Piers Bowlan

Which 'neck of the woods' are you talking about precisely Spikey? If you are are discussing aircraft departing Gatwick on a SID (Standard Instrument Departure) then minimum (and maximum) altitudes will apply at different points along the SID in question. If the CAA said that everything coming over 'here' will be at no less than 4000ft then that will be 4000ft minimum altitude (ASL) and the departure chart will be annotated 'at or above 4000' for the way point in question (a legal requirement).

If they use the word 'Altitude' it is ASL. If they use the word 'Height' it is AGL. If they are not using either word they are being vague!

Actually G-YRUS, A lot of people buy RCM&E because of the reviews which can be helpful when deciding where to spend ones hard earned dosh. Also, if a manufacture has produced a model for a specific role, does it live up to its claims, is it good value for money? Admittedly some reviewers are more skilled than others. As for 'Wheels fell off but it was a great model anyway' (to paraphrase). Landing gear failure is a recurring theme with some far-eastern ARFs sadly. However the model might otherwise represents good value to a potential purchaser who is prepared to carry out some local reinforcement work before flight. I have bought such a model after reading a review, carried out the necessary modifications and had a lot of fun with what turned out to be an excellent model. As for constant plugging of suppliers. If a columnist gets good personal service from a particular supplier it is human nature to give them a mention and only fair in my opinion. Also If AW wants to tell us what he has had for breakfast so be it, I like his Trad Brit ramblings! So back to Andy Sephton's series. Tedious and dull and 'fails to thrill', sums it up. Yes, I know what an ammeter is, as does everyone else who reads this mag. If you are building a scale model any self respecting 'rivet-counter' can find images of any required instrument panel on the net.

Another great mag, thanks David. I like the glider coverage/reviews. Project heavy lift- very good timing as I have generated enough 'bits' for a hexacopter build! Looking forward to Tim Hoopers new series. Alex Whittaker is always entertaining even if he does go off-piste from time to time! Keep the free plans coming. It was all I could to stop myself from starting a Wiggo - and another unfinished project no doubt. Heck, I may start one anyway. As for Andy Sephton's Classic Cockpits, I don't like to be negative but he really shouldn't bother in my view. Tedious and turgid, I hope it is a short series! Just my 2p worth. Finally, Pete Lowe; he will be sorely missed.   Edited By Piers Bowlan on 18/06/2015 22:49:24

Wow, impressive stuff Tony, worth waiting for. All the best for the maiden.

Yes very very nice Eric. Now you better hide it before the wife gets home!

How about making a wooden plug and either vacuum forming (or just stretching) them out of a pop bottle or a sheet of polycarbonate. It might take a bit of experimentation but once you have mastered the technique it might be quicker and less messy than moulding them. Just my 2p worth. Hey, that looks good Colin.   Edited By Piers Bowlan on 10/06/2015 21:54:06

Fit a DJI NAZA auto-pilot with GPS and press, Return To Home! Wish I had one of those in my 'bang, bang' single channel days, would have saved chasing after the model across Epsom Downs on numerous occasions. Good exercise though! I built a wayward O/D tailless glider a long while ago. The problem was not so much of a flyaway and losing sight of it but rather it had a nasty tuck-under habit which resulted in it spearing into the ground. I tried moving the C of G and messing with the reflex to no avail as it was the rubbish aerofoil I used. In the end I fitted a parachute to facilitate a gentle arrival if all else failed. The chute was released with the application of full up elevator, micro servos had not been invented and the fuz was tiny. It worked but the chute would deploy randomly on occasion. Might be a solution when you lose sight of your model - don't forget to write your name on it though!

"This was highlighted on the down wind legs when there wasn't as much airflow over the surfaces'. Not too sure why that should be Rich? The model doesn't know whether it is flying into wind or downwind as the airspeed is the same. So I don't know why the model should be any more pitch sensitive when flying downwind. Just curious. The tailplane does look a tad small and the ailerons tiny, just like the full size. Very nice looking model though, amazing what can be done with depron. Looking forward to seeing the completed Meteor!

Not only the weight Peter but the lift fan is 50in wide which creates area rule problems for the F35 which affect the aircraft performance. This also affects the performance of the F35A and C variants too despite the fact they are not fitted with the fan. The (single) engine arrangement also precludes an integral weapons bay so that external stores also adversely affect the fighters performance. It doesn't matter if you are talking about a model or full sized aircraft, compromise is compromise, which is not good if you are trying to build an air superiority front line fighter!

F.35B:- overweight, underpowered, massively over budget and not out of the woods yet technically. In 1965 Hawker Siddeley were designing the P1154, VTOL/supersonic fighter, - until the Wilson Government cancelled it. Fortunately HS continued with the subsonic version as a private venture, which became the Harrier. Just as well they did as otherwise the Falklands conflict might have ended very differently. And why did we mothball the Harrier? To make savings to facilitate the F35B purchase? It can only end in tears!

Simon, spray mount and Kitchen foil doesn't sound ideal. As an alternative have you considered using aluminium self adhesive tape from a builders merchant. I bought a roll recently from Travis Perkins as I thought it might come in handy sometime!. Mine is 45m x 75mm but you can get it 100mm wide and it is 50 microns thick and comes with a protective paper backing that you peel off. It is just called 'Foil Tape' and is used for 'joining pipe lagging'. Just a thought.

Actually Josip, it looks like the men in red are lifeguards/officials and were actually holding the crowd back on the beach and stopping some from helping! A good move to land with the canopy open but with hindsight I guess the pilot wished he had ditched in deeper water. As it was, he ended up inverted with the aircraft on top of him in shallow water. Just as well he did get help to get out. A tragic loss of life in any event.

