Martin Harris - Moderator
-
Posts
13,410 -
Joined
-
Days Won
25
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by Martin Harris - Moderator
-
-
What specs for a trainer?Powerful ones for a small one and less powerful for a large one..?
-
I thought I was the only one! Seeing my clubmate's workshops perfectly organised with everything tidily in place fills me with envy. I try, I really try, but the mess builds up until I can't work any more and I'm forced into a tidy up (currently on day 3 of the latest epic mission...)However, I comfort myself that a steady procession of models emerge from the clutter - unlike the tidiest workshop I know where a 1/5 scale P40 has been a work in progress for more than 8 years!
-
Posted by Lazygit on 18/09/2010 21:45:12:
we are not legally allowed to build our own gadgets unless we get a very expensive compliance certificate.
So thanks a bunch to the EU and the manufacturers.
Oh dear, this is the first I've heard of this and I hope you're wrong - but it won't surprise me if you're not...Between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister deciding that I'm incapable of shifting a socket in my kitchen or providing a light fitting in my bathroom and the EU poking their nose in to everything we'll soon be needing certification to do up our shoelaces!What's the applicable legislation? -
Must have been Freudian - but certainly an appropriate slip of a fat finger!
-
Posted by Boots on 17/09/2010 21:15:57:
I noticed a top of the range futaba tx for 1600 pounds , what does it give you a 250 pound one doesnt ??Aching arms and shoulders?
Edited By Martin Harris on 17/09/2010 21:45:47
-
Many years ago I built a jet style pusher which proved to be rather glued to the short patch in the middle of a very bumpy Croxley Moor. After failing to find a volunteer willing to risk having their hand shredded by the prop to hand launch it (and 34 tears later I still have the scars on both hands - I'm a slow learner - to remind me how dangerous pusher props can be when adjusting the mixture) I came up with the brilliant idea of using an aerotow release installed on the front former behind the nose block and my glider bungee to provide the initial oomph.We stretched the bungee as far as humanly possible and attached the towhook. A regular contributor to this forum gleefully volunteered to do the stick stirring while I restrained it by the wingtips until he'd applied full throttle and it shot off like a rifle bullet as I let go. By the time I got to the transmitter to perform my pre-arranged role of operating the tow release the model had over-run the (previously straight) stiff wire trace disappearing into the noseblock and there was no reaction from the unstretched bungee.A second or so later we watched helplessly as tension was reapplied to the bungee, the model stopped in the air and then plummetted so fast that the pilot was unable to react quickly enough to stop it impacting nose first into the earth and exploding into a cloud of foam, balsa, ply and Solarfilm particles which we eventually recovered once we'd finally controlled our uncontrollable laughter.
Edited By Martin Harris on 17/09/2010 20:47:09
-
Posted by David Turner 5 on 17/09/2010 15:27:12:
Lee.You state that it's dangerous because an accident might financially cripple the pilot. Well, if I choose to do that, what concern of yours is it?Then, you go on to tell us of how awful it is to have your child killed by a model.Clearly, you put a financial value on your child's life. Tell me, how much money will make it better for you?1. Who says Lee feels it's any concern of his how you choose to spread your risks. The point was made generally that there's a financial danger involved in not having insurance. This thread was based on a misinterpretation of that point.2. Lee was referring to the statistical chance of a child being hit.3. I think that that is, quite frankly, a very silly comment.In common with several others, I think this has run its course and I'm not intending to continue it. -
I put mine on the cooker hob (when SWMBO is out) which is in a fairly non flammable area. I also have a smoke alarm not far away...
-
To muddy the waters even more - one of the dTI documents I read last night from their website specifically excluded a person selling a surplus to requirement non-CE marked item at a car boot sale from prosecution! So if it's "legal" for someone to sell that item then surely by extension, it must have been bought by the new purchaser legitimately!
Edited By Martin Harris on 17/09/2010 17:21:25
-
It's very good advice BEB but I think the legal requirement as a user is for your equipment to comply with any applicable regulations such as EMC directives and power outputs.My perception from reading a few dTI documents from a very amateur perspective is that there's no actual offence in simply using non CE equipment but that having a legitimate CE marking would be some defence against prosecution and give peace of mind that the type (not the individual piece of kit in your possession BTW) has been tested to be compliant. The possible offences would be using non-EMC compliant, or supplying non-CE marked, equipment.
