Simon Burch 1
-
Posts
76 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by Simon Burch 1
-
-
St Agnes Head is a National Trust site, but I understand that model flying there was banned in 2022 following a recommendation from Natural England regarding ground nesting birds. Initially the ban was total; however, following a campaign by local flyers, it was relaxed slightly and slope soaring is now permitted from 1st October to 28th February.
There are indeed fewer restrictions on paragliders. I understand that the NT's and Natural England's reasoning was that a number of model flyers were 'ignoring' the restrictions, and were thus deemed somehow less responsible than paragliders. Of course, St Agnes Head has been used by model flyers from around the country for some 40 years, so it's likely that the so-called 'rogue' model flyers were simply not aware of the (then) new restrictions. As far as I know, there are no information signs at the site.
I understand that it's OK to fly at Cligga Head, which is about 2 miles NW of St Agnes Head.
-
We use a Riot V2 as our club trainer, using 3S 2200 LiPos which give about 7mins flight time to storage voltage. With the nose weight removed and replaced by wooden block, it's not too heavy and its aerobatic performance is pretty good.
Its most significant weakness has proved to be the undercarriage. We've replaced the metal leg securing bolts with 5mm nylon bolts, and modified the axles. Other than that, it's pretty much as standard and, as a trainer, it's difficult to fault.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, GrumpyGnome said:
I'm ready to be shot down, but I think rudder/elevator is more common than rudder/ailerons on gliders....
Yes and no Grumpy.
Certainly, on thermal gliders with polyhedral or curved wings, using rudder and elevator only (perhaps with spoilers too) can save weight and complexity, and their inbuilt stability can make them easier to fly. On a slope soarer though, ailerons can offer more positive control, and there are a number of aileron-elevator slope soarer models around (eg flying wings; Balsacraft/SLEC Coyote).
It depends upon what you want out of your model.
-
4 hours ago, Nigel Grant 1 said:
I built the RM Aerobat a few years ago but crashed it after only a few flights when I made the mistake of letting it get a bit far down wind and throttling back before I then turned back which resulted in dropping a wing and spinning in. Should of kept the power on. Still have the plan, ply rib template and a few bits so would like to do another one at some stage. Hoping to retire at some stage this year and get some time to do it.
Nigel, if you do choose to rebuild the Aerobat, I'd recommend moving the tailplane from the bottom of the fuselage to the top. It's an easy modification; it looks better, it brings the tailplane into closer alignment with the wing, and it gives better ground clearance (our 'patch' is quite rough).
In this configuration, I've been unable to spin my Aerobat without holding on full control deflection and, so far, I've not lost control (I built it 2 years ago).
Also, I'd recommend building it with individual servos for each aileron and a bolt-on wing.
It took time to get the flying set-up right; in particular, I found that I needed to move the CG some way aft of the plan position to achieve decent aerobatic handling. Maybe it's not as good in the air as a more modern design, but it does reward time and effort.
I'm sure I've seen a thread dedicated to an Aerobat build somewhere else on this forum.
-
2 hours ago, Brian Cooper said:
The "Tx in the pits" rule evaporated when 2.4Ghz came on the scene.
It is now safer to take the Tx with you when retrieving a model, especially if it is electric powered.
Yes Brian - I think that's the case, and I certainly agree that, with 2.4GHz kit, it's safer to take your TX with you when retrieving an electric model (with throttle cut selected and throttle held closed).
The following extract from the current BMFA Handbook 13.3 appears to confirm this view:
(p) When using 35mHz care must be taken at all times to avoid overflying operating transmitters. Pilots should stand together and should not be allowed to wander over the flying area when operating transmitters.
If an TX is taken onto the landing area there is, perhaps, a greater chance of it being overflown. Apparently, this could cause problems with 35MHz kit.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:
I think you're probably right if 'going it alone'. With a decent instructor, there us no reason for props and undercarriages to be regularly broken.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating 'going it alone'. At best, that's a recipe for frustration; at worst, it's dangerous.
