Richard Clark 2

Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 15/05/2020 09:59:15: Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 15/05/2020 09:38:27: It isn't particular an insurance issue. A public footpath is usually on private land. Just as an example if you cycle on a public footpath (in England and Wales) without the land owners permission it is trespass. I suspect there has never been a test case regarding flying a drone from a public footpath though. Its more about good manners, consideration for others and the perception it can give about our sport. I agree, it isn't. I was merely pointing out what third-party insurance is actually for. And regarding the public's perception of us, 'drones' have done a great deal of harm and are also the direct and only cause of this CAA licensing rubbish. I personally thought, even before their UK occurrence, that the BMFA and aeromodelling magazines should never be involved with them at all. 99% of them are used as 'camera platforms' (tall tripods) and thus the prerogative of photographers, video makers, and their attendant magazines and nothing to do with us as 'model flyers' at all. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 15/05/2020 10:00:34

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 15/05/2020 09:38:27: It isn't particular an insurance issue. A public footpath is usually on private land. Just as an example if you cycle on a public footpath (in England and Wales) without the land owners permission it is trespass. I suspect there has never been a test case regarding flying a drone from a public footpath though. Its more about good manners, consideration for others and the perception it can give about our sport.   I agree, it isn't. I was merely pointing out what third-party insurance is actually for. And regarding the public's perception of us, 'drones' have done a great deal of harm and are also the direct and only cause of this CAA licensing rubbish. I personally thought, even before their UK occurrence, that the BMFA and aeromodelling magazines should never be involved with them at all. 99% of them are  used as 'camera platforms' (tall tripods) and thus the prerogative of photographers, video makers, and their attendant magazines and nothing to do with us at all. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 15/05/2020 10:00:34

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 15/05/2020 08:41:16: Posted by Ralph C on 14/05/2020 10:45:58: surely I can just find a public footpath (50m from buildings/people/pylons, 150m from settlements) and take off vertically from that and fly over fields? Not that simple. A public footpath in general only gives you a right to 'pass and repass along the way' it doesn't give you the right to take off and land a drone. Bear in mind that insurance is to cover you against claims about accidents that ARE your fault. If it wasn't your fault you can't be successfully sued so you don't need insurance for that event. What is a 'fault'? Breaking the law is one. But if you deliberately break the law by drinking too much and then driving and causing a crash you are still covered by your current insurance. (Though of course you may have difficulty in renewing your insurance later. But 'now' is not 'later'.) So breaking the law does not invalidate your current insurance. And 'doing' something that there is NOT a specific 'right' to do is not automatically  a civil nor a criminal offence. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 15/05/2020 09:31:08 Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 15/05/2020 09:32:53

Finished, ground tested with both glow and electric, and ready to go. Aeronca Sedan made from the 65 inch span 1953 'Mercury' free flight kit plan. Changes are one piece wing so the struts, though functional, are not actually stress bearing, minor carbon strengthening here and there, and fitted with aileron, elevator, rudder, and throttle controls. (Despite what the 'experts' say, with a little differential ailerons work fine on high wing models, even a 'full dihedral' Junior 60.) I could not make up my mind whether to use glow or electric. So I made it for both with fuel tank, battery box right on the C of G (happily the electric motor and the glow engine with its 'in cowl' silencer weigh exactly the same), separate r/c battery, throttle servo and its linkage, and ESC permanently fitted. I can swap from one to the other involving only four bolts in about five minutes.. I am using a now redundant MEGA inrunner motor designed for EDF. Such motors are more efficient than outrunners, run smoother, are quieter and less vibratory than outrunners, and with a low cell count work very well driving big props. The glow engine is an Czech MVVS 3.5cc r/c (about a '21' in modern terms) as small 'good' glows are getting hard to find and this excellent one was 'new in box' in a local model shop. It's a touch high revving but it will do.

