Peter Jenkins

Your problem is you can't be bothered to research the lead up to the acquisition of the Buckminster lease. If you joined after the Buckminster lease was agreed then research it. If you were a member before and during the acquisitoon process you would have known that an acquisition was considered but eventually ruled unaffordable. The Buckminster lease was agreed at 35 years with regular breakpoints. You would also have known that a fund was set up and many people gave generously to the Buckminster fund as it was agreed that no BMFA subscription income was to be used. Our insurers also agrred to provide sponsorship. Those are the headlines as far as I can remember then. Now be a good chap find out the details by asking for the minutes of the EGM and the subsequent fund that was set up. When you've taken the trouble to do that have the grace to apologise for your ill informed comments.

Good work Adrian. This is where an adjustable incidence comes in as you could set both wings to the same incidence. I have found that my Robart gauge reads slightly differently when its rotated to face outwards on both wings. Having it face inwards makes it difficult to read so I resorted to photographing the readings using my phone. Turned out to be the same incidence on both wings! Worth a try to see if the machined slot in the bar is outside tolerance before making any other adjustments.

No, the LMA was never in the frame for being hosted at Buckminster when the original decision to lease Buckminster was taken.

Indeed! Sorry, thought I'd read it somewhere but just cannot find where it was posted. I'm happy to admit I am wrong on this.

This was all covered at the EGM years ago where the decision to go ahead with the Buckminster lease was taken. You could look up the minutes of that meeting and I'm sure the BMFA would be happy to provide you with a copy if you asked.

Did you see that the LMA is now going to come under the BMFA and LMA members will need to pay for BMFA membership as well as the LMA is no longer going to provide insurance. So, you might want to just carry on being a BMFA member. The increase is nothing to do with Buckminster. It is to do with the reducing membership but having not taken the necessary steps to manage the costs of the BMFA down. I understand that we are now down to around 28,000 members and there are many other calls on the BMFA subs. I do wish you would take the time to ask your Club representatives what the situation is before transmitting a lot of misinformation on this forum. The BMFA website gives this information and someone has already posted on that. If you think that the work the BMFA has led on to get us to Article 16 exemptions and in helping to guide the CAA away from some of the wilder ideas that have been tabled then clearly you do not value the fact that you have been able to continue flying your model with virtually no difference whereas it could have been much worse. That requires a lot of travel to meetings in both Europe and into London (usually) and some of these meetings are multi-day events. So you think that £12 will make a difference to your hobby over the year? I suspect when you tot up all that you spend on it then the extra, which I thought was £5 actually, is going to make any difference then I would be mightily surprised.

Where I have twin aileron servos in a wing, I now use the Ashlock connectors, now called Maxlock and available from 4 Max with a twin plug. Impossible to get the connection wrong as the plugs only fit one way and have an inbuilt locking mechanism making colour coding redundant. Very quick way to connect up twin ailerons. They also do a 4 way connector so you can have twin ailerons and twin flap connectors connected and locked with one action. I think they are great but you do need to be able to crimp reliably as the plugs are longer than standard.

I'm surprised your throw meter weight affects the control surface resting position. Mine doesn't I have to say. I should have said the markings on my throw meter are in degrees, so the meter is showing 4.5 degrees of up elevator in this case. Interestingly, this is my Wot 4 and with that total movement, both ways, I can fly the full fixed wing B test, apart from the spin. The loop and bunt are a bit bigger of course!

Forgot to post a photo of my throw meter. I got this from Amazon. You could probably make your own with a giant clothes peg and a few other bits!

Hi Adrian I hope you have along bar on that Robart Incidence meter! If not, you will have to take the incidence reading at around half span. I cannot reach the wing root with my Robart Incidence Meter so need to have the radio on and the control surfaces will then be able to support the weight of the meter. I've usually adjusted the fuselage so that the tail plane is at 0 deg and then you just need to measure the wing incidence. It is the relationship between the tail plane and wing that needs measuring. Also, I seem to get very slightly different readings from my Robart meter when it is facing in the other direction so I tend to do all the measurements from TP to wing looking one way and then do the other side. Of course, you want the TP to be the same incidence both sides so that's best done with the meter facing the same way. I have resorted to photographing the meter if I cannot get my head in the correct position! Without an incidence adjustment gizmo, all you can do at this stage is to record the built in incidences and use the ailerons to get the aircraft to fly level. With my set up, I tweak one wing's incidence to get the ailerons mechanically zeroed and then adjust the turnbuckle to get the servo to zero sub-trim and the aileron at mechanical zero. That way, both the servo and aileron are at mechanical zero. Finally, if you can measure control deflections by angle throw, it's a lot easier than trying to measure control deflection by mm of deflection at the root or tip. It is easier to compare with other setups as well as the angle measured is independent of the length of the control surface. Hope that helps. Peter

Well, I suppose if only 3.2% (and that's assuming all were from BMFA members which is generous) of the largest model flying community in the UK, I would say that the authorities would be quite justified in ignoring that input as it's clearly not a big issue for a tiny number. If you can't be bothered to take the time to respond then don't complain afterwards. I will be responding as well as writing to my MP.

