John Howes

I'm at the Rc Hotel right now where i've been flying the Acro. compared to the Artizan (which I have at Home) I would say it's more twitchy on full rates, but faster and more capable if you have the skill. Also, apart from axial rolls, the Wot4 Foamie is just the same (as confirmed by Antonis the 3D expert Here who gave us a master class with the wot4) They're all good planes whichever you go for.

Posted by Rich2 on 11/09/2015 13:33:09: Posted by MattyB on 11/09/2015 13:17:36: Why is this a problem now? I guess it is because modelling (or at least getting to the stage where you can have a go at actual flying) has got much easier. In the past there was lots of complexity and barriers to entry - newcomers had to build a flyable model from a kit or plan which took time, patience, skill and normally some tutelage from a parent or mentor. This meant those entering the hobby normally had a practical bent and were by nature fairly patient and pragmatic in general. It also meant they were starting out from within a club environment in the vast majority of cases where they could soak up information from experienced modellers; going it alone was just too difficult and the chances of success were very slim. Fast forward to today, and most of those barriers are gone. Modern radios and the ARTFs, PNPs and BNFs that go with them are cheap, well made (in the main) and reliable. Electric flight is safe, clean, lightweight and (mostly) quiet. Gyro stabilisation has meant active safety aids can be added to fixed wing aircraft to make "go it alone" self trainers a viable proposition, and of course they have also opened up a whole new class of aircraft in terms of the multirotors. Social media and forums provide a wealth of information to newcomers when they get stuck. Finally the majority of working age people are now time poor, making the ARTF/PNP/BNF pathway even more tempting. All except the absence of usable free time are (IMO) good things that can be used to help build a healthy future for our sport. I agree and disagree. I got into it 35 years ago because I enjoyed modelling and the challenge of flying - more of a challenge than it is today with the technology as you point out - and I enjoyed learning myself, by trial and error. I even taught a mate to fly. I agree with the time poor comment. I definitely haven't got time to travel and spend all day at a club - most of my flying is a quick hour here and there. This is a hobby, and people should be left to enjoy it however they chose (with insurance ). People will either be sensible by nature or not, and you cannot change that. But there is already too much H&S in this world and this hobby doesn't need it. perhaps that's the problem with clubs Edited By Rich2 on 11/09/2015 13:36:06 Edited By Rich2 on 11/09/2015 13:37:34 Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/09/2015 14:56:41 Thanks Rich! Finally at least one other flyer I agree 100% with. It's a fun hobby.

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 10/09/2015 23:34:37: Dear John Howes, without wishing to be classed as one of the "boring brigage" I would just observe that by an act of Parliament there is an instrument called the Air Navigation Order (ANO) that governs the use of all the airspace in the UK. In case you were unaware of this, there is no such thing as private airspace, the ANO covers you as soon as you get airborne with a model or full size aircraft. The "rules for rules" sake may be so but most are merely a rehash of what the legal position is as regards operating in the UK's national airspace as set out by an act of Parliament. Clubs make rules which if you wish to belong to that Club you have to follow. The BMFA makes recommendations provides helpful interpretation of the ANO and uses the combined wisdom in the model aircraft world to develop recommendations that improve safety for all and that keep you within the law. The law requires that the pilot of a model or full size aircraft must be confident that they can complete their flight safely before taking off. This is as much to protect you as the general public. If you cause an accident with your park flyer e.g. a small child loses the sight of an eye after being hit in the face following a loss of control due to either pilot or equipment error, it is you who can be sued for damages, which in such a case, could be substantial particularly if it can be shown that you have ignored "the rules". As the law states "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Thanks for proving my point

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 10/09/2015 23:05:43: So that treatment isn't from the BMFA then. Judging by your comments regarding the BMFA news it appears you haven't looked at it. Free Flight? Really? That's the front page? Wow!

