Here is a list of all the postings Neil R has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Can't get S8R to stabilise or auto-level|
Another thought prompted by Devcon - did you make the stick movements it needs to calibrate things immediately after the self check "chicken dance" thingy. I think the last I heard was that no throttle movemnent is required, and that it's finally powering off the Rx which saves the settings. Do this stick calibration with rates on full.
Edited By Neil R on 21/06/2018 21:49:03
You didn't mention the gain on Ch 9 - is that also working ok?
|Thread: Flightline 1600mm Spitfires????????|
As discussed above, Motion RC is finally close to arriving in Europe - June I think - and based in the Netherlands.
I just went to their normal US page and it gave me the option of the Euro site (https://www.motionrc.eu/)
Twelve flights in and I'm still very happy with the Spitfire.
|Thread: Steering nose leg does it need trail|
Sorry not helpful - but recently a colleague of mine described the unwelcome manoeuvre as the 'Robin Reliant Roll' - I'd not heard that in an aviation context before, and was quite tickled at how perfectly it fits!
(I'd guess any lowering of the cg would help, but I wouldn't expect that to be practicable).
|Thread: Multiplex Extra 330S vs. 300S|
Here's a quote from the US importer, cut and pasted from another forum:
"The Extra 300S and the Extra 330SC are two totally different airplanes entirely, the new 330SC was designed and built completely from the ground up by a different team that worked directly with Gernot Bruckmann to ensure that the quality, fit, finish, and flight envelope of the airplane were nothing but outstanding in every way. An airplane simply doesn't bear Gernot Bruckmann's name on it unless it meets all of these criteria. If you compare the two models side by side it's very apparent the 330SC is the better of the two.
One notable difference is that the fuselage of the more expensive model has the internal wooden framework.
I think the original price of the 330SC RR was much higher than the £245 I'm seeing now. There's also talk in the other forum that the 300 is discontinued?
|Thread: Flightline 1600mm Spitfires????????|
Pete I saw it post #1275 in the place below (which I suspect I haven't linked properly - sorry!). It's in their 'Electric Warbirds' topic area.
On the same thread post #1274 sets out how MRC work with Flightline.
When funds allow - and being very happy with what I've seen so far of the Spitty (quick damage check only) - I could be very tempted with the large A-10.
I recently spotted this intriguing comment from one of the Motion RC guys on another forum. (Even from Reds the Spitty arrived in a box covered in Motion RC logos - my understanding is that MRC and Flightline / Freewing are really quite joined up).
We care about Europe a lot. We ship anywhere in Europe now and you'll have many more options sometime in Feb or March of 2018.
Pleased to say that mine arrived today (from Reds) - so hopefully things are now unblocking for all. I'm also happy to share your view Rocker that any delay was not the fault of those at the UK end of the chain.
Waiting here too. On order from Sept with Reds RC. Their website seems to slip the date by about half a month every two weeks; it's currently still saying early Dec (and I vaguely remember getting a story about Customs delays). I really hope you're wrong about the New Year! In contrast Motion RC in the US must have had a glut, because I think they recently had a sale on. I really don't want to cancel, because I've already bought some dedicated Lipos and Callie graphics!
|Thread: FrSky Taranis - user chat|
Thanks for the responses all - for just a few quid I think I'll at least order a couple of the longer aerials to try out.
A question which has been prompted by reading the "What's Happening in Futaba" thread, which I think fits better here despite that thread drifting towards the full range characteristics of FrSky (FASST) receivers.
So, regarding Rx installation in bigger models - I've always had a slight concern that the standard FrSky Rx aerials, being reasonably short, are always going to end up quite close together. That makes me think that there's more chance of shielding behind, for example, bigger lumps such as my Zenoah 26 being used in an on-going Sopwith Pup project (where all 'moveable' weight needs to kept forward). The alternative approach of using brands which have additional satellite Rx's feels like it should give a more robust solution.
To achieve a better aerial spacing I've thus been considering buying some of the longer FrSky 'monopole' aerials (40 or 60cm), as currently sold by RCLife. Does anyone else use these, or otherwise think these are a sensible way forward?
