Gordon Whitehead 1

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 22/07/2018 07:49:23: I hope you do complete your JP design Gordon as I have a Wren 44 and a JP would be just the ticket for it. A clubmate is relying on me doing a plan, Piers, so I'll get on with it soon and probably do a build thread too. It'll be a JP5A which allows the choice of with/without tip tanks, and whether or not to decorate and equip as a Strikemaster. Apologies for delayed response. Gordon

Back in the 1970s at RAF Brize Norton we flew from one side of the airfield, with VC10s and Hercs operating on the main runway. ATC would usually, but not always, fire off a flare to warn us to land when a big 'un was inbound or about to leave. Nobody must have thought then about a height restriction. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I used to fly at a club on an RAF airfield which hosted an ATC Volunteer Glider School. After about 20 years of problem-free flying we suddenly had a 300ft altitude restriction imposed at the whim of an incoming school commandant. No misery, we just got on with it of course. But depending on what you flew your flying style might have had to change somewhat, not least those who liked to fly thermal-hunting gliders.     Edited By Gordon Whitehead 1 on 22/07/2018 20:19:02

Posted by PatMc on 22/07/2018 15:40:47: Under 7Kg @ 400ft ceiling : result misery Logic : eludes me. You're the first one here to mention misery

If ever compulsory altitude recording was required, then compulsory sensor calibration would also be required to prevent folks making their 400ft bigger than anyone else's 400ft

Bob, my Nano weighs 5.5kg so isn't subject to the 7kg 400ft height restriction. That's what makes small jets attractive to me, apart from being much cheaper to build and operate than those big enough to need height restrictions. There's no speed limit that I'm aware of, and flown around the circuit in my normal fashion, which is not to be a speed merchant but to practice and to perform airshow style aerobatics pleasing to me, the Nano's top speed maxes at about 130mph. That's because much of each flight is flown at significantly less than full throttle, which is only applied when needed for the figure being performed. Regarding Pat's comments about the LMA and the 400ft limit, I suspect that for their displays they apply for an exemption: http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=4670 so that they can adequately display their models' capabilities to the public. Since this exemption is only for displays and comps, presumably the LMA flyers somehow practice their display routines within the 400ft restriction at other times. Fun is where you find it.

Because it will be, and that's all there is to it.

Hi Erf On and off for the past year or so I've been designing a Jet Provost to replace my 9 year old Nano. The full size JP was an elegant airshow aerobat in its day despite its relatively low power, and nobody else is going to design one for a Wren 44. However, a permanent 400ft height limit will so restrict my model's ability to display that I might well decide that it'll be a waste of time proceeding with the design and build. Gordon

Outerzone has the plan as a free download, along with the original magazine article. https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=8190 It looks as if it will be a light model, and was for 49-61 power back then, ie Merco. Looking at the magazine article, I see that Terry fitted the same radio gear I had at the time, the Ripmax Futaba Digimax 4, which was my first propo outfit. Gordon

Thanks for your figures Steve, Martin and Mike. I don't have automatic data logging so had to look at the Tx display when doing my height checks, then I forgot to post the figures. The Katana weighs about 6.6lb with 800W. The totem pole went up to about 600ft, the rolling loop about 530, and the figure M which is one of my favourite figures went to about 500ft. My Boomerang Nano which does all the figures with more gusto would have topped at 800ft easily. The Nano has both airspeed and height telemetry. On the level its max speed is a not too impressive 125mph. The top speed I've seen, however, is just on 150mph. To get this speed requires a climb to 1500ft (announced by the altimeter's beeper), followed by a vertical dive almost to ground level, with the 150mph announced by the telemetry ASI beeper. If we don't get an exemption there's going to be a lot less flying fun to be had for many of us. In fact a lot less reason to go R/C flying at all. (Off topic, the real reason for the airspeed telemetry on the Nano is to let me know when the landing approach speed has fallen to below 38mph, which means the model is then slow enough to land comfortably within the confines of our 65m strip.) Gordon

Super job Martyn. I've always liked the Dalotel and I'm looking forward to seeing yours performing down at the field. Gordon

As we're to be fined £1000 for breaking the hosepipe ban, and as there are no other water companies in England likely to need to impose a ban, it seems only fair that United Utilities should be fined a healthy amount for every day the hosepipe ban is in place. If moving to another company would guarantee Percy and me an unrestricted water supply, that would imply that pipework exists to supply water from other areas into the northwest. In which case United Utilities could obtain water from other areas and not impose a ban. It seems to me that the necessary pipework doesn't currently exist, and that the Govt needs to get the water companies to do something about that.

