John Bisset

I will indeed enjoy myself. Am tempted to also work up ribs for a built up wing Wot4. I have had several Wots and have often wondered how much lighter a built wing would be, for even better slow flying. Something I'd like to add flaps to, or maybe even slats if I can work out a way to slide them in and out in the style of a Rallye. Possibly fixed slats first... Rootling through my stock of woods, I found some offcut pieces of material used in some kits a few years back. It is a balsa core with a ply skin either side, around 3/16" thick. Easy to cut, quite tough. Does anyone if it is still made, and what it is called?

Thanks Alan - a great idea. Why didn't I think of that? I have some carbon paper filed away from the days of typewriters - now where did I put it?!... Good to hear it can still be found. Interesting Hurricane build - one of my favourite aircraft   Edited By John Bisset on 15/07/2019 13:25:59

Hi again all. Having got some repairs/rebuilds done and long stalled kit builds re-started, I'm thinking ahead about a build for later this year. I have quite a few plans 'in stock', some from many moons ago. I have no great difficulty building fuselages, usually, but wing ribs can cause some headaches. What do you experts do? For non tapered wings I have used hardboard templates with balsa sandwiched between to cut a number of ribs at once, reasonably successfully. Tapered ribs are harder - I have tried stencilling the rib shapes onto sheet without much success. Any suggestions? All advice welcome to a fumble fingers... Cheers, John B

Good points Captain K, thanks. Sometimes we did seem to train in rather high winds!

Posted by Capt Kremen on 12/07/2019 16:42:48: Whilst the WOT4 may be used for training, subject adjusting required responsiveness, why not get a 'WOT Trainer'(?). Same lineage and a superb trainer, can be (very) docile or 'turn-the-wick-up'/increase throws etc. and it is quite sporty. I hadn't come across it before. Thanks - it looks a bit like a cross between the Wot4 and the Precedent FlyBoy that my son made at around age 11, with which he learned to fly radio control models. (The Flyboy was quite a tough beast, whereas that ARTF machine looks lighter and maybe easier damaged? I recall the FlyBoy had a fairly high wing loading which helped in the windy conditions we often seemed to have.)

I see the Leeds shop also has the Wot4 Mk3 with a tapered wing for better aerobatics, which sounds fun. Is that very similar to the Acrowot wing? What do folk on here think of the standard Wot4 for training purposes? Years ago I trained a couple of folk using a Wot4, with the aileron and elevator rates reduced. I thought it a nice, reasonable stable, trainer and being a tailwheel seemed to make landings easier for the folk I was teaching. Both were full scale pilots 'converting' to model flying, which may have made a difference. Both already flew taildraggers. (We used Mode 2, being similar to what we were used to in the fullsize)

Oh dear. Mr Ellis demonstrates that he does not appear to understand that as Minister of State he should apply critical thinking, not simply regurgitate the party line. As a Minister of State he should be able to think for himself. Really must do better (though admittedly with the examples around in Government just now he probably feels he is doing well ! ) PWC's 'estimate' is ludicrous pie in the sky stuff, as he would realise with a few moment's thought. They have taken the most optimistic figures from Amazon and others without applying any thoughts on practicality. Rather similar to what seems to happen far too often in auditing - figures are accepted without enough challenge. At least some folk are listening and understanding. Well done those who got through to Mr Loughton. I shall try sending another note to my local MP, who so far has not responded at all.

Posted by Jonathan W on 10/07/2019 13:00:57: Yes, I was already getting confused by the meaning of UTM, since I have to be aware of the Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system in my job. That;s the first one that comes to mind for me too!

I'd agree that Direct Remote Ident is feasible Steve, especially for limited high threat areas. Though many folk advocating all this do seem to conveniently forget about line of sight issues and ground interference problems It's the two way bit that is less feasible and worries me more. How to get enough power capacity to provide that in a meaningful way in a small model. That is where the ideals part company with reality for me. (Of course the dread 3 letter acronyms get in the way again. I can think of two other meanings for UTM off the top of my head, one of which is in a way somewhat relevant to this and may yet cause some confusion down the line !)

Thanks Steve, I realised that. Don't get me started on the impossible aspirations within so many Business Plans. NATS would like their 'sponsors' to believe that this is feasible, because it allows them more money and influence as they sell the idea they are 'in control'. UJ Politicians and civil servants love the idea of 'control'. Except within limited local areas, such as around the largest airports and at high altitudes, this is and will remain dreamland for a long time - also a pointless, expensive dreamland. It is easy to draw two way arrows and boxes on a diagram. How precisely these interfaces are supposed to work and on what timescale, is another matter.

(I'm not sure hoe to do anything with the question - I see no way to add an answer. How do these polls work?) My wife is pilot and a model maker, so she provides both encouragement and expert criticism!

Ken, That comment pleases me in a silly way- we got rid of all TV over ten years ago and don't miss it a bit! I strongly recommend that!

  Oh dear. As so often, this really does demonstrate the level of technical ignorance of  so many politicians - and sadly of too many in the civil service whose job it ought to be to find out what is feasible. This diagram is idealistic dreamland; even for current air traffic, effective tracking of transponder equipped aircraft is only possible at a fair altitude and in areas with plenty of radar head cover. Loss of signal is routine at lower altitudes and the technology does not even adequately cover the sailplane community yet, let alone microlights and smaller machines. The idea that ATC or any other authority will be able to effectively track and monitor radio control aircraft in real time is still science fiction. It is akin to the notion, still popular amongst politicians and ignorant newsmen,that ocean surveillance is easy to achieve. The sheer size of the task escapes them. The same is true here, not that this will stop the 'authorities from causing chaos by demanding the impossible or pointless. Edited By John Bisset on 10/07/2019 10:47:31

A depressingly large number of 'drivers' start a turn, then use the indicators. What possible use do they imagine that is?

