Bearair

Hi Just a heads up that the legendary Pat Teakle Gliders are available again. Very good to see another company revived in the UK Pat Teakle Gliders

Sorry Alan I did not mean to sound prickly, "Maybe the level of cover you have is my business! Certainly, if I need to make a claim on it," I have obviously taken this the wrong way apologies I know can be somewhat blunt at times. I have suffered financial lost due to an un-insured flyer when I was hit by his 12ft wingspan model, just how bad it was did not become evident until along time after. I was trying (very badly) to point out that if anyone starts asking the people who choose to fly without insurance in the wrong way, then they most likely will be  told to go forth and multiply with a webb footed creature. And in that situation the only thing you can do is look for an attractive duck! I am aware of this from person experience. We need to coerce and persuade these people in my opinion and the cheapest insurance is the way to go.   Edited By Bearair on 03/03/2014 10:36:35

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 02/03/2014 13:49:24: I think you haven't read all of my post properly... I stated that I do have criticisms of some areas of the BMFAs operation, but please don't say I'm offering you old rhetoric when I am stating facts about the most popular insurance cover for model flying in the UK. I have acknowledged all of the points you have made, but the reality is that the BMFA offers the most comprehensive cover (and FWIW use of the word cheap as has cropped up in this thread is all relative: I consider the BMFA insurance cheap for the level and type of cover it offers). You might consider it unfortunate that to get this insurance you have to join the BMFA, but I will just reiterate that for the extra £10 or so a year on top of the insurance costs, the BMFA pursues a lot of good causes on behalf of model flyers of all shapes/sizes/persuasions. I do accept that it's up to the individual to consider that our continuing use of the 35MHz and 2.4GHz bands, use of MOD property for flying (and not just for large models or competitions), protection of flying sites and airspace is worthwhile or not.... You and others have raised the fact that your alternative insurance may be a more attractive option to new entrants who have bought their parkflyer etc either online or from a toyshop or such where they would not be encouraged to either have insurance or to join the BMFA to get insurance as they might at a traditional model shop. Well, here's the thing. Your alternative £16 insurance might not sound attractive to a new entrant. Along the lines of "if it's not compulsory, then no thanks". So, yes, well done for showing us all this alternative, cheaper insurance, but on balance I will stick to a better level of cover, efficient claims handling, a proven insurer who understands our operations and also the level of cover required etc. I would consider the following to be rhetoric The BMFA does have full-time employees who, among other things, negotiate the use of the frequency bands we need to control our models, negotiate for the use of and conditions under which we use the airspace, and also they have funded a legal case over the use of a flying site for a club within the last year or so (at their expense), as well as taking up planning permission cases for many others. It increasingly is taking good quality promotion seriously (simulator trailer etc at full-size airshows, flight challenge for school kids and university heavy lift for students, finally a good quality website!). Plus, the BMFA news is a good tool to show people new to the hobby all the different facets our hobby can have and it also perhaps may highlight events and meetings that a new entrant may like to visit but would not otherwise have known about. So, even if you don't like or don't agree with the way the BMFA works in some respects, you have to say that they are working hard to protect and promote the hobby on our behalf. Your are not addressing the issue of insurance you are simply making the case for the BMFA and your not alone in doing this. It is actually taking the thread off topic which is Model Flying Insurance NOT BMFA! It is like when people ask for a "best phone NOT Apple" and we then get a string of people asking "why not apple" and then listing the benefit's of Apple.

