Piers Bowlan

I bought one of these from HK a couple of years ago but not run it yet,- it's well oiled. Petrol is beginning to sound like it can be a lot of hassle so it may be going on ebay in the new year and I will put the money towards a Laser. Anyone else had problems with these RGCF engines. With the ignition system/battery and muffler they seem quite heavy compared with a glow too.

Taking your second point Martyn and to state the obvious (to us at least), a terrorist will, 1) not be licensed 2) not register his UAV 3) his UAV will not carry an electronic identifier device 4) not fly from an authorised site. So HOW is this legislation going to reduce the risk of a terrorist drone attack or indeed stop some fool from trying to get some close up footage of an aircraft inflight?

Under the EASA regs. Colin it is 250g max outside of an approved club so Wakefields are out I'm afraid!. Rereading the EASA prototype regulations and the explanatory notes, the regulations are all about the reduction of risk and promoting 'safety'. It is clear that they are aimed at commercial UAV operations whilst keeping model aircraft 'safely' restricted to approved sites. Article 15 in the notes tells us that after the three year transitional period all clubs and associations will have to apply for approval from a competent authority. It is quite an assumption BEB that this will be the BMFA, especially as they do not seem keen to do this. I hope you are right as it could get very expensive indeed if the CAA carry out this function. This approval is subject to a 'good safety record' but tell me, do any clubs in the UK suffer from a bad safety record? By the way, I am a lone flyer but have an exemplary safety record stretching back over a thirty year period! It is also subject to the club having 'good safety practises and culture' but how is that assessed objectively. More to the point how will any new club form as they would seem to be caught in a 'catch 22' situation:- No new club without a good safety record but how do you get a good safety record without being a club? What it also says is that this is all subject to and 'In accordance with national regulatory practises'. So if the French want to require licencing, registration of models, electronic identifiers (transponders), etc. they can. It does not need to be cancelled or reversed just because the EASA regs. come into effect in 2019. We all hope the CAA continue to have a light regulatory touch regarding the continued flying of model aircraft post EASA's regs. Don't hold your breath however as what has already transpired in Ireland, Spain and now France is not a good sign of things to come.

Might be better just to buy the December RCM&E from here. You will get Shaun Garrity's article plus three other free plans too. Lovely job Ray, I am tempted to build one too but I have too many projects on the go as it is. Are you intending to fly it off water if you can find a suitable location? I did some water flying off a lake some years ago with an electric Ace Puddle Master - just so much fun.

I am surprised that that there aren't more sales to be had, what with the rising price of ARFs. If you look of the price of 'complete sets' on that other web site including, plan, CNC parts and canopy/ABS mouldings, by the time you have added the rest of the wood plus hardware I think that is usually no cheaper than one of Daren's or Richard's kits. Admittedly there is more choice with the 'plan pack' route and from the suppliers point of view, the CNC parts are cut to order so no money tied up in a batch of complete kits waiting for orders. I am guilty of owning a very large 'kit mountain', mainly ARFs which I have acquired over the years but never found the time to throw together, despite the minimal work involved. Work, children/family commitments plus a house build, have conspired to derail my plans. I retired earlier in the year so at last I am returning to the fold with a couple of airworthy foamies and three plan built models under way. Oddly enough it is the building that I find most addictive and prioritise. Personally, I would like a Sea Fury with a Laser to go in it, perhaps 65 or 70in span? I was disappointed that I did not buy the Seagull ARF one when it was available despite its hideous colour scheme (I would have resprayed or recovered it had I bought one). The Hurricane would be nice if it became available again but The Sea Fury would jump to the front of the build queue if that was a proposition. Just need to find another twenty like-minded people!

Yes I looked at that bit Jon but it is an early version so who knows what might be possible. I was right, it is a bit more pricy than a Laser, here - you can buy a development engine if you have $30,000 burning a hole in your pocket. Not for everyone then! I thought it might have potential if DARPA are investing in it.

