MattyB

Unfortunately that's not just here, it's typical of almost every political system globally (and those that are different probably aren't systems we'd want either!). In reality the political systems of the world just aren't set up to tackle a problem like this that is going to take decades of work and dedication to a strategy to bear fruit.

On time according to him is still net zero on or before 2050. Problem is that these changes now put us way behind the curve to achieve that, with nothing in the announcement that describes how we then bring it back on track.

I would imagine in these days of on-demand streaming that must be a dramatically less prevalent occurrence. Only the odd major sporting event (e.g. World Cup Final) or nationwide event like the Coronation would trigger it. We almost never watch live TV now, it is all streamed. My youngest (now 9) didn’t even understand the concept of waiting for her programme to come on when she was little and arrived at Granny and Grandada where there wasn’t a streaming device! 😂

Don't worry - Rishi has kicked the can down the road on new petrol and diesel cars by another 5 years at least, and has also scrapped a whole load of things that were never actually going to happen as a bonus... Result - Anyone over the age of ~60 should now be able to avoid owning an EV if they don't want to... 😉🤣

Too true, nobody should use the "d" word in this forum... 😉

Ah ok - that's explains it. I agree that there is no real point in moving where you do the test around the field; just make sure there is a clear line of sight between model and TX, and move the model in all orientations during the test. Afterwards (or even during if your T X can display the values) check the telemetry, and any potential issues should show themselves.

This is the HK website we are talking about. It has always been crazily difficult to navigate and use, why would that suddenly change now?!! 😉🤣

PS... On writing the above, I remembered this post from @Tim Kearsley in the low carbon life thread. It very much sums up my experience every time I have driven an EV - it's just so much quieter and more relaxing to travel in, then on top of that there is the performance... Does an EV have the "soul" when compared against some exotic fire-breathing ICE supercar? Maybe not, but frankly all of the previous ICE cars I've owned have just been 4 cylinder family machines, so none of them did either. I know which type of powertrain I prefer to drive day in and day out, and even if the infrastructure isn't quite there yet for long drives, I don't do enough of those these days for that to worry me. YMMV (literally! 😄).

Hmmm, it seems like there is a bit of grumpyness and dare I say envy creeping into this thread. I don't see anyone here disputing that this generation of EVs are expensive new. However, just because they aren't yet a comparable price to ICE cars (which remember have had 100+ years of development and manufacturing scale to reduce their prices to current levels), doesn't mean we should criticise people for buying one. Ron has earned that money, and it's his to spend on whatever means of transport (or indeed anything else) that he likes. Do you also look down your nose at someone who arrives at the patch with an expensive model that you may not be able to afford, or do you just watch and enjoy the spectacle? At the end of the day some people want the very cheapest way to transport their family and stuff around, and that's absolutely fine. Others want a vehicle that does more than that, or dare I say it just one that makes them smile when they look at it or drive it. Last time I looked, neither of those was illegal...

Correct. It should be a bit sooner than that though I would think; there are already used ones appearing at just over £20k now. Given the fact that new EVs are depreciating a bit more than ICE in their initial years, I would say it will be between 2-3 years old for the standard range MG4. We might leap sooner than that with a gen 2 Leaf, Corsa-e or e-208 though, as those have been out longer so are already much more affordable already, if not quite so accomplished cars. That doesn't matter much to us though as we only need the pure EV to be a local runabout 99% of the time.

Given the control issue you had last time out and the fact you now have a completely new install (new RX in a new location, and other kit moved internally), I am amazed that an experienced modeller is suggesting a 360 degree range check is over the top. It only takes a few seconds to complete (just have someone standing by the model shuffling it 90 degrees 3 times, once every 5-10-seconds or so), but is critical when using 2.4GHz kit where aerial orientation is very important. I can only assume he still installs based on the practices previously used for FM 35MHz gear, where aerial orientation was not as critical.

Don't be too hard on yourself - it couldn't be entirely your fault, as you didn't write it! Content wise it was actually one of his less extreme ones, and if he didn't have such a recent chequered history I don't think any of us would have minded. I was just amazed he would start back after his "holiday" from the forum with something with exactly the same tone as the previous posts that caused him issues in the past, but there you go - everyone's different...

I think everything has been covered that needs to be tbh Kevin - a member (now banned) pretended to be a beginner for a period of 9 months, and having re-read the CoC it became clear that (understandably) it hadn't been designed to deal with such a situation. I don't think there is any value in going back over who that individual was, what they posted and when, as this specific instance has all been dealt with by the mods. The only reason I brought it up was because it must have been hard work for them dealing with this individual (and all the reports made by other forumites) for the last ~9 months, and that a tweak to the CoC might make it easier for them if this ever recurred in the future (for instance if the same individual came back under another account). Even so, if the mods don't think a CoC change is necessary that is absolutely fine, it's no biggie.

PM sent.

