RE: Magnum 80
Ripon, Thanks! It would be good to see the construction article, could you scan it? Thanks!!!
Posted on: 8/31/2012 12:40 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11212796

RE: Magnum 80
Anybody know where you can get plans for the Magnum 80? The link for lasershortkits.com is dead.
Posted on: 8/21/2012 5:26 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11201411

RE: Breezy Hill RC Flyers Canned Food Fly
Just noticed that our link above to the Google maps page isn't taking you to the right place for some reason... For directions to our flying field, click the link below to go to Google Maps. To use your GPS unit, enter these coordinates. http://g.co/maps/sv7xk GPS Coordinates 37° 55' 36.55" N 89° 50' 37.61" W See you at Breezy Hill! Brian Dudenbostel, CD
Posted on: 4/3/2012 8:07 AM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "Events, Shows and Fun Fly's - Airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11026527

Uninterruptible Power Supplies
Has anyone tried using an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) for a computer to power their battery charger(s)? Specifically, I have 2 Accucycle Elites, and I would like to power them with a UPS while doing cycle checks on my flight packs. It isn't uncommon around here for the power to go off for 5 seconds or so every now and then, and I don't want that to cause the chargers to go offline forcing a restart on the cycling. I have a CyberPower 550VA UPS that I was going to use for this, but a note on the bottom of the unit says that the power output is non-sinusoidal, with a THD of 52.7% and a single harmonic of 35.2%. Not being an electronics guru, what exactly does that mean? Can I use this UPS to power my AccuCycles with their stock AC power supplies, or will the UPS fry the transformers? Thanks!
Posted on: 2/28/2012 9:06 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "Batteries & Chargers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10980922

RE: When you renew do you go for the two year option?
Yes. Been doing the 2 year Option for the past 10-12 years now.
Posted on: 2/14/2012 7:37 AM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10958424

New Aurora 9 owner... 3 quick questions
Just got my new Aurora 9, and I have a couple of questions: On the box, there is a sticker that reads "Firmware version 2.01"... but if I look at the Hitec website, it looks as if they are only showing version 1.9x for the Aurora. Any ideas? Seems kinda wierd to me... stock that has been sitting on the shelf for ??? being ahead of the current update level on the website. The manual states that the tx should have a 2000mAh Eneloop battery pack, but it looks to instead be a 1300mAh generic (hopefully Sanyo) NiMH pack. Cost saving measures? The manual also states that the red light on the charger will go out after the pack is charged. Is this wall wart really a peak detection charger? By my calculations, the pack should be charged about 22.75 hours for the first "forming" charge... and I did that. I disconnected the charger after about 25 hours when the red light never went out... so this charger behaves as if it's a "dumb" wall wart. What's the real story? Can't wait to fly it!
Posted on: 9/2/2011 4:08 AM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "Hitec/MultiPlex Radios- Ask Hitec Customer Service"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10698024

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Hmmm... might have to go for the Jack Daniels... that way the wife wouldn't complain!!! She keeps saying "Jack is my friend!" I keep telling her during the drive home, "No he's not!!!" [:)]
Posted on: 7/24/2011 6:06 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10637035

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Registered!!! What color scheme(s) will you have?
Posted on: 7/24/2011 4:04 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10636834

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Don, Thanks for the reply on the FM 60. I sure would like to see some video of the 60 size FM with the .77VRDF's! I remember years back guys were building .20 size Stiks and putting the OS .25VRDF's with tuned pipes on them, and holy cow! The way you described it is just perfect... they didn't perform a takeoff, they Launched! Have you ever lost the firewall out of a 40 size FM?
Posted on: 7/1/2011 2:28 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10601778

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Don, The 60 size FM plans arrived today. Thank you for the SUPER FAST service! I notice that you seem to favor the 40 size FM over the 60 size (only because it seems you don't talk much about the 60). What do you like better about the 40 FM? I also noticed that the 60 has a more symmetrical airfoil than the 40, just curious why you made the change in airfoil? I've got one airplane (not a Flying Machine) on the building bench right now... as soon as it's done, there will be no more builds until a FM is completed!!
Posted on: 6/27/2011 9:06 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10595643

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Don, Payment sent for the 60 size plans [;)]
Posted on: 6/23/2011 8:18 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10589443

