Martin Harris - Moderator

Are you sure there isn't a stripped thread in the cone?  I've never seen a silencer that doesn't have it threaded.    

If no-one comes up with a better method and assuming you have a delta peak charger that can display the relevant info, try them on a NiMH setting(which won't hurt a NiCd) and if they are AA size and take more than 1200 mA then you can be fairly certain they are NiMH cells.   If they don't appear to be NiMH from the above and you charge them on a NiCd setting, keep a close watch on them and if they get hot to the touch they are probably tired NiMHs and not worth keeping.Edited By Martin Harris on 14/11/2010 21:48:05

What have you done, Bob?   There were power lines in the background - the ban 'em brigade are going to have a field day!!!

That's along the lines I was thinking Simon, I suspect that you'd need to increase the wing loading to get the equivalent performance.  Mr Reynolds gets very significant at these sizes.

Jay,  Please don't feel I'm trying to "have a go" at your operation of what is a lightweight model and you seem to have a generally responsible and well researched attitude - despite the impression given by some of your videos such as the "crash" one where you state "Flying too low, too fast and behind obstacles it's bound to lead to problems". It's the sensationalist impression given that I feel is potentially damaging to the hobby in general and if the CAA are happy that you are operating within the law then I can have no argument with that and can only wish you good luck and happy flying.

Posted by Jay28 on 11/11/2010 18:34:25:  The PIC playing a spotters role does not have to be anywhere near a transmitter  they only need to maintain "unaided visual contact with the aircraft" and be able to give the pilot verbal communications. This point has been thrashed over many many times with the CAA and is perfectly legal, regardless of anyone's opinion of it,  I have to admit to some surprise that the CAA has agreed that this procedure complies with the intent of the legislation - do you have agreement in writing?   Surely the idea that as soon as the PIC detects a situation that could result in a collision or loss of control, they then take control and return the model to a safe situation. You seem to be suggesting that the CAA have accepted that your PIC could be negotiating fields or driving on a public road on a quad while somehow guiding you over a radio link (handsfree, I assume). Are you certain that they haven't simply assumed that your PIC is standing nearby and able to physically take control and that your question related simply to the use of buddy leads?

Posted by Jay28 on 11/11/2010 15:59:54: Martin,   I thought you wouldn't like the concept of a long distance spotter but at the same time it's perfectly legal. Going back to learner drivers without dual controls, the driver in change/instructor is not able to physical take control of the vehicle, it is not legal to drive from the passenger seat, they can only give verbal instructions. When learning to ride a motorcycle the instructor speaks to the student via a radio link, again unable to physicality take control.   It's odd that driving schools go to the bother of fitting dual controls then!  But is it really valid to compare supervision methods from other activities here?    The bottom line is the law as the CAA and the courts interpret it.  As I said before, if you have specifically cleared the principle of a remotely located PIC with the CAA and are complying with the rest of their requirements, I have no problem with your operation and I wish you well.  Edited By Martin Harris on 11/11/2010 16:48:01

Sorry but I do find it rather hard to accept that your lady friend who may or may not be a competent flier can be defined as being the pilot in command when not able to physically intervene and being subject to the vagaries of a ground to ground radio link.   I'm glad that you take the law seriously but posting videos with no apparent PIC is the sort of ammunition that could be used against model fliers if someone with a vested interest wanted to make a point.  Saying that motorists speeding hasn't result in driving being banned is stretching the point a bit but it has resulted in the introduction of speed traps, cameras and other devices to detect the offences leading to minor inadvertent transgressors being prosecuted - not that you can argue against this in law but an example of the excesses of a minority impinging on the generally law abiding.   If the CAA have specifically approved your operating procedure then it's fair enough but to be frank, getting the OK from an MP who probably has no understanding of the subject may not protect you in the event that the CAA take exception.

Jay,   It's possible you had a spotter but in what way were they in charge of the aircraft without a buddy lead?   From the current BMFA handbook:   ANO Article 166 (3) says The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions. This is a strict legal requirement   It also explains that BMFA insurance is not valid unless the buddy lead conditions are adhered to - which may or may not concern you.   To be fair, I hadn't made it clear that I also looked at some of your other videos where you are clearly flying alone and in some cases over built up areas and not in compliance, in my opinion, with the ANO.   I am trying to advise you for your own good and for the good of other modellers who might be caught up in the backlash from any adverse publicity. If you are operating with the full approval of the CAA then you have my best wishes for many enjoyable flights in the future.

Stick with a 2 blade prop for flying.  It will be far more efficient.  The reason for 4 (and other multi-blade versions) on the full size was purely to transmit the available power while maintaining some ground clearance.  If you consider it, the closer the next blade is to the preceding one, the more turbulent the air is around it - hence the fall in efficiency as the blade thrashes around in the turbulence.   A 2 bladed prop is the usual compromise over the theoretically better single blade with a counterweight for balance - as used in some control line speed applications.  By all means make a nice scale prop for display purposes...   Remember that the diameter of a suitable 4 blader will be even less than the much smaller than scale 2 blader unless you're running a geared output (or perish the thought, a low KV *l*ctr*c motor) so there's little realism value in having one.Edited By Martin Harris on 10/11/2010 22:57:28

Jay,  Do yourself a favour and pull those videos before the CAA get wind of them.  Unless I'm very mistaken you haven't got a safety pilot and I believe that's in contravention of the ANO

Book had to be Biggles!

