Peter Jenkins

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.

Actually Peter, i think you'll find that the pilot had put the aircraft into a no recovery possible situation. The flight controls gave him the maximum performance available but there wasn't enough room for the aircraft to avoid flying into the rising forest beyond the end of the runway. Another case of inadequate briefing before an "air show" rather than a failure on the part of any of the Airbus flight controls. One point on Piers point about the problem being created by the software engineers. Talking with test pilots of today's software heavy aircraft, they are brought in after the software engineers have been at it for some time. This then results in some sub-optimal situations being allowed to continue as it would cost too much to go back and amend the software. Remember, this is safety critical software that has a huge amount of effort expended to make sure that it doesn't go wrong and if it does then that is why they have quadruplicated systems with a voting process to throw out the system that is giving the odd answer. With a triplicate system, voting still works but once you come down to a duplicate system it's time to start praying! Very often, what is obvious to an aviation type is not at all obvious to a software type and this is why problems occur. That's why you get the situation where when full power was applied to an Airbus A340 on a test of all engines, the software said, aha full power so must be about to take off, release the brakes as you don't want to take off with brakes on! Result, the aircraft smashed into the blast wall and was wrecked even before it was delivered to its first customer. It's not the software that is too clever it is the human who is writing the software who needs to understand the business he is trying to help! Hence, the number of public sector large software projects that go wrong. No one, even the users, seem to know what it is they want when they start out with these complex programmes - result - an expensive, sometimes compliant with the specification, failure!

Well, I have to say that the article has somewhat bent the situation to suit the writers purpose. It is clear that the most inexperienced pilot took over flying the aircraft when the autopilot tripped out. His training was clearly inadequate as he failed to cross correlate what the instruments were telling him and he had the side stick controller held fully aft when the stall warner operated. An interesting comment about a Boeing aircraft was that it would have been immediately obvious that the pilot in command had done the wrong thing if the yoke was clearly in the fully aft position. That is a separate discussion about the merits of the traditional control yoke and the side stick controller on the Airbus. The pilots cannot see each other's side stick controllers and they are not mechanically linked so the fact that the 3rd pilot was holding the stick fully aft was not known to the others. There was another near disaster with a Qantas A 380 which should have resulted in the total loss of the aircraft and its crew. That concerned the uncontained failure of a turbine disk shortly after take off from Singapore. By rights, the aircraft should not have survived the turbine disk failure but by good crew coordination they were able to land the aircraft and no one was hurt. The A380 systems were so badly damaged that it took the crew 2 hours to try and go through all the fault reports. Part way through, the Captain made the decision find out which systems were still working and ignore those that weren't. By trying out which systems would still work to allow a safe landing to be made they saved a disastrous situation from turning into a tragedy. The lessons to be learned from both of these occurrences is that you should train your aircrew to first and foremost, to fly the aircraft, then to find out what's gone wrong and how to circumvent it. Trying to include self driving cars into this argument is interesting but not really relevant as you are dealing on the one hand with professional operators versus, for the most part, amateurs with limited training e.g. how many people do you see who still cannot reverse park in one go? That is a skill set that will be further reduced with automated parking. I have that function on my car and use it from time to time to check it is still working correctly but I self park most of the time. One of the recommendations from the accident/incident reports on today's highly automated airliners is to give pilots more stick time e.g. some airlines get their aircrew to take up gliding to improve and maintain their aircraft handling skills. We all make mistakes as we are human. Machines also make mistakes as most are reliant on software that is written by.....humans. Ask why some sat navs are so bad at planning routes? Think of who wrote the algorithms that they use. As regards the use of "automated devices" in cars, I find that using my cruise control not only delivers better fuel consumption but that it allows me to focus on the road without needing to check my speed constantly. Of course, it isn't possible to use cruise control where speeds are varying constantly. I've not had the opportunity to use adaptive cruise control but I did hear of a case where having had the car slow for heavy traffic on the motorway, the driver was faced with an accelerating vehicle as he left the crowded motorway for an empty slip road! One final point on gizmos. When the Tristar entered RAF service it was the only RAF aircraft with autoland and autothrottle and extensive flight data capture. The aircrew preferred to manually land the aircraft but the flight data showed that the aircraft suffered greater fatigue damage when flown manually than when flown on autoland. Even selecting autothrottle off resulted in much more engine usage when operated by the crew. You pays your money......or should that be monkey?

