John Bisset

Aha - something new. Thanks MattyB - I shall look up 'balance bikes. Also a good reminder to me about pedal threads...

Several quite different views here! Personally I - we -found no problem teaching our kids to ride bikes with the pedals attached, They had all had a tricycle to play on first which may have helped a little.Typically all three were happily away with less than a couple of days's of help - holding the saddle lightly from behind to add stability, then running up and down our quiet cul de sac. First one at five,the other two younger, since younger kids are always desperate to catch up. So personally I 'd say you are over-complicating. By all means add trainer wheels or take the pedals off if you must. Other than that, keep it simple., Kids are keen to learn, and learn fast! Hope your grandchild has fun...

(Good post yesterday Matty - thanks) Nigel, I wondered about Qu 4 too. I suspect the BBC option as a source of info is a red herring & having checked I can see no sign of anything relevant. The snag with multiple choice is that the wrong answers must be ~believable, Well, that is one of the snags with multiple choice... I presumed the dronesafe website was correct when spelt correctly (!) and that the 'app' would also be correct, though I have not seen such a beast.  (Late addendum : A 'drone app' might be about other drone related matters, so possibly a wrong option. Hmm.)  Like you I thought Qus 16-19 were potentially awkward and since I don't use camera equipped machines, personally irrelevant. Hopefully the apparently commonsense answers will be correct. Well done the BMFA for issuing this so promptly in a clear easy to understand way. Now to find out if my 'common sense' thinking works! Edited By John Bisset on 07/12/2019 14:56:12

I believe Chris Berry's recent posts have it fairly well right. The aspiration of 'authority' to have on board identification and real time tracking of everything airborne is clear. It is not, however practical yet, not for some time to come. Theory is one thing, practice another. I have two separate conspicuity/anti-collision systems in one aircraft of mine; it still frequently fails to be 'seen' in flight by remote stations even at medium altitudes. Earlier this week while flying I was struck by the number of calls for people to re-squawk because ATC was not picking up the transponders. For close range collision avoidance the systems work well enough overall, as an addition to and back up for see-and-be-seen, which is what they are for. They are still expensive, power hungry and problematic at a distance except when flying high, say 10,000ft and above. At medium or low level, forget any distant monitoring except in very intensely monitored and geographically benign environments. This will change, but slowly. The degradation of signal at low altitude will continue to be an effective limiter. Personally as a pilot routinely flying in and around the levels likely to be mostly used by drones, I'd be unhappy at the idea of everything transmitting its position, or trying to. That causes distraction, confusion and chaos, working against safety. For light aircraft operations, having radio control aircraft giving out position data will just confuse - we are not routinely flying below 500ft except around airfields or when on special tasks. We need the BMFA making this point clearly on our behalf - forget position info from R/C aircraft! Expensive, short range, useless and confusing for real world traffic. For drones I only want info from the higher flying ones. Even between 500 to 1000ft the range available will be low, so its really collision avoidance stuff, not real tracking. Once a good, say ADS-B equivalent, set up exists at low cost and with high reliability, maybe worthwhile anti-colision will become feasible. Meantime, we keep our eyes open - and incidentally only believe a small proportion of the airliner's drone airmiss 'reports'.

Oops - nice comment Andy! I got around ten repeats I think, all within seconds of each other.

There I was upside down, nothing on the clock...

Cuban8, I'm with you too !

That is superb Peter. Just needs the chequerboard markings on the rudder! , as Chris said.

Posted by Peter Miller on 01/11/2019 08:28:58: It is interesting that the great Brian Lecomber favoured the Stampe SV-4 for aerobatics...before he went on the Dunlop Pitts. And anyone who watched Brian flying the Pitts will never forget it!! Edited By Peter Miller on 01/11/2019 08:30:15 Indeed, Peter. Greatly missed, Mr Lecomber. I think he kept his Stampe even when he had moved his team on to ?Extra 300s? I think. The start of his book 'Talk Down; showed how much he liked the Stampe for gentle aerobatics. I still recall a lovely conversation I had with him when I was debating doing a Lycoming conversion. He had a 200HP Lycoming with VP prop and turbo for sale; he tried to persuade me to fit that to my Stampe - "Just think how much vertical you could get with that!" I felt it was the down vertical maneouvres that might be the limit, unless I could fit airbrakes(!) - the Stampe had quite a low flick roll limit speed. He was a terrific character and a superbly thoughtful, careful pilot.

