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

Member postings for MattyB

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: FrSky Major Update for most TX and RX
17/01/2020 15:13:45
Posted by Steve J on 17/01/2020 14:21:46:
Posted by MattyB on 17/01/2020 13:28:08:
 
Remember that whilst FrSky are the people making the change this time, every manufacturer of 2.4GHz gear out there today has utilised multiple protocols over the years and required users to upgrade their hardware or (worse) orphaned it for new, sometimes explicitly, sometimes by stealth (i.e. Futaba and FASST).

My 2009 JR DSX9 works fine with new Spekkie receivers .

I'm sure it does, but it's a matter of record that Spektrum have orphaned DSM (I believe that was purely because it had been criticised for low reliability) and DSM2 (because it no longer complied to current EU regs). I don't think there is a manufacturer out there who hasn't got something like that in their 2.4GHz implementation history at this point.

Edited By MattyB on 17/01/2020 15:15:56

Thread: Theory of the operation of a servo
17/01/2020 15:08:34
Posted by Kenneth Fereday on 17/01/2020 13:58:51:

Does that mean that the analogue and digital servos are interchangeable?

Yes, in principle. The main practical differences are:

  • An analogue servo "pushes" with less force the nearer it gets to the target point, whereas a digital continue to push with high torque even if it is only fractionally displaced from target position. This results in higher holding power for digital servos.
  • Digital servos tend to draw more current for the reason above - any bind on the linkage or load on the surface causes the servo to drive and draw current, particularly if the deadband is very small. However it's not an absolute rule; the biggest influencer on servo current draw from my testing is actually speed, not size, torque rating or whether it is digital or not.

The best place to use a digital is where you need strong holding power or very accurate centring (though just because a servo is digital doesn't mean it necessarily centres well, particularly in the cheaper models). They are not IMO required in average sized sports models, though they increasingly appear there anyway as they often don't cost any more these days.

Edited By MattyB on 17/01/2020 15:11:15

Thread: FrSky Major Update for most TX and RX
17/01/2020 13:28:08

 

Posted by Allan Bennett on 16/01/2020 20:40:24:

Thanks for the heads-up.

I never updated my old Futaba firmware for over 30 years. This is the kind of thing that's making me sometimes wish I hadn't moved over to Taranis.

I can see your point Allan, but that's not really comparing apples with apples. Your 30 year old Futaba was almost certainly not a digital 2.4GHz TX, but an analog 35MHz predecessor. None of them had upgradeable software on the RF side (or the TX OS for that matter), and it was a completely different regulatory environment too re:RF. Remember that whilst FrSky are the people making the change this time, every manufacturer of 2.4GHz gear out there today has utilised multiple protocols over the years and required users to upgrade their hardware or (worse) orphaned it for new, sometimes explicitly, sometimes by stealth (i.e. Futaba and FASST). I agree this is poorly communicated by FrSky though (as always, it is their achilles heel and does not seem to be improving).

Posted by Allan Bennett on 16/01/2020 20:40:24:

...I don't see why I need the upgrade -- everything's working fine for me -- so I'm going to leave things as they are. The lack of how-to information with the announcement is unhelpful.

I agree. Based on the info so far I don't see any need to upgrade - far easier to flash any new RXs back to the old firmware than reflash everything else I already own (I already flash all new RXs anyway as I run the FCC rather than LBT firmware).

Edited By MattyB on 17/01/2020 13:29:17

Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread
07/01/2020 17:08:15
Posted by Steve J on 07/01/2020 16:50:05:
Posted by Wilco Wingco on 07/01/2020 16:22:26:

I didn't know that the EU were looking at remote ID.

'direct remote identification' is in the EU regulations that start to apply from July. The regulations only require remote ID for certain classes of unmanned aircraft. Some countries (e.g. France) seem to be going beyond what the regulations require. What the UK will end up doing is anybody's guess.

Further to Steve's post, if you want some light reading wink try the following docs which will tell you more about the remote ID requirements within the EASA regs going live in July 2020...

CAP 1789 - The EU UAS Regulation Package – Outline

This gives an outline overview, but for the detailed requirements around remote ID you need to read the...

