David Hardaker

Some more names may come to mind after the first flight !!

Hi Sam I'm guessing you mean TS of HDMAC ? If so I'll see what I can do. You'd think a real Yorkshireman would respond to the sight of folding money! I'm intrigued by which kit it may be - there were kits by Tim Moore, a long time before Dudley Patterson asked me about kitting the Lightning. Of course Dud's version used an upright engine and hidden pipe. I've still got Lightnings #2 and #4 although not kit built.. Might see you at The Whams soon. Regards David

Hi Lindsay Maybe someone will fess up to faffing with my design !! (apart from when the original Lightning was kitted by Flair as the "Super" Lightning.) I also notice the anhedral tailplane has been replaced by a flat one. I see there's plenty of comment about F3A being a rich man's sport. Well it certainly wasn't when I was competing, and hence the Classic association having been formed now - a very good idea. Building the model was part of the spirit of the competition. Building a really straight model was even harder. Computer tx's can't really sort a twisted airframe ! I have a few electric models but the thought of an electric F3A model really goes against the grain, all the pitfalls of ESC's and very pricey batteries. I gather noise levels have been reduced by electric though. But I'd go for a proper engine any day ! Best of luck David

Lindsay The nearest fuselage looks like a Flair Super Lightning, but the wing doesn't look as if it belongs to a Lightning.. (I never used airbrakes on any of my F3A models) David

Sunday 7th we saw the Lancs over Brighouse at 15-15 hrs en-route Holmfirth. They came quite close to our flying field at Clifton, so we got a grandstand view as the pair turned south towards Holmfirth. What a lovely noise those 8 Merlins make

Peter Thank you for your comprehensive reply. Many similar thoughts. I forgot to mention the (alas, now gone) "Builder of the Model" rule. That would cause a few ripples if it was to be re-instituted. For myself, I always knew that a well designed and accurately built model was the answer to consistently good aerobatics. I recall test flying my #3 Lightning. As soon as I flew it I knew I was on to something special. It flew as if on rails ! I used it in the '77 and '78 Nats. Using an off-the-peg model wouldn't have given me that much satisfaction. In our club the BMFA Achievement Scheme has fired up quite a few of the lads, and learning how to present manoeuvres in an orderly fashion is a new challenge. The benefit is a more disciplined approach to their flying, which improves airmanship. I do quite a bit of mentoring and I find it very rewarding. I wish I'd had someone to guide me when I was learning ! Keep up the good work ! David H

Peter I agree with Graeme's view that the Irvine Tutor 40 is more than capable of doing a "B" certificate flight. I've had one for a while and it makes a good all-round fun model. It also proves that to progress in aerobatics you don't need a fancy aircraft. (not that I'd fly my Tutor in an F3A comp ! ) Flying F3A needs dedication, determination, and plenty of practice. And a place to fly, which tends to not be the average club field. Certainly not ours. I did for a time go through a stage of driving from Bradford to RAF Rufforth to practice. Maybe 3 flights, no-one else on the airfield.. More than once I'd asked myself "why am I doing this ?" because it wasn't always a fun experience. Being around other like-minded people is a help. F3A as it now exists seems light years from how it used to be in the late '70's. ("nobbut a bit of fun", as Geoff Franklin used to say ) Has progress and expense put F3A out of reach for a lot of would-be competitors ? David

Stevo When I was younger (and piano wire really was piano wire) we used to make all our own u/c's. It's not difficult. Have a go ! Edited By David H on 26/08/2014 07:19:57

I wouldn't expect to do a good soldering job without using flux. Fluxite, to be exact. Ok on piano wire, tin plate, bowden cable or brass. And I'm not a plumber !

Bob Any clue as to location for the test flight ?? From the Wiki picture of the F9 it looks as if it will be an interesting exercise ! Electric power is definitely an advantage with this one. D   Edited By David H on 14/07/2014 19:21:55

Richard Older modellers will remember the advice "test fly over long grass" so do the same. Small models can be very lively, be warned ! Cg between 25% and 33% root chord, from l/e of wing.. But at least you're on Mode 1 so that's a help ! d

When is a Lightning not a Lightning ??! Martin is right. Mine all used sidewinder engines and low-mounted tuned pipe. The wings were foam-cored covered in 3/32 balsa. Lurking an a cupboard I have the original Mk3 plan which copies very well. I can't claim to have "designed" the Lightning, I just worked on the basis " if it looks right ! " My design inspiration actually came from Tony Bonetti's Troublemaker, with which he did a blistering demo flight at the Doylestown World Champs in 1971 David Hardaker     Edited By David H on 27/06/2014 09:16:45

Re the tray idea, I have tried it but took an instant dislike to it. I fly Mode 1 fingers+thumbs. No-one (so far) has mentioned anything about the size of one's hands ! I can hand - hold a tx and get full stick movement with no problems. I don't feel as if I'm missing anything. D

