Leaderboard

Couple of points, as far as I am aware the CAA have actually had more registrations than they were expecting, cannot recall what the latest figure is. Also they are not permitted to put up the cost by more than the current inflation rate. So the work the BMFA did in getting the reduction to £9 from £16.50 has ongoing benefits.

I love the BT 69" Spitfire 1a, I have built three of them. The first used an old Laser 100 which had plenty of power for pulling it round the sky and never stopped. It was tall so the cylinder head rubbed in the inside of the cowl. The most recent example I built 2 years ago uses a laser 120 which is shorter and doesn't rub on the cowl. I firmly believe that a Laser 80 would power the spit, but agree with Jon that it would be underpowered so conditions would need to be right! A good argument for the 120 is that, regardless of me building the tailfeathers extremely light, I still needed nose weight... so if the 120 fits why not use it and take advantage of its extra mass. The first two used Unitract Retracts, which worked very well. For my recent build I just couldn't get hold of any Unitracts. I did managed to get John Hope on the phone once, he promised to make a set for me, but nothing came of it. So I set about building my own set. I'm no mechanical engineer, but I fancied the challenge and the result turned out well. I bought a set of 130mm oleos from hobbyking (SKU:344000018) and 100mm radioactive airwheels. the correct wheel for 1/6.4 would be 3.82" x 1.2" but such a wheel is not available. On the first Spit I used 3.5" wheel but it looked too small so this time I used 4" x 1.5" instead. The wider wheel does make fitting it in the wing a bit tight, but it works. After studying the plan it looks like BT intended the leg to lies parallel to the U/C bearers when up, so I ended up with a drawing which I shall publish here in case anyone else wants to build one.

One final suggestion.... not wanting to hijack your thread Gary... I always struggled with balancing aircraft, particularly low wingers. It's easy to identify CofG on the plan, but once the model is complete not so easy. Secondly supporting the aircraft during the process of balancing. So for my latest builds I incorporate a brass tube into the wing at the correct CofG. The tube passes through the wing so that I can easily string up the model and check the CofG whenever I make any changes to the installation. In the below picture, note the component tray on the top of the cowl at the same position where ballast will be placed. I can then load up the tray until the aircraft hangs level and cycle the gear to check shift in CofG.

I was walking past my local cafe the other day and the sign outside read, "5 chicken dinners £10". I thought I will have one now and freeze the other four, so I went in and put down £10 and asked for the chicken dinners. . . . . . and she came out with five bags of corn.

Hi folks finally got back to the build. Fitted the rear canopy, it took a while because you have to cut out for the wing profile so constantly fitting and re-fitting the wings being careful not to take too much away. Patience is the key here, I think I spent a good afternoon fitting the canopy.

