Here is a list of all the postings Tom Satinet has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Returning to the hobby|
No I've never used an easier radio than the A9. Pretty nice box as well, ergonomically, I found. The taranis, which is copy of the JR9x2 case, I don't find as nice to hold or the switch positions as good. Last I heard on RCgroups hitec has given up on a new radio and are now concentrating on servos again. The hitec RF system is very solid but lagging behind now in terms of telemtry. I don't really understand how you can go that far wrong with it as all the mix settings are on one screen and all pre-programmed.
What I have seen is people using an Frsky module in an A9 so you get cheap receivers but with the ease of programming (And building quality). Although frsky receivers aren't really as cheap as they used to be.
Sorry Pete, but I don't agree with you there. Compared to a "super easy" tx like the hitec aurora 9 or the spektrum dx6i, it takes a lot longer to set up basic models on opentx - not least because the user interface on the taranis is bleep bleep**. Radios with predefined mixes are quicker to start with but less flexible by nature. It's a trade off of what you want.
I'm not anti opentx. I've got one of the first taranis' that came in to the country and still use it. And I used to use the multiplex p4000 "back in the day", which basically has the same software as opentx (contrary to popular belief that opentx invented this software type). I used a hitec aurora 9 for a few years, which is probably the easiest TX to programme I've had or encountered, but definfitely limited in possibilities vs opentx. I've never owned a spektrum TX but the DX6i seems pretty easy to make adjustments on from the limited fiddling I've done on them.
TBH the hitec aurora 9 is super easy to live with and a great radio for most people. Not that it was limited really. I flew f3b with it for a couple of years and it was good. Pity it didn't sell in the numbers it might have done and that hitec won't be brining out any more TXs or RXs.
Although it's probably a fair point that if you go in with no preconceived ideas it will be easier.
** to be fair I hear the later ones are a bit better. On the mk1 one it takes about 0.5 seconds after you press a button for anything to happen (if it does happen.......). The scroll wheel on spektrum is far better. The scroll wheel and interface from the JR9x2 the Taranis case is copied of was of course excellent, as were the sticks.
1). profilm (oracover) or toughlon/lightex are good. Hobbyking film is supposed to be ok but I have never used it. Solarfilm has stopped production. But I feel the others are better anyway.
2) I've never had a particular problem with any "rattle cans". To be honest halfords stuff is pretty good.
3) WIth Frsky you need to ask yourself how good you are on computer stuff. If the answer is not very then I would avoid.
The reality is that the software on modern mid-low end TXs is miles better than it was even 10 years ago and every major brand sells reasonably priced trannies that can fly gliders with multi control surface wings, flying wings, electric gliders etc etc.
What's really important to understand about the modern situation is that you can ONLY use the particular brand's receivers with its transmitters. So look at RX cost. There are exceptions to this rule as you can buy 3rd party receivers from the likes of hobbyking for spektrum and futaba etc. Also a few TXs (frsky/jumper - both on open tx) allow you to use a different RF module (or in jumper's case come with a multi module). You can't use futaba TX and spektrum TX for example.
With regards to the FRsky I would buy the jumper t16 now as it seems cheaper and with a better spec and the software is the same (opentx). And you get a multi rf module.
|Thread: Wing servo connections|
4 pin deans connector
|Thread: S.A.S Venom|
|Which site you been looking at the old sas site? The old one is still up.
I'm sure they will tell you if you email on the new site.|
Edited By Tom Satinet on 19/09/2017 17:55:49
|Thread: Charging low dischrge NiMh batterries.|
If you charge at very low current sometimes the charger doesn't peak at all and just keeps charging.
I've always charged up to 1C and never had any problems. Usually I charge around 800mah. Depends how much of a rush you are in.
The pack last ages.
|Thread: Stormbird by Aeroteam & Doc Hammond|
You might need to grind the other side of the clevis to top it binding on the output shaft of the servo.
It depends on how much servo travel is used for the elevator movement.
I don't see why it was designed with a tail mounted servo - it seems a lot of hassle. I would go with a normal pushrod.
|Thread: OpenTx - what is the fuss really about?|
one thing to bear in mind with "high channels", master channels or whatever you want to call them is that you cannot put one channel as the input in to a mixer unless the input channel actually has an input mixer of its own. (you can't on my version of opentx anyway)
so you if you want to put channel 20 as the input in a mixer on channel 1, it won't do it unless channel 20 has something in it already. Sure it wasn't like that on previous versions.
Not sure I see the point in sbus for most models as the converter is heavier than lightweight servo wire.
|Thread: Petition EASA Regulations.|
Definitely good to see the big boys get on board.
|Thread: OpenTx - what is the fuss really about?|
Sorry BEB I can't agree with you there. If the Taranis was 500 quid and the RXs cost 50 quid each the popularity of opentx would be far, far less. The success is a meeting of an open source software system, the internet and cheap chinese hardware. A perfect storm, but in a good way, if that makes sense.
People have been prepared to go the hard road to learn opentx, because they know they are saving a shed load of money over the traditional top end radios. You don't need opentx to fly a wot4 anyway! Opentx is very good for certain applications (e.g multi rotors).
You see threads all the time about how do you programme the taranis/opentx, and threads asking for EPEE files and other set ups, which just illustrates my point. Like I say now the internet is so popular it helps because people can get information they need. There was never much of a storm about opentx in the mags I suspect, so the popularity must have come from online and word of mouth.
anyway, I'm going slightly off topic to where the thread has gone, so apologies.