However, in my experience beginners who fly a powered glider, rather than a standard 4-channel powered trainer, usually progress more rapidly to the point where they can practise safely without an instructor.
This can be particularly important if the club doesn't have many instructors. Certainly, despite our best efforts, my club has a chronic shortage of instructors, and this is frustrating for beginners who want to fly at a time of their choice.
It's during this 'solo' practise phase that the minor mishaps I mentioned are most likely to occur.
-
1
-
-
On 03/02/2024 at 10:15, Rich Griff said:
Cool, what would be then please ?
Suggestions ?
I'll stick my neck out here and suggest that the easiest (if perhaps not the best) way into RC might be to use a good PC-based RC simulator, and a flat-field foamie electric glider (eg Radian or similar).
In my experience, the two main reasons for an 'early finish' to a flying training session are undercarriage damage and prop damage. With no undercarriage and a folding prop, an electric glider is less vulnerable to these issues. Types with over-wing mounted pusher props are even better in this respect; in this configuration, the motor and prop are well protected. Foam construction seems to be more forgiving when it comes to the inevitable mishaps, and field repairs are, I think, easier.
With gliders, things tend to happen a little more slowly than they do with a standard 4-channel trainer; this gives the flyer more time to think and react. As he or she gains experience, a glider also offers the chance of extended flights.
Properly used, an RC sim should enable the beginner to get the hang of the controls and, perhaps most importantly, left/right orientation before taking to the air.
I hasten to add that I didn’t learn to fly like this......I'm from the old-fashioned build-fly-crash-rebuild-repeat school. I don't recommend that.
-
6
-
-
11 hours ago, Nigel R said:
When I was small, I wanted to do the "RM Flight Training Course"... although I ended up learning on a Precedent Flyboy, Junior 60 and then an aerobatic trainer I cannot remember the name of.
Many moons later I finally built the pair...
Part 1... RM Trainer (and sheep):
Part 2... RM Aerobat:
Both electrified on 4S 2200, 300W and 400W respectively.
The Aerobat is lightly modified (mainly style - I made the deck a little more rounded, and moved the tailplane upwards a couple of inches).
I built an Aerobat in 2022, having had the plan filed away in the loft for 27 years. I made similar modifications to yours, but use a 3S 3300, which gives 420W with a Graupner 10x6 CAM Slim Prop and 400 with the APC equivalent. It's a bit lardy at 3lbs 7oz, but still has vertical performance on a full charge.
Its maiden flight ended up in the poo - literally....
-
1
-
5
-
-
7 hours ago, leccyflyer said:
Nevertheless it's the dispensation under which BMFA members are permitted to operate our models and, as such, should be read by anyone flying under those Article 16 exclusions.
"It's far too long to read" wouldn't be a valid excuse in the event that push came to shove. It literally takes no more than quarter of an hour to read through and no more than a couple of minutes to read through the Quick Start guide which describes the meat of what the Article 16 means for model flyers.
Leccy, you're absolutely right.
For what its worth, I advise new flyers to learn the answers to the BMFA's 'Mandatory 20 Questions', even if they hold an RCC, and test themselves every month or so (it only takes a few minutes to scroll through). That helps to maintain a good knowledge of the most important aspects of Article 16.
None of this is too onerous.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Ron Gray said:
But what about those (slopies etc) who don’t fly from ‘recognised’ sites? I’m against RID as much for them as for me.
Merry Christmas btw.
You're right, and I'm not sure that RID is the only problem. As I see it, if geo-fencing becomes a msndatory requirement too, it would effectively mandate an autopilot as well as RID equipment.
Merry Christmas!
-
46 minutes ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:
It really really isn't. The CAA have been given a task by Government to enable BVLOS drone operations, there fore they are making proposals to integrate them into the airspace, which happens to be in the bit we are going to have to share with them.
If it was a CAA aim (or Govt) we would be out of the airspace. It really is that simple.
