Alan Gorham_

Fabulous stuff! I enjoyed that.....

On another forum where the BMFA Club Support Officer posts, his response to queries about why the ban is in place is primarily that there will be a great deal more low flying helicopter traffic conveying VIPs.

Steve - yes you guessed right contact adhesive is a one-shot deal. Yes you do one skin at a time. Back in the old days when obechi veneer was more commonly used it was possible to use one sheet of veneer to do both top and bottom in one go, carrying the veneer around the leading edge, but that's not a great idea with thicker balsa sheet. I would say it depends on your wing section if you need to use the outer off-cuts to support the skin while you apply the core to it. You touch the core down onto either the leading or trailing edge of the skin and kind of roll it down onto the skin to ensure full contact between the skin and core. If you have a flat bottom wing section then its easy to do the bottom flat on the bench. I can recommend a book called Radio Control Foam Modelling by David Thomas which goes into great depth on many aspects of using foam - many of them very applicapble to glider models.

Steve - no apologies needed re the source of the plans, I just think that the myhobbystore plans are the worlds best kept secret and need shouting about! Thanks very much for posting the link to the nichrome calculator. I do a bit of foam cutting (mainly to make floats out of white polystyrene) and its all been done on a suck it and see basis. I'll look forward to trying the calculator next time to see what it says. Incidentally, re core skinning; I know PVA is cheap and easily had but I use Ball Styccobond F1 to sheet my cores. It's basically Copydex latex contact adhesive but available in 5 litre bottles. It's used by carpet fitters but it does speed things up a lot. Coat the core and sheeting with a thin layer, wait 20 mins and join and job done. I think I paid £24 for my last bottle but it does plenty of wings/floats!

I've got a big stack of kits to work through Percy, but in the last few years I've been hankering for those kits I remember with fond nostalgia when I was a child of the late 1970's and early 1980's. The Moth Minor is one - I saw one fly with I think either a Laser 75 or 90 many years ago. If it was freely available right now then I would probably have bought one by now! I've managed to get an LMC Gnatty, a PFM Giant Zlin and a Jim Fox Folland Gnat into the collection so far - pure nostalgia and the Moth would fit right in. I wonder if they're waiting for the world to batter their door down begging for a kit? Seems a shame that they could be selling a good few if only more people knew about their existence.

Do you mean your total voltage for the 3S pack is 4V? If so I think your pack has had it...

I think 4V per cell under load doesn't sound too shabby.... How big a load in Amps are you applying?

The plan in the picture at the top of the thread is not a Traplet plan! It clearly says Nexus Plans Service, which is now the myhobbystore plans service who co-incidentally seem to be owned by MyTimeMedia Ltd who publish RCM&E and own this forum... Those of us of a certain age remember when it used to be the ASP plans service.... Good result on cutting the cores Steve, looks very tidy.

Yes, I've been checking the web page for around a year to see if there's a price for the Moth Minor, but no updates... I realise I could ring but I worked on the principle that if it's ready to sell then it's worth putting on their website so people know about it... It's been good to hear that people have spoken to Masons. Perhaps they just need us to show enough interest to get their act together and make a small batch of kits.

Hi Rich Most fascinating! I like the small size and economic use of materials as well as the attractive lines. I'm guessing it could be a good way to dip my toe into rotary wing flight? I'll keep an eye out for the Special edition with the plan....

Nigel, the biggest downside that I can see between learning to fly on a Barnstormer compared with a J60 is that the Barnstormer has rigidly mounted wings. Any crash or hard landing will cause an amount of damage to the Barny that will then stop you flying until you've taken it home and repaired it. The J60's banded on wings will either slew or come off completely in such an event and you may well find that you will be able to straighten or refit the wings and fly again (assuming no other damage). When you are learning to fly you need all the practise you can get - give yourself the best chance of success....