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 10/09/2015 14:19:10: Posted by John Howes on 10/09/2015 13:12:14: Posted by Mr Brown Cat on 08/09/2015 07:20:05: The stuffy "rules are rules" approach of the BMFA is a massive turn off, and the treatment of parkflyers and Quad flyers as some kind of temporary annoyance is patronising and short sighted. Can you give an example of this treatment? I get this treatment for example any time I suggest teaching yourself. Because it's easy. The combined might of the "boring brigade" decends to call me an idiot. Coming here to seek ideas and help others, I often leave very disalusioned with the so called experts on the forum. They often seem more keen to point out thier knowledge of the BMFA hand book than offer any encouragement. Some parts of this forum are good, but the new flyer sections are patronising and full of rule sprouting trolls. I fly on a large Park in Worcester where I've met loads of great flyers, happy to give the support and advice seriously lacking in here. Most are fans of flitetest, a site dedicated to real modern Park flyers, unlike the BMFA magazine which dedicates page after page to F3A, and little Jonny who just got his A-cert (big deal) and dire warnings to drone flyers. Where's the fun?

Posted by Mr Brown Cat on 08/09/2015 07:20:05: OP I agree, although I think your observations can be aimed also at this forum, and most of the paper publications. They're about 20 years behind the curve. I get my instruction from the internet, excellent sites like flitetest for example. My instructor is the WWW. He doesn't charge and never answers back. The stuffy "rules are rules" approach of the BMFA is a massive turn off, and the treatment of parkflyers and Quad flyers as some kind of temporary annoyance is patronising and short sighted. The majority of model flying is now in this form, so the concentration on massive gliders and F3A seems quaint to many new to the hobby like myself. If these organisations don't adapt quickly, they'll wither and die.

Posted by Steveflys on 08/09/2015 19:10:11: Training??? As safety officer for our club I would have taken a very dim view of you turning up unsupervised for your first flight. I would suggest that you were very lucky to get away with a broken prop and not possibly have hit someone or something. I certainly don't want to quash your enthusiasm as it's a brilliant hobby, but it is fraught with danger and has to be treated with respect. I urge you to get some training, you'll really benefit from it.f Good luck for the future. Yes you've been a very naughty boy Now write the following line a thousand times: "Polystyrene is very dangerous" Grabs bag of popcorn and sits back to enjoy the backlash.....

I can recommend the Parkzone Artizan It has Flight stabilisation for windy conditions, and is very docile on low rates. Comes as a Bnf if you have a Spektrum TX Only thing I would do is fit bigger wheels for grass landing.

Posted by John Lee on 25/08/2015 13:24:02: Early next year the BMFA plan to introduce a new proficiency certificate which will permit the use of stability systems such as SAFE & AS3X. ... just doing so with an inherently stable model or on a buddy box. Firstly, about darn time the BMFA woke up to the 21st century. Secondly, when would you want an inherently unstable model? Sounds more like a poor design. Safe tech. and AS3X are making the hobby more accesible and I think the use of such aids should be encouraged. After all, few drivers would consider buying a car without ABS, SRS, traction control, etc.

Just stick a bit of blue tak on the CofG When you pass, just pull it off and throw it at the examiner. Rules are like politicians - best when ignored

The Efilte Apprentice S is excellent although I think it's a touch large and heavy for a first plane. I'd probably go with an Easystar or Bixler, as they're cheaper (well the Bixler is!), lighter (if you hit someone!) and more crash proof. A model like this is ideal for learning orientation. The Apprentice is a great next model, although TBH I only use the beginer mode to look at my watch (Engage Beginner, plane flies straight, look at watch!). The great thing is that it's very docile, easy to launch (fit some massive wheels from HK) and easy to land. It'll do rolls, loops and even inverted with a lot of up elevator and air speed. My Apprentice has now become an action camera platform fro my SJCam M10, and works very well. I also wouldn't bother with the DX5e. The DX6i will do you well for years to come. For a good second battery look up the Turnigy 3300mAH from HK. It's a bit heavier, but fits fine, and a fraction of the price of the EFlite one. Joining the BMFA is worth it just for the insurance. Nothing else (The monthly mag is like something from the salvation army! )

