Kim Taylor

Hi Cymaz Just for my own interest, did you open up the slot for the tailplane to the rear of the fuselage, or did it come like that? Mine had a letter box style slot, i.e. closed fore and aft, not like yours (and the destruction booklet), which made it a pain to get the glue into the joint between the fuselage and tailplane without getting it all over the covering (and my fingers, ....................and trousers...........................and hair). I've been doing mine for 2 - 3 months now and I reckon you'll be ready to fly before me. My excuse is my daughter having a baby - only been able to get to the flying field once since, the wife and I are spending so much time at daughters house. Kim

I would say you need a bigger / higher pitch prop. The max revs you'll see (in theory) would be around 7500, so to give equivalent go to a 46 ish glow you'd need to prop it up. Bit of trial and error prop swapping, using your watt meter to check the relative current draw should get you to where you want to be. I think!!! Kim sorry - already been said, beat me to it. Edited By Kim Taylor on 02/08/2016 12:51:48

Hi Cymaz, I'm just finishing off one of these, electric powered. My elevator pushrod had cotton or similar whipping around the end, reinforcing the wood to metal joint which yours seems to be missing. I was tempted to replace it with a carbon tube and may still do so if I'm unhappy with it in practice. Mine had no ply reinforcing of the ailerons, but it would have been an improvement as they've crushed a bit. Do you think any two of these kits is the same? I wonder, having looked at various build threads. Anyway, I'll be following with interest. Kim Edited By Kim Taylor on 31/07/2016 22:49:40

Posted by Tony Read 2 on 29/07/2016 13:33:26: The persons who want to hush this up or take the 'softly softly' approach remind me of the mayor in Jaws. The trouble is, just like the shark, these things can and do come back to bite you. Better for some mavericks to lose their site (if that's what happens) rather than someone lose their sight when hit be an errant model. Just my thoughts. Not suggesting hush up or even softly softly but a proportionate reaction. How about the BMFA local area getting pro active and attending the site (it seems to be well known to some on here) to monitor and advise those flyers (whether BMFA members or not) who are being silly / dangerous. This way, the BMFA could demonstrate to the authorities (and to us) that they are 'fit for purpose' in respect of upholding flying standards and ensuring safety of the public and the flyers. I'm not meaning to have a go at the BMFA btw when I wrote fit for purpose, just couldn't think of another way of putting it!! Kim

Posted by Phil 9 on 29/07/2016 12:10:46: knocking the top off the mound in an over full portaloo so you can sit down That's a picture I won't be able to get out of my head for a while!!!

Posted by Phil 9 on 29/07/2016 09:57:31: Posted by John Soper on 29/07/2016 08:59:13: What a shame that it has come to this, a public airing of model flyers highlighting the negative issues with a bunch of guys on the south coast doing their best to have some fun and encourage youngsters to take an interest in the hobby. But here we have a number of anonymous forum members hiding behind their usernames acting as judge, jury and executioner and probably having these guys flying site taken away from them by reporting it to the local council. I thought the idea was to encourage fellow flyers to improve their flying skills and not to condemn them to the point of closing them down. If you had an issue then contact them, after all they have both Facebook and Twitter therefore not anonymous like you are. John (Midlands Gliding) this is a discussion form where people can discuss and share there views. This particular discussion was sparked by very public videos on youtube . but judge jury and executioner can not be the case as an anonymous (as you put it) forum post has no authority it is just an opinion. If you can not accept any criticism then maybe you should not post videos for anyone to see Edited By Phil 9 on 29/07/2016 10:10:26 I think he was referring to the email to the council by Mr Boogaloo, not the forum discussion. This truly is making me wonder whether I want to be involved with this, the supposed 'friendly forum'. Surely a word in their collective 'shell like' by the BMFA would have been the responsible way forward. Kim sad day dept.