I have a kit of parts for a Tauros (updated structure but a Taurus outline) which I hope I'll get stuck into over the winter. I also have acquired a Veco 45 which I am reliably informed is not yet fully run in. I think the original engine used by Ed Kazmirski was a Veco 45.

Ross, remember that that throttle controls height and elevator controls speed. So, to slow down the Mythos approach at a shallower angle. Learn to fly a consistent circuit and your landings will also be consistent. The Mythos, like most F3A models, is usually pretty simple to land where you want - just takes a bit of practice. I normally set an idle for my electric motor when landing. I aim for the minimum speed at which it will run so that i can get power immediately I move the throttle lever. This emulates IC I know but makes it much easier to land the aircraft and to adjust its descent rate. Closing the throttle with the hard brake means that you are just gliding in and when you start to undershoot slightly you tend to get a burst of power as you open the throttle. Also, if you are overshooting there is nothing you can do about it as the throttle if fully closed, The secret to a good landing is to approach at the right speed with a bit of power on (how much depends on your motor setup and the model's characteristics) so that you can close the throttle to increase sink rate or open it to reduce the sink rate. Practice how slowly you can fly the Mythos at height and then come in a little bit faster for your landing. If it's windy, approach a bit faster i.e more steeply, as this will a) give you more control and b) give you a margin of speed as the aircraft comes through the wind gradient and loses airspeed close to the ground.

Herri Are you using 35 mHz or 2.4 GHz? There are a number of issues that could cause this, assuming you are certain it's not the servo. Do you have any metal to metal joins in your throttle run? At idle the vibration might cause this to be an issue which disappears at higher rpm. Does your ignition plug cap or cable damaged in any way? This is key for 35 MHz but 2.4 GHz is immune to such electrically generated noise. Can you turn the servo round and reverse the throw to check it's operation at the other end of the servo potentiometer when the engine is idling.

Thanks for posting that Steve. Very enjoyable.

I use quite a few digiswitches which provide a regulated output from a 2S LiPo. Very reliable and good for more than the 5 amps quoted in the description. The small print in the instructions allows up to 12 A for short periods. The limiting factor is the cooling available to the switch. They are expensive but very reliable.

Simon you may not be aware that ESC braking is used extensively in F3A (precision aerobatics) to slow the aircraft on vertical downlines. With an IC engine, the engine on idle provides prop braking and this is what the braking on F3A electrics is trying to emulate. The idea is to fly the model at a constant speed regardless of whether you are climbing or diving including going vertical in both - there's quite a lot of that in F3A! Ross - I don't know what the Hacker X70 provides under soft braking but on a Jeti/Hacker Spin 99 you can set a wait period (I use 0.5 secs) and then an initial brake (~20%) then final brake (~40%). Adjust the final brake figure to provide the required braking. It may be the X70 just gives a single setting on soft brake in which case use that. Setting a hard brake gives minimal braking effect - ideal for gliders especially for folding props - but no good for aerobatics. I'm sure that someone in your Club of F3A experts will be able to help you further.

Some help please! I've just replaced the gear train on a 9151 as one of the gears stripped itself. All has gone well except that I cannot remove the ball races from the inside and outside of the existing final gear. I'm reluctant to gorilla it so I thought I'd ask for advice and guidance first. Any views on how to do this? Thanks in advance!

Ross, having connected the servo and with both the Tx trim and sub trim set to zero, then try and pick the point at which the control arm is at 90 deg to the servo body. I think only Futaba provide a 4 armed horn that can be used to arrive at the best position to achieve 90 deg. After you have done your best to set things up mechanically, only then use the sub trim for fine tuning to get that 90 deg at zero stick movement (on the major flying controls that is). If you rely on sub trim and have loads set in, you run the risk of having uneven throws as a result.

