Alan Gorham_

Err Richard did you know that the full range of CAP plans are still available from Traplet Publications (the other side...) For example, here is the CAP Swordfish plan: **LINK** And on the same page is a link to the GRP cowl for it... And here is the CAP Stuka: **LINK** Again, moulded accessories are listed on the same page. Also, the range of kits are available from Anglia Model Centre: **LINK** Although it looks like the available range is much reduced according to the site.

John you did say you wanted a "good" patternship! Bear in mind that competitive 2m span F3A competition models can be very complex and therefore costly models indeed. But think of the quality... One other point I should mention is the smaller size models we have recommended tend to have smallish diameter wheels which may not suit if you don't have a good smooth grass strip or tarmac available. I flew my model from both so it was never an issue for me. Just saying....

Having had a look at the Sickle on the Topmodel website, I remembered taking a clubmate for his A test with A YT Paragon, which as confirmed above is the same model. His was electric and looking at the Topmodel website, the Sickle is obviously designed and built for electric power. I'm not sure I'd be too happy sticking either a .46 two stroke or .52 Four stroke in one without doing some reinforcing (which seems to me to defeat the purpose of an ARTF!). Not sure of the OP's preferences on power as he didn't say.... As well as my old SpotOn, I have a mate who had a Kyosho Osmose with an OS .70 four stroke in it and it was a lovely flyer. My only comment on the Kyosho ARTFs that I have seen at the field is that the covering likes to fall off with boring regularity.

I had a World Models Spot On 50 (available from Steve Webb models). **LINK** I had the previous version to the one listed above and although I don't buy many ARTF models because of the perceived shortcomings of their build quality, covering longevity and hardware quality, I wanted a model to take the BMFA examiners test with (and have some fun with too) without having the time to build from scratch. For the price it was an absolute steal, I used all the hardware, only reinforced the landing gear mount with carbon cloth and epoxy resin and fuelproofed the tank bay and all the edges of the covering. Build quality was such that I had no hesitation in putting the model through flicks and snaps on a regular basis. It certainly flew very true, I only had to do a little trimming of the sidethrust. Knife edge flight was particularly fun, as were slow hesitation rolls or rolling circles. I used it for 6 months and I loved it, but once I had passed the examiners test I sold it to a clubmate and three years later it's still going strong. I would definitely have another one. I used an ASP 52 four stroke which suited my style of flying but my clubmate swapped it for an ASP 61 FS and on reflection the extra power is probably useful for most flyers. I had the 52 before I bought the model. Steve Webb models sent the kit the day it was ordered and their packaging was A1, it's not a very well known model, but it's definitely worth a look.

When driving I like to live by the maxim that "idiots have right of way". Let them all hare off at breakneck speed to wherever they are going and leave me out of their Grand Theft Auto fantasies.

Your engine has had probably just enough time running on it's 3/4 gallon of fuel to need a new glow plug. They don't last forever you know! So, it may be worth trying a new one and with it's greater efficiency it might just keep things turning at the lower throttle settings you are having problems with.

Err, bearing in mind that it's required to have a BMFA B certificate (amongst other things) to operate a pulse jet and maintain insurance cover, then I'd have thought the basic operation of more advanced aircraft to have been done and dusted before someone bolts a cheap, mass-produced fire and noise breathing monster into their trainer! It just seems totally self-defeating to me. There are so many hoops to jump through before you can fly a pulse jet under R/C and there's no guarantee that after having jumped through them that you won't severely annoy your flying sites neighbours and lose the site anyway. Why would you then want to bore yourself by flying the world's noisiest trainer?

The reason that I thought it was interesting to post is that my perception of some FPV quadcopter flyers is that it is quite clever to see how far they can push things with regard to flying a huge distance away, or close to "sensitive premises" or what have you. I've observed this on many youtube vids, read about their exploits on forums and overheard chats boasting of such exploits. I think that the CAA have sent the right message; perhaps the media coverage of this case will help to spread the message of just what is and isn't legal...

There were links to the man's you tube vids, including the near miss incident, but they've been made private. Would the fine have been higher had there been actual material damage as well as the infringements though?

Wow...A 40 sized trainer powered by a pulsejet?! Errr why....?

**LINK** No comments on my choice of newspaper, please, but note the attitude of the CAA...Seems pretty uncompromising. The man involved could have chosen a less sensitive place to fly his drone though.

I'm sure that the flying of pulse jet powered R/C models is not valid under BMFA insurance, except under very strict conditional exemption. I dimly remember it involves written permission of the landowner, CAA exemption, ongoing monitoring of the site and environs for noise issues is carried out and that it requires the operator to hold a BMFA B certificate. Is it a co-incidence that most of the videos showing pulse jet models flying were not taken in the UK? No, I don't think it is. I know about the use of the MOD property at Machrihanish as a flying site but I think this is just for one or two days per year, so given it's remote location and presumably since MOD permission is needed to access the site, then permission is easily sought to operate pulse jets there and likely nuisance value is thus limited? I'm sure I saw one of the Dutch teams pulse jets flying at an event at Elvington in the early 1990, too? One 5 minute flight during the day..... I love model flying, but even I would have extreme sympathy with the poor people living near a regular flying site for pulse jets. We live in a small country with not a great deal of true isolation. If you set one of these things off in your typical rural area, you would soon find out how close people lived as they would all be after your blood!

