Simon Burch 1

Maidend my recently completed Bamibina yesterday, which I built mainly because it was (to my eyes) good-looking, small enough for easy transportation by bicycle, and possibly good for small-field flying. For such a simple model, it was a challenging build; the plan's errors and sketchy details were frustrating....although must admit that I complicated it by adding a two-piece wing and demountable 'David Boddington' type piano wire undercarriage. Fortunately, there's a useful build blog on the forum which highlighted most of the issues before I'd cut any wood. In the air, it has sparkling vertical performance on the 4-Max power train with 450mah 3S - despite the additional weight of my mods. It was too blustery for me to test the model properly, but it's promising - fast and aerobatic, and slow flight is easy too. It has a tendency to roll right when up elevator is applied, so I'll need to look at that, and it yaws left quite viciously when applying power on take off. Irritating, but easily controlled. Overall, though, the Bambina looks good and flies well; I'll be stiffening the elevators with some CF and trying it again soon.

Yes... that the trouble. It looks so good that I'm tempted myself....but space at home is limited and it would be difficult to get it past the model detection systems. Hopefully we'll find a good home for it.

Alan, like you we have a wide variety of trainees with a very wide age and aptitude range. I see the Fledgling as a model for a Flyer who has learned the basics, and is ready to progress to something a little more challenging. Trouble is, it has conventional construction. Most of our RC flyers are born and bred on ARTF foamies, and would have trouble repairing the inevitable dings. Probably more work for me and our other 'traditionalists'.....

Agreed, Alan. Our current club trainer is a Riot, which shares some of these characteristics....but it's proved very good for those trainees who have a grasp of the basics (apart from its useless undercarriage). It's a bit fast for most of our absolute beginners. Used sensibly, I think the Fledgling should be OK - and it's free!

Thank you all for your responses. It certainly appears to be well made and in almost perfect condition. The now-deceased owner has either looked after it well....or never flown it! I suspect the former - he was a member of a well-known local club. It's been gifted in flying condition, and we'll be looking to pass it on to a beginner in due course.

Grateful for help with identifying this trainer. It's an electric taildragger, almost certainly ARTF (although I can't be sure). The motor cannot be accessed without cutting away the covering, but it doesn't appear to have any identifying marks. It has a 30amp ESC, span is about 55", and it probably weighs just over 1kg without the battery. It a 4-channel model, with a single servo operating the ailerons.

We've had three teenagers join our club within the last year after being introduced to the hobby via lightweight foamies like the P51 you describe, Brian. They are exciting models which are amazingly easy to fly (provided you don't select 'expert' mode), and they look great in the air. With no model flying knowledge, they and their families need quite a bit of extra help and advice....which has to be delivered carefully to avoid putting them off! However, this time it has paid off - two of the teenagers have progressed to unstabilised trainers, and we hope that one of them will be taking an 'A' Test within the next couple of weeks. The other, who joined a little later, won't be far behind. Certainly, as a way of drawing young people to the hobby, these lightweight foamie warbirds are hard to beat.

Agreed - and this method has the added advantage that it's easy to make the undercarriage legs demountable.....should you wish to do that.

I recommend a Metrobank Community Account. There are no charges, and the staff are very helpful.

Agreed, Simon. At our rough-surfaced patch, undercarriage-related problems are probably the most common reason for an early finish. My own scale(ish) models are hand launch/belly-landers, with glass-reinforced radiators and coolers used as landing skids. Admittedly, I've broken one or two props, but it's easy to carry spares and selecting ESC brake ON helps to prevent this.

The appeal of a small Spitfire, Bf109 or similar, which just about anybody can fly, is huge. A few people at our club gave these models; if you want to have fun they're great, and we've seen that they can attract young people into the hobby. However, you're right in that, with their robust autostabiliser/autopilot systems, their value as trainers is limited. The Volantex Ranger 600 probably offers a better introduction to model flying in its 'intermediate' mode, but it doesn't have the same appeal. Meanwhile, a decent conventional trainer, together with a charger, LiPos, CAA registration and BMFA membership will easily break the £200 budget. Perhaps a sub-250g foamie, plus membership a local club that offers buddy-lead training sessions, plus plenty of readily-available help and advice, might offer a better way of spending £200. If she really wants to learn to fly, IMHO don't focus upon 'which model' too much for now; rather, try out a club trainer (many clubs offer 'taster sessions'), talk to other flyers and make an informed decision that suits you both. Prepare to spend more than £200, though!. Personally, I think SAFE and other autostabiliser/autopilot systems merely interfere with the learning process....but that's just my opinion. Other opinions are available!

The problem with this is that the CAA's Flyer ID study material and test relates to CAP722 regulations, and not the BMFA's Article 16 Authorisation which most of us fly under. These regulations differ in several important aspects, which could be confusing - especially for newcomers. Taking the BMFA's RCC test is probably the easiest and best way to become familiar with Article 16.