Posted by Percy Verance on 05/08/2015 13:52:49: ..... you can't just "find" a nice big field. Page 7 of the BMFA handbook does advise getting permission from a landowner. The upshot here (presumably), is that you may compromise the validity of your insurance if you chose not to, and something untoward happened........... .... enjoy promoting the hobby and helping others to enjoy it as much as I do.......... Posted by Dave Hopkin on 05/08/2015 17:26:52: No-ones mentioned the other benefits of being in a club - the learning curve is so much easier, advice readily available and of course the social side - personally I find it quite boring flying on my own and much prefer the banter and ribbing that goes on in the group dynamic of a club I promise this is my last comment on the subject (for now). As a BMFA member you'll of course know that the only stipulation in the insurance is that you are a BMFA member. There are absolutely no caveats. I'm a park flyer and as the name implies I fly on parks. I'm joined on this particular park by around 10 other flyers, all BMFA members (They're obviously all idiots). Why don't I join a club? Simple I don't do clubs! I detest clubs and absolutely hate the idea of driving for miles to be lectured and bored rigid by "banter" I have no interest in, to get 30 minutes of flying. I'm social when I want to be, especially with flyers who come to the park. I'm getting a bit sick and tired of being told on this antiquated forum that I "Must join a club". If that's your thing fine, I would never tell anyone not to join a club, so I get very annoyed when I'm told I'm stupid if I don't. I too want others to enjoy this hobby and I've taken a young RC car driver under my wing with some tuition. My inspiration is sites like flitetest and videos on youtube, it's time some of the "45+ years" crowd understood there are now other perfectly viable routes into RC flying, and for some of us, "clubs" are a massive turn off. And as for the patronising posts claiming that well I can fly, I probably can't fly properly! I was told by one of the guys at the park, a BMFA examiner, that I would walk the "A" cert and was almost up to "B" if I could be bothered to take them - which I can't. One of the guys at the park is an amazing 3D flyer - he's never had a single lesson. Impossible! Rant over - I need to lie down in a dark room.

Posted by Phil Green on 03/08/2015 19:12:39: Dont be coerced into anything you're not comfortable with Paul. You dont have to use what your instructor uses and you dont have the use the same mode as everyone else. You dont have to use a buddy lead, in fact you dont even have to have an instructor. You dont have to learn on what is now commonly known as a 'trainer' model, there are much easier options. Some seem to revel in making the whole toy plane thing seem more difficult than it really is! /2p Phil About time someone said what I was thinking better than I could! There seem to be a lot of guys on the forum who think model flying is some kind of complicated voodoo and you can only fly once trained by a Jedi master. I taught myself starting with an Easystar, and I'm now onto an Artizan. No certificate in site, and no intention of getting one. Nothing has ever "ended in tears" and it's great fun not just to fly but to teach yourself. There's so much resource online these days that you really don't need some wizened anorak giving you the "in my day lad" speech, and waxing lyrical about balsa wood and tissue paper. Get yourself an inexpensive foam starter plane (I slightly disagree with above - A high wing or glider type is best), do some research online, join the BMFA just for the insurance, find a nice big field away from houses and roads, and just fly. If you crash? just laugh, fix the plane and try again. It really isn't that hard.

"Balsa?, are you living in the middle ages?"

Second hand Spektrum DX6i from ebay around £50 The receivers are cheaper than any of the other manufacturers, and there are some good clones out there (Orange RX) etc. to keep the costs even lower. You might decide to be "different" and go with something else, but you'll just end up out of pocket and with the same features as the DX6i. And getting the same model as the Instructor? Really? Then you'll just want to make sure he's not a Multiplex fan unless you plan on re-mortgaging your house to go flying.

I've sent you a message with my contact details. Give me a call if you want to come down to see Park flying in action, and have a go with my old Easystar ​​ ​

I fly foamies on a large park in Worcester. There are currently arround 7 to 8 of us flying pretty regular, most nights when there's little breeze and no rain.

