leccyflyer
-
Posts
5,380 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Everything posted by leccyflyer
-
Like these? Those are scratch built in glass-fibre by a clubmate and use a really nice technique to get that weathered, rusty look. They are painted with brick red matt enamels, then have a layer of salt crystals sprinkled on them, before being sprayed with more matt enamel. They they are put into warm water, the salt dissolves, leaving a heavily pitted surface, which has a further light dusting of brick red matt paint to finish. They look incredibly authentic close up. Might be worth giving Vortex Vacforms a call to see if they have anything suitable. Here's a link to their webpage http://www.vortex-vacforms.co.uk/generalpage.htm - good luck Edited By leccyflyer on 28/05/2010 18:09:40
-
-
How much are your club fees each year?
leccyflyer replied to Bruce Richards's topic in All Things Model Flying
Posted by Phil B on 16/05/2010 13:57:32: why do so mant clubs have an extra fee for new members. I will fall foul of this because my job forces me to move house every 2 or 3 years Although the club did did very kindly wave this fee for me In our case it is because of the Club Constitution which grants all members a share in the club assets in the event that the club is dissolved. There is also a degree of additional administration, postage, printing etc for brand new members. Club membership automatically ceases if subs have not been payed by a certain date and the joining fee becomes payable, with a certain degree of leeway and individual arrangements in the event of financial hardship, which encourages payment of the subs at the appropriate time in the winter months. If that were not in place then you might expect to get a ruck of members leaving payment of their subs until the decent flying weather comes around. Our club subs are £42 year for seniors, plus BMFA and £10 for juniors, plus BMFA. The joining fee is £10 for seniors only, -
Posted by birdy on 24/05/2010 20:19:41: I've never had a mid-air, but I only ever fly with less than 3 in the air, and never with helis; Heli + foamy = expensive confeti + Thrashy, rapid reduction in value, peice of plastic... Some people do scare me slightly (why cant some people fly smoothly?), and I wish our club had a system where you had to call out - I dont like taking my eyes off my model. In my experience the vast majority of mid-airs occur with just two models in the air. It is quite uncanny how often that happens.
-
Posted by Ed Darter on 24/05/2010 13:11:57: Learn what your fellow flyers styles are and decide whether you are comfortable flying with them. I have a number of good friends who fly but some of their flying styles and mine don't mix too well, we always seem to be in the same bit of sky, So I generally sit back and enjoy watching them fly, and when they are near the end of their flight I'll prepare for mine. Others I am more than happy to be in the air with.Our sport / hobby has risks, you have to accept that otherwise you are in the wrong hobby. There will be mid airs and as long as neither party was being a complete spanner I think it should be shrugged off as a racing incident. All pilots should stand together though, not only for communication. For 35MHz I was lead to believe this reduces the risk (further) of RX's picking up spurious signals from adjacent channels being broadcast from a different TX. same reason we ask our club members to leave the TX at the flight line when going onto the patch to collect a model. If they didn't do that their TX would be much closer to the flying models and increase the risk of cross channel interference. How big the risk is in reality I have no idea, I suspect very small these days but it doesn't hurt...... Top post Getting to know the flying styles of those you fly with is a tremendous help in avoiding mid-airs. I won't fly at the same time as one of our very best flyers because the different styles of flying - he flies mostly turnaround aerobatics and I fly mostly circuits have the potential to put us in the same patch of sky at the same time and with little warning. I'm happy to watch him fly and take my turn when he isn't up, even if there are just the two of us at the field.
-
Posted by Chris Bott on 26/05/2010 15:09:17: Oh, OK. Well here is the Balsacraft wing plan. In case Martyn is looking for this to add retracts to a B/C model. I found the wing plan, but never did find the fus one when I was doing the reconstruction. It looks to me like any retract installation would seriously compromise the spar. Shame really. Posted by Chris Bott on 26/05/2010 15:11:48: Leccy, on launches, I'm beginning to find that lower power than max helps a lot. Otherwise the launcher is trying to hold back a model that's wanting to go faster than he can throw. A setting where he can just push the model out harder than it is pulling seems to work for us. Then a gentle raising of power to keep the torque effect manageable. Chris Good points, but this was just a rank bad launch by me I'm afraid. The Spitfire normally goes off a lightweight dolly in a few yards, but since this was at a fly-in I thought I'd chance a hand-launch. Bad move, The boy played a blinder to save the Spitty six inches from the deck.
