Peter Jenkins

On my DSM2 it took 3.5 secs for the Rx to boot up following a brown out, or switch on for that matter! 3.5 secs is a long time to be without control when flying! The ground has a habit of arriving before the 3.5 secs are up - I found! Solution - I went to JRs DMSS. But that's a different story.

Gary, on my Capiche 140, I fitted a DLE 35 RA and added a trumpet intake to carb. This put the intake inside the motor box and helped to reduce the intake noise from the carb. I also used Mr Winch's trick of cutting a piece of scotchbrite washing up pad to the size of the trumpet intake and used some of my wife's old tights to secure the circular pad. This acts as both an air cleaner and a further bit of intake silencing. Every little helps!

If you are one of those who wonder what on earth the BMFA is doing about this matter, you may find the links I have posted below to many News articles published on the BMFA website on this topic as useful aide memoire. If you are a BMFA member, you can register on the BMFA website to get notification every time a News posting is made. The News section goes back several years. I've listed the dates on which the BMFA, mostly Dave Phipps the CEO, has published with links to the articles: 12 Sep 2016 25 Oct 2016 - where Dave states that despite passing the deadline of 15 Oct 2016 for comments, EASA were still receiving dozens of emails per day, mainly from the UK. Over 1,000 amendments were proposed, with 50-100 related to model aircraft. So, I think it will be fair to say that more than 30 UK pilots replied to the original EASA paper. For the record, I did respond. 11 Nov 2016 and this links to an EAS/FAI notice 24 Nov 2016 18 Jan 2017 31 May 2017 24 Jul 2017 26 Nov 2017 8 Feb 2018 the latest one. Additionally, Dave Phipps has put at least 2 updates into the BMFA News. Many contributors to this forum have stated that they just throw their copy of the BMFA News in the bin as it never covers anything of interest. Well, it clearly did in these instances. Hope that helps. Edited By Peter Jenkins on 12/02/2018 01:13:33

Having read the EASA Draft Commission Recommendation, I am slightly confused by the insistence in some of the posts above that there is a 120 mtr height limit for model aircraft operation. It seems to me that the 120 mtr height limit applies to the Open Category as described in Article 4. Article 6 covers model aircraft and states: For UAS operations conducted in the framework of model clubs or associations, the following apply: 1. the competent authority may issue an operational authorisation, in accordance with UAS.SPEC.040, to a model club or association without further demonstration of compliance, on the basis of the model club’s or association’s established procedures, organisational structure, and management system; 2. operational authorisations granted under this Article shall include the conditions and limitations of, as well as the deviations from, the requirements of the Annex (Part-UAS) to this Regulation; 3. this authorisation shall be limited to the territory of the Member State where the authorisation was issued. The wording in Para 1 seems to imply that we can, subject to the approval of the CAA, continue to operate with our established procedures. That would indicate that the current ruling of no height limit for models below 7 Kg. Have I misread the EASA document?

I went onto this website and it looks as if either they or someone else is thinking of starting up an internet supply route. Could be a scam but I cannot tell.

+2 for first successful radio control with RCS Guidance System! I'd built a MacGregor valve Rx and Tx but carrier wave only - couldn't afford the tone control version. Predictably, my creation didn't work too well. IIRC the Tx had to have a 135 V battery and the Rx a 90 V battery. In those days, these strange batteries were readily available for valve powered equipment. Anyway, RCS Guidance System came to my rescue, I also had an Elmic Compact escpement. Can't find it now, so it must have gone in a clear out!

NOW SOLD. Thanks for looking.

