Nigel Heather

Just answering your specific exam question, yes, I believe it will generate more thrust. Of course as others have said, if you just remove a 2 blade and replace it with a 3 blade the results are undefined because there will be extra drag, extra current, so there is no guarantee that the powertrain could turn the 3 blade at the same RPM. But if you can turn a 3 blade with same diameter, same pitch, same RPM then it will generate more thrust.

Just renewed mine - 50p increase on last year because I dropped the rewards card (it was nice to have in the wallet but found I wasn't using it). Will miss the magazines but to be honest, I never really read them, just a quick skim through before consigning them to recycling. Not surprised by the magazine becoming a costed extra - I sensed it was heading that way when the number of pages and the quality of the paper increased. I'd not be surprised if the paper magazine ceases if insufficient members stump up the £10.

Another reason why the ‘innovation’ rationale is complete BS is that 3% from each registered operator amounts to around £60k - anyone that has worked for large organisations will know that is peanuts and not enough to achieve anything. If they were really doing ‘innovation’ they’d need to spend millions.

A hell of a lot of words to bamboozle, or to put people off reading, which ultimately say nothing at all. Please in plain English, and written concisely, what exactly are they going to do with this 3% that they are extorting. My guess is to just pay the increased ATOS hosting invoice.

My question would be “what do I get from this ‘innovation’s. What is this ‘innovation’. And don’t say to fly lawfully, because I was getting that before and that is increasing by 5.3% - I get that prices increase but very suspicious about the extra 3% on top for a vague and undefined ‘innovation’. If I were to guess CAA - we want to increase by 8.3% Government auditor - sorry price increases capped to 5.3% CAA - okay, how about if we increase by 5.3% and we bung on an extra 3% for ‘innovation’ Government auditor - what’s this innovation CAA - it’s innovation Government auditor - oh go on then, as long as it is not a price increase

Hi Simon, When you say you used foamboard are you talking about the stuff with paper lining either side or the stiff without paper (like depron)

Nice - where did you get the plans for this - or is it your own design?

Quick Google says SEMFF (South East Michigan Foamy Flyers)

Interesting comment about the Riot. I have a Ruckus and whilst I agree that the airframe goes together quickly I found the battery and electronics bay very poorly thought out. In fact, I take note, that although the manual goes through the assembly in minute step by step detail, it practically glosses over the ESC, battery and receiver fitting, doesn't show any pictures of how they expect it all to fit in a sensible easy to use way.

As I read it, the airframe is black but he want to adds some yellow contrasting decoration. The advice given to paint it white is referring to just the decoration parts as an undercoat so that the yellow will cover more easily and more opaquely. From my experience of painting plastic miniatures for wargaming I know that the colours red, yellow and white are notoriously challenging because the pigments used do not provide good opacity. White used to be okay, but the pigment that did a good job was lead based and is now banned in Europe so white paint doesn’t cover so when now. My experience is with acrylic paints, it may be a different for enamels and lacquers but I doubt it. Yellow is probably the hardest to get an opaque cover and takes many coats to achieve. So if using paint, I’d recommend an undercoat first. The latest fashion in miniature paint is to use a pink undercoat for yellow, many swear by it, but that does alter the tone of the yellow, so I’d probably stick with white or light grey. Cheers, Nigel

Out of stock of 3/16" and based on the low advertised price suspect they have been out of stock for some time but they do have the 5/16". This is basically the same story everywhere I have looked in the UK - no problem with the 5/16" but either no listing for 3/16" or if it is listed they are out of stock. The proper 3/16" Flite Test Maker Foam does have paper on both sides.

It's been an interesting read. Question though - if I was really determined to use genuine 3/16" (5mm) Flite Test Maker Board because it is lighter and the paper peels off easily is there anywhere in the UK where I can buy it? See plenty of places selling 5/16" (8mm) but not the 3/16". And strange thing is that if I go to the official Flite Test Store they only sell 3/16" which is making me doubt whether the 5/16" is even genuine Maker Board. I've looked at stuff on Amazon, there are some good packs there but again, is it the same as Hobbycraft stuff - I assume so. Cheers, Nigel

With the suggestions of using Depron do you add paper for strength?

Looking at the build videos, you only peel the paper off one side or just in parts. Typically where you are forming curves you peel off the paper on the inside to make the foam board bend round the curve.

What is there to use for foam board models in the UK? Ideally, I would buy Flite Test foam board but not so easy to find in the UK and very expensive when you do. Quite jealous of our American friends who can buy a pack of 50 sheets for £100. I am aware of the Hobbycraft 5mm foam board sheets, but consensus is that it weighs more than Flite Test foam, also the paper layers are more difficult to remove. Speculation is that the glue used to adhere the paper is the cause for both those challenges. Means the models tend to build heavier but in particular come out tail heavy. I am also vaguely aware of the Vitrex underlay from B&Q, but don’t much more than it exists. Anyone use anything else - in particular, anyone know where to get Flite Test foam board in the UK at a sensible price?