Peter Jenkins

I use the expanded foam tubes used to insulate water pipes. Cheap, can be cut to the size required, and has a slit that allows you to slot the wires in place and then slide the tube down the fuselage. Not much use for wings of course. This has the advantage of not causing any noise as the wires flop around inside the tube while the foam is friendly to any sudden sagging of the wires.

Posted by Tom Sharp 2 on 26/07/2016 12:34:12: During the war Boulton Paul, made an all wood prototype fighter which could be manufactured in a rush if Spitfire and Hurricane production was overwhelmed. Don't see that modelled very often. Pointless information but somebody has got to tell it. Are you sure it was Boulton Paul and not Miles? I know that Miles produced an all wood fighter using a Merlin but with a fixed undercarriage designated M20.  However, by the time it was ready, the supply of Spitfires and Hurricanes had been resolved and the M20 was dropped.   Edited By Peter Jenkins on 26/07/2016 19:29:16

I cannot find anything regarding this on the CAA website but there are a number of newspaper reports on this topic. One quotes the CAA as follows: “We want to enable the innovation that arises from the development of drone technology by safely integrating drones into the overall aviation system,” said Tim Johnson, the CAA’s head of policy. “These tests by Amazon will help inform our policy and future approach.” Amazon is apparently testing "sense and avoid" technologies under this CAA exemption and I would imagine, although I have not seen anything on this from the CAA, that there will be stringent limits on what Amazon can do with this trial. Once the trial has been completed, no doubt the CAA will crawl over the results very carefully before they make any changes to their policy on drone operation. I know that the military has been researching sense and avoid technologies for many years and has yet to come up with a system that can be certified. Since the Amazon drones have a limited payload I cannot imagine what the additional weight of appropriate sense and avoid sensors will do to the payload. Remember that this sense and avoid technology will have to be to a higher standard than our model aircraft radio technology since it will be responsible for the well being of the general public. We modellers provide that standard of safety by avoiding built up areas (prime location for Amazon) and keeping visual contact with our model aircraft. To date, segregation of manned and unmanned aircraft has been the way that the world's aviation authorities have dealt with this. The CAA look like they are keen to explore this technology to enable the UK to become the world leader in drone operations on the basis that this will spawn a major business opportunity for UK plc. Dave Hopkin - the BMFA has made a statement about how it, and other air sports bodies, are working with the CAA - see this news item that was published on the BMFA news site in Jan 2016 - as well as in the BMFA News. The Chief Exec regularly briefs the BMFA Council on progress and your Area Delegate should pass this information on to the Area Clubs. If this is not happening, do ask your Club's Area Representative if they attend the Area meetings and, if they do, whether this information is being passed on. If it isn't, they should ask their Area Delegate why not.

I'd always flown using thumbs and a neckstrap and it was only when I started flying aerobatics seriously that someone suggested I try a tray. It took me 3 months to make the transition from thumbs/neckstrap to finger and thumb/tray. Perhaps I'm just a slow learner. Anyway, after getting used to the tray I found two great advantages (for me that is). First, as I got tense using thumbs/neckstrap, I tended to tilt the Tx towards me which made operating my thumbs more difficult - completely absent using a tray. Second, i found it easier to fly long inverted sections of the schedule with the tray since I could brace my wrist against the tray. I still fly thumbs/neckstrap when someone asks me to fly their model and don't have a tray - it's also easier passing them the Tx once I've sorted out the model - not easy with a tray! But as BEB has said, it all depends on how you get on with the tray. Suffice to say, that my experience on transition to a tray was that it took me some time. Then again, if you were a thumb/forefinger flyer with/without a neckstrap, you might make the transition more easily than a just-thumbs pilot.

Posted by Paul Jefferies on 10/07/2016 23:20:34: 'Just tried it and all seemed normal....... Paul Ditto - I did have that problem some time ago but clearing the cache on your computer browser cleared that issue. Worth trying that before you contact HK.

The New (to aerobatics) Pilot Open Day was held on Sunday 26th June and 8 pilots flew in it. For a short report and to see photographs of the event please click here.

