Peter Jenkins

Hi BEB Thanks for pointing that out. I have used the servo slow function on my Eflite Sea Fury to get the u/c to retract more slowly and at slightly different speeds. I should have known better as by the middle of the war, most aircraft had much higher pressure hydraulic systems and u/cs tended to retract together at the same speed. Indeed, if you watch videos of Mustangs they don't have one leg going up and then the other - that was the preserve of the earlier marks of Spit and Hurri and other such aircraft. What I really wanted was a sequencer that made sure the door opened first, then the u/c operated, then the door closed. The HK sequencer does this at a reasonable cost. What I have asked of the JR programming guru on RCU is whether the XG Tx series has a similar function. I have yet to get a reply as he usually goes away and tries to see if he can get the software to function in the way in which I'd like. He gave me the way to get crow braking on my aerobatic biplane by swoping over one of the servo connections on one wing and, hey presto, crow braking with all ailerons moving to raise/lower the ailerons on the top/bottom wing respectively. Unfortunately, this reduced the roll rate and as I wanted to slow the aircraft on a vertical down line while doing a full roll, it got rather too close to the ground on occasion. The problem was solved by moving from a 2 blade to a 3 blade prop which gave much better braking on the down line allowing the crow braking to be dispensed with. BEB - you are right - the JR manual is reasonably easy to follow but is also a bit opaque, as most such books are, when it comes to telling you exactly how to do things. Many thanks to all who have contributed to pointing me in the right direction and for letting me know that my chosen solution does work fine.

Thanks Tom. I was going to do that for the tailwheel doors but I think the main doors might need something a bit more positive. I've been following up the link Ron provided and found this one as well. This provides four separate outputs - 2 to the gear and 2 to the gear doors. Sounds like just the thing I need so I ordered one and at £12.55 delivered from Hong Kong doesn't break the bank. It will be some time coming but as I haven't started the build yet that doesn't matter.

Hi BEB and Bob, I've got a JR XG11 Tx that has a lot of features but I don't recall one along these lines. It doesn't mean it won't have that feature just that I have not seen it in the handbook. Looks like I need to contact the guru on RCU on JR programming to see if he can figure out how it could be achieved.

Thanks Ron. I'll call you.

Just wondered if anyone knows of a programmable sequencer that can be used to lower and raise u/c doors. I'm thinking of the P51 where the main door open to allow the u/c to extend and then close again. Same thing on retracting the gear. Don't want to get into the complex area if there isn't such a gizmo available off the shelf. Thanks.

Posted by john stones 1 on 13/09/2018 12:41:06: Ah dear, I've seen irresponsible fixed wing pilots, should the BMFA be held responsible for them, or is it a matter for ourselves and our clubs ? Seems like our image of ourselves being pure as the driven snow, loses a bit of its luster given the claims we make. Galvanize clubs and officials to ensure that things are 100% safe ? yep with you on that one...at this very moment I'm drawing a little black tash on me top lip and pitching my tent (whilst typing) so I can stay at the field 24/7 (hate that term 24/7). Take responsibility for your own actions stop looking to others to do it for you. JS - with you 100%! Who has the responsibility for increasing Club membership - Clubs and that means Club members and that means you. Saying it's the BMFA;s responsibility is to shift the responsibility to "them" that vast group in the "BMFA" who are responsible for everything. Remember that the BMFA has no remit over what Clubs do as Clubs are a law unto themselves and governed by their own Constitutions. The only sanction that BMFA has is to stop the Club being affiliated due to a major issue - doesn't happen very often. As JS says, look in the mirror to see the person who is responsible and act accordingly.

Be interested to know how you experience in using this route. Could you PM me when you have had some experience of it please as I'm thinking of going down that route!

Peter check this out.

I had hoped that once people had left the BMFA they would stop carping about it at every opportunity - it's getting very boring you know!

Thanks for the info Cuban 8 - another case of using the ASP silencer rather than the OS one I see. Jon, thanks for the warning but I am used to flying a 2 mtr F3A machine in competition and they would qualify in your terms as being over powered. I am well used to the need for continuous throttle control and having some additional power on the odd occasion when it's needed. Having the ability to swing a larger prop at lower rpm is also another advantage with a larger engine as you well know. Finally, the kit itself recommends up to 120 Four stroke. So, I think I'll stick to my chosen powerplant and use the prop selection and throttle to maintain the desired performance.

