with chuck gliders, then KK rubber power or glider. Then, when we could afford it, a Mills 75 or DC Merlin. We built out own single channel R/C bang bang and flew in local parks. Not now. All must have at least 6 channel radio with a big trainer and a 40 nitro. We still had loads of fun for not much money. yes

Totally agree! I still get as much enjoyment -maybe more - out of flying a basic, single channel model, as I do a multi-channel aerobatic aeroplane or even a helicopter! My fellow club members think I'm nuts!

But here's a thought - and its something that the magazines may want to take on board. Back then, the mags were as much about the technology as the modelling. There was always a transmitter design, or a new receiver or some other project ongoing. Part of the attraction was that these things were NOT easy to build and get working. They were a challenge.

Alright, technology has moved on, but there are still plenty of projects out there for the computer generation. Look at Phil Green's Arduino encoder projects for modernising old radios, or his single channel emulators. Why don't the mags feature some of these projects? They are interesting and educational to the computer generation, as well as being challenging.

For myself, the first page I turn to when a new mag arrives is one of Shaun Garrity's excellent retro articles. Far more entertaining than reviews of the latest foamie fantastic, which frankly mostly have all the appeal of a month dead mackerel!

<Sigh!> Nostalgia's not what it used to be....! wink

--

Pete

13/11/2019 16:05:44

Martyn K: Well said! Couldn't agree more!

--

Pete

12/11/2019 18:07:55

Er, since membership runs from December 31st to December 31st, how do they know they've lost 2K members this year?

Surely, they won't know until the renewals are in and counted in January? And even then, there's always a fair number of stragglers!

Sounds like "journalistic license" to me!

I did read somewhere that the French FMAA (?) had lost 2K members. Perhaps the journalist misheard - or more likely, didn't care!

Journalists motto: "Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story!".

--

Pete

Thread: Help! Twisted wing
11/11/2019 10:42:16

Is the polyester covering heat-shrink? If so (and maybe even if not), simply twisting that wing BEYOND true and warming it with a hot-air gun should get it back in to shape.

It will need a bit of trial and error. When I've had this problem in the past, I sit on a stool, clamp the centre section between my knees, and twist the warped wing section by a roughly equal and opposite amount with one hand, whilst wafting the hot-air gun over it with the other. Let it cool while holding it in place, and when released it will spring back a bit (hence the over-correction). After a couple of goes, it should come true.

You may have to repeat the procedure periodically, as over time, it may return to its original twist.

Once you've done it a couple of times, it becomes second nature, and is a lot quicker than recovering and repainting!

--

Pete

Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread
11/11/2019 08:49:17
Posted by Chris Berry on 11/11/2019 08:13:05:

Apologies if this question has already been answered but what is the situation with people who do not have any access to emails or computers?

Several of our members do not use computers or have email addresses.

As i understand it, in order to register\test everyone needs an email address.

Can this be clarified please?

Thanks

Edited By Chris Berry on 11/11/2019 08:24:54

I believe you can request a written version from the CAA.

This was one of the points I made in my written response to the consultation.

--

Pete

Thread: Charge rate ???
10/11/2019 18:49:12

Watts=Volts X Amps. Your Overlander charger is rated at 80 watts. A 6S LiPo is approximately 22.5 volts (will vary slightly with charge state).

So, re-arranging the above equation to Watts / Volts = Amps, we can see that 80/22.5= 3.55 amps. In other words, the MAXIMUM current you can expect from it with a 6S LiPo is 3.55 amps.

This is very close to the figure you are getting in practice.

To charge a 6S pack at 5A you need a charger (and power supply) rated at 22.5 X 5 = 112.5W minimum. Say 120W in round figures.

(Phil beat me to it!)

--

Pete

 

Edited By Peter Christy on 10/11/2019 18:49:46

Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread
10/11/2019 16:40:37
Posted by Michael Adams 3 on 10/11/2019 16:24:19:

What a lot of twaddle, I am now going to sign off, and carry on flying, to much is being put into this, what the CAA does that will be it & we will have to comply. go & have a fly & enjoy it, practice if you must. I am happy as I am.

Bye 4 now. Mike.

yes

beer

--

Pete

10/11/2019 11:56:24

Having just read the CAA's official response, (CAP1804, downloadable via a link on the BMFA web site) it is quite clear that there is absolutely no need to rush into registration.

