Peter Jenkins

Andrew, I agree with Bob. No two aeroplanes fly the same and it is up to you to trim your aircraft to achieve the best performance and handling. Key to good aerobatic performance is the position of the CG. By sticking to the CG marked on the plan you may not have the best position. CG position is the most powerful trimming tool we have! If you establish a 45 degree climb and half roll, release the elevator stick pressure and note if the nose drops or rises. If it rises, you need to move the CG forward as your aircraft is moving into the unstable area. If the nose falls gently then that's fine, if the nose drops very quickly consider moving the CG rearwards. This is very much a suck it and see situation as it depends on how you like to set up your aircraft but generally, you get the best out of sport aerobats when the CG is set so that the nose drops gently in the above test. The next thing that is worth doing s to climb to height and then close the throttle and dive vertically. Adjust the rudder trim so that the aircraft descends without swinging left or right. You now have an aircraft that flys straight without power. The next step is to pull up to the vertical, or near vertical with full power and note which way the nose is pulled out of straight upwards - you already know this as it's swinging to the left. Then apply some right thrust - a washer under the left side mounting bolts. Then check with a full power climb and keep adding washers till the aircraft goes pretty straight for most of the time - you'll never get it exactly right as increasing/decreasing airspeed will alter the side thrust situation. The next thing to check on an aerobatic aircraft is up/down thrust. Do this by flying at the "cruise" setting and adjust elevator trim to fly level hands off. Then smoothly apply full power and note if the aircraft climbs or dives. If it dives, add upthrust and vice versa. Once you have sorted out the above you will be surprised how much easier your workload becomes when flying aerobatics. Good luck.

Chris, you won't damage your pack if you charge at 5.0 amp all the time - as this is below 2C as MattyB has pointed out above. Assuming that your pack is rated at 2C and above. Having read the post title, I had thought you were asking about fast charging and full charging. Generally, a fast charge will take you to about 95% of capacity in under an hour whereas a full charge can take longer depending on how much balancing the charger needs to do to make sure that all the cells are at the same voltage of 4.2 v. As you get close to 4.2 v for each cell then there is much more inter-cell balancing that the charger needs to undertake and that's reflected in the difference in charging time for fast and full charges. Generally speaking, 95% capacity is perfectly adequate provided you are not aiming to get the maximum safe charge out of the pack. You are probably aware that you should aim to discharge no lower than 20% of capacity to prolong battery life.

More important than just age is whether you Examiners keep up to date with the changes in the Achievement Scheme schedules. How many are aware that there is an Achievement Scheme website which contains downloads for all the tests. The tests are meant to be conducted to each year's guidance notes (and they do carry the year on the front cover) yet I still hear strange stories of the odd Examiner requiring the cross over for the fig 8 to be at 45 degrees! That went out years ago. You can find the AS website here

Adrian Firstly, the Rx battery. I used an 800 mah 2S Lipo for my Rx in a Monolog 70 (50 size really). That would be fine for 4 flights of around 10 mins duration. I initially used a 5S 5000 pack, as I had lots of these from my 2 mtr birds, but that didn't provide sufficient oomph as the motor had a lowish kv of 465. I changed to a 6S 4000 mah pack and that did have bags of oomph and gave about 10 mins as well. In both cases, I was down to around 20% remaining. I forget if you are using 5S or 6S but using a higher voltage allows the current draw to be reduced for the same power and keeps things cooler as well. 3800 mah on a 5S would be marginal in my view. From my experience with the Monolog, a 6S 4000 mah pack should give you between 10 and 12 minutes which is enough to fly any of the aerobatic schedules up to P17 with time to spare. You do need to pay attention to the power setting you are using as otherwise you will burn through the pack. It's easily done - as I have proved to myself on several occasions. On my 2 mtr birds, the main batteries, 2 x 5S 5000 mah connected in series take between 3000 and 3500 mah per flight when flying the FAI P17 schedule but only after I'd got control of throttle management! As regards charging time. Set your charger to stop at 95% capacity and it will almost invariably complete in less than an hour. Taking it to 100% takes much longer especially if there is a lot of cell balancing going on at the end. You really don't need the extra 5% with the right sized packs.

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/11/2016 19:58:56: You mean there's two!!!???? OMG! BEB Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/11/2016 19:59:11 I certainly had a success! I did a dummy buy first to find out how it worked and then an actual buy. I placed the order at around noon on Monday for 2 Turnigy LiPos (5S 5000 20C) and received them on Tuesday morning. It does take a bit of time to get used to the new process that they have introduced. So far, I've only tackled the LiPo problem so I don't know if it's as easy buying anything else.

That's brave Martyn!

Agreed that comps do not float everyone's boat but you do learn so much from flying in one. You can enter a GBR/CAA comp without joining the Association for your first comp - just pay the entry fee which is £5 for a Clubman schedule. Failing that, assuming you already have a B cert, why not try for the C Aerobatic? With the Mythos properly trimmed out it should be both good fun and improve your flying. Mind you, as it's flown like the B, i,e, not a schedule with every manoeuvre flown in front of the pilot (no end manoeuvres) it is easier than flying even the Clubman schedule where there is a manoeuvre in the centre and at each turnaround end. If you exit one manoeuvre wrongly, you compromise the next manoeuvre. With the C, you have time to sort yourself out while you fly a reversal to come back to the centre. You'll find the details of the C here.

