 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / December 2008Newbie questions - start with an electric RTF?
I suppose it's my turn to ask the newbie questions... I'm interesting in trying out model flying and, in the main, want to find out about what would be a good plane to start with. I'm aware that I should join a club, get insurance (via membership of the BMFA?) and undertake my first flights with an instructor, possibly with buddied radios. I haven't flown models (or real planes) before, and haven't spent much time playing with computer flight simulators, but I think I get the general idea that wiggling the sticks on the Tx move the control surfaces on the plane and thus make it move about in the air. I'm technically adept - have a reasonable understanding of radios, physics, engines, electricity, and have the skills and facilities to fabricate almost anything. I could conceivably buy a kit, or plans, and spend ages building something very nice and expensive, and promptly trash it on its maiden flight. I don't think I want to go down that route - I could build something, and that may well be an option for the future, but I think I'd like to get the basics of flying sorted out first. If the interest sustains beyond that, then I'll see about building my own. So, for a first plane, I'm looking to strike a balance between cost, effort, and flyability, and I think that means one of the RTF offerings. One that caught my eye was the Top Gun Super Cub outfit. The main attractions of this for me are... Seems that everything needed to get started is in the box. Not expensive at 100 quid. High wing plane for better stability. Computer simulator using Tx USB connection. Very little assembly required. Convenience of leccytrical power. More details here... http://www.marionvillemodels.com/radio-controlled-models/aircraft/beginner-pilot s/Top-Gun-Park-Flite-Super-Cub-PA18-RC-radio-control-plane---inc-flight-sim/prod uct.aspx Would this be a sensible choice for a first plane? I should point out that, should I get into the hobby more seriously, I wouldn't neccessarily be looking to keep any of the bits for a future plane (happy to replace radio stuff, etc, if need be). Is electric a viable choice? How much flight time can I expect with something like this? How long does the battery take to recharge, and can I charge from the car? How much are spare batteries? Anything else I should know? Any other options I should consider? Thanks in advance,  SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk Call me a saint, call me a sinner - just don't call me... late for dinner. > I suppose it's my turn to ask the newbie questions... > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Thanks in advance, not sure about performance of this particular kit but electrics out number fuel powered planes in our club batteries 1 hour(or less) to charge charge at home or in the car (depends on the charger power supply) price depends on type of battery range from £10 to £200 duration depends on type of plane/battery & how you fly it 6 mins to 1 hour typically have a look at this for a fuel powered plane its also our clubs favourite trainer, it has more duration than electric as you can refuel and take off again with out charging any batteries http://www.kmfc.co.uk/downloads/trainerpackage.pdf the cub is more of a toy than a serious trainer, join a club or at least find a fellow flier and have fun SignatureKevin R Reply address works > So, for a first plane, I'm looking to strike a balance between cost, > effort, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Thanks in advance, Looks good, I gave up training on an IC trainer and switched to a Multiplex Mentor. Best thing I ever did......... It seems a reasonable choice, although, I couldn't see a transmitter included, it says sim interface FROM YOUR TX TO SIM. So, factor in another £50 or so for TX. Another battery would be useful, say, around £12 or so It doesn't say whether the charger is mains or 12v, prolly mains, so need to buy a 12 voltlipo charger, around £35 or so. Then, best to have a 12volt gel battery, 7AH around £15 or so + gel charger , maybe £12, don't use normal car battery charger unless can reduce current to around 1 amp The only slight snag with this setup is that the plane will really only be suitable for light winds, you can't beat a heavier IC trainer, say .46 cu" for flying in winds up to about 10 knots Many model shops do a "package deal" eg arising star trainer, SC46 engine, radio set for £162 from Pegusus Norwich http://www.pegasusmodels.co.uk/detail.asp?id=992640&main=Aircraft&sub1=Seagull%2 0Models To this you would need to add 12v starter, £20, glow plug driver £10, fuel, £12/gallon 12v gel battery+charger£30 Just my 'umble opinion Trefor > Is electric a viable choice? How much flight time can I expect with > something like this? How long does the battery take to recharge, and can I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks in advance, > It seems a reasonable choice, although, I couldn't see a transmitter > included, it says sim interface FROM YOUR TX TO SIM. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > be suitable for light winds, you can't beat a heavier IC trainer, say > .46 cu" for flying in winds up to about 10 knots Well, that depends. IF u have a club, and IF you join it and IF you take out insurance and IF you want to spend another 70 quid on fuel, starter motor, fuel pump, and glo clip and starter battery and something to keep it all charged..and IF someone at the club is happy to train you and IF the club is near enough you can get to it on a regular basis, and IF you manage to understand the vagaries of tuning an IC engine..then sure, its a good way to learn to fly... Except that even light winds are hard for new pilots to understand. frankly something you can chuck in the air at minimal cost, that doesn't really need insurance, or a club, just a bit of open ground without kids on it, is a lot easier and cheaper. THEN if the bug bites, and you fancy the company of fellow pilots, join the club, and get the insurance. And go IC if you must. A foamie cub is about as easy to fly as it gets. Even if you are restricted to flat calm air. Sure you will crash it and break it. Several times probably. But at lest you wont kill someone with it. > Many model shops do a "package deal" eg arising star trainer, SC46 > engine, radio set for £162 from Pegusus Norwich [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > To this you would need to add 12v starter, £20, glow plug driver £10, > fuel, £12/gallon 12v gel battery+charger£30 Exactly...'to this you would need to add...' add in BMFA insurance, and a a club membership fee. I would NEVER fly a .40 plane outside of a well run field with a safety nazi in control. Or without insurance. I did once and it was simply too scary as a newbie. I went electric, and never looked back. I no DO fly at club sites, and big electrics too, but there is still the field at the back, or the local recreation ground for the sub 8oz lightweights with barely enough power to fly..;-) Don't get me wrong, everything you say about an IC plane is true. But IC is serious investment for committed modellers. If you want to toe dip,. electric is the way. > frankly something you can chuck in the air at minimal cost, that doesn't > really need insurance, or a club, just a bit of open ground without kids > on it, is a lot easier and cheaper. Yes, if you go this way, you don't really need field charging eqipment as previously mentioned Just have one or two extra fully charged batteries. Usually expect, maybe up to 10 minutes per flight if you ease up on the throttle, once at a reasonable height. There's a free flight sim available on the web, FMS; all you need is a joystick http://n.ethz.ch/~mmoeller/fms/index_e.html. Most newbies have trouble with controlling the plane coming towards them as the ailerons and rudder are reversed The usual advice I give novices is "put a stick under the wing that is down" ie if the left wing is down move the aileron stick to the left Trefor >> frankly something you can chuck in the air at minimal cost, that >> doesn't really need insurance, or a club, just a bit of open ground [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Trefor Exactly. Generally a couple of outings with a cheap foamie leads to 'well this isn't much fun' and give the thing away or 'this would be a lot more fun with a better plane' at which point serious kit is something you start accumulating. Judging by my chats with the local model shop, its about 2:1 in favour of the first. "Trefor" <trefor@nospam.com> wrote in message > The usual advice I give novices is "put a stick under the wing that is down" > ie if the left wing is down move the aileron stick to the left Err.. let me clarify that. I am referring to the wing on the pilot's left, with the plane coming towards him, which is actually the starboard (right) wing on the plane... Trefor > "Trefor" <trefor@nospam.com> wrote in message > The usual advice I give > novices is "put a stick under the wing that is down" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Trefor Some further clarification needed. Does this still apply ? ....... 1.) In summer, when wearing short trousers. 2.) If the pilot is a right-wing voter. 