John Bisset
Members-
Posts
251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Everything posted by John Bisset
-
An interesting but quite strange map, thank you Stephen. The detail varied quite a lot across the map. Clearly they have used much more detailed information for towns & cities, though some villages up in our area get poorer coverage, understandably. For those smaller villages, although the position of school grounds is mapped with yellow caution in random cases no ground detail is shown at the level of zoom required to get the caution areas to show up - rendering them both hilarious & pointless! Nevertheless, a very impressive level of detail overall - in some cases out in the open country, a thin yellow line turns out to indicate where the high voltage lines run - hopefully obvious to anyone on the ground, but nice to see. I'm not at all sure about the red and yellow areas around airfields though. The civil airfield zones are straightforward, wherever they com down to ground level. In some cases the 'inner' red areas appear to show stubs where someone thinks runway approaches are. In several cases they are wrong, or way out of date, by decades. The military fields yellow and red zones don't match either ATZ or MATZ configurations and locations. Small civil field and glider fields have small yellow zones shown, though some sites which are not in use are shown and curious;y one very rarely used heliport location has a large zone than the highly active light aircraft field zones nearby. Curious. A mixture of very impressive detailed information and some oddly out of date assumptions, it seems. I wonder especially where the latter comes from! Do we know who promulgated that map?
-
And the Gatwick shambles shows how absurd the furore over drones is. It is highly probable that many of the reported sightings and 'near-misses' listed by the Airprox Board are reports made in error. Some are clearly nonsense, given the heights and positions reported. Others simple mis-idents , probably of full size aircraft further away or of sundry aerial oddities and curiosities. After more than fifty years of flying, I have had occasional close encounters, but many more instances when surprise after momentary inattention or distraction made me think there was a conflict when there was not. Also searching for downed aircraft showed me how hard is to spot other aircraft and how small they are - drones are smaller, so a good sighting & tracking is darned hard to get ! Yes, the risk exists, especially at low level for slow traffic and helicopters, but it is less than the public noise about it suggests. It will get worse - both the noise and the real risk. Meantime, well done the BMFA & all the objecters for getting some thinking about changes to the rather silly plans.
-
Indoor model anybody?
John Bisset replied to SIMON CRAGG's topic in Indoor Models, Ultra Micros and Small Park Flyers
A couple of winters back my wife and I bought some very small radio control helicopters from (I think) Argos. Originally for the kids, we bought a couple, for ourselves since they flew impressively well around the house. Great for seeing where the the drafts were ! They were around £20 each. I see Argos have some similar micro helicopters on sale for £13 each just now. The snag we had was in finding several machines with different frequencies. Cheap fun. -
The Warbirds Replicas Macchi C.202 is Landing!
John Bisset replied to Brian Seymour's topic in Build Blogs and Kit Reviews
That is a really beautiful model. What a shame that Warbird Replicas are closing down - or have closed? I don't suppose anyone else will take on the jigs.drawings or whatever. Drat, another fine kit missed! -
Covering with Solarfilm
John Bisset replied to Geoff S's topic in Building from Traditional Kits and Plans
Posted by Foxfan on 07/09/2019 15:40:39: Good grief! Really? How did I ever miss that? Which company made it? Martin It's a homebuilt from Belgium, Martin. The Verhees D-Plane - I recall seeing it in a flying magazine a while back & plans were said to be available. Only one ever built, though apparently a two seater has been designed ! (Hmm- those comments about old Solarfilm worry me. I'd better test some of my old stock! And check where Balsaloc can be bought) Edited By John Bisset on 10/09/2019 17:11:12 -
Gonzo, that is a very good point ! There is an anomaly there well worth the BMFA's time to explore, I'd say.
