Martin Dance 1

Tj he chances are is that the engine is a Merco 50. The clue is the fact that the cast in capacity legend was machined off when the Merco range was taken over by I think Forest engineering. There were some capacity changes across the Merco range. I also recall that for a while the engines were fitted with an ABC piston cylinder set up. which coincided with the capacity change. Take the head off and check the cylinder material,

This seems like an intelligent response to a perceived problem, that of the incursion of GA activities into airspace used by fixed operations such as winch launched gliders and conventional model flying sites . I suspect such beacons will be many more times reliable than any ID system being carried in a model aircraft could hope to be. My only misgiving about this trial is that it is taking place during the Autumn/Winter when recreational aviation of all sorts is reduced thus meaning that the amount of data that can be gathered will be reduced and may be skewed towards aircraft that are very well equipped with up to date avionics. This could mean that results are going to have a positive skew.

Years ago I flew on a farm strip surrounded by cereal crops. I should mention that the farmer was a keen modeler and flier. Each July as the crops ripened we would stop flying until after the harvest, usually about a month. The risk of fire was not the reason however, the farmer being a model flyer knew the risk of fire was extremely low. His concern was the damage to the crop caused by fliers looking for and retrieving any models that landed out in the crop. A very good reason we thought. Some of his fields ran alongside the railway line and in the age of steam crop fires were a regular occurence. He likened a crop fire to a pool of petrol burning. The fire would take out the ears of grain and would spread even in a light wind faster than you could run . So trying to put out a crop fire is a non starter.

A part from the unfortunate inclusion of Alex Whittaker in the survey. For the purposes of this survey income is irrelevant and intrusive and not having the category of pensioner a fairly serious oversight these days in this hobby. C- for effort

I would agree with Brian and leccyflyer, LED tubes are superb. My first LED tube was a complete unit which replaced a failed flourescent tube and fitting. Immediately impressed I bought two more tubes and simply replaced the flourescent tubes. The 'starter' unit is simply a wire link. One observation, I have two tubes which are 'warm' a slightly yellow old tungsten bulb type hue the other is a daylight type which is really bright. It is noticeably brighter than the other two I would go for those if I replaced the original ones.

There may be an historic reason for joining fees. Many years ago my club membership numbers rose very steeply over a few years. Yet the numbers flying, attending club meetings stayed the same. Curious. At that time our local model shop offered a discount to members upon production of a membership card. This model shops main stock in trade was model railway components etc. We realised that a person buying model railway goods could very quickly recover the cost of our membership fee in discounts on railway purchases! We introduced a joining fee and our membership fell back to more normal levels. Of course in those days there was a cost to enrolling a new member due to everything being sent by mail.

Looking at your photo and taking into account the angle at which it is taken I think your fuel tank is too high. In an inverted setup I would expect the bottom of the tank to be almost level with the top of the head so that the top of the tank is level with or just higher than the spraybar. I've used ST engines a lot and they do idle reliably. If you have an engine test stand. Set the motor up in an upright position with the top of the fuel tank a little above the spray bar, about 8-12mm. I aim for the motor to idle reliably at around 2000rpm for one minute and then to accelerate to full power with a brisk opening of the throttle without sagging or mis-firing or producing clouds of smoke. My reasoning for choosing one minute of idling is two fold. 1 It gives the engine time to cool a little and this will magnfy any poor carb setting. 2. If you are doing a landing approach, chances are you will be closing the throttle going downwind just about in front of you. by the time you turn onto finals the engine will be at idle., If you decide to go around you need the motor to accelerate cleanly. For many models the time taken to complete the dowwind leg, crosswind leg and finals is about a minute. So aiming for at least a minute idle is a reasonable goal. Once your engine is set up in the upright position it should need little or no further adjustment