I don't normally add up-trim to the elevator for the launch. With the added up-thrust and only two-thirds throttle set, I find the model's pitch attitude is much easier to control. That said, when I flew it in its original form, ie with a 600 can motor and using an old Futaba Challenger TX, I used to add three-four 'clicks' of up elevator for launching. I'd reset this to neutral in cruise flight. I found the old-style large friction trim adjusters on the Challenger much easier to use than the modern small spring-loaded switches, and in-flight trimming was straightforward. I try to avoid doing it now unless I really have to. A throttle/elevator mix is worth considering, but I haven't found it necessary.

This is very good advice. There's more to consider nowadays, particularly administrative stuff like regulation, CAA registration, and competency testing. Face-to-face advice from experienced club flyers could save you a great deal of frustration and expense. There are hardware considerations other than the motor, battery and ESC. You'll need to think about a decent charger, a voltage checker, and perhaps a wattmeter. The airframe may require modification to accommodate a brushless outrunner, although you might be better advised to retain the can motor with a LiPo-compatible ESC. The good news is that the Electra Fly is a great model to start out with in RC flying, and I personally think it will be well worth the effort. Best of luck with it. PS a PC-based RC simulator is an invaluable training aid. They are best used connected to a proper RC TX, but is possible to start with a joystick or games controller. Try PicaSim, which is a free download that includes a 3-channel electric glider similar to the Electra Fly. https://www.rowlhouse.co.uk/PicaSim/download.html

I have a Balsacraft Spitfire IX, which was also difficult to hand launch; with full power applied, it would dive towards the ground and require immediate up-elevator to prevent disaster. This was very entertaining for club-mates; not so much for me. I think this behaviour might have been be due to the model's high thrustline, but I can't be sure. It was designed (as was your Hurricane) for a 600 can motor with a 7 or 8 cell nicad pack and, in this configuration, it didn't have much power. Perhaps this meant that the thrustline wasn't such a problem. Indeed, I used to deliberately launch my 600-powered Spitfire from raised ground so that I had space to dive and accelerate. Once it had gained speed, it performed surprisingly well, especially with the lighter 7-cell pack. With the conversion to brushless/LiPo setup, lack of power ceased to be a problem, but its tendency to pitch down when power was applied (and pitch up when reducing power) was pronounced and unpleasant. I added about 1 degree of upthrust, and I now launch it using about two-thirds throttle, which has largely resolved the problem. Interestingly (for me anyway) I recently built a small Hurricane (Adrian Britton design) which behaved in exactly the same way. I resolved it using the same procedure, together with a small throttle-elevator mix. Best of luck with yours; I think these old Balsacraft designs were great models.

Just a thought - for most aeroplanes, the touchdown attitude should be slightly nose-up. I wonder whether your fear of stalling at low-level is subconsciously preventing you from applying the requisite amount of up-elevator just prior to touchdown. Do you have any experienced flyers who could try the model out for you? That way, you'll be able to tell whether the fault lies with your flying or the model's set-up.

My club's main flying site is a large open public space. This is a mixed blessing; however, from a recruitment point of view, it's great. Our flying activity and events almost always attracts the attention of passers-by, and a steady trickle of new recruits and returners has seen our membership rise from around 60 pre-covid to 100 now and rising. However, we're the exception. Nowadays, model flying takes place at remote sites which are well out of the public eye. It's become a low-profile, almost invisible, hobby. The bans on model flying in so many parks and open spaces certainly don't help. For example, our local Council's rules state: 'It is currently not possible to fly model aircraft or drones (both with and without camera for filming purposes) within the City Council’s public open spaces, including parks and nature reserves'. This means that I can't fly a chuck glider with my grandchildren in a local park. Older kids (and adults!) can't mess around with gliders and rubber-powered models in the way that I used to in the 70s. I'm sure this isn't the Council's intention, and I'm hopeful that the rules may be changed to permit un-powered sub-250g (or maybe sub-120g if that's more palatable) models to be flown in our parks. Maybe this is something that clubs, or even the BMFA, could promote with local authorities. I think that the sight of a model aeroplane in flight, even a small one, is one of our best recruiting tools. The question is - how do we make that happen?

Thank you John; I'll change that. Was it once known as 'Recognised Competency Certificate'? It rings a bell somewhere.

