stu knowles

I notice that you don't make it clear who was doing what in your OP but the bottom line is that only the TX with the frequency peg should have been switched ON. Whomever else had one on was way, way out of order.   Now that 35meg is in a minority, it might be that the risk of complacency rises. You / your club needs to get a grip of this NOW.   As Ken says, if someone has switched on without the peg and brought someone else's model down, then that person has just bought the wreckage at full price.   Stu K (still on 35 meg) @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

I too have listened to your arguments and suggestions and see ery little of merit in what you propose. I don't share your view of the BMFA in its present form nor do I think that there is a general feeling among its members that change is necessary.   Some of your suggestion would put additional strain (and importance ) on the few individuals at the centre at the expense of who populate the regions and specialist group. Not a welcome development IMHO   As others have said, most people who approach the BMFA for help and support, get everything that they need and often more than they expect so, having watched the washing go around a few more times, I'll leave it at that.   regards, stu k     @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

OK then BEB, Erfolg and others, If I were to buy into your ideas, can you give me a specific example what the sort of communication/ interaction / vote or ballot that you feel should be taking place and isn't??   The other point I would make is that (in so far as I know) there isn't an all powerful group at the centre of the BMFA structure that decides or dictates policy or how things will be done in the future. There are the Area Committees, Specific Groups like Scale and other disciplines, The Flying Site Consultant, each of which do what they do, but none have the power to dictate how others will think or act.Andy made the point earlier that 'The BMFA are its members, its as flat as an organisation can be.   Undoubtedly there are those that join the BMFA because they are told to (in order to join a club) or simply to get the Insurance, but anyone who is a long term devotee joins their Nation Body in order to secure the future of their hobby and simply 'to belong'   I'm almost sorry that you have such a dim view of the way things are.   Al C, this is a discussion forum, I thought that generally chewing the fat is the idea cheers all   stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); I can't imagine what issue would cause the BMFA to meed to contact all of its members so urgently? and to do so would bypass those members and groups which form the existing structure.   I also think it likely that if members were afforded such easy access to the centre, then they would be inundated with puerile complaints that 'so and so flies like a lemon but has a B certificate.'' My club committee won't do what I want them to do and many many more.' None of which have anything to do with the BMFA.   The demise of the BMFA forum was due (in part) to a few members stridently refusing to believe that their views were not popular or wanted, and perhaps give an indication of what might happen if there was direct access.   BEB this is a hot topic for you and I doubt that anything said by others will cause you to change your mind. In my view, if the BMFA were to be organised along the lines that you suggest, the outcome would be pretty disastrous. If 28000 people were supposed to take all of their questions, suggestions and needs straight to the centre, then nothing would get done because te centre would be overwhelmed. By having the centre do what the centre does and the area committees do what they do, linking together at regular intervals, then order is maintained and everyone has a voice.   The system works, I haven't seen anything in your suggestions which ( I feel ) would be an improvement. Good debate though.   stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);Edited By stu knowles on 19/03/2011 08:42:52

I have been away from the box for a while so have only just happened on this thread.   I would like to say that I think that the BMFA works well.   When there have been challenges and threat to the hobby on a national scale, the BMFA countered them very well.   When organising fly ins and club days, the local area committee supported the event with practical help which included picking up a three figure bill on every occasion.   At club level they offer guidance and support if asked, Planning threats and site advice   They stage the Nats and support the whole spectrum of aeromodelling.   Before asking for reform, why not try engaging with the system as it is, you may find that it does much more than you know?   stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

Some interesting comments here. As a cave dwelling 35meg user, I'll concede that there may be some advantages in 2.4 for small models and lekky, although in my limited experience of the dark art, 35 is working well in my fleet of a Parkzone fighter, an Rc Factory Yak and a MPX Gemini.   In a free world, if 2.4 works for you and you feel that the advantages it has brought is worth the outlay, then that's absolutely fine, 2.4 is progress and offers a development of the hobby in general.   I do feel a wee bit tetchy though when 'converts' start to justify their choice by making inferences that somehow 35 gear is not quite 'safe' In fairness, it hasn't been said on this thread but if you frequent the various forums (forii?) you will know what I mean. The insistence on 2.4 only for many shows seems to be a big leap to me. Is there evidence to support this change??   TBH, when 2.4 came along, work took me away from flying, so for a couple of years I was standing on the touchlines watching as an interested observer. (otherwise things may have been different) I saw the mass changeover in my club and in the mags. I also saw some grief with the new tech as the bugs were ironed out.   Now that I'm back and the dust has settled, I see no pressing need to change. I might buy a cheap conversion ( FrSky) for a redundant FF8 for small stuff, but I'm content to wait and let things develop. Telemetry. what next?   Since I got back into flying, 35meg has just got better and better. At the club. there is only one or two even using 35 let alone sharing a channel. At a fly in, no TX pound was needed and for all except one afternoon of the weekend, I had my channel to myself.   Stu k fence sitter! @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