The photo is of the sad end to Beryl Markham’s record making flight. She had hoped to reach New York where income generating publicity would be assured. During the Atlantic crossing she met with unexpected headwinds and poor visibility. Apparently, she despaired of reaching the coast when she saw how much fuel had been consumed, but good fortune prevailed and she crossed the coast in Nova Scotia. Shortly afterwards the engine, which had been running rough for a while, stopped and with little height to have a good look around she selected a boulder-free field. Unfortunately, it was a bog and the picture shows the result. Ironically, it turned out there was still fuel available, it was concluded that the tank vent had iced up causing starvation. If anyone is interested in her story its in a book appropriately called West with the Night. I was surprised to find the book concentrates on her growing up in Kenya and eventually learning to fly, the description of her flight is only the last 20 pages or so – a very modest lady. On with the construction - 4 main longerons have now been formed and they have all come out similar enough to be useable, so that’s satisfying, I’m not usually that lucky. When I heard that Laser were developing an inline 200, I thought that a Vega Gull would be a good subject to put one in and started the design. When the engine arrived, I found that it wouldn’t quite fit, or more precisely the top of the bearers (with the engine inverted) was at the edge of the firewall. Without questioning beforehand, I assumed that the bearers could be inverted depending upon the installation required - not so, they only fit one way round. On advice from Jon Harper I’ve cheated a bit with the thrust line and the top of the cowl, it’s not going to be a competition model so the deviation isn’t all the world. Not having access to the real thing and only working from available drawings, there's a good chance the original drawings were inaccurate anyway. The good news is two Slec orange tanks will easily fit side by side and there will be a straight run for the throttle linkage. Once the tank floor is fitted it should lock everything together, but still a chunk to be principally supported by 4 longerons. As it’s a clean-sheet-of-paper design I’m trying to get the best possible airflow across the engine and am experimenting with bits of lite-ply to see where baffles can be built in. I think I’ll end up with some parts permanently fitted, some removable and quite a long fibreglass duct from the air inlet. Gipsy engines have tinplate baffles between the cylinders to ensure all the air flows over the fins. On the Laser there is a substantial gap between the cylinders and with my limited facilities I can’t see an obvious way of blocking that gap. If anyone has experience of the inline engine and what needs to be done to keep the rear cylinder cool, I’d be very interested to hear. The picture below shows where I was going to cut away the firewall to allow the air to exit. The great David Boddington used to advocate 4 times the outlet to the inlet, not sure I can get to that ratio. Once the air is through the firewall I think all will be well as there is a large gap between the rear of the cowl and the fuselage side, it worked for a lot of Gipsy installations so hope the same holds true for the model; I will also make a gap at the bottom of the cowl to be sure.

Carvair is making progress, redesigned wing is now built. Next job is to make the wing fit the fuselage which was designed to take the previous wing shape, that is tomorrows job . Once that is done the four motor mounts will be made.

After a misunderstanding I took delivery of my next project from RapidRCModels in Kent:- https://www.rapidrcmodels.com/goldwing-slick-540-60cc-arf-c-f-version-yellow-4894-p.asp I have 2 different 60cc size aircraft that are all powered by an electric power train. Compared to my Goldwing Sbach and ExtremeFlight Extra the wingspan of the Slick is 91" versus around 85" on the others. The larger size has also contributed to the higher AUW target of 18-20lbs or 8.1-9.1kg. The electric recommendation in the manual is the Hacker Q80-8M (or 4000watt motor) with 12S set up using 2x5000mAh lipos. If using IC the suggestion is DA 70 or GP 61. With this in mind I decided to go for the Dualsky GA8000 motor rather than the GA6000 that is on my other 50-60cc equivalent aircraft. It is a make I know well and I trust the extra performance required. Next is what ESC? Well I have gone for the one I know well which I used for a 100cc equivalent project as I want to be sure I won't overload it. The 200A model is an Opto version which is my preferred ESC. I already have a HobbyWing programming box which I have used before to set the fixed wing parameters. Servos suggested fall into the 120 in-oz or better with the rudder at 190 in-oz order. I must convert to kg torque which makes more sense to me! Battery capacity may also need looking at. Plenty to think about then. It will be interesting to see if I can use the supplied standoffs or if a different size is required. The prop suggestion starts at 24x10 upwards. I will happily post my progress on the build and the motivation behind my decisions if there is a desire to see the process.

Couple of 2 pound tench and 1 carp. Maybe a cold as well lol

Stainless steel tying wire?

I note they are still sticking to the "on or over" bit when talking about operating model aircraft. They still haven't twigged that they have NO AUTHORITY over airspace. Yes, they can stop you taking off and landing. They cannot stop you over-flying. The BMFA should have a field day with that! -- Pete

well. I decided to take a day off from trials and tribulations of technology and wet a few maggots,. Just reset up the tx/rx and as you can see in the video. all working. Now it could be put down to several things I dont know, but ill go with the fact it now works. I never updated the rx or tx. This was what I think was my problem. X8R-EU version only works with FrSky Taranis X9D Plus-EU version/XJT-EU version in D16-EU mode. Not 100% sure but maybe a little bite of ID10T error. lol so now onto the next. but I'll try to figure that one out in a day or so. thanks again for all the help very much appreciated, especially Ron Gray, for the offer you made... IMG_3229.MOV

