Simon Burch 1

Surely the spooky skulls would frighten the air away from the bottom surface of the wing, create a partial vacuum, and draw the wing downwards....

Just to close off this sub-250g rabbit-hole (interesting though it is), DuncanM23's club has additional rules for sub-250g models. Oxford Model Flying Club operates from a site that's open to the public and has grazing livestock. To help ensure that our members are safe to fly we have a rule that a BMFA 'A' Certificate is required for 'solo' flying - as do many clubs. Clearly, this means that our unqualified members can't fly unless another certified flyer is available to accompany them. Despite our best efforts, isn't always possible. To permit uncertified members to fly at a time of ther choosing, we relaxed the 'A' Certificate rule slightly; for suitable sub-250g models (usually foamies or open-structure) all that’s required for 'solo' flying is an ability check from a qualified club member. We then issue an internal club qualification. We fully appreciate the limitations of lightweight models; however, as a supplement to 'dual' training, and a way of allowing members to fly when they wish, they've proved successful. We've found that, in the right conditions, a good lightweight model is particularly useful for learning orientation, circuit patterns, and gaining general confidence.

Isn't the Chipmunk a Canadian design?

My experience as a full-size flying instructor has demonstrated to me that age and experience offer some protection, but absolutely no immunity, from mistakes. The important thing is to learn from them and, by highlighting how they happened, give others the opportunity to avoid making similar ones - as you've done here. Thank you.

Hi Mike I've looked at an electric conversion for someone else's Osprey 100, which is a similar traditional build 100 inch span glider. We were intending to use a 900kv motor (Quantum II); 10x5 folding prop; 30amp brushless ESC, and a 3S lipo (battery sized to balance the glider and fit into the nose). This setup should have provided an adequate 700 ft/minute rate of climb. In the end he kept it as a pure glider. I have a smaller Radian Pro (78 inch span) with a similar power setup, and it climbs like a rocket. Simon

Hi pm05gah Welcome back! Since the C-19 lockdown measures were imposed, our club has seen a considerable increase in its membership and many of our new joiners are in a similar position to you. As has already been mentioned on this thread, things have moved on considerably in the last 20 years. By no stretch of the imagination are all the changes for the best, but one thing that has improved is the means and process of learning RC flying. For what it's worth, here's that generic advice that I send to prospective members in your position; others might have different but equally valid ideas. Most beginners find flying RC models is quite difficult at first, and it's certainly not intuitive. I strongly recommend that you don't attempt to fly those beautifully built models by yourself - unless you are up for frequent rebuilds. The good news is that the (insert model here) looks to be a perfect beginner/intermediate model; however, rather than starting with the that, I recommend that you invest in a relatively inexpensive lightweight EPP foam 3-channel (throttle, rudder, elevator control) electric powered glider to learn with, and use a PC-based RC simulator to help get to grips with the basics - especially orientation. Many of our newcomers have followed this route and it works. PC-based simulators are a great way to prepare yourself to fly a 'real' model; I use mine a lot even now. However, to get the best out of an RC simulator, you need to use one which interfaces with a 'proper' RC transmitter - a normal PC joystick or game controller will work but it isn't really good enough for our purposes. Ideally, you should use the same transmitter that you intend to use for 'live' RC flying. To do this, you need to purchase a lead and a USB interface that is compatible with your system. Again, an experienced club flyer would be able to help you to set it up. Before you fly your (insert model), or any model with a mass in excess of 250g, you'll need to register as an 'Operator' with the CAA (cost £9), display your Operator Number on the model, and take an online CAA Competency Test (it's very easy). Before flying any model, you should also join the BMFA, which provides £25M third-party insurance. As you might expect, I would strongly recommend joining (insert local club here); you'll benefit from a wealth of experience and advice. I hope this hasn't put you off! To my mind it's well worth the trouble; model flying is always challenging and you are always learning.

Yes - it's certainly worth adding additional cooling intakes and outakes when converting old can motor designs to brushless....I learned that the hard way in the early days. After converting my Easy Street, I replaced the Speed 600 in my Balsacraft Spitfire IX with a Tornado inrunner. The Spifire had lots of space around the power components but no provision for cooling airflow. This was OK with the Speed 600, but I soon cooked the Tornado....not a mistake you make twice. Fortunately the model was OK and it's still flying now...albeit not quite so pretty with intake holes in the static part of the spinner.

Easy Street Mk1 back in business!

Posted by SR 71 on 25/06/2020 10:46:32: Im a modeller of 70 years flown everything from gliders to twin turbine jets and scratch build most of my models, the club i belonged to in Cyprus had just the one rule, common sense. I have now returned to this country and joined a club but find i cannot fly because i dont have a A certificate, and also that i cannot fly my favourite model, the only one i brought back with me, because i have to have a B certificate to fly it as it weighs just over 7,5 kg Im now looking for a new hobby Hi SR71 I sympathise with your situation; I found myself in a similar one when I left the RAF and joined a civil club. Most irritatingly, my larger (1kg plus) models had no undercarriage and therefore didn't meet the test's requirements. My own personal view is that club rules which mandate BMFA certification are certainly a factor in pushing people away from model flying. That said, at our club we need to be careful because our flying site is open to the public; we need to be sure that flyers are safe and that they understand the law....but there are other ways to do this. Nonetheless, my suggestion would be to 'bite the bullet' and take the test if you can; the hobby is still immensely rewarding and it would benefit from the support of people with your experience. Older people sometimes get a bad press, but in my experience youngsters are happy to engage with us and they are inspired by more exciting models like the ones that you describe. Irritatingly, you won't be able to go directly for a B; you have to take an A first. I don't know why this should be. As pointed out earlier, the tests aren't that difficult for an experienced flyer.