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 on unmanned aircraft and on third country operators of unmanned aircraft systems

...in the Annex parts 2-5, pg 24-31. The remote ID requirements seem to apply only to RTF products, but the devil is in the detail and it wouldn't surprise me if UK legislators decided to move in the same direction asFrance where remote ID is required for anything over 250g outside certain recognised flying sites.

The key point here is that the BMFA and other national associations are currently trying to negotiate exemptions to key parts of these regulations for their members (for instance around min distances in when operating in the Open class C3). What they will be able to achieve we will see, but so far they have been relatively bullish about members being able to continue to operate as they do today beyond July this year. Personally though I suspect remote ID will inevitably become a requirement even for home built LOS SUAS over 250g (which includes traditional model aircraft and drones), whether it is this year (admittedly fairly unlikely) or sometime in the next 5.

Edited By MattyB on 07/01/2020 17:11:30

Thread: US electronic conspicuity proposals
28/12/2019 22:55:27
Posted by Jason-I on 28/12/2019 22:54:17:

Is he an Aussie abroad, or is he a Kiwi? He certainly live in New Zealand....

Fair point - corrected!

28/12/2019 22:46:19

Sadly all very predictable - Boxing Day has led to new proposals from the US FAA on mandatory electronic conspicuity, presumably led by the desire to promote commercial operations below 1k feet. As you can imagine our favourite grumpy Kiwi doesn’t like it.... I imagine the DfT and CAA will be taking notes with interest.

Edited By MattyB on 28/12/2019 22:54:55

Thread: Andy Symons PR on Countryfile
17/12/2019 15:21:51
Posted by Ace on 16/12/2019 09:00:22:

Very nice piece of PR by Jim, Andy and all involved. I thought the inclusion of the long history and how to get involved was a nice touch. thumbs up

Agreed, though I was surprised Jim let that vintage pic of him out onto national telly! laugh

Ps - Re: the Red Kites, I gave up flying chevron style flying wings at the Beacon about 10 years ago as I was bored of getting attacked by them. Tailed designs and plank style flying wings are generally ok, but show em a swept flying wing and they would go nuts, diving talons out until eventually they hit you.

Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread
12/12/2019 13:20:58
Posted by Don Fry on 12/12/2019 10:46:57:

Having had a read of the regulations, kindly helped by Steve J, I have to say I agree with him. The ANO of 2016, pilot in charge, has been replaced by remote pilot, a person defined in 94g of the amendment as, the person manually operating the controls. Plain and simple. Nothing about instructors, secondary controls, just in plain simple English, person manually operating the controls. Move a control, that is a remote pilot.

Argue that they didn't mean it, that's what it says, and there is a lot of case law where judges say, if that is what the lawmaker says, that's what they meant. They can change the law if that is not what they meant, judges just decide on what it says.

Exactly. It is pretty clear the buddy box use case was never considered when they revised the ANO, probably because the author did not know they were available and widely used. Those who are happy to take the CAAs assurances as gospel need to remember it is not the CAA that would be sitting in judgement on the other side of the courtroom in the event of an incident...

Edited By MattyB on 12/12/2019 13:22:42

11/12/2019 22:48:04

I agree with Steve that the wording in the ANO is pretty explicit regarding the person wiggling they sticks needing to be legally competent, but they probably wrote that without even thinking of the buddy box use case. Is there likely to be any enforcement action taken for that specific use case though? I personally doubt it.

Even so, if enforcement action were taken we should all remember it would not be done by the CAA. For this reason the BMFA’s position that this is “common sense” and that the CAA back that position may be reassuring, but it isn’t legally watertight. There would have to be a precedent case for us to truly know.

Edited By MattyB on 11/12/2019 22:48:59

11/12/2019 14:53:21

Yes, the legal Operator of that aircraft has to register it and ensure the Operator number is displayed on it when in use. That Operator could be a parent/guardian, or it could be a fellow club member if they are prepared to take the role of the legal Operator on behalf of the Junior until they are adults.