Well, I finally decided to go back onto the HK site and after a going through a dummy buy found that you have to get almost to the end of the process before you can select which warehouse from whom you want to buy. As Geoff has said above, you can set the range for LiPo size and tick the box for no of cells and up comes a listing with prices. Not sure how things would have worked out if the LiPo I was interested in buying had not been available at the UK Warehouse - I would have gone a long way through the buying process to find out it was out of stock! Perhaps that's the intention? Bottom line is that I made the purchase at about 12:45 in the afternoon and got a text at 1930 from Parcelforce telling me to expect delivery tomorrow. That's never happened before so perhaps their systems are running a lot faster now.

Adrian, I asked as you said you were looking at Extreme Flight aircraft and the only F3A aircraft they produce are the Vanquish in either 50 size or the 2 mtr full F3A bird, with which I started flying F3A competitions. Talking of which, are you intending to enter any precision aerobatic competitions? I competed against someone flying an Angel 50 at Masters level and he flew well enough to win the league that year so a well flown 50 size machine can do the biz - you just need a pilot to keep up with it!

Hi Adrian - Matty's beaten me to it! BTW, if you are in the market for another leccy bird, you might want to take a look at the Bondaero site. They offer a range of aircraft from full F3A to 120/70 sizes plus some IMAC stuff. The question is, where does your interest lie? F3A, IMAC or 3D?

Well done Adrian! What I said in my post was elevator and aileron to 10 deg and did not mention the rudder. I should have said about 25 deg for the rudder for starters but the only way to sort out the aircraft is to fly it and see how it handles. Adjust from there. The rudder needs to be sufficiently powerful to perform stall turns. For spinning, you will need as much elevator as necessary firstly to stall the aircraft and secondly to keep it stalled while in the spin. I usually go for max rudder throw for spinning as well. I agree with MattyB re using the ESC as a power source. I also have a 50 size electric and use a 2S Lipo through a Powerbox Digiswitch to provide 5.9 V output. This does not add much weight and you can probably site it on the CG or use it to move the CG around. Do experiment with different CG positions as this is the single most important trimming tool available. Obviously be careful when moving the CG rearwards but provided you do it in small stages it is all very safe - you don't suddenly get a very twitchy aircraft. As regards landing speed, these aircraft can slow up quite a lot. Try it at height at first and you'll find that it will fly quite slowly without a problem. I have no difficulty landing my 2 mtr electric even in a flat calm provided I get the approach speed right.

Hi Rich The answer is yes, unfortunately. However, if you take note of all the settings in your old Tx you can then transfer them to your new Tx and you should be just about there. Do check that everything works as you intended though before you fly, including the Failsafe. All the set up info in in the Tx and not the Rx.

I think the new website has a number of faults. First, I cannot see how to select the UK warehouse, or any other for that matter. Second, the ability to select the number of cells for a LiPo has been removed making buying a battery almost impossible without just hunting from page to page. Third, their prices seem all over the place. What's the from price mean? The account information tabs are quite good though.

John, I used to think Xoar props were great till I used Falcon. I now just use Falcon. No props are perfectly balanced IMHO. I've had to balance Xoar, Falcon, APC you name it. If you don't have a prop balancer then it's a great investment. Also, it is sometimes the hub/hole that is the problem so that the blades can be balanced with the heavy spot on the prop hub at the bottom but turn it round and it will not balance. You need to remove some weight from the edge of the hub - carefully!

Devcon1 - the Zephyr is used by the military - you cannot just pole up to Airbus and cough up £4.3 m for a copy without a very good reason for doing so! Both the UK and US military have used Zephyr. Note that it's intended to fly at a very high altitude ca 70,000 ft! Even the UK MoD can only fly Zephyr, and Reaper for that matter, inside one of their ranges apart from "use in operational areas".

John, I run an AGM 30 (DLE 30 clone) using one of these canisters (about £46). The muffler supplied with these engines is useless. The Edge may well have a tunnel for a canister which will make this a viable solution. As mentioned, the choice of prop is also important. I use a Falcon Beechwood 17x10 (£11) and I also use an extended carb intake trumpet (£23) - this shields the intake noise by putting the carb intake inside the motor box - you may need to widen the hole in the box for the trumpet to fit. I got my intake trumpet from IAD Designs but there must be others who sell them as well. All of these have made the engine noise comparable with a 120 glow and quite acceptable. I've yet to measure the noise with a meter but I'm hopeful it will meet 82 db. The aircraft I'm flying is an HK Sbach 30 cc which tips the scales at 5.3 Kg and the vertical performance is unlimited. A solution that will cost around £80 ain't bad value!