I don't think that the hobby is dying, but it's certainly undergoing fundamental change - and not all of it is bad. I agree with previous comments that the impact of CAA legislation has been surprisingly small; however, the high profile of last year's drone incidents has led to widespread bans on model flying in public places. In our area, no models of any kind may be flown in public parks. To me, this is outrageous, but in the present risk-averse climate there is little that can be done. To fly their newly purchased drones or EP RTFs, people expressed interest in joining our club. However, our rules, which permitted 'solo' flying by BMFA A Certificate holders only, put them off because they couldn't fly without a qualified person to supervise. In effect, we were discouraging participation in model flying. To my mind, the A-Certificate rule was essential in the days when we had to learn on a 40-sized I/C trainer, but now people can learn the basics on a PC simulator and a lightweight EP foam model. Most drones more-or-less fly themselves, and many models have stability augmentation or autopilots. Lightweight EP foam models are cheap, incredibly crash-resistant, and are unlikely to cause harm or damage if they crash. Consequently, we've amended our rules, and introduced some other measures, to address this. So far we have: Carried out a risk assessment and amended the club rules to permit non-BMFA A Cert holders to fly models below 250g without supervision. An A Cert holder must see that they can control the model and understand its limitations before 'solo' flying is permitted. Welcomed drone flyers and encouraged them to join. Encouraged the use of RC flight simulators and EP foam models to learn the basics. Used social media to arrange impromptu meetings, share advice etc. Introduced people to 'traditional' model flying by arranging club event that involve simple and cheap builds eg Cloud Tramp, chuck gliders etc. Used events to engage with the public (pre C-19 of course). Built a 'traditional' club trainer for those who wish to progress their skills. Time will tell how successful these measures are, but so far the signs are encouraging and we've seen a healthy rise in membership - including under 50s - and a substantial increase in flying activity. We've even seen drone flyers building traditional models. Of course, C-19 has helped but the trend was already apparent.

No problem - glad to be of help. The joy of being furloughed....plenty of time for this sort of thing!

With ply protection plate to prevent the motor from chafing the wires: View from the front: The hatch needs to be a lot thinner to accommodate the wires, so I'll need to glass that as well. Now all I need to do is finish it! Good luck with yours.

Hi Paul First pic without the motor in place. You might be able to see the black marks from the old can motor's brushes, which shows how far back it extended. You can also see that I've modified the air intake; it's no longer part of the hatch and the central strut protects the motor's wires. View from behind the motor mounting: With the motor in place. You can see how much shorter it is compared with the old 600, and how much space needs to be made for the wires:

Apologies for posting 3 times......you only need to read one! Repeated stabbing of the 'add posting' button which didn’t seem to tespond I think.

Hi Paul The original Easy Street was designed for a 600-sized brushed motor, so you don't have to change the structure too much when you mount a smaller brushless motor. My Easy Street is 20 years old and currently running a 4-max PO-3541-1270 brushless outrunner, 2200mah 3s, 40amp ESC driving a 9x5 prop. It will take a larger prop but the 9x5 provides sufficient performance for me. The main difficulty I found was routing the motor wires, which required some modification to the lower part of the motor mount. In doing this, I probably weakened it; following some aggressive outside loops, the motor mounting attachment to the fuselage began to crack. I'm currently rebuilding the nose area with a slight modification to the air intake/hatch, and reinforcing it with glass. I'll try to attach photos of the work-in-progress will show you the internal and external structure. It's worth the effort; IMHO the original Easy Street is a superb design that flies really nicely, and reaches its full potential with a brushless/lipo setup. Happy flying. Simon

Hi Paul The original Easy Street was designed for a 600-sized brushed motor, so you don't have to change the structure too much when you mount a smaller brushless motor. My Easy Street is 20 years old and currently running a 4-max PO-3541-1270 brushless outrunner, 2200mah 3s, 40amp ESC driving a 9x5 prop. It will take a larger prop but the 9x5 provides sufficient performance for me. The main difficulty I found was routing the motor wires, which required some modification to the lower part of the motor mount. In doing this, I probably weakened it; following some aggressive outside loops, the motor mounting attachment to the fuselage began to crack. I'm currently rebuilding the nose area with a slight modification to the air intake/hatch, and reinforcing it with glass. I'll try to attach photos of the work-in-progress will show you the internal and external structure. It's worth the effort; IMHO the original Easy Street is a superb design that flies really nicely, and reaches its full potential with a brushless/lipo setup. Happy flying. Simon

Hi Paul The original Easy Street was designed for a 600-sized brushed motor, so you don't have to change the structure too much when you mount a smaller brushless motor. My Easy Street is 20 years old and currently running a 4-max PO-3541-1270 brushless outrunner, 2200mah 3s, 40amp ESC driving a 9x5 prop. It will take a larger prop but the 9x5 provides sufficient performance for me. The main difficulty I found was routing the motor wires, which required some modification to the lower part of the motor mount. In doing this, I probably weakened it; following some aggressive outside loops, the motor mounting attachment to the fuselage began to crack. I'm currently rebuilding the nose area with a slight modification to the air intake/hatch, and reinforcing it with glass. I'll try to attach photos of the work-in-progress will show you the internal and external structure. It's worth the effort; IMHO the original Easy Street is a superb design that flies really nicely, and reaches its full potential with a brushless/lipo setup. Happy flying. Simon

This video explains it reasonably well; I followed it using my 'legacy' Futaba FF6 and my current T8J. Picasim seems to need two separate rate switchs; if you have a single one covering all channels (eg Futaba T6J) it doesn't work very well...the rates only functioned on yaw. https://youtu.be/f91szj4rFbk Hope this helps Simon