Alan Gorham_

Simon it was expressly brought in to prevent the use of things like shock flyers etc. I think the rationale was that the test is more valuable if the aircraft used to take it can fly in a range of wind/weather conditions, plus it has a bit of speed and momentum. Lets face it, it might be quite difficult to arrange a time when a candidate, examiner and perfect weather were all present - and I think this was the genesis of addition of the weight limit. Also, the whole achievement scheme was devised in the early 1980's IIRC. The types of model considered for taking the A test then would probably have been your typical club trainer e.g. Super 60, Yamamoto, DB Pronto or Tyro, Precedent Hi-Boy and the like. Times change and models and tastes do too, so the change in the test standard seems to steer candidates more towards using such a model as described above. However, I can think of plenty of popular, cheap, lightweight foam models that would also be suitable for the test. There is no suggestion that anyone who flies models below 1kg cannot be considered competent. I think you are reading in something that isn't there. If you ever wished to take an A but didn't have a suitable model then you need to take it with a 1Kg+ model - either begged, borrowed, stolen or built. I took my B test with a clubmate's borrowed WOT4 and very grateful I was to him too.

I think you have to consider the club's side as well Bernie. Let's say they have been allowed to rent a site, have put effort into preparing and maintaining a strip, perhaps have a container to keep the lawnmower etc in, have worked hard at not annoying their neighbours or other users of the land who may share their site (especially if it's owned by the local authority). They have to take some small duty of care to the established members that any new flyer who will be an unknown quantity is capable of demonstrating safe operating practises and, equally, knows what those practises are. If you turn up as a prospective new member and you already hold an A then to a club committee you would have satisfied them on the points mentioned. If you turned up without one, then perhaps the committee might check on your safe flying by asking you to perform a demo flight. They might look at your pit discipline, handling of the model on the ground, frequency control etc and then they might check that you are a steady sort of chap when flying the model. They might then ask you about the club rules to check you have a working knowledge of them. And if you did all that (not unreasonable to me) you may as well have just taken your A test! If they just let all new members loose then perhaps they might encounter a situation where someone who is not as capable as they say they are does something that could jeopardise the clubs future use of their site. In this situation I am sure the committee would by their members asked what they had done to assess the new members ability. The simple fact is that many clubs adopt the A because it is clearly laid out, is easy to actually take and it is a decent measure of someone's ability in the air and attitude to safety. Plus from a clubs point of view it has the advantage that if a member suddenly starts flying consistently below the standard required they have the sanction of having the A cert withdrawn. The errant member would then have to re-take the test and perhaps the club would offer the encouragement or coaching of their instructor and/or examiner to help get the member back to the required standard. The A cert is many things, but it certainly isn't a gold medal or holy grail. It's a simple set of activities, manoeuvres, actions and questioning that then gives the successful candidate an achievement which can lead on to more challenging achievements to further their enjoyment of the hobby should they wish.

Good progress Andy, all this work now will pay off later. Still watching...

I think Martin H has summed it up in a nutshell 3 posts up. I have found new flyers receptive to the aims and requirements of the A test (and in my opinion they have got some tangible experience and feedback about their flying when taking the test). The resistance I have met does tend to be from old established flyers who don't need to prove their ability.

Myron, you do realise that part of the BMFA insurance covers you the pilot for personal injury that occurs while you are flying? Let's face it, it is perfectly possible to shove a hand in a prop in a moment of inattention. It could happen to anyone, no matter their length of involvement with the hobby or level of experience. Would you not find it slightly reassuring to have some cover in place for the price of a couple of gallons of glow fuel per year? Going back to the A cert discussion, I am a club examiner. I gained this by taking first the A, then B then the examiners tests, so have been assessed three times and as well as actually being asked to demonstrate safe practise, knowledge of regulations and a certain standard of flying, I also enjoyed taking in the testing process, learning as much as I could to assist me if I was testing flyers in the future.   What is the examiner looking for? What does the Examiners Standard booklet require? Can I perform that manoeuvre? Can I do it consistently? I have to say that experience has shown me that my test candidates for the A have all managed the flying part of the test pretty well. And demonstrated that they had practised and thought about prior to taking the test. The one thing that I do find I have to check/clarify on a regular basisbefore the test is the exact form of the figure of 8 manoeuvre, as it seems some candidates want to add an extra circle in the second half of the figure. I have always (so far) had clear grounds to fail candidates. For example, the last candidate flew a perfect test, showed good ground discipline, answered every question I asked thoughtfully and concisely, but did not call "Dead stick" or "Landing" as called for in the test standard. After he completed the entire test I was able to tell him it was perfect apart from the missing call. He realised and took on-board the explanation, seemed reasonably confident that he had done everything else right and the re-took the test perfectly. I always think as an examiner, you have to be able to point to a clear reason why the candidate has not passed. I think the test standard documents are reasonably clear in this area as to what IS required from the candidate. Edited By Alan Gorham 2 on 18/02/2014 22:22:23 Edited By Alan Gorham 2 on 18/02/2014 22:22:36

