Martin Harris - Moderator
-
Posts
12,610 -
Joined
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by Martin Harris - Moderator
-
-
I forgot to say that I don't bother with a choke on my 4 strokes. Assuming you use a pressure pipe then all you need to do is place a finger on the silencer and turn the prop a few times until is sounds a bit sloppy...most 4 strokes (and many decent 2 strokes) will then start on a back flip.Alternatively, get someone to pulse their finger sympathetically (to avoid flooding) on the silencer end while you apply the starter.One less hole in the cowling and I think you'll find it as good if not better than using a choke.
-
Rather than start a new thread, I hope it's OK to wake this one up again.I have never been able to obtain a clear answer on this one - specifically, my limited understanding of aerial theory won't answer whether it's the physical length of the wire that affects resonance or the simple distance between the receiver and wherever the end of the aerial happens to be as I've often been told.Obviously the ideal situation is an arrow straight line from receiver to aerial tip but how much would it affect an aerial to have. for example, a 90 degree bend half way along its length?Would the electrical length remain essentially the same (I assume inductance effects could be ignored) or does the view that the straight line length should relate to the wavelength hold any water? I can visualise that might be relevant if it was a full wavelength aerial but I can't see it relating to an 1/8th wavelength one.Assuming a bend is not a significant factor, is there an advantage to be had in having parts of the aerial at different orientations to avoid a total end on presentation?I'd appreciate it if answers to this one came from people with in-depth knowledge of the subject e.g. radio hams, radio/electronics instructors, designers etc. rather than those like me who know the stock answers and maybe have just a little knowledge of the subject.
-
Don't you just love low level dogfighting...
-
Patch ventures onto the patch to check the patch under the wing (but reckon's it's not a patch on his ARF...) arf arf
Edited By Martin Harris on 24/03/2009 10:01:01
-
I use a long allen key through the front air intake to fix my extension which exits the port side of the cowling. A friend's version (which I set up and test flew for him on Saturday - it flew really nicely but as he's using a Y lead on separate aileron servos with no inbuilt differential needed more rudder in the turns than mine) has an SC52 which has the needle extension exiting on the other side just behind the small scoop - and he can tighten the fixing screw through the scoop!
-
Worked fine on my Javelin - follow the advice to use nylocs or threadlock.
-
Ouch Mark! Something seems to have rattled your cage!I think we've taken a reasonable approach "on the basis of no actual experience or knowledge of the activity" If that's "blind prejudice" then I hold my hands up. If you re-read your quote from my post you'll note that I did stress that it might be overkill with a clear inference that this policy is not set in stone once some experience is gained.You're absolutely spot on that an EasyStar isn't the most hazardous model in the world but who's to say we won't have our first interested person equipping a 35% CAP with FPV?
We're also guilty as charged over insisting on checks when the 2.4GHz GUID issue emerged and offerering timely advice on the brownout issue. We insisted on following the BMFA black peg guideline until more experience prompted debate at committee and a vote at the AGM to stop using them. Yes, the committee takes a lead until experience leads to questioning the initial precautions and informed debate can be entered into.
As to why no-one has tried FPV I'm doubtful that any reluctance to take it up would be influenced by our specifying a limited (but readily available) number of experienced helpers to satisfy the requirement to abide by the position promulgated by the BMFA giving the view (whether correct or not) that a safety pilot is a legal and insurance requirement.
I certainly haven't heard of any dissenting voices. Personally, I'd love to give it a go but at this time I don't really want to invest several hundred pounds to indulge in what might be a gimmick. Some friends at another club weren't particularly enthused over their own experience but if anyone at our club was experimenting, I for one would go out of my way to assist.. And I doubt that I'd be alone.It is a sad fact that as a responsible club, we do have to be aware of the "modern Health and Safety mad, totally risk free UK" - not a mindset that I think encourages making balanced and considered judgements and may well be actually counter-productive in the long run, but that's a whole different debate.You may not find this at all odd, but our club has a reputation locally for enforcing rules and discipline and that would seem to prove your case. However, it was like that when I joined and has remained that way BUT it is one of the friendliest bunch of blokes I've ever known, touch wood has no "political" issues, an approachable committee, sensible rules that are reviewed regularly and openly and very importantly due in no little part to observing our rules, good (touch wood very firmly again) relations with the neighbours.
We do seem to be wandering off topic with these posts - perhaps you might think of starting a new thread if the above hasn't put your mind at rest...
Edited By Martin Harris on 23/03/2009 21:41:12
-
I'd second that. Terry, the issue is of a difference in opinion between the conclusion drawn by the BMFA in consultation with their insurers/CAA and Simon's reported dealings with the CAA (I say reported because he's unwilling to share them although there's no reason to doubt him).I assume that the idea behind the buddy box requirement is that with the best will in the world, there is a difference between having someone standing on the flightline observing and someone with a buddy box holding the switch down in physical control of the flight. Although it's perfectly possible for either to be totally responsible I think there might be an attitude difference in some cases.
