Piers Bowlan

I think the 2016 Mass build was so successful Dylan, with many Ballerinas completed, was because BEB told us we were all building Ballerinas . Seriously, I think it is better if there is one design for the mass build, there is nothing to stop you building whatever you want, - except it won't be part of the mass build.

Geoff, the plan is just £12.50 (RC2028). Didn't look like it needed a lot of wood when I took a look at my copy of the free plan from RCM&E, March 2006. The formers are all rectangular and the ribs are all the same, so not too arduous making your own kit of parts - and no cowl or canopy required either. Another more aesthetic design perhaps is Hangar Monkey from this months RCM&E. I wonder how many people might be interested in that as the 2017 Mass build? One or two people have suggested a biplane. The problem with biplanes is, er, you need to build two wings! That can put some people off!

Posted by Glyn44 on 04/10/2016 09:56:22: Piers, I am just moving on from novice flyer and have built two Wiggos for myself, I found it a delight to fly, no nasty vices at all. Not sure I want to build another for the winter build. I fancy a biplane as I have never built one. I have a Wots Wot and it flies beautifully. I met Max at Greenacres, what a nice guy. His Wiggo looked very lively, probably the way it was set up. I have been sorely tempted to build one myself as it is 'different' but too many other things on the go at present. Probably it wouldn't take very long either. I just thought the Basic 3D looked relaxing to fly for someone getting into RC with its thick, blunt wing section and lots of wing area, -particularly the longer winged version.

Wiggo would be popular, many must have been completed already. Not really a beginners model from a flying perspective perhaps? The Basic 3D by Mike Keay might be popular, it was a free plan a few years ago so there is a build article somewhere. I remember from the article that you could build it in either two spans, the longer one made a great  trainer with its low wing loading and thick section. The short span one with high rates made a good introduction to 3D flying. It looked like a quick build, even quicker if you bought the CNC set of parts. It's been on my 'must build' list for a while. Edited By Piers Bowlan on 04/10/2016 07:05:03

Like kc says, if the spar is OK it just looks worse than it is. A couple of 'part rib's' and a bit of sheeting to rectify. As long as you can get it all back together straight and true it will probably fly fine, if a little heavier. Definitely quicker than building a complete new wing panel. A couple of hours 'midnight oil' to rebuild it and another hour to recover. I would give it a go at any rate. Good luck and have fun.

But Cymaz this is not about common sense, it is about 'safety' and who dare stand up and argue with that? It has become a 'sacred cow' in modern society. We all know that driving at inappropriate speeds (for the road conditions/traffic/weather) is dangerous and irresponsible but now we talk about 'safety cameras', but surely they measure speed not safety? The two are not necessarily synonymous. Similarly, the European Aviation Safety Agency must be good as it is about creating safety? Our own CAA has been doing that for decades very effectively so why do we need hundreds of 'lawyers' based mainly in Cologne (but also Brussels, Washington and Beijing) to rewrite legislation formally written in plain English (and based on common sense) into legal mumbo jumbo that needs 'interpreting'? The proposed French legislation, whilst more palatable than the EASA proposals, are equally unnecessary and won't do anything to enhance safety, security or privacy. It is just for the edification of the bureaucrats and politicians in the name of Pan-European integration. Rant over, phew!     Edited By Piers Bowlan on 29/09/2016 09:59:54

Clearly their intention is to reduce the risk of a UAV being used for criminal activity. So why is it that these bureaucrats cannot see what we can all see? A criminal will not register with the authorities or fit the model with the electronic identifier. The only people complying with the legislation will be the law abiding model fliers - who aren't the problem. So the legislation will serve no useful purpose. Amazing! Edited By Piers Bowlan on 26/09/2016 16:23:00

Hi Myke, Some time ago I lived in Scotland for a couple of years, it blew a gale every other day, and that was the East coast (Aberdeen and Dundee)! Great place for slope soaring. Probably a bit 'sporting' for the Radian most days I would have thought. How about a Wild Thing here. The model is pretty indestructible as it is EPP and comes mostly ready made so it should only take a couple of evenings to complete. It is a lot of fun for not a lot of cash. Everyone should have one - especially if you live in Scotland. Just my 2p worth.

