Peter Jenkins

Posted by Adrian Smith 1 on 30/07/2017 08:40:52: Peter. I don't think you are missing anything. The only reason for wiring it up in series the way I have is on the basis on this video clip for wiring Lipos in series for a 12S set up - **LINK** I am sure there are other ways, but my knowledge has not stretched that far! I think you might explain to me a bit more as I am a bit dense, not quite following what you are saying. Thanks for the input chaps, very grateful. Adrian - it just seemed to me that the final EC5 connector that you then broke with a bullet connector to fit the Jeti spark arrestor was a "plug too many". If you terminate the final output without the EC5 but 2 bullet connectors (one male and one female to avoid confusion) you will reduce your plug count. You also need to keep the leads from the ESC to the motor to those shown and the power leads also need to be kept as short as possible. I use 2 x 5S LiPos for my F3A aircraft. I fit 4 mm bullet connectors to the LiPos. When I want to charge I charge them in parallel and when I fly I use them in series. I plug one black connector on one battery to a red connector on the other and so don't use an intermediate harness that the Link you provided advises. If you use those types of connectors then you do need those types of harnesses. However, using 4 mm bullet connectors, or 5.5 mm for more than 90 amps, you can cut out the need for a separate harness while retaining the ability to charge in parallel. If that's still not clear, let me know and I'll post some pictures to show what I mean. Peter

I often wondered why WW1 started and it was only after visiting the grave of my wife's grand father, who died in Sept 1918 during the final Allied push, that I became sufficiently interested to read sufficient material to allow me to understand what led to WW1. David Davis's "reasons in a nutshell" unfortunately miss out the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand during his visit to Sarajevo. At that time, that part of the Balkans was under the control of the Austro Hungarian empire which had ousted the weakening Ottoman Empire from control of the area. Emperor Franz Joseph's decision to "teach Servia (as Serbia was called in those days) a lesson for engineering the assassination (which they did) of the Archduke, was to lead eventually to the conflict that was WW1. As far as history lessons are concerned, it seems to me that the law of unintended consequences was the major cause of the conflagration. Any attack on Serbia would compel the Tsar of Russia to step in to the aid of this Slavic nation. Key also was the view of Kaiser Wilhelm who, thinking he was the great strategist, gave tacit support to Franz Joseph's plan without consulting his own government. David flags up the alignment of France and Russia against Germany and the Hapsburgs in Vienna. The assumption that the Russians would stay out of the attack on Serbia was ill founded but might have not mattered had Austria Hungary acutally managed to defeat the Serbians in their first major engagement. It turned into a defeat for the Austrians requiring a much greater effort over a longer time and forced the Tsar's hand in mobilising against Austria Hungary. Meanwhile, the Kaiser's tacit approval of Franz Joseph's actions were now coming home to roost. Sandwiched between France and Russia, Germany felt under threat as a result of the Balkan battle and was forced to consider what fighting on two fronts would entail. That led to the dusting off of the Schliefen plan - the attack on France through Belgium - before the Russians could get fully mobilised. As David said, Britain had guaranteed the sovereignty of Belgium and so was committed to coming to her aid when Germany invaded. Adding to this string of errors was the surprising lack of any significant diplomatic activity between the major powers so that they all ended up falling into the mess of WW1. Had Franz Joseph thought that his proposed action against Serbia would lead to the break up of his Empire in 4 years I doubt he would have gone down that route. If the Kaiser had realised the full consequences, as his Foreign Minister did, of the potential for a major conflict resulting from punitive action agains Serbia, he would not have given the Franz Joseph the green light which led to his own defenestration once the German Army had lost the initiative. At the back end of 1918, we should remember that the most professional Army in the field was the British Army and it was they who were principally responsible for the defeat of the Germans. The American's provided little in the way of an Army until September 1918 when for the first time an American Army was committed to the field of battle. Prior to that, American Divisions fought under the command of a British General. The threat to the Germans was that America had the industrial and personnel might to tilt the balance decisively in 1919. So, the German Army handed the civilian government the job of sorting out an Armistice and then blamed the civil government for the "stab in the back" which led to their ultimate surrender. The battle of the Messines ridge in early 1917 had been so successful because of the detonation of some 20 off huge mines that literally blew the German front line to smithereens. Haig heard that there was a potential for a breakthrough and asked the General in command when he could mount an attack to exploit this weakness. The answer was "ready to go in 3 days". Haig felt this was too long and passed the job to the neighbouring General who took weeks to get his plan into action and that was the Third Battle of Ypres. The weather during that time had been dry and sunny. So, had Haig not felt that 3 days was too long to wait for the attack to be mounted, the terrible Third Battle of Ypres would never have occurred. It is possible that the shock of this British advance, following the disruption to that part of the German front line by the carefully planned and executed mine warfare, that the British Army might have achieved their aim of breaking down the German defence and rolling up the German Army in 1917. It was not to be so the dreadful 100+ days of the Third Battle of Ypres continues to exercise it's fearful hold on our collective imaginations. So, as far as I can see, WW1 happened because of extraordinary stupidity on the part of Emperor Franz Joseph and Kaiser Wilhelm compounded by the Tsar of Russia's actions and the lack of any knowledge on the part of Britain and France as to what was actually going on in central Europe during July 1914. It is almost inconceivable in today's "connected" world for this highly disconnected train of events to occur - almost but not quite I suppose since we only need to look at the situation with North Korea today. Of course, I might be wrong!