-
undercamber wings
John Bisset replied to Dougie Swan 1's topic in Building from Traditional Kits and Plans
Thanks for that PatMc. Is that a Schleicher ASK14 in your picture/avatar? I think there are only two or maybe three of those in the UK - nice machines. -
undercamber wings
John Bisset replied to Dougie Swan 1's topic in Building from Traditional Kits and Plans
So does that mean that the only benefit of undercamber is drag reduction rather than increase in lift ? I recall some sailplanes designed in the Fifties - like the Slingsby T21 (Sedbergh) which had undercamber. We all thought/believed this was for greater lift at lower airspeeds. I suppose as a glider, and a slow speed one at that, drag reduction was equally useful, since that presumably means lower sink rates, all else being equal. -
Posted by Cuban8 on 29/08/2019 09:24:42: Have you actually seen just how much the 'Achievement Scheme' has ballooned (!) since the days of John Long and 'Up and Away'? Not getting into a argument over it, but you can see where it's been heading for some years now. Cuban8 - this is something I know nothing about, having been away from the hobby for much of the relevant time (I suspect, since my former club did not use any national scheme in the late Eighties) Can you tell me more? If this is likely to prove controversial in your view, by all means message me privately if you prefer. John B
-
Drones in the news - again...
John Bisset replied to Peter Christy's topic in All Things Model Flying
Posted by Jonathan W on 15/08/2019 10:35:04: All very well, but what is the justification for a 2 NM radius no fly zone? 1/2 mile would have been enough. As it was, not only were people rightly not allowed to fly at the event at the Hoe, nor were they alowed to fly from land across the other side of both the river esturies. The flyers were probably breaching the normal restrictions of flying in proximity to people & property anyway, without any no fly zone being imposed. I agree it seems a rather large zone. As a guss, it may be that is the standard default option when requesting a restricted zone. You know -' state size of zone required: 2nm, 5nm or provide defining co-ordinates' It doesn't sound as if the folk doing this were likely to be aware of the need to check airspace! -
Modellers all over the world will miss that wit and astonishing depth of knowledge. A wonderful turn of phrase too. I learnt a lot about engines reading his articles. Sad news. Edited By John Bisset on 26/08/2019 13:24:32
-
Erflog, Actually I agree with your comments - I do see that there is increased risk. My point was that good training of competent individuals can mitigate that. where reasonable justification exists. I suspect that is mostly that you and I have different perceptions of 'acceptable risk', which would likely vary across the range of our various activities ! Cheers. John
-
I'm not quite sure what you mean there Erfolg. By its nature, all driving is dangerous, it simply remains to determine what is acceptable. (If we were starting from scratch in today's relatively risk averse society, manually operating large fast moving lumps of metal, containing highly flammable fluids, in close proximity to pedestrians, as happens in any city street, would never be allowed!) Most drivers are minimally trained - all our 'test' requires and at best minimally competent. The variation in capability seen daily on our roads is astonishing. A well trained driver, with good reactions and understanding of the task & its limitations, focused alert and operating a well maintained vehicle is, I'd suggest, less of risk than many a wandering half awake stumbly who doesn't know (or care) how wide his car is, who indicates after starting to turn, who runs too close up behind and who can't even reverse park the brute! What does 'posted maximum speed' have to do with it? That is an arbitrary value, often set without regard to the realities of the road - and it may be a dangerously high speed itself in some conditions. Just because it is legal doesn't make it sensible. The police driver is also regularly assessed and given practice in emergency handling, which adds to his/her safety in operation. This is something I wish was applied to us all. I'd happily sit a retest every few years , as I do for flying. My capability is checked and further training and testing provided if necessary. Martin Harris made a good point too - I'd love to see differentiation between new inexperienced drivers and experienced, trained ones, to allow variation in what is permitted. Of course the counterpoint would be that the penalties for error or trangression would be correspondingly more severe. This might help remind folk that to be allowed to drive is a PRIVILEGE not a right ! These are lethal weapons, the only ones most of us have easy access to. And cuban8 - I wasn't aware there was a proposal to ban motorcycle intercoms. Now that is utterly absurd !
-
Years ago I had a policeman tick me off for eating an apple whilst stationary, engine off, in a motorway traffic jam. Yes, I was behind the wheel, but no-one was going anywhere, given the solid queue to the horizon. Amused me and annoyed my kids, who thought it stupid.
