Martin Dance 1

It looks like a battery checker. It dates from when nicad or NiMh batteries were used to power Rx's and servos. Simple to use plug into the Rx battery. Green LED's light, good to go, yellow LED's your pushing your luck. Red LED's lit do not fly, insufficent capacity left in battery. The more sophisicated checkers applied a load to the battery to hnopefully give a more realistic assessment of remaining charge.

I think it's welcome to the wonderful world of the tandem wing! What you are experiencing is fairly typical of the type and explains why it was never popular in full size aviation. Look up 'Flying flea'. Apart from JD8's observations I would also check the foreplane and lower plane incidences, it could be that in practice one of the planes is flying close to its critical angle of attack, so that any change in pitch brings that plane even closer to the stall or of course further away from the stall. Modifying the aircraft so that you can change its incidence might help, otherwise enjoy its quirky personality!

I can see one positive outcome from the introduction of automonouis air taxis. Much improved levels of street cleaning to reduce the damage to air taxis and people as these devices take off and land in city streets.

To pick up on the comments above. Pollution, yes one of the reasons for choosing an EV was just because of tail pipe emissions travelling to our daughter involves passing through three small towns/large villages, why shouldnthe residents nbe subjected to my exhaust fumes when I can avoid it? Since last year my S I L now lives in the new London ULEZ just outside Watford! OnenthingnI didn't mention ismjustmhowthe nPublic charging infrastructurehas expanded since 2020. I estimate its trebled in size. Yes there are charging places in Glasgow city centre but they are in car parks so if you stay in a city centre hotel youn will need to park in a car park to charge thus youn will payn not only for the charging but also the overnight rate for the carpark. Paul I find it difficult to believe your friend suffered such na large reduction in range following a cold night in France.

I've been driving an elecric car for three and a half years. So here's my take on the pros and cons of driving electric. First I drive between 10.000 to 12,000 miles a year, so average mileage. Apart from local shopping trips,trips to the flying field and other local social trips which tend to average under ten miles. Visiting two of our children and sister in law involve round trips of between 50 to 100 miles. Our third child lives in Glasgow, we live in Reading Berkshire, so far we have not visited him, more on that later. I have a charger at home and use Octopus Go tariff which until recently the off peak rate was 7.5 p/Kwh This means that an average charge of 30Kwh costs about £2.25 for around 180 miles, my average long term energy consumption is 4.8 miles per Kwh. Other running costs the first set of tyres lasted around 30,000 miles replacements like for like was £500. Servicing first two years £75. However the 30,000/3year service was £450, this involved changing brake fluid and changing the drive battery coolant. Yes the battery is water cooled and the car has a radiator. Now the downsides. The car had a habit of destroying the 12 volt battery, remember the vehicle systems are powered by a 12 volt battery. The current battery, not OEM is OK, but a software upgrade at the last service obviously has some bugs. If the car is left unused for about 36-48hrs the vehicle drains the 12v battery. Highly inconvenient. On one occasion recently whilst defrosting the car, everything on scenario after about 10 mins a low 12v battery flashed up. Odd because when you start the car the 12volt battery is immediately charged from the drive battery, not this occasion. Last uear I hit a deer and damaged the 'radiator' grill. The dealership not interested in repairing it. Tried a couple of body shops who would't quote, I guessed because its an EV. So on the basis of 'how difficult can it be' I ordered a replacement grille and waited three and a half months for it to arrive. Working on the basis of YouTube is your friend I searched for how to remove/replace a Hyundai Ioniq radiator grille,....NOTHING . Lastly long journeys, I mentioned we have a son living in Glasgow, the distance is just over 400 miles. He doesn't have an EV charger so we need to find an Hotel with on site charging. Nothing in the city despite Premier Inns claiming that their hotels have onsite charging (this may have changed in the last few weeks). Yes there are hotels in Scotland with chargers but they tend to be boutique hotels attached to golf courses with prices to match. Until autumn last year the last services before Glasgow was Tebay services in Cumbria, although Gretna services opened charging facilities last autumn. So some very careful planning needed to complete that journey. Finally battery degradation/ loss of range. None detectable during my ownership of the car. Seasonal variation up to 20 miles during cold spells, hasn't changed in the three winters ofowning the car. My PCP deal ends mid year so I am beginning to consider what next. Another EV, prices seem to have inflated since 2020, there is nothing directly comparable to the Ionq. Most manufacturers seem to be going for larger vehicles with the attendant high price. Last year I took a test drive in a Ford Mustang mach e its price was £60000 at least £15000 overpriced in my opinion. a PHEV, this would solve the Glasgow issue and choosing the right model my day to day use would mostly be electric traction. So there is an account of three and a half years experience. I would say don't believe all you read pro and con, both sides of the argument each have their respective axes to grind.