A few points to counter: Nowhere did I state that a majority of BMFA members responded to the survey. It's perfectly clear that out of around 1800 respondents, 1700 or so were BMFA members (or said they were). Note if they said they weren't BMFA members then their further responses were ignored. The purpose of the survey was to test the water to see respondents were receptive to the idea of a National Centre. If you go on and read the responses then it becomes clear that many of the respondents are broadly in favour of some kind of National Centre, but that each persons idea of what this should be is very different! Also in the comments section are a wide selection of comments from respondents who do not want any centre, so to say that it doesn't represent people who do not want a centre is unfair. I do think that the survey was flawed, partly because it had such nebulous, open-ended ideas at the time it was created. So it was little more than see if respondents want a centre and then to build on that. Also if you say that if 95% of BMFA membership didn't vote in the survey then they aren't interested then fine, but this survey was fairly low key and since I haven't heard about a required level of response before proceeding with the feasibility study was required then it looks like the next stage in the process is there. If 95% of the members truly don't want this site then when the time comes to vote for or against vote then. No problem! I'm not here to defend the way the survey was written or conducted, but then I am in favour of such a centre and am keen to see the actual facts and figures about what it might actually take to create such a place from the ground up and crucially keep it going. That is the key for me. Also can I just point out again that at this point now, there are no venues for the May or August nationals next year. Bit sad that a body of nearly 40,000 has to go cap in hand to rent land from the military in order to hold it's own champs eh? I also believe that RAF Church Fenton has been lost to model flying this year as well, so it's a shrinking pot to choose from. Remember that Barkston Heath is hired every year so that a proportion of the gate money (and maybe entrance fees for the comps as well?) goes straight back to the MoD. This money could be used to support a National Centre where the Nats are held... Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 10/08/2014 21:14:41

Sail winch servos are proportional. Only retract servos are non-proportional. I would imagine that altering the travel volume on your transmitter would allow you to alter the total number of revs in each direction.

I would also like to point out to those saying that this is a minority in the BMFA pushing this forward that the results of the survey show an overwhelming interest in favour of a Centre of some sort. To this end the feasibility study looks like it will now go ahead with a certain, defined scope in terms of outline costs, finding a site etc. So then, if a feasible proposal emerges to be voted on by the wider membership it's up to the wider majority to reject it. Those of you in clubs ask yourself honestly what image your club projects to a young person potentially interested in flying.... Personally I feel that a lot of the interest in quadcopters etc is that they are perceived to be very technological and accessible ie you can buy one easily from a shop, fly it anywhere you like and with no instruction. So, many young people will have more exposure to a quadcopter being flown than a traditional model at a traditional flying club site. If the BMFA doesn't try to promote the hobby/sport then tell me who will?

John The BMFA Officials have invited this survey and then the attendant feasibility study to be written by an independent consultant so that they have no guiding (biased one way or the other) input as yet. The proposal came via the membership so the BMFA will carry out the will of the majority which seems fair enough to me. There's nothing for any of them to say yet... The consultant is being paid by Doodsons, the BMFA insurance brokers so it's not costing BMFA members anything. John, bear in mind that Chacksfield House the BMFA HQ in Leicester was secured years ago as an office plus a board room type premises. I do know for the last few years a small but growing archive has been created there of modelling heritage items pending a place to display these. I think pressures of space plus the number of attendees at the Council meetings I mentioned before has meant that the boardroom is feeling a bit too small sometimes. Given that the HQ has running costs associated with it, is it not reasonable to assume that to ensure best value for these costs, that it should be utilised as much as possible for it's intended purpose? I am sure I recollect that this archive has now grown and requires external storage space so that's an extra expense. The BMFA does have to rent venues for things like the AGM, club chairman's conferences etc but I am sure some will be grumbling at these extra expenses being paid for out of their subs, so moving to a place that could stage national or indeed international comps, training weekends for examiners and instructotrs, promotional events, AGMs, Council meetings etc would be a one-stop shop. Re the increasing wages in China thing, then yes I'll try and expand on that....The survey results showed that around as many respondents wanted a national centre for no subs increase as those who wanted it but would pay. Well, looking at forums and at my local clubs it seems that people are finding it very affordable in the current climate to have a blingy computer radio, many or several models all geared up and flyable, cheap and easy to get engines, ARTFs, electric motors, batteries and everything else made in China. So it seems that it's becoming an established thing to spend the hobby budget on a new plane, or a new engine or a new Tx...... Meanwhile, let's all moan if the BMFA put £20 on the subs for the next 10 years to pay for something. I know that you were a modeller in the 1980s when times were tougher and most if not all of flew predominantly smaller, cheaper, less complex models and we all had less of them too (sweeping generalisation...dons tin hat!) Now imagine in 5 or 10 years time all our modelling gear becomes pro rata as expensive as it was in the 1980's. Is it better value to spend say an extra £20 a year now for a few years to fund something that if done right could protect and promote our hobby in this country or is it better value for many of us to keep buying equipment and models while we age and the hobby dies. Also, one last point, imagine if BMFA subs were already £50 per year for the service they currently provide and the National Centre was not even a twinkle in it's Daddy's eye. My guess is that most would still pay that small cost in order to fly and would probably find it good value as well as being a drop in the ocean compared to what they currently spend over the course of a year on their hobby.