3.) When there is a full moon. 4.) When the novice is actually a nun and is not allowed to curse profusely. Also, is there any advantage to be gained from standing with your left foot in a bucket of cold water? SignatureDave (Sgt. Pepper) Epsom, England My photo galleries at http://www.pbase.com/davecq "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!" Thanks for the comments so far, folks (please keep them coming). A "toe dip" is about right for my level of interest at present, and I'm naturally reticent to spend more than I need to for the sake of having a go. The (balsa?) IC trainer package for 162 quid looks like a good deal compared to the foamy Cub - until the additional 70 quid or so for accessories is factored in. I'm sure it's a lot more plane, but 2.5 times the cost leads one to think a bit more before buying. I bought the 20-quid RC PlaneMaster sim, which comes with a dummy Tx that plugs into the computer's USB port. I felt this was a better option for a sim, since it allows my fingers to get the hang of using the same controls I'd find on a real Tx (unlike a computer joystick). A 'proper' balsa plane with an IC motor certainly has an attraction, more so when I went to the local model shop for another look around. I saw some built foamies, and they didn't impress me as models (scale or otherwise). It's just a couple of bits of expanded polystyrene with plastic bits glued on. I realise most of the money is in the electrics (Trefor, I think the Tx is included), so the airframe is neccessarily a small part of the cost - but it still looked a bit cheap and 'toyish', and that kinda put me off a bit. On the other hand, there is scope to reuse the electrics from a foamy in another RC project at a later date. Although I'm posting here as a resut of interest in flying model planes, I have a more general interest in radio control (wheeled vehicles, sailboats, motor boats), so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the electrical gubbins could be used in something else (home-brewed, most likely). On a related note, is there any reason to not reuse the foamy's Tx, Rx, and servos in an IC trainer? Hmm. On balance, I think the foamy is in the lead, in spite of my feeling that it looks cheap (well, it is cheap). And, when I think about it, maybe the whole kit isn't neccessarily throw-away should I want to go to an IC plane later (even if the bits are reused in an unrelated project). The shop also had a Cessna foamy (same maker) which looked equivalent, price and construction-wise, to the Cub. The difference was that it's a tricycle undercarriage, rather than a tail-dragger. Would the Cessna be a better choice? SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk You're unique - just like everybody else. > Hmm. On balance, I think the foamy is in the lead, in spite of my feeling > that it looks cheap (well, it is cheap). And, when I think about it, maybe [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > undercarriage, rather than a tail-dragger. Would the Cessna be a better > choice? Big PLUS point.... and this is inevitable... when you crash a foamy will be a really easy repair. A balsa model will likely be a write off. been there done that several times. I learnt in the end. foamy = easy easy route and much less painful. > Big PLUS point.... and this is inevitable... when you crash a foamy > will be a really easy repair. A balsa model will likely be a write > off. been there done that several times. I learnt in the end. foamy = > easy easy route and much less painful. How are repairs done? Are new sections glued in, or is it a case of replacing a whole part like wings or fuselage? SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. >> Big PLUS point.... and this is inevitable... when you crash a foamy >> will be a really easy repair. A balsa model will likely be a write [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How are repairs done? Are new sections glued in, or is it a case of > replacing a whole part like wings or fuselage? either. Most people use hot glue and parcel tape :-) >> Hmm. On balance, I think the foamy is in the lead, in spite of my feeling >> that it looks cheap (well, it is cheap). And, when I think about it, maybe [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > done that several times. I learnt in the end. foamy = easy easy route and > much less painful. until you BUILD the balsa model, in which case perfect repairs are possible Just build it again! Or as much as needs it.. Foamies always end up tatty <SNIP> >A balsa model will likely be a write off. been there >done that several times. I learnt in the end. foamy = easy easy route and >much less painful. Hi Oh dear, oh dear - the modern ways of doing (or rather, not doing) things!!!! I have been modelling for more years than I care to remember and in my time - along with every other old timer, I feel sure - I have repaired and reflown some horrendous looking crashed models. Even in a full bore vertical arrival everything rear of the wings usually survives relatively intact and as long as you still have the plans (assuming kits still come with plans of course) with a bit of ingenuity, a sharp knife and a sheet of balsa, what appears to be a pile of matchwood can usually be restored to flying condition. In those days we didn't have much option, we couldn't afford a new model - the radio gear alone, cost around a month's wages; and that was for only 2 channel!!!! 8^) Regards KGB > <SNIP> >> A balsa model will likely be a write off. been there [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > KGB You had TWO channels.. when I were a lad... >> <SNIP> >>> A balsa model will likely be a write off. been there done that [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > when I were a lad... you,re only a youngster then :-) SignatureKevin R Reply address works ><SNIP> >>A balsa model will likely be a write off. been there [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > model - the radio gear alone, cost around a month's wages; and that > was for only 2 channel!!!! 8^) Oh dear, oh dear - the modern ways of doing (or rather not doing) things!!!! I have been driving for more years than I care to remember and in my time - along with every other (very very) old timer, I feel sure, I have driven and repaired some horrendous old cars. We even had to stand in front of them and crank a handle to start them, and even that would take a bit of ingenuity. In those days we had to serrvice them ourselves it was so expensive. It cost a year's wages just to buy the car, and a month's to get it serviced, so we did a lot of that ourselves, too! Nowt wrong with taking advantage of modern materials and techniques. They have their place. I still enjoy building from scratch or kits (as opposed to ARTF) but it'll be a cold day in hell before I use tissue and dope again. ;) Nobby Actually the bit about driving a crank-start car was bollox, I first drove in 1978 and it was electric start. I did use tissue and dope, though. > Actually the bit about driving a crank-start car was bollox, I first drove > in 1978 and it was electric start. I did use tissue and dope, though. Didn't that just gum up the engine ? SignatureBoo >> Actually the bit about driving a crank-start car was bollox, I first drove >> in 1978 and it was electric start. I did use tissue and dope, though. > > Didn't that just gum up the engine ? Naa, you smoke the dope and wipe your snoz on the tissues. Not immediately before driving the car, though ... Nobby <SNIP> >I have been driving for more years than I care to remember and in my >time - along with every other (very very) old timer, I feel sure, I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >(as opposed to ARTF) but it'll be a cold day in hell before I use tissue >and dope again. ;) Hi Surely the main difference between cars and "toy" planes is that cars are a necessity (debatable I realize) to most people, whereas RC flying is a hobby. To me, a car is simply a useful means or getting from "A" to "B" - (or to the flying field and back) - and if it goes wrong, I take it to an expert to mend. Model aircraft, on the other hand, are part of my hobby and are something I enjoy tinkering with. In an effort to improve my expertise and enjoyment of my chosen hobby, I like to get involved with all aspects - including building and repairing. Also it is amazing how much incidental knowledge, useful in other aspects of life, one acquires building and repairing planes. I now have a reasonable layman's knowledge of materials & structures, DIY skills such as soldering and metal bending etc; a useful collection of handy tools and bits and pieces of assorted materials useful for all sorts of purposes, and I am regarded among friends as something of a "guru" as to what sort of glue to use for what particular application. Actually modern adhesives are something I do take advantage of - when I started it was just balsa cement and tissue paste. One of my lasting regrets however, is that the extremely attractive female friend of mine who, wearing only her underwear, managed to glue her shoe to her pubic hairs whilst using superglue to repair the sole (it's true), unfortunately didn't take advantage of my expertise; I would have been more than happy to help out. 8^( As far as aircraft go, building and repairing them at a very early age, I acquired a reasonable knowledge of how and why they fly - and why they fall out of the sky, how to trim for straight and level flight (another lost art), which control surface does what etc., in other words a basic grounding in aeronautics (not very useful in everyday life admittedly, except for reassurance when halfway across the Atlantic at 30,000 feet). Having said all that, my original post was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek and I do realize that one can get as much or as little as one wants from a hobby, if you do not want to go deeply into it, you don't have to: and - having owned a hobby shop many years ago - whatever somebody does for a hobby, providing it is legal and doesn't harm anybody else, then no matter how "weird" it may seem to another person, if they personally get relaxation and enjoyment from doing it, then good luck to them. I do take your point about tissue and dope. I went off it after my very first attempt to build a model plane (rubber powered) at the age of around nine, when I very stupidly had the bright idea of trying to speed up the drying time by holding the newly doped structure over a lit gas ring!!!!! Definitely a Darwin award entry (I was very young don't forget) and although I didn't actually burn the house down, I never tried it again. 8^) Regards KGB ><SNIP> >>I have been driving for more years than I care to remember and in my [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > don't forget) and although I didn't actually burn the house down, I > never tried it again. 