Hi Richard, it does not seem to have a tendency to nose over. I have seen spits with this problem, but I think it was down to lack of undercarriage forward rake. The CofG is quite near to the centerline of the wheel, and if retract angle is only 90 degrees, which are more common retracts, then it can lead to not enough forward rake. I have it balanced as per plan and characteristics are just right. I found a video of one of the early flights of my Spitfire at Smeatharpe Aerodrome. This was before I got the engine running quite right, it was running a little rich which is why there are a couple of coughs, but after I got it tuned right the engine runs very sweetly.

with a wood prop i recommend you fit it, fly, and then let the engine cool down before giving it another go with the spanner. You will find its slightly loose and needs a tighten. Repeat this every flight until you find the prop has stabilised and is still tight after the engine has cooled. Normally takes 4 or 5 flights.

Cheers John, I’m being a bit old maidish I suspect, it’s very nice but not as great granny made it mentality. Open the throttle and I find out. PS, it is old, you donated a Flair wheel for it a long time ago, blue now red, when I was one wheel on wagon, and no Flair wheels to be had.

Will do, John. I always like other readers views.

I just realised it’s not aero it’s acro. Acrobatic in the parameters menu

There is no Mode display on the LCD screen, perhaps you are seeing the word "model" in the top left? I think your T8J is set in Helicopter set up. To move to aircraft on page 1 of menu use the joggle stick to move and highlight [ press/select PARAMETER to enter ] screen jumps to page 3, scroll down until you get to TYPE Yours will say HELICOPTER, press + or - and type will change to ACROBATIC for aircraft. jog to Execute and press jog to set. It will ask you to do this again to confirm. John.

That does not sound right. In mode 1 the throttle stick would be on the right. Mode 2 is throttle on left. Maybe the mode setting in the menu system is not matching the mechanical configuration. Have a read of the manual I linked to previously for setting up procedures. However, it's probably easier if you go to a local club and have somebody there sort out your radio for you.

New parts printed and fit well.....made some clear windows just need the outer bezels making, will turn these from model lab board later. New cannons complete.....just need some screw heads fitting and making good with the wing, these are a lot shorter than the taper barrels i had originally so i might secure them to the wing....will see The non panel camera lens cover needs gluing together as it's in one piece on the full size.... More to follow.... Cheers

That's a pretty corny joke 🌽

Especially on new build properties where the best you can hope for is that the construction only just meets the minimum building regulation requirements!

I did consider converting the wings to aileron, but in the end decided not to, I thought it would entail more effort to redesign the wing for no real benefit, my original models flew perfectly on rudder only. There is 3'' of dihedral each side it doesent look a lot, the Centurion is a nice steady slow flyer, very stable. I used to do loops and stall turns starting with a bit of a dive to gain momentum, quite majestic. Looking forward to having another go, but it will probably be in the spring next year.

Cubs are great, and can be really good fun. From experience of having flown several - I currently have three - the slightly larger ones (80" to 100") are the most rewarding to fly. They have wonderfully cheeky flight characteristics which will put a smile on the face seasoned flyers. However, don't make the mistake of thinking they are trainers. . . They need to be "flown" and require the application of rudder in the turns. Without it (rudder) the model will wallow around when making turns and the tail will hang down... Basically, it will look and handle like it's bored and "drunk". 🥴 Get it right, and the model will come alive. 👍 Have fun.