Wondered if anyone had come across this. Sounds interesting. It is basically a Wankel engine turned inside out, so now it has an oval rotor and a triangular chamber with the seals on the inside of the chamber instead of on the outside of the rotor. The result is that lubricating the seals is easier and heat distribution in the engine is not so much of an issue. They have built a 'gas' as well as a heavy fuel version apparently, kerosene and diesel, and claim two to three times better fuel economy than the gas version. Apart from the smoothness and low parts count the power to weight radio is amazing. Now they have funding from DARPA to build a 40hp prototype which will weigh just 30kg and is destined for UAV use. I don't know if the 70cc version would be any good for a model aircraft but I suspect it will cost a bit more than a Laser!

Original 66in X 80% = 52,8in span. Four foot four and three quarter inches appx. according to my calculations. I wonder what the empty weight is without the engine etc. and RC gear?

Posted by kc on 13/12/2016 11:04:32: It seems that to get lots of people building the same model you need to hype the thing up until lots of people want a kit. For example the Mass Build here on the forum or the 'free' magazine plans that need an expensive set of laser cut parts to build easily. Good point kc. The Skywriter has been voted the 2017 Mass Build yet it is an unexceptional model in my humble view (sorry Lindsay!). More to the point the CNC complete set is £130. That is for the plan and all the wood but it doesn't include wheels, spinner, control horns/clevis etc. unlike Richard's or Daren's kits which look like phenomenal value in this day and age. I know that advertising is expensive but perhaps they need more exposure, I hadn't even heard of Richards company yet his kits look superb.   Edited By Piers Bowlan on 14/12/2016 08:29:59

Looks like it is going fast even without an engine! Smart colour scheme too Tim, good choice. Also looks like it would make a good leccy conversion with those clean lines (Am I allowed to say that here?!).

Out of interest Jon is your diesel 70 conversion any more economical on fuel than your glow version and how does it compare for power, - prop size and RPM? Interesting experiment.

MH32 sounds good Pete and similar to Eppler 205 for good penetration. Should fly well regardless Chris with it's high aspect ratio and small frontal area. Should be a superb looking model too, judging by your other builds.

I commiserate Tom. I was flying my foamy HK Me163 yesterday, very small and quick, not for the faint hearted! A combination of low sun, an effective camo scheme and not to mention a total lack of skill, had it cannoning vertically into the ground at terminal speed. Well that's that, I thought, as I made the walk of shame to retrieve the flotsam strewn over the slope side - or so I thought. In fact apart from a torn and slightly squashed nose, after thirty minutes with the cyano bottle the model was pretty much back together again - and no bent motor shaft either (lucky). Wow, these foamies are certainly cheap and tough!

Any thoughts on the wing section Chris? Will you be sticking to the one on the plan or perhaps using a semi-symmetrical section of some sort? Following with interest.

There was a reference on the RCMF forum to Roy being a member of the Coventry and District MFC so why don't you email the club and ask if Roy is still a member and request that your enquiry can be forwarded onto him? Here. Perhaps he can supply you with the plan if Tom can't locate his.

Posted by Peter Miller on 07/12/2016 19:53:43: Yes, !! Definitely a family ressembalnce there. I always wanted to try the Crusader with the tilt wing!! I know that it would work having seen a shoulder wing model have the wing lift and it flew round perfectly safely and slowly. Thinks. A high wing Super Marauder. OH YEAH! Bring it on Peter, but don't forget you have your 62in Buzzard Bombshell to do first , or have you finished it already? It's hard keeping up with your output of new designs. Edited By Piers Bowlan on 07/12/2016 22:55:14

Wow, I want one! Amazing video.

How about Basic 3D by Mike Keay. I have not built one but it is on my build list. It is a bit like a Limbo Dancer and built for IC but would make a simple Leccy conversion. There is a CNC kit available from My Hobby Store but it seems a bit pricey and it doesn't look too demanding to make your kit of parts. Here is part of the plan to give you an idea of what is involved.