Edited By Tom Satinet on 12/10/2016 10:45:31
Part of the reason everyone is banging on about open TX is because the hardware than runs it was/is very cheap. A lot of people bought the Taranis who frankly shouldn't have because it was/is really cheap.
The software is actually available to put on to other TXs, of course. What's important to understand is that the software is basically a new version of what was already in existence on the mulipltex profi 4000, which is kind of funny because a lot people were against that TX because it was "too complicated". It wasn't cheap.
If you have used a p4000 successfully you will dive straight in to opentx as it is very similar. Now the problem with the multiplex p4000 was that the internet didn't exist when it was brought out, and the manual was about as much use a chocolate tea pot.
The programming is very powerful, but there are a lot of good TXs about these days. In my view the hitec aurora 9 was a very good TX because it was super easy to programme and also fairly cheap. As I say a lot of people wanted a super cheap tx and got burnt because they didn't like openTX (or didn't understand it).
|Thread: Petition EASA Regulations.|
The EASA isn't a well loved organisation in the wider aviation community. amusing moaning thread on full sized aviation - worth a read:
Quote made me laugh:
Europe continually tries to reinvent the wheel at vast cost, then finding that the traditional round one we have lived with for decaades actually works well!
Edited By Tom Satinet on 07/10/2016 11:52:09
The EASA can say what it wants, it doesn't make it true. Everything the drone regulations are based on is supposition. EASA isn't backing up what they are doing with accident statistics or studies to show the dangers, because there aren't any.
What a Kafkaesque world we live in where I can get arrested for flying a DLG in my own field. Maybe we should have to wear some sort of yellow badge to identify us as
And the EASA is "reasonable". More than reasonably good at paying salaries and expenses to itself, no doubt. We're supposed to believe it's more dangerous to fly a model foamie than a foot launch micro light or paraglider. Pull the other one!
Safety is just a catch all "think of the children" excuse to bring in laws that restrict what we are doing, or more specifically extract more money from people to fund more government, more bureaucracy and more rules - so the circle goes on.
Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/10/2016 10:33:05
So slope soaring essentially outlawed in most places.
Good job too, they're a public menace /s
? I didn't say I was not going to follow the law
I consider my self a fervent optimist. I love the government / public sector too.
Licensing of model flying is bonkers when you consider there is no such thing for say flying a paraglider, as far as I am aware.
Another point I would raise is the idea that everyone can fly under the bmfa and it's all fine for 3 years until 2020. The information put out by EASA states that this is a transitional period. It doesn't say this will go on for ever. No one seems to know what will happen after this.
People who have been flying for a long time aren't going to be that bothered by having to do an A cert type test as they are largely going to be competent pilots anyway. The inherent problem with licensing though is that it puts a barrier of entry for people to the sport.
The kind of people who fly in well organised bmfa clubs are the type of people who are going to follow the
Edited By Tom Satinet on 06/10/2016 14:16:23
A compromise works if one side is actually being reasonable. If I decided to come and build a house in your garden I doubt you would want to compromise by sharing the land.
The whole thing is based on the supposition that there is a big danger to police when in reality there isn't. Well in fact that is the reason given, but the reality is the powers that be have seen an opportunity to tax and control something, which is all they ever do. By that I mean license air space for commercial use of a drones. Safety is just the "think of the children excuse" at a daily mail readership level.
The EASA lacks understanding of model flying, or deliberately pretends not to understand, that a lot of model flying takes place outside of "clubs". It's ambiguous whether they mean the bmfa is a club or a club is a club.
|Thread: NCFM Moth build advice|
Something else to say if you film directly over lam-film you will end up with a huge amount of bubbles. Some people don't bother with a covering film over the lam film. It's purely decorative as the lam film forms a smooth layer on the model. Unless solartex has holes you will get the same issue.
I did my m60 is 175 lam film and it made it quite a bit heavier. Which is fine as I have models for other conditions (like I do much slope flying!)., but obvs. the grade you select will have an impact on the weight and the required nose weight. (hard to fit in the fuselage).
With specifics to the moth/m60 if you use a thick film it also makes the fuselage fit slightly more difficult although it shouldn't be a problem.
If I was building from scratch I would forgo any covering film. not spackle and accept that it would not look as nice. As it was I refured an m60 that had crashed DSing, which I had built to the previous, at the time, best practice of spackle and profilm.
Edited By Tom Satinet on 03/08/2016 16:42:41
spackling and lam filming are slightly incompatible techniques. The dust created by spackle means that lam film won't adhere well to the surface. As the lam film gives a smooth finish, it's somewhat unnecessary.
That being said I have lammed a model that was previously spackled and rebuilt, and it turned out well, but you will need to use a fine mist spray adhesvie like 3m 77 spray.
The other issue with the moth, is that due to the plan form the cg is near the front of the wing. If you lam film that whole wing it will end up being difficult to get the cg back to the right place. Again while not insurmountable, it's something to think about.
Generally when people are lam filming foamies they don't spackle them first is what I am saying.
|Thread: Two more FrSky Txs in the pipeline|
the hitec is a great set and completely under rated. If it said pootaba on it would probably cost 750 quid and sell in large numbers.
The reason I left hitec is because the telemetry is inadequate (the sensor stations totally impractical for gliders).
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!