Posted by Percy Verance on 23/10/2016 19:22:07: Peter I wouldn't lose any sleep over the Waterhouse & Ely Superfly. I built one for a chap I was teaching 25 odd years ago, and I wasn't particularly impressed. It had the most fragile glass fibre fuselage I've ever seen on a model. The slightest knock and the surface of the fus would craze and shatter. It was also a bit too heavy to fly nicely too...... Well, that's good to know. My Superfly didn't last its maiden! My instructor was given the job of flying the maiden but my skinflint approach to this airframe meant I used some second had servos. Sadly, the elevator servo gears chose the maiden to strip themselves and the Superfly went in vertically. The fuz certainly crazed and shattered but I would think most others would have done so in the circumstances!

I would recommend 10 deg up and down for both elevators and ailerons - these are good starting points for an F3A machine. You'll probably need the 30 deg on elevator for spinning and possibly more depending on where you end up with your CG. It will make a very twitchy first flight if you go with 30 deg!

Exactly Tony! Oh, and don't get me going on split infinitives! Even the newsreaders on the Beeb seem to be following the US tradition of no infinitive should ever be left unsplit! To boldly go might be OK for Star Trek but not for those interested in following the rules of grammar.

I'm surprised that kits/models survive in the attic. The one kit that sat in my attic for a long time (Waterhouse & Eley Superfly) ended up with delaminated wings. At the moment, all my stuff is in my shed (getting difficult to move around it without bumping into bits of aircraft!). There are 6 i/c and 4 leccy birds with a futher ic bird in build and one still in its box. Need to finish the build to get the one in the box built! I tend to fly more than I build although building is enjoyable - well, more enjoyable than repairing!

Ending a sentence with a preposition. Using the incorrect tense in a sentence. Using a singular verb for a plural subject. So, that should keep the well bubbling a bit more! (The use of "So". Well, I'm glad you asked me that question! "So" seems to have replaced "Well" as a verbal tick before answering. The one I like, really, is the Australian saying "Look, it's like this.... Just sounds so much more definitive than Well....)

Erf, I suppose you have a point. 500,000 aero modellers across Europe, which is what the BMFA is in the process of doing, is really just a lone voice and as for the FAI (the Governing Body for Air Sports), and Europe Air Sports organisations....well, they're just amateurs in the game compared to you with years of experience sitting on Committees and forming alliances. We bow to your superior knowledge.

Erf Instead of berating the rest of the hobby world for not getting on board a poorly worded plea for the UAV Industry (there is no mention of model flying in this) I cannot imagine why you think it's so wonderful to jump onto this industry band wagon. Added to that, if you had read Dave Phipps' note you would have seen that the FAI is involved and that the BMFA is playing a role in getting all the European Model Flying agencies to join forces and lobby for the specific requirements of flying and competing with Model Aircraft of all sorts and not just "drones" as represented by this petition. So, the issue lies with you. Rather than encouraging modellers to put their name to a spurious petition, why don't you get behind the BMFA's initiative or does that go against the grain?

Posted by Engine Doctor on 16/10/2016 09:14:21: Erlog mentions the possibility of a resident club at the proposed NFC in his last post .I have no problem with a resident club at the NFC should it become a reality ; however I feel they should pay a realistic rent for the use of the site as other clubs have to and not be subsidised by every other BMFA member . It certainly is doable and hopefully our annual meeting " The Nats" can be secured for the future. Erfolg is wrong on this point. Just look at the published information on the new leased site and the powerpoint presentation. Nowhere does it say that it is it dependent on the income from a resident club as even an option. Erfolg there is no need to be rude and sarcastic about the BMFA Council - "If they have difficulties I suggest that one of them descends from ivory tower and dains to speak to clubs who presently rent field a field on lease. In short it should be a non issue." All Council members are members of Clubs and are well aware of the issues associated with running Clubs. Rather than vilify them, you might just cut them some slack for examining and agreeing to this new option to find a way to fund a National Centre. With all the information that has been published, I think you are stoking disinformation with what you have posted. If you haven't read the latest information from the BMFA, to which I have linked, please take the opportunity to do so and don't be misled by ill informed and casually insulting comments - they might be fun but they are not true and only serve to confuse the existing situation. Better still, and if you are able to, come to the BMFA AGM in November and I'm sure that there will be a presentation on the latest situation regarding the NFC. You can then ask questions and listen to the answer from a properly informed person. If you can't attend the AGM then I'm sure there will be a release of the latest information on the NFC. Note that it is intended to have the Phase 1 work complete for the Centre to open in Spring 2017 - not so far away.

The EASA proposal is just that and there is a great deal of work being done by the FAI, Europe Air Sports and the BMFA to get a change to these proposals. If we were to wait for the EASA proposal to go through all its reviews we would then have missed the current opportunity to lease a site for our National Centre. I believe that the new leased site is a viable proposition with suitable protection for the BMFA's funds and longer term use of the facility. The old option of buying a site is just too difficult to pursue with any degree of certainty so the lease option, which doesn't require as much up front funding to make it viable and will have a lease with frequent break points, represents the sensible way forward. Note that planning permission has been approved for the change of use of this site and the local authority is very supportive of having this National Centre on its patch. It was never going to be sustainable to find and buy a site the size of Barkston Heath (600 acres) as our attempt to buy Laws Land Farm (just over 100 acres) flagged up the cost of pursuing something of that size as an outright purchase.