Matty, I can assure you that the Digiswitch is used by a great many F3A pilots. The servos most used traditionally in F3A are Futaba/JR and almost all JR servos (not the HV ones obviously) all need no more than 6 volts. I have also used the PowerBox Sensor switch with dual 800 mah LiPos. There has never been any reported problem with the servos fitted to 2 mtr F3A machines having any problems with the 3A max quoted on the Digiswitch. The advantage of a regulated voltage supply is that your servo performance remains the same despite any drop in main battery voltage - NB if main battery voltage affects the 5.9 v output then your LiPo has dropped below 3 v/cell! I have used the Digiswitch on five 2 mtr aircraft. My current one, a biplane, uses a total of 6 mini servos (4 aileron and 2 elevator) and 1 full size rudder and the Digiswitch has not, so far(!), caused a problem. I observe that most UK competition pilots use Futaba, JR or Jeti (gaining in popularity) brands. This might be down to established folk lore or satisfaction with proven equipment reliability and, in the case of servos, centering capability. Servo speed is generally immaterial but returning accurately to centre from either direction is essential as a wandering centre defeats the ability of the aircraft to fly accurately. I know from personal experience that some well known high end servos are guilty of this - this only came to light when I got an experienced aerobatic pilot to test fly my bird and he said "it's impossible to trim" - replace the servos with either Futaba or JR. I grant you that there are probably others that would do the job but these two are used almost universally in the F3A world. But it's your aircraft and your call. Just thought I'd let you know what is current practice in F3A. Oh yes, some folk are now migrating to HV servos so that will allow an unregulated LiPo to be used. Whether voltage variation will cause an issue in servo performance that affects the aircraft's flight pattern I do not know.

Matt, you might like to know that many pilots flying 2 mtr size F3A models use something like an 800 mah 2S Lipo through a Powerbox Digiswitch that can be set for 5.5v to 6 v to power the Rx and servos. You can get 4 flights out of the LiPo quite safely as you tend to use around 80 mah per flight. The switch is software controlled but has proved very reliable. This is a very simple solution and provides a completely separate power source to the radio from the drive battery. The Optipower Ultra Guard is a very worthwhile safety measure which is on my list to get. I do have Rx battery voltage telemetry (JR XG system) and have also used a third party sensor pack that gives a range of parameters that have been useful (drive battery capacity remaining, voltage, current, power, rpm, height) but the only really important one is drive battery capacity remaining once you have completed the setup. Just a thought.

You might be interested to learn that a trio of British companies have developed the first fully integrated detect-track- disrupt-defeat Anti-UAV Defence System (AUDS) and this is being trialled by the FAA to protect airports - link.

Hi Guys and Gals I'm running a new to aerobatics pilot open day on Sunday 26th June at the Raydon & District MAC. The site is located on the old Raydon airfield which is off the A12 between Ipswich and Colchester. There are currently four places still available. The day offers coaching in aerobatics to pilots who are never flown competition aerobatics. All you need is an A certificate and an aircraft that will do aerobatics - Wot 4s have been used at previous NPODs - and a desire to learn how to fly better aerobatics. You will be coached by experienced aerobatic pilots who have lots of experience in flying in competition, some at the highest level. Incidentally, I'm serious about the Gals part. We have had one lady already fly in an earlier NPOD and another will be flying in this one. Don't be shy now ladies! So, if you are interested, please PM me ASAP with your email address and I'll send out some guidance notes and an entry form. Entry fees will be £8 which will include a BBQ for lunch on the day. Peter

The SMAE is the legal entity that trades under the name of BMFA. The BMFA is not therefore a separate legal construct. To The Wrinkled Prune - you may be agreeably surprised that the BMFA reached out to the wider membership for those who had specialist knowledge and that the team has input from experts in planning and leasing arrangements working on the matter as we speak. The issue around not publishing every bit of information at the moment is that there is a planning application in process as described by Manny Williamson in his last post on this topic. A lesson learned from Laws Lawn Farm planning permission is that planners looked at the BMFA site and took on board the extensive vision that the presentation on the site contained. That did not help to get the planners on side. Had the site not failed on some of the other gating factors, I would have thought there might have been some real difficulty with getting the sort of planning scope that was being sought. So, there is some recent experience that indicates that keeping ones powder dry until such time as planning permission is granted will mean we stand a better chance of getting that permission in the first place. I would have thought that we would all wish that lesson to be not just learned but applied by the BMFA in this instance.

John, I wasn't having a go at BEB, merely pointing out that creating an organisation to replace the BMFA would end up with a very similar situation - this is the human condition from which we all suffer. Would that it were otherwise.

Posted by Cuban8 on 20/05/2016 17:06:33: 43 Acres? OK for a modest fly-in but for the Nats... forget it! We already have this year and there's no guarantee that RAF Barkston Heath will be available for the Nats, as we have known them, next year.