Thanks for your experiences guys. Jon, I flew a similar size Spit with an OS 90 and that was marginal on power. Ask any fighter pilot whether he has enough power and he'll always want more! Bob - interesting that you found the ASP silencer better and good to hear you got down to 80 dba. John - thanks for the prop info. I've heard APC are the quietest props so your experiences would seem to support that view. There is always the option of a custom silencer which may help by keeping the silencer inside the cowl but will clearly cost a significant premium. Something to ponder as the build progresses.

Has anyone any experience of getting an OS 120 FS to meet the 82 db noise test? Is the standard silencer up to it or do you need to get a custom made silencer. As I intend to use the OS in a Topflite Mustang (65 inch wingspan) does anyone have this set up and what sound reading do you get with either standard or custom silencer? What prop are you using - make, diameter, pitch? Thanks.

Posted by Martin Harris on 28/08/2018 10:39:15: Having witnessed more than one incident where battery bullet "pairs" have been connected together in the confines of the dark recesses of fuselages, I would tend to recommend keyed pairs such as the XT series, Deans etc. When I used 4mm bullets, I used the one male, one female layout but took the precaution of shrinking a small piece of heatshrink onto the cables close behind the connectors to make it impossible (without serious effort) to connect the two together.   Martin, that's the great advantage of the Hobby King bullet connectors, they are protected by the external plastic sheath and these are "polarised" i.e. one is larger than the other so difficult to cross connect. I've used XT and Deans connectors and they are the devil to separate sometimes, especially in a small fuselage. I find the easiest connectors in use are these HK 4 mm bullet connectors. Ron is right about avoiding the need for heatshrink on the HK connectors you have to assemble but your soldering needs to be spot on to avoid any spillage into the channel that provides the positive lock into the plastic sheath - something that has caused me grief from time to time. That's why I like the pre-assembled ones and, as Ron has pointed out, the only downside is the need to use heatshrink over the soldered connection. Edited By Peter Jenkins on 29/08/2018 00:06:12

I find these are by far the best bullet connectors I've come across. I usually separate the two parts to make it easier to allow parallel charging but series use. I need a 10S pack but buy 2 x 5S packs. Soldering is easy and I cover the exposed part and lead with shrink wrap. The plastic shrouds prevent the bullets contacting each other without any other precaution. The plastic is also polarised so that you cannot cross connect and as the metal part of the bullet is a good couple of mm below the end of the plastic shroud this provides excellent protection when all plugs are pulled out. I find these 4 mm bullets, which are good for 100 amps, are much easier to connect and disconnect than any other connector type.

Analogue computers would have been familiar to pilots at the time. The good old slide rule and rotary computer, still in use today, to plot wind speed and direction to calculate required heading at your cruising speed. There was also the later version of the gun sight which helped pilots by calculating the lead by which they had aim ahead of the target driven by gyro. So, there were computers then but not in a form today's youth would recognise. These computers also needed you to have an estimation of the answer and certainly its order of magnitude. That would amaze today's youth!

Thanks Andy. Good work by the Model Flying Associations and Dave Phipps in particular. Peter

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 24/07/2018 22:55:22: Exemption granted , keep calm and carry on. Well done to all involved. Frank, where did you find this document? I cannot find it on the CAA's website to which I would like to point folk. Peter

I had the thrill of meeting Geoffrey Wellum at a dinner celebrating the 90th anniversary of the RAF. Every table had a surviving B of B pilot on it. I managed to speak to Geoffrey to tell him how much I had enjoyed reading "First Light". I thanked him for his heroic deeds, but he responded immediately with "We were only doing what we'd been trained to do". Tom Neill spoke at that dinner and he was as modest as well. We are indeed indebted to that small band of pilots supported by their hard working ground crew and directed in battle by the world's first integrated air defence system designed under Hugh Dowding.Edited By Peter Jenkins on 21/07/2018 21:09:44

I had the thrill of meeting Geoffrey Wellum at a dinner celebrating the 90th anniversary of the RAF. Every table had a surviving B of B pilot on it. I managed to speak to Geoffrey to tell him how much I had enjoyed reading "First Light". I thanked him for his heroic deeds, but he responded immediately with "We were only doing what we'd been trained to do". Tom Neill spoke at that dinner and he was as modest as well. We are indeed indebted to that small band of pilots supported by their hard working ground crew and directed in battle by the world's first integrated air defence system designed under Hugh Dowsing.