Thanks for the replies, all. Sad to see the Solartex/Solarfilm brand go.

As a returned builder/flier I have a question for the more up to date folk here. I have some stocks of Solartex and Solarfilm, plus a little Litespan. Checking online just now, it seems that the manufacturers are closing down. (I recall reading of the family company that made the material in a magazine a while back.) Am I correct that they are closing - one 'route' to their site appears to suggest I can still buy Solartex in 2m lengths, another suggests only 'factory seconds' are available now. I suspect the latter is the correct info - will check tomorrow by e-mail. Anyone got up to date info? And the logical follow on - what do folk recommend instead? I have heard of but never used Oratex. Any good? (I liked Solartex because it would hold a thin coating of cellulose paint if I wanted to embellish a finish. Solarfilm wouldn't do that, but was handy for lightweight covering. I found some 'LighTex' in my store of coverings ; I don't recall where I got it. Has anybody used it? Any other lightweight coverings around?

I'd agree with the others posting - this seems normal. Not just in model flying; in both my nearby gliding clubs it is much the same, with a few keen folk almost always there and the rest being occasional 'visitors'.

I just tried to find a source for personal liability insurance her in Britain. Every site I went to wanted to offer business public liability, only US sites were offering personal liability. Must be hunting for the wrong thing. I need the old days, when I simply asked a broker !

I don't see any benefit in forcing 'identifiers' on cyclists. As with so many other things, only the law abiding folk will conform. Those most likely to cause the harm will not, thus making it pointless. (Rather as this drone registration is going to be) As others have said, we can't even get car drivers policed properly, so what chance rogue cyclists? Every day I see motorists, van & tractor drivers go past my house on our quiet rural road, on their phones, many also driving notably faster than is safe. As for tax - to what end? I pay plenty taxes already and get variable and dubious returns. Authority now views all taxes solely as revenue without any need to provide service, it seems. (I paid for a radio licence for years. it did me no good when CB radios came in illegally from the USA and swamped my legally approved frequencies with BS yapping nonsenses. All I - we - got told was to move to another band, expensively. So much for being law abiding! ) Current events do make me wonder whether it is worthwhile investigating having personal liability insurance, especially to provide legal cover, given how ready some folk are try it on, even when far from blameless.

Posted by J D 8 on 31/05/2019 09:40:17: I have filled my complaint form to the DoT regarding the standardised return that answered none of my questions. KEEP the pressure on. Let them known we are not happy bunnies with this hairbrained scheme. Can you tell me to what address at DoT you sent that complaint? Happy to do the same. Hairbrained isn't in it. I am also a glider pilot and an aircraft owner. The BGA and the LAA do a fine job of providing suitable oversight, apply standards and technical help etc,, with the approval of the CAA. Why can the BMFA not do likewise? This can only be about the DfT trying to get its database folly paid for!

Posted by Martin Harris on 30/04/2019 22:54:01: Posted by kevin b on 30/04/2019 22:41:54: If we hadn't persuaded the government to do away with the licence to operate RC equipment all those years ago, we would have already had a registration system in place. Not only that, we probably wouldn't have had the "drone" problem in the first place ! I thought the abolition of the radio transmitting licence was a "cop out" by the authority in response to demands to do something to control illegal CB activity on 27 MHz - our main allocated frequency at the time. That was what I recall from the time. Impressive failure as ever - we were legal and had paid up, but authority decide it was easier to tell us to change frequencies rather than chase the illegal CB users. This nonsense is absurd - note that the French can do this for free,with a five year validity. Our mob see a cash cow...

Hi Shaun. I use exactly the same battery as Peter, entirely agree with his comments. Like Peter I haven't measured the thrust, but it is enough thrust for a hand launch from stationary in under five knots wind - or for a ground launch on concrete in less than thirty feet. Most of my level circuit flying is done at around 30% power, so plenty to spare for climb and lots of duration. The hardest part is the descent to land, since drag is low - quite a fast glide too. I find that if I can set the throttle so the fan stays out but isn't running, that gives a nice bit of extra approach drag, Am tempted to modify to add airbrakes, but then as a full-size glider pilot I do like those - and since I used to have a Libelle 301, the Salto is a source of reminiscence! John

Thank you gentlemen, Some very useful and reassuring advice and information from you all. I shall do careful checks and test various receiver positions- had not thought about motor/ESC interference. I note that two of my modern systems provide ferrite rings on the receiver leads. I had been wondering about those. John B

This may well be a set of silly questions. However, I was taught a long time ago that the only really stupid question is the one you don’t ask. So, since I am still slowly grappling with modern electric systems, here goes. I am debating converting a couple of old glow plug models to electric power. I’d quite like to use some of my old 35 MHz Futaba equipment – since I live in a fairly quiet area interference is not likely to be a problem and my up to date equipment is already in use in other models. So my question is –can I safely control a modern electric motor using an old style Futaba 35Mhz receiver? Can it send a signal to an electronic speed controller – is its signalling compatible? It seems probable that it will be sending compatible signals, however in the modern systems I have the ESC also provides power to the receiver down the same wiring – the BEC set up. Will that correctly power my old Futaba 35Mhz set up or should I connect a 4.8v battery to the receiver as before. Alternately, can I use an ESC programming card with a 4-6volt output to power my receiver. I’d rather ask now than blow up some equipment out of stupidity! All thoughts appreciated, any knowledge of snags will be helpful. Thanks, John B

I'd suggest that whenever you use aileron to 'prop up the wing', use a little rudder in the same direction. Always left aileron with left rudder, right aileron with right rudder , since the aircraft doesn't care which way it is facing. The only times to use rudder independently of aileron are when sideslipping, doing certain aerobatics or when taxying.