Edited By Martin Harris on 17/09/2010 01:07:30
-
I believe I'm correct in thinking that the law requires that equipment sold within the EU carries the CE mark but is this the case if I personally import a receiver for my own use? I'm not sure that there's any law that says it's illegal to use non CE marked equipment although should it be found to be operating outside permitted specifications the Radio Regulatory department might take some interest.If I were to design and build my own receiver, would using it invalidate my insurance?If I'm not breaking any law by using an unmarked receiver (not that I do) why would this invalidate my insurance? As I understand the BMFA insurance, it simply covers against claims relating to my modelling activities. There are no specifications that I'm aware of for the equipment to be used other than complying with the requirements of air law in not endangering other aircraft etc. or in being of a quality where I could be reasonably satisfied that a flight can be made safely in the case of a >7kg model where questions might be asked about non-mainstream equipment.Edit:Timbo, I posted this before seeing your questions - this wan't intended as an answer to any of them but more as asking similar questions along with my perceptions...
Edited By Martin Harris on 17/09/2010 00:24:37
-
Posted by David perry 1 on 16/09/2010 12:02:06:
We must guard though against selecting to insure for outcome rather than probability: because to choose outcome will increase premiums and get flying in parks and fields banned.I dont know why I'm playing Devil's advocate...I'm insured!DAnd very sensible too from your reasoned posts. However, isn't the reason we insure always based on worst case outcome (no-one sets out with the intention of having an accident) and the premium we pay based on probability and profitability/market share for the insurer?P.S. I'm not sure how I took your comments out of context previously- whether or not you feel there's a high probability of an accident you take what I'm sure the majority agree to be the sensible course of having adequate insurance.Edited By Martin Harris on 16/09/2010 12:36:29
-
Posted by David perry 1 on 16/09/2010 09:44:21:
Obviously very emotive subject!However, the outcome would be so bad that (as others have stated) for MY peace of mind I DO buy insurance.Not having insurance is NOT dangerous or reckless. I struggle with it being selfish but I might concede that point: it depends on the model. Flying my foamy at the local park uninsured is not selfish as it cannot possibly cause any harm whatsoever, but flying a big glow model, hmmm, maybe. Probability vs outcome again.If the BMFA scheme folded tomorrow and you could not get more insurance anywhere, would you stop flying?I'd say it relates more to common sense than emotion. I'm not sure how you equate the next statements though - you find the danger of having a large claim against you sufficient to find insurance necessary for peace of mind!I'd certainly hate to have to make that final choice...I suspect it might curtail my high end flying. -
Ken, there's no argument about insurance - it insures you against a claim made on you as the pilot.Why are you worried about whose insurance is claimed against? There's no loading or no claims discount to worry about. The way the law (and specifically Air Law for >7kg models) looks at it is that the person who is flying the model should take any reasonable precautions to satisfy themselves that the model is safe to use. I must say that I've learnt through experience to double check newcomers definition of a fully charged battery - we narrowly averted disaster once when I realised that a pupil had decided an hour on the wall charger was sufficient to recharge his tx and rx batteries!We have a specific point in our flying rules stating that the financial responsibility for a model rests with the owner - i.e. if he asks someone to fly it and they damage it, there's no recompense from the pilot - but points out that any legal responsibilities will remain with the pilot.
-
Splendidly put...
-
Not remote enough from your horse riding neighbour!
-
Posted by Tim Mackey - Administrator on 15/09/2010 21:56:28:
It should be noted that the original post which spurned this discussion, suggested that people flying at the O/Ps field were not required to show proof of insurance, and for the sake of clarity, I reproduce that post here.It is unclear whether this "field" is a "club" as such."If you visit our field, you will find that you may stand where you please, so long as you don't dither on the active. No-one will berate you or demand that you conform. We take the view that, since you are out on your own, you are responsible for your own safety and able to make rational decisions.Similarly, no-one will demand to see your insurance.It's really none of their business whether you choose to protect your own assets, or not".If it's a BMFA afiliated club then they are sadly lacking in complying with the terms of their club's insurance by allowing or condoning (by ommission) visitors flying uninsured.