A good eal more info on this on Geeksvarna live just streamed, worth watching

He did well to keep a drone in sight using binoculars. I find it difficult to keep static birds in view in my garden, about 20 m long. If located outside my garden, say in a tree, again I often never locate the bird. Obviously very talented. My thought exactly Erfolg. Not only that he was holding a Tx and flying the drone. As I said earlier the report quoted at the start of the thread is a very poor piece of journalism. So much so |I think we can discount it as an accurate report of the court proceedings let alone the 'offences' themselves.

My club never had any problems getting David to give a club talk, come to float plane flyins or attend any other event we were holding. One day I asked him why he was so willing to come to our 'do's'. The reply was 'simple my son and his family live in Reading so it's an opportunity to visit and see the grand children and do some flying' What's not to like' Fast forward a few years and sitting in front of me in a class ( I taught Design Technology) was a lad, surname Boddington. Now Boddington is not a common name in Berkshire. So I asked him if he had a Grand dad named David,.'Yes was the reply, how do you know'? ' ah! we teachers know everything' I replied. At the end of the lesson he came up with a smile on his face and said 'Aeromodelling' 👍.

The BBC report seems to be a bit dodgy. He was brought before a Magistrates court. Magistrates courts usually have three magistrates trying each case, one acts as chairman. No 'Judges' anywhere. In order to be tried in front of a judge he would hae been tried in a higher court in front of jury. Thje BBC must be fully aware of this. I would suggest that we treat this report with a good deal of suspiscion.

It's fascinating that each time the BMFA News is published there are the familiar rants about 'waste of money' 'never open it/ bin it' etc. Those people seem to forget that there are other forms of aeromodelling; control line, free flight being the obvious ones. The BMFA supports all forms of aeromodelling. Therefore it is hardly surprising that the BMFA News reflects this in its editorial pages. I would add to that by saying aeromodelling is much more than flying an ARTF foam electric model around gently on a Sunday afternoon. Also to those who feel the slightly increased beaurocracy we have to deal with if we choose to fly radio control models can be overcome by flying a control line model.

If by some chance our submissions are read and noted by a human being I would expect to receive either an email or letter or a knock on the door from the CAA having in several places called them incompetant out of touch and liars and other words that aren't allowed on this forum, only in this case the polite version of them. POLITICAL COMMENT REMOVED - see CoC By the way I don't expect to be contacted by the CAA!

I watched the CAA broadcast introducing the 'sandbox' which is a space aimed to give developers of BVLOS UAS systems a way of interacting with the CAA to gain permissions to operate in the airspace. Much of this is about integration of BVLOS UAS into the airspace used by LOS UAS and manned (crewed)aircraft. I take from this that this will include our conventional model aircraft, recreational drones and light aircraft, those that operate up to about 3,000 ft. Much of the discussion centred around how to apply and the way in which appolicants will be chosen. The time scale for this original trial selection is some three months. The time frame for the trials seemed to about a year. So at the earliest that commercial operations could happen will be early 2026. There was mention of see and avoid systems being needed, the use of ADSB was mentioned in this context. Notably no mention of RID. Could it be that the group driving this bit of the CAA know nothing of the bit driving our bit oif the CAA? As I'm on their mailing list I shall watch and see.

You might hav emissed this little gem unless you subscribe to Skywise a CAA publication. Today's session will introduce the Integration Sandbox, provide some background on the Airspace Modernisation Strategy and CAP 2533 Airspace Policy Concept, This session starts at 14:00 today. It's worth digging out CAP2533 and having a read, and consider the possible implications for us.

Welcome to the forum Dodo, sadly I suspect your observations are correct.

With all of the design and construction mods you are planning La coupe de Barons, a fun fly competition is taking on a seriously competitive edge. Next it'll become an international competition. Oh it is already, unles you've taken French citizenship.😀

If the CAA's remit is to investigate and propose changes in the management of the airspace, in particular the use of the airspace below 500 ft then what they should be proposing are methods which allow the safe integration of the anticipated new users of the airspace with all existing users of the airspace. So electronic conspicuity, proposing how new users navigate the airspace should be at the top of their agenda. Remote ID in any form does not achieve that end, it is simply a method of further supervising the population. It certainly is not going to reduce crime or even, in reality, assist in the apprehension of criminals, at best it will if a drone using criminal is arrested be another charge to be added to the list of other offences he/she is alleged to hae committed. At enormous cost to law abiding citizens.