So what I am saying is that you can use the Orange Tx module in Futaba transmitter so long as you use an Orange Rx (DSM2 or DMSX) or even a Spektrum Rx. Just not a BNF model where the Rx channels have a fixed function assigned to a given channel. If you look on the Hobbyking product page for the module you will see some comments that relate. I have copied/pasted one such:   "Beware! This module does not have the same channel assignement as the Spektrum DM8 module This flaw makes it impossible for you to use an Eflite BNF model with a Futaba radio that does not provide channel reassignement. To make it clear: you won't be able to use an MCPX, nano CPX, 130X or any other Eflite BNF heli/plane with you Futaba FF9 or T10. Unless you can dial-insome weird mixes, or re-assign channels, this module can only be used with Spektrum/Orange full-size receivers, and in that case, you'd be better off with a Futaba receiver so you don't need a module in the first place... In fact this module is just useless in most use-cases I can think of... Other than this little problem, the quality is fine, the module fits right in the radio's slot, there's even a buzzer when you bind a model (better than the DM8 on this point) and you can change ID (something not found even on Spektrum TX) which is great... Not a bad product at all, but it just misses the point, such a waste of potential... " Edited By Alan Gorham 2 on 27/01/2014 09:53:00

I'm not certain it will work. It's due to the different channel ordering between Futaba and Spektrum. The Spektrum made modules that fit Futaba transmitters deal with this ok. I know this as I have several BNF indoor models and a Futaba 9CAP Tx with Spektrum module. A clubmate bought an orange module and fitted it to a Futaba Tx and ran into this issue.

Andy I've dug out the old magazine. If you want a scan of the review let me know. I think you are on the right track with the engine and its always useful to get useless lead out of the aircraft!

I think its probably an old Flitecraft kit from the early 1990s. This had foam wings and foam deckings for the fuselage stuck around a balsa box. It was a UK made kit. I had or have an RC Scale Aircraft magazine with a kit review. IIRC, the review model went well with an OS70 Surpass so it should have a healthy reserve with a 91 in! Has the makings of a good model, keep ploughing on

Amazing coinky-dinky Colin! There's a Giant Zlin on BMFA classifieds. It's a bit pricey but I'm wavering. My thoughts are it would suit a 1.20 four stroke converted to petrol. The one I flew had an old Webra 90 in and was OK. I agree with you on the flying abilities. I've got a Gnatty and a Lo-Boy at the moment and you would probably call them heavy compared with a modern built up ARTF equivalent, but they fly great as sports models, especially in the windy winter. My Lo-Boy also does duty on floats because it's tough and can survive a wetting and being carried in and out of the water. I think the biggest difference now is the durability of the modern stuff. Older kits would take an incredible amount of vibration, fuel soakage, whacking into the ground etc before they needed any repair or refurb! Are we going to see a build thread of the Team Special then?

Am I Jealous?? I was a youngster in the late 70's and early 80's and over the last couple of years I've rekindled a love for some of the older British kits. There was a tremendous variety wasn't there? Mag adverts for most kits were in black and white and not the most flattering to some models. Your bipe looks lovely Colin! A few years ago I test flew a Giant Zlin for a clubmate - that is definitely my style of doing aerobatics, slow and leisurely but capable. I wish I could find a kit. I've kept an eye but no luck....

If you visit the Just Engines website they list all the spares for the Series 2 70FS. www.justengines.unseen.org They do list a piston pin for £4.99, but as far as I can see no separate PTFE pads for each end of the pin. If you haven't already rung them to ask, why not try and see if the Series 2 valve springs will fit your older engine? The Series 2 valve springs are listed as £2.26 each. For the price of your time and a phone call it's got to be worth a gamble if it means resurrecting your engine, hasn't it?