It is not widely known that William Tell invented yodelling, he was being chased up a Swiss valley by soldiers when a farmer saw and hid him in the barn. After the soldiers gave up the farmer gave him a meal and a bed for the night in the morning the farmer stood with Tell and showed him the track up the mountain which led to over to the next valley and safety .As he watched William Tell climb high above the farmers daughter appeared and said "father, that man came into my room and had his wicked way with me" "Tell , after all I did for you , you ravaged my daughter" called the farmer up the mountain William Tell cupped his hands and shouted back "And your old ladeee toooo"

You know what it is like, just had a big bust up with the Mrs.. I accused her of smearing glue all over my rifle collection, which she denied. But I'm sticking to my guns.🙃

Warbirds and retracts get a bit of a bad rep and its quite unfair in my experience. Without being too rude about it, the issue is most often than not down to the pilot not getting the landing right and expecting their retracts and mounts to tolerate the same abuse as a fixed gear model with a nice carbon or fibreglass undercarriage. This is simply not the case and i follow a very rigid and set procedure for landing my warbirds to minimise the guess work and prevent damage. To be clear, i do not exclude myself and have bashed a retract or two over the years. But i know it was my shocking landing and not the model that was at fault so i just fix the damage and move on. There can be more at work than just pilot skill as the setup, balance, trim etc of a warbird can make it a delight to land or a complete pig. A friend's Hangar 9 Spitfire was impossible for him to land due to massively high rates with loads of expo. Taking 80% off the rates and wiping out the 75% expo made it a doddle to land. When it comes to reliability i like air, but decent electric will be fine. The only electric retracts i have known have been pretty cheap and they arent super reliable. Again there is a lot of hysteria about air retracts loosing pressure and it does happen. My 12 year old La7 has suffered 4 retract fails over the years with 3 of them down to air loss caused by dirt in the fill valve. I now check this before starting to make sure its all good. Even if not, just land on the belly. Done right it rare any real damage is done and its not something to worry about. One final thing to remember about retracts is to get them retracted immediately once you leave the ground on your first flight. Dont fly about for 10 minutes with the gear down. Get them up, clean up the aircraft and loose that drag. Also should the engine go or some other emergency forces an off field landing damage will be reduced if you leave the gear up so its very important to get them out of the way as soon as you can. The same is true of a deadstick in flight. Leave the gear up until you know for sure you can make the runway.

Pat previously had athlete’s foot. The doctor told him to put some fungicidal stuff on every morning, and to be sure to wear a clean pair of socks every day. within three days, he couldn’t get his shoes on.

Pat goes to the doctor with chest pains. The doctor examines him and diagnoses acute angina. Pat says - "is there anything you can do for me doctor" The doctor says "Sure Pat, I'll give you some tablets and you'll be grand. Here you go. " "Do I need to take one every day, Doc" says Pat. "No Pat, you take one on Monday, then skip Tuesday, take another on Wednesday, skip Thursday, another on Friday, skip Saturday, then take the last one on Sunday and I'll see you next week" Anyway, Pat doesn't turn up on the following Monday but the doctor see's Pat's wife in the street and he asks her how Pat is doing. She says "Ah, Pat's had a heart attack, doctor and he's dead" "Oh, that's a terrible shame" says the doctor " I thought he'd be okay with those tablets I gave him" "Ah, now" she says "The tablets were fine - it was all the skipping that killed him......"