8^) I agree with everything you've said but as you've pointed out in your second last paragraph you cna take as little or as much as you want from the hobby, which is something you couldn't do 30 years ago, when it was (a) expensive, and (b) you pretty much had to build your own plane from a kit with bits of balsa in it. The difference now is that the bar to entry into the hobby is much lower - instead of a month's wage to get started it's now a fraction of that - you can get a plane that'll fly reasonably well into the air for under ?100 - that's got to mean more people trying it outi than if they had to build from scratch. I used to believe that you weren't doing it properly if you didn't build from scratch, now I've mellowed and pretty much changed my point of view. It's the same in my other childhood hobby, electronics. It's hard to get kids interested in that these days compared with 40 years ago, simply because 40 years ago a radio cost an arm and a leg and a crystal set could be built for a week's pocket money. Now I can but an AM/FM/clock radio for a week's pocket money (recently bought by daughter one for ?2.99 which is only a quid more than her pocket money). Also the level of sophistication is so much more - it's difficult to do anything worthwhile cheaply as a hobbyist because the components are too sophisitcated (you can't just solder transistors and resistors to a pegboard, you have to deal with hard to solder IC packages and the like). In 1965 a bistable multivibrator that flashed a couple of lights was novel, now it doesn't compete with a Nintendo DS, and if you want a bistable multivibrator you buy it from Anne Summers ;) These days I are won though (an Elektronik Enjuneir) so I don't have to do it as a hobbyi (and frankly do so much at work that if something electronic breaks down at home I chuck it out and buy a new one if it's not obviously repairable or under warranty). I also did the dope thing trying to straighten half a glider wing over an electric hob. Oops. Can't remember if I've subsequently 'fessed to my parents. Nobby > Thanks for the comments so far, folks (please keep them coming). > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > On the other hand, there is scope to reuse the electrics from a foamy in > another RC project at a later date. dont use the radio in any land based craft though if its 35mhz Although I'm posting here as a resut of > interest in flying model planes, I have a more general interest in radio > control (wheeled vehicles, sailboats, motor boats), so it's not beyond the > realms of possibility that the electrical gubbins could be used in something > else (home-brewed, most likely). On a related note, is there any reason to > not reuse the foamy's Tx, Rx, and servos in an IC trainer? only problem with some radios is they are short range and have tiny servos both of these things are of no use in a large IC trainer > Hmm. On balance, I think the foamy is in the lead, in spite of my feeling > that it looks cheap (well, it is cheap). And, when I think about it, maybe [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > undercarriage, rather than a tail-dragger. Would the Cessna be a better > choice? http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=5617&Desc=cub this looks easy to fly SignatureKevin R Reply address works > dont use the radio in any land based craft though if its 35mhz Ah, good point - forgot about that. > only problem with some radios is they are short range and have tiny > servos both of these things are of no use in a large IC trainer I wondered about range. The servos are 8.4g - what does that mean, and are they any good? > http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=5617&Desc=cub > this looks easy to fly Do planes break as easily as they do in the simulator? :) SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. >> dont use the radio in any land based craft though if its 35mhz > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I wondered about range. The servos are 8.4g - what does that mean, and are > they any good? 8.4g is the weight of a servo, the smaller they are the smaller the plane will need to be as they don't have the same power/speed as a bigger servos ,they will work on the ground in a bigger plane but they might not be able to move the controls at speed when flying so always pick a servo to suit the plane the conventional wisdom is use a Futaba 148 or similar servo for a normal i.c trainer and these will weigh 40grams and have a larger electric motor driving the arm >> http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=5617&Desc=cub >> this looks easy to fly > > Do planes break as easily as they do in the simulator? :) depends on what the are made from :-) EPP is more or less unbreakable http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xFQMZTOP0Ug SignatureKevin R Reply address works Hi, The group seems to have yawned and woken up ! How about something along the lines of the Multiplex Easy Glider ? It's a glider so it can fly slow and give a novice time to think. It's made of Elapor foam which should bounce a bit before breaking. Landings can be nice and slow, especially if you have got the thing set up properly. Get the electric powered one and you can fly off flat ground, slopes, etc. I haven't got one but I haven't seen a bad word about them online.... > Hi, > The group seems to have yawned and woken up ! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I haven't got one but I haven't seen a bad word about them online.... I forgot that one SignatureKevin R Reply address works > Hi, > The group seems to have yawned and woken up ! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I haven't got one but I haven't seen a bad word about them online.... I know a man who has..they are good if you are *really* new..but you will soon get a bit bored. > 8.4g is the weight of a servo, the smaller they are the smaller the > plane will need to be as they don't have the same power/speed as a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > normal i.c trainer and these will weigh 40grams and have a larger > electric motor driving the arm Righto. So, the weight of the servo is an approximation of its power. >> Do planes break as easily as they do in the simulator? :) > depends on what the are made from :-) EPP is more or less unbreakable > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xFQMZTOP0Ug I'm beginning to go off the foamy idea a bit. I was talking to a guy from a local club, and he reckoned they were a bit light for the prevailing conditions (a bit breezy). Reckoned I wouldn't get many decent flying days, and also said that there's unlikely to be much flying until March. This is leading me towards considering something a bit heavier (I think that means an IC trainer). Due to the cost, I'm reconsidering getting used kit and relying on my arf-decent technical aptitude to fix or recondition as required. If I'm looking at a probable 3 months, I have time to learn more and do some bargain hunting (still want to keep the spend within reasonable bounds). SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk I eat my peas with honey, I've done it all my life. It makes the peas taste funny, but it keeps them on the knife. (Spike Milligan) >> 8.4g is the weight of a servo, the smaller they are the smaller the >> plane will need to be as they don't have the same power/speed as a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > and do some bargain hunting (still want to keep the spend within reasonable > bounds). personally I would go the IC route if you can find some one to help if not go for foam SignatureKevin R Reply address works > personally I would go the IC route if you can find some one to help if > not go for foam I'm sure I can get help to learn (my neighbour flies, and there are two clubs within a few miles of me). I'd very likely be going the club route in any case with an IC. The eventual aim is to make flying videos of some sort, and I suspect an IC will be better placed to handle the payload of bullet camera and digital recorder doohickey. SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. >> personally I would go the IC route if you can find some one to help if >> not go for foam [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and I suspect an IC will be better placed to handle the payload of bullet > camera and digital recorder doohickey. I have a "flycam one" video camera and you can put this on almost any plane as its only 40 grams complete, so don't let size rule your models SignatureKevin R Reply address works > I have a "flycam one" video camera and you can put this on almost any > plane as its only 40 grams complete, so don't let size rule your > models The car rules the size. None of these 2-metre wingspans for me. :) SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. >> I have a "flycam one" video camera and you can put this on almost any >> plane as its only 40 grams complete, so don't let size rule your >> models > > The car rules the size. None of these 2-metre wingspans for me. :) another option is slope soaring as I guess you have quite a few hills up North :-) then you could have one of these http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=7755&Desc= SignatureKevin R Reply address works > another option is slope soaring as I guess you have quite a few hills > up North :-) > then you could have one of these > http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=7755&Desc= That's approximately three times bigger than I have room for. It's also 'not to my taste', visually. :) SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk Call me a saint, call me a sinner - just don't call me... late for dinner. >> personally I would go the IC route if you can find some one to help if >> not go for foam [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and I suspect an IC will be better placed to handle the payload of bullet > camera and digital recorder doohickey. No. Fancy a 10lb 96" span electric? No problem these days. It's just that the cost gets similar to IC as you get up towards a .40 style plane. I personally got fed up with the mess and cost of running IC and went all electric. The planes are no different really..less overbuilt for electric thats all..no need for anti vibration stuff. They make MUCH better camera platforms as a result No oil, not vibration. You can shut the engine off completely. Electric can be small, pathetic and slow, but it doesn't HAVE to be. You can take any 40 trainer and fit sonething like an AXI 4130 and it will fly better than the IC will, without the oil, the mess and the noise. > No. Fancy a 10lb 96" span electric? > > No problem these days. That has no chance of fitting in the car if it doesn't come apart. How easily are these things dismantled? How long would the fuselage be on such a plane? > It's just that the cost gets similar to IC as you get up towards a .40 > style plane. I think I'm resigned to spending a bit more than I originally envisaged anyway. At least I have some time to learn and bargain hunt. > I personally got fed up with the mess and cost of running IC and went > all electric. There's a thing - how much fuel do (trainer type) IC planes get through? > The planes are no different really..less overbuilt for electric thats > all..no need for anti vibration stuff. > > They make MUCH better camera platforms as a result No oil, not > vibration. You can shut the engine off completely. Noted. > Electric can be small, pathetic and slow, but it doesn't HAVE to be. > > You can take any 40 trainer and fit sonething like an AXI 4130 and it > will fly better than the IC will, without the oil, the mess and the > noise. What about flying time? Do you cycle 2 or 3 batteries round a charger on the day? SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. >> No. Fancy a 10lb 96" span electric? >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > There's a thing - how much fuel do (trainer type) IC planes get through? 