John Bisset

Posted by Steve J on 24/07/2017 11:50:41: Posted by john stones 1 on 24/07/2017 11:39:35: Put the case for fair treatment based on our long and good record, anything else is pointless. Correct. We need to make sure that the government give the BMFA, LMA & SAA a decent operational authorisation under article 14 of the draft regulation. Steve I agree. Snag is. like many, I recall what happened when CB usage arrived in UK, illegally on 27 MHz. Did we, who had paid for our radio licences, get any consideration? Nope - the authorities changed the rules, we had to move our frequencies. Cost & inconvenience ? Nobody cared. What makes you think the current crew of incompetents, aka government, will care. Given their behaviours so far, why would they care about a few modellers?

Posted by i12fly on 22/07/2017 23:50:31: Similarly another future proposal to be investigated -electronically identifying a flying model? a transponder? what sort of weight would that be? Transponders are enough of a headache for light aircraft and sailplanes. The first difficulty is the power consumption, which can be large if the transponder is being interrogated frequently. The second difficulty is swamping of the system. If every light aircraft and sailplane had to be transponder equipped it could be counter productive. It was demonstrated on a short trial that in an area like the Home Counties, if every light aircraft and sailplane switched on a transponder, the system would crash - it would be overwhelmed. ATC would not like it. So I suspect having R/C models and drones use transponders as well might not be popular. I like the transmitter ident notion, though I don't like the thought of all the costs involved. Anyway - this is a red herring story, designed to make it look as though government is 'doing something' when in fact they have all swanned off on holiday.

i12fly - I think you are right, it is a mixture of commercial lobbying and political 'grandstanding'. Of course EASA has the dreaded Europe word in it so possibly this is intended to allow a certain portion of the population to do their knee jerk bit... I see they are talking of mandatory geo-fencing. That will be interesting if they include us radio model types. Do we all need to get GPS fitted to allow this?!

Another option is control line wire - 'Laystrate', 'Staystrate' or similar if you can find it. Plenty strength.. Edited By John Bisset on 22/07/2017 20:08:16 Edited By John Bisset on 22/07/2017 20:08:43

Tom Sharp2 has raised a darn good point. LoS could be a variable feast. Personally, since I am no spring chicken , I'd be happy to define it within my effective vision limits, which would be closer than the runway's length at one field I fly from! Technically, LoS could be a very long way at the top of a hill slope, a lot less on a typical flying field. At my home model field, LoS in one direction is about 150 metres or less, because of trees. I suspect whatever the authorities come up with will be unworkable since too many small drones have been sold uncontrolled already.

I tend to agree with Cuban8 that this something we need(ed) to push back on. Since Ikura is also right that most folk are aware that responses to Government proposals are largely pointless, the small sample size is not surprising. The standard Civil Service response to comment seems to be that any criticisms are irrelevant because the proposals 'have moved on'. Note that neither our lot nor EASA have managed to define 'drone' flying worth a darn - and they know it. Their definitions catch us too. This, now, is the time to ramp up response by sending messages to your MP etc., because now they have firmer proposals which can be critiqued.   Our main area of attack should be, as Cuban8 said, to emphasise the 'Line of Sight' difference between a model aircraft and a drone (as I think most of us would view it.) We should emphasise that LoS means it is fairly straightforward to identify the pilot. That matters because both authorities and many of the MPs etc understand that law which you can't enforce is a waste of time and resource. The mobiles-while-driving law seems, regrettably, to be an example. The situation is not dis-similar to the CB radio fiasco of the Seventies; there have been so many drones sold already with no traceability that leagl catch up will be real challenge. In fact if we LoS fliers are included, the enforcement exercise becomes much larger, and probably effectively unwieldy. (That, along with the untraceable drone numbers, will get some folk suggesting they simply shut us all down, though that should be defeated readily.)   The big snag is that drone usage is seen as having a major commercial potential, so government sees a revenue stream, though I doubt it will be as large as some think. We, of course, are not a revenue stream so our voice matters less. I think it likely that we will eventually all be required to have some sort of licence eventually, to allow authority to trace us, and of course to act as a revenue stream, something government loves. This is going to be a real pest, unless we can get the CAA to approve BMFA as the relevant authority. That might work, because the CAA is very short of staff. Then we need to persuade BMFA to set up rules to cascade this down to club level as far as is practicable. That will still make life difficult for the lone flier and slope soarer, though not impossible, with careful thought. Sigh. (As a pilot of fullsize as well as models - something I bet many of us here are - I hope all they'd want is an additional rating added, no doubt at a cost. I am already worried about drones, because some dreamers want clearance for drones to operate routinely below 500ft for all sorts of purposes. They forget that we need to take-off and land, and not all airfields are licenced and marked with control zones.)         Edited By John Bisset on 22/07/2017 18:42:38

Posted by kc on 21/07/2017 12:24:41: No you haven't returned at the wrong time John - it's probably the best time ever in aeromodelling! It's only in "huge decline" in the retail shop aspect, the hobby is still strong and equipment is reliable yet cheap. Hardly any local model shops but everything is available online. Not too much trouble getting into a club or getting 'pegtime' ( actual pegs are hardly used!) and you can buy ARTF or build your own. Edited By kc on 21/07/2017 12:35:19 True enough kc. It;s just that there appear to be are many fewer kits available - I do prefer building to buying ARTF,. though I have succumbed. Mind you, I have a few kits 'in stock' to complete, including a Flair Puppeteer and a 'Complete-a-Pac' Swordfish.