I dont have a problem with the 93 page tldr issue. if someone posted asking about tank placement and i answer, either in person or with a copy paste, that would be fine if they went away with the info and it was jobe done. The problem is if i give the canned answer it seems to wash over like a cool breeze and not actually make an impact. Unless i make a right song a dance out of it folk dont seem to pay attention, and even then its a 50/50 shot vs the 'club expert'. Again perhaps this is a result of our modern sensationalised world where even the mundane is exaggerated to the point of frenzy for views and attention. A quick scan of the morning papers illustrates the point. There is also a torrent of well meaning advice from other forum members, some of which is not aligned with my own and we are back to debating the issue. As its difficult for me to tell a valued customer they are wrong and to keep quiet (not in the customer service handbook that one) i have to try and argue my point, again.. This brings us to the another problem....modellers. Modellers as a group do not like change. How many times do we see comments about castor being the greatest thing since sliced bread? The fact that it isnt makes no odds because 'we have always done it this way'. Tank placement, nose up tests, castor oil, expo, running in...you name it, 'we have always done it this way'. The snag is doing something repeatedly wrong for decades does not make it right, and even if it was right then is it now? When i was younger i used to use castor fuel, and do nose up tests as...yep, that's what we had always done and my dad taught me to do it. It was only later on that i thought...why? 'This makes no sense at all' i thought to myself having nearly cut my arm off with an OS91 surpass after the model slipped during a nose up test. Perhaps i was just too rebellious for my own good but it set me on the path of challenging all of the established folk lore and i very quickly realised that most of it was a load of rubbish. An engineering degree and many years later i am trying to impart these new and fantastic ideas but get met with significant resistance as it is not the way its always been done. I am also the only one rocking the boat. Its not just on the forum either, its industry wide. I sold an engine i designed and built to a customer, and a gallon of the low oil fuel i now recommend for everything. He mentioned this fuel to the model shop where he was buying the model and they told him not to use it as it would destroy the engine. Even after he explained several times that it was the recommended fuel and that i handed him the bottle here at the factory, they kept telling him to throw it out and use something with more oil as it would ruin the engine. I then get a call from a customer in panic and spend half an hour trying to convince him its all fine. I call the shop, explain the situation and have a 40 minute argument with them as they keep saying i am wrong. I also sent an engine to model world magazine for review and they flatly refused to follow the running in instructions and instead pushed the 'run it rich for 3 weeks and then lean it off a click' line we have seen for decades. They did print my protest email in the article, but justified ignoring me with 'old habits die hard'. So what chance does anyone have of learning anything new of its just shot down immediately from every angle? Even those who have taken my advice on board and support it are ignored by the masses, so it really is an uphill struggle.

Chris beat me to it, but no it isnt. My job is to give the right advice, which is fair enough and part of the expectation. But, having given that advice it unreasonable to expect me to reiterate it every day, and spend hours and hours explaining why and defending it. Its also unreasonable for someone to completely ignore it, and then expect me to help. What more can i do? i gave all of the advice, you ignored it...I cant do any more than reiterate all of the advice i already gave. Perhaps its because of my accessibility, i am easy to contact and chat with, i post here on the forum and shoot the breeze on a variety of subjects. But for some reason there seems to be a perception that i am just putting forward my opinion, my view point which can be adhered to or ignored as you please. Or perhaps the fact that we seem to live in a world of 'alternative facts' where everyone is allowed an opinion and no-one is ever wrong about anything. This is very much not the case and where i come from, the facts do matter. I also think many people forget that i am the only one here. One man in all the world responsible for looking after every laser engine ever made. If i have to spoon feed and hand hold everyone by explaining in detail why i recommend the things i do, i will not only never get anything done but i will also go mad. The recommendation is there, just do it. I have already discussed this with the boss and are seriously considering changing the way we operate so the company will not be open to communication from end users like OS and Saito as its getting to much and there is only so much one man can take. Like it or not, the manufacturer of the product you operate knows more about it than you. This is why i asked redfin for advice on what fuel to use in the little diesel i recently bought and why i sent my PAW engine back to them to sort out the scored liner. They are the experts on those engines and i will simply do as i am told when it comes to operating their products. Ok so bendy intake tubes like OS and Saito. Short intakes straight into the head are the best for performance. Just take a look at almost any motorbike engine, the carbs are right there on the head. Model engines are more closely aligned with bike engines than car engines given their operating rpm rage. And before someone posts a lists of exceptions, i dont care. Remember, i have written this post about 100 times as well. Also many automotive applications these days are fuel injected with MAF and Lambda sensors looking after everything. So in the case of model engines inverted the biggest issue is fuel pools in the elbow at low rpm. Fuel is denser than air and it centrifuges out going round the corner. You can also get water condensation in there as well. So the engine is chuffing away and you open the throttle to take off. Once past a certain point the airflow picks up the pool of fuel and draws it into the engine. Best case, cloud of smoke, but more often that not it will cough and splutter its way to full power or cut out 10 feet down the runway. If anyone claims they have never seen that happen i call male cow pats on that. This fuel pooling problem is worse when you have a rich slow run needle...and how many modellers really maximise or even touch their slow run needles? So to conclude this epic A very large part of the almost mythical laser reliability is down to our carb placement. Even with dreadful tuning and tank placement the engines are often very reliable. A tiger moth for example, flown in flat circuits would probably be fine with the tank up in space even though it chews up fuel like its going out of style and leaks all over the floor when the engine isnt running. The problem is, that guy might recommend that tank setup to someone with a stampe who wants a more aerobatic performance and then it will not work at all. Equally, it would not work at all with the tank high if we had an elbow. 'Ah but tank placement is easier to get right with an elbow' you all cry. Sure, but you suffer loss of performance and all of the fuel pooling problems even if you do tune it right. Im loosing the will to live now so..im done. Time for a chocolate hobnob to recover my senses.