Hi David I don't think it is, but on the other hand - could this be linked to the well documented hiccup on this kit whereby the fin isn't long enough to touch the tail plane to which it should be glued. I'm in the process of building (assembling?) one of these converted to electric and I had to glue an additional 2 or 3 mm on the bottom of the fin so that it touched the tail plane when assembled. Just a thought Kim

+ 1 for the Apprentice. Very easy to fly in beginner mode, but I would suggest for light winds only. Only slightly less so in intermediate, a bit more authority in roll and pitch but it won't go inverted. In 'expert' it can do whatever you want, but be aware that it doesn't like strong winds (although I've flown mine in up to 25mph, it 'aint pretty) and of course you can't do the A test unless you swap out the receiver. Kim Edited By Kim Taylor on 01/07/2016 13:38:18

Posted by David Soper on 23/06/2016 18:33:30: Hi I have been flying the Apprentice 15e for a few months,.................................................................................................................................................................................... we can hear the servos constantly working when AS3x is enabled. Can the reciever in the E Flight Apprentice be programmed to disable the gyros? Hi again David, As I previously posted, I fitted an AR610 which I got cheap from SMC. It certainly makes it harder work in gusty conditions (not having the AS3X) but it's manageable. Be careful when you swap the receiver out to check the control orientation - the AR610 gives reversed aileron movement compared to the std. RX. Guess how I found out!!! Fixed and back in the air since, but very embarrassing at the time - I won't do that again! Kim

If the throttle is closed, it must be pulling air in from somewhere - maybe the sealing ring between carb & crankcase or around the throttle spindle perhaps. Kim

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 19/05/2016 10:17:04: You can also add a wash of glue through the fin slot to form a fillet on the inside iirc. Yes, I was going to try to do this as well. Also, forgot to say earlier, I've already been told about reinforcing the u/c plate - I've got some fibreglass tissue on hand, and I'll use some epoxy to hold it all together. Kim Edited By Kim Taylor on 19/05/2016 10:44:42

Thanks for all the feedback and advice - I appreciate it. In answer to the various points raised, yes I have trimmed the covering away from the areas to be glued. The model is to be electric powered, but I take on board the point regarding the nature of a cyano joint, so I will get some thin epoxy and work / wick this into the joint. You never know, I may yet decide to go back to glow at a future date (returning to the hobby after a 30 year break - where did that time go!!) Kim

Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 18/05/2016 19:17:40: I had the same issue so I put it in, used cyano on the bottom and thinned epoxy on the top. Its not come off yet! Thanks Jon On balance, I think I'll go with this. I'll also try to get a fillet of epoxy on the inner fus wall / tailplane joint via the slot the fin goes in to. The fin will also glue to the centre of the tailplane within the structure, which will add strength (once I've modded the fin, so that it's the right size - another error in the kit which has been there since the year dot!!) Kim

Posted by ChrisB on 18/05/2016 19:25:39: Personally I'd avoid cyano as it tends to make the wood brittle. I used epoxy. I smeared thin 24hr epoxy on the 4 'mounting' points and then cleaned any excess off with meths. Chris - I hear what you're saying, but in this situation, I don't see that there will be enough (any?) glue left on the structure where it needs to be once the tailplane is pushed into place. Kim

Hi to all I'm currently building (assembling) a WOT4 XL, as per the thread title. I'm currently looking at the tailplane fixing stage. The destructions specify the use of epoxy to fix the tailplane, which is shown located in an open ended slot, meaning the tailplane itself is slid into position from the back of the fuselage. On my kit, the slots for the tailplane are letterbox type (i.e. not an open end). If I try to use epoxy, all that will happen is that it'll get smeared all over my shiny covering as I push the tailplane through from one side to the other. What do you think would be the most appropriate method of glueing the tailplane? I was thinking of locating the tailplane, then wicking in some cyano on each of the four 'bearing' surfaces. Or maybe there's something more suitable? On a wider note, would it really be too much to ask for the instructions to match the reality of the kit, rather than leaving it to the hapless builder to make their own method up? There must be at least half a dozen discrepancies on this kit, the major ones being the above, and the firewall not being fitted with captive nuts (as per the book of words), As it happens, this does me a favour, but the principle stands, once you start having to drill, modify and 'do your own thing' it ceases to be ARTF. Rant over! Kim

Posted by AndyD on 06/05/2016 22:13:49: never tried pegasus but just looked at their site and seems pretty good. Ditto - I've got them bookmarked for future reference Kim