Another vote for 35meg. Never had a problem with it and no peg availability issues, I'm often to only user.   What were the advantages of changing to 2.4 again?   stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

Thats funny, mine is laid up with broken spars too! The fully sheeted centre section / sudden change to open outer wing section is an abrupt change in strength / flexibility, probably not a good design point. Trouble is that if one spar breaks, chances are that all three break.   One day I would like to try the larger version. Does it handle any better??   stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

I seem to remember that mine performed better if the moment the mainwheels touched the ground, I released the elevator and let it slow down with the tail high. After it has slowed a little, then pull the tail down with up elevator. Sounds counter intuitive but it worked.   Still had to be smack into wind though. stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

Andy and Ralph have it right, Working toward an A or B should be a fun and pleasurable thing done for the sake of self improvement. IMHO its a pity if it gets mixed up into some sort of safe flying campaign where people are coerced into it. Particularly for the pilot who is not interested in show / display flying and is just doing his own thing in his own club.   stu k     @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

I don't have a problem with a B / LMA cert of competence being required for show and event pilots, however for general 'in club' flying, personally I think that forcing the possession of A & B certificates is unnecessary.   The scheme was not designed for this purpose and possession of same is no guarantee of good flying.   I don't think that it absolves a club from properly policing its members if it becomes necessary and if it doesn't become necessary - because flying is safe- why compel someone to take the test   stu k   @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

I almost hestitate to add anything more to this thread, the topic has been well aired many times. However ........   The BMFA do not promote the Achievement scheme as anything else but just that, a personal Achievement Scheme for individual pilots. I personally don't think for one moment that if a guy flew like a nerd, a club or committee who be able to avoid any liability that there may (or may not be) by saying we insist on a minimum A or B. If there have been poor flying standards they must be addressed for what they are.   If a person opts to fly in the company of others, then for the good health and well being of all there must be rules. I strongly support that but also say with equal conviction, only the minimum of carefully targeted rules are desirable.   The club must enforce some standards and discipline but for me, compulsion to do an A or B is slightly off target     @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

I would make two comments.   One, Take the B test. It is easy and once gained the issue doesn't arise anymore.You will feel a sense of achievement I guarantee it, no matter how long you have been flying.   Two. The B test has nothing whatsoever to do with safe flying. People to have a B can and do fly like a hooligan. The B shows that they can fly reasonably well if they choose to. Some however choose not to.   The rule that your club should impose is that ALL models will be flown with due regard for the safety of others. Adopt the rule and enforce it by a verbal warning, a written warning should there be a repeat example of rank bad flying, followed by an invitation to close the gate on their way out if there were to be a third incident. There should always be a right of appeal to the Club Committee. Better if warnings were not given out on the say so of one person only.   The disciplinary system shouldn't penalise and out of character mistake, a one off incident, but should drop on persistent offenders who just don't get safe flying.   Thats it. One size fits all from first model to giant and takes in everything in between.   2p supplied for what its worth. stu k   ps Take the test this year   pps, Just to show that its about piloting skill, not buying some aerobat to make it easy, take it with any old four channel hack, even a trainer type if you can find one that will spin and bunt. Success will be all the sweeter.               @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

A word of caution. My experience is limited to a Zenoah 38 which had lost its carb. I tried several, probably 5 or 6 walbro carbs which all look much the same, at least two were new and sold by 'aftermarket sellers' who assured that 'one size fits all'   None worked properly.   On the point of junking the engine as scrap, I was loaned another z 38 with original carb. I swapped that one over and the engine ran, and still runs beautifully (after spending something like £70 on a spare carb from Toni Clarke) . Money well spent. All before - wasted.   As I say, its a limited experience but it showed me that Walbro carbs, an other makes look the same , but are not. It may be worth spending some time tracking down what the original carb was, then finding one of those. There is a lot of info out there which lists dozens of different carbs.   Good Luck   stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