I have belatedly just realised that, in addition to the pins needing to fall out in the opposite direction to gravity, at least when flying right-side up(!), you also have the friction of the mating foam surfaces on the wing and fuselage working in your favour. I know it isn't the most elegant system, but based on that I'd have no problem flying this as is, even without tape (I've flown my Durafly Excalibur many times more than the friction of the foam mating surfaces and incidence pins holding the wings onto the joiner, and despite being a much faster it's always been fine).

I honestly wouldn't go to the trouble - just put 2" of tape wrapped around the LE at where the wing joins the fuselage, and go fly. For a model like this that will provide plenty of additional friction to keep the wings from separating if you are worried about that. After all, they fly DS models at around Mach 0.7, and those wings are secured by nothing more than a wrap of tape as well! PS - I just noticed in your photo that each pin has a hole in the top. Is there perhaps another part that connects these two pins (a short rod, or even just a rubber band?) and puts some additional side load into the pins to anchor them more securely? What do the instructions say?

I agree in the main - self policing is likely to be more effective in most cases where behaviour is spotted by forum members. However, giving the mods a specific clause in the CoC to lean on doesn't do any harm IMO. Despite members here pointing out the holes in his story, the individual here claimed he was a beginner for ~9 months and never rowed back on that. As worded today that kind of behaviour is not a breach of the CoC, which does make it less straightforward for the mods than if it were a clear breach of the CoC from the outset. Remember that whilst it was members that spotted it, the only people who can actually take action are the mods.

Following your instructions, I found the page... https://www.modelflying.co.uk/scottish-aviation-pioneer/ Seems pretty clear from that write up that you should have confidence in the indicated CG position, even though it does look a little weird on the page - the plan position is at 25% of chord, but that is including the area of the slats which aren't shown on the initial image in this thread: " The battery on my model was secured behind the cabin using Velcro pads and a strap. This makes it a moveable feast, so that you can alter its position to set the C of G, which should be at 25% of the wing chord measuring back from the leading edge (or, if you’ve built your wing with slats, measured back from the front of the slat)."

Given some recent issues in this forum (triggered by a member whose ID I'm sure most of you can guess), I did find myself looking at the CoC earlier this week. For reference, here it is: https://www.modelflying.co.uk/code-conduct/ Whilst it's always previously been fit for purpose, on the basis of recent experience I do wonder if it could now do with a tweak. Although the CoC makes clear impersonation of others is not allowed and emphasises that posts should be factually accurate, it does not say anything about members deliberately misrepresenting themselves or their experience/knowledge. When it was written I'm sure that scenario would never have been discussed - after all, why would someone, say, claim to be a beginner when in fact they'd been involved with modelling for decades? However, that has now happened and it's clear it's caused some disquiet amongst forumites and additional work for the mods, so a tweak to the CoC to address the possibility might be useful. I've suggested a simple addition after the "no impersonation" requirement as a starting point; see below... "... Impersonating other members. This is strictly forbidden, as is using another member’s postings or opinions on other forums without their prior permission. Neither should other posts be altered and reposted as a means of reply. Misrepresenting yourself and/or your experience. Members don't need to use their full name as a forum ID, but please don't misrepresent yourself (e.g. by inventing a persona in a different part of the world) or your flying experience (e.g. by claiming to be a experienced pilot when actually you are a beginner). Doing so makes it harder for members to be confident in the advice they receive via the forum. ..." What do people think? Would this be a worthwhile addition, or do we think what happened is a one-off that will never occur again? @Martin Harris - Moderator@john stones 1 - Moderator@David Ashby - Moderator

Ps - Don’t forget to range test the other RX that was installed initially in the same session, then you will have telemetry information to compare from both units that was gathered on the same day in the same conditions (invaluable for troubleshooting and checking the install is now improved).

Just my personal opinion, but this is your model so you can make the decisions - everything you are doing is logical, and you should feel empowered to do whatever checks you believe are needed before you hand the model to another pilot for a check flight. Yes, if your instructor is the pilot in charge the onus on him is to be happy the model is safe and well setup before the next flight, but his checks follow after anything you want to do is complete.

Not an IC expert, but I have seen people bend stuff applying an electric starter to a flooded and hydraulically “locked” engine. However those with a good understanding of IC seem to be able to use electric starters successfully without issue on all but the smallest of engines (where a chicken stick seems to be the method of choice) - the real IC experts seem to need to apply the starter for only a fraction of a second.

That does seem extraordinarily far forward… Can you post a picture of the completed wing for us to look at? It might help us understand why that is where it is marked in the plan…

No experience with this model, but I do vaguely remember a glider from the 80s or 90s with a retention method very similar... the pins had a chamfer on them, were put in form the top, and just friction held them in. Did seem a bit sketchy to me, but the owner never seemed to have any issues with it, I guess because the lifting force on the wings put enough load on the pins to keep them firmly in place. It was a low stressed airframe though; I wouldn't use this method on anything higher speed. If you are worried, just put some tape around the LE at the wing root, that should sort it.

Fair enough - practical experience beats theorising on this one. I will be interested to see how the suspect RX in question performs on the out-of-the-model range test though; my suspicion is the telemetry will show it is performing fine, which would mean the lockouts Toto experienced were something installation related.