Lobo Twelve

Hello Tony / all I'm looking for a suitable power system for the 190. Unfortunately, the 4-max motor is now unavailable. Can anyone recommend an alternative motor/mount / ESC / prop combination? I tried TN Designs but they weren't too helpful I'm afraid. Thanks L

Well said Olly P, great minds think alike ;o)

It's beginning to seem like nobody has a clear handle on what's being proposed or what's at stake here. Lot's of people mentioning using the new site for the Nats. That's not going to be possible. The size of plots of land that are available within the budget set out, even with enormous loans are nowhere near the size of the heath or any other military airfield. The only solution would be to split the nats over about a month or so of weekends to fit in the multiple flightlines and that would dilute the interest significantly. We keep hearing "the future is at threat". Is it really? Sure numbers of competition modellers may be waning but just how many non-BMFA members do you know who have bought or received a mini helicopter or quad for Christmas in the past few years? These things are selling in the thousands if not millions, it is up to us as BMFA members to encourage the more casual flyer to join a club and/or the BMFA, if only to encourage more responsible use (and insurance). The indoor scene is a good example of throwing open the doors to the hobby, why doesn't the BMFA hold open days in local school sportshalls, on a bring and fly, learn how to use your new toy, have a go with our model etc. basis? Surely buying a field is not going to influence these people to begin in the hobby? Competitions and shows do that but a new field isn't going to replace any of the major shows. "Worth the gamble", "We need to take the risk" has been mentioned too. Again, gambling well over £1m of cost and debt would be disastrous for the hobby and land in the middle of nowhere is not necessarily a good investment. If there is even a vague hint that housing could be built, we won't be able to buy the land in the first place. Also, the only pieces of land that can possibly be developed into housing in the near future is directly next to other housing, towns, villages and major roads. All of these things mean that using that land for large flying events (or even club flying) will not be allowed. The price of land is determined by the potential use. If this was a clearly funded proposal, showing how the costs were being covered, where the long term funding was coming from for a serious centre then great. But that's not the case. Let's be clear here, the EGM is for a vote to allow the board to go ahead with a purchase of land with no specifics, no idea of costs, potentially no permission to fly with no further consultation of the membership. Let's face facts, what's stopping an existing club field being bought by the BMFA and then calling it the national centre? That would be a disgraceful way for the BMFA to go, piling the costs of one club onto the national membership. Approaching this as 'an emergency decision' is very poor indeed. Here's hoping the proposal is rejected in it's current form. Lobo

A few comments having waded through the responses since the EGM announcement. There appears to be some optimism from many of the posters on here about this proposed development but I'm not sure if many have grasped the details of some of the information given by the BMFA. I think most BMFA members would be positive to having a national flying site complete with indoor flying facilities, a museum and organization HQ space etc. The initial information published appeared to indicate gaining sponsorship, lottery funding etc. which would mean that to members it would be 'free'. I think many thought then that it would be unlikely to come to fruition but, being of little cost to members, few would be actively campaigning against it. Reading through the recent information and presentations, many based on the now failed plan to purchase the farm, a few things appear, to me at least, to be clear: The consultants have concluded that no funding to build the full centre is likely to be made available in the coming years (“There is no obvious grant funding source.”). This means WE MUST FINANCE IT ALL with current 'rainy day' funds and debt. Ex-military sites are most likely to be out of our price range. This leaves us with a proposal to buy a small field with only a very limited budget (£63,000 quoted I think) to develop the site. Even for the £1m+ cost of a small site, we won't get much for that money and would be lucky to fund a toilet block to be built. “Withdrawing £500,000 from our reserves protects and ensures the continuation of all normal Society activities with a healthy financial reserve maintained.” Currently the BMFA runs a minimum bank balance of £800k, taking 2/3rds of that away does not leave a healthy reserve, it places the association at significant risk. This would be especially true if we had the additional liability of a large debt. The running costs of a site such as this appear to be massively understated. Less than £10,000 a year?! That would hardly pay for a contractor to look after security, nevermind maintenance, grass cutting, rates, taxes etc. Another large burden on the shoulders. The projected costs do not appear to include paying off the debt at all. In other words, taking an interest only loan at a time when rates are cheap is one thing but if the rates go up, things could turn sour very quickly indeed. So, we are gambling the future of the BMFA, our BMFA, on the purchase of a small field that offers nothing more than any of us would find at a reasonably sized club. We are never going to be able to purchase 'the heath'. Too much of this thread has been spent talking about insurance, voting etc. etc. Of greatest importance is that we are facing spending possibly millions of pounds on a field with nothing in it, it's madness! As for the calling of a minimum notice EGM to vote to give the board 'carte-blanche' to spend whatever they deem necessary with no further discussion, well that's not the actions of a responsible democratic organization. The short notice, limited proxy voting etc. mean that only those who live within a short distance of the HQ/NFC will be able to attend and they are the more likely to back it. This excludes a very large percentage of clubs who are too far away and more likely to vote against. Using the funds of the many to benefit the few is not the best way to go on. If we could fund a full building, site etc. with grants and without plunging the association into ANY debt the great, let's do it. That is not what's being proposed, we cannot allow the board to go ahead with this. Please, please, please reject this proposal! L