Ok and it's a big debate! I just think it's sad that at these early, tentative stages so many are saying "not for me guv, too expensive, far away..." It's not for you the individual, it's for you the body of 40,000-ish model flyers in this country now and however many (hopefully more) in the future. I really hope that if it needs to be funded to start then we are brave enough to meet that challenge. It just seems that some wish it to be stillborn and are panicking that it won't be built on their own club field. PS - my own personal experience of club sites is that they are typically a field away from habitation with poor access for members cars (let alone visitors), little or nothing in the way of facilities and are a place where flyers enjoy themselves despite the facilities, rather than because of them. I feel that if the BMFA can attract funding or publicity for it's new centre as part of a strategy to attract the young then any benefits will trickle down from this rather than from trying to fund improvements at club sites first..

I agree with parts of your post, Cymaz, but disagree with others.... Absolutely there must be a strategy to get young people into model flying for the future.And to me the development of a national centre should be built upon such schemes. Look at all the young kids having a great time either in the hangar or out on the airfield in the evening during the nationals... Or when clubs have an arrangement with a school or youth organisation to do some hands-on exposure to modelling and flying. However, to say that future generations must pay for the National Centre...well I'm not so sure about that. If we don't provide it now, there won't be anything to pay for in the future...

One last comment for now... What a disaster that the survey closed prior to the news about the loss of Barkston came out. So many respondent's comments were along the lines of: "What we have at Barkston is fine, why change...."

Continued... Let's face it the typical club environment is not going to show our hobby in the best light and there is a need to encourage new entrants like never before. Let's also face something else...The cost of paying BMFA subs plus club subs for a year is not the major expense that most of us will incur in the course of a years worth of flying. If you buy/build two .46 sized models per year and kit them out with engines, radio etc from the ground up and then drive to field once a week, say, on average to fly them then tot up your fuel costs (model and car). And if you build anything bigger/more complex than that then lets get real and say that you will spend perhaps five or six multiples of your combined BMFA and club subs. Then let's consider the level of your BMFA subs (currently £32). Last year they were £31 and the BMFA treasurer proposed that they were left at this level at the AGM. A motion from the floor (i.e. from a BMFA affiliated club eligible to vote) got them increased for no good reason. Ok, fair enough, but then consider that out of those £31 the BMFA were able to fund the Nationals (free flight in May and R/C in August), buy a simulator trailer that clubs or shows can use for events, pay the premiums on an insurance policy that gives members up to £25m third party cover on any one claim, fight a legal case which cost around £40k (I think) to win a club back their flying site and then tell me that (say) £10 or even £20 a year for the next 10 years would not be excellent value... Barkston as a site for model flying was/is used for more than just the May and August Nationals. It was also the main flying site for a club (for both R/C and FF) and was used for various large scale fly-ins, the Midland area festival of flight and sometimes centralised FF comps. So now where do these events go? To another RAF base? If so, where? I've heard mention of Sculthorpe which is in Norfolk. Convenient for most of you? And if not Sculthorpe then where? And for how long until the MoD say: "Sorry but so long" from that site as well? Let's also consider that the BMFA have permanent staff who run the society day-to-day. Their current premises are small and arguably not fit for purpose, especially when extra bodies come to visit for Council and Area Council meeting periodically. Having the admin of the society centralised with a flying site venue could in the long run lead to revenues gained from the running of the National comps help to fund the cost of the admin. site if it's in the same location. So, potentially, in 20 years time, our National Centre could (could...!) support itself. Also, those of us currently buying ARTFs, petrol engines, Lipos, ESCs and brushless motors cheaply from China could soon find that they will not be so cheap due to increasing wage demands from the workers being enacted into a law which will see minimum wages for workers increase. Therefore our modelling goods will get more expensive and we will be able to buy and operate less models for our £. In this scenario surely it's a small investment for each of us to make this site a reality rather than just concentrating on our own small sphere of interest? Let me state finally that I am not an official in the BMFA, nor do I have any hidden agenda in this. I am a 36 year old who has been a modeller their entire life (good parenting I calls it...) and I really feel that our hobby/sport owes it to itself to fund and build something like a National Centre to allow a central venue for flying, administrating our hobby and, not least a permanent museum to preserve valuable historical artefacts for posterity. There might never be another chance to do this and if it costs us all another £20 a year for the next then years then even if you never go and visit personally, is it not a price worth paying?