Posted by John Lee on 21/07/2017 11:39:52: However on really rough days I think a high wing loading and responsiveness is required & my unstabilised AcroWot or WotsWot is my weapon of choice. Regarding judging airspeed then Power + attitude + trim = performance. At a given power setting, attitude & trim you airspeed will always be the same regardless of windspeed. It's then just a question of practice, experience and ignoring groundspeed. There is no substitute for hours in the air. Quite agree that high wingloading will help reduce the effect of gust impacts; I like my old Wot4 for that. Presumably for lightweight foam models, while the stabiliser can sort out attitude changes for the pilot, the airspeed and trajectory variations are going to be the limiting factor. Once it gets really rough, you will need bags of throttle or pitch changes to keep the airspeed within limits and then the approach path (and flare) will be the next challenge. All the stabiliser can do is delay the problem ?

An excellent post by Dave Wilshere, which does provide a fair explanation of quite a lot of what has changed inthe hobby. I seem to have returned at just the wrong time !

That looks lovely Tom. I presume that is the float set available for the kit - do the floats come with all the fittings? John

Ah - one additional question. What paints are compatible with the foam used in these models,and what glues are compatible, please? I intend to do some light touch up and also may want to rebuild or reinforce a somewhat 'soft' rudder tip. I can use a fuselage floor hatch for careful trials of course, but I'm sure someone here will have worthwhile suggestions! Edited By John Bisset on 20/07/2017 21:14:33

Thank you Ian, I shall try that. I have a WOT4 which I have flown on floats - foam, hotwire carved. Once I have got the hang of the Beaver on wheels I'd rather like to make up a set of floats to try out, so thank you both for the enthusiastic comments.

Hello. I recently bought a second hand ST Beaver. Although I have downloaded the instruction manual, I don't see clearly how the wings can be removed. I gather that they 'snap' into place on the two 'wing lockers;' each side once the carbon wing rods are properly inserted through the cabin, but how are they removed? I'd rather not push or twist too firmly in case I damage something! I want to remove the wings as part of a general clean up and tweaking of the machine. Any help or advice welcomed! Regards, John B

I would expect that if this is indeed a major problem requiring 'restructuring' , the odds are good that the plans will reappear at some point. There is a small but steady amount of business to be had selling plans and the overheads should not be high. Not a great money spinner probably!

While I am at it, can I suggest we really should cease this thread. Clearly it is not likely to be useful for any possible model flying purposes, which is why we are all on here ! Regards, John Bisset Edited By John Bisset on 19/07/2017 17:41:09 Edited By John Bisset on 19/07/2017 17:41:53

Posted by Bill_B on 19/07/2017 17:04:25: Posted by John Bisset on 19/07/2017 14:19:24:....... This is not a matter of opinion for disagreement in which 'everyone has an equally valid opinion', a common folly of modern times; this is simple hard fact, not open to 'opinions'. John Bisset That's quite an arrogant statement John. I wonder what your 'opinion' on 7/11 is? Not arrogant at all Bill. A simple statement about verifiable facts versus opinions which I'd have thought is easily understandable. Other than that it was a horrible event, none. I don't see the relevance of that question.

Thanks chaps. I can understand the doubts amongst youngsters brought up on the superb CGI etc available today, but 50 years ago - which is when the planning to fake would have had to start - we simply couldn't do it. So, a non-starter. I totally agree 'The Wright Stuff'. The only harm 'the moon landing is fake' conspiracy theory does is encourage this style of nonscientific thinking and give it credibility. The nonsense about 'multiple vaccines are bad for you' - one of my daughters is a GP, following on from a serious science background, and she gets livid about this. People also don't understand the 'herd effect' which protects them even if they opt themselves and their kids out - up to a point. Then, their intransigence risks everyone. Sadly, few folk understand risk. There is nothing risk free in life. It's all about balance of risk and benefit. 'Nigel R' - yep, for sure. I used to start talks with schoolkids by saying " Welcome to my world, the world we made, the world of Engineers" Edited By John Bisset on 19/07/2017 15:46:21