Posted by simon barr on 25/05/2015 10:08:17: The CG isn't critical... if it is too far forward you will need up trim, and if it is too far back, the model will become a bit more lively. Get it around where it should be, and all will be good. Thanks for your help Simon. Sometimes it's just good to talk over these things with someone more experienced. I've just been out for some test flights, trying the battery in different places and adjusting the trim. It seems that (a) the battery was slightly too far forward, but only by 5mm or so, and (b) I needed to dial in a few turns of up trim (so small you can't actually see any difference). Eureka! No longer nose heavy! It's quite difficult to tell if she's flying dead flat as it was quite windy when I just went out (in fact she might be very slightly tale heavy!!), At least I know how to sort things now. Still nosing over on landing but I think that's due to the fairly long grass on the playing field. I've put bigger wheels on my Appentice to help, so I'll be doing the same with the Artizan. Cheers!

Posted by Alan Jarvis on 25/05/2015 09:05:00: I have been flying my Artizan for almost a year without problem. I use 3 makes of 2200 mah batteries and need to push them as far forward as possible to balance and it fly's just fine. I will say the balance point seems to be very critical and took me quite a few flights to get it right. Ah. That's good to know. Sounds like I just need a bit of trial and error. Both my previous planes have flown flat straight out the box so it's the first time I'm needing to do any work

Posted by simon barr on 25/05/2015 08:11:25: I don't know why you are having so much trouble... Even before I upgraded the motor, it was easy to adjust and get the balance correct, and it flew very well.... And I have never had it nose over on landing.... Me neither! I have tried flying the Artizan in the Phoenix flight sim where it also appears to be nose heavy requiring either piles of up-elevator or masses of trim for level flight. Does it need a lot of up elevator trim? I don't want to compromise the aerobatic performance.

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 24/05/2015 12:47:46: According to the manual the CofG for the Artizan should be 3 inches back from the leading edge at the root The first thing to do is get the CoG correct - Where is the balance point with the batteries fitted in the position you have them in? I think the manual is wrong. The CG is approximately where the manual says, but the plane is very nose heavy and just wants to dive. It also noses over on landing. It's trimmed just fine. I think the battery should be on top of the wing rather than pushed forward near the motor. I just wondered if anyone else has had this issue. In essence I think the CG should be more like 4 to 5 inches back. I'm going add a velcro strip inside so I can experiment with battery position. It's a real shame, as otherwise it flys really well - very aerobatic. Maybe they upgraded the motor after the manual was written, or didn't factor in the weight of the ferrite tube on some of the wires. Who Knows.

Posted by simon barr on 24/05/2015 12:32:57: My Artizan doesn't seem nose heavy, and flies well. My lipo (2250) sits just over the wing leading edge. I have upgraded the motor, but, if anything, it's heavier that the original, and did not cause any cg problems. I did, however, change the plastic spinner for a Multiplex foam one and move the ESC from under the motor to inside the battery area, which helped reduce the nose weight. So your Artizan is fine ..... because you completely rearranged the internal design! lol My Artizan was a BNF with RX already installed approximately where you've put it, but the manual shows the battery pushed far forward ahead of the wing. I think that's wrong. I intend to do some experiments moving the Battery back.

Hi, I wasn't sure which topic to post this in so apologies if it's the wrong one. I've not been a flyer for long and I've just moved up to a Parkzone Artizan from an Eflite Apprentice. The first flight (today) went ok - no crash but the plane is very nose happy. The elevator is mechanically trimmed for neutral and I've pulled the battery back as far as possible (I'm using a 2200mAH pack but it's the same weight as the recommended Eflite 1800mAH). The CG seems to be in the wrong place. Should I add a lot of mechanical up trim to the Elevator or am I missing something. Anyone else have a similar experience? Ironically the Artizan is also nose heavy in the Phoenix flight sim. Cheers!

The wings do come off the Apprentice but I agree it's still a big model. Let us know how it goes with the Deltaray, I might like the BNF if it's any good.

I was going to get the Delta Ray but instead went for the Eflite Apprentice with Safe Tech. Although it's a bit more expensive, it's far more powerful and will fly in more wind. It's quite large and easy to see in the air. A range of aerobatics are possible. Highly recommended. I'm thinking of moving on to the Artizan next year for better aerobatics. I also taught myself by reading articles and using you tube. I've never crashed, and can believe it's pretty easy to teach yourself, especially using safe tech. I hate the idea of going to a club. Rules and tests. Yuk!