6 oz fuel a 15 min flight not sure if thats the same as fluid ouncesm but the tanks used to be sized that way but not brought a tank for years >> The planes are no different really..less overbuilt for electric thats >> all..no need for anti vibration stuff. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > What about flying time? Do you cycle 2 or 3 batteries round a charger on the > day? LiPo's take 1 hour to charge NiMh about 30 mins for a 10 min flight so to fly constantly you need several chargers and batteries, I usually have 3 sets and take 3 models so I can fly each model 3 times without charging SignatureKevin R Reply address works > 6 oz fuel a 15 min flight not sure if thats the same as fluid ouncesm > but the tanks used to be sized that way but not brought a tank for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have 3 sets and take 3 models so I can fly each model 3 times without > charging So, either way, it's about a 10-15 minute flight before having to refuel or charge/swap battery. I think it's then a balance between deciding what I'd rather do between flights, the initial cost of the bits, and the running costs. I'd have to say that battery swapping has an attraction over dealing with liquid fuel and glow plugs. I'd need to do numbers on the initial spend, although I suspect that, for a more powerful electric setup to suit a heavier plane, it will be similar to that for IC. I guess running costs are negligible for electric - unless the batteries have a limited life? Do LiPos need to be discharged before recharging? SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk You're unique - just like everybody else. >> 6 oz fuel a 15 min flight not sure if thats the same as fluid ouncesm >> but the tanks used to be sized that way but not brought a tank for [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > negligible for electric - unless the batteries have a limited life? Do LiPos > need to be discharged before recharging? batteries will do at least 50 cycles if hammered, 500+ if treated really well. The reality is something like new packs every couple of years. The ideal state for long life is to store half charged,. And cool. In my case the seldom heated workshop at full charge or where they came out of the plane, works nearly as well. I generally have a charging session the evening before flying. > batteries will do at least 50 cycles if hammered, 500+ if treated > really well. The reality is something like new packs every couple of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I generally have a charging session the evening before flying. Okay, so a bit of care should keep the costs minimal. For a motor that would be comparable to an IC engine, in whatever trainer one might sensibly choose, what mAh rating should the batteries be? A quick scan at my local shop's web site shows that they range from 800 to 3300mAh, with a corresponding range of weights. To put it another way, what capacity would give the 10-15 minutes flight time in an electrified 'IC' trainer? SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk You're unique - just like everybody else. >> batteries will do at least 50 cycles if hammered, 500+ if treated >> really well. The reality is something like new packs every couple of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > corresponding range of weights. To put it another way, what capacity would > give the 10-15 minutes flight time in an electrified 'IC' trainer? Depends on the power. A sort of .25cu in motor is roughly about a 250W motor. Thats would be something like a 2200mAh 3 cell pack. That will fly a 50" sort of model nicely. Throttled back to cruse, you might get about 15-20 minutes. Flat out it will be flat in 6-8. >> No. Fancy a 10lb 96" span electric? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > easily are these things dismantled? How long would the fuselage be on such a > plane? I made thee tail detachable as well. No bit is longer than 4 foot. >> It's just that the cost gets similar to IC as you get up towards a .40 >> style plane. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There's a thing - how much fuel do (trainer type) IC planes get through? Not sure. Tanks look abut 100ml and that last about 15 minutes, so a 5 liter can of fuel probably last 50 flights. >> The planes are no different really..less overbuilt for electric thats >> all..no need for anti vibration stuff. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > What about flying time? Do you cycle 2 or 3 batteries round a charger on the > day? Well. My slow stuff will fly over half an hour on a charge. It depends on how throttle happy you are. Generally at lest ten minutes a charge. So a couple o batteries pre charged gets you a couple of ten-fifteen minute flights then its about 40 -50 minutes to have enough charge in the first one again. Lithium batteries don't need hot charging either, so you can if you want bring three or four pre charged packs to the field, and fly off them. the A123 cells that people are staring to use may be faster charging than lithium. I am not familiar. I enjoy the sound and smell of IC engines, just not enough to get one again yet. Might get a weeny diesel though. > I made thee tail detachable as well. No bit is longer than 4 foot. That's just about the limit - just been out to measure the boot of the car. The opening is 43" wide by 16" front to back. If I were to dip one end of the wing/fuselage in and slide it left, I could just about manage 49" in the width. Depth from bottom to lowest point of the opening is 13". Anything bigger than that would have to go into the passenger space (which I'd rather avoid). > Not sure. Tanks look abut 100ml and that last about 15 minutes, so a 5 > liter can of fuel probably last 50 flights. Not a huge cost per flight, then. Are any other bits and bobs needed for maintenance? > Well. My slow stuff will fly over half an hour on a charge. It depends > on how throttle happy you are. Generally at lest ten minutes a charge. > So a couple o batteries pre charged gets you a couple of ten-fifteen > minute flights then its about 40 -50 minutes to have enough charge in > the first one again. I envisage slow for now so that sounds promising - I have almost zero skill at flying r/c and I don't think adding a fast plane is a good idea. Sounds like a charger and two or three batteries should suffice. > Lithium batteries don't need hot charging either, so you can if you > want bring three or four pre charged packs to the field, and fly off > them. Righto. Is that the LiPos that you're referring to? > the A123 cells that people are staring to use may be faster charging > than lithium. I am not familiar. A123? Is that cell size? Used in LiPo packs? SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk Call me a saint, call me a sinner - just don't call me... late for dinner. >> I made thee tail detachable as well. No bit is longer than 4 foot. > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > A123? Is that cell size? Used in LiPo packs? A123 are just another battery type similar to LiPo's http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=6444 SignatureKevin R Reply address works >>> I made thee tail detachable as well. No bit is longer than 4 foot. >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > A123 are just another battery type similar to LiPo's > http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=6444 yeahs..there are some lithium technologies that can stand more abuse, but are heavier. 123 is one, saphion is possibly the same thing in a different form. > I'm sure I can get help to learn (my neighbour flies, and there are two > clubs within a few miles of me). I'd very likely be going the club route in > any case with an IC. The eventual aim is to make flying videos of some sort, > and I suspect an IC will be better placed to handle the payload of bullet > camera and digital recorder doohickey. If you really want to get into aerial photography then I would seriously consider electric power. Until recently I was an i.c "junkie", both glow power and diesel. Then I converted one of my planes to electric power. Was it a success ? Well... all of my planes are now converted to brushless outrunners and lipo packs. I guess it was a success >:-)) For aerial photography the benefits of electric power are... very little vibration and the ability to switch the motor on and off at will. The problem with video and model planes is that the camera will produce horizontal lines across the picture if the spinning prop is in the camera's view. Electric power, a folding prop and a speed control with brake function solve that problem as the prop stops and doesn't windmill. You don't have to point the camera forward but many prefer to do so. >> dont use the radio in any land based craft though if its 35mhz > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I wondered about range. The servos are 8.4g - what does that mean, and are > they any good? standrd small servo. >> http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=5617&Desc=cub >> this looks easy to fly > > Do planes break as easily as they do in the simulator? :) easier! > I suppose it's my turn to ask the newbie questions... > > I'm interesting in trying out model flying good luck - you'll get a different opinion for every reply here... :+) my 2p's worth...hope it's of help go for leccy - it's a lot hassle for a newbie important question - are you going it alone, or is there anyone to hand that can show you the basics? If going it alone, forget about an ic-powered trainer, as it will last about 10 seconds (if you get it into the air) and you'll end up with an expensive bag of bits. Take a look at the Multiplex Easystar - this is a