|
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
After stopping to consider what could be interfering at this field, there is a remotely controlled and monitored gas pipeline that runs through it. I can see radio repeater towers here and there. We are on the outskirts of an industrial area...I can really only imagine why this RX under-performed. It works great if you fly within 600 feet or so, like doing practice pylon laps. I just sent the RX in to Futaba.
Back when I just flew run of the mill lower performance stuff with standard sized equipment, the components seemed to last forever. Most all my problems were pilot/operator related, like trying to get 1 last flight in before sundown with a questionable pack, trying to fly with a loose antenna in the TX, etc., stuff like that. Those lower revving, slower planes had a much higher tolerance and would signal possible problems better in advance and give you more time to take corrective action. |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
ORIGINAL: combatpigg If you aren't intelligent enough to see how the range check I described can reveal problems that the ''regular'' check doesn't reveal, it's a waste of my time trying to explain it to you. I will take the time to tell you that only a fool would try to pass judgement on my track record and abilities based on the case you are trying to make here. My advice to you is get a hobby that you can be good at. You'll feel so much better about yourself that you won't feel the need to insult guys to make up for your own failures. I see that you resort to insult when people confront you. I will not sink to your level. After reading your subsequent posts I realize that your situation is unique to your field. Suggesting that the rest of us do the same thing (running around with a running engine and the plane on your arms while the TX has an EXTENDED antenna at the pits) is absolutely inadequate. Now lets go fly, this discussion has run its course. Rafael |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
Funny how you can dish it out, but can not take it. You went well past simple confrontation and don't like the taste of your own medicine.
The problem with this field is not unique, if it can happen here, it can happen elsewhere. This test will either confirm suspicions, or it might not. It can also be used to gain confidence in a new set up. Regardless it is a proven "tool" that you can choose to either use or not without laying that "mentality" BS on me, slick. |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
ORIGINAL: Rafael23cc After reading your subsequent posts I realize that your situation is unique to your field. Rafael |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
I find it absolutely plausible that
the radio interference (or lack there of) at the pits/pilotstations may not be the same as the interference found at spots out in the flying area. Seems the article would be putting the blame for going down in Coffin Corner squarely on faulty procedures by the pilot: Should have checked the field RF patterns prior to going up.... careless pilot negligence to save time and effort cost them that plane. |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
ORIGINAL: dreadnaut Years ago when I used to fly at Sepulveda basin, there were a number of ''experts'' who would grab an unsuspecting newby and volunteer as instructor. The problem is that while a lot of these guys had some stick skill, they were horrible teachers. Lesson 1; ''I am totaly awsome, and you should strive to be just like me'' Lesson 2;''Don't listen to that other jerk because he doesn't know how to buzz the runway inverted'' Lesson 3;''All planes are doomed to crash, it's only a matter of when'' I liked the article, and agree that the ''all planes must crash'' attitude in not an absolute. One thing I would add to Don's list is; Learn to fly from someone who's biggest skill is explaining the principles, and has an attitude that crashing, while a possibility, is not a given. ORIGINAL: combatpig If you aren't intelligent enough to see how the range check I described can reveal problems that the "regular" check doesn't reveal, it's a waste of my time trying to explain it to you. I will take the time to tell you that only a fool would try to pass judgement on my track record and abilities based on the case you are trying to make here. My advice to you is get a hobby that you can be good at. You'll feel so much better about yourself that you won't feel the need to insult guys to make up for your own failures. |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy I find it absolutely plausible that the radio interference (or lack there of) at the pits/pilotstations may not be the same as the interference found at spots out in the flying area. Seems the article would be putting the blame for going down in Coffin Corner squarely on faulty procedures by the pilot: Should have checked the field RF patterns prior to going up.... careless pilot negligence to save time and effort cost them that plane. There's always that first guy that found it though. [:@] |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
I would venture a guess that most RC pilots have not flown at very many fields. Maybe 90% or more have experience at 5 fields or less. After flying at well over a 100, I have to say that there are certain "dead zones" that were problematic for some receivers at a small number of fields. However, most of the time it is the pilot pointing the antenna at the airplane, poor radio installations, and equipment that has smacked the ground a few times.
