Tony Jones

Posted by Geoff Sleath on 25/11/2018 13:08:47:I've effectively tamed the low speed throttle response. I hope it works Geoff Geoff, zooming when power is applied indicates inadequate down thrust. Get that right and you'll find no need for a throttle curve.

So far everyone has focused on the model. But, (IMHO) the individual is equally or more important. I am a bit clumsy with the sticks around the centre position, tending to apply too much deflection initially. Expo helps smooth that out. On the other hand, a fellow club flyer who is an aerobatics expert is extremely precise with his stick movements and finds that expo dulls the model's response. Each to his own. And when will we get away from the myth that high wing models are more stable than low wingers due to 'pendulum stability'? Probably never; it's been around for so many years. Certainly true when static, but no so once the model is airborne and subject to aerodynamic forces. Don't take my word for it: go read the literature. I suggest starting with Alisdair Sutherland.

Firmware is when it's hard; software is when it's err, soft. Most people manage to learn this in their early teens.

No truer saying than 'Different strokes for different folks'. Personally I find Alex Whittaker's ramblings - particularly the many gratuitous photos of his 'auld mates' intensely irritating. But to some he sits at the right hand of The Father. Also, having been a magazine contributor and editor in the recreational marine sector for many years, I can say it is generally accepted that while a beginner laps everything up to start with, as he/she becomes more experienced the magazine - which targets the original audience as best it can - becomes less relevant and 'stale'. My major criticism is the kit reviews. I have bought a few kits following a good RCME review that have turned out to be complete rubbish. Going back to the review and reading it more carefully, it becomes clear that the reviewer wasn't too impressed either, but was either frightened to make significant criticisms - or the editor cut them out to avoid offending an advertiser. Has anyone ever seen a RCME review in which the conclusion was, 'This is a totally substandard product; don't buy it'? Many reviewers also seem to think we should be fascinted by them and their modelling foibles - not the product under review. The best advice I was ever given was, 'Always remember 'It's not about YOU'. Contributors often get big heads; it is the editor's job to keep them in check and focused on the product. Unfortunately it rarely happens.

Posted by IanN on 18/06/2015 22:08:41: Posted by Tony Jones on 18/06/2015 18:08:50: A change of editor but the message remains the same. I.e anyone posting criticisms of the mag on this forum are either wrong, misguided, or stupid. Plus ca change. I didn't take it that way at all. Simply offering an opinion, and got a response. Fair enough, and all good We all respond to things in different ways. Would be a boring old world if we didn't. My remark is the result of being a long-time reader and subscriber to RCME and finding the apreviious editor on many occasions to be somewhat defensive and complacent. But that's just my interpretation, not an edict.

A change of editor but the message remains the same. I.e anyone posting criticisms of the mag on this forum are either wrong, misguided, or stupid. Plus ca change.

Nigel Hawes' article on P51 about an ESC fire he experienced shows him (I assume it's him) leaning down close to the model on the ground from which smoke is billowing. He makes it clear that at this stage he did not know if the smoke was coming from the ESC or the battery. I suggest having your face that close to what might be the imminent flare-up of LiPo is a VERY bad idea.

Oh dear - Alex Whittaker has had a relapse. On p14 we have a mugshot of his 'auld mate' Bob Fletcher, 'distinguished member of the Press Corps...' and on p109. a similar pic of Danny Frento, 'Great lad'. Of absolutely no interest to anyone other than Alex himself and the two gentlemen in question. Why does the Editor allow this self-indulgent waste of space?

Today's youngsters may not have the "skills" of previous generations but they have skills appropriate to today;'s society. How many parents get their children to install theior home network, sort out router issues, get the printer working etc? I know that my boy is regularly called for by neighbours to sort out exactly those issues. Those are still practical skills, but they are practical skills working with the extant technology of the time. Different skills for a different time, as I once pointed out to a older chap being tutted at by a stroppy impatient youngster, as the shop assistant explained the functions of his mobile phone. I told the assistant and customer that the young lad couldn't have stripped a Bren Gun, whereas the older chap would have been doing just that, at his age. Good point. But we don't yet live in an entirely digital, virtual world, and those 'old fashioned' skills still come in handy when fixing things around the home, and in various physical leisure activities. That works both ways- TBH the skills involved in building a soapbox buggy have relatively limited applications in the real world today and, in most decent schools the workshop skills that are taught far exceed the "make a pencil case" skillset of the 60's and 70's and, in my experience have included aluminium smelting, casting, working and finishing, as well as electronics and vac-forming. I'd venture to suggest that all of those skills are much better for aeromodelling than being able to stick some pram wheels and a rope-actuated steering rack on an orange box. Anyone who would seriously recommend the "pocket money" non-flying Keil Kraft scale rubber models of our youth as a good introduction to the hobby, compared to something like a Multiplex Cub or Parkzone Champ is only deluding themselves. The virtual guarantee of a successful flying model available through todays RTFs and ARTFs gives a much more satisfactory introduction to model flight than spending many hours sticking together some poor, warped, overweight impression of a Spitfire that has as much chance of flying as Thomas The Tank Engine on a bad day.... Unfortunately, some older members of the aeromodelling community seem to be resentful of the progress that has been made with RTF and ARTF models in recent years and want newcomers to go through the same angst they had to many years ago. I emphasise 'had to'. IMHO, they are representing what was a necessity in those days - balsa bashing - as some kind of virtue. As kids they would have jumped at the opportunity of an RTF foamie if it had been available. Edited By leccyflyer on 06/06/2012 13:16:43