pusher-glider electric type, eg: http://www.brchobbies.co.uk/?page=shop&item=555 this version has most of the gear installed, and you can pick up 35Mhz Transmitter and Receiver pretty cheaply these day. It will need only a small flight battery that can be charged from a 12 v source with a cheapo Esky Lipo charger. The Easystar is made from moulded polypropylene which is very, very tough, but still flexible to absorb all but the worst 'arrivals'. If it does break, it's easily fixed with ordinary superglue, or in the event of a dent, can sometimes be fixed by dunking the afflicted bit into hot water. Trying to repair a fuel-soaked built-up model can be a dead loss. There are many advantages to this type of design for the go-it-alone learner. No undercarriage means that the fuselage won't get ripped apart by a less than good landing. You can test glide the thing by simply chucking it over long grass - just this alone will increase your confidence, and that's what learning is all about. All models require 'trimming' when built - that is, they need the control surfaces tweaking, the cg tweaking and so on, to make them fly well. But, as a beginner, you won't know how to do this in the air. If you can do this with a few test glides without needing the motor, it's a lot easier. (The old codgers here will now be off daydreaming about free flight models) The rear-facing prop is less likely to bite you or get broken, and as a powered glider with a thick wing section, it will be more stable, less likely to build up too much speed, but still be able to handle a little wind when you do make progress. Although there'll be many opinions expressed here, there are a couple of things that I think we'd all agree on: You will break it! Even after many years' flying, we all still do, now and then. So do consider repairability. It *will* end up looking tatty.... :+) If you manage to crack flying it, you will soon find the model too tame and want something a bit more lively - so can it be upgraded? The Easystar comes with a basic brushed motor, and there are any number of upgrades for this. Go have a look at: http://www.rcflights.co.uk/EasystarEquip.htm to see what one enthusiast has to say about these. hope that's of help..... best of luck cheers Dave and, in the main, want to find > out about what would be a good plane to start with. I'm aware that I should > join a club, get insurance (via membership of the BMFA?) and undertake my [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Thanks in advance, It's looking like the 100-quid foamy has gone for a burton, partly due to the concern that it may be too light for what I gather are typical wind conditions in my local area. If it's the case that a heavier plane neccessitates a bigger spend, then I have to work out a list of bits such that, if I decide this isn't for me, I can sell on without taking too much of a financial hit - or potentially find a way to reuse some of the stuff, at least. My questions here are about radio gear... The two clubs local to me mostly use Futaba gear, so I'd be going for something of that make on the basis that it will be easier to get advice and support based on the experience of others, and because there should be no issue with connecting up buddy cables. The 2.4GHz stuff looks very interesting. From what I can gather, this doesn't need frequency arbitration by allocating crystals to fliers - you just get your Tx and Rx locked to each other, and you're free to fly without worring about somebody else overriding your signals. I've seen stuff about packet filtering, and stuff about rapid frequency changing - is there one 2.4GHz system, or is there a relatively basic one and a fancier one with both interference rejection features? What's the deal with using something like a Futaba FASST radio for non-aviation models? I see 2.4GHz controllers for cars, for example. Aside from a plane, other potential interests in models include a yacht (nice lake near me that's conducive to this), and maybe a helicopter (as an alternative camera platform). There's also a latent interest in some sort of wheeled or tracked vehicle. For now, a plane is where my interest lies, with a yacht coming afterwards, and the others some time in the future with no specific plans. What's a sensible way to buy? Should I go for a Tx/Rx pack and get servos separately, or am I as well to get a kit with all the bits? Go for a Tx only, and buy Rx and servos as needed? If I go for an electric plane, how does the ESC fit into this scheme? Does the ESC plug into a servo output on the Rx and basically look like a servo to the system? Can I buy a second Rx (and servos) and lock that to the radio, such that I can run two different models without the need to swap the Rx over between them? Is second hand kit a viable option? Is there likely to be much 2.4GHz gear for sale used, or is it too new for much to be available? What kind of range can I expect to get? And... how many channels? I'm thinking that the 6EX is probably the 'recommended' starter set for this, but is six enough in the longer term? I see stuff about planes that use two servoes for ailerons to give flaps, which means five channels are used for a '4-channel' setup, meaning only one channel left over. If I were to progress to something with a retractable undercarriage, then that's the channels used up. Is there anything else I might want to use spare channels for, or is it the case that 7+ channels is disproprtionately expensive? The 6EX seems to sell for 170 quid, while the 7C/FF7 is over 300 - does it really cost that much just for an extra channel, or does it have extra features that make it worthwhile? I'm not sure that I really need extra model memories (6 and 10?), although the 7C seems to have a more sophisticated interface for setup. Does the 7C have additional programming options that the 6EX lacks? From what I've read, both have plenty of programming options (control mixing?). SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. > It's looking like the 100-quid foamy has gone for a burton, partly due to > the concern that it may be too light for what I gather are typical wind [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 2.4GHz system, or is there a relatively basic one and a fancier one with > both interference rejection features? different manufacturers use different methods for frequency and information so you are tied to that makers receivers > What's the deal with using something like a Futaba FASST radio for > non-aviation models? I see 2.4GHz controllers for cars, for example. Aside [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > coming afterwards, and the others some time in the future with no specific > plans. apart from the extra power a aircraft set uses I believe you can use it for any model > What's a sensible way to buy? Should I go for a Tx/Rx pack and get servos > separately, or am I as well to get a kit with all the bits? Go for a Tx > only, and buy Rx and servos as needed? If I go for an electric plane, how > does the ESC fit into this scheme? Does the ESC plug into a servo output on > the Rx and basically look like a servo to the system? you might get a better deal on a complete outfit so have a look at what you need first, a ESC just plugs into whatever channel you need it on > Can I buy a second Rx (and servos) and lock that to the radio, such that I > can run two different models without the need to swap the Rx over between > them? Is second hand kit a viable option? Is there likely to be much 2.4GHz > gear for sale used, or is it too new for much to be available? > > What kind of range can I expect to get? with a full power aircraft set and full range receiver you should have control beyond the point you can actually see the model > And... how many channels? I'm thinking that the 6EX is probably the > 'recommended' starter set for this, but is six enough in the longer term? I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > options that the 6EX lacks? From what I've read, both have plenty of > programming options (control mixing?). I have a Futaba 9c and have never used flaps(apart from dropping the ailerons)or retracts, 5 channels are the most I normally use ,the 7 and 9 have better mixing functions/features that for a beginner are more or less wasted but nice to have later SignatureKevin R Reply address works > different manufacturers use different methods for frequency and > information so you are tied to that makers receivers Yes, was already aware of that. I was meaning, is it all the stuff within Futaba's range? >> What's the deal with using something like a Futaba FASST radio for >> non-aviation models? ... > apart from the extra power a aircraft set uses I believe you can use > it for any model Good - extends its uses quite a bit. By extra power, do you mean the extra channels and configurability? Or Tx power? > you might get a better deal on a complete outfit so have a look at > what you need first, a ESC just plugs into whatever channel you > need it on Righto. >> What kind of range can I expect to get? >> > with a full power aircraft set and full range receiver you should have > control beyond the point you can actually see the model ...which is plenty, I think. > I have a Futaba 9c and have never used flaps(apart from dropping the > ailerons) ... I think that's what I was meaning - something to do with flicking a switch on the Tx and the ailerons operate in tandem as flaps. > ... or retracts, 5 channels are the most I normally use ,the 7 > and 9 have better mixing functions/features that for a beginner are > more or less wasted but nice to have later I'll do some reading and see what I can learn about the mixing functions each. To an extent, the available facilities could shape future plans (thinking ahead to other types of model, here, and also wondering what could be done in terms of camera control). SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk You're unique - just like everybody else. >> different manufacturers use different methods for frequency and >> information so you are tied to that makers receivers > > Yes, was already aware of that. I was meaning, is it all the stuff > within Futaba's range? Um, finger trouble. I meant... "Is it the same for all the stuff within Futaba's range?" SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. >>> different manufacturers use different methods for frequency and >>> information so you are tied to that makers receivers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "Is