Our challenge, and I don't just mean the BMFA’s I mean the BMFA/LMA etc and all of us as individuals is to do all we can to ensure whatever proposals are implemented are proportional and pragmatic so we can carry on our activities with as little impact as possible.
Andy, you're right - 'clear the airspace' is the wrong term.Perhaps 'control the airspace' would be more appropriate - ie 'you can only fly here if you carry certain equipment and comply with certain rules'. That's how controlled airspace currently works.
To my mind, what the CAA's proposals do is, effectively, extend controlled airspace-type regulation (specifically rules and equipment) into airspace that is currently uncontrolled, and to apply those controls to aircraft types that are presently subject to minimal regulation.
We'll have to accept some of that. As you rightly say, we need to do our best to ensure that:
'whatever proposals are implemented are proportional and pragmatic so we can carry on our activities with as little impact as possible'.
-
2
-
-
54 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:
The main reason that bird strikes with full sized aircraft occur is that they are just too big and fast for the birds to get out of the way. That probably wouldn't be the case with drones.
Interesting point - I wonder what the statistics are regarding that?
My own full-size flying background is in helicopters, which are usually smaller than commercial aircraft and fly comparatively slowly. Birdstrikes were a fairly regular occurance; I experienced one at low speed - around 40kts - which is a typical drone or model aircraft speed. Birds were certainly a hazard for us slow-movers in the low-level environment, and I'm sure the same would apply to UAS.
I don't remember any collisions with model aircraft, although there were certainly some airprox incidents. Model flyers could hear us coming, and the overwhelming majority moved out of the way quickly. That might have changed now.
-
1 hour ago, Wookman said:
An eminently sensible suggestion but Rid is not designed to stop criminal activity. It is designed to initially extract money from people and ultimately clear the lower airspace for Uncle Jeff and his like......
I agree - clearing lower airspace for government and commercial UASs is, I'm sure, one of the CAA's aims.
Of course, the CAA can ban us, confine us to reserved areas and/or mandate RID and electronic conspicuity. However, it can't ban birds. Hundreds of canada geese live near our flying site, and they are big. I understand that they can weigh in excess of 3kg. Even a pigeon (18m in the UK) weighs around 500g.
I wonder whether the risk of UASs hitting birds is being considered? It must surely be massively greater than the risk of colliding with a model aircraft.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Arthur Harris said:
The BMFA already knows our views. If they haven't yet cottoned on to model fliers wanting to be exempt from further UAV regulations, they are in the wrong job. We have complied enough, flying model planes within line of sight a few hundred metres around a known model airfield is harmless.
Simply saying 'we want to be exempt from UAS regulation' would, I'm sure, reflect the the views of most model flyers but, sadly,
taking that line in isolation won't do us any favours.As you said in an earlier post, the CAA has almost certainly already made up its mind. The new regulations, including RID and geo-fencing, are coming whether we like it or not.
For the continued future existence of this hobby, it is surely essential for us all to highlight the many flaws in the CAA's UAS proposals, and thus, hopefully, help to minimise their impact upon model flying. I think the BMFA's response does a pretty good job in this respect, and it deserves our support.
-
7
-
-
I stick Sellotape on the top and bottom of the ribs to protect them while planing and sanding. Works for me. (Other makes of sticky-back plastic tape are available).
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, cymaz said:
Surely the Thesaurus wouldn't split an infinitive....
-
2
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, MattyB said:
I would personally never put my Op. ID onto a club model that could be flown without me being present. Remember, by adding your ID you are formally accepting legal responsibility for the flight in question, even if you aren't present to check the model over or supervise the remote pilot(s).
Far better to utilise something akin to the old 35MHz "peg on" system - the model has a small transparent panel made out of a bit of old display wallet or similar glued to the side, into which bits of paper can be placed with the relevant Op. ID for that day, then the holder gets taped shut. Then do all the normal pre-flight checks as if it was your own model, and fly. Finally the Op. ID is removed by the pilot at the end of the session and put in his flight box so it can't be used without their presence. Problem solved.
