David Turner 5

Vincent motorcycles ... drool!

Done.   You need chocolate ... I HAVE chocolate. Munchity-Crunchity.

In response to David, I still stand by my statement that we have the two choices - his "additional" example is surely just a facet of self regulation.     Fair point. It could be construed as that..         If I may be permitted another sojourn into the realms of "pop-psychology", I'll relate to you another tale.   Some time ago, I used to teach people how to fly. Now, sometimes, I'd inject a bit of aerobatics' instruction into the PPL syllabus. This made a refreshing break ... and most students thought it was great fun.   However, there was one guy, with whom I worked, who tried his level best to get "someone" to stop me ... to "ban it". This particular guy was a very mediocre pilot and quite incapable of teaching aerobatics ... yet he was well able to appreciate that the students enjoyed it.   What better, then, than to play the "safety card" in an attempt to have it stopped? He couldn't say, "I'm envious."   But, he could say, " That's dangerous. Those students will think that it's OK for them to go off and do aeros on their own. This has to be stopped."    It's hard to argue with a call for "more safety." ?   It's a hugely common human ambition to have others dragged down to your level. Ergo, the semi-socialist State in which we live.   Now, I've no doubt that some of you will be thinking, "Yeah, I agree with him. Those students could go off and kill themselves."   Well, there's no hope for you, then. Those students were adults, most of them pretty smart. They were self-directing and autonomous beings and it was not my place to constrain their behaviour. They should be punished BY their sins, not FOR them.   He didn't win.   I'm just trying to illustrate the devious workings of the human mind... not suggesting that this "parable" applies to any of the contributors on here. Edited By David Turner 5 on 10/11/2010 10:32:57 Edited By David Turner 5 on 10/11/2010 10:39:41 Edited By David Turner 5 on 10/11/2010 10:40:53

Or, maybe it's just the British disease ... "I don't like it ..I'm gonna make sure that he can't do it."   That's prevalent.

I think that there might be an element of "projection" at work, here.   Let me explain.   I'm a pretty good and consistent flyer. However, when I see videos like the one in question, I think to myself, "My God, I could never do that. It's so small and fast, that I'd lose it ... probably on the first reversal."   Being human, it's natural to then think, "Well, if I'm a decent flyer and I couldn't fly that model safely, that guy absolutely must be pushing the envelope. He must be an accident just looking for a venue."   That's human. And it's completely flawed thinking. It's part of the same psychological deception that makes us go "Wow" when we see a skilled tight-rope artiste or a bloke juggling sharp knives.   I've seen it many times. It's easy to impress people with your flying ... but only those people who don't appreciate that the route from novice to master is one of infinite increments. And, when you are a novice, observing a master, you can be forgiven for thinking that you are seeing something magical ... or else something which is higly dangerous.   In the last analysis, that pilot's decisions are nothing to do with me ... or you. If he screws up, it is him that should answer to a Court.   You know, this argument puts me in mind of the gun-control-Nazis. Whenever there's a shooting, they take the guns from the people who didn't do it.   If modellers don't want to fall victim to the same distorted thinking, then they have to associate and stand up for themselves. That means taking their arguments before the Courts.    

To say that our choice is "self-regulate or be government-regulated" is to present a false dichotomy ... these are not the only choices available.   A third choice would be to grow some cojones.   The BMFA has quite a few members. Now, suppose that the BMFA started a fund ... with the express purpose of mounting a legal challenge against the "ban-it" brigade. After all, the "ban-it" crowd rely upon the fact that they are usually imposing their views upon a small or weak minority. That is the tyranny of democracy.   Imagine that, when a local council decided to flex its muscles, the BMFA could throw a half-million quid into a legal challenge.  Certainly, most councils would think twice before getting muscular ... and there would also be the prospect of setting some sort of precedent.   What's more, the BMFA need not stand alone. How many sportsmen and hobbyists face similar problems? An alliance could be forged, to form an effective fighting force.   Aeromodellers have been rolling over, belly-up, for as long as I can remember ... yet the "ban-it" crowd is relentless. It is never satisfied. So, in my opinion, "being accommodating" is a counsel of despair. They simply pick us off, one by one.

I don't think that it's too bad. Just a little over-moderated, IMO.   I've only been "told off" the once. Can't recall the details, but I do remember thinking that I'd been censured for expressing an opinion with which the moderator did not agree...   I'm not given to incivility (I think), so I confess that a PM from a moderator came as a bit of a surprise. 'Spect someone did one of those "Report" thingies. A lot of people can't cope with a bit of challenging debate, you know.   On the whole, though, not too bad.

You know, in order to call for a "ban" on something, a person has to have a deep belief that his own "rights" supersede those of the other party.   Some would call that elitist, or arrogant or discriminatory.

Puts me  in mind of a light aircraft from the postwar period. Can't recall the name, but fitted with an abomination for a control column.   Ah yes, Chrislea?  Super Ace?

Ah, thanks for the reply.   I kinda thought it was that way, but couldn't be sure.   I do recall doing the "crazy-paving" bit .... and have been dumb enough to do it more than once.

I always forget just what is compatible with what.     So, remind me. I have a doped surface which I want to paint, using enamel paint. Is that a good combination?Edited By David Turner 5 on 01/11/2010 20:55:03

If you mean ARTF, I can't offer much advice  Otherwise ...     Fly Baby... build it. ... flies well, and pretty.   Fokker DV11... build it ... flies well and handsome.   Panic is great flying machine ... pig-ugly.   WotsWot  poor VFM... OK-looking.   My 2 Cents.        