Possibly slightly off topic but relevant to the subject of public misunderstanding was the reaction of a friend's new lady who we took to Barkston.  On witnessing the demise of the B52 as we were walking through the trade stands and expressing our sadness at the loss of the B52 she said in a shocked voice, "Never mind the plane, what about the poor people in it..." To say she was relieved when we explained was an understatement! Edited By Martin Harris on 10/11/2010 11:48:15

The usual winners from going to court are the lawyers.  However a "test" case against a council came out, there's a danger that this would provide the oxygen of publicity to the very people that you fear, resulting in even more pressure on the hobby. In the case of the rogue flyer having his transgressions hauled in front of a court, yes, it will be him that suffers directly with possible fines or imprisonment but again, the negative publicity generated would in all probability, affect you and I very badly. Edited By Martin Harris on 10/11/2010 10:28:21

Am I alone in not seeing some of the "errors" in the flight in question? The take off into sun was nothing of the sort.  The sun was the best part of 45 degrees to the left of the take off heading and the model turned right - look at the pilot's shadow shortly before launch.   It's always difficult to tell with telephoto lenses but I can't see any reason to suspect the flight path went through the power lines.  I wouldn't like to state that it went into cloud - the auto exposure was having trouble compensating and it would be anyone's guess where the model was at times but the cloudbase looked to be at least 3000 feet judging by the well defined fair weather Cumulus. Where on earth does the suggestion of going dead stick come from?  The engine was still running at touch down.  Although the merits of publicising the performance of cutting edge models to the general public may be debatable, I saw the flight as being well controlled and conducted in a safe environment.  In response to David, I still stand by my statement that we have the two choices - his "additional" example is surely just a facet of self regulation.Edited By Martin Harris on 10/11/2010 09:41:26

Seems to me that as a hobby we have a choice.   Self regulation or state regulation.  I prefer the former.   We do need to realise that our equipment has moved on massively while our physical abilities and vulnerabilities haven't.  When I started RC flying in the mid 70s a 40 was a serious engine and 60s were the province of the expert.  As far as I remember, not aspiring to such great heights at the time, a large model was defined as over 5kg and came under the control of the CAA with an exemption needed.   Some of this was highlighted when I took my grandaughter to the Hop Farm a couple of years ago.  I really couldn't enjoy the fast jets because all I could think about was the consequence of a failure causing a few degrees shift in heading of an out of control projectile.  I don't mind admitting that I viewed things very differently on that day - but continue to enjoy high performance modelling in a relatively safe environment.   I'm quite aware that even a small model going out of control at a public show could have awful results but the amount of energy in one of these fast models represents a considerable potential danger and we must be aware of this and act accordingly.

As I understand it, piano wire isn't heat treatable and gets its hardness from work hardening during the drawing process.   I'm not a metallurgist but although I believe quenching will restore hardness it will be extremely brittle. As far as I'm aware it isn't possible to temper it by any heat process as can be done with ordinary carbon steels and restore its original properties.Edited By Martin Harris on 07/11/2010 00:27:46

Posted by Eric Bray on 06/11/2010 19:37:11: Gary - not sure what you want 2mm threaded rod for - do you just want the end threaded, or the whole length? I use bike spokes for pushrods, one end is threaded just the right size and pitch for clevises!  Fine if the thread is right but not all spokes have the same thread so if you try it check the fit very carefully.

Never tried it on wood - you might well  get distortion from the wood swelling due to the water base of the PVA.  If you try it I'd recommend a good coating of sanding sealer first.

If it's on blue or pink foam you'll find it hard to believe how much strength is added.  Remember to leave a good overlap in the middle if you cover each wing seperately and it's best to cover both sides of a wing at the same time to avoid warping.

Posted by Ultymate on 05/11/2010 22:11:10: @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css); @import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); Personally as my forum name suggests I prefer an Ultimate @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css); @import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); Edited By Ultymate on 05/11/2010 22:16:05  I've always marvelled at the Ultimate.       How can such an ugly corruption of the beautiful Pitts Special fly so well?    But as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and each to his own.

Sure it didn't say 5 turns?   I know some ringed 4 strokes advocate the initial run so rich that it may be necessary to leave the glow connected. I can't put my hands on instructions covering the 61 but the 160 twin instructions state 3 1/2 turns (well "tunes" actually!)

If they've put the 2 orders in one package then I can't see any justification for charging P&P twice.  Nearly as galling as one supplier who I ordered some blade and box from - they sent the blade as the box wasn't in stock - quite reasonably only charging for that...and a week or so later sent me the box - charging the appropriate amount again.   ...but charging P&P on "both" orders!!! 

I've had a few direct dealings with Ripmax over model and engine problems and can't fault their service.  In one case they went to the trouble of sourcing parts to replace faulty items for a kit they were no longer agents for.

An 80" Pitts is approaching giant status - that's well over 1/3 scale and a lot of model.   What's your experience level?  To answer your question we'd really need to know and with respect, the tone of your enquiry doesn't sound like someone with a great deal.