Ultymate, I think this is a discussion about why some people are drawn to very large models whilst others are content with the ones you can chuck in the back of the car in one piece. Large models do have more presence perhaps and can even fly better, although that is not always the case. Personally I like to build from a plan and I simply do not have the time to take on a very large project as it will probably not get finished. From my experience, small models tend to 'bounce' and if they don't then repairs tend to be quick even if that means building a new wing. I do have a yen to fly something a bit bigger some day and a bit 'more scale' rather than the sport jobs I usually fly. To this end I have purchased a couple of RTFs on my travels in the hope that this might be a quick route. One of these models is a World Models 1/4 scale PA25 Piper Pawnee. I even have the choice of two engines for it but unfortunately it hasn't flown yet. Assembly doesn't look too difficult but a lack of time and the extra complication of duel power supplies/Rx not to mention the hassle of the logistics to transport it, has meant that it remains resolutely in its box. Meanwhile I am happy enough to continue to chuck small models in the back of my car to get my flying fix. As they say, size is not everything! Edited By Piers Bowlan on 24/09/2016 19:29:55

Colin the accident you are referring to was an American Airlines A300 out of NY JFK, a couple of days after the anniversary of 911. The aircraft encountered some wake turbulence from a preceding JAL 747-400. The FO, who was the handling pilot, used full alternate rudder for 20 seconds until the entire vertical stabiliser separated! I doubt any aircraft would tolerate that kind of abuse for long. The aircraft went into a spin and the engines separated before it hit the ground. Very tragic. A pity about the Gripen but it did look very light with that short and slow speed take off run. As least no one was hurt apart from the builders pride!

HI Bob, I too bought a NGH GF38 to go in my 1/4 scale World Models PA25 Pawnee. I don't know suitable this engine would be for that but I haven't run it yet in any event. I have never heard of JMB silencers so thanks for the heads up on that, I was wondering what to use. I have heard a few reports on this forum and others of premature wear to the cams with this engine, which is not good and that perhaps that they are not hard enough? I will be interested to see how you get on with it, I hope the reports are ill founded. I am sure that if Laser do find the time and manufacturing capacity to produce a range of petrol four strokes then they will be VERY popular.

We can all agree to disagree but without a photo of what we are repairing it is all pretty academic! How well the wood mates together, how thick it is, how much filler will be going in to fill the cracks! It is all a judgement call and down to experience and preference. Martin Harris had a good point about stress raisers;- local reinforcement is often not a lot of good unless the load is spread. Like BEB said, a bit of extra weight down the back end is generally not a good thing, as it usually requires a lot of weight up the front end to compensate! However, if it stops the tail falling off mid-flight it is probably not a bad thing after all!. Perhaps building a new fuz is the best solution, - if not the quickest. Decisions, decisions! Edited By Piers Bowlan on 19/09/2016 19:06:04

For a balsa model if you want to use carbon I would personally use carbon cloth/epoxy but carbon strips/rods/cyno when reinforcing a broken EPO fuz.

Once you have the fuz glued back together and it is all nice and smooth, a bit of filler might help here, personally I would use some glass cloth and epoxy to reinforce the joint. That way the joint is reinforced all around the circumference of the fuselage and will be much stronger (and neater) than a couple of doublers fixed either side. Cut some strips of glass cloth, wrap round the fuz and smooth some epoxy into it. Just my 2p worth.