Wouldn't give you a straight answer?   Tell 'em you're taking your business elsewhere, then.     Probably best to ask them, in writing, mind. They can't be so evasive, that way.   AFAIK, my own insurer does exactly what I need. When I asked about specifcs, they told me that, provided no item was worth more than (I can't remember, but more than anything that I fly), they'd honour the contract.        

Soft solder is fine. And a bit of brass tube.   Make sure the steel diaphragm cover is nice and clean and that you have plenty of heat.   You will, of course, have removed the steel cover from the carb before applying all that heat.

Posted by Ultymate on 27/10/2010 20:45:26: It's not a Walbro issue at all the same thing happens with Tillotson and the Chinese cloned carbs . @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css); @import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);  Fair point. My language was sloppy.   It's a "diaphragm carb issue".Edited By David Turner 5 on 27/10/2010 20:50:07

True enough, it's a Walbro thing. They aren't designed for aeroplanes.   IMO, the best place to run that little tube is inside the fuselage, where the air is comparatively stagnant and gives a very constant pressure. At least, that's what I do.    

I doubt you'll break any moulds by purchasing a commercial product.    

Bob, the BMFA don't make the rules.

I've twice spoken to the editors of magazines, who have told me that they are "beholden" to their advertisers. Both said that, in essence, they would print nothing which might damage that relationship.   One was the late Boddington, some 20 years ago. The other was (honestly, I forget the name) just a couple of years ago.   I took Boddo to task for an article lauding the Wain Engine as being perfect for the scale modeller ... it being quiet and so forth. Let me tell you, nothing could have been further from the truth. Anyway, after a bit of toing-and-froing, old Boddington spilled the beans... that he needed the advertising revenue and that for his readership, the bywords were caveat emptor.   (Anyone remember the Wain Engine?)   But, really, the fault is ours, as consumers. We know how the world works; and about economic realities. When faced with them, should we really feign surprise and indignity?    Seems to me that most manufacturers now do their product development out in the world of the consumer. The Stukas that are produced in 6 months' time will be a bit better, most likely. I do wish he'd get on and fly it. I'm gagging to find out how it handles.      Edited By David Turner 5 on 24/10/2010 15:57:30

Posted by Steve Hargreaves on 22/10/2010 21:01:58: I don't understand why you would want to do this....surely to check the fuel level you would have to land...what then? Take off again with a half full tank....??         Very logical. Probably why, in 25 years of flying, I've never seen anyone with a sight-glass fitted to their fuel tank.   I concede that an in-flight reading would be nice, though hardly essential. Actually, you don't even need to know the tank's contents; all you need to know is when the contents reach a pre-determined low level. That would be handy, I guess.

Yeah. I reckon that those big Tigers would make great engines, when converted to petrol. And cheap, too. The big Irvines would be pretty good, as well.     Mind you, they are pretty good as glow engines ...     A big Tiger, running nitro, but using a Walbro Carb, might provide phenomenal power and reliability, at a very reasonable price. 8% oil will fit the bill, I should think. And, since it's the oil which is the expensive "bit" of the fuel, the overall cost needn't be too high.   I pay 60p per litre for methanol, but I can have it for 40 pence per litre if I buy in bulk.     Trouble is, I don't use enough fuel to be much bothered about the price.

I did, years ago, run a McCullogh on spark ignition and methanol.   Now, that experiment worked pretty well.  There was little appreciable difference between the two fuels ... except that methanol is half the price of petrol. But, then, you do use more of it..

I sharpen mine.       Tight-wad.

I bought one of those Rexel units and fitted it to an Enya .60.   I compared various parameters, running the engine as a petrol sparkie, a methanol sparkie and as a glow (augmented by a glow-driver at low rpm).   When running on petroil (8% Aerosave), the engine ran poorly and it was impossible to satisfactorily set the carburation.   Things improved when I ran methanol and spark ignition.     BUT, by far the best performance was  methanol and an augmented glow. Better pick-up, transition and idle. Noticeably better.   Maybe I'm a duffer and did it wrong. Dunno. I[ve no doubt that someone will come along to relate how their Enya runs great with spark ignition.     I think that a proper metering carb would address most of the problems with the conversion, but I've yet to get around to trying one.     Meanwhile, out of interest, my Saito 1.80 ran in my Stampe for 32+ flying hours without a dead-stick. The engine has a pump fitted and a glow augmentation. I've had a few petrol engines, (mostly magneto-type industrial conversions, such as Zenoah, Ryobi, Kawasaki, Quadra) but have yet to match that level of reliability.   So, Rexel ignition unit for sale ... offers!       Saito's originally recommended 3.5% oil mix (IIRC), but after numerous reported bearing failures, have opted to increase the ratio to 5% (I think).

Firstly ... don't let them cut you. That's my advice and it's also the advice of my GP.   Secondly, it may get better - given time. Right now, it seems to you that the pain will never cease, but it will.   I had sciatica about 20 years' back. It was so bad that I was practically crippled. Had to crawl up the stairs to the bog. Couldn't dress myself. Well, I'm sure you know all about the indignities.    But, time healed it, though I have been left with a permanent loss of reflex in my Achilles. Not a big deal; and a small price to pay for the relief from the pain.     hth