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Same here! I have to have a set of the .60 size plans! I looked on Don's website, but don't see them, or where to specify on the order form.
Posted on: 6/23/2011 3:48 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10589002

RE: look at NTSB finding and what do you think findings signal fairness in new regulations for modelers?
I have to agree with 378... from the moment I first saw the video the day after this happened. Common sense dictates that you get on the ground if a full size airplane is in the pattern. And if the RC pilot was briefed to stay away from the runway... well, the video clearly showed where he was. Here's the full narrative of the report from the NTSB: [center]NTSB Identification: CEN10LA487 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Saturday, August 14, 2010 in Brighton, CO Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/19/2011 Aircraft: SHPAKOW THOMAS SA 750, registration: N28KT Injuries: 2 Uninjured.[/center] On August 14, 2010, approximately 1100 mountain daylight time, N28KT, a Shpakow SA 750 bi-plane, was substantially damaged when it collided with a radio controlled AJ Slick airplane, while performing a go-around at the Van-Aire Estates Airport (CO12), Brighton, Colorado. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. The pilot and his passenger were not injured. The flight departed Centennial Airport (KAPA), Denver, Colorado, approximately 1030, and was destined for Brighton, Colorado. According to a telephone conversation and subsequent written statement submitted by the pilot of the bi-plane, he was flying to CO12 to participate in a fly-in and BBQ event. Prior to his flight, he had contacted the event organizer, coordinated his arrival, and received a briefing that there would be radio controlled airplane models flying between 1000 and 1400. While on approach to runway 12, he observed a Cessna airplane on the runway and performed a go-around. During his second approach to runway 12, he felt that his approach speed was fast, and the airplane was not aligned properly so he added power, turned his smoke on to increase visibility to the radio controlled airplane operators, and announced that he was performing a go-around. While performing the go-around, the radio controlled airplane impacted the lower left wing of the bi-plane. The pilot of the bi-plane reported that he lost altitude but was able to recover and land the bi-plane without further incident. He stated that he did not see the radio controlled airplane until just prior to the impact. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector who examined the bi-plane reported that lower left wing was crushed aft to the main spar. A six to eight inch tear was noted in the upper left wing fabric, and damage was noted on the leading edge of the left aileron. According to a telephone conversation and subsequent written statement submitted by the pilot of the radio controlled airplane, he had been cleared by the “air boss� to exhibit his airplane in flight. He understood that the event coordinator (air boss) was providing see and avoid assistance and communicating with airplanes flying in and out of the airport. The pilot of the radio controlled airplane reported that during his routine, the bi-plane came from out of nowhere and “slammed� into his radio controlled airplane. He reported that his airplane was destroyed. During the event, a video was made of the radio controlled airplane performance. The video captured the events prior to the collision, as well as the collision between the radio controlled airplane and the bi-plane. The beginning of the video showed the radio controlled airplane being operated directly over the runway environment with the operator on the runway, very close to the airplane. The airplane was in a nose high, tail low attitude, “hanging� on the propeller. Approximately 35 seconds into the video, a second individual carrying a hand-held radio is seen walking towards the radio controlled airplane operator. Due to the engine noise, their conversation could not be heard. At this time, the radio controlled airplane recovered from the maneuver and climbed in altitude. The next frame showed the accident bi-plane flying from the left side of the screen to the right side of the screen. At 38 seconds into the video, the radio controlled airplane collided with the bi-plane. In an interview with the event coordinator, he clarified that the title of airboss was not a formal position. He did provide a safety briefing with the radio controlled airplane operators the morning of the event. In this briefing he emphasized that only one aircraft was to fly at a time, they were to fly on the east side of the runway, not over the runway, and no one was to fly without first speaking to him. He carried a radio with him to monitor traffic. The event coordinator stated that prior to the accident, the radio controlled airplane operator departed after waiting for a Cessna to land. Shortly thereafter the bi-plane reported that he was intending to land and the event coordinator asked him to report 3 miles out. The radio controlled airplane flew away from the airport towards the east. When the bi-plane reported that he was on final, the event coordinator became aware that the radio controlled airplane was over the runway performing stunts and hovers. When the bi-plane announced his go-around, the event coordinator realized that the radio controlled airplane was in the bi-planes flight path and told the radio controlled airplane operator to “dump it.� The radio controlled airplane continued to hover for a few seconds and then initiated an escape maneuver which placed the radio controlled airplane in the bi-plane’s flight path. The event coordinated maintained that he was not acting in the capacity of a spotter. The club president reported that this was not an Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) sanctioned event; however, AMA rules applied. He had understood that the individual creating the video was also the spotter; however, he was not sure if a spotter had been formally or officially assigned. The AMA Safety Code stated that model aircraft pilots should yield right of way to all man carrying aircraft, see and avoid all aircraft, and utilize a spotter when appropriate. In a follow-up conversation with a representative with the AMA, it is left up to the operator to use a spotter, and there is not currently any guidance for spotter briefings, or spotter responsibilities. The “See and Avoid Guidance� on the AMA websites stated that the spotter should understand their duties and expectations, and should be used when operation is expected within the proximity of manned aircraft. The AMA does not advise concurrent operations. The Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, stated that operators should give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of, full-scale aircraft. The AC also encourages operators to use observers to help.
Posted on: 6/7/2011 3:57 AM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10560944