Posted by David Wright on 05/06/2012 16:57:37: Are ARTFs a good thing or a bad thing? A new poll maybe? DW Think of the modelling scene without RTF 'all in one' packages to get people started and ARTFs to satisfy the wishes of those who are only attracted by the flying aspect. What would the prospects of the hobby be? Edited By Tony Jones on 06/06/2012 12:53:37

Posted by leccyflyer on 06/06/2012 11:26:27: Having just read Bertie's missive and particularly the bit referred to about children, it;s glaringly obvious that the vision of today;s youth is not tempered by actually having any real contact with them. Those who do actually encounter the younger members of society, rather than just lapping up the mythology and hype, will have noticed as ever, that youth includes a wide spread of youngsters with different interests, talents and abilities. Seems to me that there are two overlapping issues here. One, the nature of modern childhood; second, issues about aeromodelling specifically. Citing exceptions to the rule does not invalidate accurate generalisations. I'm an old fart but do have contact with children of the grandchildren age group (5 - 15) through my friends -although I don't have any myself. A disturbingly large number - but not all, of course - have spent a good deal of of their childhoods in their bedrooms playing with the latest games console or whatever. One or two exhibit distinct signs of latent agrophobia. Very few have ever climbed a tree, gone exploring in the woods or built a hide. And they have no idea what that superb educational device the soapbox buggy even is! I think the general consensus of opinion is that this is 'not a good thing'. I think it fair to say that t the upcoming generation do not generally have the practical skills as the one before. Getting kids that have become accustomed to the instant gratification delivered by many modern consumer products interested in aeromodelling isn't going to be achieved by telling them that they must spend several hours building a plane by cutting out bits of balsa wood and sticking them together - and if they don't get it right, it won't fly. But an RTF foamie that can be flown on the afternoon of the day it is bought may well get their attention. And for some, it might be the first step on the aeromodelling ladder and a lifelong passion. So these things have a vital, entry-level role to play in the modern hobby. Finally, a question for all dyed (died?) in the wool traditionalists. If, when you were starting out (think back to your childhood self) you had been offered the choice between an electric RTF foamie and a rubber-powered Keil Kraft kit, which would you have chosen?

Posted by Codename-John on 03/06/2012 15:32:04: Posted by Tony Jones on 01/06/2012 20:22:44: Posted by Rentman on 01/06/2012 09:59:43: I wouldn't call '10 Years Later a rant, and I find most of Alex's technical articles interesting and informative. I even have one of his Widgets - and it's excellent. But when he goes into his 'Look at me (and my car and my wife and my famous auld mates' mode, it drives me potty. Everyone who has met him says what a nice guy he is - and I'm sure they are right. But IMHO the details of his professional career and/or personal life are of no interest whatsoever to the majority of readers and have no place in the magazine. Everybody else including myself seemed to have enjoyed it so please dont generalise your views as "the majority of readers" OK, I won't. If you promise not to call the small percentage of the readership that contributes to this forum 'everyone else'.

Posted by Rentman on 01/06/2012 09:59:43: Whether AW'? rant in the Weekenders column was appropriate for this august publication is up for debate, but I for one have a lot of sympathy for his views. Kids today aren't allowed a childhood. Society has changed and, in this respect, not for the better. My 'Black haired Person' is not just tolerant of the hobby, she's positively encouraging. I wonder what she's after! Ian I wouldn't call '10 Years Later a rant, and I find most of Alex's technical articles interesting and informative. I even have one of his Widgets - and it's excellent. But when he goes into his 'Look at me (and my car and my wife and my famous auld mates' mode, it drives me potty. Everyone who has met him says what a nice guy he is - and I'm sure they are right. But IMHO the details of his professional career and/or personal life are of no interest whatsoever to the majority of readers and have no place in the magazine.