Gary, You are correct. The original Wot 4 did not have any dihedral. I can't speak for the ARTF foam variants and smaller versions!

Jason-I : I agree the police will find it difficult to sort out the relevant rules too. The CAA's website is difficult and 'clunky' to deal with - ask any pilot, instructor or flying examiner! The cutbacks over a number of years have meant the CAA struggles to cope with its main responsibilities and little spare capacity exists for the apparently less important tasks., That probably explains some of the apparent confusion. I suspect the police will treat this as they have various other awkward or minor areas of law; if it is hard to understand and the impact of the activity is minor they will often carefully look the other way rather than open up a can of worms. They have more urgent tasks and much more important concerns than us and our radio control models. They will only check if they see good reason to, such as obviously stupid behaviour or a public complaint. (and even then probably only if from someone senior like a councillor or politician.) As an example - occasionally, like many glider pilots, I drive very long sailplane trailers. They are longer than any normal roadworthy trailer but are legal because the load (the dismantled half wingspan) is indivisible. Generally, the police simply ignore us. They are well aware the trailers are unusually long and outside the normal roadworthiness rules, but since we are clearly unconcerned by their presence and (generally) driving carefully their presumption is that we are law abiding and that an exception exists - which it does. The view of a policeman I knew well was that the average cop recognised that any queries would probably cause more hassle than it was worth. Sleeping dogs were left to doze...

I noticed the same, Alan. I was amused to see that a CAA spokesperson was pushing the helpful & friendly CAA idea, saying that this registration would 'help them reunite owners with their lost drones'. Aw - and we didn't know they cared ! Sounds a tad desperate; maybe the realisation that this is not going to improve things at all is seeping through, slowly...

Terrific idea Peter (C) My wife like the costume but says we won't get the police coming to check on us, more probably those 'nice young men in the clean white coats' - with the jackets which lace up the back...

My recollection is that the original full size didn't have a particularly sparkling take-off performance either. Nice model, though Elvis is being a hog, or maybe is modelled towards the end since he is apparently occupying both seats...

He forgot the map case to carry your exemptions in. Dick Somewhere, I still have my father's old Army map case from his Burma days. Used to use it for cross country walks and for mooring & coastal chart use when sailing. Never thought it might be handy for model flying !

Possibly whoever is selling off the jet suspects that flying faster, possibly heavier machines like jets could get harder to do in future, following this start of 'official' interest. We in the UK do seem to have a growing national tendency to presuming that any activity we don't personally like or get involved in should have 'someone' from officialdom required to oversee or give permissions ! Also as we seem to be much more risk averse than of yore, there are more people prepared to complain about presumed risk or personal disturbance. Maybe this was just the last straw - it is sad.

Stampe also did the SV-4B which looks as if its mother was frightened by a Tiger Moth. The fin is very similar. Ah - now I always felt the Tiggie looked as if something had frightened it, the way that top wing hunches up ! A very characteristic tail on that machine - looks as though both fin & rudder and tailplane & elevator were lifted straight from the SV4. Interesting that the Stampe has never had any strakes, whereas the Tiger Moth did, so presumably that larger fin & rudder was more effective compared to the Tiger's quite delicate effort. (Has anyone found a model Tiger to be difficult to recover from a spin I wonder?)

Peter (Christy). I'm with you broadly; I think in a few years the commercial furore will die down, and rather as happened with CB radio it may be the fee taking exercise becomes uneconomic. Sadly, in the UK we seem to be minded towards supposed oversight, interference & control. I suspect the registration will continue while the public interest is on 'the drone menace'. In that regard I feel we as modellers need to help refute some of the more improbable drone 'sightings'. Cuban 8 : I believe it is the case that national authorities have the freedom to decide what actions they will take on this. Again I suspect our national inclination towards some form of 'control' may be part of the challenge we (in the shape of the BMFA and our other representatives) face.

