leccyflyer
-
Posts
5,398 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Everything posted by leccyflyer
-
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
-
Ah right Toni no probs - it's a bit far away then for an airframe exchange, since I'm in Cheshire. I'd be very interested in borrowing your Birdie .10 plan if that would be possible. cheers Brian
-
AFAIK a JR transmitter won't work with Futaba PCM receivers, the two systems are different and incompatible. PPM isn't a problem but the PCM won't work.
-
Hi Toni Like Danny said I;ve been looking for Birdie .10 plans for ages. Mine was a bit underpowered with an OS.10FP, so needed careful energy management in the aerobatics, but it was a lovely honest neutral model to fly and the 15FP would be just about perfect for the model. I've dropped you an email. cheers Leccy
-
Danny That would be fantastic if your pal has the Birdie .10 plan and would be willing to lend it out. Phil I've got your email and will be in touch.
-
Phil I think Kev probably still has the plan. Drop me an email with your email address and I'll see what I can do about getting a scan. I've been looking for a Birdie 10 kit or plan for a few years myself to replace my lost model. Bri
-
Mine are both good old fashioned tissue and dope, then airbrushed/painted with Humbrol matt enamels.
-
The Global Kits Birdie was a old style pattern ship, available in a number of sizes. My favourite model- the Birdie 10 - was sadly lost in the River Mersey a few years ago and was a 48" span version for a .10-.15cu in engine. Mine was electrified with Mega 16/25-4 and 8xCP1300s. My pal has the 1/2A Baby Birdie, which was suitable for an .049 engine and his is fitted out with a Graupner 480 Race, 5x5 Speed prop and flies with 8x700AR NiCd - quick, aerobatic, but with short flight duration. Pictures on this thread. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4989148&highlight=birdie#post4989148