Posted by Allan Bennett on 03/03/2014 08:06:58: Posted by john stones 1 on 02/03/2014 23:05:38: ... I don't see the problem with others shopping around for their insurance myself, the level of cover etc is a matter for you, not my business.... Hmmm... Maybe the level of cover you have is my business! Certainly, if I need to make a claim on it, I need to know that it's adequate. Discussion of the merits of £5m or £25m is a little meaningless, for insurance is designed to cover the unexpected, and there's no telling what the financial value is going to be put on the damage if you crash into someone or something. Just check out the cost of looking after a young person who's crippled for life, or rebuilding a large warehouse that's destroyed by fire. Actually it is none of your business what so ever, since there is no mandatory requirement for insurance. But I can assure you that when people start to talk like that, then peoples attitude will start to harden. If you want to make it your business then start a campaign to make it mandatory. John I can honestly say that I have been championing the cause of Country members for years, especially when I was a club delegate to area level. Losing my examiner status was not an issue with me, certainly not a gripe I was merely using it for an example to answer the question about country members. I have many more important (to my mind) gripes about how the paid employees of the BMFA are behaving and if your really interested I will PM you because I really did not want this thread to be about the BMFA. It has always fascinated me the what ifs? I have seen hundreds over the years, of course they nearly always have the same characteristics. No evidence to back them up, and quite good imagination. What if you crashed your model through the hanger of some M.O.D property causing an explosion, the mod things it's a pre-emtive strike by the russians, We retaliate with a nuclear strike on Russia, leading to all out nuclear war. Then space aliens come to earth to finish off the remaining humans because of their war like barbaric ways. How is your 5million cover going to cover you then? Stupid of course but no more than others I have seen. You cannot insure yourself against everything. Yet again I will reiterate I try and have got people who fly without insurance to get some ,and surely that is better than not trying anything than sitting here pontificating!

I would highly recommend trying Picasim, it is free on android and I think very cheap on Apple. Most of the Glider guys I know keep it on there phones as well. Developed by RC glider enthusiast. Here

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/03/2014 13:26:16: I can see Bearair's point here. Whether we like it or not, or indeed understand it or not, there are people in this world that simply have an abhorrence of large organisations and "joining things" - so they just will not join the BMFA - even if its in their interests to do so. "There's nowt as queer as folk"! And BMFA will not offer the insurance cover alone to non-members. So, immovable object meets irresistible force! There are also those, possibly a growing number, that aren't what we would recognise as aeromodellers. They just buy a cheap "toy aeroplane" from a non-model shop or online from ebay or Amazon and they know nothing about insurance and less than nothing(!) about the BMFA - and if its possible care even less again! To them this isn't a hobby they are planning to take up seriously - its just a short term novelty. True - it might grow, but right now they are not serious about this. So I believe he's right - surely it is in in the interests of our hobby that these two camps get at least some sort of insurance - even if its not particularly great value due to being a lower level of cover, having more exclusions and maybe the insurers don't know as much. But its better than no cover at all! I would feel that for 99.999% of us on here its a no-brainer - the BMFA insurance is better. More cover, more applicable and knowledgeable and most of all the more of us take it up the cheaper the individual cover becomes. So no - I wouldn't recommend this as a first choice package to anyone - I'd tell them they'd be better joining the BMFA. But I'd rather they had this than fly uninsured. I think the MOD thing is a bit of a red herring to be honest - I very much suspect that the people who would be content with this type of frankly rather second-rate cheap insurance are not going to be the sort of folks flying large models at MOD site events! BEB Thanks BEB what you say is correct, I have sorted insurance cover for a small group that would probably fly without any insurance if I hadn't. I too would not recommend it as a first choice but it is adequate and to me a damm site better than nothing. At the moment due to health reason's it is very unlikely I will be flying very much at all or even participate in this forum much. But if by chance I get the opportunity to go flying then at least I will be covered, if I regain full health then I will rejoin the BMFA just for the better cover. With regard to Country membership. No vote at area level. But as many votes as clubs you are in if a club member. Not even allowed to participate at area level without the club delegates consent. No dedicated Country members staff unlike club level If you are not in a club your examiner status is revokes(or downgraded as the BMFA) puts it. So last year I could not take anyone for their Slope A test even though there were lot's who wanted me to and I was the only examiner in Cornwall who had taken such exams the previous year to my knowledge and the only examiner I am aware of regularly flying the slopes in Cornwall. I will try to reply to any comments on this thread but I am afraid it will be very spasmodic. Roger