Edited By MattyB on 11/12/2019 14:54:54

Thread: Help Needed for Kids Xmas Bike Modification
10/12/2019 15:35:38
Posted by Max Z on 10/12/2019 15:13:52:
Posted by Geoff Sleath on 10/12/2019 13:07:16:

(watch out for the LH thread on the LH side)

Geoff, I know you are a biking man, so I am hesitating to comment on this. But I think the "odd" (LH) thread is on the RH side, to avoid the pedal unscrew from the crank when its bearings run heavy.

Max.

The pedals on both sides are designed so they unscrew when you pedal. This might seem illogical, but if they tightened in the direction you pedal you'd never get em off! This is why I always use some anti-seize on the threads, that way you can torque it up that little bit harder safe in the knowledge it will always come off (admittedly I don't have carbon cranks though).

Guide to removal, and there are lots of good Youtube vids on the subject too including this one from King Calvin of Park Tool fame...

Edited By MattyB on 10/12/2019 15:37:16

10/12/2019 15:30:35
Posted by John Bisset on 10/12/2019 13:30:44:

...So personally I 'd say you are over-complicating. By all means add trainer wheels or take the pedals off if you must. Other than that, keep it simple., Kids are keen to learn, and learn fast! Hope your grandchild has fun...

Stabilisers seem to have gone right out of fashion for teaching kids - I'll leave you to decide whether that is because they are genuinely less effective for kids learning, or if it's because the industry would rather sell you a balance bike instead...

PS - One thing that is a huge step forward is the fact that you can actually buy decent, lightweight kids bikes now with good geometry. Isla, Frog et al may be expensive, but the difference between them and the old "Halfords hack" machine that is seemingly constructed from lead is night and day. Best of all they actually retain a lot of their value too. There is also a new line from Go Outdoors that is apeing the premium brands with light weight frames and kid specific geo and parts at a lower price (Wild Bikes).

Edited By MattyB on 10/12/2019 15:38:55

10/12/2019 12:58:52

If you remove the crank and spider there will be nowhere for the chainring to attach to, so that would have to come off as would the chain. If you have the right tools this is easy, if not then you will prob need a bike shop (crank removal is not a job that should be bodged with the wrong tools). Once removed you would also need to tape over the BB to stop dirt getting in there.

Personally I would just remove the pedals and see how she goes, my daughter had no problems with doing that (you can always immobilise the crank with a cable tie round the chainstay; probably best done on the non-drive side).

Edited By MattyB on 10/12/2019 13:01:25

Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread
06/12/2019 10:43:13
Posted by Cuban8 on 05/12/2019 17:44:48:

...Not a problem thankfully, we have the exemption at least for the time being, but who knows what might transpire if we just keep quiet - I'm sure the BMFA understands this.

This is all getting a bit boring Cuban8...

The BMFA are not "keeping quiet"; they and the other National Associations are actively negotiating with the CAA on the next phase i.e. the changes that come in in June 2020 and beyond. I'm pretty confident they are aware of the importance of the 400ft height exemption for their members, after all they did negotiate it!

I have spoken to Dave Phipps who has confirmed preserving that and getting valid exemptions to the new distance regulations (CAP 1789, Annex C, Category A3 - No uninvolved people present within the area of flight and no flight within 150m horizontally of residential, commercial, industrial or recreational areas) are a major focus the next phase. Understandably though they are not going to conduct the negotiations in the public domain with updates to members every 5 mins; that would undermine trust between the parties.

I know you are not the biggest fan of the BMFA (and I agree it's governance needs to be revisited to make it fairer for different types of member), but you need to remember they have been negotiating with a wall for ~2 years, and there may be another 5 years ahead of them. The BMFA may not be perfect, but they and the other national associations are our best hope of defending our rights against increasing regulation - acting as individuals we have no chance. If you disagree that is fair enough, but you need to start acting on your alternative plan and/or trying to reform the BMFA from the inside, not sniping from the perimeter.

[Stands down from soapbox... wink 2]

Edited By MattyB on 06/12/2019 10:47:18

06/12/2019 10:09:07
Posted by Chris Berry on 05/12/2019 17:47:38:

To form an club only takes 5 people. So any ad-hoc group if slope soarers could form a 'club' and that would be that.