Has anyone at HQ worked out what they did wrong yet? He says as he rejects all cookies for the umpteenth time🙁

Well, I've completed and submitted my response to CAA2610. I've taken my time doing so. In the course of compiling my response I guess I have read the document four or five times.. I have to agree with Bruce Simpson it should be withdrawn, its a woolly ill constructed document which presents no substantiated data to support any of the proposals. By that I'm not just talking about model flying but also the existing multi rotor drones and any innvoations that might happen in the future. My guess is that the CAA is operating under the direct instruction of the government. In order to make the task as easy as possible it was handed to an unpaid intern and then published without being reviewed by someone more senior! Mentions of the aim to produce a world leading system and mentions of making it different to the EU, all part of the 'Brexit bonus' I guess, a bit like being able to buy pints of wine, except no wine bottle maker makes pint wine bottles and furthermore is unlikely to do so . My response is pretty scathingj. If these responses are read by a human being I hope it will goad someone into contacting me. Otherwise I will believe, as most others do, that it is simply a box ticking exercise and the responses are simply 'filed' and the CAA will do exactly as they please. Happy New Year

I guess the keep flying what you have with some retuning of the CG throws etc is good. But you will still have a relatively light foam model. Similarly buying a foam wot 4 will leave you in the same place. For a second model I would suggest a model of similar dimension but greater mass. A wooden wot 4 for example. My reasoning is quite simple, adancing your skills as a pilot is about learning how to manage energy. I don't believe a foamy trainer does this adequately. Do you need an aerobatic model? no. you can roll, loop and fly inverted a Super 60, not prettily but it can be done.

Agree, all licensed strips have an ATZ around them. However unlicensed strips, mostly 'farm strips' do not it is those which are going to be the biggest problem for UAS operations. There a lot of them around, probably outnumber model flying sites.

Peter I think you may have misunderstood my point. If we are to believe that most drone activity will take place in 'our' airspace i.e below 500ft, what a light aircraft does and where it goes is pretty irrelevant. However come what may it has to climb to above 500ft and then in order to land descend below 500ft so the space that takes up is the area which drones would need to avoid. Above that the normal rules of the air apply, so see and avoid, electronic conspicuity etc. As for military flying especially helicopters they seem to be a law unto themselves. If I were a drone I would definately keep out of the way of Apaches!😙

Obviously we are concerned about the future of our hobby and our flying fields. Consider the larger picture. There are many unregistered airstrips in the UK 'farm strips'. They too will be adversely affected by any new restrictions imposed to help commercial drone operations. I can think of five such strips within 10 miles of my home. A simple solution would be for the CAA to identify all flying sites and to compile a map. Then anyone proposing to operate a drone service could be given a map, on payment of a suitable fee, and told you must avoid these areas. Result no affect on existing airspace users, some income for the CAA. Costs to be born by those businesses who seem to have limitless funds to develop these UAS system which we are led to believe will be soon darkening our skies😃

If we start from the view of the CAA wishing to 'modernise' the use of the airspace, and that is not just the bit we model flyers use. Then it would seem to be logical to carry out a thorough risk asessment to establish the level of risk posed to other airspace users and the general public at the current level of use of the airspace by all users. I believe such a risk assessment would reveal that the level of risk is extremely low. Certainally well below the level that would justify introducing any level of external sujpervision or control. This existing level of risk includes multi rotor drones. So if the CAA is looking forward to a very substantial increase in the use of the airspace due to 'emerging technologies'. It would seem to be sensible to investigate technologies that will allow existing and new users of the airspace to coexist safely together. This would seem to suggest the need to develop a system of conspicuity that can be readily applied to all aircraft (aerial systems) and a system which is reliable and provides data that is appropriate to each airspace user. What seems to be happening at the moment is the suggestion that the electronic id is merely a tool that the Police and security services can use to supervise the recreational use of the lower airspace, there is no suggestion as far as I can discover in these proposals to enable the safe coexistance of existing airspace users with new and emerging airspace users. And because the existing RID syustems can relativley easily be removed/ disabled or simply not fitted to UAS systems used by those bent on crminal endeavours. It is all a bit of a waste of everyones time, so whether or not you are going to willingly fit RID or fight it to your dying breath is to a greater or lesser extent pointless. So far the CAA has not addressed the issue of how existing airspace users and new users are going to safely operate together. Any thoughts

Just a heads up. In my inbox as one of a series of emails from the CAA Regulatory Sandbox for the development of capabilities to integrate Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS) in unsegregated airspace CAP 2616. Pretty innoucous you might think.It is forum for organisations/ businesses interested in developing RPUASS systems. However worth a peruse. There is an online briefing on 10 Jan 24. Iv'e booked a slot. Notice the date?

I know that RID and electronic conspicuity are not the same my question mark is about reliability of these systems. Following on from that if the existing conspicuity sytems are incompatible, I presume commercial UAS will have to be electronically conspicuous, both to each other, General aviation and to recreational flyers i.e us. What do you think the chances of that happening are ? Far better, and cheaper, to legislate us out of the air and price recreational GA out of the air.