MattyB
-
Posts
4,549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by MattyB
-
-
I did learn to fly (aged 8 or 9 I think) to fly on the slope (Burrough Hill) in the mid 80s. We didn't have EPP models or a buddy setup, just a 2ch 27MHz ACOMs set (green crystal) and a Rookie 72 R/E barge:
...which I followed with a (crunchy foam, not EPP) SAS Thing 1.5m (with a mechanical sliding tray mixer!):
This approach had it's pros and cons...
Pros:
- Lots of flying - got to solo pretty quickly (I flew 4-5 hours a session most days once I got the initial hang of it, and converted to an aileron equipped model within a few weeks)
- Learn to read the air and conditions better and fly efficiently (you learn most on light lift days, scratching around)
- Don't get scared of wind
- Simple, cheap models
- Nice view!
- Very sociable atmosphere, and standard of flying on well populated slopes tends to be pretty high the slope, so had the benefit of a number of good instructors.
- Glider pilots tend to know (and share) a lot more about aerodynamics, so I learnt a lot more about CG position, trimming, wing sections, tail volumes etc. earlier than if I had learnt on a powered model. Trimming for performance is ingrained early in glider guiders!
Cons:
- Reliant on wind direction - if it's blowing the wrong way, no flying.
- When you do get it wrong, it can be a big smash (S.L.O.P.E = Smashed, lost or pulverised, eventually!)
- Often have to adapt the landing pattern to the site and conditions a lot more (which a beginner won't understand if they aren't instructed how to do it)
- You don't do as many landings, so if you later want to convert to power the "do 100 circuits" phase can feel very strange.
- Can be rather cold!
Personally I believe I got better quicker flying slope than I would have on power, primarily due to the hours I racked up quickly. Also as a kid I never liked the scream of two stroke glow engines (no real electric power back then!), so that meant I was not as keen about power flying either. Having said that if I am recommending someone the easiest way to get started today, it's probably a combination of a sim + an unstabilised electric foamie or traditional glow trainer, depending on what types of site they have access too. It's still completely possible to learn on a slope though if that's what you want to do.
PS - It's definitely easier to take up power flying after slope than the other way round. I've seen many good power flyers struggle to deal with the less controlled and predictable environment of the slope; they also tend to do too much with the sticks too much of the time, which kills efficiency. That, and they tend to whinge about the cold and the wind...! 😉🤣
-
11
-
6 minutes ago, Martin Dilly 1 said:
That pretty much says it. Having been involved for around 20 years in the negotiations that finally got model flying recognised in the early 1990s as a sport by the Sports Council (now Sport England) and the Central Council for Physical Recreation (now the Sport and Recreation Alliance) I can assure you that the semantics are actually important.
When we took the first steps towards recognition of model flying as a sport we soon found that two major hold-backs were the title – Society of Model Aeronautical Engineers – and the words ‘hobby’ and ‘aeromodelling’. There’s nothing wrong with hobbies; stamp collecting, model railways or making a model of the Houses of Parliament out of a thousand matchsticks are pastimes that give people a lot of harmless enjoyment. Making model aircraft, whether Airfix plastics or ones that fly, can be a hobby too. But, as Fly Boy says, what we all enjoy is model flying and that is without a shadow of a doubt a sport; it’s a man-and-machine as well as a man-versus-the-elements one, whether we fly recreationally or competitively.
Every time we fly a model, whether we’ve spent many hours building it or many pounds buying it, we’re enjoying a sport. It’s not a dirty word. It doesn’t imply cut-throat pot-hunting competition or trying to fly better than somebody else. If there is any competition then it’s you trying to make this flight just a bit better than your previous one.
Why does this matter? Most UK Councils have a Sports and Recreation Committee which can provide funding and facilities for local sports clubs, including model flying clubs, and permission to use sites. So please, please, please can we stop referring to 'the hobby' and give model flying the respect it deserves as a SPORT.
More labels... If you want to call it a sport fine to secure funding etc, fine, go ahead. I will continue to unapologetically call what I do a hobby, because that is what my activity is to me.
-
6
-
-
On 03/02/2024 at 13:29, EarlyBird said:
I still have not worked out what this means.
How did you learn to fly and when?