Eflightray's post raises an interesting point about what is big. At less than 7 Kg, I would not classify his models as big but on the larger side - semantics, I know! I'm guessing the OP was really focused on models considerably above 20 Kg which drops them into proper aeroplane territory in regards of certification of the build standard and the pilot's flying standards. None of my "big" models is above 7 Kg but are undoubtedly larger than the average and fly much better. I think 90-120 (and I have 2 in that category) is a good size but at the moment I'm flying with 30cc petrol and equivalent electric power. I cannot justify, at the moment (there's the let out clause) aiming to go above 7 Kg but the thought of flying a 50 cc or 100 cc powered aircraft lurks in the back of my mind. I still enjoy flying my aged Wot 4 from time to time although to get an all weather performance I wouldn't go below a 40 sized aircraft very often. I have one scale foamie and it's great fun in very low wind conditions and was a god send when I could only get out to fly very rarely and made use of the farmer's field behind my house. As regards scale, then there is no doubt that bigger is better as you are fighting scale effect with an accurate profiled scale aircraft (Reynolds number and all that). Really big introduces a lot more problems as regards structural strength, reliability of the electronic control systems and also the pilot's own skills.

As ever, some folk will never be satisfied with the way the BMFA works and will look to criticise them at every turn. However, I think that events have shown there is a significant element within the BMFA management fold who have both the knowledge and expertise to take on this challenge without sinking the Association. Of course it is always useful to question the decisions that are being taken in our name but this decision looks like it will achieve the aim of having a National Centre, albeit we don't own the land but it is hosted by a supportive landlord and well away from any potential noise or environmental complaints. We should congratulate all of those on the project team for getting this across the line. I for one, look forward to the development of the nascent ideas that gave birth to the project. We should all aim to support the project team's efforts. The decision has been taken, now we have to get on and support the project.

Piers and others who think that the BMFA is not doing enough on this matter, do read Dave Phipps' note in which you will see that there is a move to form a pan-European Model grouping to try and influence the EASA proposals. The BMFA is playing a role in this. The FAI will also be part of this group. It would appear that the folks drafting these regulations have rather lost sight of the fact that they will do nothing to prevent terrorists or criminals mounting attacks. As Dave has pointed out, EASA has a record of screwing up legislation that subsequently takes years to correct. Let's hope that if the worst happens that we will be far enough down the Brexit route for HMG to refuse to implement any ludicrous EASA regs. The full size sport aviation folk may also wish to get involved since they could end up having to cope with "Drones" infringing their airspace.

Colin, if you read to the end of Dave Phipps article you will see that Brexit will have no effect as the CAA, in common with other European Aviation Authorities, is tied into EASA. There are good reasons for that for full size aviation such as the certification of aircraft and the ATC system to name but two.

The latest situation on the EASA proposed rule making on "Drones" is worth reading here. There are links to the EASA document and also a link to a page for registering your views. Might also be worth lobbying your MEP although that might not be highly productive! There is also a full description of what the BMFA is doing about this unfortunate situation.

Could it be due to a higher internal resistance for the NiMhs and therefore a higher internal losses within the cells. I know that as LiPos age their IR goes up and that's when they start to puff and heat up or overheat.

Matty, I don't know why you think that anything to do with Laws Lawn Farm should still be on the BMFA website since it's history. The latest released Council minutes (found on the BMFA site by navigating - Home/Minutes and Agenda/Minutes Ratified Full 16-Jan-09) show that the CE reported that a new option of leasing a site had arisen and work was now proceeding to investigate this further. There is also a report that is on the BMFA website (reached via News/National Centre Update dated 18 05 2016 - or click here) in which Manny states the then current position and which was put to both Exec and Full Council and approved by both. The next Council meeting is scheduled for Sat 10th September and no doubt, after ratification by this meeting, those minutes will also be published on the website. A further update on the NFC will be given then and no doubt the News tab will be updated at that point. One of the points made by the Council planning group when the permission was being sought for Laws Lawn Farm was that they looked at what was on the BMFA site to describe the end game for the NFC and this disturbed them and had it come to a decision this information would have led them to turn down the application. In this day and age, you have to be very careful how much information you share as you don't know what are the unintended consequences of doing so. kc - you complain that local Clubs are denied the opportunity of speaking to each other by the BMFA. I find that hard to understand. All BMFA Clubs are grouped into Areas. The Area Committee meets at least 3 times a year and sometimes more often. All Clubs are invited to attend these meetings. The Area Committee elects officers to administer the Area one of whom is the Council Delegate. This person takes instruction from the Area Committee to which all Clubs in the Area are invited but few choose to attend. The BMFA provides funds to these Area Committees to pay mileage to Clubs to travel to these meetings and they don't need an overnight stay. Your Club rep should have established, at the very least, your Club Committees views, to put forward to the Area Council. The Clubs therein make a decision as to what they would like their Delegate to do at Full Council where all the decisions on the NFC are taken. And who are these Delegates? They are members of the Clubs in the Area who are prepared to put in the effort to do the job. If kc, or anyone else who has posted who vehemently disagrees with the NFC concept, wanted to get onto Council to make his presence felt, it's quite easy to do - put your name forward for election to the post at the Area AGM which will be held soon after the BMFA AGM. I know that our Area has circulated all the Club Secs with a list of Club Secs emails although some Club Secs chose not to have their emails exposed for fear of spam attacks. So, let's not have the story put about that the Clubs are denied the right to speak to each other. That is simply not true. There is a constant refrain of having a one person one vote system. Many claim this is the only way to see democracy satisfied. Well, we only have to look at what happened during the Brexit referendum to ponder whether the vote was conducted on the issues to do with staying in or leaving the EU. Some said they would vote for which ever outcome meant they were better off. Others just wanted to put one over authority and so on I'm not suggesting that the NFC is anything like as complex a decision as Brexit but how many of the 36,000 members would bother to vote bearing in mind how many UK registered voters vote in General Elections. In any event, it would require a change in the Articles of Association which would take up a great deal of time and effort from a group who are all unpaid volunteers. Just look at how many Club members volunteer to sit on their Club Committee - not many although I grant you there will be exceptions.