I think you haven't read all of my post properly... I stated that I do have criticisms of some areas of the BMFAs operation, but please don't say I'm offering you old rhetoric when I am stating facts about the most popular insurance cover for model flying in the UK. I have acknowledged all of the points you have made, but the reality is that the BMFA offers the most comprehensive cover (and FWIW use of the word cheap as has cropped up in this thread is all relative: I consider the BMFA insurance cheap for the level and type of cover it offers). You might consider it unfortunate that to get this insurance you have to join the BMFA, but I will just reiterate that for the extra £10 or so a year on top of the insurance costs, the BMFA pursues a lot of good causes on behalf of model flyers of all shapes/sizes/persuasions. I do accept that it's up to the individual to consider that our continuing use of the 35MHz and 2.4GHz bands, use of MOD property for flying (and not just for large models or competitions), protection of flying sites and airspace is worthwhile or not.... You and others have raised the fact that your alternative insurance may be a more attractive option to new entrants who have bought their parkflyer etc either online or from a toyshop or such where they would not be encouraged to either have insurance or to join the BMFA to get insurance as they might at a traditional model shop. Well, here's the thing. Your alternative £16 insurance might not sound attractive to a new entrant. Along the lines of "if it's not compulsory, then no thanks". So, yes, well done for showing us all this alternative, cheaper insurance, but on balance I will stick to a better level of cover, efficient claims handling, a proven insurer who understands our operations and also the level of cover required etc.

I've googled the DA60 and it costs the thick end of £600.... Assuming your engine is new (why would you be running it in otherwise), if you want any protection from the manufacturers warranty to fix/replace anything that may go wrong, why on earth would you take advice off some guy on the tinternet or down the pub (or the dreaded club "expert" instead of what's said in the pretty comprehensive manual? Any damage caused by doing something different to the manual might be expensive if the purchase price is a clue to spares prices. The book covers everything you asked about

BMFA Insurance does not cost £32! BMFA membership does cost £32 but the insurance is not the full amount.... The BMFA does have full-time employees who, among other things, negotiate the use of the frequency bands we need to control our models, negotiate for the use of and conditions under which we use the airspace, and also they have funded a legal case over the use of a flying site for a club within the last year or so (at their expense), as well as taking up planning permission cases for many others. It increasingly is taking good quality promotion seriously (simulator trailer etc at full-size airshows, flight challenge for school kids and university heavy lift for students, finally a good quality website!). Plus, the BMFA news is a good tool to show people new to the hobby all the different facets our hobby can have and it also perhaps may highlight events and meetings that a new entrant may like to visit but would not otherwise have known about. So, even if you don't like or don't agree with the way the BMFA works in some respects, you have to say that they are working hard to protect and promote the hobby on our behalf. Since the BMFA moved to Doodson group for insurance they have also implemented a system where smaller (trivial) claims can be settled directly from the BMFA office and the office claims back the money later from the insurer, so this reduces bureaucracy for both parties in the claim. I think (and this is a guess) that the insurance is about £22-£24 of the total membership cost. The cheapest cover mentioned above may not work as well as the BMFA insurance does. So the real comparison for insurance is £22-24 against £16. Someone highlighted above that the BMFA insurance covers member-to-member, which to me, when flying on a remote slope with others would be a comfort if my model was to hit them or their car or expensive model and vice versa if they did the same to me. I have my own views and issues about how the BMFA isn't perfect, but I do think that their insurance is good value all things considered.

At risk of sounding sarky...The instruction manual is a great place to find all your answers.... **LINK**

Interesting question....I've flown at lots where I've either needed to prove I've had an A or B cert as well as the insurance. Never been asked to prove my BMFA card was actually mine, but I wouldn't be offended if I had to show my photocard driving license - after all, I need it to collect MY parcel from the post office depot!

Peter: " but after having had a careful check I’ve been unable to find any recommendations within the BMFA chronicles for clubs to use the A certificate as a mandatory licence for solo flying, so I think that I’m safe in assuming that in any cases where this happens this is entirely down to the club’s own actions. " You won't be able to find a BMFA recommendation for the A to be a MANDATORY license for solo flying (as I have quoted you above), because it's no such thing as has been said many times in the course of this thread. There is a BMFA suggestion that it could be used by clubs as a standard, which again, we have discussed is the only standard that exists unless your club agrees to design it's own, implement it and then administer it, thus duplicating an existing scheme!! "But we shall still be keeping half an eye on any unknown quantity brand new A pilots that appear in the circuit…" Yes, and as discussed this is the advantage of the A cert, in that, if your club is unhappy with the standards being set by any A cert holder then you have the mechanism of having the certificate withdrawn and then assessing them again to check they are able to meet the standards. " I’ve often thought that if I were lucky enough to be a thirteen year old interested youngster, but a little bit unsure of it all, a visit to a club just to be greeted with all these do’s and don’ts coming at me from all directions, such as ‘You can’t fly today without an A’, might certainly test my resolve to fly a model aeroplane" Well, you would let 13 year old children turn up and fly solo on their first visit would you? I'm guessing not, and you would either have them on a buddy lead or at least with the instructor right next to them. In which case they aren't flying solo but are covered by your BMFA affiliated club's insurance policy which covers such ad-hoc taster sessions. Please don't attribute non-existent restrictions at the door of the BMFA achievement scheme. It's no wonder so many potential flyers don't take the test when there is such misunderstanding about it's well-meaning (and harmless) aims.