-
Posted by J D 8 on 22/08/2019 13:23:11: I live in an area where most of the roads are single track with passing places. It would seem to me that being able to reverse is no longer taught. I was on my tractor the other day and met a young chap in a little Renault. It was painful watching him try to reverse ten yards in a straight line to a passing place, each attempt ended in the hedge, he just had to turn the wheel when all that was needed was to leave it alone. I gave up in the end and went back to the next passing place. He drove by with a sheepish look on his face as I nodded my. Likewise we have some narrow roads where the ability to reverse, or to look & think well ahead, helps. In fact we frequently have folk reversing past our front garden because of a bend and narrow stretch just beyond us. So far the hedge and fence have survived... It does intrigue me how few people reverse park today; that is a useful bit of practice they miss. It also avoids the laborious and arguably rather unsafe multi shunt exits!
-
JD8 has good point too. How could we police this? Every day I see cars - and especially vans - passing my house, out in the country on a quiet road, with phones clamped to their ears. At least with hands free they have both hands available even if not a brain! So the existing laws are ignored, daily, routinely. Little point adding extra law which just penalises the sensible. (Not that this will necessarily stop it happening!) This is very much like reducing further the alcohol threshold to cut drunk driving; the vast bulk of the remaining drink driving problem is people way over any limits - so cutting the allowable level just allows MPs to pretend they are achieving something. The indignant gutter press like it too. What we need is to find a way to shame people into NOT using a mobile phone. It worked,.mostly, with drink driving, eventually. I can't suggest how.
-
I agree with Cuban, though I do understand Alex' point. Of course it is important not to get distracted - when I had a hands free phone I used to start any conversation with a warning that I was driving. Hence there might be a pause or a comment of 'Wait' at any time,. This is exactly the same as when flying - we were taught to 'aviate, navigate, communicate' in that order. I did the same with kids or talkative folk in the car -if things got busy I would call for silence. Generally., folk understand this quickly. The point is of course I was TAUGHT to do this. When we taught our kids to drive I did the same - as I did with my flying pupils. (A favourite check was to wait until a pupil was on final approach to land, then ask for name and address or date of birth. What I wanted was either silence, or a mutter of 'not now'. We don't teach new drivers this; we should. There is a hierarchy of tasks to do as a driver. But then, there are so many other things not taught. Skid training? Snow or ice driving? High speed driving so folk know what a car feels like close to the limits. Even proper overtaking is seldom taught unless you learn in a country area. Now motorway driving can be taught, at last! (It has always surprised me that it bis technically legal in the UK to light a cigarette, with all the hazards that involves, but not eat food while driving.
-
Thanks Andy. I have found some photos which I think may show your machine, with the servos on a tray which sits well forward to help the CG challenge.
-
What WOT 4 (ARTF electric)?
John Bisset replied to Jonathan M's topic in Sport, Aerobatic and 3D kits
Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/10/2018 07:58:46: The weight question has filled me with curiousity now! It's perfectly possible my memory is at fault - it was some time ago when I put this together. I'll try to nip out to the shed this afternoon and quickly weigh the WOTTY. I'll report back. BEB Your memory sounds fine to me - I checked my rebuilt, electric Wot 4 just now and got 4.4 lbs, with a 4S battery. Mine is rebuilt from a 25 year old style Wot, may not even be a Mk2. John B -
Thanks for that link Martin. Interesting.
-
I am intrigued by the comments about chopping the fuselage behind the wings to make car carriage easier. How is that done? How does the fuselage fasten together and how do the control runs connect? (I have a long dormant Puppeteer build tucked away - one day soon I shall get back to it...)
-
Well said Mr Knowles - my feelings precisely !
-
DH60 FOLDING WING
John Bisset replied to Dougie Swan 1's topic in Building from Traditional Kits and Plans
As a simpler and smaller scale option , I found a copy of a 48 1/2" span DH60 Moth plan, given away free with RCME in Dec 1985. That doesn't have any folding wing information so is probably a simplified and reduced scale effort and hence not of much interest to you I expect. I haven't found the article to go with it, yet. -
Jon, that sounds like the model needs the same tie rods for the lower wings as the real thing !