In answer to Pablo's question re 'licences', I think there might be some confusion regarding the mandatory legal requirements for CAA Registration and Competency, and the optional BMFA membership and Achievement Scheme. Just to be clear, CAA Registration (Operator ID) and Competency Testing (Flyer ID) are mandatory if you fly models with a mass of 250g or more, or those which have a camera fitted. BMFA membership is optional - though strongly advised. Pablo, this is the advice which my club provides for beginners and those interested in taking up model flying, which you might find helpful (if any experienced flyers see any errors in this, please let me know!!): 1. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Registration (Operator ID). Before you start flying your own model, you will normally need to register as an ‘Operator’ with the CAA – unless your model weighs less than 250g, there is no camera fitted to it, and you fly it below 400 feet agl. Presently, this costs £11.13 (2024) for one year. In return, you will receive a CAA ’Operator Identification’ (Op ID) number. Note that under-18s are not permitted to hold Op IDs; an over-18 (normally a parent or guardian) must hold it on the flyer’s behalf. This Op ID number must be displayed on all of the models, weighing 250g or more and/or camera-fitted, that you are responsible for. These might not necessarily be models that you personally own or fly; for example, if you have a child under the age of 18, your Op ID would need to be displayed upon his or her model. 2. Competency Testing (Flyer ID). If you fly models that weigh less than 250g and operate them below 400 feet above ground level, you don’t need any competency qualifications provided there is no camera fitted to the model. Otherwise, you will need to hold a CAA Flyer Identification Number (‘Flyer ID’) in addition to the CAA ‘Op ID’. There are two ways to obtain a Flyer ID: a. Directly from the CAA. To obtain a CAA Flyer ID, you’ll need to take an online test to check that you are aware of the rules and regulations that will apply to you as laid down in Civil Air Publication 722 (CAP722). Presently, the test is free, you can refer to study material throughout, and you can take it as many times as you like. Once you’ve passed it, you’ll be given a Flyer ID number, and the qualification lasts for 5 years. b. From the BMFA (Applicable only to BMFA Members). The BMFA, and certain other approved associations, have a CAA authorisation to fly remotely piloted aircraft under a different regulatory arrangement known as the ‘Article 16 Authorisation’ (‘Article 16’). Article 16 permits BMFA members to operate model aircraft beyond some of the constraints imposed under CAP722: perhaps most importantly, the 400ft height restriction is relaxed for models weighing less than 7.5kg. Consequently, the BMFA has its own online test, known as the Recognised Competency Certificate (RCC), which is based upon Article 16 regulation. Once you’ve passed it, you’ll be awarded with an RCC and automatically granted a Flyer ID by the CAA. Once again, the test is free, you can refer to study material throughout, you can take it as many times as you like, and the RCC lasts for 5 years. To fly under Article 16 regulation, you must hold a Flyer ID. Which Competency Test Should I Take: CAA Flyer ID or BMFA RCC? If you are not a BMFA member, and you have no intention of joining, you can only take the CAA Flyer ID Test. If you are a BMFA member, you should certainly take the BMFA RCC. Not only is it based upon the regulations that apply to you when you fly (ie Article 16), but also it has the advantage that, should you wish to take a BMFA Achievement Scheme test, you will be exempted from some of the examiner’s questions. It is worth emphasising that neither of these open-book tests is difficult, and they should be looked upon as a way of familiarising yourself with the rules and regulations that you need to observe for your own safety and that of others. Note that, even if you only intend to fly sub-250g models, you need to pass a BMFA RCC to fly under Article 16 regulation.

We're lucky enough to have a few active lad-and-dad pairings; however, I'd say that our largest source of interest from young people comes from parents who buy them a cheap lightweight RTF foamie or drone, and then look for somewhere to fly it. BMFA membership fees can be a barrier, but our junior subscription is only £1 and it gives access to the club trainers. This helps to maintain and develop their interest, although we have struggled to find experienced members prepared to instruct with a buddy-box. Sadly, despite their potential to attract people into the hobby, I suspect many purchasers of RTF foamies end up crashing them and losing interest.

Our club membership went from about 65 pre-covid to just shy of 100 now. So far, numbers are holding firm. Our flying site is open to the public, which certainly helped us to draw in some 'returners' and newcomers during the pandemic. It's almost perfect for free flight, which is a big attraction, but we also have a strong contingent of RC beginners. A few of our young people have been attracted into RC flying by the current crop of small highly stabilised foamie warbirds, such as the Volantex P51, Spitfire etc; these are exciting aeroplanes which seem incredibly cheap and easy to fly. Parents buying them as presents have encouraged their children to join the club - which is great. Of course, we would ultimately aim to move them on to 'better' things but, as a way of bringing young people into the hobby, I think these models are hard to beat. Actual participation is variable and, of course, weather dependent but, overall, I'd say we were doing pretty well.

That should be OK, although you might find 3 degrees of side thrust a little too much. Our Riot has nowhere near that amount, and the left swing on take off is easy to control; in fact, I think it's a useful handling feature on a trainer. I found this discussion on the Aero Modeller forum, which is worth a look. https://www.aeromodellers.co.uk/forum/crash-re-builds-a-repairs/33660-max-thrust-riot?start=15

I've just changed the motor on our club Riot; I think there is no downthrust and perhaps a smidgen of right side-thust. There is no packing behind the bolts; it's all built into the fuselage nose section. How much damage did yours sustain?

That's good advice from Futura57. I'd add that an RC simulator is a wise investment for any beginner. This is a whole topic in itself, but it need not be expensive or difficult. For example, Picasim is a free download. These are best used with a proper RC transmitter, but a joystick or games controller will suffice until you have one. Simulators work fine with many obsolete (ie cheap or free) 35MHz transmitters.

Nice aeroplane and great photos Leccy.