Erfolg

I am sure you are correct. Although I have "Thunder Tigre" trainer, where the cowl appears to a simple vac formed thermo moulding. Is this any better than a 3d print? An option I have considered (for my own use) is to use a 3d printed shape as a basis for Polyester or Epoxy moulding. In the past I have taken a similar approach, but using balsa fabrication, bulled up and waxed as a male former in a "Plaster of Paris" moulding box (re-enforced cardboard container. As things are now (in our hobby) I know that much that was a available, is no longer so. I now rely on forum advice and those who do, to help me with those thing that can no longer be purchased on line, or over the counter. Like many I am 99.9% electric these days.

I need help in understanding what is what. From memory (very distant) i understand that: Volts is measured across the positive and negative supply Amps in line (I do not remember which lead, positive or negative. I have purchased a small volt/amp meter. It has no supporting documentation. One plug has black and red conductors, the other plug has three wires, a black, red and yellow leads, relatively small compared to the other plug. I have no idea as to what is what.

It seems pretty obvious that 3d printing your own is an obvious option. To me it is surprising that Ron has not suggested the option, as Ron, I thought was a practitioner of this method. I have printed a Wot4 cowl, my final version, I am well pleased with. It is as good a shape, it is far stronger, there are few more likes.

If I only knew what I did with my predictions? It is still obvious that McClaren have the best overall car, is it the tyres, that set them apart? This morning my wife told me that Jerry's husband is bound for Alpine, I asked, where's the joke, I do not get it

Hmmm, front wing testing changed nothing, McClaren are still the fastest. Just the tyre preparation issue, Hmmm, is there a secret here, that McClaren are using, or just another allegation? You will have now guessed, I expect a McClaren win.

So what are the issues, and quantified numeric scale. For my understanding what issue is solved by transponders, geo fencing etc? I suspect the requirements will be introduced, I do wonder what the future and scale of our hobby will be in the subsequent years.

Leccy, is now starting to outline the problem as seen by the legislator. I have been confused as to what the issues or problem as seen by the legislator etc. I am far from understanding what are the real issues actually are. Historically and presently, we have not been a problem. What has or will change materially in the future? We do not routinely cause problems, not as birds presently do. Illegal operating of models is mostly undertaken by criminal and similar elements, will changes solve the issue? OK birds cannot be regulated, does further regulating us make a numerically difference? I would have have more sympathy with the regulator if they supplied numerical evidence as to the problem and a rational explanation as to how the intended changes, mitigates the problems. I have a feeling much of direction of travel being driven by politicians (particularly those wedded to "command & control") to be seen as to acting. Even more worrying are politicians whose fundamental reactions are along the lines, it is not working, we need much "more of the same". If that does not work, we need more still, or eliminate the perceived problem. We all need to understand what the problem is and how the regulator believes their requirements will fix it. Then we need to be respond to show how stupid their case probably is. It is going to be a hard time for the BMFA negotiators.

Leccy, the point is, as a risk, birds do not present any significant risk. Strangely neither do we, in the way we fly our models, do we need regulating as hobbyist. On the other hand criminals and terrorists present risks, yet regulating them will not occur as they will not typically register etc. I will ask again what is the purpose of geo fencing us? Birds do not have transponders, so what is the benefit from model aircraft having them. Others have made the point only the non threat persons will be compliant. I do accept more legislation will be coming down the track, resistance seems to be a sensible to do.

Crickey, I am amazed how we can get so wound up over a Buzzard, and the ability to see it. the real issue is that the airspace between 0 feet (AOD, or ground level) and let us say 3000 feet, is often occupied by largish birds. Probably on a reasonable day + 35,000 across just in England. I would be surprised if they have transponder, Geo fencing, or anything else to announce their presence, or even a CAA pilot or model identifier. In short they do not seem to be a significant risk to other airspace users, other than the odd pigeon. Just to put the cat among the Pigeons, we frequently have hundreds to thousands of Geese flying into the local estuary marshes.😀 I am more than a little puzzled as what all the present and indicated future requirements actually do with respect to safety. Potential to raise money, hmm, although it possibly costs more to administrate the CAA systems than is raised from hobbyists. I live near a small airport, I frequently see (often spending some time) Gulls, in our airspace, and many more above 400 feet, in the landing pattern for numerous helicopters, that service gas and other platforms in the Irish sea. Never mind executive jets, light aircraft (which seem to go every where, at all levels). You probably guess I find it hard to see us as any sort of issue. It may be fun trying to score points from each other, doing so adds little to our discussion.

Tim, I had my eye sight sorted and yes you can see Buzzards above a 1000 feet and higher if not, go to Spec Savers.

Money will influence the future use of airspace, including that below 400 feet. The use of drones monitoring the low voltage electricity distribution systems (we have had them near to our field), railway system, transferring goods between hospitals. All of these are examples that currently take place, there are many, many more. They are saving money, time and provide new opportunities. The current conflict in the Ukraine has seen ever more uses of drones, both quads and fixed wing devices, operated in various manners. Even more examples and developments are taking place almost daily. At our club site I see a fixed wing operating in a similar manner to quads. Flying way points, loitering, system controlled take offs, using ARTF and bespoke additional features. to our hobby. It is easy to see the pressures that potentially we may have to accommodate, my principal concerns are the potential cost to model makers and the obstacles to recruits. I wonder what form of retail trade will develop or develop in such an environment. Being honest, I have no answers, I never foresaw the future development of quads and fixed wing, as has happened, in my life time, at least. I was always surprised and suspicious of the numerous sightings of drones on landing paths and 30,000 feet, just so convenient to set us of down the path as to where we are today. Just yesterday I witnessed gulls at +400 feet directly above a helicopter on a landing circuit, I often see Buzzards at many thousands of feet. in airspace visited by light and executive jets. I guess convenience will intemperate what is often believed to be seen.

I have no reason to belief that the BMFA have not done the best that they can, against a background of what is, or what is possible. Reflecting on the news report of the Telegraph, it is almost certain, that the writing is a picture of the future direction of travel. This probably a briefing from the CAA, with respect to the technological advances, the financial and political issue of their masters, the government of the day. Also the CAA will be aware of the pressures of the various commercial operators at present and future drone operators (however you define them). In some respects the CAA are in a hard place, between a rock and the past responsibilities. All these operators will have the ear of government, via lobbyists, direct contact with MPs and so on. Plus they have the money to push their agenda. Although I personally do not like it, the future at present seems to have further regulation an probably cost. Keep at what you do BMFA, and thank you.

I do read the BMFA notifications that come through to my Email, yet do not remember seeing any notifications with regard this area. Since relinquishing my positions in the BMA area I no longer see the areas minutes, this avenue of information has also, been denied. It has concerned me for some time the creeping, salami slicing of requirements and legislation and the imposition of ever demanding requirements to the present generations of aeromodellers, and of great concern the barriers to potentially future modellers. From a retailers perspective, the long term viability of the sector becomes ever more uncertain. Then again it has changed a lot from building from scrath, kits and the purchase of a myriad bits. Now there is almost total domination of various ARTF models. Recently our clubs focus has been on Pilot registration. Is the Telegraph wrong, maybe, more likely a view expressed by a vested interest. I am looking for a whole member update from the BMFA, of how things are developing and the preferred future that the BMFA seeks. AND yes I am totally uninformed.

Just started to read the thread, Telegraph yesterday has had me wondering where are the regs going, and the financial implications.

At long last wing deflection at speed is going to be measured against set criteria. It seems that tyre wear is also going to be investigated. Will McClaren be identified as the most adventurous, or maybe Red Bull, or even some one else, or are all innocent?