I am only guessing (so I probably don't know what I am talking about!) but I would think that to the NT power is 'power' regardless of weather it is IC or electric, they don't differentiate because they can both be 'heard' - that is, if you listen very carefully to the electric model! I know that electric models can be noisy but it is not generally the norm. To the NT it is probably more of a safety issue - someone might get hit by a rotating propeller. It would be nice to hear what their rationale is, although as others have said, the Orme is such a great place for slope soaring that usually it is not an issue.

Welcome John, a 1/4 Scale Tiger Moth, that sounds impressive. Would that be scratch built, a plan, or a kit and how far have you got with it? A photo would be great. I am mainly into gliders but I am sure there are many on this forum who would love to chat about your build.

Excellent. I like the extra spars mid-span and the phenolic resin tube to take the wing joiner, looks all very strong and tidy. Nice bit of planking too.

CS, If you are worried about weakening the wing with the holes for the servos (I would) then why not make a cut along the top of the wing along the span to a depth of, say 8mm and push an 8mm x .5mm strip of carbon fibre into the slot you created. Then run some (foam Friendly) thin cyano along the top to wick into the slot/carbon strip. If you do this top and bottom of the wing to create some carbon spars you will be amazed how stiff the wing will become. It is quick to do too and much stronger than just relying on the brown paper. Just my 2p worth, Piers

Hi Nige "Obviously the Solius can't use the extra flaps but the fit (of the wings) is the same'. Er, if the Heron wings will fit a Solius what is to stop you buying/fitting Heron wings to your Solius and programing the flap function on your Tx? I have a Solius and fancy the higher AR of the Heron and the crow braking for landing. On second thoughts perhaps I should just buy a Heron. You can never have too many gliders (or e-gliders)!

Nice people, enthusiastic and helpful and a long established company. Well stocked shop. I usually visit them when I am in Singapore. Buy with confidence.

Fabulous Tony. What span and projected weight are you looking at for a Leccy version?

I agree, Bob has put it very clearly. Aircraft design, more than any other form of engineering, is about compromise. AKA: the most strength/stiffness for the least amount of added weight. It is not about absolute weight or absolute strength. Longitudinal sheeting weighs the same as cross sheeting but longitudinal sheeting is likely to split in an 'arrival'. This is a hobby, there are no rules, it is up to you, so enjoy! However there is 'best practise' so ask Peter Miller what he thinks ( he has designed more models than we have had hot breakfasts!)

I agree with PatMc, why would you want to omit the cross grain sheeting as the weight saving will be minimal and the loss of strength/ torsional rigidity, considerable. The motor you are using can produce 800W on a 4/5S LiPo and suitable prop, much the same as a 46/61 two stroke IC engine I would have thought. I can't see that weight is an issue and you can shift the battery fore and aft too to get it to balance correctly, so no worries about it being tail heavy. just my 2p worth.

First Colin, 'The environmental case against extending LHR is very real' More traffic flying out of Manchester or Birmingham will still create more air traffic noise and air pollution, the only difference is that it will be moved a couple of hundred miles up the M1. It is not as if the midlands is uninhabited . But you are right, with politicians of every political persuasion trying to 'out-green' each other what chance does a third runway at LHR have of getting through? When the Davies report makes it's final recommendation a public inquiry will no doubt be called for. Think LHR T5 - Ten years and £300m in legal costs later, they started work on it! I personally think that the Gatwick proposal is a non starter as some years ago they built the North Terminal and the cargo centre where a new runway should have been located, as it was decided at the time (BAA) that a new runway would never be required. The last proposal I saw was a new runway nearly three miles from the terminals. The 'Boris Island airport' in the Thames estuary is not on the table by virtue of the fact that the country is £1.55T in debt already. A third Heathrow runway is a relatively 'cheap' way of easing the problems with the existing air traffic that uses LHR, never mind further expansion. I am not against investment in infrastructure like HS-2 (far from it). What about building a mass transit system linking LGW with LHR while we are at it. Obviously creating increased economic activity up north is highly desirable but usually you develop airports to meet the demand not develop the airport in the hope that an Airline will want to use it.

Colin, I think the business case for the UK airport hub being located in the SE is pretty clear and testament to that is the 75 million passengers that use LHR every year. I can't imagine that the Davis position is only influenced by the 'CBI and its 1600 members'. I am sure the airlines and their astute market research teams have an input here too. The fact is that LHR is full and has needed more runway capacity for the last 30 years no less. It only 'works' handling the air traffic that it does due to the professionalism and consummate skill of the UK National Air Traffic Service (best in the world). It is interesting that you mention the German model. Frankfurt Main Airport handles 60m passengers a year yet has four runways while Paris CDG airport - 62m and four runways while Madrid also has four runways yet only handles 39m passengers per annum. So much for your 'heavily propagandised campaign for the third runway at LHR', they don't need propaganda because the facts are clear. A third (short) runway at LHR would facilitate more feeder services from the UK regions/Europe, free airport congestion so reducing pollution and noise by avoiding holding delays at peak times- very environmentally friendly and cost effective too! Why was it not done years ago? Answer:- Politics/votes! As far as the A380 is concerned it suits a limited number of routes but is quiet and comfortable for passengers. There has been talk of the production line closing soon although an A380 NEO (new engine option) has been muted. This would involve the aircraft going on a severe diet to lose weight and more efficient engines but as a further £2B would be required for this development it is thought that the numbers don't stack up in terms of future sales, (unless Emirates fund it?). The future is in large twins:- B777ER, B787, A350 etc.

My only advice is don't buy a budget charger, buy the best you can afford. David Ashby reviewed one of these in a recent RCM&E. I have no experience of this product but if it was rubbish it would not have graces the pages of RCM&E. If you want to fly electric then get a decent charger, it will be a good investment and less frustrating than an 'economy' charger - (that is likely to burn your house down!). Just my 2p worth!