If anyone's interested, I've just posted for sale a Kwik Fli III on the Classifieds Section. Enya 60 powered. Just fit your Rx and fly. £210 ono. Thanks Peter

Guys, the weight limit of 15 Kgs would tend to indicate that 20-30 cc should be the size of engine to to power a scale model of that weight. So, I don't understand the constant reference to 100 - 300 cc engines. As I see it, the vast majority of Club Pilots shy away from anything to do with Competition. This applies to any form of competition and not just scale. The introduction of F4H, Stand Off Scale, allows ARTFs to be entered with the emphasis more on flying than on scale detail. Geoff Sleath has pointed out that the Nats Flying only was won with a foamy. You can add further scale detail to your ARTF or plan build to enhance the static score but we come back to having to fly in a competition. As for the F4C, or "proper" scale, I suspect that there is so much work to be done to produce the level of detail that is required to be competitive that it puts many average club pilots off. Having spent thousands of hours on building, finishing your masterpiece, I would think that the nervous energy required for the maiden flight would be considerable. I'm sure that a 10 cc ARTF scale model that is flown very well will do well in the Stand Off Scale competitions that are run. There is nothing to stop such competitions being held in Clubs or between local Clubs but I suspect we come back to that word Competition and the fact that it puts off a lot of pilots who just want to fly for fun. I know that the BMFA's Scale Committee is always keen to see new pilots give stand off scale a go so - pluck up your courage and give it a go!

Posted by bouncebounce crunch on 22/01/2018 21:23:43: I am either rambling or don't know what i am talking about most of the time but i do wonder if. With the Scale competition models on national and world championships getting larger and very expensive it has become a very elite part of our hobby and out of reach for many. enjoyable to watch though. I wonder if a 20- 30cc scale category would give more people an opportunity to participate at the top level for a national or world class trophy. bbc BBC - you may be confusing the LMA size models with those that are used in formal competition. The BMFA Scale competition rules, which mimic the FAI rules, can be found on the BMFA website and are here. Section 6.3 deals with RC Scale and there are 2 categories - scale (F4C) and stand off scale (F4H). The weight limit for both is 15 Kgs without fuel or motor batteries. There is no limit on the size or number of IC engines, gas turbines or electric motors but electric systems are limited to 72 volts. The key point is that they fall under the 20 Kg limit at which model aircraft cease to be models and become classified as full size but for which in the UK we have a derogation by the CAA allowing the LMA to certify the build and flying competence of the airframe/pilot. Stand Off Scale often has ARTF models flown and it is there to do just what you were referring to as regards cost and complexity. Hope that gives you the steer to get into flying Stand Off Scale using a standard ARTF Scale Model. I'm sure you would enjoy it and it needn't cost you an arm and a leg.

Tom - you can use the NPOD to help you improve your aerobatic flying so that taking a B will become a lot easier. You don't need a B any more to fly in GBR/CAA competitions at any level apart from the Nats where the BMFA require all RC pilots to have a B. Having said that, if you cannot fly a B you will struggle to fly the Clubman schedule in its totality. However, the NPOD will help you no end and is well worth attending.

Even stranger, one of the Barnato brothers emigrated to South Africa to follow the diamond rush as a penniless chap from the East End. He ended up jointly owning the diamond dealer DeBeers with Cecil Rhodes! That's where the money came from for Wolf Barnato.

Diana Barnato Walker's book - Spreading My Wings - is a cracking read. She claims to have been the only wife to have accompanied her husband (a serving RAF Fighter Pilot) on a trip from the UK to Brussels in the late stages of the war flying in their "own" Spitfires. The return trip was almost a disaster as she had no radio and had to follow husband who disappeared into the low cloud soon after take off on the way home! She also got to fly a Lightning T Bird at Mach 2 - lucky girl!