Edited By Neil R on 05/02/2016 14:21:56
|Thread: Taranis X9E|
I thought I'd read somewhere that for Chris's option 3, FrSky 'blocked' selecting D8 via their own as-supplied operating system, and not in their underlying RF firmware. And that overwriting the former with OpenTx 'restores' D8?
In case I didn't make it clear in my last post, the 'simple' method of flashing SPort devices using the SD card route is now included by default at the latest OpenTx 2.1.x version. I think it was only in Mike B's special versions up to now. This is the main reason I upgraded.
Regarding the X8Rs - my confidence is not much dented as yet - but I think I am going to try and set up RSSI as a reasonably regular spoken output.
Gonzo - my new X6R (2015 so i presume EU) also bound to a non EU Taranis in D8 mode (i.e. using the Ch 5 to 6 jumper). Again with no servo jitter etc - although I didn't do the range check (and I had nil intention of trying it in flight).
Not sure what that's telling us, apart from you're not in a parallel universe!
I meant to try binding it in D16 mode also, but I forgot to press the fail-safe button when powering up (RTFM!). Unsurprisingly therefore it didn't bind. By the time I'd realised my mistake, I'd already flashed the Rx with the non-EU firmware - which as expected has now bound just fine in D16 mode.
BTW, compared to the process of upgrading to OpenTx 2.1.x (and all the messing needed with it's new Companion download, the as-yet-poorly-documented telemetry changes, and the need to update the sound files), my first go at updating the RF firmware using the new SPort / SD card route was an absolute doddle.
Edited By Neil R on 02/10/2015 17:38:04
Thanks Phil, yes I'd got that. Just didn't want my post to sound like I was being over critical.
And I'm not sure it's the EU firmware that's causing the 'latest' concerns in some of the above links - looks more like FrSky's hardware (the X9E antenna and the odd X9D soldering issue) and the basic X8R receiver design architecture.
Having said that, I've personally decided to stay on non-EU for now, and I've started saving my own copies of downloaded firmwares!
The postman has just delivered me a new (2015) X6R, so, before re-flashing, I'll try tonight and replicate Gonzo's unexpected-binding!
Clearly the X8R is currently under the microscope.
I'm not seeing much on the X6R - Is there any reason to believe that the X6R might be any different? (Noting that the faults seem to be talking about the lack of proper diversity and some sort of 'aging' - which don't seem to be 'paddles' related).
I had convinced myself yesterday that some sort of 'lifetime buy' of receivers might be a good idea before the rules change again next year. Not so sure now!
Edit - still completely loving OpenTx, and similarly I've never experienced any problems when actually using the Taranis - including with long range thermal gliding.
Edited By Neil R on 02/10/2015 11:00:54
|Thread: Spektrum module for Taranis|
I fancy a go at this!
Cheeky request - since these come in minimums of 3 - has anybody got a spare OSH Park circuit board they'd consider selling to me? Happy to pay fair share.
|Thread: New plane seems unbalanced|
What I have tried to explain so far is that there is no such thing as such as pendulum stability. Any phrase involving pendulums always takes people down the road of assuming there is a contributing mass (gravitational) moment which induces a rotation – stabilising or otherwise - which as I have explained already, is simply not true on an aircraft.
What I did also say was that the position of the vertical CG can affect the balance of the aerodynamic forces and moments acting upon it. And for, example, anyone who was flown RC knows how the position of the longitudinal CG is key to achieving a balance of aerodynamic forces and moments which achieve our desired level of pitch stability.
So you are perfectly right to suggest that the vertical CG position can also affect the aero forces and moments which affect (in this case) roll/ lateral stability (also known as the dihedral effect). And yes, those aerodynamic forces normally increase lateral stability as the vertical CG is lowered. And those aero forces are also a significant function of aircraft shape – which for high versus low wing also includes the blanking effect mentioned already.