Pages 72 -76. More self-centred, self-indulgent, self-important waffle and mugshots from AW. What a waste of space that could have been used in 1000 better ways. This is NOT what I buy RCME for.

I have now ordered one of these from Ian Warhust at MINY Model Products - as mentioned in the magazine.  I can tell you that they WILL be manufactured on a CNC machine and the price is £4.95 plus 50p p &p .  Ian would prefer orders by email at: [email protected] - rather than by telephone. Hope that's helpful. Regards  

Posted by Martin Harris on 13/02/2012 13:16:15: All I'd say is that I've never seen a tappet in a parts list and the usually accepted term where it's used is "adjusting the tappet clearances" which might fit in reasonably well with the Wikipedia description if we disregard the worn aspect - there will always be some noise generated. The part referred to in Tony's post is generally listed as a cam follower in my collection of parts books (to the best of my recollection). I'll go with that Martin. I personally always use the term cam follower because that's an exact description of what it does. However, an number of engine manuals also call this part a tappet as the diagram shows. But what it isn't is the rocker arm or the screw that is used to adjust the valve clearance. Yes?  Regards

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 13/02/2012 13:19:32: Doesn't the cam in an ohc engine act on a bucket, which both holds the shims and takes all the side loads? edit - apart from the old Cavalier/Astra etc engine where the OHC cam acted through a rocker which wore out every 60k miles. Edited By Bob Cotsford on 13/02/2012 13:21:00 You are absolutely right. I stand corrected.  Regards

Don't tempt them, don't tempt them!  Best wishes

I would venture that in this case Wikipedia has got it wrong. My experience is that professional engineers specialising in four-stroke engines always refer to the actual cam follower as the tappet - as per the diagram I posted a link to. Not the adjusting screw that is part of the rocker arm and is used to adjust the valve clearance on overhead valve engines. It's also wrong in stating that : Without a tappet (and with the cam acting directly on the valve), the sideways force would cause the valve stem to bend. On an overhead camshaft engine like the Jaguar XK series the cam lobe DOES act directly on the valve stem head via some shims. Changing these shims is how the valve clearance is set. And it's a right royal pain as the camshaft has to removed each time and you very rarely get it right first time. Don't ask me how I know this.  Best wishes  Regards

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 12/02/2012 22:39:19: Now I'd always understood the tappets to be the adjuster screws on pushrod engines - ie the bit you adjust as in 'I've adjusted the tappets'. I've used that term for more than 40 years since my Dad showed me how to adjust the tappets on my first BSA Gold Flash. Here's a diagram I found...  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37947215/flat-tappet-engines.jpg Best wishes.

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 12/02/2012 22:39:19: Now I'd always understood the tappets to be the adjuster screws on pushrod engines - ie the bit you adjust as in 'I've adjusted the tappets'. I've used that term for more than 40 years since my Dad showed me how to adjust the tappets on my first BSA Gold Flash.  I think you'll find that the tappets are actually the followers that ride on the cam lobes. There has to be some clearance in the 'pushrod train' and the way it's adjusted is the way you say. In fact, the term 'adjusting the valve clearance' is a more accurate way of describing it. Wikipedia says tappet is 'the noise made by a worn cam follower' but I 'm afraid I don't agree.  Regards

Posted by Martin Whybrow on 12/02/2012 19:12:53: He also seems to be confused about what a tappet is, he refers to the rocker arms as tappets; I've always understood the tappets to be the cam followers, not the rockers. I know they are one and the same for some OHC engines, e.g. the Ford Pinto engine, but it's not generally the case. I'd agree with that. And with pushrod engines the clearance is adjusted with the set screw in the rocker arm. I wish I had 1p for the number I've adjusted on cars in my time...  Best wishes.

Posted by Seamus O'Leprosy on 12/02/2012 14:09:49: What's the spelling like in the digital version? Oooh, you'd better watch it Seamus. I doubt double smilies offer any protection. Regards

Posted by David Ashby - RCME Admin on 12/02/2012 13:06:32: ..er..... Edited By David Ashby - RCME Admin on 12/02/2012 13:06:56 Well, at least Mwa, mwa - if you're shy.  Lots of love

Posted by David Ashby - RCME Admin on 12/02/2012 12:18:26: Anyhow, stepping aside (but not forgetting spelling mistakes....how could we Kiss, kiss.  Best wishes