-
Dan, I'm afraid that 2 children have been killed by other people's models in the last decade in this country - one of whom was totally unconnected with model flying.
Edited By Martin Harris on 15/09/2010 22:18:30
-
Posted by David perry 1 on 15/09/2010 21:47:13:
Over the past twenty or thirty years I have had my fare share of crashes and near misses, but I have never hit anything or anyone, and thats not good luck or chance, it comes from carefully considering where and when and how and what I fly, like everyone else on this forum I trust.. I am sure people on here HAVE hit things or even, though I hope not, another person...but statistically, how many? VERY few.I agree that you can minimise risks by proper planning and awareness but it is because the unexpected can and, statistically, will happen that we have our insurance cover if we value peace of mind. I think you've alluded to this viewpoint anyway. Perhaps you don't have ramblers, horse riders, farm animals, flyaways etc. in your part of the country but there is always a remote possibility that someone or something unexpected will get in the way of your model. Whatever, as I'm sure you didn't plan to have any of your crashes and near misses, you must agree that had one of these coincided with the unfortunate appearance of an innocent party, your planning, however careful, couldn't have made any difference.If having an accident causes financial suffering (on top of any physical harm) to a third party, how is this not being selfish?P.S. Very few is still too many!Edited By Martin Harris on 15/09/2010 22:30:15
-
I sense a little hair splitting here - to me, Lee's comment is regarding the financial danger to the unfortunate uninsured pilot (and of course, by extension, his family) who is held responsible for a serious accident.I'm surprised you haven't picked up on the selfish aspect? Slightly more difficult to explain but probably to do with the effect on the victim, who may not be able to extract suitable recompense from an impecuneous flier and of course, the negative publicity which could result to the hobby.
Edited By Martin Harris on 15/09/2010 21:42:58
-
You could drop Neil Tidey an email - [email protected] - even if they weren't official copies they may be so old that old he may at least give you some insight into what happened if there were "difficulties" at the time. Neil's always been extremely approachable in my experience...and he might even sell you some spares!
-
Posted by Danny Fenton on 12/09/2010 18:05:51:
To me it is better to see the arc of the prop to the correct scale than it is to hear something akin to a four cylinder engine only running on one pot. Edited By Danny Fenton on 12/09/2010 18:08:21I'm totally in agreement with you - a single cylinder 4 stroke will never sound like the real thing....but it sounds an awful lot better to me than a muted whine of an electric motor whirring away. Somehow, I can't find 'a scale model of a piston engined aircraft convincing unless it has a living, breathing infernal combustion engine burning fuel.I'm not against electric power for sports models, indoor flying, powered gliders, 3D etc. - all of which I happily indulge in, but not for a decent scale job and especially not for a WW1 model. There's no right or wrong here - it's all personal choice but I'd always prefer IC and thoroughly agree with Hugh's choice. -
Posted by Tom Sharp 2 on 12/09/2010 18:55:35:
Irvine 53 Mk2 need a special tool for fitting new bearings, not like OS.Lukily I have a mate who poseses such a tool.I've never had to resort to a special tool - can you tell us more about it?Usually a warm in the oven(150 - 200 C) followed by a sharp tap of the crankcase on a handy block of wood will release the rear bearing - the front may come out on its own (see below) or a gentle tap with a drift while the case is still hot will shift it.I usually fit the new rear bearing to the crankshaft and pop it into the fridge (in a plastic bag) to cool it so there's more differential expansion and use the crankshaft to guide the bearing in pulling it through the previously fitted front bearing which will keep it aligned.I have found some Irvines tend to leak air between the front bearing and its housing - the symptom is it refusing to stop for 30 seconds or more after closing the throttle right down. The cure is to assemble it with a little Loctite Bearing Fit or similar. -
Falcon Skincrylic (and as far as I know, PolyC and similar) is an extremely effective fuel proofer (although not too good for a gloss finish) and really easy to apply. It also has the advantage that its fully effective within a few hours if you're in a hurry.
Brushless magnets let go..........
in Motor Discussion
Posted
Pete B