Remembering that lateral stability is all about the aircraft’s rolling moment due to sideslip, one easy effect to picture is the ‘sideways lift’ (sideforce) from the fin and rudder due to the sideslip. This normally acts above the CG, and thus normally also contributes a small and stabilising rolling moment. This rolling moment will increase if the vertical CG is lowered.
The wiki page on dihedral looks pretty sound to me: **LINK**
I know I’ve gone on a bit – and yes you can probably regard the (lack of) pendulum stability as one of my hobby-horse issues – I’m normally a lurker!
Note that the Wikipedia article uses the term pendulum effect – in other words the way an aircraft behaves can look very much like a pendulum – but if you start trying to generate explanations involving the actual physics of pendulums (and there are plenty of those out there!) it all starts to get very wrong.
In response to the OP though – all along I’ve thought that vertical CG change we may be talking about here, combined with the second order type effects this has anyhow (lateral stability being much more driven by the dihedral angle itself) isn’t going to be the answer. I’ll be honest I’ve even wondered whether the previous speculations on the separate directional stability impact isn’t also over-stating what may well be a trivial effect.
Sorry BEB, it simply isn't true that the dynamics hold true. A vehicle which rotates around it's CG can't have an "additional moment" due to it's mass no matter whether it's 'normal' mass or on long sticks. The mass moment about the CG is (by definition) zero at ANY rotation angle.
The two effects that would be present in your examples are a) roll inertia will increase, which means that for a given aerodynamic rolling moment (for example from aileron deflection or rolling moment due to sideslip), roll acceleration (or deceleration) would be slower, and b) as you have indicated the changed rotation point would cause a centre of rotation further from the normal (fuselage) axis, which would introduce all sorts of second order aerodynamic effects, the generation of sidelsip angle being one such. I'm not saying that such aerodynamic effects wouldn't contribute to stability or instability, but this is not due to a mass moment.
Fortunately in the real world most CGs tend to live within the fuselage, and so such 'odd' aerodynamic effects are minimised.
I always found the concept of pendulum stability easiest to get sucked into for hang gliders. Yes it all looks like a pendulum, but the actual stabilising effects are aerodynamic not mass-moment related. As before, thinking about induced sidelsip and how it creates an aerodynamic rolling moment is usually the key to a better understanding.
Martin - yes it's fuselage blanking.
Chris - my vote also goes for the aero effect as first mentioned by Peter. Hopefully putting the battery inside should do the trick.
I always understood that the concept of pendulum stability was flawed - indeed it has often been the first thing I look for in any 'aero' book to judge whether I trust the author. IIRC Alistair Sutherland gets it right!
Pendulums rotate about a fixed pivot point. Aeroplanes don't have a 'fixed pivot point in the sky' - they rotate around their centre of gravity.
My own experience is that lateral (roll) stability is always best thought of in terms of how the the aircraft reacts to sideslip, and although I suspect there might be some secondary aerodynamic effect here of lowering the c.g, I'd be surprised if it's very noticeable.
Chris - Peter is talking about directional / yaw stability (the usual analogy is the weather vane) and suggesting that you may have added forward side area which is counteracting the stabilising effect of the fin & rudder. The two stabilities (directional and lateral/roll) are obviously linked by the resultant sideslip.
BEB - given your multi-rotor activities, I did read once (in a 'proper' academic paper) that moving their c.g. (batteries) upwards improves their stability! But I've long since lost the ability to follow the maths it was presenting.
|Thread: Wing Loading v Aspect Ratio|
Reynolds number has no units because it is a ratio - as I remember it it's the ratio of the air's inertial forces (think mass and acceleration effects) to its viscous forces - or its 'stickiness'. Models of identical shape but different sizes will have different Reynolds numbers, and hence can have different airflow regimes (laminar, turbulent, separation points, etc). Understanding the effect is key to using the wind-tunnel to design full size aircraft.
I saw recently that the 5th edition of Martin Simon's book on Model Aircraft Aerodynamics is due out anytime soon - might be worth a delve for anyone wanting to understand more?
Edited By Neil R on 04/02/2015 21:24:11
Edited By Neil R on 04/02/2015 21:24:35
Edited By Neil R on 04/02/2015 21:31:08
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!