In our club, although no-one has tried it yet, we've decided that for the time being, only recognised instructors will be able to act as safety pilots as they are used to taking control at appropriate moments and will not be overawed by senior pilots. This may be overkill but we feel it's a sensible precaution until more experience is gained.I have drawn the BMFA's attention to this thread and I hope that both parties can get together and come up with a common policy.
-
Apart from a little turbulence it was a great day in the South - T shirt weather and really springlike...just like Thursday should have been.
Only problem was getting near the flightline for the fair-weather flyers that came out of the woodwork!Edited By Martin Harris on 22/03/2009 00:38:52
-
David said, "the sun was shining, it was warm and I whistled a merry tune thinking of how I'd be flying after lunch. Packed the car, turned up at the patch and the sun had gone, the wind was up and it was jolly cold
"
And I thought it only happened to me!Mind you - at least I did get 8 flights in and it warmed up at the end of the afternoon. Back to the grind today. Perhaps tomorrow will be better - but I must say that I reckon I've had more decent flying days so far this year than the whole of 2008... -
No - but you've done it the difficult way as it would needed to be EXACTLY on the C of G with no air movement and with the model absolutely still - unless your balance pivot was too sticky to move properly, of course...
-
Sounds like you might need to add some downthrust. Once you've trimmed it with some down elevator under power then on the glide it will tend to drop its nose and build up speed quickly if the thrustline is too high.I last flew mine on NiMHs so I suspect yours won't be any heavier but you didn't say what size pack you're using.I've slope soared in a gentle breeze without difficulty (motor installed but not needed) so the glide shouldn't give you any problem.
The C of G won't have much relevence to this problem. A rearward position will make it pitch sensitive but not the symptoms you've described. I can't remember wher my C of G was but just go with the position in the instructioons and you shouldn't have any problems there.
Edited By Martin Harris on 19/03/2009 18:17:13
-
When you remove the battery, the plug relies on a chemical reaction (the platinum element acts as a catalyst) to stay glowing. A duff plug with deposits on the element (or in the case of cheaper plugs, worn platinum plating) will glow through the heating effect of the battery current but fail to sustain.If it isn't the plug then the mixture may be too rich which overcools the element and stops the reaction. A good indication of a rich idle mixture is a large rev. drop when you remove the plug lead. Try leaning the main needle a little first, as there is an overall effect at idle but failing this making any difference, it's most likely that the idle needle will need screwing in somewhat - best to get someone at your club who knows a bit about engines to show you how to adjust it though...although it does outline the procedure in the manual.
Edited By Martin Harris on 19/03/2009 10:03:53
-
As you may be able to tell from the cooling holes I had also intended putting them in the nacelles but the solution to the long leads problem jumped out at me. The cooling holes will do for the motors anyway!The Mosquito lends itself to the following solution with its wing mounted radiators but you might be able to set your speed controllers into the underside of the wing to avoid lengthening either set of wires...
Edited By Martin Harris on 19/03/2009 01:34:42
-
Simon,Certainly looks like you're taking things seriously and I can only applaud that approach. I do think it would be good if the BMFA could liaise with you and agree a joint policy.Cheers,Martin
-
Simon,My worry is that the general nature of the ANO regarding this activity leaves it open to interpretation that a TPV flyer could endanger an aircraft by flying with a limited field of view. It may very well not be the case but the national body has given the impression that the CAA has laid down conditions and it would be foolish in the extreme not to satisfy oneself that this was not the case.Please don't think that I'm against anything you're doing and I'm more than happy that you've liaised with the CAA on the subject.My impression is that the CAA are concerned enough about the operation of UAVs to be making specific legislation and that there is a certain grey area in the crossover between FPV flying and UAVs in which they are attempting to accommodate our needs.I'd like to think that you will or have been able to include the BMFA in your deliberationsand that between you there can be a joint statement in order to clarify the position for anyone interested in FPV flying.Perhaps as this is an open forum, someone from the BMFA might see this and care to comment?
Edited By Martin Harris on 18/03/2009 17:13:18
-
Simon,I'm very glad to hear that you've taken the responsible line with this and had the activity sanctioned. Would it be possible for you to publish the statements of authorisation as I, for one, would want to see them before diverging from the published advice of a national body.I'm not questioning your information but in the case of anything being misunderstood or misinterpreted, ignorance of the law is no defence. Having met Manny Williamson on several occasions, he strikes me as a level headed and intelligent individual and it would surprise me if his recommendations and reports were anything but carefully considered.Please be assured that I have nothing against FPV flying and would be interested in trying it but I'd hate to see any adverse publicity for the hobby, hence my interest in establishing the full facts of the matter.