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 02/03/2014 12:19:37: BMFA Insurance does not cost £32! BMFA membership does cost £32 but the insurance is not the full amount.... The BMFA does have full-time employees who, among other things, negotiate the use of the frequency bands we need to control our models, negotiate for the use of and conditions under which we use the airspace, and also they have funded a legal case over the use of a flying site for a club within the last year or so (at their expense), as well as taking up planning permission cases for many others. It increasingly is taking good quality promotion seriously (simulator trailer etc at full-size airshows, flight challenge for school kids and university heavy lift for students, finally a good quality website!). Plus, the BMFA news is a good tool to show people new to the hobby all the different facets our hobby can have and it also perhaps may highlight events and meetings that a new entrant may like to visit but would not otherwise have known about. So, even if you don't like or don't agree with the way the BMFA works in some respects, you have to say that they are working hard to protect and promote the hobby on our behalf. Since the BMFA moved to Doodson group for insurance they have also implemented a system where smaller (trivial) claims can be settled directly from the BMFA office and the office claims back the money later from the insurer, so this reduces bureaucracy for both parties in the claim. I think (and this is a guess) that the insurance is about £22-£24 of the total membership cost. The cheapest cover mentioned above may not work as well as the BMFA insurance does. So the real comparison for insurance is £22-24 against £16. Someone highlighted above that the BMFA insurance covers member-to-member, which to me, when flying on a remote slope with others would be a comfort if my model was to hit them or their car or expensive model and vice versa if they did the same to me. I have my own views and issues about how the BMFA isn't perfect, but I do think that their insurance is good value all things considered. "The dedicated parkflyer who has no wish to be a member of the BMFA (Please lets not get into an argument over why, just except some don't)" Incredible why cannot some people just except the fact some of us do not want to be in the BMFA?. I think you are confusing what is real with what is theoretical. Theoretically you are only paying £22 for BMFA insurance but try just paying £24 you cannot do it the real cost if you only want insurance is £32. If as used to be the case the BMFA just offered insurance and it was competitively priced then I would suggest that. But the BMFA decided it did not want to do this because the majority of flyers did not care about the BMFA they just wanted insurance. Look at the figures for membership before insurance was mandatory and after, it shows a huge growth. You may think the BMFA is great, I did once but now I don't and I was a member from 1972(SMAE) when very few others were.. What is this almost religious fervour some people exhibit when others offer competition to the BMFA?. So now we have a thread where if a beginner looks at it they may well conclude that the insurance offered above is not adequate. Not that any of the bemoaners have offered evidence other than anecdotal. Not that anybody has taken me up on my offer to show the actual policy on this forum.. Nope just the same old rhetoric. I AM TRYING TO MAKE OUR HOBBY SAFER BY SHOWING AN ALTERNATIVE CHEAPER WAY TO OBTAIN INSURANCE. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? Edited By Bearair on 02/03/2014 13:30:51

Posted by Simon B on 02/03/2014 11:12:19: "1. The dedicated parkflyer who has no wish to be a member of the BMFA (Please lets not get into an argument over why, just except some don't) 2. The club not affiliated to the BMFA. 3. Glider pilots who fly from non club sites 4. People who fly from private flying sites 5. FPV fliers 6. People buying RTF's to fly at school playing fields, the beach etc." The BMFA covers all those things, provided you're not a numpty about it. They've made specific mention of loosening FPV rules too. Not sure really what the problem is. You can be a Country Member if you're not a club member. This just sounds like people still misunderstand how BMFA insurance works. Edited By Simon B on 02/03/2014 11:13:30 I am well aware the BMFA insurance will cover all that and I understand BMFA insurance as well as most. This is for people who either do not wish to be a member of the BMFA or simply want the cheapest insurance they can get. That's called competition, it is supposed to be the way cost's come down. Add to which a Country member doe's not get the benefit's a full member gets but is expected to pay the same amount. Look at my thread about uninsured flyer's and the issues they might have. Where I fly  the majority of the guy's do not belong to a club and have no wish to. I am aware that some people fly without insurance, now do you think they are more likley to buy insurance for £16 or £32. I can now go to the slope and if in chatting I find they do not have insurance I can suggest to them this cheep insurance in fact if they want me to I can get them insurance there and then until August for £7.95. Now I think that is a good idea and the more people we can have insured the better. Edited By Bearair on 02/03/2014 11:58:46

Ok if anyone knows how to remove personal details from a PDF and then publish it on here, if they PM their E-Mail address and I will e-mail them a copy. I do not see this as a direct competitor to the BMFA insurance, there are a few people who might consider it though. 1. The dedicated parkflyer who has no wish to be a member of the BMFA (Please lets not get into an argument over why, just except some don't) 2. The club not affiliated to the BMFA. 3. Glider pilots who fly from non club sites 4. People who fly from private flying sites 5. FPV fliers 6. People buying RTF's to fly at school playing fields, the beach etc. And it is that last group who i think is the group with most to gain. Like it or not "toy aeroplanes" probably outsell "model aircraft". And most people will fly them without any kind of insurance. Now i think that if they realise the can get insurance quickly easily and for a really low cost you might get them to have some insurance. Now the insurance above runs August to August but it is pro-rata for what is left of the year, so if you join in December it is just over a tenner. You can pay by Paypal and download the document immediately. At the moment no-one is really looking after these people and I feel it is the best interests' of us to do so. I think magazines and forums like this should have this information, and we should be getting the info out there.   Edited By Bearair on 01/03/2014 12:27:54