I have to admit that my take on this topic is a bit different to most on here and other places I have seen it discussed. Sorry in advance for the coming rant but I really think there's a lot of short-term and selfish thinking out there... Firstly, I get annoyed when I see all the comments saying that" it's too far away to benefit me so I don't want it." I then laugh when I see all the threads on fora various about everyone getting excited about travelling to Barkston for the Nats or to the RCM&E Greenacres fly-in. There is undeniably an appetite out there for model flyers travelling to attend flying events. If these events happened to be held at the national flying site instead of on an RAF base then I think you would still attend? Also, over the last 5/6 years I've travelled to fly-ins for electric models at various excellent venues all over England as well as more general events at Old Warden. The large numbers of attendees at events like this leads me to believe that many modellers ARE interested in travelling to events to meet friends old and new, see something different from the usual down at their club, buy special materials etc from traders and so on. Perhaps what might not be so appetising is popping down to a National Flying site for 3 flights with their Sunday flyer, but to me that is no reason not to grab this opportunity with both hands. I also note with interest the survey results show the largest cohorts of the age of modellers to be approaching, at, or past retirement age, with a dramatic fall-off in numbers towards the younger members. Lets assume that this is representative of the wider BMFA membership. That should be a huge worry for those concerned with the future of the hobby and in my opinion if we as a body of modellers do not secure a site for the future then our hobby may not last another three or four generations. Dramatic? possibly yes but what if I'm right? One of the whole reasons I felt that a site like this was needed was to hold the Nationals on if the worst should happen with access to MoD property due to financial pressures etc. This has now come to pass and there's no immediate solution on the horizon. I know that most will say they are not interested in competing themselves, but one of the reasons that the BMFA has tried to raise the profile and standard of the Nationals in recent years is that this is their shop window to show that our hobby is indeed a sport and is worthy of a place in the minds of government (national and local), the media, the military and the general public. If that opportunity disappears to showcase the best in one place then our hobby might fade from the collective conscience with disastrous results.

Had a think about this and I think I was talking rubbish above. The antennas on an AR7000 are not partially shielded.

I could be wrong..and probably am..but isn't part of the antenna covered with a braided shield? I know the Futaba receivers have this and therefore substituting an equivalent length of normal cable is no good. The braided shield changes the effective length of the antenna (i.e. where the braid is over the inner core of the cable then the antenna is totally screened from the RF signal.) Perhaps the AR7000 doesn't have this, as the antennas look much shorter, but better safe than sorry and perhaps someone else can confirm.

Get it in a jiffy bag and sent back to Horizon to repair!

Fighteraces are the UK agent for KlassKote: www.fighteraces.co.uk I've used KlassKote clear several times as a fuel proofer and while it's pretty resistant, I've found that the special KlassKote thinners (or reducer as they call it) can lift non-epoxy based colour coats if your mix is too thin. It would seem that the best way to apply it is through a spray gun with a reasonable sized nozzle so that less reducer is needed in the mix.

Err I might have suggested the same thing in post #2......Deja vu all over again!