RE: Hobbico TorqMaster 180
Ditto on the TorqueMaster 180... the one I have would be hard pressed to twist cooked spaghetti up tight... it's a gutless wonder. My old 1983 vintage Royal Heavy Duty starter will stay on the flight box for now... it will start my Saito 1.80, but just barely. The TorqueMaster 180?? HA! Not a chance. Get a Sullivan Dynatron.
Posted on: 6/1/2011 8:44 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "User Product Reviews"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10552626

RE: What DON'T you like about your Tx?
I have to agree, louder beeps would be quite a nice thing. And the battery meter would be nice too... I always have to think about it when looking at my TX's voltage readout, and try to determine, "is that good or bad?"
Posted on: 12/13/2010 3:44 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10194969

RE: Adios, Hitec
Me thinks 2boys might be able to tear up thyne anvil with ye rubber mallet... and a special talent that is.
Posted on: 12/1/2010 12:09 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10169647

RE: What DON'T you like about your Tx?
I don't like the way the dust and dirt fly up in my face out of my TX when I crash... [:)] Sorry, couldn't resist... somebody had to do it [;)]
Posted on: 12/1/2010 11:55 AM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10169619

RE: Sig FieldBoss Field Box
I agree!! I almost wish they would have made it out of 1/8" ply instead of the 1/4".... I think it still would have been plenty strong... and half the weight. I did mine the same way... I think I've got about 5 coats of clear polyurethane on mine. Looks nice.
Posted on: 10/30/2010 9:13 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "User Product Reviews"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10105336

RE: FHSS VS DSSS Technology.
Hehehehe! All the while, 72Mhz remains quiet, rock solid, and getting more wide open. And, I have a nice long antenna to hang my wind flag from. I think I'll stay right where I'm at, and let you guys continue to figure out by attrition "what's best". [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [;)]
Posted on: 10/27/2010 9:08 AM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10097294

RE: Sig FieldBoss Field Box
I really like my Field Boss also, except for one thing... it's HEAVY. But still, 2 thumbs up!! 6 years old and still going strong.
Posted on: 10/27/2010 12:17 AM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "User Product Reviews"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10096893

RE: FHSS VS DSSS Technology.
Multipath issues. Antenna Shadowing. Brown-outs. Lost bind. Slow reconnect times. Who-knows-what other problems remain to be uncovered (or should I say "identified"...). All these are virtually non-existant issues with 72Mhz, and you guys still tout 2.4GHz as "Superior"? [8|] I'll let you guys revel in not having to use the frequency board... [;)] I'll go grab my frequency pin and go fly.[:)]
Posted on: 10/23/2010 7:43 AM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10088115