I cannot really see anybody flying on a military site unless they are a member of the BMFA and if you wish to fly in competitions or fly'ins then because the BMFA do not allow other insurances this would not be suitable for you. However if , as the majority of toy plane flyers do, you will be flying at school playing fields, farmers fields even your own back garden then the above insurance makes a lot of sense. Why pay twice as much to join an organisation set up for and run directly for the benefit of clubs. Toy plane flying has never been so easy to learn, in fact in an afternoon you can easily learn the basics with the advancements in electronics. Some people do not want to except this, I think because it upsets their sense of kudos, it was very hard for them to learn so it should be hard for others. If Joe Blogs can go out and buy an all in one system for about a hundred quid and because of the electronics fly it that afternoon what then for the club "expert"? I have seen so many posts about "not the right sort", there are even clubs where you have to attend an interview to make sure you are the "right type" "Old boy what what" Anyway for people wishing to go it alone with toy aeroplanes I hope a few of you will advise them of this insurance, it must be better to have a mere £5million cover than none at all..   TTFN   ​Roger   Edited By Bearair on 01/03/2014 08:29:33

Sorted Thanks For anyone interested insurance available from FPV UK £7.95 for six months here

As above really. I knew a company last year but they are not doing it anymore. Thanks

Posted by Martin Harris on 06/12/2013 14:22:51: That doesn't count as a modelling moment Olly - you got your other half to do the building! Agreed Martin, but Olly was very much involved in the projects conception! Congrats Olly on the production of another potential modeller, keep up the good work! My best moment was turning up at the slope without a model but on my motorbike, something the doctors told me I would never be able to do again (ride a bike) took four years but it was worth it. Now to build a model to fit in the top box for next summer and have the best of both worlds.

Posted by Erfolg on 07/12/2013 12:14:06: I personally still use 35 and have no issues with it other than the potential for frequency clash. Phil Green makes a very relevant point, the benefit from 2.4 to my mind is the spread spectrum modulation. I also take the point that Phil has made with respect other users and the increase of usage on 2.4. It does seem to me that this is an area where the BMFA would serve its general RC members well by campaigning and actively seeking a band with the width for the sole usage of RC models. We should recognise that the purpose of our hobby is fun and pleasure, which we obtain from flying models. Safety is an issue which we should take seriously. It is arguable that 2.4 spread band technology has conceptually and actually achieved this desirable objective. Rather than the BMFA being hung up on CE marking, and misquoting what they mean. That is at the point of sale the equipment is compliant with EU regulations, and there is still an obligation of any user to ensure that the equipment when used is compliant, however obtained. The CE mark only indicates at the time of purchase it was compliant, hence many companies undertaking safety inspections on equipment on a recorded and regular basis. Far more benefit to members and the wider community would be gained from a dedicated spread spectrum band. It would be show us members that the BMFA is working towards future proofing the hobby, via a publicly visible campaign and not the interests of the modelling retail trade. In total agreement with what you say. But I feel that until such time as we get such a Band (and I do not know if 35mhz could be that band) we should continue to defend the only band we do have dedicated to our use. Roger

Rob here's an analogy it is not a very good one but I hope it sort of explains it. Imagine you are sat in an empty pub chatting to your mate you can hear each other perfectly. The pub starts to fill up and there are lots of others chatting away, you can still hear your mate because you brain is clever enough to filter out all the background noise so its just a background hum and concentrate on what your mate is saying. Then Motorhead start playing on the pub stage with there 100mega watt amps. Your brain is still trying to understand only what your mate is saying but the background noise is so powerfull your brain simply cannot filter the other noise out. This is sort of what swamping is to 2.4g Roger