Martin I think the issue is more difficult to implement in a club environment where all the members have not needed an A to fly and then such a requirement appears. This might not be down to a majority of club members passing it an a club AGM; it might be imposed by a landowner etc. obviously it seems a bit unfair to just issue a blanket exception to all existing members and just test new ones. Like you say if you are a potential new recruit to a club that has established this rule then you either take the test or find another club. PS - agree totally on the stalling part of the test. When instructing I tend to teach it quite early on so the student can recognise it, hopefully stay away from it, but knows how to recover should the worst happen. Although most modern trainers I've flown (Arising Star, Boomerang, E-Pioneer) tend to struggle to stall easily.

Me too, although in my experience most flyers land to watch the goings-on. That brings its own kind of pressure, but I would still prefer to see how they cope with another model in the circuit. When instructing I always encourage pupils to fly when there are other models in the air. They need to be exposed to this.

Yep, to me it's the make/break manoeuvre. If the candidate does a good job I am impressed. Still watching their subsequent manoeuvres like a hawk, but it's far and away the most demanding bit of the test. It's the spatial awareness thing too. Cross-over in front of the pilot....both circles to be equal diameter and also keeping a constant height...also coping with the varying amounts of bank required through the figures. And the model flying away then coming back toward the pilot. All good tests.

As an addendum, I've just read Ken Andersons post above re the figure of 8. Ken, the A test requires the candidate to perform both a left hand and right hand circuit..... The figure of 8 is surely more of a test of co-ordination than a nice wide, gentle rectangular circuit. As Masher put it above: "When I did my training, the 8 was described as good example of showing that the flyer is under full control. To do it properly you have to make corrections for wind as you change direction and probably use all the controls to keep level and symmetrical" which seems a good description to me.

I think it is more that the test is conceived to apply to a typical club environment where trainers of say 50-60" span are flying along with similarly sized sports models. As I said, the tests were devised in the early 1980's when electric flight was in its infancy and shock-flyers etc were inconceivable. If you want to fly shockies and similarly sized models and demonstrate your ability there were proposals 2-3 years ago for an indoor A and B test. If the BMFA achievement scheme had a flood of interest in this it could be resurrected. Alternatively, if you demonstrate to your club that you will only ever fly lightweight, sub 1Kg models then they might consider the risk you pose to be minimal and they might exempt you from the need to take a test.

Interesting post Ultymate And Masher, yes that's a fair summary of why a figure 8 is a useful test manoeuvre. I just wonder why so many people pick away at the test standard or get defensive about it... Honestly, if you can fly a trainer round for a ten minute flight on a regular basis without crashing then you are capable of passing the test. You might have to practise some of the manoeuvres just to polish them up a bit, but think about all the time you spend practising...you will be doing what you love i.e. flying your plane. I also agree that it is capable of lifting standards of flying.

There's still no real difference between an A test and the club giving you their own short test. Except that if the club devise and run their own test then some poor sap on the committee has to write the test, put it to the members for approval, administer test forms, materials for the guidance of the test candidate, then document that the test has been taken. Also, how would you simplify the flying part of the A test and still make it a meaningful test? It takes one 10 minute flight to check someone can take-off, fly left and right hand circuits, land off a circuit, fly a figure 8 and perform a simulated dead-stick landing. They are all things that any flyer who has just gone solo should be able to do, so therefore any prospective member of any club who claims to be a competent flyer should be able to do them too! No wonder some clubs use the A test instead! All the above is done for you, tried and tested. The only "red tape" involved is by the examiner on the day of the test. He fills in the BMFA supplied test form and posts it off to the BMFA office, who then process it and send a certificate back to the flyer and a new membership card with the A qualification shown to the club secretary. He can then record that the member has gained a A and give him his new card. Having been a club secretary and a chairman as well as an instructor and examiner, the reason that I favour the A & B tests is that they work and are less effort than making some arbitrary tests up from scratch. Honestly, the BMFA have made it as easy it can be. Yes, it's not perfect but I was told once not to let perfect be the enemy of good. I.E. it's the best we've got. Bernie, I'm not having a go - I do see where you're coming from but I do have to speak up in favour of clubs who do feel the need for the A as a basic requirement. There are lots of misconceptions about what the test is or isn't.