it the same for all the stuff within Futaba's range?" Futaba use FAST which is frequency hopping and the same on all Futaba sets, Spectrum use 2 channels, Spectrum seem to me to have the better system but that's just my personal view, and to be honest I am on 35Mhz and its getting better all the time as everybody else moves over to 2.4ghz and you wont get a £6 receiver on 2.4ghz so I have no immediate need to swap 8 planes over to 2.4ghz as it will cost a fortune SignatureKevin R Reply address works >>>> different manufacturers use different methods for frequency and >>>> information so you are tied to that makers receivers [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >receiver on 2.4ghz so I have no immediate need to swap 8 planes over to >2.4ghz as it will cost a fortune The Spectrum starts up and looks at the frequencies available and picks two free ones. It's possible (but unlikely) that it can pick 2 channels that are free and then get interference on them, and it will not move off the preset channels. At least as the Futaba is hopping around it will move off the interference channels. It's a remote chance but still a chance, and I'm with you staying on 35Mhz.. >> different manufacturers use different methods for frequency and >> information so you are tied to that makers receivers [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > (thinking ahead to other types of model, here, and also wondering what could > be done in terms of camera control). one model to learn on is a Zagi nearly indestructible about £40 stock setup go brushless later and boy are they fast & ugly http://shop.avicraft.co.uk/product_info.php?currency=GBP&products_id=1458 chuck in a brushless £8 motor £6 esc £12 battery and have fun I re-learnt to fly on one and its been in trees and several crashes and still going strong SignatureKevin R Reply address works > It's looking like the 100-quid foamy has gone for a burton, partly due to > the concern that it may be too light for what I gather are typical wind [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 2.4GHz system, or is there a relatively basic one and a fancier one with > both interference rejection features? There is a standard which all must confirm tom but that leaves a huge area for incompatibility as well. No two manufacturers gear will work with each other AFAIA. Religion abounds, as do early adopters finding serious flaws. Thers good second gen 2.4 stiff coming nstream, and of course a ton of 35Mhz stuff ultra cheap on ebay... > What's the deal with using something like a Futaba FASST radio for > non-aviation models? I see 2.4GHz controllers for cars, for example. Aside [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > coming afterwards, and the others some time in the future with no specific > plans. Think it's all street legal. > What's a sensible way to buy? Should I go for a Tx/Rx pack and get servos > separately, or am I as well to get a kit with all the bits? Not if you want small servos. Buy TX/RX as a matched pair, and buy servos online cheap! >Go for a Tx > only, and buy Rx and servos as needed? If I go for an electric plane, how > does the ESC fit into this scheme? Does the ESC plug into a servo output on > the Rx and basically look like a servo to the system? Yes. It also (gernerally) supplies the power to the servos and receiver. > Can I buy a second Rx (and servos) and lock that to the radio, such that I > can run two different models without the need to swap the Rx over between > them? Yes. > Is second hand kit a viable option? Is there likely to be much 2.4GHz > gear for sale used, or is it too new for much to be available? Npt a lot. And it commands a price. > What kind of range can I expect to get? About 500m with parkfly sets about 1500meters with 'pukka;' gear. Watch out for some systems that only have 10mW txes. For full range 100mW is needed. A small plane is pretty hard to control at 200m a large one at 500m. Big gliders often go further tho > And... how many channels? I'm thinking that the 6EX is probably the > 'recommended' starter set for this, but is six enough in the longer term? Basically yes, unless you are doing something special. Like air brakes/crow brakes and flaps as well as retracts and so on. Better transmitters have ore mixing ability and more model memory too. Both are useful. Esp model memories,. However you wont know what you want later now, so don't worry about it. I > see stuff about planes that use two servoes for ailerons to give flaps, > which means five channels are used for a '4-channel' setup, meaning only one > channel left over. If I were to progress to something with a retractable > undercarriage, then that's the channels used up. Is there anything else I > might want to use spare channels for, or is it the case that 7+ channels is > disproprtionately expensive? It shouldn't be. The main cost is in extra switches and so on. > The 6EX seems to sell for 170 quid, while the 7C/FF7 is over 300 - does it > really cost that much just for an extra channel, or does it have extra [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > options that the 6EX lacks? From what I've read, both have plenty of > programming options (control mixing?). IIRC it has a lot more programming. BTW if you et a TX that has a removeable RF module, second hand on 35Mhz, you can buy third party 2.4Ghz stuff to plug in there instead. > There is a standard which all must confirm tom but that leaves a huge > area for incompatibility as well. No two manufacturers gear will work > with each other AFAIA. Religion abounds, as do early adopters finding > serious flaws. Thers good second gen 2.4 stiff coming nstream, and of > course a ton of 35Mhz stuff ultra cheap on ebay... The ability to use the same stuff for non-aviation models is a fairly big factor - I'm rather more inclined to buy dearer kit if it has the potential for multiple uses. >> What's a sensible way to buy? Should I go for a Tx/Rx pack and get >> servos separately, or am I as well to get a kit with all the bits? > > Not if you want small servos. Buy TX/RX as a matched pair, and buy > servos online cheap! I was looking more at the 6EX and FF7 options. The 6EX at 170 quid comes with S3003 servos, while the FF7 at 315 has S3152s. The S3003s are 8 quid each, and the S3152s are 27 quid each. The FF7 is also available as a Tx/Rx pack for 200 quid (from Al's Hobbies), so the 115 difference matches the servo price. (And the Tx/Rx cost difference works out to 60 quid.) The S3152 is described as a digital servo - what does that mean, and I do I need it if I get an FF7 - or can I buy the FF7 Tx/Rx combo and use the cheapie servos? (On a side note, is 250 quid for the FF7 2.4GHz full set a good price?) > Yes. It also (gernerally) supplies the power to the servos and > receiver. The speed controller is controlled by the Rx, but supplies power to the Rx? The battery connects to the ESC to ensure high current transfer with minimal series contacts, with a spur feeding power to the rest? >> What kind of range can I expect to get? >> > About 500m with parkfly sets about 1500meters with 'pukka;' gear. > Watch out for some systems that only have 10mW txes. For full range > 100mW is needed. A small plane is pretty hard to control at 200m a > large one at 500m. Big gliders often go further tho Righto. > Basically yes, unless you are doing something special. Like air > brakes/crow brakes and flaps as well as retracts and so on. Better > transmitters have ore mixing ability and more model memory too. Both > are useful. Esp model memories,. However you wont know what you want > later now, so don't worry about it. Per my other post, one thing that springs to mind is camera controls. No solid ideas at present, but there may be possibilities there. > BTW if you et a TX that has a removeable RF module, second hand on > 35Mhz, you can buy third party 2.4Ghz stuff to plug in there instead. I'm not sure that that's economically viable - seems that the module and Rx are quite expensive on their own. SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk You're unique - just like everybody else. >> Yes. It also (gernerally) supplies the power to the servos and >> receiver. > > The speed controller is controlled by the Rx, but supplies power to the Rx? > The battery connects to the ESC to ensure high current transfer with minimal > series contacts, with a spur feeding power to the rest? *regulated 5v* spur. with some limitations on current delivery/power dissipation. > Per my other post, one thing that springs to mind is camera controls. No > solid ideas at present, but there may be possibilities there. yes. You would probably use retratcts or some monetary switch fr that function. >> BTW if you et a TX that has a removeable RF module, second hand on >> 35Mhz, you can buy third party 2.4Ghz stuff to plug in there instead. > > I'm not sure that that's economically viable - seems that the module and Rx > are quite expensive on their own. Depends if you already have £250 of transmitter with 16 models programmed in ;-) > *regulated 5v* spur. with some limitations on current delivery/power > dissipation. If the Rx and servos are the same for both, what provides regulation and current limiting in an IC model? Or do they use a lower voltage battery, and is the current limiting only with regard to the motor on an electric? Is there an argument for a separate Rx/servo battery on an electric? > yes. You would probably use retratcts or some monetary switch fr that > function. Ah, do retracts work with a momentary switch, with motion controlled on the plane? Or does the Tx send a constant signal (up or down) with some kind of limit switch/electronics on the plane? > Depends if you already have £250 of transmitter with 16 models > programmed in ;-) All I have a 20-quid Tx-alike USB joystick and some sim software. :) SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk Call me a saint, call me a sinner - just don't call me... late for dinner. >> *regulated 5v* spur. with some limitations on current delivery/power >> dissipation. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is the current limiting only with regard to the motor on an electric? Is > there an argument for a separate Rx/servo battery on an electric? 