All Activity

Hiya Martin, yes that’s correct, messed up on the last flight Norman

Bramhall, F5, Fresh, 3min 16sec Been really busy this month but had to get a flight in. Best of 6 flights, temp was 3 degrees and the field like a bog. Sorry John

Thanks for the explanation Not a problem how you present the information, I just need to understand what I am seeing. I much prefer a proper timer than trying to read from a graph. Thanks

Martyn, competition restart is when the nano automatically resets the height when below certain height (on landing), so you can relaunch without having to disconnect and reconnect battery to reinitialise the nano. It works quite well but not as accurate as proper battery reset, hence some launches are higher. I wrote my own lua script for the timings. As soon as the motor cuts, I pull a switch which starts the timer. On landing I pull another switch to stop timer. I can't be doing with pen and paper at the field. I agree the traces are messy with all the annotations. If you want to ban comp restarts then I will do a separate trace for each flight and reconnect battery each time.

Updated table:

New table:

@Norman Turner Norman, you have only submitted 4 flights. Is that correct? M

Struggling to read this one. I assume that all flights were from a hand launch. Is that correct? Was the 20 seconds deducted from the times displayed on your Taranis? # Thanks

Hi David I am not putting any restriction on the AMRT beyond motor run duration and altitude cut off. These are 'fun' events and I wouldn't want anyone to risk a model. If you force a restart, then I expect you to own up and ZERO your flight, not null it.. Does that make sense (all)?

First, a bit about my design decisions and findings: My early encounters with the class; it looked like some of the current designs were barely fit for my purpose. The typical appeal for light weight seemed to result in cases of serious flutter and/or difficulties in returning after following a thermal any distance downwind. I also looked at various kits and chatted with others regarding quality and their build experiences. I suspected I could come up with my own design which would be a better fit for my criterion; namely Low cost, cheap power train, 550g or less, good thermal response and tough enough for typical UK weather conditions. Not to mention the satisfaction of flying my own design. Fuselage ideas: I’m not too keen on carbon booms because they’re difficult to ‘field repair’ , cost more than balsa builds and they dislike shock loads compared to traditional materials. Result, a balsa & lite ply fuselage with sufficient space for RC gear, battery of choice etc. Also the cross section should be predominantly rounded for minimum wetted surface and torsional stiffness; also it’s my preference for looks! the wing should bolt on the top of the fus’ for easy changes, and the tail feathers need to be fully removable without any spikey bits sticking out for easy transport. Wings: For relative ease of build, I’ve avoided a fully elliptical plan because the benefit is marginal in this class when compared to increasing tapered panels approximating an elliptical plan. The leading edges of each panel could also be made strongly and ‘ding proof’ with straight carbon rod and strip. Airfoil choice was originally ag35 to ag37 which was easy to build because of the ‘flat’ underside. I then experimented with the ag24 to ag27 series with greater success; so I settled on that. The sections transition throughout the span. The polyhedral wing needed to divided into 3 sections, with a wide centre spoiler and compact transportation. The spoiler chord has become thinner and increased in width in the latest version through experimentation. The centre spoiled doesn’t have any noticeable effect on tailplane authority. Tailplane: The fin has a couple of 2mm carbon rod spars which go into aluminium tubes in the fuselage. A single M3 screw goes through the fus’ into the bottom of the fin to hold it all together. The stabiliser is sandwiched between fin and fuselage by the same components. Electronics: Low cost motor choice was determined by diameter & being able to get to 100M in 15 sec. This leaves 15 to push out in the direction of expected thermals! 23mm dia. results in a relatively small nose section and complements a 32mm spinner. 8x5.5 prop or 9x5 work well with the motor size. The motors used so far cost between £17 and £34 so unlikely to break the bank. A 20A esc is ample. In fact I’m using 15A in my models. batteries are 450 to 550mAh 3s which gives 2 flights with safety margin, and 3 flights for new batteries with full capacity. Tail servos are typically 9g to 11g. 5g 20x8mm is used for the spoiler. A DLG style Z spring made from 0.5mm piano wire is used for spoiler closing. Tail servos are in the fus’ forward of the wing for easy access. 2mm carbon rods are used to the control surfaces. The rods go through holes in the fuselage formers without any guide tubing. This saves tail weight and I’ve never had one fail, so feeding a new one through the fuselage isn’t necessary. The former spacing is adequate for guiding the rods without them buckling. all the electronics, with the exception of the spoiler servo, fits in the nose which makes for easy wiring. The nose length was made to balance the Raven without needing additional weight. There’s ample space under the wing at the C of G for ballast if needed. You could easily fit 300g but I’ve not had to use more than 100g in windy conditions. Next instalment will be the fuselage build. Watch this space if you’re interested!

