|
|
Post by ginginho on Mar 30, 2010 14:06:50 GMT 1
but... if you remove the ACT, then what do you blame when you crash? Other pilots, obviously.  |
|
|
|
Post by john66 on Mar 30, 2010 14:32:20 GMT 1
but... if you remove the ACT, then what do you blame when you crash? Hmmmmm? I hadn't thought that one through! |
|
|
|
Post by john66 on Mar 30, 2010 14:38:09 GMT 1
Created my first HOT TOPIC! Life on the Super Cub Club couldn't get better ;D .......way too much time on my hands methinks  |
|
parrothead
Squadron leader
Blackbeard's playground
Posts: 206
|
Post by parrothead on Mar 30, 2010 17:42:24 GMT 1
How about "radio frequency interference" ? I thought about using this one the other day when the wife was watching.  |
|
|
|
Post by flydiver on Mar 30, 2010 17:47:24 GMT 1
radio interference is the justification you use to buy Spectrum.
|
|
|
|
Post by john66 on Mar 30, 2010 17:57:27 GMT 1
Other pilots, wind, radio interference, thanks chaps you've put my mind at rest. I can look forward to my next crash knowing full well it wasnt pilot error! ;D
John
|
|
|
|
Post by majormonogram on Mar 30, 2010 18:38:24 GMT 1
I think I blamed wind for my only crash so far. It really looked like wind to my inexperienced eyes but now I'm thinking I may have just yanked up too hard and wing stalled...I've only flown 5 times and already used the interference argument to talk the wifey into a spektrum dx6i even though we haven't seen anyone else here with a plane anywhere near us... |
|
|
|
Post by john66 on Mar 30, 2010 18:49:42 GMT 1
I've only flown 5 times and already used the interference argument to talk the wifey into a spektrum dx6i even though we haven't seen anyone else here with a plane anywhere near us... Blame the taxi drivers/ambulance/police radios! |
|
|
|
Post by majormonogram on Mar 30, 2010 18:58:53 GMT 1
Haha! Perfect. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko73 on Apr 2, 2010 9:38:07 GMT 1
Hi Guys, I have a question, probably a silly one...... why are people removing the sensors? is it not sufficient just to turn act off?
The reason I ask is because I recently lost my plane (which I found a week later), it went out of control when flying over water which it says in the manual confuses the act. The thing is the act was OFF....... this happened to me before when I flew over another river and the act was OFF then too but the plane nose dived.... now maybe its me or the wind but it just seems odd so I am wondering if the sensors still connected even though the act is OFF still cause a problem and thats why people are removing them?
|
|
|
|
Post by john66 on Apr 2, 2010 9:44:17 GMT 1
Hi Guys, I have a question, probably a silly one...... why are people removing the sensors? is it not sufficient just to turn act off? Hi Franko, I dont think its a silly question. I am very new to this too.Really feel free to ask anything you dont understand there are plenty of extremely helpful experienced RC pilots in this forum who are more than happy to help. I believe the answer to your question is simply the fact that so many people like to add weight increasing mods to there planes, larger wheels etc, that anyway you can reduce unwanted weight is preferable plus the space the wires take up in the fuse. I hope this helps. John |
|
|
|
Post by franko73 on Apr 2, 2010 10:15:31 GMT 1
Thanks John, I also read on a forum that people cover the bottom sensor with tape which is what confused me..... I would have thought that just turning the act OFF is sufficient. Why would you cover the sensor? That makes perfect sense removing the sensor to reduce weight and tidy the fuse up, I have added bigger wheels, a keychain cam myself and nav lights which makes the fuse messy. Why cover the sensor though, just in case you turn ACT on by accident?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by john66 on Apr 2, 2010 11:34:59 GMT 1
Why cover the sensor though, just in case you turn ACT on by accident? ? I honestly couldnt say, though my guess is what you say is right, fraid I'll have to leave that answer to someone more knowledgable. John |
|
|
|
Post by franko73 on Apr 2, 2010 11:52:47 GMT 1
John, I found that forum comment.... 'The only drawback to the SuperCub is the ACT. DO NOT USE IT!!! Tape over the bottom sensor and you'll have a great plane' and another says... 'We realise from the thread that ACT won't work with the snow so will probably set for ACT and tape bottom sensor to simulate dual rate' so dual rate eh..... what that then? ? But it looks like covering the bottom sensor and still using ACT is a reasonable option? |
|
|
|
Post by john66 on Apr 2, 2010 13:20:54 GMT 1
John, I found that forum comment.... 'The only drawback to the SuperCub is the ACT. DO NOT USE IT!!! Tape over the bottom sensor and you'll have a great plane' and another says... 'We realise from the thread that ACT won't work with the snow so will probably set for ACT and tape bottom sensor to simulate dual rate' so dual rate eh..... what that then? ? But it looks like covering the bottom sensor and still using ACT is a reasonable option? Other than pulling it out cos its totally useless, as many say, I really dont know much about it, sorry. John |
|
?