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 14/05/2020 18:49:51: Hi Richard, Having completed the wing sheeting I weighed the wing and then all the bits that will go into the wing. The outcome was as follows: fully built and sheeted wing 24 oz Wing tips and ailerons 1.5 oz 12 Robart 3/16" pin hinges 0.2 oz 4 standard servo 5.6 oz 2 mini servos (doors) 2.0 oz 2 Robart electric retracts inc wheels 12.6 oz Retract sequencer and Robart contol 1.7 oz Servo lead extentions (estimated) 2.0 oz 2S LiPo for gear operation 2.0 oz GRAND TOTAL 51.6 oz or 3 lb 3.6 oz I will need to cover it obviously and put on the decals but I can't see that adding more than say 8 oz so say 3 Lb 11.6 oz. I don't understand your wing weighing 7 lb. The only guess I've made is the weight added by Oracover the rest are actual weights. Also, the u/c doors will be made out of 1 mm ply reinforced with balsa. As I'll have to cut the same amount of wing skin out the additional weight will not be very much. Peter, I don't understand it either, and as I said I ignored the warnings of the model shop owner and of course I did not initially notice the three pound difference between TopFlite's 'advertised on the box' weight and the actual 'in the instructions' weight of their original. During the build I thought the Spitfire would be quite light, It does fly 'just about adequately' but I consider it one of my only three 'disasters' in a lifetime of modelling, the other two being a DH88 Comet racer scaled up to 65 inch span from the excellent Aeromodeller control line plan by 'L Last' but which I made for RC, and which despite the washout, section change, and the skills of the hand-carved Wallace and Gromit in the cockpit, is a tip stalling nightmare, and a well-known, grossly overpriced, and much hyped US/Chinese made EDF. From the weights you give I am sure your P51 will be fine so I will now shut up

Posted by J D 8 on 14/05/2020 13:04:28: As a farmer my answer is much the same as Geoff S with some one low over the garden. I had a quad copter [ to farmers a " quad " is a 4 wheeled motorbike ] flying low over the farm yard/house last year, felt like getting the 12 gauge out . Hight is your friend . The original question gives rise to some interesting answers. When in doubt I apply logic. So: A farm is in principle no different from someone's garden. The landowner does not own the airspace above his land (but there is a 500 feet minimum height above the land law for 'full-size' aircraft). A kid's ball landing in your garden (or farm, as above) does NOT have to be given back, nor does the ball's owner have any right to enter your land to retrieve it. Neither are you under any obligation to 'take care' of it, though you should not deliberately damage it. Be it kid's ball, model plane, deliberately burnt-out car, or full-size aircraft or glider, the above principles remain the same - they are all just unasked for 'objects' and their value is irrelevant. If landing a glider in someone's field now and again gives you or the landowners a problem go buy a powered aircraft instead and declare an emergency' if the engine fails. Choosing an unpowered aircraft (in effect a piece of 'sports equipment' you deliberately fly over other people's land) doesn't give you any special rights. Guidance' from the BMFA referring to 'Model aircraft and farmers" is illogical as it draws a false distinction between farmers and all other landowners. Logic. Nothing else. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 14/05/2020 17:30:24 Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 14/05/2020 17:30:58

Posted by David Ashby - Moderator on 30/03/2020 09:47:40: At a user suggestion, are you using the time to get a project underway? Edited By David Ashby - Moderator on 30/03/2020 09:53:29 Not really. I've always had some sort of model plane under construction (I don't bother with ARTF's) since I was about ten years old so 'The Virus' hasn't made any difference.

Posted by alex nicol on 14/05/2020 11:03:46: Just a couple of quick questions 1 When flying over private land is there a minimum height to be observed 2 Should your drone come down on private land what are the legalities around collecting it 1) Hmm. The law says minimum 500 ft for 'full size' aircraft except when taking off or landing, both with the landowner's permission, or landing in an emergency. Problem - What is 'full size'? A quad and similar is not a 'model' of anything so it is by definition 'full size'. I don't think the BMFA has thought that through, and though the CAA pretends to 'care' it really hopes we will all go away and stop hassling them 2) The laws of trespass. I dunno what they are, but you can look them up as easily as anyone else.

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 13/05/2020 23:28:28: Once all the sheeting is complete and the wing tips glued on, I will weigh the wing with the ailerons. That'll be interesting I just weighed my Spitfire wing. Finished of course (doped on lightweight tissue, lightly sprayed on satin Solarlac colours) not bare wood. Six servos, all low-cost 'standard size' JR 519 ones. Old BVM ex-glow ducted fan mechanical retracts with a servo for each leg (necessary to get a straight pull due to the Spitfire leg angles), and operating only one leg a 'standard' servo is more than adequate, flaps, ailerons. SEVEN POUNDS!!! That's considerably more than my complete tricycle retracts, mini 'snap' flaps, tuned pipe equipped , OS AX61 Prettner Curare. I think from your earlier post we just have a different 'philosophy'. Neither of us is 'wrong'. Flaps, retracting tail wheel, etc. are nice an' all and make the plane less 'toy like' but ALL weight impairs the performance. It's not a matter of power (the OS91 FS pumped is fine on my Spitfire), as you suggested in your reply to me, it's a matter of inertia. The heavier it is the more it is reluctant to change direction and you get high speed stalls. Any given plane of two different weights the lighter one ALWAYS flies better. Faster too, as the AoA, required for level flight is less. Re the servo load you mentioned .That was all stuff from a guy who ran a big model shop/importer and pushed the then very expensive JR digital servos he sold because of their 'holding power'. It's all nonsense. The gears, even metal ones, will strip long before the 'holding power' runs out. And anyway load is much less than he would have us believe. It's not like hanging a weight off the servo arm as the tail or whatever moves in the opposite direction thus instantly relieving the load. And a tip. After landing and before taxying put the flaps up. You will be the only modeller on the planet except for myself, no matter how 'expert', that knows that all flyers of low wing full size aircraft always do this as it avoids possible flap damage from stones etc thrown up by the prop