Having read the outcome of the results of the earlier consultation, the following stood out: Overall, the Call for Input received 2,568 responses via the online feedback form and 61 responses via email. Overall, the largest subset of respondents stated that the only UAS they own are drones, which made up 52.5% of respondents. Representation from Model Aircraft flyers was disproportionately high (my emphasis) relative to our expectations of the UAS flying population. Model Aircraft flyers made up 34.0% of the total respondents 34% of 2,568 = 873 model aircraft flyers responded. (or 34% of 2629 = 893) Current BMFA membership = 28,000 – so, assuming all Model Aircraft responses were from BMFA members, probably unlikely, that means a maximum of 3.2% responded! I don't know if a 3.2% response rate is good for such an exercise but it does mean that every one of us that responds to the latest consultation will be vital.

I seem to remember that the aeronautical world followed the nautical world and the rule is give way to the traffic on the left. That's why the captain of a two pilot cockpit is on the left. Helicopters, for some reason, have the captain sitting on the right but still have to give way to traffic on the left.

Well done Adrian! On my little Capiche, I drew a centre line on the wing root rig and used a straight edge along that line to line up the ailerons.

You want as short a run as possible between the end of the supported outer sheath and the control horn and servo horn. You also need to support the outer at intervals along its run.

I'm afraid I agree with the need to restrain/ support the outer sheath as otherwise the control surface will suffer blowback as soon you get airborne. Either do that or go back to pushrods.

How fast do you have to approach yourself for your red aircraft to appear green Kevin?🤣

Looks very futuristic Ron!

The reason for inserting from underneath is that when you tighten the mounting screws they squeeze the rubber grommet till they bottom on the ferrule and that gives a repeatable force provided by the rubber grommet for mounting the servo. Once the screw has bottomed, you will not increase the servo mounting force no matter how tightly you turn the screw. That's the role of that little ferrules that are supplied. If you put them the other way up, the bottom of the ferrule just pushes into the mounting plate and the more you tighten the screw the more you squeeze the rubber grommet and the higher the force you apply to the servo mounting lugs. Don't do it that way!

Learner, my question about using a watt meter when doing full power checks was meant for you not Toto. You expressed surprise at the voltage drop from the off load figure. So, I asked if you had any experience of using a watt meter when doing a full power check. The reason for my question is that you seem to be questioning the voltage drop Toto reported on max power so the question is how much do you know about this or are you just posing a question? That's all.

Have you used a watt meter when doing full power checks?

When I was checking the power output in my new contra motor I had a fully charged 10S pack (42.00 V at full charge) and recorded a power output soon after take off in a vertical climb at full throttle of 3,600 W, 96 A and 37.5 V. That voltage drop is a bit more than Toto's experiment showed. So, I think that is probably correct. In normal usage, I rarely use more than 2,800 W and after flying my schedule of manoeuvres I land with the pack showing around 37.6 - 37.8 V. When I recharge the pack this usually equates to a figure of 3,000 - 3,300 mAh into a 4,800 mAh pack. Have you got actual figures to provide us that shows the max power and V and A readings or are you just surprised? You should remember that as you draw current the voltage will drop and the more current you draw the bigger the voltage drop. It's how batteries react and one of the reasons is their internal resistance. The more current you draw equates to reducing the external resistance and since the total resistance being seen by the battery is external + internal resistance the voltage drop measured across the external resistance, which is what we measure, drops significantly. Think of water. If you turn on all the water taps in your house, the water pressure drops significantly and the flow reduces through each tap as the water pressure reduces (that's voltage here) but the overall flow is very high (that's current). Hope that helps explains the observed voltages at max power.

Sorry Toto our emails crossed! Watching the cricket so a bit distracted. That's why I have standardised on 4 mm bullet connectors for my bstteries. I use the ones sold by Hobby King that have polarised plastic insulators - excellent devices.

Toto, You need to learn how to solder as it's a pretty common requirement. You need a hot iron. I use a 75 watt iron and that gets the heat transfer quickly. The length of ESC leads give you plenty of safety. I cut my battery leads quite short so they are only 1" long but, as GG says, fill the connector with solder and push the lead in. You can make your own connector holder by drilling 3 mm or 4 mm holes in a hardwood block and push the connectors into the drilled holes to anchor them while you solder. There are also commercially available devices that do the same. Practice makes perfect.

Are they still selling the Xtreme?