I haven't personally sprayed onto film but I know that 'Prymol' is a solarfilm product especially for preparing the surface of the film to accept paint. I have read good reports.   i would have thought that paint onto film without a suitable chemical etch would not work well.   stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

@import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); Primer is to produce a good surface for top coat and or an even colour underneath light colours, I wouldn't say that its essential for using solarlac.   I thin with cellulose thinners. If not thinned enough it tends to spray a bit like cotton wool.   I have used Solarlac quite a lot and found it fuel resistant and pretty good all round. I use clearcoat as a final waft over any stickers or weathering and all around the front of the fus   stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);Edited By stu knowles on 28/01/2011 20:50:47

You have posed a question that will get you a different answer for every person you ask although you have also correctly identified probably the biggest model breaker in model flying, engine cuts!   This is my way and (touch wood) I rarely suffer from this problem.   Tune for high speed. leave it no more than a couple of click on the rich side of perfect. Tune the low speed,Read up how to do airbleed and two needle carbs. Get the right setting by pinching shut the fuel feed just before the carb while the engine is ticking over.   If the rpm rises a lot, its too rich. if they die with no rise, too lean. small rise in rpm and then slowly dies.... just right (said Goldilocks)   If the engine still plays up, clean the carb and back flush with fuel. Use a good plug, My favourite is an Enya No 3.   Good quality engines repay the investment times over by not wrecking models.   Time invested in getting a good engine set up is rarely wasted. Good luck stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); To speak for an alternative view, I shudder when I see models restrained by the comparatively fragile tailplane while being started, or even worse, run up to full throttle.  Not for me anyway.   I prefer to use the leading edge of the wing , most often using my flight box in front of one wing and a padded stick driven into the ground in front of the other.  On particularly tall models, two padded sticks.   I accept that this is a minority view but IMHO neither the construction of the tailplane and rear fuselage or the close proximity of all of the elevator and rudder linkages, make tail restraints a good idea.     You pays your money......     stu k  @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);Edited By stu knowles on 03/01/2011 14:24:54

  I have an example of the Phil Ramsey Gladiator, found at the Nats bring & buy a couple of years ago.  Its very nice, flying with a zenoah 20 which just about fits inside the cowl. My guess is that with a 'normal' glow motor, it would need an additional housebrick up front to balance.   Apart from a pretty rubbish canopy, it makes into a very nice model, just small enough to get into my car ready assembled. (very important)   I haven't seen any mention of PR kits for years.When they were being made, they were quite expensive.   Nice model photos in this thread. I have a pic of mine somewhere, I'll try to find it.   good luck with yours   stu k  @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

I would add my vote for the DH Dove airliner, undermodelled so far but my fave suggestion would be for a Leopard Moth (or any of the other high wing monoplane moths   beautiful aeroplanes and would make fine models.  Even a 60 powered version could be 100 " span.   stu k  @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

I think that the z20 will be more than big enough for this model. Regardless of the numbers, I would say that it way outperforms a 120 fourstoke and its clean, clean, CLEAN!!!!  No more dreadfull gunge all over the model after every flight.   The z 20 is a quite wide engine, the carb sticks out of one side and the silencer is on the opposite side. This is more likely to be a deciding factor .   stu k  @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

Hi there,   I built, ( and still have ) the CG Lanc quite a few years ago. It still has a few sorties every year. This year I flew it from the hallowed tarmac of Scampton airfield, which was rather nice.   I was sceptical about the CG foam and BP methods, but I do recommend that you stick to his methods.  I was amazed at how it shrinks and gives a stressed skin to the foam.  If the BP was swopped for tex type material, I fear that there would be a lot of give in the tex which would weaken the overall airframe and not look half so good.   I think the finish when done 'as per' is good. I finished mine with flair paint and it has lasted well.   Chris Golds  has always called this model 'cartoon scale' which describes it well. It looks like a Lancaster. It builds quick and cheap. It flies well and has outlasted its expected lifespan by several years. Good Luck with yours stu k Edited By stu knowles on 12/09/2010 20:59:36