Your reasons are my reasons! I find a fuel that has a good quality modern synthetic oil in is less draggy so letting the engine provide more power. I also like the way that many fuels with synthetic oil have anti foaming agents in that alleviate the need to pack the fuel tank with foam to prevent fuel foaming and vibration. They are also cleaner as you mention but perhaps not as clean as you might think. You will still have to wipe oil off the model after a flight. Yes, the gumming thing can be a problem with castor based fuels. Especially in four strokes and other engines with ball race bearings. If you have to use castor then the technique of running the engine dry of fuel from its normal running temperature is a good way of cleaning it out ready to have after run oil put in. Model technics do a convenient sized bottle after run oil which is normally easily availablein model shops. I have used it in the past and am not convinced its especially designed as a specially blended oil. I never had any problems with it though. You are trying to prevent internal corrosion as well as gumming. One thing I like doing is making sure the piston stays at BDC for a couple of days after flying to let any acidic burnt fuel residues escape the exhaust port. I also shove some after run down the carb intake after my last flight of the day before putting the model in the car and then flicking the prop over a few times to make sure the bottom end of the engine is protected. The worst thing I find for gumming up is to store the engine with castor residue in it for extendedperiods. Either use the engine regularly or if it needs storing them a good dose of after run after flushing the engine out with parrafin or petrol, then plugging the carb intake and exhaust port and then popping in a plastic bag should stop gumming.

I use tamiya acrylics a lot. The pukka tamiya thinners is simply iso-propyl alcohol or IPA which you may be able to get in more economic quantity from tool suppliers or electronic wholesalers. I buy mine from a fibreglassing supplier. I don't think you'll get good results using water.

Just for info of anyone else building a J.P. traplet now list the canopy. It's CA3182CY and the cost is 5.40 GB pounds plus postage.

Paul, it's a tricky one. My understanding is that a well used engine with lots of varnishing will be prone to accelerated wear in the varnished areas plus localised overheating. If your engine seems ok I would be tempted to leave as is and run on castor based fuel. If you are keen to switch to synthetic then I would deglaze and fit a new ring and then run the engine in as the piston liner fit will have changed. I don't think there's a definitive answer to your original question but I have seen a few engines over the years be switched straight from castor to synthetic and either start overheating on every run or losing compression soon after. However, I bet there will be some people who have switched straight over and never had a problem. Personally, I fly all my modern engines of ABC type on synthetic right from the word go and keep castor based fuels for my older engines. Since I still fly engines that were bought in the 1980s and are still on their original piston and liner then I'm happy with my approach. Your mileage may vary as they say on the tinternet.

The ring will be made of cast iron so the issue will still occur. Obviously the contact area of a ring is much narrower than a ringless piston so the wear rate should be less. You could try fitting a brand new ring before running on synthetic oil. You mention degumming the engines but have you deglazed the liner bores? This is where you use a plastic scouring pad as used for dishwashing to scrub out the castor varnish.

Yes there might well be a problem. Some older engines such as enyas used a cast iron piston and steel liner. The grain on the cast iron absorbed castor oil and formed a varnish which helped the running fit and explainedwhy engines ofthis type lasted such a long time before the fit "ran out". Switching to a synthetic oil for engines of this type strips away the castor oil varnish and leaves a sloppy piston-liner fit and your engine is then clapped out. More modern engines with ABC type piston and liners should be ok in most cases.

Ah, ok! A canopy IS available then, just not listed on either Vortex or Traplets websites... Thanks for the info both of you. I might just have to ring up and ask for prices then.

Doesn't the durafly Vamp have wobbly booms?

It is by jpower, thanks for the memory jog, but IIRC they make 2 sizes and the one shown is the larger (70mm) one. I paid 40 quid for mine with fan unit and esc but no servos. Flies well but nowhere near as aerobatic as the alpha.

Good spot! Am tempted but have got two other 64mm EDFs now. A starmax phantom f-4 and an AMX but can't remember who makes it. Both were less than 1/3 the price of the alpha so obviously are built down to a price. The alpha seemed very sorted and efficient both with its fan unit and ducting because it is nippy and quiet and posted good flight times.

I quite like the standard grey Graupner prop when used on a slogging engine. At the moment I am using a 12 x 5 on an Sc 46 in a Thunder Tiger Beaver and it pulls the model round with great authority but doesn't scream, which might be out of place on a beaver. I also quite like them on a four stroke in a scale slow flying biplane. I think the broad blade shifts a goodly amount of air and if you keep the tip speeds down, then they aren't noisy.

Looks good, I've had the plan for this for a couple of years. What are you going to do for a canopy, Traplet aren't listing one?

I had an art tech alpha jet and loved it. Yes it was quiet, but boy could it fly too. I added a working rudder which helped with slow rolls. Stupidly, one day I was harrassed at the field and fitted the Lipo slightly forward from the correct position and flewit like that with a forward cg. All went ok until trying topull out from a loop... I would have replaced it straight away but I think it was discontinued a few years ago...