Unfortunately that doesn't really solve the problem for slope and thermal pilots that fly at multiple different sites (at least not with the BMFA's current rules for affiliated clubs). You can only have a single primary club per BMFA member, so if I am one of the 5 members joining through a club to affiliate it, I can't create another affiliated club using my membership as one of the 5.

This is far from impossible to solve though; I'm sure the BMFA will tweak their rules if the regs do end up requiring lots of new clubs to take custodianship of public sites. There could even be a BMFA affiliated National Club that "owns" all public access sites where there is not a club today; that is an idea I and others have floated before, but it we are still a way off knowing if it will be needed.

Edited By MattyB on 06/12/2019 10:17:33

Thread: Unexpected behaviour of SwE in Taranis
06/12/2019 09:59:47
Posted by GrahamC on 06/12/2019 09:16:09:

All sounds very odd to me!

I have to confess that initially I thought you were talking about this happening on the Radio. (As opposed to the simulator) In that case, would suspect that your Taranis had been opened and the switch was round the wrong way.

If that is what's happening in the software on your PC, I can only think that there must be something else somewhere in the programming doing that. Is there a throttle cut set elswhere on Switch E?

Agreed, it feels like there must be something else set up on that switch that is causing this behaviour.

Allan, can you post a picture of your Mixer and Inputs screens to let us understand what is configured there at present? Alternatively I'm happy to look at it for you when I pop round to do the LMAS stuff I just sent you a message about.

smiley

Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread
05/12/2019 16:48:35
Posted by John Bisset on 05/12/2019 16:15:39:

I believe Chris Berry's recent posts have it fairly well right.

The aspiration of 'authority' to have on board identification and real time tracking of everything airborne is clear. It is not, however practical yet, not for some time to come. Theory is one thing, practice another.

I have two separate conspicuity/anti-collision systems in one aircraft of mine; it still frequently fails to be 'seen' in flight by remote stations even at medium altitudes. Earlier this week while flying I was struck by the number of calls for people to re-squawk because ATC was not picking up the transponders.

For close range collision avoidance the systems work well enough overall, as an addition to and back up for see-and-be-seen, which is what they are for. They are still expensive, power hungry and problematic at a distance except when flying high, say 10,000ft and above. At medium or low level, forget any distant monitoring except in very intensely monitored and geographically benign environments. This will change, but slowly. The degradation of signal at low altitude will continue to be an effective limiter.

Personally as a pilot routinely flying in and around the levels likely to be mostly used by drones, I'd be unhappy at the idea of everything transmitting its position, or trying to. That causes distraction, confusion and chaos, working against safety. For light aircraft operations, having radio control aircraft giving out position data will just confuse - we are not routinely flying below 500ft except around airfields or when on special tasks. We need the BMFA making this point clearly on our behalf - forget position info from R/C aircraft! Expensive, short range, useless and confusing for real world traffic.

For drones I only want info from the higher flying ones. Even between 500 to 1000ft the range available will be low, so its really collision avoidance stuff, not real tracking. Once a good, say ADS-B equivalent, set up exists at low cost and with high reliability, maybe worthwhile anti-colision will become feasible. Meantime, we keep our eyes open - and incidentally only believe a small proportion of the airliner's drone airmiss 'reports'.

Great post. I completely agree, but my concern is that the National Associations might be given an equally unappealing option if offered an exemption to the conspicuity kit. I suspect operating at "known" model flying sites is what they will suggest, but if the cost/complexity of maintaining that status is significant it will cause issues, especially for the public sites used by slope and thermal soarers where there is often not a Club involved. Hopefully some solution can be found, but I suspect those of us operating in those locaton will hace to carry conspicuity equipment to stay legal.

Thread: Trim reversal in OpenTx
05/12/2019 13:16:12

I doubt there is anyone who hasn't been "gotcha'd" by this issue when starting out in OpenTX; I know I was, and I had moved from a Multiplex Evo that had very similar logic in the main. As Peter points out though, for me the flexibility the system gives more than makes up for these kind of additional complexities (especially given 95% of my models are now created off of previous templates making them very easy to setup).

PS - Tim K, if you want to look at an alternative setup for the Excalibur I posted one on RCSettings with some relatively advanced functionality, including a "go-around" mode that allows the top half of the throttle stick to act as a throttle, and the bottom half as spoilerons.

Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread
05/12/2019 12:43:01
Posted by Cuban8 on 05/12/2019 11:59:56:

...Matty, your final paragraph sums it up in a nutshell except that I'd replace your first "if" with a "when". That said I fully accept that we are where we are. However, to remain quiet about what's happened to our hobby and not keep questioning our inclusion and generally holding the legislators' feet to the fire while we wait for the whole rotten registration system to collapse through ineffectiveness (in the UK at least) will be a serious mistake. If nothing else we'll be able to say "we told you so". Our silence would be tantamount to acquiescence.

"Hold the legislators' feet to the fire"? We tried that already - a few 10s of thousands of letters were written by members of the national associations which had been batted back dismissively with little or not effect. Only a lucky change in the Sec of State for Transport brought some (mild) concessions at the last moment, but even those concessions weren't in line with EASAs recommendations for a registration programme or those of the Government's Science and Technology Committee (on pg 17 they clearly state the registration should be every 3 years rather than annually).

In short our tiny numbers and lack of a mainstream profile mean a better analogy might be trying to light a damp match in a thunderstorm 30m from the legislators feet... wink 2

Posted by Cuban8 on 05/12/2019 11:59:56:

...No more going round in circles, but I wait with interest what the official position will be in the next BMFA Mag.

The official position will I'm sure be exactly what they have stated already - register as a Remote Pilot and Operator (the later via the BMFA or other National Association) by the deadlines, read BMFA updates as they continue negotiations with the CAA/DfT and support them if they ask for it (letter writing etc). I would be amazed if the national associations start a campaign against registration at this point - if they do they are almost certain to be unceremoniously ejected from negotiations (as they effectively were early this year when the CAA went completely silent over registration).

By all means start your own campaign against registration so you can personally say "I told you so" if you want, but don't hold your breath waiting for the BMFA, LMA etc to join you.

Edited By MattyB on 05/12/2019 13:05:14

05/12/2019 11:28:52
Posted by Cuban8 on 05/12/2019 10:19:34:

OK, we've all been good little boys and have done as we're told by registering, throwing £9 away etc etc ..... next thing is to get a groundswell of members to lobby the BMFA to devise and publish their plans to get us out of the flawed registration scheme. Not a good start by the BMFA saying a while ago that they're not opposed 'in principle' to registration. I think they'll find that the membership is very opposed to the imposition of registration and need to see action to get our case looked at properly and the manner in which we've been bounced into something that we had no reason to be included in from the start. Can any one put forward a valid reason for our inclusion, given that if we'd been a problem before, then all this would have been dealt with ages ago before hobby drones were invented?

Sorry Cuban8, but we have been here before and that ship has well and truly sailed. Like it or not governments across the world are implementing registration as a key component in the overall system to manage UAS alongside other airspace users, whether they be commercial or recreational. They want this primarily because of the tax £££s that theoretically come with increased commercial UAS usage, and also to placate Daily Fail readers who want something done about the (mostly fictional) "drone menace".

Whether we agree that widespread commercial use is likely or possible is completely irrelevant - we are a tiny minority group with little or no popular support from the wider population for our activity set against the government who hold all the cards. Remember, the BMFA and other National and European model flying associations lobbied unsuccessfully to be excluded from registration for >2 years, primarily because no definition of model aircraft could be agreed with the authorities that sufficiently (and legally) differentiated it from multirotor drones/UAS. If it were unsuccessful then, what makes you think it will be successful now?

No, the only way registration will be rolled back now is if it is seen to be ineffective and/or the much vaunted commercial use by the likes of Amazon is found to be technically impossible, or the wider public push back against it. The latter two I think are pretty likely even in the relatively long term, but they are not within our control - unfortunately we as a community are always going to have minimal influence in these matters vs. the government and commercial operators.

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
Gliders Distribution
Cambridge Gliding Club
Wings & Wheels 2019
CML
Slec
electricwingman 2017
Pepe Aircraft
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Do you use a throttle kill switch?
Q: This refers to electric-powered models but do you use a throttle kill switch?

 Yes
 No
 Sometimes
 Rarely

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us