Posted by J D 8 on 27/10/2019 10:10:00: The KK kit is of an AS [ anti submarine] mk1 which had none of the protuberance's of the AEW version. The AS one went out of service quit early as helicopters took over the roll. Edited By J D 8 on 27/10/2019 10:14:49   True, though the main anti-submarine version in service had a rear canopy situated on top of the fuselage, for the observers in the rear bay which was behind the wing. That's why i reckoned when I built mine that it was a prototype.  It;'s a long time ago and I'm not sure I have a picture of an early Mk1 to see when the rear canopy appeared ! Edited By John Bisset on 29/10/2019 12:51:08

It does look a trifle slimmed Tom, though I suspect that was a model of an early prototype - with no extra tail fins, no rear observer's bulge or hatches, no radome of either sort, no tanks, none of the extra bulges, intakes and excrescences that serviceability and use required. Strange to see a sleek Gannet. I remember that kit; mine was badly built but much played with. Like Geoff's, mine didn't fly well.

Ah - I said no, since I don't have that on the model. I do have a kill switch on the transmitter, with highlighting and position reminder so really my answer should have been yes. Tsk.

Posted by Andrew Calcutt on 25/10/2019 09:00:24: I think the gannet had two engines and counter rotating props,would make a good model,don't forget the folding wings! Now THAT would be a model to behold, if someone could replicate the wing power fold ! And of course the contra-prop assembly. As a small boy I recall seeing the Gannet AEW3 demonstrate its single engine capability at a Lossie Air Day, immediately followed by its demonstration of an (excellently controlled) belly landing on the short runway when the second engine didn't wind up quickly enough as the pilot did a 180 turn in front of us. I watched through my camera viewfinder thinking 'surely that's not right' as the starboard wingtip cut a furrow in the grass before the belly landing. No-one hurt, some impressively fast exits by the crew as the wreckage slid off the runway, debris and radar bits all down the runway and I never even pressed the shutter!

Peter, I'd say you are being idealistic if you think that Global Hawks and the RAF's Reapers are constrained and operated only within military ranges here in the UK. The RAF MIGHT obey that restriction, but the USAF will do as they please. At the heights you quote there is no conflict with other traffic (yet). I think Richard has it correct that we as model aircraft fliers are simply being swept up in a 'must be seen to be doing something' effort, following the supposed drone scare at Gatwick, The desire to regulate to allow easier commercial drone use is also a driver. 'Aspirational' rather than actual revenue there - though the authorities are making current commercial users pay fairly heftily. The BMFA is our main voice, our main opportunity to get our points of view aired, so it is important they we are seen to support them. I suspect from comments made that the folk at the head of the BMFA recognise how silly much of this is, but they continue to do their best to get some knowledge into the heads of those who drive the show. Not easy, when so few politicians are technically minded. I suspect the authorities have over estimated the market & likely revenues from low level commercial drone use for deliveries etc. There may well be a rapid retrenchment when they realise that if they permit all this, they may be held liable under HSE law when, not if, the beasts start to fall out of the sky. (As has already happened in Switzerland) I worry a bit about more the next phase when some form of electronic conspicuity is being suggested. Almost certainly futile for our machines, given the power and line of sight range limitations but that may not stop the legal types demanding it. The BMFA may have its work cut out on that one, later on !

I believe the Dominie was the service name for the Rapide Geoff. I had my first ever flight in an FAA Dominie too, at RNAS Lossiemouth (HMS Fulmar). Ah, the days when we had a serious Fleet Air Arm. (Sigh)

Blimey! Once again the sheer scale of my ignorance of things electrical astonishes me. I happily fly 'ordinary' electric aircraft without knowing any of this. Fascinating, shall delve deeper. Meantime, being a sucker for TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms) , what does 'PWM' stand for please? I hunted through Chris' link - most interesting but that bit I didn't find. (I suspect it may be ~obvious, like 'WOT' turned out to be wide open throttle. Or, 'full power' for most purposes, so I was puzzled why a TLA was used)