Adrian, looking good. I wondered why you didn't dispense with the EC5 connector at the termination of your Y lead. Just have two 5.5 mm bullets (one male one female) and plug to the ESC 5.5 mm bullets. Why use an additional EC5 connector which seems redundant to me. Or, am I missing something?

Interesting question! Dick W points out that the wording of that section of the Test refers to these named sections in the handbook. The actual text reads as follows: "most of the questions asked at the end of the test will be from these sections of the handbook and CAP 658" Using the 2010 handbook, the Safety Codes run from page 17 to 19. At the top of Page 20, the heading is "The BMFA Guides to the Safe Operation of Model Aircraft". This is what is being referred to as "Operational Guide, all models and Radio Control". There is no other document to which you are being referred and this does indeed cover all models (free flight and control line as well, although why you would ask a question on either type for an RC test is beyond me) and a section on radio control. So pages 20 to 47 would be required for an A Cert while this would extend to mid way through page 51. Don't forget that there are two Addnedum booklets one dated Dec 2011 and the other May 2013 and these both contain safety and operational information to amend and enhance the 2010 Handbook. So don't forget to read these as well as the answer being sought might be in them. Hope that helps you Capt Kremen. As Dick W has also pointed out, the revised BMFA Handbook is due to be published later in the year and that should do away with the need to look at the 2 Addendum booklets I referred to above. However, there may well be Addenda issued after the new Handbook has been published as the CAA make further changes to the ANO.

Hello Charles. The question is "Where do you want to get the wind up?" Peter

I wonder if Trump had anything to do with drafting the words?

Posted by Daithi O Buitigh on 02/05/2017 22:50:50: (even one that landed nose first up to the wing roots on the ground, but that was some idiot who shall remain nameless forgetting that, when inverted, 'up' is 'down' ) Been there - done that

Funny you should post as my iron has just become intermittent. I took a look on the Ripmax site and they have this. I might just buy one.

The Gangster 75 is a tail dragger.

Hi Guys Thanks for the suggestions. My apologies for not replying sooner - I found that my email system had sent all the responses into my Spam folder despite everything working fine before! Turns out that I was wrong and that I was misled by the AF driver that I had found fitted the hex head. The bolts are in fact 3 mm! So, it was a simple task to replace the missing T nut and all is now well. However, it would appear that the alternative to which I was clumsily referring is in fact a 4/40 UNC. You learn something new every day! Peter

Posted by Justin K. on 04/03/2017 13:24:01: A bit different for me Colin, I've got some crew & passengers for this one too. Passengers? It only has 2 seats!

As I understand it, an in-runner needs a low timing setup and an out-runner needs a high timing setup. You cannot use the same timing for both types of motor.  It sounds like you have an out runner but it's on the low timing setting.  Move to medium or high and see what happens. Edited By Peter Jenkins on 28/04/2017 01:11:32

Posted by Martin Harris on 27/04/2017 10:24:33: I wondered whether OSTIV was more glider related as I typed it but I'd guess that the power world has an equivalent? Talking of gliders, it paid to be mindful of these wind induced optical illusions when "scratching" in very low thermals where there was a danger of instinctively slowing as the ground speed increased downwind - and this at an airspeed uncomfortably close to the stall in turbulent conditions. Higher up, the grounspeed changes weren't noticeable so wind "effects" ceased to exist. Martin, it is the CAA not OSTIV that sets out the airworthiness requirements which cover the flight envelope for powered aircraft or rather EASA these days. Having spent a several very anxious moments scratching away at lift at low altitude I know what you mean but I always focused on the ASI and, more usually, attitude to keep me at the right speed.

