Nigel Heather

You could have filed/sanded the wood slightly to open up the hole.

The BMFA had options - the cost of producing the magazine had skyrocketed - they could have kept it as 'free' and hiked up the subscription to cover it, or they could have made a digital edition available for free and offered the physical magazine as a paid extra. They chose the latter, which, personally, I think was the right thing to do. Memberships are already reducing, a price hike wouldn't help that situation. And people are different, you clearly prefer a paper copy. Others might prefer a digital copy. Then there will be many like me, 5 minute skim through it when it was paper, don't bother looking at the digital version.

I'd do an early war Mk IA with dark green / dark earth uppers and black / white / silver unders and a yellow gas detection diamond.

Yes it is easy to imagine that if you fit a ‘puller’ propeller backwards it will behave like a ‘pusher’ propeller but what you actually get is a less-efficient ‘puller’ propeller.

Looks interesting but can't find much about it. Anyone know whether it is easy to remove the paper covering or how light it is?

You got me all excited saying that Elite Models stock Maker Board but unfortunately it seems the same as other UK stocks I have found over the last few years - just the 8mm stuff. As far as I can see the 5mm stuff disappeared from the UK about 5 years ago but 8mm stuff has been really available. The Flite Test models use the 5mm board. They do list 5mm board, as do several other stores but always 'out of stock'

Interesting - the 2 stroke recommendation of 45-65 is as expected but surprised that the recommended electric setup is 4S. Are they really equivalent?

I don't fly IC any more but when I did I noticed two things 1) my fixed wing aircraft had plenty of oil that needed cleaning after the flying session 2) my helicopter rarely had any oil that needed cleaning Always wondered why that was.

For anyone interested, I got to the bottom of the problem I was experiencing with my Ruckus - that it would climb strongly whenever throttle was applied. I tried more than doubling the down thrust - this had minimal effect. I tried moving the CoG - this had minimal effect. Added loads of elevator trim - this got it flying okay, but not great, and there was a roll that I couldn’t quite get rid of as it varied depending on the attitude of the plane. Then when replacing the clevises (I’d discovered that the supplied ones are very brittle) I noticed something odd with the elevator hinging. The right hand elevator was fine, hinged on the centreline but the left hand elevator was not. The outer and centre hinges were good but the inner hinge was set considerably below the centreline resulting in a bend in the left hand elevator. I’d not noticed it before because I’d just be checking at the tips which were fine. I contacted Century UK and they were excellent, quickly sending out a replacement tailplane. Fitted that, removed all the elevator trim and it flys great now.

I’m not, I was just commenting on the statement which suggested that I was the only one out of thousands of customers that has noticed the issue. So I was saying that as the instructions say that the ailerons should move 8mm up and down that others must have noticed that was impossible - without the use, as you say, of a computer transmitter. Just to reiterate, I’m not bothered, it was just something I noticed when replacing the clevises and wanted to understand why it was like that - that’s all, as others say the plane flies okay as it is and I wouldn’t have been any the wiser had I not changed the clevises.

I'm not really that bothered - I didn't notice it at first, it was only when I decided to replace all the clevises after I had two just snap on me - they are made of a hard plastic, like Airfix kit polystyrene which is very brittle. Both the rudder and elevator clevises snapped while in use - still hanging on but it was lucky that I noticed. It was only when I went to change the aileron clevises for good measure that I noticed that the servo horns were raked forward - and I just wondered why - I assumed that it was for mechanical differential but but the symmetry seemed wrong, more down than up, so I asked on here - that's all. BTW - though if all the mass-produced Ruckuses are the same as mine then it is impossible to set up the aileron throws of '8mm up and down' as specified in the manual. But as you say, at my skill level, I won't be able to tell the difference. The reason I am asking about different horns is primarily for the Gangster to be built over the winter that I would like to set up more accurately.

Anyone know of any horns that have a larger than normal offset - I've looked at all the online stores that I can think off but haven't be able to find any. My preference would be to get the horns in the proposer place rather than increasing the rake of the servo arms. Of course it may not be possible as the horns on the foamy do seem to have bespoke mounting plate.

The more I think about it, I think the manufacturer is just trying to offset the horn position to make the aileron movement equal rather than to introduce differential ailerons. One reason is the setup in the manual specifies equal up:down throws for the ailerons. The simplest solution would be to move the horns a little more forward, but I would need new rods for that as they are only barely long enough at the moment for my liking. But I’ve been unable to find any 1.2 threaded rod. The alternative would be to replace it with 2mm. Another possibility is to find different horns or modify the existing ones - but I have never seen any where the clevis holes are well forward of the mounting plate. I have this problem to solve with a kit (a gangster 63 lite) which has sloped top hinged ailerons so the underside front edge of the aileron is miles away from the hinge line.

Got it - so what you are suggesting is that they haven't pitched the servo arms forward to introduce differential ailerons but to try and get rid of of unintentional differential from having the servo horns too far back?

Here you go

Yes that is what I thought- guessing that I must have reverse on.

I have noticed the aileron servo arms my on my low-wing foamy (Max Thrust Ruckus) are both off centre by the same amount at neutral - the arms are angled forward (towards leading edge) rather than being at right angle. These are pre-installed and set-up in the factory. Because they are angled by exactly the same amount I assumed that it was deliberate to create differential ailerons mechanically, but when I check operation they are the opposite to what I would expect - they move more down than up, I thought it should be the other way round. What are your thoughts?