Posted by Erfolg on 09/07/2018 18:18:21: At the same time the area is approached by clubs to support them in some endeavor which engages with the BMFA collective membership and the local community. I am extremely pleased that the area I am in has recently been successful in these areas of general membership support. One local club, directly supporting local charities. We as an area are constantly asked what is happening with the ANO etc. No one in this area has raised the NFC, members are concerned with their flying and their flying sites. I think part of the issue of lethargy with respect to the BMFA, is that unlike most clubs and their committees, the BMFA centre does not appear to be interested in clubs. Yet I also recognise that it is the committees of clubs that make everything happen, although some more than others manage to engage at the working level with the membership. To get greater involvement, the movement as a whole needs to focus much more on ordinary members. Recognising that every club has one or two who are only interested in their type of competition, often these are highly respected and regarded members. Yet it is the collective membership that provides the bedrock of a club, not the odd competitor, however much we love them. Matty illustrates why we can become dissolutioned with the centre, quoting back verbatim the reassuring utterances. Which is just one of a general thread. Erf, I take it you attend your Area Committee meetings regularly and report back to your Club all the information that is imparted at them concerning issues such as the impact of the Drone legislation. I know that in our Area that happens but the problem is to get Clubs to attend these meetings. They are all circulated with minutes, reports and meeting Agendas but roughly 10% choose to attend. Much of the information is contained in the BMFA News but sadly many people choose not to read it and every BMFA member gets a copy. The rest of your post is a generalisation that is wrong in most cases.

Posted by Steve J on 29/06/2018 13:33:50: Posted by tym busku on 29/06/2018 10:05:27: I would also like to be able to use my 6s 5000mah lipos as I have 16 of them for the helis. Can anyone recommend anything suitable? I would suggest having a look at the Sebart 50e series. The Premier Aircraft Ventique 60e is another electric model that would fit your batteries. Steve +1 for the Sebart 50 but if you can find an Angel 50 that would be better! Only issue with these great aerobatic aircraft is that you need to be able to land the aircraft accurately otherwise you rip out the u/c as they are designed to fly and not to stand up to crashes. Provided you set up the CG as recommended, these are pussy cats to fly but don't go for 3D type control throws - these are designed for precision aerobatics.

FB3, when you fly the aircraft inverted do you need a lot of down elevator to keep it flying level? If yes, then you have a forward CG and could usefully inch it rearwards until you feel the aircraft is flying better. You will know when you have gone a tad too far when you don't need any down elevator to keep level when inverted or even to have to use up elevator to prevent the nose from rising. The aircraft will still fly fine but it just won't feel right at this point. Main thing is to only move the CG by a small amount each time.

Posted by Erfolg on 12/06/2018 22:01:22: Again the BMFA could be publicly, say something, even if it is to say, they are working with the CAA or whoever on both issues. Perhaps some pointers as to what could be registered, the point of registration, or what content within the test could be envisaged. There is a lot issues i am sure the BMFA could enlighten its membership, rather than a cliff edge appearing, where clubs and members wonder what they should and can do. Erfolg, and others who may believe that the BMFA has been silent on this, have you chosen to register on the BMFA website for their News bulletins? Take a look at this one which was posted on the 30th May 2018 and which sets out what the BMFA is doing right now. If you scroll down to the News posted on 8th Feb 2018 you will also find a summary of where we are and how we arrived there. To an earlier comment about drones being quadcopters, you really have not been listening to the news for many years otherwise you would realise that "killer" drones (aka Predator and then Reaper) have been operational in war zones for many years. A very large drone, the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk, is being used for both military and civilian tasks and flies at 65,000 ft with a duration of 30 hours. They are all drones under the current legislation and can currently only be flown when the civilian airspace is closed by NOTAM or confined to military range airspace or flown in military operations in war zones where they are kept under full control using radar and GPS as the controllers know where all the other air assets are. This is not the case envisaged by these new regulations. So, I'm afraid, good sir, we are all flying drones these days whatever type of model aircraft we fly.

A friend put me onto the Unisense E 3rd party sensor package. You can find the details here. If the page loads in German then I've found right click and select translate turns it into English. The package provides height, vario, as well as flight pack volts, amps, wattage, motor rpm. There is an extensive setup possible using a USB connection to a PC once you have downloaded the control programme from the site. The product can be set up in the settings function to operate with a wide range of radio equipment. I use JR DMSS and it works fine for me. Worth a look as it costs Euro 65.90 which would probably only get you one sensor from the JR catalogue!

I've always used 10% nitro fuel on my Irvines (40/46 and 53) and they like that.