Here is a list of all the postings MattyB has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Will we continue to get the magazine (RCM&E)?|
They could do articles on wallpapering, gardening and house cleaning as well; it might help us get through the lists from our other halves quicker so we could do something else...
|Thread: DH89a Dragon Rapide|
No reason why a flat bottom wing shouldn't work, and it will be easier to build. As a glider guider I always agonised over the wing sections of models I might build or purchase, but for powered model like this pretty much anything with some decent thickness and camber should do the job, though you might want to blend it into something semi-symmetrical and lower camber at the tip with a smidgeon of washout.
Edited By MattyB on 31/03/2020 16:37:57
|Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread|
From pg 30...
"3.2.2. Who is affected?
As recreational users aren't we the lucky ones?!
|Thread: Low wingers,very twitchy,recommend expo.YES/NO|
The last post before you was in 2018...
Edited By MattyB on 28/03/2020 11:38:47
|Thread: LiPo storage|
Yes, I can discharge 3x 6S 5000s to storage in 20 mins if needed. Try doing that on any commercially available charger!
You can debate whether usage of one of these new modules is legal in an older TX (that is a little grey), but not sale by an EU vendor. The DJT module is being sold on it’s own by T9, so it has to have a valid CE certification. If you got to the documentation section of the FrSky site the XJT and all the post 2016 TXs that use an XJT or later module have a current cert whereas the DFT and DJT don’t. Those certs did exist on the FrAky site pre-Jan 2016, but as they know V8 and D8 can no longer be sold in the EU they removed the certs (which regerenced the older ETSI version). Case closed!
|Thread: LiPo storage|
Yes, you can define the exact cell voltage you want and it will discharge all cells to that level, balancing the pack as it goes. This is superior to using your charger as a) you can discharge far faster (the RC6S you referenced can only dissipate 5W, nowhere near enough unless you only have tiny packs; my discharge rig can do ~350W) and b) discharging heats up your charger as it dissipates the energy, potentially shortening it’s life over a large number of cycles.
Edited By MattyB on 26/03/2020 20:28:58
Here you go - the cheap dischargers are available from here, and there is an RCGroups thread on how to connect them up in parallel to create larger discharger. If you buy all the stuff online it is only an evening or twos work of soldering and cutting the wood and you have a nice little rig.
Edited By MattyB on 26/03/2020 14:34:57
If you are going to be discharging large packs the average charger will tak a long time - many can't discharge at any more than 20-30W. That means you either need to discharge in the model (tethered of course), buy a unit like that above or fashion your own discharge rig. I have done the latter using commercial units I found via RCGroups, lots of info in another thread I remember posting too - two secs...
The transmitter in this instance is the module - the Tx is just providing the inputs that drive it, none of the RF side that was certificated originally in the PCM9x is being used. All the modules did have a certificate of conformity so they could be CE marked, but that is no longer valid (or tellingly on FrSky's site) because they know V8 and D8 do not conform to the ETSI regulations.
If you really want I can dig out the old conformity certificates for the modules which I grabbed whilst they were still available, but trust me - selling and using new modules of this type is no longer legal in the UK (but using any your bought before Jan 2016 is fine). Not that this is going to be an enforcement priority for the Police at this time though...
Edited By MattyB on 26/03/2020 12:57:15
I would love to understand how T9 justify selling the DJT after all this time. Nothing new that uses the V8 or D8 protocols has had a valid certificate of conformity since the regs changed in Jan 2016, and the grace period for selling old stock was only 1 year...
Some useful info on RCGroups re: the regulation change from back in 2016 and FrSky's responses for those that need help sleeping at night...
Edited By MattyB on 25/03/2020 13:34:53
|Thread: Has Your Club Made Any Decisions Regarding The Coronavirus?|
Based on the PMs announcement last night it is pretty clear going out to a flying field is no longer a legal activity, so I don’t think your committee can really be criticised.
Edited By MattyB on 24/03/2020 20:33:24
|Thread: Neuron 60a ESC|
Assuming you use a FrSky TX I would just implement at sticky throttle cut and forget the arming plug - they are super safe as the motor won't become live unless the switch is on AND the throttle is at minimum. Working examples here:
You could even link this to one of my "Unknockable" safety switches (on a 3-pos switch). This setup forces the user to move the switch through a set of positions in sequence within a minimum timeframe, further reducing the risk of an accidental throttle enablement:
Edited By MattyB on 12/03/2020 14:26:16
|Thread: Hello Bedfont calling|
Learning to fly fixed wing on a 900mm span Spitfire.... What could possibly go wrong?!