We've just installed solar PV. 14 panels, inverter and 5.2 KWh batteries. The effect on our consumption from the grid has been astonishing, often down to 1 or 2 KWh a day, and we are heavy users, something like 11000KWh annually. I also run an EV. doing about 12K annually. I return on average 4.8miles/per KWh. The PV installation cost just over £11,000. I live in the south of England. My challenge is persuade my EV charging set up to allow me to charge during the daytime. For example on Monday early afternoon the panels were producing just over 4Kw over 3 of which were going to the grid instead of into my car ?. Prices of solar PV installations have dropped substantially. I first looked in 2008 8 panels on one roof only plus inverter, battery storage was still in the future £12,000

This is an interesting discussion but I wonder how many of us have considered why 2.4Ghz was chosen by R/C equipment manufacturers to use in model radio control? In most countries there was already available a UHF band which in most cases was little used and could have provided most of the facilities we enjoy in modern 2.4Gjhz sets. I recall that the first use of 2.4 Ghz for model control was in sets designed for use in model cars. The rationale was the freedom from interference and the large number of models that could be operated simultaneously. Of course it wasn't necessary to have a large number of crystals that were essential if you were racing, using 27/40 Mhz clashes were bound to happen when involved in heats when racing.. When 2.4Ghz sets arrived for model aircraft control they offered no more facilities than a moderate to high end 35Mhz set. However it was soon realised that because the Tx/Rx rf stages 'talked' to each other many more facilities could be offered for example telemetry and almost unlimited numbers of control channels. Though what one can use 16 plus channels for I have no idea. However from the manufacturers point of view 2.4Ghz was heaven sent. Previously when frequencies from 27Mhz to75Mhz using both AM and FM were in use the manufacturers had to produce rf stages for each frequency that they produced, for markets around the world. Not a cheap undertaking. 2.4 Ghz on the other hand can be tweaked in firmware to account for differences in markets around the world. For example, Bandwidth and rf output. The rf modules are of the shelf items used in a wide range of 2.4 Ghz devices. There is a significant cost saving in making 2.4 Ghz equipment. So have we been conned into using 2.4Ghz when for the majority of users the 35Mhz allocation is more than adequate for our needs? Tin hat on and hide under stairs?

I'm inclined to agree with ED, if you run the engine and its performance compares with other engines of similar design then its performing as designed and will allow the model its fitted into to also perform as designed. It is irrelevant that its design and construction doesn't allow the engine to meet the theoretical performance that Gonzo believes is possible. The basic construction of this type of engine limits the maximum performance anyway. On the other hand it may be a good idea to carefully wrap the engine up and put it into storage for the factory in the Ukraine was destroyed by a crashing Russian fighter aircraft. Should soon be worth £ Thousands on Ebay 'rare collectable vintage war relic etc.'?

I've just reread Maris Disler's review of the SAM 125 diesel, in which he seems to conclude that it is in the mix with the similarly sized original Mills engines and the subsequent replicas. I would suggest a bench run of the motor in question is the simplest way of determining whether or not it compares with the figures Maris obtained with the test engine. If there is a significant difference then contacting the vendor or Alex Phin would be a logical next step. If however the motor compares favourably with the Mills/ and clones then it is performing as intended just enjoy it. If you consider the design to be at fault the obvious approach would be to design build and test your own motor, have it manufactured and become famous!?

Looks like JD8 and I agree. Should have said although there is no technical reason for not mixing servo sizes. You may find fixing one odd sized servo in the fuselage is more difficult. It's usually easier to have the three servos you will use on a trainer all the same size.