I've been flying models using Spekky altimeters for over 8 years. Initially because we had a 300ft height limit imposed at Chivenor airfield where I flew. Keeping a Nano Boomerang jet below 300ft whilst doing aerobatics was possible but a bit taxing. During the past 4 years I flew with a 400ft height restriction for my over 7kg Jungmeister as my current club field lies within the Manchester ATZ. On my old Spekky system (DX18 Gen 1 so only beep and vibe warnings, no voice) I would set the alt to beep at 20ft below the height limit and generally fly within the limitation with the occasional brief excursion above depending upon the figure being flown. Today I fitted an altimeter to my 6 or 7 year old 5S Sebart Katana hack aerobat with the beeper set to 400ft to see what effect the new rules would have on my hitherto carefree flying activities with this model. Doing my usual aerobatic routines, the model was mostly below 400ft as you should expect, as flying this type of model all the time at 400ft and above is unnecessary. However, many of my favourite manoeuvres had the plane popping up higher than the limit for brief periods, eg: vertical 4-point roll topped with a vertical snap roll and stall turn with a one-turn spin and 4-point roll on the down line (called the "Totem Pole" by Neil Williams in his "Aerobatics" book; rolling 8-point hesitation loop with 1/2-rolls in each leg; figure M - the old FAI manoeuver comprising vertical 1/4-rolls with stall turns and an inverted recovery to vertical in the middle; vertical figure 8. All these could be squashed into a smaller vertical distance but with less satisfaction due to the rushed nature of the manoeuvers, and made more difficult and less pleasing because of the trees over which one has to fly at our sheep pasture site, thereby raising the "hard deck" to maybe 40 ft above ground level. To me, model flying has always meant aerobatics, so that's the way I like to fly. Naturally, by far the greater proportion of every flight has always been flown below 400ft because there's no need to spend lots of time really high up doing aeros as the model becomes too small to control with any great degree of accuracy. Also, whilst aerobatting, it's important not to barge into anyone else's model flying airspace so you need to be well aware of what's going on around you. Regarding any fly-in, I think that 400ft might not provide enough separation between models if upwards of 3 or 4 are flying at once each doing its own thing. Well, that's my experience for what it's worth. Has anyone else out there got similar experience? Edited By Gordon Whitehead 1 on 18/07/2018 21:14:42

It would make sense for BMFA club sites to receive exemptions. Every organised event, from the Nats downwards will have to be entitled to claim an exemption otherwise a large section of competitive model flying sport will die and I can't see any government wanting to kill off bona fide sporting activities. Non-competitive fly-ins would die without exemptions, and as they're organised, should qualify to be granted exemptions. Although effectively at the bottom of the heap, a club field is an organised entity, so should also be eligible for an exemption. Well we can hope.

That's right. Here's a pic of one I made up for a Laser v-twin. The plug leads are wired onto the glow clip connector from a Hobbyking remote glow lead. The plug leads are wired for series connection, using a 2S NiMH to light the plugs. Using OS No8 plugs, this setup wasn't very satisfactory because the dress snap spring wires became too easily trapped in the OS plug pillar slots and the snap fasteners were almost impossible to unplug without damaging the spring. Way back I used Enya No3 plugs exclusively, and the spherical end on the plug pillar allowed easy connection and disconnection of the dress snap. The rubber-covered connector on the right came off the Hobbyking remote glow lead, and wasn't used on the Laser because the cuff over the soldered joint could be chafed away by the Laser's fins due to vibration, and produce a short circuit when the battery is connected. However, the fins on the Enya .40FS are probably shorter, and the angled plug more accommodating to allow a better route for the wire lead, minimising the risk of the rubber chafing on the fins. The HK-style connector is most likely available in your local model shop. BTW, I love the Sportster's sleek shape. Those aileron locks shown on the plan are an excellent idea too. Mind you, it's usually the elevators or rudder that I bump into doors etc, and I can't think of a similar style lock for those. Gordon