I can see the point of buying a set of CNC cut ribs for a tapered wing but for a parallel chord wing I would have thought that the time and effort to cut them out oneself was minimal, but each to their own. I just cut a blank from thin ply, fit a new blade in my Swann Morton knife and carefully cut round the ply blank. Take care not to move the blank whilst cutting round it or you will end up with odd shaped ribs. If this is a problem you can always spray the back of the blank with 'fasttak' or perhaps use a couple of drawing pins to help it stay put. Also be careful not to shave bits off your fingers as the red blotches on the balsa spoils the effect! One sheet of balsa and 30 mins later you have 21 Ghost Rider 38 ribs ready for glueing. Perhaps it is just me, I like cutting out ribs, I find it most therapeutic. I usually cut slots in spars by taping a few sections of old hacksaw blade together, the wider the slots the more sections of blade I tape together. It is quicker and neater than using a model knife and doesn't weaken the spar like a knife can. I often use the same technique to notch LE and TE of wings rather than just butt jointing the ribs to them. The notches don't have to be very deep (1/16in?) but it increases the glueing area and strength of the joint no end. Don't forget to make the ribs slightly longer to allow for this. Just my 2p worth. Edited By Piers Bowlan on 17/09/2016 04:52:39

Another interesting and unusual project Colin, I will be following with interest. I must have a go at building with depron sometime. Your workshop makes me feel better so don't tidy it up!

You already do, you need permission from the ATC unit concerned. Anything below 400ft is not a threat to full sized aircraft unless they are taking off or landing in which case you shouldn't be there with your model in any event. That is, unless of course you are a club operating from an full sized airstrip with the operators permission and everyone is briefed; full sized and model pilots. I can't see that registering every model you fly and geofencing is going to improve things for the average model flyer or improve safety for the public in general. It is a paperwork exercise.

Posted by The real Ron Truth on 14/09/2016 07:29:59: Chris, I understand your point but the law has already made a singular definition of model aircraft -SUSA. We are therefore all in the same basket, legally speaking. After all, i could make a scale model of a predator drone and circumvent the definition of a scale model Im not sure it would be a bad thing to accept that this hobby will get some form of regulation as it would also bring some form of legal recognition and protection. Club sites and pilots that are registered can easily be differentiated from those who are not. The big , big problem we have now though is now the CAA act in light of brexit and potentially loosing the connection with EASA. The EASA definition of model aircraft did at least recognise us and give us some airspace. What if the CAA decided to go the way of Ireland. No, a model aircraft is a UAV until you fit a camera to it, when it becomes a SUSA. So your scale model, whether it is a Predator drone or a Tiger Moth (or a MR for that matter) is a UAV - until you fit a camera to it. Not much confusion there and on that basis we are not all in the same basket. I don't know why you say you don't think it would be a bad thing for this hobby to accept some form of regulation. It is already regulated by the ANO, as explained in CAP 658 and very sensible it is too. So you think that the EASA regulations will give us legal recognition and protection? Words fail me! If the prototype document becomes law we can all throw our RC equipment away as the replacement will require GPS so that we can be subject to geo-fencing. Before every flight we will need to initialise the equipment so it knows where it is. You will also need to ensure that the software is up to date as airspace boundaries frequently change. That will be a legal requirement and the updates won't be free. Every model you own will need to be registered, you will probably have to wait weeks for the paperwork to come back with the registration number, which you will be required to clearly display on the model. The fees may be small to begin with but the scheme will be expensive to administer, so that cost will ultimately get passed on to us. I have seen the complication, bureaucracy and escalating cost created by EASA (formally JAR-Ops) to professional and sport aviation over the last few years. Lets just hope that our CAA are still allowed to recognise model flying as a separate entity to 'camera flying' and the separate requirements and risks associated with each hobby.