Posted by Tony Kenny on 26/04/2017 20:30:11: The part I read today explained the 'sweet spot' where vortex drag equals form drag at which point the Lift/drag ratio is at its best. So I'd like to add another theory that as I reach that final part of the full circle, my speed as reduced to the point where the L/D has reached its peak and I'm therefore seeing the increase in lift and therefore height. Tony, this is really of interest when considering best glide angle usually in a glider. There is one speed that gives you the best Lift/Drag ratio and this will give the flattest glide. There will also be a slightly slower speed that will give minimum sink. For powered aircraft we can forget this since you have an engine that provides the means of defeating the force of gravity. What you need to aim for is a comfortable flying speed that gives you positive control. This is usually either half or bit more on the throttle for a trainer type aircraft. If you fly a turn at a lower altitude than you are currently using, you will be able to see the aircraft climb or descend more easily and get the feel of what is the right amount of up elevator to maintain the turn while keeping the height constant. Don't get too hung up on the aerodynamics of flight at this stage of your training. There are often simplified explanations that seem logical but which are wrong - you only have to see what has been posted by some above to find that out.

Even before a good approach I would always suggest a well trimmed model. In particular, make sure that the thrust line is sorted so that increasing power doesn't cause an immediate nose up (or down for that matter) pitch. It's worth sorting this out before you start the issue of setting up a landing. I think most of the points have already been made above but here's my take. I think a rectangular circuit work very well provided there are no issues with infringing no fly zones or trees/other obstacles. The cross wind leg allows the throttle to be reduced to establish a descent which you can eyeball more easily than during a curved approach unless you are an experienced pilot. Avoid getting into the situation where you just close the throttle to idle and glide in - that gives you no control if you are going to overshoot. Therefore, avoid flying the circuit too high. The value of a physical aiming point for the final turn is very helpful when lining up to land as you can control your landing position more accurately - very helpful when the strip is narrow. The final turn should not be too steep, 30 deg of bank is sufficient and you can vary the bank angle to adjust the radius of turn. This avoids the tendency for the model to drop its nose significantly. If you have to bank past 45 degrees to line up with the runway then you didn't start your turn early enough - overshoot and try again by starting the turn earlier. You can add a click or so of engine power as you apply a tad more elevator to maintain the constant descent rate during the turn. A shallow turn means that you are less likely to have the speed bleed away quickly and thus lead to an incipient spin. Depending on the direction of the cross wind, roll out from your final turn with the nose pointing sufficiently into the direction from which the crosswind is blowing so that the ground track is correct to make the desired landing point. Use throttle to control the rate of descent and the elevator to control the attitude/speed - the cross wind leg will have allowed you to set the desired descent attitude which should be maintained up to the point that you need to flare for landing. As you start the flare, gently reduce the power to idle and stretch the glide as much as possible aiming to have lost most of the flying speed before you touch down. If you are landing in a cross wind, as you start the flare apply rudder gently in the direction away from the wind - i.e. if you are approaching from the right with the wind blowing into your face you will need left rudder and vice versa. Be prepared to add a touch of opposite aileron to keep the wings level and better still aim to have the model banked slightly into the cross wind. If you have a flap equipped aircraft remember that with the flaps down the aileron effectiveness is reduced as you have shifted the centre of pressure inboard due to the greater lift from the part of the wing which the flaps are affecting. As in full size aviation, the most difficult thing to achieve is the perfect landing circuit. Fortunately, practice makes perfect though.

As per the title, I have need of a 3/32 inch captive T nut but all I can find are larger sizes or metric which won't do. Does anyone know of a supplier of such an item? Thanks.

Thank you everybody for your help and advice. I've decided to buy some gasket material off E-bay and will go the DIY route.

Does anyone know a UK based supplier of DLE 30 and DLE 35RA exhaust gaskets? Thanks for reading this.

Wow - what a facility! Is that strip used for full size as well Steve?

There are now 10 confirmed entries for the Raydon Clubman Event. Still got space for 2 more.

Hi Guys and Gals, don't be shy! Give it a go. There is plenty of room at all 4 events and it will be an excellent opportunity to get some aerobatic coaching for a bit more than a cost of a good cup of coffee!

New to me but not a brand new model. It's a CPLR Majestic put together by Darren Gould - thanks mate. I re-engined it with a DLE 35 RA with a canister. I have yet to finish trimming it but it flies really well.

It has been pointed out to me that I appear to be using a different calendar from everyone else! Apologies for the duff dates and thank you to Dick for pointing it out. The correct dates and locations are as follows: Sunday 30th April - Raydon, Suffolk Sunday 21st May - Harlow, Essex Saturday 17th June - Wymondham, Norfolk Saturday 19th Aug - Tendering, Essex Peter