I had a couple of these little beauties when they first came out. As Peter says, bearing rot was a problem, so I hope the ones in yours are OK, FB3. At the time I owned mine, Enya spares were pretty well unavailable, especially the bearings of which at least one, possibly the rear main bearing, was a non-standard size special to Enya. When my engines' bearings went u/s, I tried ordering replacements from the importer (John Haytree if I remember correctly but he ceased trading a while back) but they couldn't get them. So I photographed the two planes in which the engines were mounted, and sent the pics to Enya in Japan. I explained that it was their fault that the planes were grounded because they were not supplying spare bearings to the UK distributor, and I asked them to start doing so. Quite quickly I received a package in the post direct from Enya containing a couple of bearing sets for no charge. Naturally I wrote them a letter of thanks. Subsequently the Enya spares situation improved considerably. As regards power, there was no shortage of that in the correct airframes and I had lots of great flying with my two 40FS in these two models which I designed for them: https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=9264 https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=5987 The 4lb wt CAP was fully aerobatic, whilst the 5lb wt Fokker would do the usual loops, rolls, and stall turns, along with knife-edge flight, and an upward half-roll with enough height gained to do a neat stall turn off the top followed by a half-roll and recovery on the way back down. I'm not certain, but I think I used a remote glow connection via a dress snap on the plug. Gordon

Detachable cowl top secured with magnets as Danny said, plus a couple of dress snaps one per side for extra security, has worked well on my 1/5th scale Tiggie since about the year 2000. She's been flown on 20-cell nicads and nimh with geared Maxcim inrunner, 6S lipos and Axi 4130/16, and at present on 5S lipos and Hacker A50-14S. The chute carrying the batts is fretted-out liteply and has taken all the changes in its stride. Model still going strong these days. The batts drop down from where shown in the pic into the horizontal chute, and fasten to the base of the chute with a short velcro strip to stop them sliding about fore and aft (and make them easy to lift out), and with a velcro strap over to stop them leaving their place in outside loops and inverted flight. Gordon Edited By Gordon Whitehead 1 on 11/06/2018 13:33:10

Posted by Malcolm Fisher on 07/06/2018 19:37:44: Doesn't need an electricity supply so that's a sort of bonus. Malcolm OTOH, you must use a lot of candles in winter when its dark, Malcolm Gordon

Hi Geoff, I had the same problem to solve when I built my Hawker Demon. I made the zig-zagged exhaust pipes from balsa sanded round as explained on this plan in the diagram just in front of the fin : https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_files_06/6269/Hawker_Demon_RCM_757_oz6269.pdf I probably then sanding-sealed them and covered them in tissue doped on with the sanding sealer. The same thing could be achieved by laminating 1/16in x3/8in balsa strip, as often used for forming the outlines of wing tips and tail surfaces. Kind regards Gordon Edited By Gordon Whitehead 1 on 26/05/2018 21:49:47

Hi Guys I've made loads of soldered-up tin-plate tanks in the past, but always with a fixed fuel pick-up tube, not a clunk-style necessary in an aerobatic R/C bipe. I need a tank in the region of 14oz capacity to replace the Slec one currently in use. I originally used the Slec because it is short enough to fit the tank bay, and the recessed fuel line connections seemed like a good idea. The 14oz Dubro tanks with the "step" at the front and the Sullivan Slant Tanks with similarly set-back fuel tube connections are 3/4in longer and won't fit. With both fill and overflow connections at the top of the tank, the Slec tank can't be emptied without turning the model over with a lot of arm wrestling to position the 11-lb bipe with one arm while working the hand pump with the other to de-fuel, and there's always some fuel remaining. When I then invert the bipe to remove the bottom wing and batteries, fuel dribbles through the clunk line and out of the carb into the cowl and from there onto whatever the model is laying on. I plan to experiment with shortening a Sullivan 14oz tank a tad, and to use the normal fill tube to bottom, vent tube to top arrangement so that complete de-fuelling is achieved via the fill line by simply raising the tail and pumping the juice out. If that doesn't work I'll fit a 12oz tank and fly shorter flights! Thanks for your suggestions, though, Gordon

Thanks Denis, your solution is just what I needed and I already have the dry sand available. About 5mm shorter is what I'm wanting to achieve so that there's a bit more space for some foam plastic anti-vibe insulation. Kind regards Gordon