BEB, your views on this subject are well known but sadly I must disagree! Firstly and controversially, I think that aerial photography should be left to the licenced professionals like yourself. Why, I hear you ask? The problem is not RPAS per se but cameras on RPASs. EASA say that they can't differentiate between a 'drone' (either MR or fixed wing) and a model aircraft so therefore their unworkable proposed legislation will apply to all. As Martin points out there is cross over of technology (Stabilisation/GPS/ telemetry etc.) so one can understand that point of view to some extent. However some 'prats', as BEB so eloquently puts it, fly irresponsibly because they can capture some 'awesome footage' and post it on uTube and social media for their own egocentric gratification. That is not to say that these people will continue to fly irresponsibly even without a camera recording their foolishness and they will still be in breach of the ANO. There will always be 'prats' and the proposed legislation won't change that. So what if you want to take pictures/video from your model or take part in quad racing? Then (in my world) as you have a camera fitted to your aircraft you will be subject to the new EASA regulations and all that that involves. To clarify, I suggest that if you fit your scale Tiger Moth, for instance, with a camera you are flying a 'drone' and subject to EASA's new regulations. Conversely if you fly your MR without a camera you are flying a model aircraft and simply subject to the restrictions of the ANO that currently apply. This may seem counter intuitive perhaps but ask yourself the question, would any of these high profile 'incidents' occur were it not for cameras? As far as drones being a potential threat by terrorists, well, criminals aren't going to register their semtex carrying drones with EASA now are they? This legislation won't improve security. So BEB, I am not anti-MR or anti-cameras, lets be clear on that. I have little doubt that this prototype legislation will become law and will affect us all in the fullness of time unless we are able to put some clear blue water between 'drones' and model aircraft. The clear blue water is the carnage of cameras in my view (DVR, Stills, or FPV). So, yes BEB, I have applied a little more thought to this!

Thanks Peter, that is reassuring. As a full size Aviator I have first hand experience of the complication, bureaucracy and cost brought about by EASA both to professional and sport aviation. One of the charms of our hobby is it's freedom from legislation, apart from what is in the ANO, which is based on common sense. Long may that continue.

Personally I think the BMFA should throw all their resources behind opposing the EASA's 'prototype' regulations governing RPAS (remotely piloted airborne Systems) and put their aspirations for a national flying centre on hold. If the legislation becomes law then the BMFA won't need a national flying centre as model flying will become a thing of the past. If they have to go to court over it they will need all the cash they can muster. They need to get their priorities straight.

I have had some excellent service from Green Flag on a couple of occasions. On one, I had hopped into a shop for a couple of minutes only to find that my ancient Audi TT refused to start. After nearly running the battery flat I called Green Flag who arrived within an hour as promised with several text message updates of their progress. Two engineers arrived (one under training) and within 10 minutes they had identified that one of the two fuel pumps had failed. The one that primes the engine I believe. With that he got out a mallet, lay down next to the car and gave the recalcitrant fuel pump a good whack with the hammer. The engine burst into life instantly and has been fine ever since! Edited By Piers Bowlan on 10/09/2016 08:47:20

I have used these HK Corona servos in a number of models to good effect. As you can see they have metal gears and 2.5 kg/cm and weigh 12.5g. I even put one in a HK 2.6m Fox as a replacement for the pathetic elevator servo that came with the model. Despite it's small size it was man enough for the job.

I bought a NGH GF38 a while ago but I haven't got around to running it yet. I have subsequently read some bad reviews on other forums regarding the premature wearing of the cams on this engine. The link that Rich 2 gave, indicated that the GF30 engine was bone dry inside when the owner opened it up, not the first time I have read that, so maybe that is a factor with the excessive wear? The NGH GF30 looks good at any rate and the muffler is an improvement on the 38 which has an open exhaust. If I was looking for another engine of this size I would definitely look at a Laser, a pity John Harper hasn't had time to develop his petrol version to production standard yet. I am sure he would sell a ton, but then he seems to be working flat out producing his glow engines, by all accounts. He is not a fan of the NGH engines by the way, judging by his comments in other threads on this forum. I suggest you give Jon a call and ask him about his Lasers, a knowledgeable chap.

Gurth, Regarding the Toot Sweet, the wings are an open structure with no D box. An experienced modelling friend of mine built one and found that, although quick to build, the wings were not torsionally stiff, resulting in some unpleasant handling. The fix is simply to sheet the wing as far as the spar to create the usual D-box. I have to say I am a Peter Miller fan, having built one or two of his designs including the Toot Sweet (although my one never flew sadly due to a house move!). I am not critisizing Peter's design, just adding my 2p worth of how it might be 'improved' should you chose to build one! If Beth is unable to get you the plan just PM me and I will dig mine out and send you a copy. Edited By Piers Bowlan on 27/08/2016 08:20:33