He doesn't answer questions EarlyBird, only poses them - normally in ways that are near impossible to understand... 😉
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Christopher Wolfe said:
Is there a difference between an aeromodeller and a model flyer?
This might open a can of worms, but it needs to be said.
It really doesn't, but you've done it anyway...
3 hours ago, Christopher Wolfe said:I have noticed that some people whom purchase a 'ready to fly' plastic foamie stabilised model (so called 'Park Flyer') actually call themselves aeromodellers.
To me this is a traversty of the term 'Aeromodeller' in the traditional meaning of the term when an aeromodeller actually built (and maybe designed), flew and trimmed a model aircraft themselves.
Is there a difference between an aeromodeller and a model flyer who flies $2 worth of plastic drink cooler material material in a park, when the only effort required was to open the packaging, charge the battery and let the autostabilisation system handle the finer points of actually flying the model?
I was bemused by the change from SMAE to BMFA but in hindsight this makes sense as the establishment obviously saw the writing on the wall.
Then of course the 'Model Flyer' magazine appeared with paid ARF and foamie reviews which did not help the traditional aeromodellers to advance with their constructional skills.
So I put it that there are aeromodellers and there are model flyers, some of whom will hopefully evolve into becoming genuine aeromodellers.
Over to you.
I have my flak jacket on.
Oh no, it's "Your hobby is not my hobby" again... 🙄
Drawing this distinction only seems important to a (thankfully shrinking) subset of flyers who predate the advent of ARTFs, and seem to resent the fact newcomers can now learn to fly without having to build if they wish. What precisely is wrong with that anyway? It has always been true that the flying aspect was the biggest motivator for the vast majority of participants. Sure, there are people who come to love building their own models, but only a small number start off that way - for most building was just a necessary requirement to be able to fly. Let's not forget all those who left the hobby in the past after their third or fourth crash because they couldn't face yet another rebuild of a balsa model. Besides, if recreational cyclists, motorcyclists, car enthusiasts, runners, photographer aren't required to build or make the equipment they need to participate in their hobbies/sports, why should model flying require that?
This hobby has enough problems to deal with without long standing participants sneering at newcomers because of the models they choose to fly (yes, that's what comments like "...$2 worth of plastic drink cooler material" amount to). As long as people are having fun flying safely and responsibly, they should be welcomed - what they call themselves and whether they constructed their model from scratch using traditional materials is immaterial.
-
9
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Graham Bowers said:
Yes. However, in context it's an entertainment programme.
We aeromodellers can spot all of the daft stuff, but are not the intended audience. If it places us in better light, and Dave Phipps didn't have to bite his lip too hard, than all to the good.
Completely agree. If the BBC made the programme that many in this thread are espousing, the mass audience would turn off within the first 10 minutes. These days programmes have to pay their way (see clip below from Richard Osman's new podcast where they talked in detail about this subject), and that wouldn't be the case if they this was s uper detailed, engineering focusseed show.
-
19 hours ago, Futura57 said:
I believe that 'throbbing resonance' as I call it has been present since day one. It is definitely peculiar. At first I thought it might be a noisy bearing or perhaps a rubbing magnet or even a dodgy propeller. I've built a second identical prototype with the exact same motor, a DYS2826 2200kV, and the model makes the same noise. I even tried a 1400kV version with a larger propeller, but it gives the same noise. I had thought the cowl may have something to do with it, being 'oversized' around the spinner leaving an annulus opening for air to enter. Both models have the exact same cowl shrink molded from a Schweppes ginger ale bottle. There are 4 x 8mm diameter airflow holes in the motor bulkhead allowing air to pass through into the fuselage out the jet pipe. IIRC this model was initially flown without a cowl, but I can't recall whether the noise was present then or if it was just less intense than it is now. Maybe the cowl is amplifying the motor sound or creating a resonance chamber. People do comment on it. Could be the cheap out-runners I'm using or the fuselage identifies as some strange new musical instrument.
Interesting. I guess the only way to tell for sure is do a flight minus the cowl - it sounds like that is the most likely candidate. If that does stop it, adjusting the cowl to allow air to exit from it directly (rather than solely back into the fuselage) would be a logical next step.