As per the title, after a lot of deliberation I finally decided on a WOT4 XL artf, powered by a suitable electric setup. Did the usual 'tinternet search for prices, etc. and placed the relevant orders - all with well known retailers, who I won't name. Firstly I heard from the motor / esc supplier - despite confirming my order and taking payment, it turns out that neither item was in stock, no alternatives offered, so the order was cancelled (by them) and money refunded. Four days after the order was placed for the airframe, again confirmed and payment taken, I had heard nothing more, so rang the retailer (not the same one as above). Seems they have none in stock and none are likely to be available from Ripmax before the end of June at the earliest. No further explanation was offered and they seemed quite surprised when I cancelled the order and asked for a refund! So I've had to back track and source alternative suppliers, which of course meant that I've had to double order from two other suppliers, incurring extra carriage costs. So the good news is that everything I ordered from Hobbyking has arrived and looks ok, and thanks to Steve Webb Models the airframe and motor are now on their way - It's cost a few pounds more, but they seem to be on the ball so far. On a separate but related matter, Hobbyking have virtually no stock of larger sized outrunners in any warehouse - is this normal or have I just hit an unfortunate 'glitch' in supply? Kim Edited By Kim Taylor on 06/05/2016 20:44:15

My advice for what it's worth would be to forget about the panic switch and develop your own reactions to get you out of unusual situations, Particularly if you're being 'buddied', it's best not to assume there's a 'get out of jail free' button - your next 'plane won't have it!! I'm hoping to get out with my Apprentice over the weekend, now fitted with a non SAFE receiver, although looking at the weather forecast for the south coast, I'm not optomistic. I've flown mine in anything between 10 - 25+ mph winds, and although it will handle it, it's not pretty, I'm hoping that with the conventional receiver, and plenty of simulator time, I'll be able to use the Apprentice long enough to convert to an Acro Wot or Calmato, without the need for a 'conventional' trainer as well. For it's purpose, it's a good 'plane, but it does have limitations, as do (I guess) most 'foamies'. Kim Edited By Kim Taylor on 09/04/2016 00:00:41

Hi Kevin. I've got an AR610 coming from SMC as they've got them on offer for £25 at the moment. I figured it would be better for when can afford to upgrade my transmitter. Hopefully try it out this weekend if the weather plays ball. I'm also going to switch the 'expo' on and give it a try - I'll report back with my findings. Kim

I'm having similar issues, if the wind is strong (which it always seems to be at our club field). I find that keeping some power on and basically pushing it down is the only way it'll land. They do fly really well, but in a strong wind they are more than a bit floaty and very prone to balooning upwards when turning in to wind (when used with the 'safe' setting to minimum). Mine was particularly flighty yesterday in a 15mph crosswind!! I've just ordered a 'normal' receiver to put in mine to see if that makes it any better, or whether the only answer is to replace it with a heavier (wood) model or just accept it's a bit of a shambles in the wind. Must also point out that I'm by no means an expert pilot, so take any / all of the above with caution. Kim

Thanks for trying that link out. Guess there's a problem with the server the websites hosted on - perhaps needs a shilling put in the meter!! Kim

I've been trying to get on Mr Foss' website for a few days now with no success. www.chrisfoss.co.uk Anyone else having problems or is it just me? Kim Edited By Kim Taylor on 27/03/2016 16:44:36

Putting aside all of the other arguments, it would seem to me that the new test would have more value if there was a simple upgrade path to the A cert by the holder doing just the flying bit when they change to a suitable model. As has been said both on here and by the BMFA the test is identical - the only difference is the model you turn up with. May encourage more people to take the 'A Light' if it has some longer term benefit. Kim

I had my first flights for what must be 31 years today, having recently joined the Brighton Radio Flying Club. Turned into quite a blustery morning, not ideal for my Eflite Apprentice foamy, but it coped really well, once my brain fade had cleared and I figured out that the trainer switch was in the wrong position. Interestingly (and confusingly) the 'sense' of the switch is reversed from its operation when using the tx with my Phoenix simulator. Sorted it now and reversed the sim to match the real thing, just so I don't confuse myself in the future. Thanks are due to Allan and the rest of the guys at BRFC for buddying / putting up with my first faltering steps back into the hobby. Today was a good day. Kim

Posted by Mattb5m on 17/01/2016 17:26:00: Think this is why its disappearing into distance as still leaning to left or right . But I didn't feel the plane was turn quickly enough or couldn't see big enough being on a laptop screen ... If you look into the view menu there is an option to select binoculars. This puts a close up view of the 'plane in a pop up box on the screen. I find this very useful as you can see the attitude of the model even if it's just a speck in the sky on the main screen. Kim