The brain cells are working again..! Up = high High rate aileron for vertical rolls upward, all other flying done on low (normal) rate. High rate elevator for spins, all other flying on low rate. Down = low Pet hate is all rates on one switch. What a silly idea ! I often set rates at 90% high and 70% low just as a quick aid to help set the throws on a new model. IE you may find it needs high aileron but low elevator. Easy to do with split rates. None of the above has owt to do with 3D "flying", to use the term loosely.   Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 07/06/2014 10:41:37

Hi Martin What are these rate switch thingies you are on about ?? D

John I may have missed it, but no-one seems to have suggested having a word face to face with the offending pilot to hear his side of the situation and his reasoning. He may be under the illusion that everyone is highly impressed with his flying. If he is still oblivious, THEN go down the official complaint route. CAA take a very hard line on offenders and fines are substantial, as was recently seen when a quad did some low-flying and unwisely took some pics of a sensitive target.

Hi Phil The picture reminds me that I had an RCS Guidance System tx that I lent to a friend... Said friend eventually gave my tx to a "certain person" (who we both know), who collects old gear for his clubnight demos. Grrr !

Avtur It's uncanny how similar are our memories of early radio and all that went with it. I can still remember our journeys into Lancashire to Roland Scott's shop. There was gear in there that I could only dream of owning. Genuine American stuff, like Orbit, PCS and Kraft. I've a mate who had a 10 channel F+M Midas/Matador combo in a Beachcomber with a McCoy 60 on it. I used to get a go with it every once in a while. Prior to multi I did single channel which was all super-regen. Best rx I had was a home-built UK receiver made from parts from Harrogate Radio. Being in Bradford, the trip to Harrogate was only 40 minutes and we delighted in the service at Harrogate Radio. The owner was called Ron, and he had a huge vocabulary of swear words we'd never heard before ! Best performing single channel models were APS Timber, Charger, Pal Joey, and several o/d models. I had to make do with Fred Rising escapements, clockwork, sequential and compound. We used to put a Burgess microswitch on the tx in place of the plastic cheepo ones (they didn't stand the quick-blip punishment) My pal had a Bonner Varicomp in his Matador, but we weren't as rich as that. I also remember a Soarcerer soarer that I made a Mighty Midget powered compound escapement for. So no running out of turns (for once) I reckon it's 50 years since I flew single channel. But I know I could still hack it. RC'ers today don't know they're born !! David Edited By David H on 27/04/2014 18:50:11

BEB I'll support the simplest is best theory. I was given an electric pusher delta that has a flat plate wing made from 6 mm Depron. It flies well and has barely any up elevon. Neither has it any reflex. When I put my gear in it I did ensure that there was some "up" elevon but my guesstimate was far too much, and had to be reduced. CG position was quite a faff to arrive at, and a too-rearward CG made for a wild ride. Otherwise the model is very forgiving to large elevator inputs, and has a very wide speed range. Aerobatics + short landings are no problem.

Hi Peter I have an opposite view about doing a negative flick in the avalanche. Positive is easier to do as you already have some up applied. All that's needed is an extra bit of up and rudder, and round she goes. Slightly reduce the elevator once the flick has started to avoid losing too much speed. Stopping a flick is all about timing. I find it odd that a pitch up or down prior to any flick is a pre-requisite, as you mention earlier. After all is said, a flick-roll happens when ONE wing is stalled and the other isn't. So why bother to stall them both in the first place !??! David

Peter No I've only reduced elevator application once the flick has begun. This is more applicable to models with higher wing loadings and what works for one model doesn't always suit another. You "learn" the model . Nothing I fly is set up for 3D, so I have no excessive control throws to contend with, or get rid of ! D

Peter Not mentioned so far is the fact that once a flick is started, it is possible to reduce the elevator input and still maintain the flick. Hanging on to full up or down just generates drag you don't want, kills forward speed and makes it less possible to fly cleanly away. So I have found... Also, gyroscopics play their part. Positive r/h flicks are aided by precession (normal rotation engine). David

Model Shop, Leeds, stock epoxiglass board in various sizes. 01132 646117

Bear I agree with your reasoning. Also the rudder will have more authority when inverted, as it's in less-disturbed airflow... But you'll not find washout on a true pattern model with a symmetrical wing. d

LHF I'm guessing that you're wanting to make more precise control inputs - lengthening the sticks may solve this ? But are the control throws OK in the first place ? Commonly I'll hear the reason that a model has been set up with excessive throws "so I can get myself out of trouble" ! Invariably, too much throw makes for a lumpy ride and causes more problems than its worth.. I fly finger + thumb, both sticks, and don't use a tray or neckstrap. Standard DX6i sticks are fine. d