Here is a list of all the postings John Roberts 9 has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Keil Kraft Caprice CoG|
Due to the very narrow fuselage I have opted to use a Deluxe Materials product called 'Liquid Gravity'. This makes it easy to drill a small access hole into the top of each compartment and slowly add enough weight until I get perfect balance. Add a few drops of cyano, plug the hole(s) and top it off with a small patch of tissue. Job done!
In truth, simple lead shot would probably work just as well and be cheaper too but Liquid Gravity offers a very convenient solution.
Thanks everyone for the interesting replies. Although I have flown R/C powered models for quite a few years this is my first real foray into free flight.
Although I expected to have to add a bit of lead to the nose (perhaps 5g), what surprises me is just how much is going to be needed. 75g will increase the weight of the Caprice by 60%!
My plan now is to open up the 2 forwardmost compartments in the nose and add the necessary weight. These compartments are pretty slim so I was thinking of pouring in a 'slurry' mix of lead shot and epoxy...….or is there a better way to do it?
Thanks once again.
Edited By John Roberts 9 on 14/07/2019 08:46:12
The wing chord is 16cm and the recommended balance point is 9cm behind the leading edge. That seemed a long way back but I assumed it was required due to the lifting tailplane.
The plan does make reference to the 2 compartments in the nose being used to accommodate balance weights so perhaps adding 75g is the expected norm. It looks as though I am going to have to do some surgery!
I have just completed a KK Caprice for my next door neighbour and my final task was to check the CoG. Putting it on the balance showed it to be surprisingly tail heavy and it will require 75-80 grams of noseweight to get it balance as per the plan.
The model only weighs 125g and so another 75g seems like a (relatively) huge amount to have to add.
The model is built exactly as per the instructions, using the supplied materials in the kit and is covered in tissue & dope.
Has anyone else had a similar experience with this model?
|Thread: Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones|
Irrespective of what the EU regulations might say the Baroness was absolutely unambiguous when she said that all unmanned flying objects above 250 grams will be required to have a transponder fitted within the next 3 years. Their plan is to have some kind of super all-seeing air traffic control system that will be able to identify every aircraft, manned & unmanned. The only exception mentioned was the sub 250 grams class although she also left the door open for even that modest cut-off figure to be reduced should further research indicate that tiny drones represent a risk.
Edited By John Roberts 9 on 09/07/2019 19:05:25
I watched the whole thing this morning and was pleased to note that the Committee were, for the most part, surprisingly sympathetic towards recreational model flyers.
Dave Phipps made some good points but I am inclined to think that to the average, poorly-informed, non-flying viewer, David Dunn will have come across as being more compelling because of the frightening picture he painted of swarms of hacked drones making attacks etc. I fear that most people will simply accept his speculations as 'fact'. His solution is to regulate/register/control everything and yet none of his 'solutions' would have any impact whatsoever on the malicious/criminal drone users who would simply sidestep all the requirements.
It was also irritating to hear him effectively liken drones to guns in the USA which simply feeds the media hysteria. I really hoped that someone would have challenged him for some stats about the number of injuries & deaths caused by firearms compared to those caused by drones.
The second session with Baroness Vere makes it abundantly clear to me that registration, testing and the fee are all now utterly unavoidable. Personally I found her at times to be smug & condescending in her delivery (warm words but withering tone when it came to model flyers) and there were a surprising number of topics of which she was 'unaware' or 'unable to respond' or vague. But none of that matters because the wheels are in motion and come November we will all be faced with a three way choice...…….give up, register or fly illegally.
|Thread: Making an electric glider's propeller fold more positively|
I should add that having done this the brake engaged very positively indeed as soon as I closed the throttle stick......it was immediately obvious that it was working properly.
As I recall, on at least one of the models, I found that the throttle trim didn't need to be completely backed off to nothing for this to work. With a bit of trial & error I found a trim setting that was somewhere between the default mid point and the minimum which was enough to get the brake function working as intended. Probably just down to a slight variation between the ESC's because the Tx (Spektrum DX8) was the same for all the models concerned.
Yes, I just clicked the trim button downwards until there were no more clicks left. Simple as that.
I have found that on some ESC's the brake function doesn't work unless you have the throttle trim on the Tx reduced to almost nothing.
I suspect that with the throttle trim 'centred' (which is the normal default setting) the ESC will assume that the throttle is still slightly open (even though the motor isn't actually turning) and, therefore, will not engage the brake function.