Posted by Braddock, VC on 06/12/2013 23:06:42: In honesty, who gives a monkeys. You can agonise till you're blue in the teeth but 2.4 is a major step forwards and those that complain, imho, aren't worth worrying about. Grow up please. Or continue using 35 and don't whinge. FORUM I kind of thought the clue is in the title! I enjoy discussion on many subjects and toy aeroplanes is definitely one of them. In discussion sometimes you learn things and sometimes you help others to learn things. Whilst I am quite happy to be proved wrong (and often am) occasionally there are subjects where I feel I can give some thought provoking ideas. Most of the time I spend on forums I am simply reading threads and learning or enjoying the experiences others have took the time and trouble to relate. Now I can quite understand why people get passionate about what appear to others to be the minutia of a subject and this can appear to others to be really geeky and anal. I do struggle to understand why anyone continues to read discussions that the feel are not worth worrying about, or are so convinced their opinion is correct there is no more discussion to be had! Perhaps you could explain to me why you feel it is necessary to comment on a subject you feel so sure on without actually contributing to the debate! Apart from making derogatory comments, could I ask what extra information you feel your remarks have made to the debate? Did someone make you read what must of seemed to you like pages of drivel? Perhaps if you do not like the debate you could take your own advice and "not whinge" about those of us who think there is still a debate to be had. You are quite right I have never grown up and still have a childlike mind that questions things, including established orthodoxies. I can honestly say that I do not have a opinion that I feel cannot be challenged as long as it is done in a civil way without resulting to abuse. However I did read a book once by a chap called Plato who suggested that this was partly what Forums are for! Roger

Steve, not sure if your aware but there are lots of Bluetooth Audio Recievers you can plug into your amp. They start at about £20 on Amazon. Roger

Posted by Rob Jones 2 on 06/12/2013 18:38:59: Time will tell? The bell has already tolled for 35Mhz whether we like it or not! I don't think so,still lots of people using it and some people are reporting swamping on 2.4g. Remember 35mhz is still the only band exclusively for our use. There are lots and lots of others using 2,4g and some reportedly using illegal high power outputs, we just do not know is the truth. Being a pragmatist I prefer to hedge my bets! Roger One final thought nearly any 35mhz TX can be converted cheaply and easily to 2.4g, I am not sure if it can be done the other way around.

Hi Spikey, Not sure what your budget is but this I can recommend, a friend has one in his work shop and I think it has a really nice warm sound, almost analog in presentation. With the correct app you can control everything from your smart phone. Dennon Ceol Picalo

Oh dear you really are behind the times I think, didn't you know that cd's were rubbish and the industry thought so! Here's a link for you to one of the most successful company's in Britain who have been in the forefront of music technology for the last 30 years. Note the product line up, music streamers that are considered some of the best in the world. Check out the other products, is that turntables?! And their cd player which was considered by some to be the best ever made? Gone, finished with! a dead end technology! Yet vinyl still in there. Linn So in answer to your question, not twenty years time but NOW Some technology endure's and some falls by the way side. I do not know if 2,4g is an enduring technology or not, only time will tell. Roger the bonkers one! Edited By Bearair on 06/12/2013 18:23:58

Posted by Rob Jones 2 on 06/12/2013 15:25:19: Posted by Bearair on 06/12/2013 11:37:39: Posted by Rob Jones 2 on 05/12/2013 09:42:06: It is a pain for those who have invested a lot of money in 35mhz, but they are faced with the problem vinyl music collectors or video film collectors faced a few years back. My advice is try to sell now while there is still a market.2.4 has many advantages, the tiny Rxs, reliability, unique binding, short aerial,and increasing cheapness being most of them. This post did make be laugh, especially the analogy with vinyl music collectors! You make valid points Roger, but no-one can halt the march of progress. Betamax was better that VHS and was used professionally years after home users all used VHS.I know a lot of music buffs are bitter about CDs taking over from LPs.And I wish I had kept my Gran's old wind-up gramophone with the brass trumpet, it would be worth many hundreds now.The point I was making was one of pragmatism- 35 is on the way out, 2.4 is in, whether we like it or now. So now might be a good time to trade in, if someone wants a good price. I know there are collectors who bid for single channel Mcgregors etc, but that is not what the average parkflyer is interested in. I really cannot think of any old hi fi buffs around who are bitter about CDs taking over from LPs because they simply did not. CDs were a flash in the pan, Vinyl has endured. In ten years time no one will be using CDs. But they still will be using Vinyl. That was why I found your analogy using vinyl as an example of a superceded technology as you believe 35mhz to be, so amusing. 2.4g could turn out to be just another flash in the pan like cd's! We simply do not know. Obviously we also have a difference about what the word pragmatic means. I thought it meant dealing with things sensible, realistically and practically. If people have used a system for many years and found it reliable why rush to change it because of a theoretical advantage. IMHO no one knows what future technology is out there which might be released that will give huge advantages over 2.4g. Surely a pragmatist says I will stick with what has served me well and if I need to change for whatever reason I will assess the situation as an when it happens. I am not against new technology in anyway or 2.4g I use it myself but being a bit of a pragmatist I also use 35mhz and see no reason to stop using it. John do people really still use outdated technology like cd's in there cars? How quaint But you are of course quite correct, we really have never had it so good, with 2 systems to use and who knows what around the corner? Roger