I quote: "The legal requirement to register by 30 Novemeber 2019 remains unchanged, other than for members of the BMFA,SAA, LMA FPV-UK and ARPAS-UK and further selected organisations who will benefit from from general exemptions to allow their registrations to be completed as part of their membership process until 31 January 2020."

So if you are a member of any of the main UK flying associations, you don't need to do anything until you renew your membership. You are exempted until the end of January 2020 (to allow time for the renewal process to go through).

Further: "We will issue general exemptions from the requirement to complete the online competency test ahead of 30 November 2019 to: <snip> Qualifying members of the UK Model Aircraft associations." In other words, anyone who has an A or B cert or has taken the BMFA online competency test (when it appears - hopefully soon).

So, in short, there is no need to panic. Just keep calm and carry on.

Regarding the exemptions expiring on 30 June 2020, this is when the full EU UAS regulations come into effect, so the UK law will need bringing into line at that point. This will mean that any exemptions will need bringing into line at the same time. I think too much is being read into this "end date", and would expect any new legislation necessary to comply with the EU UAS regs to include a similar exemption.

Again, don't panic. Just keep calm and carry on.

I suspect we will know a lot more after the upcoming BMFA AGM. And for those chomping at the bit about the BMFA competency test, bear in mind that the BMFA has only a very small staff for such a large organisation, with much of the work being done by volunteers. This is necessary to keep membership costs down. We all know what a fuss even a trivial rise in membership fees causes.

I have no inside information, but I will be amazed if a lot of work is not going on behind the scenes to get all the necessary schemes up and running as fast as possible. And this is in addition to their regular workload, plus preparing for the AGM!

So, just be patient, and for heaven's sake, stop panicking! We may not be in an ideal situation, but it is far better than looked likely only a few short weeks ago.

--

Pete

09/11/2019 14:22:41

Well, there's the stated purpose and the intended purpose, and as with most government schemes, its often difficult to distinguish if the two are the same!

My point is that if the vast bulk of registrations come from the associations, it will raise the question of why the DfT / CAAis bothering at all, as it will just be a duplication of effort.

I believe we may be in danger of undermining the negotiating power of our associations if too many members register directly with the CAA.

--

Pete

Thread: CAA BMFA
09/11/2019 11:51:34

Registering via the BMFA (or one of the other associations) will make it much easier to determine the relative proportion of model pilots compared to drone pilots, which could be advantageous in future negotiations (see the other thread).

--

Pete

Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread
09/11/2019 11:47:56
Posted by Nigel Heather on 09/11/2019 10:59:25:

I was in two minds whether to register as an operator directly with the BMFA. Recently I’ve been leaning towards the direct approach with the CAA as it will be quicker and less palaver, but I’ve just had a thought.

Not that it will do any good (as the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy analogy above) but I think we should all register through our respective associations.

That way will will be able to gauge just how many registrations there actually are and more importantly what percentage of those are from flying clubs. Though I suspect the CAA won’t be prepared to share that info if it turns out anything like I suspect.

Cheers,

Nigel

Edited By Nigel Heather on 09/11/2019 11:00:09

Nigel makes a very good point here. If you register via the CAA, they will have no idea if you are a "drone" flyer, or a model aircraft flyer. If you register via the BMFA (or one of the other associations), it should be a simple matter to determine what percentage of registrations are independent drone operators compared to model flyers.

If the vast majority of registrations are for model flyers - association members, whom the CAA admit are not a problem - then the scheme can be shown to have failed in its intended purpose quite quickly, and to the benefit of us all.

I will be registering via the BMFA, and will be recommending that our club members do the same.

--

Pete

Thread: How many flyable aircraft do you have ?
05/11/2019 14:02:17

Too many! Fourteen, I think, plus around twelve helicopters!

Ranging from single-channel - complete with rubber driven escapements, via one with vintage "reeds", up to vintage full-house aerobatics and a couple of scale models. The helis are mostly vintage or scale, with a couple of (non-3D) aerobatic models.

Note to self: Must stop building......! surprise

--

Pete

Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread
03/11/2019 11:46:10

wink

--

Pete

Magazine Locator

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

Find RCM&E! 

Support Our Partners
Cambridge Gliding Club
electricwingman 2017
CADMA
Sussex Model Centre
Slec
Wings & Wheels 2019
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