Mike T

@carlparkinSorry Carl - I've only just seen your messages. Email me and I'll send by return. @MattyBthanks for that, but I have a bit of an aversion to google. Besides, I think things would be a lot better if the forum software just sort of...worked...

I think I've got what you want, but this site won't allow me to upload it (despite the file being WAY under the upload limit...) Send me a PM with an email address and I'll send it to you direct.

Ron suggested it in the CAA consultation response thread, though in the context of setting up a 'Club' that could register slope sites. I've already suggested that there are existing slope clubs that could undertake the bulk of that. As I said there - this won't fly...

If this goes ahead, I expect it to be managed via a data collection exercise by the BMFA (already partly done) with an upload to the CAA, hence minimal cost (if any) to the CAA. I don't think a UK-wide slope Club is going to fly (sorry). There are however, many existing slope Clubs who could be asked to designate all the most popular slopes in their area as 'Club sites'. A couple of observations on the responses to the consultation: 1. 77% of the respondents were model aircraft flyers, so despite a 'low turnout' in terms of the model flying population, we still managed to 'crowd' the consultation. 2. The BMFA's official role requires responses to be more nuanced than individual respondents, as it has to be seen to be an 'honest broker', to maintain its working relationship with the CAA. Individuals can and need to be more extreme - either all-for or all-against - in order to push the stats firmly in the desired direction - and I get the impression many did just that. (PS - 95% of respondents were 'personal')

Currently residing in my Ken Willard 'CAVU':

I love the 'house style'! 👍 How is the tailplane going to be driven?

This is the no-pill thread. There are also red pill and blue pill threads...

Good to know! Rather than divert this thread, I'll PM...

Mag or forum build article please!

@Mike Freeman- would you be the Mike Freeman who designed 'Finale' back in the day?

As a shortcut to nostalgia which avoids all the finger biting and mess, I just take the top off my can of Mo-Glo for a wee sniff every now and then...

I tend to use the darker of the two yellow lenses, which are polarised and cut glare just the right amount for me. I find that I can't fly without sunglasses unless the light is very low, in which case the lighter of the two yellows works to lift the light a bit (somewhat akin to those 'nighttime driving glasses' you see advertised. For slope flying (where you frequently lean 45° into a wind), I use some orange tinted goggles I got from Lidl some years ago (Crivit brand?), which have a clip-in foam surround to keep the draught out of your eyeballs. They simultaneously cut glare while making everything look brilliantly lit - so much so that removing them after a session leaves the world looking a very depressing place...

I use these

I use the '2nd generation' modules in my FF9 and JR388. It's borderline criminal that FrSky no longer make the 4 and 7 channel rxs that suited them so well. However, I've just bought a couple of Radiomaster R88 rxs, which use the same casing style as the V8FRII. One is about to undergo testing in my Easy Star sacrificial airframe. And this should work OK as a smaller 4 channel option: Radiomaster R84 V2

So there is! Ta 👍

test

I agree with Andy. Over-bending and heating should do it and you may have to repeat it several times over the life of the aircraft. (BTW - I couldn't live with the trim tab on David's J60 - what a fright! 🙂 )

The tissue was definitely your problem - it's a beggar to get it to stick.

a word of explanation. I'm doing the above to avoid wasting any time composing something which may wander off into the ether... PS - mods may want to set up a 'sandbox' thread for this purpose, rather than clutter this one?

I used it to cover some sheeted areas on my latest project. The dope doesn't seem to go 'through' it like it used to with modelspan. I've ended up spreading the dope with a brush and then 'ironing' it down with paper towel, to force it through the weave and get it to stick to the (pre-doped) surface. This technique means more dope ends up in the bin than on the plane! When dry, it tends to detach at the edges, requiring more dabbing and burnishing to get it to stick down. 'Orrible stuff...

test

Thanks Paul, I appreciate that - the Electrons I got for my Spitfire cost an arm and a leg! 😒 Who are you sourcing yours from?

You said in an earlier post that the retracts would be available from you, which I took to mean that they would either be made by you or by a 3rd party to your spec. So I'm wondering why the trunnions can't be made to operate over (say) 95° to get the rake of the legs and hence positioning of the wheel axle in the correct location?

No errors but my last post (the labels thread) took 15 minutes and 2 attempts to post a one-liner. It's a powerful disincentive to engage...

I may have mentioned this before, but one of the advantages of buying planes at swap meets etc., is that they often come with a label pre-fitted...😉