No its most definitely not! Good customer service is about being accessible and providing good advice. Jon excels at this to the point that his advice is impartial and may advise selecting a competitors engine that is better suited to the required installation. The point of forums like this is so that people can read discussions (if they can be bothered) and not keep asking the same repetitive questions. Okay people will go against the advice of the manufacturer and then other people can then see the error of their ways. Perhaps Laser should detail things on their web site that you should not do, but as the saying goes "you cannot anticipate the ingenious idiot" Read the posts and discussions, if in doubt ask Jon to clarify any misunderstandings you may have and carry out the installation as recommended by the manufacturer. Surprise surprise the engine will perform well and be reliable. I just don't get it, Jon spends hours and hours designing and building engines and people come along and want to run them with special arrangements or put things in odd places or add complexity. A Laser engine is better than its sum of parts, because its well designed and tolerant of a wide skill set operating it. Please let Jon get on with engine building and development (more of the FT and inlines...and we may be lucky one day a radial) but one thing is guaranteed, it will be reliable if installed correctly.

Yep Martin beat me to it. We were actually discussing this again the other day as lowering tanks still seems to be causing great distress for some reason. The problem is it will make the engines worse...so why would we do that? i can make a carby with a os style header and sell it as an accessory? I could take your £75 and sell you something to make your engine worse if you really want me to? Although, plot twist, OS/Saito style intakes are actually more sensitive than ours to incorrect tank placement 😉 I also work on the basis that i use the same engines in the same models and do not have problems with tank placement. I just do the work and get on with it. If i can do it, so can everyone else as its really not difficult. This is especially true as i ask the customer what model they want to power with the engine and then look it up. I then advise on engine fitment and tank placement so the hard work of figuring it out is done. On the cline regulators point, they simply dont work. Many have tried, most have failed. Like the pressure isolated header tank idea, they can work under certain circumstances, but they cannot be guaranteed to work in every model. They are also not cheap and lowering the tank is free! lowering the tank is guaranteed to work on any engine, in any model, anywhere in the world. If you install you engine like that and it gives trouble i can help, but if you instead invented some complicated fuel system then you are completely on your own when it comes to trouble shooting running problems as i have no chance of troubleshooting that over the phone and its a complete waste of my time to try it. All i will do is tell you to lower the tank as it puts the engine back to a known good configuration. Its getting a bit tiresome having to go over all this again and again and again. You guys dont see it, but its a daily occurrence for me and its immensely frustrating. Its always the same as well. Someone buys an engine, i explain the installation, and then a few weeks later they are on the phone with problems. 'Did you lower the tank?' i ask and the reply is always the same 'well no, the guy at the field/something i read on a forum said i didnt have to so i just left it'. To say this grinds my gears is a bit of an understatement. I dont make these recommendations just for a laugh. Mechanical things have operating requirements and if you arent happy with those requirements, dont buy one unless you are happy to conform to its needs.