It saddens me but doesn't greatly surprise me that so many people have been gulled into thinking the moon landings did not happen. The truth is that few people understand how the world works, or care, apparently - in scientific but more importantly in engineering terms. Maybe 10% care . That's fine, not everyone needs to take an interest.For most,the world is, for all practical purposes, run by 'black magic'. They take it on faith that things work; they don't know how. In such a circumstance it is no surprise they can be fooled by the conspiracy clots. Our modern world is a construct produced by engineers - who interpret the science and the theories, make 'em into workable kit. They are in essence the folk who way back sat in the caves or the forests, in the dark, wet,cold and hungry and said 'Sod this, there must be a better way'. So they, men and women, went out and found it, bit by bit. Many died doing that, no doubt. But that is why we are where we are. Engineers : "The Sons of Martha" to quote Kipling (the engineers' poet if ever there was one) They need to know, they need to care and 'carry the shock'. Others don't need to. The bit which really annoys me about the absurd doubters is that some very brave men took the risk of going to the Moon - it was a singled down exercise with no back up if things failed, in many cases. The moon lift-off rocket for example, It could not be tested beforehand, A one shot, assured by excellent statistical risk thinking. We couldn't do it now; the rules would not allow it. But those brave men, test pilots all, accepted that risk as worth while. I say 'absurd' - if that upsets anyone, tough. This is not a matter of opinion for disagreement in which 'everyone has an equally valid opinion', a common folly of modern times; this is simple hard fact, not open to 'opinions'. John Bisset

Posted by J D 8 on 18/07/2017 15:48:29: I also watched it all.Christmas 68 was just magical with Lovell,Borman and Anders in orbit around the moon. Their " Earthrise" photo says it all for me. Still have my Airfix Saturn 5 rocket.   I agree. That photograph of Earthrise still brings a lump to my throat when I see it. A magical moment - and their reading from Genesis was thought provoking, though I am not a religious person. The comment 'to all on the good earth' was emotional;clearly they felt a long way away!   Incidentally, on the topic of the computers & software used, I seem to recall that the computer error reported several times by Buzz Aldrin while the landing was in progress was due to an overflow condition - an overflow error - since the crew had elected to run the LEM radar altimeter from much higher up than first planned. The extra computing and storage load overwhelmed the computer, hence the repeated warnings. Someone in Houston had to decide whether this was a mission critical failure - it was concluded the computer would continue to function adequately. Nail biting!  This was ZX-81 level capability - state of the art for mobile computing then. And no lazy programming possible then; programs stripped to the bone because memory as well as computer power was so limited!  The trick was to know how to reuse memory locations with clever organisation of calculations to minimise repetition. It's easy to forget how different it all was.   Edited By John Bisset on 18/07/2017 21:44:49

Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 11/07/2017 16:23:21: The sea fury too was apparently prone to flipping over but i cant really see how. RNHF lost one sea fury as the pilot was told to jump ship instead of belly land it and yet they have had two other sea fury's of theirs belly land without flipping over. I think spits were fine to belly land on land but ditching in the sea was very dodgy in both the spit and hurricane. As for the spar, there was a video on youtube showing the damage to the right hand tip and im pretty sure more than 3 rib bays are gone. But i fully accept the argument about repairs during the war. I dont know if this would have needed to go to an MU for repairs and if it did would they have just fitted a whole new wing and repaired the other one later? In the case of the Sea Fury at Prestwick, the problem was one leg up, one leg down and nothing the pilot could do, including bouncing the good leg on the runway, would shift that. That is an almost certain cartwheel and inverted with probable fire, so he was ordered to take her out to sea and bail out. I remember being told that the radiators in the Spitfire and Hurricane meant they were apt to nosedive rapidly on hitting the water. The drag of those scoops. I imagine the Mustang would do the same.

If the prop was windmilling the drag would almost certainly be even higher than with a stopped prop, which makes judging a forced landing a real challenge. Well done the pilot for a successful landing - which is any one you can walk away form, Clearly a repairable aircraft, so even better. I don't know whether Mustangs were viewed as safer for forced landing with wheels down or up on a reasonably flat surface like that field. That large oil cooler vent under the rear fuselage must add to the overturn risk. Personally I think I'd opt for wheels up, both for reduced overturn chance and damage reduction, but then I'm not a P-51 driver. I was amazed to read, many years ago, that pilots were advised not to land the Tempest V wheels up because they were apt to turn over, and they look more stable in that regard than a Mustang. Good work, that man!

How about the knot slipped and hence there was no rope send attached to the vessel ? Shouldn't happen with competent matelots, but...

Ah - have just found information about the Libelle DLG - not at all the same beast. Sorry Steve!

Ouch. What does your friend think started it? I use a stainless steel box about 30cm eachs ide (old surplus item), with the Lipo bag inside. I wondered if that was OTT - I think I've decided it is not. John

A query out of curiosity Steve. Where did you get your Libelle? Is it a kit? I owned a full size Libelle for quite few years and enjoyed it hugely, It always seemed a bit like a scale model anyway compared to other Standard Class sailplanes. I'd very much like to have a model version, though I'm not sure how I'd launch it. I suspect I'd go for hill launches only - I do have an old bungy tucked away somewhere ; I don't think I'd want to fling a Libelle - or even a Discus unless they are very small! Cheers, John