For the type of model you are building standard analogue servos will be fine. The manufacturer really doesn't matter they all are fitted with standard JR plugs and will run on 4.8v. Although you can use 6v on most servos your application doesn't need it. One word of warning be very wary of buying servos on ebay. Even Futaba servos may well be fake, buy from a reputable UK based seller. Good luck with the build and happy flying

I watched the video. His age was a bit of a surprise, he isn't a rebellious young man, he's a rebellious middle aged man. Apparently he used to fly helicopters. Not so far removed from flying a multi rotor, close enough to allow him to appreciate the damage an out of control one can do. I don't believe he managed to fly helicopters 20 years ago without witnessing the carnage that a helicopter crash causes to the machine itself let alone coming into contact with a human being. I suspect that there is something intrinsic in multi rotors that encourages their operators to wish to operate them in totally unsuitable locations. Surely it must have occurred to him that flying down the side of a 600 foot building in a city centre was to say the least stupid.

It's quite likely that Derek Olley did distribute his products through the trade in a very limited way. Sun Lane may well have made some of his moulded plastic parts, servos Tx sticks, battery cases etc. and in a reciprocal deal they sold his radio systems. Certainly in the 1970's he sold directly to the public. He was a small operation. Two of my club's members built servos and TXs for him on a part time basis. Sadly, both have now slipped the surly bonds of earth.

Yes we all do, but could it be your crossed fingers are at the root of you problem, never fly with crossed fingers?

Have you wondered where he gets his stuff from? It's all new high end products,

I have a Record Power scroll saw, now about 10 years old. It cost just short of £100 at a tool show. Well made and runs smoothly. I would suggest when considering what to purchase would be to choose a saw which takes both pin ended and plain ended blades. Also look for one which has variable speed. As Don says we are unlikely to wear one out so second hand is a good bet. I would avoid very cheap scroll saws which tend to vibrate badly making accurate wok very difficult. The Rolls Royce of scroll saws are the products made by Hegner, they command Rolls Royce prices too, even second hand.

Finger trouble as Frank says 120 degrees

Now you've been and done it!? Great sound. Is the crank spaced at 270 degrees?

I think everyone accepts that the primary reason for the use of fail safe on our models is to prevent models entering controlled air space. So setting engine to idle or cut will ensure that happens. It's the next bit that is open to discussion, what then. I would suggest a slow descent is best. So as Jon suggests a smidge of up elevator is probably the least worst option. Assuming the model enters fail safe in a more or less upright and level attitude it will slow down a bit and should it encounter something on the ground either your land lords Roller or some other soft machine with luck the damage will cost less than six figures to fix. I would suggest that trying to induce a spin is probably the worst thing to do. Many models if placed into a spin which is allowed to develop beyond 3 or 4 turns tend to drop their noses and the rate of descent increases dramatically. Also consider what will happen should the model enter fail safe whilst in a steeply banked turn or inverted . A little up elevator in those situations is almost certainly the best option.

I've often questioned my use of epoxy adhesives in the construction of model aircraft, especially on wood to wood joints. Epoxy doesn't tend to penetrate wood well especially at low temperatures. I'm not sure that the strength gain over other glues makes it worthwhile. However through mixing is essential and careful measuring out of each component is important. In that context I've never had any real issues dispensing equal quantities from double barreled dispensers unless the glue is very old or it is cold. So don't expect great results when working in your unheated workshop over the winter build season. I would suggest that a temperature of 20 degrees C (60 degrees F) is a minimum to ensure glues set properly.

If you want an entertaining and informative video about flying the Bleriot IX go to You Tube and search for the Old Warden series of Pilot's chats an watch Rob Millinship chat about flying the Bleriot. Rob is also a modeller and is the current Old ?Warden 'high hours' pilot of the Bleriot. ---- 30 seconds!

Thinking around Brian's suggestion try B&Q or a good local hardware/ironmonger shop.

I built and flew a Tornado back in the late 70's early 80's powered by an OS 61 FSR, again a Schneurle ported. As for retracts I had planned to install them and had actually bought a set of retracts, still have them, unused. However when planning the installation of the nose leg unit it became obvious that it would restrict the size of fuel tank that could be used and as the motor would consume 10oz fuel in a 10 minute flight the largest tank if I recall correctly that would fit would be 6 oz not really enough.