good point, had'nt occurred to me thanks

Norman, blow up your start, it looks like you are holding onto the model for too long. If you look at the single graph of my launch (just above), there is one second between opening the throttle and climbing up in the air. It is too easy to hang onto the model for too long.

When you start. It is easier on the pack and will produce more power, enabling Norman to get to 60m

When you start or as a gauge to how hard the batteries have been used during the climb?

Make sure that your batteries are warm.

Brand new set of extended side levers and a set of standared size levers used but vgood condition. £30 posted uk please pm me if interested

Martyn, can you confirm if we are allowing competition restart or not? I flew yesterday, forecast 6mph was the usual 10mph. Sunny but cold. No chance of long flights but had a go at this challenge. Too cold to read lift or wait so consecutive launches. Only one of them looks a bit high, but that was my worst flight, straight up and down.

That’s a good point, thank you Andy. My settings are correct, I’ll have to try and climb faster. All a good learning experience Cheers

In the post above, though I changed from a comparison between light and heavy planes, there was far more (each flight) that I was changing. RC Electonic's AMRT is meant to be such that you can't exceed the set height – It will stop height gain from zooming by cutting early if climbing fast. Well, there is a work around, which works on all. So here are the launches..... First, the climb should last for 16 – 19sec. You also want to build in some energy (speed) without much height gain, look at the dips (done badly in some cases, because I am human. There is a transfer of energy from speed to height, which you can see as a gradually increasing steepness in the chart. Well it does work, because I can get well over 60m all with (probably) less than 60W. So here is the highest one, zooming from 58m to 69m (On <60W). There are 2 lines, one is the actual model and the other is the Vario trace. No I DON'T have a vario, it is just a function in the software. The black dot is where IT cuts the motor and the yellow dot is where I close the throttle. At the top, you can see where the energy is used up. That extra 9m at a sink rate of 0.3m/sec gives (9 / 0.3) an extra 30secs duration. Here is the fourth flight. I had done quite a re-trim. It ruined the launch and the flight was really poor, but not as bad as the second flight, which I aborted but was still over 3mins from only 50m. This happens when you change a model's settings, but still fly in the same manner.

Richard is doing tow launch - There is no height limit.

Indeed. The BMFA (and the people who do whatever the BMFA says) said "Neither yes nor no". And the BMFA want £47 for 2024. (CAP 2609)

Norman, your motor is switching off a long way before 60m. Either that or you are climbing too slowly and not reaching 60m in 20 seconds. I would suggest that height gives a greater advantage than time In comparison to the others you are losing a lot of height. As an f5res you should be seeing the motor cut at exactly 60m, and a little bit of zoom climb meaning that you commence the downhill part from about 65m. Check your Altis settings.

A comment overheard the other day:- "I don't mind if they do bring in this remote ID - I'll fit it to my aeroplane when the CAA design one that will fit and when they pay for it too. Oh and I'll need 50 of them , one for each of my models". John M

Richard, that is how I would have liked to display my flights, but if you try that the cut at 60m does not work (emergency start Anthony, I think Richard is using Competition restart. It resets the parameters .

In the call for input over 50 precent said definitely no to remote Id. Except the bmfa of course So bring in remote Id