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 21/05/2016 12:21:30:   Maybe its time for the rank and file members to thnk the previously unthinkble, maybe we would be better off forming our own association that is aimed soley at representing and serving the interests of the ordinary club members and solo flyers? An association that had no involvment with competition or grand national schemes, that didn't have a committee structure linked to competion disciplines, that didn't think the the most important event of the year was a "black-tie dinner" to which 99.9% of the membership won't attend or even know of. Instead it would focus on delivering purely what most of us actually want - ie a insurance scheme made cheaper and more compehensive by collective bargaining, representation with external bodies and advice on running clubs etc. And maybe it could an up to date and responsive organisation that was truely democratic? Ah - a dream! BEB Well BEB, I look forward to such an organisation and then to reading about how it's been hijacked by those awful people who are running it in this forum. It will happen as sure as day follows night. As for a completely democratic voting system - one member one vote on all decisions - how else did Boaty McBoat end up being the most popular name for the new Antarctic Research Vessel. It required the "few" to make a sensible decision to restrict that silly name to the small unmanned vehicle on the Sir David Attenborough. How would people who have to work on a ship called Boaty McBoat feel about their fellow citizens who landed them with a name that brings ridicule on them when they enter any harbour or say they work on Boaty McBoat? Politics, with a small p, are always going to get in the way of any organisation. Remember that the BMFA is run by volunteers who give up a lot of their time to do this. You know from trying to get Club members to take on Committee jobs that the vast majority do not want to and it comes down to the same hard core who soldier on for years. The full time staff in the BMFA head office are, as you know, not the folk who make the key decisions as that is down to the volunteers. So, you will be looking for a group of volunteers who will put in the work necessary to build up such the organisation you are proposing and then to run it. Remember that voting for the BMFA Executive is a one member one vote affair when there is a competition for posts. How often is there just one name and so no need for a vote? I suspect that you'll find there will be a very small number of volunteers who will have the time, energy and knowledge to put this new "down to earth" organisation together and they will become the elite who the rest will start moaning about in fairly short order. So BEB, I agree with your final phrase - Ah, a dream! Edited By Peter Jenkins on 22/05/2016 01:09:23

Extremely well done to Paul and Peter!

Do remember that there is nothing new here. You were supposed to have read up all this stuff for As and Bs before anyway. The only difference is that there is now a set of mandatory questions that are laid out with answers to make the job easy to do. Remember that ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse in the legal world. I think that even those who have As and Bs (or even Cs) might find the mandatory questions a useful way to brush up on the legal implications of our wonderful hobby. If you are not aware that you are operating your model in an unlawful manner you could end up endangering others as well as yourself. We all need to be familiar with the Highway Code and this is a good deal smaller than that. I am into the 60+ age range and I find it odd that we are being singled out as finding it hard to learn this stuff. You don't need to regurgitate it parrot fashion but you do need to know what these requirements mean so that you can ensure that you operate your model in a legal manner.

Hi John Sorry not to have responded earlier! I got mine from I.A.D Designs in the end. Have yet to run the engine to find out whether intake noise has been attenuated with the intake inside the engine box.

Gordon, there is a BMFA Classifieds site that is run by the BMFA and I have found it to be an excellent source for buying and selling aeromodelling stuff. You do have to register to use it though.

Does anyone know if there is a supplier of air intake trumpets that can be used with the Walbro carb on the AGM30/DLE30 petrol engines?  Thanks for looking. Edited By Peter Jenkins on 17/03/2016 22:28:54

Posted by Robert Parker on 23/02/2016 20:46:35: I was fed up of the slow broadband speed I was getting around 12-15, however, after changing over to BT claiming I would get upto 24 they did point out that it would take a few days for the speed to "settle" after I changed over. 8 weeks on the other day I got a disappointing 1.7!!!!!! Wow - only around 12-15 mbps and now a disappointing 1.7 mbps. In our village, we struggle to get much more than 1.1 mbps and were promised an upgrade to 2 mbps by Dec 2015. Guess what? No upgrade! Some folk are even getting only 0.5 mbps. The problem, as ever, is that if you live out in the sticks you are one of the 10% who are just not worth providing a decent broadband service. I see that OFCOM are now considering allowing other companies to use BTs cable tunnels and telegraph poles to run their own fibre networks. Let's hope some of these companies take up that opportunity - but I'm not holding my breath!