Assume you mean the IDs issued by the CAA to be compliant with the Drone Code. To fly aircraft you need an Flyer ID. To get one you need to pass a simple test, which you can take as many times as you like until you pass and it lasts 5 years. If you google, you can usually find the latest questions and answers. To own model aircraft you need an Operator ID. To get one you pay the annual fee, about £12, it lasts one year. Put CAA Drone in a Google search should take you to the right place. So to own and fly a plane you need bother a Flyer ID and an Operator ID. You have to mark your plane with the Operator ID.

I got confirmation of the Operator and Flyer ID but never an explicit confirmation of the competency certificate - I did mine directly with the CAA - I don't think they have the concept of a Competency Certificate. As far as I can tell from the way the CAA do things is telling you that you have a Flyer ID is confirmation that you passed the test.

Worked it out - it is the Flyer ID - you don't get confirmation of passing the test as such - you get a Flyer ID. So it is the Flyer ID that is evidence of passing the test and mine is valid until 10th Dec 2027.

Just thinking - is it tied to the Flyer ID - passing the exam gives you a Flyer ID - the dates on my Flyer ID correspond to when I when I think I did the test.

I've just had an email from the BMFA saying that my competency certificate has expired and that I will need to do the test again. That's fine but what is confusing me is that I have definitely done the test twice, once when it was first introduced and once around Dec 2023/Jan 2024. I believe that both times I did it directly with the CAA but I've hunted through my emails and I cannot find evidence that I ever took it - I know full well I have done it twice so it is that I can't find the evidence. How long does it last for - being told 5 years, has it always been 5 years? Any idea idea where I would see evidence - would I get an email, would I be able to see it in the CAA portal, or see it in the BMFA portal. I'm okay doing it again but I have a strong feeling that I've already done it.

Hi sorry, to labour this, but the plane is already pretty nerve racking and I want to make sure that the changes I make are not in the wrong sense making the plane uncontrollable and likely to crash. I've not been able to get to the field yet, I work full time and the weather hasn't been great so there has been no opportunity. Hoping to get out over the bank holiday weekend but not a good start as I woke up to rain this morning. So these are the options that I think are available to me CoG Down Thrust Wing Incidence (I can't change tail incidence because it is slotted in the fuselage) I thought I had my own understanding of how aerodynamics works but would never claim to be an expert and I am doubting myself because I'm getting so much conflicting advice from forums and club members. Down Thrust Opinion is unanimous, add more down thrust is the answer. My problem here is that I have tried it, I more than doubled the manufacturer's down thrust and it made little to no difference. The plane had more down thrust than I have ever seen in a plane and adding more seems crazy. As the guy who posted with similar experience to me jokingly put it, it feels like this plane needs 90 degrees of down thrust. CoG I've always thought: Nose Heavy - stable but docile flight, heavy controls Tail Heavy - unstable and sensitive, light controls With my plane wanting to climb like an angel whether any power if applied, would naturally make me think that I should push the CoG forward, and that is what some of my club mates said when they witnessed the flight. But equally, people on here are saying that I should move the CoG back, which is counter-intuitive to me, but I accept that the guy who started this thread concluded that the CoG was best at 105mm, mine is currently at 90mm. Wing Incidence I've heard "Look, I've been flying for over 50 years and I'm telling you, you need to pack under the trailing edge" "Look, I've been flying for over 50 years and I'm telling you, you need to pack under the leading edge" Now bear me on this one, this is what I've been told in this thread - pack under the trailing edge - see diagram. A club mate is adamant that I need to pack under the leading edge and seemed a little put out that I even questioned his experience and expertise. So bear with me and explain where my understanding is wrong The issue is that my plane wants to climb like an angel under power The suggestion here is to pack under the trailing edge as per the diagram The tailplane works like a weather vane and wants to go through the air level and this sets the angle of the wing relative to the air flow Packing under the trailing edge will increase the angle of wing - raise the leading edge relative to the trailing edge This will increase the lift of the wing making plane climb more - which is the opposite of what is wanted If I wanted to reduce the lift then wouldn't I want to pack under the leading edge Please help me understand where my thought process is wrong. Anyway, when I get some decent weather, I'm off work next week so fingers crossed, I'm going to start with the CoG, because it is the easiest, because I have tried the thrust line without success and because changing the wing incidence feels like a fudge.

Thanks, I hadn’t spotted that - I did read it a while ago but concentrated on the modifications for the battery fitting. Note they recommend a CoG of 105mm which is 15mm back from what I have at the moment and 5mm back from the manufacturer’s stated maximum. I’ll try moving my battery back - not sure I can achieve 105mm with some weight on the tail - have to see how it goes.

Maybe I can get some use out of it 😀 But seriously, it's that feeling when I have more than doubled the down thrust, it already has more than I have every put in any plane and it isn't enough and people are saying to add more. Just tried calling Century UK, I did send an email some days back but heard nothing back. But I got through to someone in technical support who admitted he doesn't really know anything about plane, but he took my number and the has said he will get the guy who does to call me back. Let's see if they do.