This is an interesting point. As far as I know, there is no legal requirement for the Op ID holder to be present when the model is being flown. We have a number of junior members (ie under-18s) who can't hold Op IDs. Normally, their Op ID are held by parents who, in some cases, have almost no knowledge about model flying, and they may well be absent during a flying session. Of course, as a club, we do our best to help them, and we encourage Op ID holders to sit alongside their 'charge' while they take the BMFA RCC.
For our club trainers, we simply use a printed Op ID stuck on with transparent film. When necessary, this is removed and replaced by another. It's worked well so far.
-
1
-
-
Please don't misunderstand me - stabilisation systems and autopilots have their place. In fact, I'm very much in favour of them because they can make RC model flying easier and more accessible to newcomers, and they can make smaller models more manageable in turbulent conditions.
However, stabilisation needs to be used appropriately. I think that if you really want to learn RC flying, and perhaps take a BMFA RC Achievement Scheme test, you're better off without it - provided your model has sufficient natural stability and its controls are properly set up for manual flying (of course, others might disagree). From what you say, I think you probably fall into this category.
I recommend using a PC-based simulator too. PicaSim is excellent, free and it features a number of gliders.
-
Warped wings will certainly make your Ranger 600 more difficult to fly in 'Expert' mode; however, even if the wings are straight it's still not going to be easy.
My club has occasional use of a small playing field that lies within an aerodrome FRZ. Only lightweight models are permitted, so we have a Ranger 600 which we use as a club trainer. I've gained plenty of experience with it.
In my view, it's great for giving newcomers a 'taste of the sky', learning orientation, and flying patterns, but the stabilisation system gets in the way of learning basic handling. For example, in 'beginner' mode you need to hold on control to turn, which is a sure way to disaster with an unstabilised model. Even in 'intermediate' mode, it's possible to turn the model using rudder alone (ie without applying any up-elevator) because the stabiliser prevents the nose from dropping. Learning a fundamentally incorrect technique like this at an early stage is bad news because, later on, it has to be unlearned. In 'expert' mode the Ranger 600 is too simply difficult too fly and, as such, demoralising for a beginner.
IMHO, the original (ie unstablised) F595 Sky King was a better for training within the limits of a lightweight model. Unfortunately, newer versions of this model have a stabiliser and the control throws have been reconfigured accordingly.
As before, my advice is try to move on to a larger model without stabilisation, and use a more sophisticated TX that will allow you to adjust rates (ideally expo too). The 3-channel Radian is a good choice if you can find one; it's still available new as the rather gimmicky 'Night Radian', but there are others.
If you've received no response from your local club, try another one; it's so much better if face-to-face experienced help is on hand when to comes to choosing, setting up and learning to fly your model.
-
In my opinion, the Ranger 600 is very difficult to fly in 'expert' mode. I think the reason is that the control throws are too large, perhaps to allow the stabilisation system to work properly.
Unfortunately, with no 'rates' switch on the TX, it's not possible to reduce the control throws easily; the only way to do it is to move the control linkage to the inner of the two holes on the servo arms. It would be better to move the linkage to the outer hole on the rudder and elevator control horns, but I can't see how this could be done without risking damage. Trouble is, with reduced control throws, the autostabiliser will be less effective....so you probably wouldn't want to do it.
Consequently, my advice is to continue flying your Ranger 600 in intermediate mode. Avoid using both Beginer Mode (stabilisation is too strong) and Expert Mode. Try flying a larger unstabilised rudder-elevator glider such as a Radian; I think you'll find it a lot easier. If you haven’t done so already, contact your local club and see if anyone would be willing to advise or help.