Posted by RICHARD WILLS on 13/05/2020 19:44:26: With the price of Chinese kits soaring and the possible continuation of an on/off lockdown , it seems a good time to offer another model to those that have already built our Spitfire (others are also welcome!) . To that end we have been looking at our 56" P51 in all of its guises . The Spitfire gets a solid thumbs up thanks to its authentic shape , great handling and laser cut self jigging build . So we are looking at releasing a new Mustang to hit the same criteria . The new Mustang will include flaps as standard and although configured predominantly for the 98% that will fly it with electric propulsion , there will be an option for those that want to use an OS/ASP /SC .52FS . All three versions of the Mustang will be available , the original "birdcage" canopy , the retrofitted Malcolm Hood , and the definitive teardrop P51D. So what is it going to look like ? Well here is a prototype that was made a while back but never went into production . It weighs 6lb exactly is all built up as suggested (ie , no foam veneer ) and includes the Mr RC sound system . I use it all the time as it is a very practical model and certainly no hanger queen ,   Make the Spitfire or the Lavochkin again and I will certainly buy one or the other, perhaps both. For me the P51 is an "Only if you don't make one or other of the two above" even though it looks real pretty in your picture.. The only P51 I ever made was the 1960's Mercury control line one. And only because the model shop didn't have the Mercury Spitfire and I was determined to spend my twenty-four shillings and sixpence. Electric? No chance. High pitched whining WW2 warbirds are  truly horrible. A nice four-stroke sounds 'correct' even though it isn't spot on. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 13/05/2020 20:11:54 Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 13/05/2020 20:14:12

Where we fly - not yet. Our site is overseen by two national public bodies. One says 'yes', the other says 'no'. And we don't want to upset either

Peter, Whatever you do keep the weight down. These TopFlite kits are grossly over-engineered and can turn out very heavy. My Spitfire MK9 said 8 pounds on the box but at the end of the instructions they said theirs, covered with film, turned out at 11 pounds. Even the owner of the model shop, an experienced flyer himself, warned me about it but I ignored him. It's very inaccurate too, which the P51 may not be. My Spitfire, with a tissue and dope finish, was 11 1/2 pounds with an OS91 FS pumped, and flies like the brick it is. As result I don't fly it much. Which renders the whole thing pointless. Personally I would discard the flaps, secondary u/c doors, and retractable tailwheel,, and thus their servos and the sequencer and if you have it, the cockpit kit. You may do what you want of course, but I'm real serioua about this.

Posted by Mr Chinnery on 12/05/2020 01:03:17: Well, weather permitting a few of us will be going up to the field on Thursday morning - don't worry - with the usual gloves, sanitiser etc. And all of us old enough and ugly enough to be trusted to stand 2m apart at all times and comply with all the recommendations we've had from Head Office. Let's face it - we're trying NOT to catch that evil virus, not the opposite. The only downside of the easing of restrictions: from now on the garden will only be getting 1/3 of my free time as from mid-week 1/3 will be spent on flying and related matters - the residual 1/3 (after tea 'till dark) will involve a fly rod and until now, some very neglected rainbow trout. Thanks Boris & Co.. Same for me. My runner bean sticks are in and the beans are in a cold frame ready to be planted, there's a new toy plane to fly, and our local river, full of in our case brownies, is opening tomorrow. So the beans have to be planted today or they won't get planted at all

While I strongly agree with Erfolg and Stu above, no 'rationalisation' is needed. Johnson, live on TV yesterday evening. 'Reasonable' distance is not mentioned, 'travel' is ok, and there is no mention of any form of 'essentiality'. Also model flying is accepted as a 'sport' by Sport England. So it is one whether we think it is a sport or not. Some people are overthinking this. Just take Johnson's words as they are and do not 'interpret' them. Nobody cares what we as individuals or 'we' as (possible) member of the BMFA think. Edited By David Ashby - Moderator on 11/05/2020 08:24:12