-
Seems to fly very nicely, but that "beating" sort of a sound from the motor is very strange - does it always sound like that? Did you notice it on the day, or is it something to do witht he way the sound is picked up by the mic? I suppose it could also be aerodynamic and related to having one wing closely stacked behind the other...
-
12 hours ago, Rich Griff said:
Internet crap here as usual.. the pleb comment was sent ages ago but not received...?
Hi Matty, a "cross thread" perhaps ?
Humble apologies if my threads are a little difficult to comprehend or unravel, i will try harder to make them simpler and easier to fathom in future...
Google E and T, select E and T magazine. Scroll down, look to right and see futuristic passenger flying taxi's.....VTOL...
The article Dr. Dai sent in his email said "1000's of UK airfields " ?
Are there 2001 airfields or more in the UK at the moment, real full size ones ?
A VTOL airfield would be so much smaller than a full size or even club airfield, meaning they could materialise almost anywhere, subject to conditions etc..
This could result in reduced or more regulated flying fields for us, compulsory rid and/or other conditions imposed by caa...
It was suggested that model fliers might propose a "standard" or definition for a "park flier" but it seems we want to wait for caa to impose a standard on us.
No "definition", so ASA are more or less "ineffective" relative to what is written on some models and their boxes maybe ?
Depends how you read things, between the lines, or join the dits I suppose.
I have been told the older we get the more cynical we become.....
Horizon.....
So difficult to see cas stuff on this phones matchbox sized screen with crap internet signal, whilst on a real computer with a big screen in the library, is a different world.
I am saving hard for a modern real computer and internet, any one wanna buy an RC boat or eighties motorcycle/70's moped ???
Have a great weekend guys and gals....
It would really help if you learnt how to post links to things you want to discuss on this forum - it’s not hard, even from a phone. Here is the article I assume you were talking about, took only a few seconds to copy and paste the URL from the top of the page…https://eandt.theiet.org/2024/01/25/uk-aviation-watchdog-consults-vertiport-designs
Here is how to copy and share links from an Android phone:
…or from iOS:
-
Addition to the above... It appears whilst we ARE operating in the Specific category when utilising the Article 16 authorisations given to national model flying associations, an Article 16 auth is not the same thing as an Operational authorisation for other (commercial) operators within the Specific category.
"6. An operational authorisation shall not be required for:
a) UAS operators holding an LUC with appropriate privileges in accordance with point UAS.LUC.060 of the Annex;
b) operations conducted in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations that have received an authorisation in accordance with Article 16."
On that basis I don't believe any of the proposed changes to pilot competency would apply to us. However, why does this stuff have to be sooooooooo complicated to understand? Ridiculous.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:
For commercial operators Matty ?
I thought so initially, but now I'm not so sure [EDIT - See post below this one, I now don't think it does apply]
These revised requirements would only apply to the Specific category, which recreational model flyers outside of the national associations do not operate in (we are in the Open category). The potential problem here is that when flying under an Article 16 authorisation, national association members are operating in the Specific category (post link from @steve toobelow):
From the BMFA RCC page on Article 16...
"Given the excellent safety record established by model flyers throughout Europe, the EU agreed that model flying conducted within the framework of Associations like the BMFA should be subject to more flexible regulation to allow us to continue largely ‘as we do today’. The mechanism to facilitate this is referred to as an ‘Article 16 Authorisation’ (within the ‘Specific Category’) and this document provides a guide to how the updated Authorisation we have negotiated with the CAA applies to our members."
As a result these changes could well apply to us too. As usual though, the CAA have made it so complex to understand that it's very hard to know - we are reliant on the National Associations here to translate and negotiate for us.
-
1
-
-
On 24/01/2024 at 09:31, steve too said:
I've had a look to see what the CAA say on this subject and found this:
(https://regulatorylibrary.caa.co.uk/2019-947/Content/AMC-GM/AMC1 UAS SPEC 050 1 d i ii.htm)
So, while log books aren't in the BMFA's Article 16 at the moment, it wouldn't surprise me if they appear at some point.
Indeed. This is also interesting/slightly worrying, though I suspect it probably doesn't apply to LOS recreational model flying...
-
16 hours ago, Rich Griff said:
The good doc dai had just sent me the latest digital copy of E @ T magazine which states that the caa has recently released its present consultation about flying cars, vertical take off and landing taxis from the thousands of UK airfields.
