Kevinlad

Hi, Jon, The M4 bolt may well have cured the problem (although it seems that I'm the only one to have had any problems with the silencer!) As I said, the engines ran well except for this problem I had, and I was so frustrated by the silencers loosening off that I had to change them for ASP's ( Actually, I have just checked my records and see that the Laser engines I fitted were 150's..) Anyway, sorry if I annoyed you which I certainly didn't intend to do - I was just making the point that purely from a personal position, I had not found the engine as perfect as (admittedly) most other do. Best regards, Kevin

I have used Laser 120's in all 3 of my 1/4 scale Tiger Moths for some years. They ran well, but on almost every flying session, the silencer slackened off, and on a couple of occasions actually fell off. In my opinion, the silencer securing method is very poor, and has given me no end of problems. However, I found the ultimate solution to my problem: I sold all the Lasers off and replaced them with ASP180's, which I consider to be a far superior and more powerful engine - and never had a bit of trouble since!

A couple of pics. showing the wing attachment of my Mighty Barnstormer Edited By Kevinlad on 16/01/2016 20:16:09

Many thanks for your kind assistance, Justin, Percy and Steve - should have no problems now! (us Granddads tend to be a little s l o w.....)

I am a bit baffled trying to upload a photo on a forum reply window: no problem uploading text, but I just can't see how to upload a photo, there doesn't seem to be the usual window where we browse our PC files and download a pic. There must be something I'm overlooking! please help!

I really think a model like the Barnstormer needs a four-stroke engine, so fitted an ASP90 in my model, inverted. I also fitted the 2-piece wings, but modified mine so that the centresection is permanently fitted. The wings slide on with wire dowels and the aileron connections are made with MPX connectors, so the wings are simply slid on with no fiddling with wires & plugs! I also fitted wing struts which make the wings more secure, and improve the model's appearance. ( I also fitted a steerable tailwheel)

I very much like the look of the "Bulldog" free plan, but would like to power it with a glow engine. Can anyone suggest a suitable size of engine, 2 or 4 stroke? I'm thinking of an OS48 or 52 4-stroke, or maybe an OS55X 2-stroke. Any suggestions?? Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 13/02/2015 15:58:45

Thanks for your very comprehensive and helpful reply, BEB! Bob C. : Frsky did reply to a query, but I had a suspicious feeling about it, especially when they e-mailed me a CE template to print off and stick on the equipment myself. Sounded rather dodgy! Kevin.

Perhaps I should have mentioned in my original post, that I normally use a skewer & doglead restrainer, but on the evening in question rushed off to the beach and forgot to take it. And thought, sod it, it will be OK, as I'm careful...........(famous last words...) I'm much more careful now, so it was a lesson well learned and lucky it wasn't more serious Thanks for all the replies and good advice. Kevin.

I changed over all my 24 models to 2.4ghz some time ago, these include mainly large 1/4 scale models. I now use FrSky receivers with the Futaba T/x module,and never had the slightest problem or glitch even at extreme range. My larger models have two rx's fitted in parallel with split controls for safety "just in case". My worry concerns insurance and the lack of a "CE" marking. In the event of crash damage, would the insurance (BMFA) still pay up, or would it use the lack of the marking to renege on the insurance? (even if the crash was pilot error) Requests for clarification from the BMFA resulted in the following letter, which does not make the matter exactly clear-cut. AFTERMARKET RECEIVERS, YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES. The subject of aftermarket receivers, particularly on the 2.4GHz band has become something of a hot topic recently and I have received a considerable number of queries from members so I thought that it would be useful to outline the current position. Whilst there are well defined compliance requirements for transmitters on 2.4GHz which are essentially outlined by the ETSI standard EN300-328, this standard makes little reference to the receiver end of things, with fairly good reason. The main purpose of the standard is to define protocols that ensure transmitting equipment does not interfere with other users sharing the same frequency band (in this case 2.4GHz) so by default concentrates on the transmitting equipment. Given that there are little in the way of compliancy requirements for receiving equipment where does this leave the end user wanting to purchase and operate a receiver from another manufacturer? The presence of a CE marking is a good starting point but as ever is not the full story, the presence of a CE mark doesn’t guarantee compliancy and the absence of one doesn’t automatically render a piece of equipment unlawful to use. From an end user point of view the safest option is still to purchase recognised equipment that been supplied through the recognised importer for the brand of equipment (sound familiar?). However there are a number of low cost receivers becoming available that can be bound to transmitters supplied by many of the established brands. Given the absence of compliancy requirements for such units it really comes down to consumer choice and fitness for purpose and ultimately the Air Navigation Order. In law the pilot of a model aircraft is required to satisfy himself that he can safely carry out the intended flight, this is defined by Article 138 of the ANO which states that the pilot of a model aircraft must not endanger any person or property. What does this mean in practical terms? Essentially the position is exactly the same as with 35MHz a few years ago, when you purchase and install a receiver the onus is on you to ensure that it is performing at a level that will not compromise the safety of the flight, essentially choose a receiver with a specification that matches the installation requirements (as an extreme example don’t fit a unit advertised as suitable for park flyers in a 1/3rd scale Extra). Once you have installed the unit then carry out range checks in line with the (transmitter) manufacturer’s guidance. Remember, whilst there may be a lack of well defined legal requirements relating to the receiving equipment that we use, the responsibilities that we incur as pilots of model aircraft are very clear, you are legally responsible for the safety of any flight that you undertake. Manny Williamson Development Officer

I have a fairly large Stearman bipe, which was fitted with a very underpowered 44cc engine. I decided to fit a Fuji 86cc engine, and one beautiful evening I went down to the local beach to fly at sunset, all on my own, and not a soul in sight. I kneeled down in front of the model (as I USED to do) and flicked it to start up. It started a little fast, and I automaticall put my left hand up to the top wing to restrain it - forgetting that it now had a 24" prop on, in place of the previous 18". Result - a very deep wound halfway up my forearm - blood everywhere! (later told at the hospital that if the cut had been 2mm deeper it would have cut the artery and I might well not have lived to tell the tale! Fortunately I had a kitchen roll in the car (10 mins. walk up the beach) and bound it tightly round the arm (still lots of blood!) Then (foolishly?) I returned, retrieved and dismantled the model and drove home. Lots of blood around the gearstick & car floor...... My wife was in her dressing gown half asleep watching TV when this apparition burst in covered with blood and sand, demanding to be taken to A & E. Result- 3 days in Lancaster hospital, 25 stitches, and a healthier respect for large engines! I'm still flying the Stearman (superb flier) but now I always start the engine - and all other engines - from the rear, easy enough to lean over the top wing to start. And I'm now very much aware: big engines bite hard!!