RE: FHSS VS DSSS Technology.
@Hunkajunk: What else would you expect? Futaba uses FHSS, JR uses Spektrum's DSSS technology... it's inevitable here on RCU... anyone should know that by now that's been around here for more than a day or 2. Here's my take on the 2.4GHz wave: The manufacturers "invented" a solution to a problem that didn't really exist, then invented the problem, and marketed both accordingly. Voila! Huge market demand (and $$$sales$$$) for product to solve a perceived, but really non-existent problem with un-proven, half mature technology. Now the same manufacturers are now depending on the customers to both troubleshoot it [u]and[/u] foot the bill for it. And people have bought into the hype so deeply that they're almost frantically dumping all of their reliable but "outdated, old, low tech" 72MHz equipment. Fine by me, I'll buy your receivers for $5! All the while, guys like me just sit back, grab the frequency pin, go fly our "old" 72MHz equipment, come back and land, and grin while the guys with the "superior" technology in their radios (and empty pockets) try to figure out what happened this time to make an airplane crash. Lots of guys are working awfully hard and shelling out lots of money (in more ways than one) to avoid just using the frequency board. Seriously, isn't that exactly what it all boils down to??? No freqency board/pins! Just look at the marketing... Be honest with yourself! 72MHz FM works just fine... I've not had an airplane lost due to radio interference since back in the mid 80's with an AM set and a thunderstorm in the distance, back before we got FM equipment. And, I can honestly say that I haven't gotten a noticeable "glitch" in several years... and that's on FM PPM. I worry much more about a critical servo failing in flight than I do about getting shot down by radio interference. I'd rather see the manufacturers work on more reliable servos than all of this 2.4GHz hocus pocus. Sorry to get up on a soapbox, but why kill a system that works just fine for no real reason other than ... (politically incorrect to mention).
Posted on: 10/21/2010 6:01 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10084578

RE: FHSS VS DSSS Technology.
[quote]ORIGINAL: wcmorrison   Besides lots of 72MHz stuff around that is cheap and works just fine. Cheers, Chip [/quote] Amen. Nothing at all wrong with "Tried and True 72." Spread Spectrum... that's a lot of money to spend just so you don't have to use the frequency board...[8|]
Posted on: 10/20/2010 1:56 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10081313

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Fred, I can't wait to see it!! That should be some great video!!!
Posted on: 8/11/2010 5:05 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9926877

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Thanks for the info, Dave. I guess no word yet on the ARF, though?
Posted on: 8/11/2010 11:54 AM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9926250

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Wow... lots of thin skin and hostility here! [sm=punching.gif] I fly Learjets for a living, so forgive me for allowing my professional aviator's sense of safety to creep into this discussion, especially after seeing cars driving toward you on that "dead end street" during your takeoff roll. I (and I hope nobody else) just don't want to see a 100+mph Flying Machine going through someones windshield and embedding itself into an innocent motorist's chest... which would be [b][i]another[/i][/b] black eye for the RC hobby. With the RC hobby under the FAA's microscope right now, I'd think that people would be more responsible... but I guess not. But I guess after all, it [i]is[/i] a terrible inconvenience to drive to the flying field when you just have to fly NOW. [8|] Use your heads, people. It's more than just a hatrack. Roly, you've got a great Flying Machine there. Your son looks to be a skilled pilot. He's at an impressionable age... show him responsibility... even if that means driving 45 minutes to your flying field. Have a great day, and a better one tomorrow, and think ahead. Plan for the unexpected. Always have an "out". Now, let's get back to Flying Machines discussion, OK? You've got no fight with me, so please don't try to. I'm not, and don't want to be, your enemy.
Posted on: 8/10/2010 11:22 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9925281

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Sure did look like it!!! Join a club... go to a real flying field!! Don't give RC another black eye.
Posted on: 8/10/2010 2:59 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9924207

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Thanks Don! I've been wanting a Flying Machine ever since I bought the plans from you several years ago... just never have had the time to build it, or other projects took precedence. But, I've decided that I WILL have one for next year... one way or another[;)] [:)] [:D] Or, maybe this season [8D] Do you still recommend standard servos, or what equipment do you recommend these days?
Posted on: 6/22/2010 12:01 AM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9818657

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Or any of the East RC Guys, would probably be better. Don Muddiman was just doing testing for them as I understand it. East RC still has the FM on their website, but "isn't taking pre-orders". What's going on guys? Will the ARF's ever come, or do I need to buy some balsa and dig out my plans [8D]?
Posted on: 6/21/2010 5:41 PM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9817904

RE: Don Muddiman Flying Machine
Does anyone know the status of the Flying Machine ARF??? I'd buy an ARF today... otherwise I'll have to dig out my plans and scratch one out this winter!
Posted on: 6/21/2010 12:18 AM by Author "xlr82v2" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9816521