-
Nice B/C Spitfire Chris. Just a word about the persistent rumour that the Ripmax Spitfire is the Balsacraft Spitfire converted into an ARTF. I dunno what happened to the design, or design rights or anything like that, but the structure is sufficiently different that they really are different models. In several main areas that difference is as large as can be - th cowl (which is horrid on the Rippers Spitfire) and the wing construction, which is totally different, being a built-up structure with strip ailerons in the case of the Ripmax Spitfire and an all sheet construction with inset ailerons in the case of the B/C Spitfire.. Add in the fact that the Ripmax Spitfire also has a built-up tail, whereas the Balsacraft Spitfire has all sheet tail and control surfaces. They are about the same size, both are electric and both use balsa in their construction. My boy's Ripmax Spitfire survived a horrible hand launch on Sunday and he did very well to get her away. First time on 2.4Ghz too - no trailing aerial and the 3s1p 4500mah gave a very powerful performance. Cracking model
-
As Max Boyce said "I know 'cos I was there" As a youngster - same age as some of you chaps - I visited Cape Kennedy at the time of the Apollo 11 launch, went to see the Saturn V on Pad 39A, and watched the launch from Satellite Beach near my auntie's house. During that summer we saw several launches, with the night launches being extra spectacular. Apollo 11 was the hostoric one though. Here's a cine film clip that I put up on You Tube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrddt0yXuvw My uncle was a photographer with the USAF and as a result we also got a joyride on board a USN destroyer to the offshore launching area off the coast of Cape Kennedy to view the launch of a Polaris missile from HMS Renown. We also got up close and personal to the Apollo 12 and the ill-fated Apollo 13 spacecraft which were under construction in the Vehicle Assembly Building at the time. You can see them on the cine film clip.
-
This job is made a lot easier if you use the correct tool for the job. Sullivan provide a threaded knurled aluminium barrel that is threaded onto the threaded insert and then wound into the snake inner. Should be available from any decent model shop that carries Gold-n-Rods. Quicker to do than to type it out.
-
Sad news I am afraid
leccyflyer replied to Tim Mackey's topic in Gliders and Gliding - General Discussion
That's very sad news. I only met Alan for the first time a couple of months ago, in buying some models, and he was clearly a true gent and a credit to the hobby. Condolences to his wife ,family and freinds. Brian -
Posted by Ross Clarkson on 22/12/2009 12:24:21: This is brilliant, this is what life was all about. Going out and being a proper little boy! I remember throwing an aerosol can into a fire once..................you can guess the rest!! I did it again though, i was just careful next time and further away!!!!! ha ha. One Saturday morning at Cub's football training two of the very best players didn't turn up. They were the middle pair of four brothers. Soon the word came that they were both in hospital, having suffered serious burns. I was told that it was highly unlikely that they would play Cub's football again. In the following weeks the story emerged that the family had been clearing the garage and a box of rubbish put on the bonfire contained an aerosol can of paint. The resultant fireball enveloped the two youngsters and they were both burned. They still bear the scars, but luckily they survived. Perhaps others have not been so lucky. It's where the homespun "truthiness" of the little story at the start of the thread falls apart. It doesn't consider those who din't survive, or who were injured or maimed by the things which it is so popular to decry any attempt to prevent. The reference to the golden age before seatbelts that these missives hark back to is particularly relevant. Ask any member of the emergency services how much they miss the golden age of picking up little bodies that have been shot through the windscreen.Edited By leccyflyer on 24/12/2009 09:14:26
-
Posted by Stuart Leask on 02/12/2009 09:55:39: (Raphael - as a UK FPVer, I do fear your video does creates a slightly grandiose perception of what FPV would be about over here on our crowded little island! We're limited to 10mW maximum transmitter power here. Add the explosion of WIFI and other interference sources and, in practice, I find FPV seldom works well more than 3-400m away, or much over 4-500 ft altitude, even in relatively remote - for the UK - locations) Stuart That's very interesting information. I don't think I've seen those limitations presented so clearly before in these discussions. If correct, they would seem to limit FPV operations to within direct line of sight range by default. The sort of flying exhibited in the video is quite simply totally out of question and indefensible in this country. Flying over and between houses, over roads and people, in the manner portrayed would be a clear breach of the ANO. However many pre-flights were undertaken.
-
Posted by BEAR WOOD on 01/12/2009 19:44:07: Thanks for you response Leccyflier looks like we might have some interesting club nights to keep us entertained this winter and then we might have some interesting area meetings aswell! Ill be taking along some videos from you tube of the free flight nats as an example of what the CAA and BMFA does allow and some of FPV as an example of whats not allowed. How will you argue your case? Why, with all of my usual eloquence and persuasiveness, of course. I surely won't be showing any examples of free-flight models, given that the comparison between a model not under the direct, real-time control of the modeller and one which is supposedly under such direct real-time control of the pilot(s) is unlikely to be very illuminating.