-
Edited By Martin Harris on 18/03/2009 14:21:58
-
Simon,
Are you aware that something has changed since the following statement was issued(my italics)?**********************************************************************************After Consultations with the Civil Aviation Authority and our insurers, BMFA is happy to confirm that First Person R/C will be a legal and recognised aspect of model flying and as such covered by the BMFA Insurance policy but ONLY where the following conditions are applied:• The activity is solely for ‘sport and recreation’ purposes.
• Two pilots must take part• A buddy Box system must be employed
• The pilot in charge must operate the master transmitter
• The pilot in charge must not wear the headset or view a screen
• The aircraft remains within the natural unaided visual range of the pilot in charge
• Reliable operation of the Buddy Box is established
• A clear handover protocol is established
• The pilot in charge is solely responsible for the safety of the flight
These operating conditions very clearly place the legal responsibility for the safety of the flight on the pilot in charge.
Only by compliance with the above procedures can First Person RC take place as a lawful and insurable aspect of model flying activity.
***************************************************************************************I think it is important that it is realised that the implication here is that the CAA are only recognising FPV as being an acceptable activity under the Air Navigation Order IF the conditions above are adhered to and would probably consider an operator of a model aircraft to be potentially endangering other aircraft if they weren't. I'd suggest that unless you can find documented evidence to the contrary, it would be in your best interests to confirm the legality of non-buddy boxed flying direct with the CAA and not to be seen to encourage non-compliance in the meantime.One thing that came out of the BMFA Chairman's conference I attended last year was that it is NOT possible to insure against an illegal activity - please be very sure what you're undertaking.
Edited By Martin Harris on 18/03/2009 14:16:12
-
OK thanks, I don't know that I was insisting but I was certainly curious.I must admit that I thought that the CAA had advised the BMFA that they wished to have a safety pilot via a buddy lead in order to mitigate against situations where aircraft might be endangered but I'll check my facts via the other threads etc. Perhaps things have moved on?Knowing from first hand experience how difficult aerial navigation can be (with the benefit of full views and maps to hand) without electronic aids, I must say that the concept of flying out of direct sight of the model worries me in principle.
-
I'd support Mowerman in his question - why?Is there some limitation in the BMFA insurance? Are there suspicions that we are being fleeced by the BMFA or its insurers?It seems to me that we're getting a good cover (10 000 000) for a broad spectrum of activities from the BMFA insurers plus (although fashionable in some places to knock them) a generally responsible body who have achieved a great deal for model flying in this country. I don't see anyone else offering to support us...
-
Flanker,You seem to have confused the thread a little - talk of putting ANY pilot in ANY model conflicting with your early posts where you were concentrating more on sport models - and then stating that you would put a pilot in your Pup...I see where you were coming from in early posts but I still remain convinced that even a sport model with an open or clear cockpit benefits from some form of filling. Perhaps I see it with a modeller's rather than an artist's eye? As I've said before, I've no objection to an obscured (or no) canopy on a sport model.
To be fair to Gemma, you actually posted "I bet if that photo was in a full size mag no one (or only the train spotters) would spot the lack of pilot!" and didn't mention putting it back into a full size mag, so her comments were valid based on the information given.
You've certainly succeeded in stimulating discussion but I still feel that magazine contributors have a perfect right to make observations that they feel most models lack something without pilots which seems to be backed by a majority of modellers. I suspect that we'll have to agree to differ!Oh, and thanks for the kind comments on the Mosquito crew - just a couple of hours work, I don't claim them to be very special but I was happy that they seem to impart a bit of life into the cockpit as I intended.
Edited By Martin Harris on 18/03/2009 00:42:11
-
Me flying my foamy with one of our neighbours:
We have red kites (and buzzards) nesting in woods next to our field. I flew with the kite for several minutes last year, formating and circling with it, gradually leading it over to the flight line. Magic moments.They seem very happy to co-exist with us, having chosen the site next to our field and are happy to fly with all types of models in the air.
-
I took the civilian route with mine. My first close up aquaintance with Chippys was a pair of ex RAF ones used as glider tugs at Dunstable. Very little difference in the paint schemes other than civilian reg. nos. I can't remember but they may still have had their roundels.
Taking a little bit of licence, I suppose, I didn't civilianise mine but I believe the RAF/CAA will allow some ex-service aircraft to retain their markings for historic purposes.Perhaps someone ex-RAF or ex-ATC can remember what the instructors used to wear (if anything) on their heads? I suspect the grey-blue one piece overall would have been most common at the time although more modern service dress would most likely be green flying suits and white or green bonedomes.
Spektrum where is mode 3 and 4 ?
in Spektrum/JR
Posted