Really? Usually legislation is designed to solve a problem that exists, not one that might materialise in the future. This complex and undoubtedly costly legislation will do what for commercial UAV operations that currently operate below 500ft? Put another way, is operating a commercial drone by an approved licensed operator below 500ft, in the UK for instance, a problem without this legislation? Will it make things easier, safer, simpler or even cheaper? The questions are rhetorical by the way!

How about? Def:- A stabilised unmanned surveillance aircraft is a drone. Many MRs are not FPV but do carry cameras so are 'drones' with this definition. A MR or model aircraft that does not carry a camera is not a 'drone' and should not be subject to legislation beyond the existing ANO regs. The whole problem with unmanned surveillance aircraft being flow in inappropriate locations is because they can capture exciting footage and stills, so the problem stems from them being camera platforms not them being UAVs.

BEB, thank you for explaining EASA rationale. if you can call it that. I am incredulous if that is what they truly think, that airspace below 500 ft is going to be saturated with autonomous UAVs in the future so they need to clear the airspace of obstructions. Talk about looking for a solution before there is a problem! The most common obstructions are of course aerials, church spires, chimneys, HT pylons/wires and tall buildings. The lower the UAV flies (to land/take off) the more objects that become obstructions. Clearly using GPS mapping the UAVs can be programmed to avoid these things but the data base would be truly vast and need constant updating, no mean feat and at VAST cost. You say that they think that segregation is the answer to maintaining separation from other users to maintain safety. Certainly commercial traffic and some GA traffic are separated by operating in controlled airspace but what about the open FIR for other users? Within the open FIR, outside of controlled airspace and above 500ft AGL, the primary means of separation is see and avoid. It works! Collisions are rare fortunately and paradoxically the greatest risk lies within an Aerodrome Traffic Zone when aircraft are manoeuvring in the circuit. So business twins, light aircraft, microlights, hot air balloons, para/hang gliders and military aircraft, can all happily co- exist by virtue of keeping a good look out to avoid each other. I suggest that it is a prerequisite that UAVs be able to do the same and that this ability has a far greater priority that trying to ring fence everybody so that there is never a conflict. That is just pie in the sky in my view. Using SSRT and TCAS technology as per heavy commercial traffic, UAVs could easily avoid other UAVs if there was a common standard. However, what about separation from the rest; those that can and do operate below 500ft, and that includes us. If UAVs have an effective and dependable 'see' and avoid system then this ring fencing and segregation will cease to be an issue. As others have alluded to, what is the probability of a mid-air between a UAV and a model aircraft? For that matter how often do you see a model aircraft unless you are at a model flying site or show? Perhaps that is why EASA didn't appreciate model flying existed as a hobby until it was brought to their attention! At the end of the day it just appears to me to be a load of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake.         Edited By Piers Bowlan on 27/11/2016 16:58:39

I am surprised nobody has mentioned it here but BEB wrote an excellent article in this months RCM&E (Nov p.96) covering this topic. It was logical and easy to understand .

You are right Pete, would have made a nice simple build for the Mass Build over the holiday period when everyone else is crashed out in front of the TV! Or does that sound a tad anti-social? Perhaps the answer is to put up a build bench in the TV room, how many of us would get away with that?! I wonder how many Little Bits were made from the RM free plan? I built two, Babe Bee and a Speed 400 version. Should go well on a 32. Nice build, following with interest. Edited By Piers Bowlan on 24/11/2016 11:54:37

Yes, Derek produced some very nice small models Peter. Why don't you start a build blog for your Holi, it might inspire others to build one? Some of the photos on the Traplet site of these older designs are often quite poor, a few pictures from yourself would be helpful to prospective builders. I plan to build a 'cartoon scale' 90% Skywriter with sheet wings for the MB and see how that works out. The Kwik Fly 40 is more to my liking however, so I will have to do both!     Edited By Piers Bowlan on 24/11/2016 08:51:20

Smart colour scheme Jim . Sometimes less is more.