TWitter ????
does not seem to want to open on my cheapo internet phone, but may do in the library tommorrow.
may prove to be an interesting read.....
As with many of your posts, I don't fully understand some of the above, but I did track down the CAA consultations homepage...
https://consultations.caa.co.uk/
I'm not sure which one you are talking about (perhaps the one related to VTOL battery handling?), but the one that caught my attention is this one on Remote Pilot Competence, which I was not aware of til now... @steve too, have you seen this? I don't have time to read it now, but will do over the weekend. I suspect it will not apply to recreational model aircraft flown within LOS, but it's difficult to tell for certain at first glance from the materials provided...
https://consultations.caa.co.uk/rpas/remote-pilot-competence-in-the-specific-category/
Supporting document - https://consultations.caa.co.uk/rpas/remote-pilot-competence-in-the-specific-category/supporting_documents/RPCWG_AMC_GM_Final.pdf
Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material to UK Regulation (EU) 947/2019: Remote Pilot Competence
Closes 14 Mar 2024
Opened 21 Dec 2023
Contact
Overview
The CAA recently published an initial consultation on the future of remote pilot competence. The consultation was open from 5th of July 2023 to the 23rd of August 2023 and received 112 detailed responses from a wide range of stakeholders.
This second consultation builds on the feedback the CAA received by providing a more detailed policy position.
What is the proposed change?
The proposal covers changes to several sections of AMC and GM to regulation UK Regulation (EU) 2019/947 including:• Amendments to AMC1 Article 8(2) Remote Pilot Competence
• Amendments to, Annex part B UAS OPERATIONS IN THE SPECIFIC CATEGORY to UK Regulation (EU) 2019/947
Why is the CAA doing this?
Expansion of the UK remote pilot competence scheme to include training for complex operation including BVLOS has been identified through project DiSCO as a key enabler for the future of the UK UAS industry. Remote pilot competence is critical to the ongoing safety of UAS operations.What Changes are proposed?
The AMC proposes to introduce 4 new levels of remote pilot competence ranging from level 1 to level 4 (amended based on consultation feedback). Additionally, it includes some minor amendments to supporting AMC clarify the responsibilities of remote pilots and operators. -
12 minutes ago, Steve Nash 1 said:
I love the LMA Cosford show too, shame it's not on again. It's great to see different planes flying at the LMA shows rather then the usual stuff that seems to be at every other airshow around.
Yes it is also a shame about W&W not being at North Weald any more, I live in South Essex and even though it hasnt been the best of the shows lately, it was nice to have an event not too far away for a change and do a bit of shopping round the trade stalls.
How about the BMFA Nationals, is that on this year does anyone know? Thats another of my faves.
See your most recent copy of BMFA News - the BMFA pretty much concede the multi-disciplinary Power Nats as we used to know them are gone...
-
...and another one, with a pretty clever approach to the buoyancy challenge.
-
Project Air and Peter Sripol have both done this with varying degrees of success...
-
11 hours ago, Simon Chaddock said:
Toto
Lemon are my "go to" Spektrum receivers, all 6 channel both normal and stabilised. All used in foamies with my DX6i. Never had a moments trouble with any of them. Which more than I can say for the same type Orange receivers!
Have you got the dual or single antenna aerial type?
Indeed. Orange RX (a Hobbyking brand) have a very up and down reputation, with numerous incidents of poor QA causing some batches to have issues. Lemon on the other hand are completely independent and have an almost universally good rep. I have only used the cheap DSM2 6ch with my multiprotocol module, but I've never had any issues. I'd certainly trust them more with my MPM transmitters than a genuine Spektrum, and obviously they come without the huge prices that are now HH's calling card.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:
Yes, so I understand. A retrograde step in my view and increases the impsct of a msjor cyber attack. The Russians have a track record in this type of attack so I hope GCHQ has the antidote to hand when this happens in about 8-10 years time.
PSTN landlines are due to go much sooner than that - Dec 2025 is the date in most cases…Interestingly when our Plusnet broadband last reached the end of its term, our renewal was dramatically cheaper (~£20 a month less) if we gave up the landline which we were only tol happy to do. If your provider is not offering you the option to do this yet, I’d consider moving as there are probably decent savings to be had if you no longer want or need the copper wire.