-
Before embarking on a project like this, I'd recommend asking yourself the question 'why?'. The standard Ranger 600 is an excellent little model; with its existing motor, it has good climb performance and, if you fly it as a powered glider in the right conditions, it's easy to achieve long flight times.My advice would be to spend your money on more lipos. Then you can spend your time flying the Ranger 600 rather than fixing a problem which, in truth, doesn’t exist. That way, you'll soon outgrow its capabilities, and you'll be ready to move on to a larger and more capable model....which will almost certainly have a brushless motor fitted as standard. If you haven’t done so already, get in touch with your local club and seek their advice.
If you really want to do it, you'll already know that the Ranger 600's standard brushed motor is mounted in a foam overwing pod. To fit a brushless outrunner, you'd need a bigger hole in the pod to allow sufficient clearance and cooling, and a secured mounting plate (probably lightply) fixed to the front. The existing pod might not be large enough for this; if so, you'd need to make a new one....which is difficult because the existing pod is integral to the fuselage moulding. The existing 3-in-1 RX/ESC/stabilisation unit won't work with a brushless motor, so you'd need to look at alternatives. Maybe there's a way of modifying it, but you might well have to look at an entirely new RX and ESC solution....which might also entail a new TX.
The added weight of these modifications is likely to negate most, if not all, of the performance and efficiency gains from 'going brushless'. Also, it will involve extra expense and time. IMHO, it's not worth it.
-
2
-
-
Hi again Pedro - just one more thought: when you replaced the propeller, is there a chance that you pushed it on too far? I think this would be easy to do, and the propeller boss could rub against the motor. This would certainly slow it down. Make sure that there's a visible gap (see below).
Simon
-
Hi PerdoMy club has a Ranger 600, which we use as an RC trainer at a small playing-field site. It's an excellent little model which, flown within its limitations, can provide a great introduction to RC at low cost and minimal risk. However, it's prone to minor malfunctions, most of which are easy to resolve if you know what to do.
Consequently, I'd strongly advise you to contact your nearest model flying club and ask them for advice. Even if you don’t intend to join, I'm sure that someone would be only too happy to take a look it for you; most clubs are keen to encourage beginners. They might also show you how to get the best out of the model in the air.
Regarding your specific problem, I assume you mean that the motor seems to be running more slowly than it was. Do you have a way of checking your battery's voltage? The Ranger 600 uses a 1S 380mah lipo, so a fully charged battery should be very close to - but not above - 4.20 volts. If it's not, your charger or your battery might be faulty. Lipo voltage checkers are very cheap and worth every penny.
If you run your Ranger 600 for too long using a partially charged battery, you risk damaging that battery. You shouldn't allow it to discharge much below 3.70 volts; damage is likely to occur below 3.00 volts. Of course, without a voltage checker, you'll have no way of knowing what it is.
I hope this helps. Most importantly, help from an experienced flyer can save you a great deal of frustration and possibly cost too. Usually, the best place to find one is your local club.
Happy flying
Simon
-
PDP, you've hit the nail on the head there with the phrase 'useful when learning a new manoeuvre'.Of course, for beginners, all manoeuvres are new. I think one of the biggest benefits of an RC simulator is the ability to learn the effects of controls, orientation and basic flying techniques in a risk-free way. Importantly, beginners can do this without an instructor taking control as soon as they make a potentially hazardous mistake. This can save so much time at the flying field, and it enables beginners to gain maximum benefit from 'live' time in the air. Yes, take-offs, landings and circuits are easier in a simulator than on real life, but that gives you a chance to learn how to do it.
For training, there's no way that an RC simulator can fully replace live flying; the same is true even of full-size flight simulators. However, as training aids they are, IMHO, invaluable.
-
2
-
Experienced instructor requires your help.
in Beginners
Posted
Completely agree. Unfortunately, not all Futaba TXs are set up like this; our club's T6K TX had a selectable switch on the top-right hand side. We had this changed to the configuration you suggest after a landing incident which occurred just before touchdown. The instructor didn't have time to positively switch back to the master TX, and then move his hand back to the right-hand stick. Nothing dangerous, but it wiped the undercarriage off the Club’s Riot.