I use small bits of a snake outer super glued to the fuselage sides with the aerials inserted into them and secured with a dob of silicone. I believe it's very important to keep the aerial portion as straight as possible. Even small bends can have an effect on range. I have also used double sided very sticky plastic tape to stick the aerial and plastic outer to. This has worked very well with the aerials clearly visible during my pre flight checks to ensure they are straight and at 90 deg to each other.

I use one of these

I also run JR servos rated at 4.8 v on a 2 cell LiFe pack with 6.6 volts. However, with a 5 cell NiMh both my Spectrum (read JR for that servo) and genuine JR servos were unhappy. I'm told a fully charged 4 cell NiMH is a bit over 6 volts while a 5 cell NiMH is over 7 volts. So a LiFe at 6.6v seems OK. Alternatively, use a Powerbox switch which has a voltage regulator and can provide between 5.5 v and 6.1 v from a 2 cell LiPo. Expensive but does give you the benefit of almost constant voltage supply.

Tim - all good stuff, but, with respect, you have omitted mention of the throttle. As we all know, model aeroplanes are grossly overpowered compared with full size aircraft. Aerobatic model aeroplanes are even more so. A good aerobatic model will accelerate upwards with full power when vertical. That leads to the ability to fly at constant speed around a manoeuvre - one of the aims in today's precision aerobatics, hence oodles of power. That also means that the throttle is not an on off switch but one that is being constantly adjusted to match the position of the aircraft. At the risk of overpowering the OP, I did write a section on aerobatic manoeuvres including loops. You can find the looping description here at the post dated 6/12/2013 17:19:01. Be warned it is a long series of posts that covers trimming and flying a great many manoeuvres as well as how to fly the B. You are right about the highest G being at the bottom of the loop or bunt. G is your enemy on bottom half of the loop but increasingly your friend as you go over the top. I've not seen any aerobatic aircraft clap hands at the bottom of a loop/bunt so I assume this might have been due to some pre-existing damage or an inappropriate airframe. Most model aeroplanes are heavily over engineered compared with full size.

Wow! That must have got the adrenaline going PeterF! I use 2 x 5S packs as a 10S when flying but charge them in parallel. I used to use 5.5 mm plugs/sockets but after getting confused at the end of a long and tiring day when setting up the batteries for charging ended up connecting negative to positive instead of negative to negative! The resultant excitement was ended very quickly as the solder melted on one of the joints and the cable fell out creating an open circuit but leaving me with a LiPo pack that had produced flame for a short time and was now sitting there smoking! I was in what they call a heightened state of awareness! I transferred back to the HXT connectors but have to cut through the plastic that connects the two. That makes it easy to plug black to red to make the 10S pack and then have two other connections to make to the ESC. When it comes to charging I just need to remember to go like to like and as I have HXT connectors on the Charger output leads this makes it a failsafe operation as you cannot cross plug - assuming you soldered the connectors onto the ESC output correctly. So, I've found that an even simpler way to avoid connecting batteries together accidentally is just to cut the plastic connection between the two terminals. Well, it's worked for me - so far!