-
7 hours ago, Nik Harrison said:
Thank you for this posting. I was trying to do the same with no joy. It does work but older pictures give Error 502 and comment saying "try later". Still better than nothing. I was look as far back as 2003. Cheers.
The pictures issue is to do with the migration of the forum to the new platform. There was quite a lot of discussion about it at the time, but no time efficient solution could be found, so we are stuck with it unfortunately. -
The reason they go with a QR code is almost certainly about the propensity to mistype a (potentially long and complex) URL Besides, there is no need to give the URL given every windows laptop with a camera embedded (i.e. all of them made in the last 10 years at least) already has the software installed to read a QR code….
https://www.howtogeek.com/how-to-scan-qr-codes-windows-11/
There are lots of other free apps you can use to do this too from your screen as well, so you could always log onto the digital magazine edition and scan the QR code that way as well.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, leccyflyer said:
Agree with the bit about the benefits of the smartphone in terms of the access that it gives and the accessories that it brings, but the comment about well paid job recruitment having Linkedin as a prerequisite to having a well paid job is really only if you are looking at an office job. Though all of the very well paid tradesmen that I know most definitely have smartphones, not too many of them are on Linkedin and their companies certainly didn't require a social media presence to assist in their recruitment. 😉
They may not hire their people that way, but every tradesman I have dealt with for the last couple of years has taken card payments using phone based apps, and actively manages their profile to buyers on platforms like Trust-a-trader and Rated people on the move using their smartphone. Many also have Youtube channels and Instagram feeds to prove their credentials as SMEs, and improve engagement and "stiction" with their customers directly. They could definitely not do that without a smart device.
PS - Smartphones and subscriptions are also in the inflationary basket of goods, and have been for many years, so are seen as necessities by UK Gov and the ONS. Amazingly landlines are as well - that will probably change in the near future, as the infrastructure is phased out in the coming years (though landline equivalents that behave the same using different technical solutions will undoubtedly remain available for those who want them).
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Nigel R said:
Yes, no, maybe. Depends on the particular nature of the job. Some actively prefer a somewhat lower social media profile.
When I was made redundant a few years ago I was given coaching by and exec placement consultancy. As an InfoSec professional I hated most of the advice I was being given to improve my social media profile on platforms such as LinkedIn, but I have to grudgingly admit it was highly effective. I now regularly post to keep myself in the habit so the next time I want (or am forced) to move, it will be second nature.
-
2
-
-
Looking on Google Streetview it looks pretty flat - there's little or no compression on that edge, though at least landings should be turbulence free. I'd imagine it should be flyable with a lightweight R/E or any decent F3X model, but probably not thrilling stuff.
PS - Maybe contact this member on the BARCS forum, apparently he has flown there many times...
-
You can tell a lot about the demographics of this forum (and the hobby in general) from this thread. Those asking why a smartphone and social media are a necessary part of everyday life cannot have attempted to get a well paid job in the last 10 years or so. I can assure you an actively maintained LinkedIn profile and the ability to respond very quickly to hirers and recruiters is absolutely key (some companies will actively screen out applicants who do not have a social media footprint they can use to review and research them).
-
3
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, GreyAce said:
Flight time on one battery suppose to be 17 minutes so I am guessing it may knock it down to about just over 15 minutes? I have 3 of them though so it's worth it but I'm really itching to fly it whilst I have the opportunity.
No, far more than that. I doubt you would ever get anything like 17 minutes out of a single pack even in warm conditions, so lets say a maximum of 12 to start with. below freezing I would say don't expect any more than half the capacity, so land and check voltage after 5 mins.
Slope soaring, an ideal entry into learning to fly RC model aircraft?
in Beginners
Posted · Edited by MattyB
Yep, them thistles would easily take out a lightly built up wing at the height of summer! The stuff of nightmares they were...
Do you remember Greg Dakin and his Dad who used to fly there a lot, and Ron Broughton who used to fly a wide range of home brews and a very tricked up SAS Apache? The most memorable model we had was my Dad's PJ Models Red Arrows Hawk PSS, but it only flew there a few times - it's Clark Y wing wasn't really efficient enough unless it was a booming day.