Hi Paul and Gary The OP asks for UKCAA schedules. The link Gary provided is to the GBR/CAA site and refers to current aerobatic schedules. These are not the same as the UK CAA schedules which are the older F3A ones - I believe they are the pre-turnaround schedules whereas today's schedules are all of the turnaround variety i.e. there is a manoeuvre at each end of the box as well as in the centre as opposed to just centre manoeuvres. Peter

Posted by Eagle 899 on 01/12/2017 19:21:55: Posted by Peter Jenkins on 01/12/2017 18:45:03: My understanding of the Captain sitting on the LH side is that the rules of the air require you to "drive on the right" and as such the Captain sits where he gets the best view of any traffic to which he needs to give way. I have no idea why in helicopters the convention is different but it may be to do with the ease of evacuation with the direction of early rotor blades - but that's pure supposition. Helicopters still have to obey the rules of the air and give way to the aircraft on their left so how does the Captain cope when flying on his own? Sorry Peter it's the opposite.........'On the right is in the right'. When converging aircraft, of the same class, are closing the aircraft on the left must give way to the aircraft on it's right. Oops! You are right!

Posted by Max Z on 01/12/2017 13:40:20: Btw, the explanation in the linked article that the convention for passenger acces on the left/port side is based on the pilot overviewing the wing nearest to the terminal building begs the question why the pilot is sitting in the LH seat in the first place.......... My understanding of the Captain sitting on the LH side is that the rules of the air require you to "drive on the right" and as such the Captain sits where he gets the best view of any traffic to which he needs to give way. I have no idea why in helicopters the convention is different but it may be to do with the ease of evacuation with the direction of early rotor blades - but that's pure supposition. Helicopters still have to obey the rules of the air and give way to the aircraft on their left so how does the Captain cope when flying on his own?

I've noticed that quite a few folk use the term flair when they mean flare. You might flare with flair but just a flair before landing doesn't work! They mean different things. Sorry to be picky!

Posted by Tom Thomas on 27/11/2017 23:51:35: Can't stand the "royals" full stop. It'll be a baby next..... I take it you prefer an elected head of state? Trump? He was elected!

Posted by Erfolg on 23/11/2017 18:32:15: My final concern, does not singularly relate to the NFC That is the BMFA purpose is to support all aspects of aeromodelling. The various sub sets of competitive groups being smaller by a margin than the club fliers, who just enjoy flying a model aircraft, where success is often meeting other club members at the field and a couple of fun flights, for no obvious purpose. We need (in my opinion) more committee members who represent this large group. Edited By Erfolg on 23/11/2017 18:37:06 Well Erfolg, the issue as I see it is that few Club members wish to be Club Committee members. Far fewer wish to attend or stand for election to Area Committees. And.... even fewer wish to stand as Area Delegate which gives them a seat on Council. So, if more people who wish to represent the flying for, as you put it "where success is often meeting other club members at the field and couple of fun flights, for no obvious purpose" wish to stand for election your aim will be met. Step forward and take over the running of the BMFA. I'm willing to bet that none of that type of modeller you describe will choose to do so - I will be delighted if I'm wrong though!

The other interesting point was that membership was, as of 17 Nov, down by 366 against last year's total of 35,566. That is less than 1%.

I concur. I now have 2 pairs and my wife also has a pair which she loves - nothing to do with flying mind you just to keep her hands warm indoors!

Well done Adrian. Welcome to the world of electric aerobats!

Leo I once had an ARTF aerobat with the tank so much higher than the inverted engine that it was always a fiddle to get the mixture so that it wasn't right for upright or inverted running but it did keep running when you rolled the aircraft! I think the Tutor also looks better with the lower cylinder head. Having cut my teeth on C/L it was, as you point out, essential to get the spray bar on the tank centre line. Mind you, with a sidewinder on a flying wing that was easy! Peter

Always wanted an Irvine Tutor when I was learning to fly but never seemed to be able to get one. Thanks to Marc for building this and then selling it on unflown! I've put my trusty Irvine 40 in it and the pictures show the Tutor after its maiden flight. I did use rubber bands to hold the wings on for the flight! Having cleaned it down I realised I hadn't taken a photo of it so just dropped the wing on without the bands! I lowered the engine mount to get the spray bar level with mid tank and checked all controls centralised before the maiden. I was amazed to find that she needed no adjustments to fly hands off! First time ever including several F3A models. Only issue is the elevator movement needs to be increased to get the aircraft to stall and spin. Will do that before the next session.