YEP speed controllers seem more likely to exhibit this issue but I am pretty sure the same principle will apply to other makes. This fix has cured an apparently non-operative brake on three of my models (two gliders and one flying wing).
Certainly worth a try...……...takes a few seconds and costs nothing!
|Thread: Electrifying a WOT4 Pro ARTF|
Exactly the information I needed.
Very neat job Simon.
I have been thinking about getting a Wot 4 Pro myself and doing an electric conversion.
It would be very helpful if you could provide specific details of the motor, ESC and prop you used please.
|Thread: Damaged foam aileron|
I agree with Martin & Percy, it will make virtually no difference.
I hope you don't mind if I also offer a few words of advice about the cross-weave tape you have used. It is very strong and makes a great repair but it is susceptible to attack by ultra violet light. This causes the adhesive to dry out (takes about 3 months usually) so check it regularly and replace as necessary.
|Thread: RC Transmitters - Retail Pricing|
Stearman65. That is a pretty good deal given that the included Rx alone retails for over £70. That said, for reasons that certainly defy logic, my heart is set on a DX9. I don't need the extra channel but, as the owner of an earlier generation DX8, I feel the need to see an 'upgrade'. Silly I suppose but, for me anyway, it is analogous to buying a new car...………….I don't want a new one which is the same as the old one. As the saying goes 'there is no fool like an old fool' ....….….….......it is probably just a phase that I am going through and will grow out of it eventually!
I will admit to being deliberately coy about the Tx I had in mind largely because I didn't want to kick start another re-run of the old argument about Spektrum vs Futaba vs Frsky et al. It has been done to death and I reckon most people are a bit tired of reading it.
Anyway, I am looking to replace my first generation Spektrum DX8 with a Spektrum DX9 Black Edition. All the UK retailers I looked at are selling at 359 quid.
In times gone by Spektrum occasionally released 'special editions' that included extras such as a free Rx or an aluminium carry case and I was hoping that one of these offers might come along for Christmas but no signs of that right now. In fact it seems as though Spektrum (Horizon Hobby) has stopped these specials completely as part of their overall UK marketing strategy
My suspicion has always been that the manufacturers/importers have the retailers in a headlock when it comes to pricing. I doubt the retailer is making much at all on the deal.
As Peter Christy says above, the pricing of much of this equipment outside the UK tells its own story about markup.
The retail prices being offered are 40 quid cheaper than manufacturers RRP. Whilst my current Tx continues to work very well, the set I have in mind offers more functionality (I am particularly thinking of flight modes for gliders) plus some useful frills like voice prompts etc. Also who doesn't like a brand new bit of kit occasionally!
It easy to understand why so many people are turning towards the (apparently) high spec offerings from Frsky etc. at remarkably good prices compared to the traditional mainstream marques.
The festive season is just around the corner and my good lady has offered to buy me an upgraded Tx for my Christmas present. My existing Tx (from one of the 'big name' producers) has served me well for 7 years and so it made sense to stick to the same brand (familiarity and the fact that I don't really want to have to replace about 20 Rx's).
Two things immediately struck me. First, there only appear to be only a very small number of UK retailers stocking this brand. Second, and more significantly, all the stockists are listing my preferred Tx at the same price. In the UK retail price maintenance (RPM) is generally unlawful so is it just pure coincidence that all the UK retailers are selling at the same price?
|Thread: Multiplex Funray|
It is definitely 2M and mine, with a 4s/3000 Lipo installed, weighs in at 1962 grams. It is relatively expensive for a foamie but that is reflected in the superb quality. Flies beautifully too, one of my favourite models!
|Thread: BMFA Website down...?|
All working fine for me too now.
This gets more interesting. As mentioned above I have been unable to connect to the BMFA site for 24 hours+. So far I have only tried to access the site using MS Edge.
Out of curiosity I tried to connect using Firefox but this browser also refused to connect but, and here is where things get interesting, my anti-virus software (AVG) simultaneously threw up a dialogue box saying:
"We've safely aborted connection on www.bmfa.org because it was infected with HTML:Iframe-BLG (Tri)".
This presents at least 2 possibilities. First, AVG (and perhaps other AV products) is throwing up a false positive or second, AVG is correct and the BMFA site does indeed have a nasty lurking.
Someone far more tech minded than me might be able to throw a bit more light on this?
I am a BT internet user connecting via a Hub 6 router - rebooting the router makes no difference either.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!