The high performance stuff that CP likes to play with will show problems much quicker than normal sport models. |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
Here's a good quote;
"........ in contrast, the modeling world often depends on well-meaning but sometimes misinformed opinions and Internet threads written by modelers and RC flight instructors who are trying to help but teach with incorrect information, because that's how they were taught. When faulty information is repeated long enough, it usually becomes fact because so many believe it." Emphasis added. W-w-w-what? What in the cat hair is he trying to say. Is there a name for it? |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
ORIGINAL: Robotech Here's a good quote; ''........ in contrast, the modeling world often depends on well-meaning but sometimes misinformed opinions and Internet threads written by modelers and RC flight instructors who are trying to help but teach with incorrect information, because that's how they were taught. When faulty information is repeated long enough, it usually becomes fact because so many believe it.'' Emphasis added. W-w-w-what? What in the cat hair is he trying to say. Is there a name for it? |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
I've learned more from the 6 years of coming to RCU for education and advice than 10 lifetimes worth of hanging around the old flying field. I will say though that getting involved in some form of competition will speed up the learning rate many times, too.
The statement about the internet being a breeding ground of false information can be applied anywhere else. Believe it or not, before there was an internet, bad advice still flourished everywhere. The modeling World does not often depend on any such thing like bad internet advice, never has, never will. |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
Wasn't that the same MA issue that had another article advising folks to hang weights on the wingtip to counteract torque?:eek:
|
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
:D!!
I wonder how many hundreds of guys raced out to the field to try that one out? |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley Wasn't that the same MA issue that had another article advising folks to hang weights on the wingtip to counteract torque?:eek: |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
....he put it that way to be funny and he did a heck of a good job. :D
|
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
Funny like in smells funny?
|
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
I'm puzzled, but not surprized, by the somewhat negative tone of posts on the article. I sort of skimmed it, as I don't fly RC, but I thought the major principles were well worth noticing. I doubt that your ratio of crashes per flight would go up as a result of digesting the article. In terms of advice; combatpigg's comment that you rapidly learn a lot of good stuff in competition is right on. I can't right off think of any one whom I regard as "expert" who has not flown competitively. On the other hand, I usually value my own experience over expert advice which contradicts it. In competition, you have a group of colleagues and you are all in agreement as to what is important. That is one of the things I like about competition. I'd also note that things which work for me may not work for others; and thus I might give bad advice.
|
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
ORIGINAL: Robotech Here's a good quote; ''........ in contrast, the modeling world often depends on well-meaning but sometimes misinformed opinions and Internet threads written by modelers and RC flight instructors who are trying to help but teach with incorrect information, because that's how they were taught. When faulty information is repeated long enough, it usually becomes fact because so many believe it.'' Emphasis added. W-w-w-what? What in the cat hair is he trying to say. Is there a name for it? |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
ORIGINAL: bradpaul Funny like in smells funny? |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
It was a good how-to, the guy is pretty much right about everything he says. But I saw nothing I haven't seen here or on other forums. Most who read it probably aren't past deadsticks and dumbthumbs far enough to even think about redundant systems, amperage draw, regulators, and the like.
|
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
The internet and magazines are full of great advice.
From the internet I learned about cutting open a rechargable rectangular "9v" battery (actually a 7.2v) and using 4 of the 6 itty-bitty cells inside to make a 4.8 flight pack ... two "9v" batts yield 3 flight packs, cause you're gonna want to swap them out between flights I also learned about the correlation between building too heavy and folding the wings under G's:D |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
I used to have some glitch and fail-safe problems but since I made the quantum leap to spektrum 2.4 I have never had as much as a glitch! I see that you can't even give away 72mhz stuff anymore, I WONDER WHY?
|
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
From what I've seen, part of the problem is the ARF's themselves.
I was out of the hobby for a while, got back in a few years ago, put some ARF's together and have spent more time repairing "shotty" workmanship on the ARF's than actually flying them. I'm going back to building kits. That way I know the glue joints are secure, and if reinforcement is needed, I can do it in the building process. I am convinced that with average piloting skills, a kit built plane will last longer than an ARF. |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
If you lined up all the planes end to end that have been stuffed flying on 2.4, they would circle the globe.
Careful Tbird, you don't want to give the vast majority of ARFers who read this forum more reasons for self loathing........;) |
RE: Crashing is NOT an option, M A article!
ORIGINAL: tbirdaerospace033 From what I've seen, part of the problem is the ARF's themselves. I was out of the hobby for a while, got back in a few years ago, put some ARF's together and have spent more time repairing ''shotty'' workmanship on the ARF's than actually flying them. I'm going back to building kits. That way I know the glue joints are secure, and if reinforcement is needed, I can do it in the building process. I am convinced that with average piloting skills, a kit built plane will last longer than an ARF. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:29 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.