Do yourself a favour and get yourself something slower and more stable (high wing, decent wing area, lightish weight) first - that Spit is a third or fourth model IMO. Gong along to your nearest club before you purchase anything would be my recommendation, but if you are set on a DIY approach some of the stabilised trainers from HH should get you in the air, though personally I don't think they teach you enough to make the transition to an unstabilised model straightforward - there is no substitute for some decent instruction (IMO).
Edited By MattyB on 24/02/2020 12:56:19
|Thread: CAA ID number discussion|
I have to agree that using the exemptions is now relatively complicated - you need a fair few bits of paper, and I personally wouldn't fancy explaining them all to Plod should he choose to pop over for a chat. The online CAA test I took in Nov gave me a Flyer ID and only took only ~6 mins (including providing my contact info); I do feel that for many of us that would ultimately be simpler than using the exemptions, though I do understand why members and the BMFA requested them.
|Thread: Battery discharge load.|
|Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread|
"If you are one of the 18,500 members who registered with the CAA as an Operator via the BMFA prior to the 10th February, then you should be receiving your operator number by the end of this week. The automated email sent to the first 2000 BMFA members uploaded by the CAA earlier this week included reference to the requirement for a Flyer I.D. (which members are exempted from in accordance with CAA General Exemption E 4972). This has now been amended to reduce confusion.
The purpose of the original Exemption from Operator requirements (E 4973) was to make it possible for members to register with the CAA as Operators via their Association membership process up to a cut-off point (originally stated as 31st January, but in practice the 10th February) when we uploaded our data to the CAA.
It was always intended that a new Exemption would be issued to allow members to continue registering as Operators via their Association membership process ready for the next upload of data (which was proposed to have a cut-off date of 18th April, but is now 30th May) with the anticipation that there would be a further exemption to take us to the 1st July when the new EU regulations will be implemented. There will be no further exemptions from any DMARES requirements beyond that point.
However, in an effort to simplify the process, the CAA has decided to issue an exemption intended to cover members registering as Operators via their Association after the 1st February until the next scheduled upload (30th May) and beyond that to the point at which the new EU regulations become effective on the 1st July.
The CAA advises anyone who has already registered as an operator to follow the intent of our original agreement and label their aircraft in accordance with the ANO once they have received their Operator ID (despite this not being reflected in the wording of the latest exemption!).
Once we receive the uploaded data back from the CAA, our plan is to update members records in GoMembership to include their CAA Operator number which will also be incorporated onto the electronic membership document.
Not sure I really believe the rationale given - if the CAA always intended to issue further exemptions to national association members, why push them to register so early at the tail end of 2019? It does rather feel like they were grasping for cash, though in government terms the numbers we are talking about (£166k from the national association members) are tiny.
Yep, I think we are all agreeing here that the latest exemption to 94D can be used by any national association member. My response was really in reply to Martin Harris' statement on the page 66 where he suggested those who had registered and received an OpID may need to display it even given the new exemption.
Edited By MattyB on 18/02/2020 11:04:57
Latest update from the BMFA... Basically it’s a case of watch this space for 24hrs, the CEO Dave Phipps is communicating with the CAA for a clarification:
”Following the recent update and issue of the latest exemption from the CAA we have had correspondence from members asking for clarification on the matter.
The BMFA's CEO has been in communication with the CAA over the matter with the hope of bringing a clearer picture and concrete guidance for BMFA members.
With the social media rumour mill doing its best to muddy the waters, can we ask that our members please sit tight for 24 hours whilst whilst the CEO works hard for a clearer resolution.
Further updates will follow... please keep checking the BMFA's Official Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/BMFAOfficial/ and here and your emails for further guidance.
The CAA are in the process of sending out Operator IDs for all those who registered through the BMFA before 10th February. Please check your junk/spam just in case. The email comes from email address firstname.lastname@example.org.”
Edited By MattyB on 18/02/2020 09:51:26
But to be clear, with the new exemption granted there is no legal requirement for members to display any Op ID number they have received on their models til it expires, correct? The exemption simply states all national association members are exempted from Article 94D; it is not limited only to those members who are yet to register as Operators. I must admit I am baffled as to why this has been issued so late in the day unless there was some kind of issue at the CAA with the upload, but from your posts above it seems that isn’t the case.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!