-
Posted by BEAR WOOD on 01/12/2009 09:46:33: I would encourage every member of the BMFA who feels that Simons proposal is resonable to raise the issue at their next club meeting and get their club rep to raise it at area level. After all the only policy the BMFA should have is that dictated by their members and theres no doubt getting the BMFA to support the FPV issue will help their case at the CAA. Likewise, I'd encourage every BMFA member who recognises that the refusal to comply with the entirely reasonable requirement of having a direct line of sight control of radio controlled model aircraft is unreasonable, to contact their BMFA reps to support the BMFA's considered advice and negotiation with the CAA. That is support to permit the continued operation of FPV, as model aircraft, with an entirely commendable and pragmatic approach to whatever legislation lies in the futre. That advice is aimed at the bulk of the 36,000 members who are model aircraft enthusiasts of all types, not just the 0.1% who want to put themselves, and themselves alone, in the cockpit, without that safety net provided by the direct line of sight control of the pilot-in-charge..Edited By leccyflyer on 01/12/2009 11:44:10
-
Posted by David Turner on 29/11/2009 11:09:24: Let's turn your "loners" jibe around, Leccy. Let's make it a rule that you cannot fly LOS without their being a second person in attendance. Now, can you see that it is a genuine limitation? It's not a "jibe" it's an observation, regarding what some might see as being pertinent to the only real objection to complying with a perfectly reasonable solution to a problem. The hypothetical situation, that you raise, making it a requiremt to have a second person in attendance is one that, under certain circumstances, is already in operation. Whether it's a limitation or not depends, to a large extent, on the individual. If they can accept that the type of flying that they are taking part in requires back-up, in the form of a second pilot in charge, just as operators of >20kg models accept the requirement for a spotter, the bulk of the objection evaporates. Indeed, IIRC, the alternative recommendations of the BFPVMFA recognise thos requirement for a spotter, but fall short of the far more valuable (IMO) requirement that the second pilot is in a position to take control of the model in the event of a failure in the technology.Edited By leccyflyer on 29/11/2009 11:49:14
-
Interesting thread and a lot of ground covered. It strikes me that the requirement to have the pilot-in-charge as always having visual line of sight and control is entirely reasonable. The CAA/BMFA guidelines are a step in the right direction, in establishing a pragmatic solution to the management of this type of flying. All that it needs to make such a system work is for the FPV flyer to have at least one buddy. Where is the insurmountable problem in that? Is the process, by it's very nature, particularly attractive to loners? The video posted near the beginning of the thread demonstrates exact;ly the sort of risky -to the entire hobby - flying that is encouraged by the unfettered use of this technology. The public, and the legislators, probably would not differentiate between FPV and conventional RC model aircraft in the event that such behaviour resulted in a serious accident.
-
Well I did say it was "reliant on tracking straight" Peter
-
After dabbling in FF and C/L my first set was a Gem 1+1 in the early seventies, mounted in a KK Outlaw. Lasted mere seconds in the air. The two fellers who my mate and me then latched onto, in the hope of learning to fly, were self taught with Yamamotos and Gem 4 sets, so I then built a KK Mini Super to fit the Gem 1+1 set into, but ended up using it in a Vosper ASR launch instead. Then out of the hobby for twenty years. Second time round a couple of Futaba Challenger 6 sets and a buddy lead, which I still have now, but don;t use them any more. They were absolutely bullet proof and worked brilliantly.
-
Peter My pal and I knocked up a lightweight dolly suitable for electrics some years ago, making use of plastic tubes and connectors from a demolished Wendy House and commercial model wheels. If I can make the picture attachment thingy work I'll put some pictures up. The dolly works well on short grass and I've used it with electric funfighter sized models both with and without functional rudder. Without the rudder it;s reliant on the dolly tracking straight or the model naturally weathercocking into wind, but TBH the model doesn't usually stay on there for long enough to have made it a problem except in one failed attempt to use it to launch a pusher flying wing. The model on the dolly is an electrified Cambrian Spitfire, weighs about 3.5lbs, no rudder servo fitted and takes off from the dolly with no problem. My Cambrian 109 does have a functional rudder, so in theory could be used to steer the dolly, but in practice the dolly tracks pretty straight with the tailwheel set for midships and the loud-quiet lever advanced to "All Ahead Full"
-
-
-
-
-
That's close enough for jazz, Timbo.. 12.45v for 90% full would be fairly close to a linear relationship, as suggested by most of the other data points.
-
Thanks for that Timbo The voltages shown for 80% and 90% full 3s packs are identical (12.3v) - do you have a suggested amendment? cheers Leccy