I turned to BBC 2 to watch what I thought was an up-to-date review of Winkle Brown. Sadly, it was a repeat of an earlier programme. However, there is a DVD with Winkle talking through his career with lots of good video (quite a bit of which was on the BBC2 programme tonight). You can get the DVD here. He's also co-written a book on the Miles M52. This contract was let in 1942 and required a top speed of 1,000 mph! Winkle ended up joining the programme in 1945 because he was the smallest test pilot there was and the pilot needed to fit into a very restricted cockpit - the bullet of the intake! The project was finally cancelled in 1946 despite requiring only additional modest funds prior to its flight. The M52 was powered by one of Whittle's engines which was equipped with afterburning - the first such system. The team was ordered to hand over all the technical information to the US. Winkle's belief is that the M52 looked likely to succeed but he now believes that the main reason for cancellation was skulduggery at the highest level where Whittle was seriously unpopular. I think a further reason might have something to do with the debt we owed the USA after all the Lend/Lease programme. The fledgling USAF was looking to beat the US Navy to Mach 1 and eliminating the leading challenger from the race must have been a great coup. They also got all the information about the flying tail which Miles had test flown on a piston engine test bed as the Miles designers had identified the problem with elevator control caused by a shock wave forming on the elevator hinge line and rendering the elevator ineffective at high subsonic Mach numbers. The M52 was a turbo jet powered aircraft designed to take off and land on a conventional undercarriage. The Bell X1 was a rocket powered experimental aircraft that required an air drop to be launched. Just think where the UK would have been with a design that could be turned into a supersonic fighter (as the Lightning was) in 1946/47! We would probably still be in the fighter business today had that happened and Winkle, not Chuck Yeager, would have been first through the sound barrier.

Erfolg, the bad news is that BT Openreach (or not so open with not so much reach) is responsible for the "last mile". In other words, every other provider has to go via the telephone wire that connects your house to the telephone/broadband network. Openreach is also responsible for the roll out of broadband where there is no cable - which generally means outside cities and the bigger towns. Sorry - but that's the way it is until the Government decides to separate Open Reach from BT.

David Looks great! Word of warning on the Saito 180. I had one in a Capiche 140. Biggest problem was the silencer coming loose despite all manner of ways of keeping it screwed onto the exhaust manifold. I had a lot of suggestions including: plumbers tape, araldite rapid, do it up really tight - but none of them ever persuaded the silencer to stay attached. This resulted in numerous dead sticks and inflicted more damage on the Capiche than I ever managed when I got it back to the strip with the engine running! Good luck with what ever method you choose.

Hi guys, you might be interested to know that Bondaero is offering a 20% discount on all their stock items from midday tomorrow 13th February until midday Sunday 21st February. This is to mark their 4th anniversary. As an example, you can get an Axiome 70 EP, with motor, ESC, wing bags, spinner and prop for £289.40! You can use standard servos on this but you will need to add the cost of LiPos and charger if you don't have them. Check out the website.

Actually Harrier Mate, I was posted to RAF Brawdy in Nov 1973 some 3 weeks after Chivenor had moved to Brawdy. The unit name was the Tactical Weapons Unit and it was equipped with Hunter F6, FGA9 and T7 as well as a couple of Meteors to provide the target towing capability. TWU1 and 2 nomenclature only appeared much later. The 3 reserve Sqadrons were 63, 79 and 234. 63 and 234 dealt with the long courses while 79 did short refresher courses for experienced aircraft returning after a desk tour or re-roling to fast jets. All the F6s were converted by BAe at Brawdy to F6A standard (basically the FGA9 wing able to carry the heavier 230 gallon drop tank) and a brake parachute. The F6 was the fighter optimised version while the FGA 9 was, as the name implies, the fighter/ground attack version. The difference being that the handling was modified to provide a more stable platform in ground attack. Before leaving Chivenor, I believe that a 36 aircraft formation was flown. As far as I can remember, the largest formation flown at Brawdy was an informal 9 ship when two 4 ships, one with a bounce (aggressor), returned at the same time and a hasty in-flight brief was carried out to provide a diamond 9 formation. The TWU was under huge pressure to provide the required throughput in pilots so little time was available for any form of big formation practice. When the Wittering Hunter squadrons were finally disbanded, marking the end of the Hunter's operational RAF service, we got some more Hunters delivered to Brawdy. I left Brawdy in June 1977 before any Hawks had turned up. However, what was fascinating was that a Hunter with its standard fuel load (full internals and 2/3 full 230 gallon drops on inboard pylons only) could fly a 55 min sortie and if the runway at Brawdy was blocked could divert to Cardiff or St Mawgan at a max. A Hawk with full internal fuel returning after a 55 min sortie could divert to Nice if they went high level! That meant the Hawk could fly two sorties without refuelling compared with the Hunter. The Hawks serviceability was also a huge improvement on the Hunters' which is only to be expected of a purpose designed training aircraft as opposed to a leading edge interceptor fighter which is what the Hunter was designed to meet. Having said that, the Hunter has to be the prettiest jet fighter in the world ever! It is a great pity that the re-heated version was never ordered by the RAF as it would have given the RAF its first supersonic in level flight fighter well before the Lightning entered service.