Posted by Rob Jones 2 on 05/12/2013 09:42:06: It is a pain for those who have invested a lot of money in 35mhz, but they are faced with the problem vinyl music collectors or video film collectors faced a few years back. My advice is try to sell now while there is still a market.2.4 has many advantages, the tiny Rxs, reliability, unique binding, short aerial,and increasing cheapness being most of them. This post did make be laugh, especially the analogy with vinyl music collectors! I just sold my Linn Sondek LP 12 which I bought in 1982. I got £400 more than I paid for it and all this time it has been playing music better than any of the cd players which were going to replace it and make it obsolete.(admittedly there are some very high end cd players which came close) My record collection is worth many thousands, any of my Decca SXL records recorded in the sixties are worth at least a £10 and some £100. Nearly all these were bought from car boot sales, charity shops or most annoyingly (for the mates in question)their record collections which they were so eager to sell and replace with CD,s DAT,Mini Disc or any of the other technology's that have been and gone! Off course before that there was 8 track, cassettes etc. I bought a new turntable from AVID a company which did not even exsist when CDs were invented! But such is the enduring strength of vinyl there are more turntable manufactures now than ever before! And of course if some of the more modern music is your thing then you can buy it on vinyl still because most bands want there music to be heard on the best medium available and the only one which is likely to endure for another 100 years. I bet that you will not be able to buy a new MP3 or FLAC or whatever player in even 20 years time. I really pity the people who fall for the same hype every time and have to have the latest new thing, discarding perfectly good, tried and tested systems. You see just because you have a lot of money invested in an old technology it does not stop working just as well as it always has. And the only "pain" I suffered as a vinyl record collector was that of conscience( making so much money from people who sold theirs) but worry not I can live with it.! As for your advantages. 1. Tiny RX's yes in absolute terms there are some rxs that are smaller than I have ever seen 35mhz, but thats only an advantage if you need a really tiny rx and most do not. 2.Reliability, I think not. Unless you have some evidence other than anecdotal the jury is very much out, and as Percy says come back in 25 years! 3. Unique Binding. I presume you mean model match or the MPX equivalent. Yes I can see how if your the sort of person who cannot read the name of the model the TX is programmed for and then check that against the model your about to fly, this would be a great advantage. 4. Short aerial. Umm no short aerials have been available to 35mhz's users for years in both tx and rx form! The fact that most people chose not to use them indicates to me that people did not see them as an advantage. 5. Increasing cheapness, possibly but only if you stick with one manufacturer. In fact that to me is one of the big advantages of 35mhz. You did not have to "buy into a brand" If you had a JR tx and Futaba brought out a much better TX you did not have to replace all your old RXs for the TX to work them. There are advantages to 2.4g without a doubt but it does not make 35mhz obsolete in any way. I doubt anyone using 35mhz now will take your advice to sell since it makes no sense. Most people realise it is not an either or situation. Trust me, some people realise you can use both systems and enjoy the advantages both systems can offer. Roger

I predict the first use of these for parcel delivery will be illegal and involve small amounts of powders!. Roger

As usual its the monkey on the left who gets treated poorly and the middle class intelectual who makes a theory. Give him long enough and he will be off to wigan pier! Edited By Bearair on 01/12/2013 10:01:56 Edited By Bearair on 01/12/2013 10:07:18

Hi dan t9hobbysport have them in stock at 19.99. Good company to deal with. Roger Sorry not at home and cant work out how to do a link from this tablet thing!