4.8v 4 cell Nicd used in IC model. No regulation. There are arguments for using separate batteries, yes, but the other eternative is a sparate higher power regulator running off the motyor battery. >> yes. You would probably use retratcts or some monetary switch fr that >> function. > > Ah, do retracts work with a momentary switch, with motion controlled on the > plane? Or does the Tx send a constant signal (up or down) with some kind of > limit switch/electronics on the plane? retracts on fixed switch. Yould have to manually toggle it. >> Depends if you already have £250 of transmitter with 16 models >> programmed in ;-) > > All I have a 20-quid Tx-alike USB joystick and some sim software. :) Right... >> There is a standard which all must confirm tom but that leaves a huge >> area for incompatibility as well. No two manufacturers gear will work [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >factor - I'm rather more inclined to buy dearer kit if it has the potential >for multiple uses. You can only go for 2.4 Ghz then, 35Mhz is for Air use only, 40Mhz Ground only There's no reason why 2.4 sets cannot be used for ground, but they don't have all the same programming as a dedicated ground set. (it the one with the car wheel as a steering wheel) they'll be able to do the same just they may be labeled differently, or your have to make custom mixes. >>> What's a sensible way to buy? Should I go for a Tx/Rx pack and get >>> servos separately, or am I as well to get a kit with all the bits? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I get an FF7 - or can I buy the FF7 Tx/Rx combo and use the cheapie servos? >(On a side note, is 250 quid for the FF7 2.4GHz full set a good price?) Some of it depends on how you think you'll get on in the hobby. A 6EX will suffice for starting and a few years, but after that you may be wanting advanced mixing that's on the FF7. Inwoods have the FF7 2,4Ghz full set for £240, so the price is about right. The 6EX 2.4 Ghz full set is £160. If at a later date you want to upgrade to the FF7 you have to throw away the 6EX and buy a new Tx, the ff& 2.4 Ghz set is £140. So it's cheaper from the offset to buy it if you think you'll need it. If your not in a rush wait for the summer model shows there's usually some deals on there. Servo wise don't scrimp, and certainly don't buy any off Ebay until you really understand what you are buying. The servo's can be the difference between pulling out of trouble and hitting the deck. It's not a case of getting the absolute cheapest you can, but rather getting the most appropriate for the model, at the best price. Digital servo's (that's the S3152) are more than analog (the S3003), but spec Wise (hope this is legible!) 3152 3003 Speed .23 sec/60° @ 4.8V .22 sec/60° @ 4.8V Torque: 44 oz-in @ 4.8V 69 oz-in @ 4.8V Size: Same Weight: 1.3oz (37.2g) Weight: 1.5oz (42g) The S3152 are designed to put 50% more torque so they'll push bigger control surfaces, and hold them there in the face of wind pressure. They'd be wasted on a trainer, but if you buy a 3D aerobatic model they'll shine. >Per my other post, one thing that springs to mind is camera controls. No >solid ideas at present, but there may be possibilities there. Forget it. It will take you up to two years to learn to fly, then worry about the camera, most setups use a self timer on the shutter (google chdk for Canon cameras to see how you can make the simplest canon take photo's every few seconds without user intervention). or a servo adapter than causes the shutter to be released, either way both the ff7 and 6ex have the spare channel that can do this. >> BTW if you et a TX that has a removeable RF module, second hand on >> 35Mhz, you can buy third party 2.4Ghz stuff to plug in there instead. > >I'm not sure that that's economically viable - seems that the module and Rx >are quite expensive on their own. The Modules are about £100, if your buying new buy what you need, module are only viable if you have a expensive transmitter already. You may also want to try finding a local club, they may have the equipment you can try before splashing out on the kit. > There's no reason why 2.4 sets cannot be used for ground, but they > don't have all the same programming as a dedicated ground set. (it the > one with the car wheel as a steering wheel) they'll be able to do the > same just they may be labeled differently, or your have to make custom > mixes. I'm not too fussed about having the 'wrong' controls for a wheeled vehicle - not looking to race cars or play with monster trucks. My interest is some sort of robotics project involving something that can move itself around the floor, so I'm thinking that using r/c to operate the servos while developing the mechanical and motive aspects would be useful. I can follow that up later with an autonomous control system (perhaps using PICs and some sort of driver circuitry for the servos). All that is some way off, though - just something I'd like to keep in mind if the same radio gear can be used for such an endeavour. > ... > If at a later date you want to upgrade to the FF7 you have to throw > away the 6EX and buy a new Tx, the ff& 2.4 Ghz set is £140. So it's > cheaper from the offset to buy it if you think you'll need it. Aye, I'll have to do a feature comparison and crunch some numbers. > If your not in a rush wait for the summer model shows there's usually > some deals on there. I think I'd like to start a bit sooner than that - a guy from one of the local clubs says flying tends to start around March. > The S3152 are designed to put 50% more torque so they'll push bigger > control surfaces, and hold them there in the face of wind pressure. > They'd be wasted on a trainer, but if you buy a 3D aerobatic model > they'll shine. So arguably not needed. I'm not sure that 3D aerobatics attracts me at the moment, although I appreciate that that could change later. I take it that the analog ones with 6EX should work with any trainer I'm likely to get. > It will take you up to two years to learn to fly, then worry about the > camera, most setups use a self timer on the shutter (google chdk for > Canon cameras to see how you can make the simplest canon take photo's > every few seconds without user intervention). or a servo adapter than > causes the shutter to be released, either way both the ff7 and 6ex > have the spare channel that can do this. I'm talking about video - bullet cam and digital recorder. I was thinking of something like a retract, where the camera is underslung (maybe inside something to limit drag) and can be oriented to look ahead-and-down, or straight down (or aft, maybe). SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk If it ain't broke, fix it until it is. >> There's no reason why 2.4 sets cannot be used for ground, but they >> don't have all the same programming as a dedicated ground set. (it the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >something I'd like to keep in mind if the same radio gear can be used for >such an endeavour. The main point is the frequencies. It's illegal to use 35Mhz on a ground based machine (be it a car or robot), just as you cannot use 40Mhz for a Airplane. 2.4 is open to all. >> ... >> If at a later date you want to upgrade to the FF7 you have to throw [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I think I'd like to start a bit sooner than that - a guy from one of the >local clubs says flying tends to start around March. Wuss's : ) We fly all Winter and I've got mud encrusted boots, trousers, jackets and planes to prove it! I'd say go to the club and see what they have. Most clubs tend to be Futaba based, and if that's the case you on the right track. If the club is JR biased it may be better to get JR, as the club members will have experience of programming and setting them up. Most (except for the cheapest) Transmitters have a buddy system where you can link an instructors TX to a students. Just like dual controls in a car the instructor can take control back, and hopefully prevent a crash. This only really works well on the same brand, so again visiting the club first could save you money. They may also have some used gear for sale. Probably not on 2.4 but worth asking. >> The S3152 are designed to put 50% more torque so they'll push bigger >> control surfaces, and hold them there in the face of wind pressure. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >moment, although I appreciate that that could change later. I take it that >the analog ones with 6EX should work with any trainer I'm likely to get. To be honest it depends on your budget, they are wasted on a trainer, and you may carry them forward into a aerobatic model, but then again you may well crash the trainer and write the whole thing off as you learn. I went through two trainers as I learned to fly, I think at least one of them I broke at least one servo, so it's horses for courses. Then again if you buy the FF7 you may as well use them rather than buy more just for the sake of it. Analog and digital servos are interchangeable, it refers to how it works in the servo case, they work off the same signal, be it analog radio (PPM) Digital (PCM) or digital 2.4Ghz. They also work across brands, you don't need to pair Futaba servo's with a Futaba receiver The only important thing to remember about the same brand is if you go digital (either PCM on 35Mhz/40Mhz or 2.4Ghz) you need to have the same brand Transmitter and Receiver. >> It will take you up to two years to learn to fly, then worry about the >> camera, most setups use a self timer on the shutter (google chdk for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >something to limit drag) and can be oriented to look ahead-and-down, or >straight down (or aft, maybe). As you learn to fly a trainer you won't have time to worry about it. Trainers are very boxy and a bit extra drag won't make any difference. I have a Ixus 60 I put under a plane, it changes the balance slightly but doesn't really make any appreciable difference to the plane, either from an extra weight or drag point of view. Okay, the radio deal is done. I went for the 7C/FF7 2.4GHz outfit with the digital servos, for 250 quid. Reasons... The shop was open today (and a tenner's worth of petrol away). They didn't have any 6EXs left (at 140 quid). Extra channel. Wider range of programming options. More model memories. Better screen and programming interface. I was planning to have a last consideration between the 6EX and the 7C, although I think my heart was set on the 7C in any case. Having looked at the numbers, I felt the extra spend was worth it, mainly from the point of view of future proofing. No matter how you work it, going from the 6EX to the 7C is an expensive way to end up with a 7C. Given that there are a certain amount of unknowns regarding my needs (in-plane camera controls, and god-knows-what with the future robotic vehicle), I reckoned it was better to get the more sophisticated radio at the start. Batteries are on charge an much reading of the manual will ensue. :) SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk If it ain't broke, fix it until it is. > Okay, the radio deal is done. I went for the 7C/FF7 2.4GHz outfit with the > digital servos, for 250 quid. Reasons... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Batteries are on charge an much reading of the manual will ensue. :) did you decide on a model yet? SignatureKevin R Reply address works > did you decide on a model yet? Not yet. Got a bunch of homework to do on that, still. The guy in the shop seemed to think that IC was the way to go for a starter, on the premise that I won't need any more than a plane, an engine, and fuel - apparently, someone else will be doing all the stuff like starting until I can be trusted to do it myself. His argument was that IC is a cheaper entry and is quicker to get back in the air since there is no battery recharge time; and that batteries comparable with a .40 IC would be rather expensive if one wants to match the turnaround time of refuelling. IC might have further cost eventually, but his point was 'more flying, less waiting, less initial outlay'. This was a shop in a different town, however, so I don't know if what he's describing would happen at the clubs near me. I connected the radio bits up and the servos all do servo stuff. Next is to learn enough of the programming to assign controls to the other three channels and see if they're okay as well. SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk I eat my peas with honey, I've done it all my life. It makes the peas taste funny, but it keeps them on the knife. (Spike Milligan) >> did you decide on a model yet? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >outlay'. This was a shop in a different town, however, so I don't know if >what he's describing would happen at the clubs near me. He's pretty right. IC seems a bit more to start with but it's older known technology. The engines are pretty simple to use and maintain. You need to remember to add in the cost of a Glow Starter, gel cell battery and a starter motor, you may not do the starting but you should have your own kit anyway.. Electric is simple but the Batteries (usually lithium ion) can be a pig, and can be really expensive. Especially when they fail for no reason and you have to replace them. Battery will take at least an hour to fast charge and repeated fast charging will stuff a battery. I'm surprised they didn't try and sell you a package all in one with the TX. Trainer wise there is usually very little difference between them in terms of performance and build. And I'd say get a "decent" engine, Irvine or OS (but not the blue OS LA series) , that means you'll have decent amounts of power (the LA is a budget engine and not really sporty). Avoid SC, RMX and MDS engines. In the club we've had Boomerangs, Arising Stars and Irvine Tutor trainer planes, they all have the same handling characteristics, ie slow, stable, predictable. Despite the different brands and names parts are usually interchangeable too.. Forget the names go for a cheap one, trust me you are probably going to crash it a few times.. Like anything you don't want to be doing anything to the model until someone's explained it to you, purely on a safety basis. At this point you need to contact a local club and find out about them. Then get the plane, engine etc and build it (should only take a weekend), and take it to a club meeting / flying day. Someone will check it over and assuming all's OK they may get you up that day for the first time. >I connected the radio bits up and the servos all do servo stuff. Next is to >learn enough of the programming to assign controls to the other three >channels and see if they're okay as well. Don't bother. Most trainers don't need any programming, they are simple beasts. One channel each for Throttle, Ailerons, Elevator and Rudder. If you learn the programming now you'll probably have forgot it all by the time you need it. You may want to look at buying / borrowing (The club you join may have one) a simulator, that lets you use your transmitter on the PC and you can try and learn at home. It's NOT the same as being at the field, mainly as you have a limited field of view on a screen compared to in real life, but if it saves you a repair or two it's worth it. Prices vary from Free (FMS but you need to make . buy an interface) to up to £150 for the best ones. Oh and welcome to the money pit of Model Flying.. > He's pretty right. IC seems a bit more to start with but it's older > known technology. The engines are pretty simple to use and maintain. > You need to remember to add in the cost of a Glow Starter, gel cell > battery and a starter motor, you may not do the starting but you > should have your own kit anyway.. He was quite clear that they use their gear at first, and the beginner buys his own later. That would be at a different club, though, so might not apply in my local area. > Electric is simple but the Batteries (usually lithium ion) can be a > pig, and can be really expensive. Especially when they fail for no > reason and you have to replace them. Battery will take at least an > hour to fast charge and repeated fast charging will stuff a battery. I'll do some more serious numbers on this once I've homed in on a first plane. Either way, it seems that there are good and bad points for both. > I'm surprised they didn't try and sell you a package all in one with > the TX. It wasn't a hard sell place - seemed happy to answer questions. > Trainer wise there is usually very little difference between them in > terms of performance and build. And I'd say get a "decent" engine, > Irvine or OS (but not the blue OS LA series) , that means you'll > have decent amounts of power (the LA is a budget engine and not really > sporty). Avoid SC, RMX and MDS engines. Why? Do they have reliability issues? > In the club we've had Boomerangs, Arising Stars and Irvine Tutor > trainer planes, they all have the same handling characteristics, ie > slow, stable, predictable. Despite the different brands and names > parts are usually interchangeable too.. > Forget the names go for a cheap one, trust me you are probably going > to crash it a few times.. One that I saw attracted me on the basis of size: MFA Skyhawk... http://www.sussex-model-centre.co.uk/shopexd.asp?id=38 It's a bit dearer than some, but the wing will fit in the boot of the car. Has 'veneered' foam wings (veneered with what?) and a GRP fuselage. Suited to a smaller engine (15-25, it says). > Like anything you don't want to be doing anything to the model until > someone's explained it to you, purely on a safety basis. At this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > over and assuming all's OK they may get you up that day for the first > time. Okay. > Most trainers don't need any programming, they are simple beasts. One > channel each for Throttle, Ailerons, Elevator and Rudder. If you > learn the programming now you'll probably have forgot it all by the > time you need it. Nah - I doubt I'll forget. Even if I forget some, I'll remember plenty, and it'll be easier to relearn any bits that I have forgotten later. Not learning it for the purpose of setting up a trainer neccessarily, but to understand what options it gives me (not just for planes). > You may want to look at buying / borrowing (The club you join may > have one) a simulator, that lets you use your transmitter on the PC [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you a repair or two it's worth it. Prices vary from Free (FMS but you > need to make . buy an interface) to up to £150 for the best ones. I got the 20-quid Reality Craft one. > Oh and welcome to the money pit of Model Flying.. Not the first money pit I've been in. :) SignatureWally www.wally.myby.co.uk I eat my peas with honey, I've done it all my life. It makes the peas taste funny, but it keeps them on the knife. (Spike Milligan) >> He's pretty right. IC seems a bit more to start with but it's older >> known technology. The engines are pretty simple to use and maintain. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Why? Do they have reliability issues? not at all the don't start often enough to become unreliable :-) seriously they will either be a pig to start or keep cutting out in flight or the will work ok so you either get a bad one or a good one ASP have a look at just engines for engines they wont sell duff makes http://www.justengines.unseen.org/ these are the dogs dangleys you wont get much better service anywhere I have had SC engines that are brilliant but others in the club hate the things the only motor I run at the moment is a ASP 80 FS and I love it its never cut out in flight yet >> In the club we've had Boomerangs, Arising Stars and Irvine Tutor >> trainer planes, they all have the same handling characteristics, ie [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Has 'veneered' foam wings (veneered with what?) and a GRP fuselage. Suited > to a smaller engine (15-25, it says). Veneer could be anything Ply, balsa, obeche >> Like anything you don't want to be doing anything to the model until >> someone's explained it to you, purely on a safety basis. At this [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > learning it for the purpose of setting up a trainer neccessarily, but to > understand what options it gives me (not just for planes). >> You may want to look at buying / borrowing (The club you join may >> have one) a simulator, that lets you use your transmitter on the PC [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Not the first money pit I've been in. :) SignatureKevin R Reply address works >> did you decide on a model yet? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > outlay'. This was a shop in a different town, however, so I don't know if > what he's describing would happen at the clubs near me. == he knows sod all about electric Which is still very much the way things are. > I connected the radio bits up and the servos all do servo stuff. Next is to > learn enough of the programming to assign controls to the other three > channels and see if they're okay as well. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.