Mike T

I'd still build it as per plan...

In that case I'd build as per plan!

A little bit of heresy from me, I'm afraid, as I made a few mods to my 1/4 scale Pup. Reeves cowling and wheels, F1 recessed to set back engine, scale outline tail surfaces and wing ribs thinned in profile and capped with thin strips of lime to stop the Koverall sticking to the spars. Up front an early McCullough conversion from back in the day and a Williams Vickers on the cowl. The ridiculous former in the cockpit was also cut away and replaced with wire to replicate the fuselage cross-brace cum gun mounting. Switches and charging points are under the hatches on the cowl sides. So it's not so much a DB Pup, but leaning a little more to Sir Tom's version...

Nice work on the rebuild and best wishes and/or congratulations to all those undergoing/about to undergo medical procedures. But I'm sure I can't be the only one to wonder exactly why a Laser 200 bearing housing should want to slip the surly bonds of its crankcase? Chapter and verse please! (For where there's blame, there's a claim... 🙂)

Ditto...

JR stuff is bullet proof*. My 388s, bought in '98, is still going strong and no sign of corrosion. I picked up a 9Xii last year as a backup - for all of £20. *not literally - I accept no responsibility for any damages resulting from testing this assertion...

For anyone contemplating a new Mini Racer, this guy will do you a fuselage and Cloud Models can supply wings. (A friend has a 'kit' - all very good quality).

OK - so which is it? 🤣 As referred to above, if your invoice does not a have a UK VAT number on it, then there's no guarantee that the tax you've paid has been remitted to HMRC. Like most I'm happy to roll the tax/duty dice on overseas purchases, but if I end up getting clobbered I sure as hell want it ending up in my own country's Exchequer! PS - Prior to abandoning the UK when the going got tough, all my HKUK orders cam from Elmsett, Suffolk.

Look - there's no point in people bothering to set things up if you can't knock 'em down properly!

🙄 The correct response was "I'm not..."

Exactly. We are all individuals...

A given! 😂 And if you call them liars, they look upon it as an accomplishment!

I flagged this up way, way back. In May 2018, when the latest raft of regulations were imposed, a joint press release from the DoT, CAA and the Aviation Minister at the time (Baroness Sugg) stated, amongst other things: "For model aircraft flying associations who have a long-standing safety culture, work is underway with the CAA to make sure drone regulations do not impact their activity." (new drone laws - about half way down the page. Italics/bold are mine). That's a pretty unequivocal statement and the govt CAA should be reminded of it, politely but firmly. Settling for "as little impact as possible" is a retreat from that position. Give an inch...

I had your Whirlwind in mind when I posted my 'formula', Eric! 🙂 I don't see why using two batteries is viewed as 'expensive' though. The 2200 3S I referenced is pretty ubiquitous. I've had dozens, about 10 of which are still perfectly usable. On short-nosed subjects they are ideal for getting (working) weight up front!

Blimey! We'd barely got off the ground before falling under the dead hand of officialdom!

Thanks John, but to be clear, I was sympathising with DD on Shropshire's loss of their site and pointing out that there is hope, as we've been on our new field since 2015! 🙂

That's it! 🙂

Bad news. We lost the field we'd been on since 1995 in 2015 (forthcoming housing development - they still haven't broken ground...). The landlord's agents didn't even know we were there (testament to our 'head down, nose clean' policy),but they helped us with introductions to new landowners and we've ended up on a better field - so there is hope!

OK. In that case, (to misquote Shakespeare), "Those of you who have forelocks to tug, prepare to tug them now..." (this slaphead gets a free pass 😂)

You're missing the point If we don't use the opportunities we have to influence proposals in our favour, then we get bad laws handed down to us. Nothing good ever happened to the ordinary Joe that he didn't go out and fight for himself...

Gary, my friend, if we took that attitude to everything, then we'd all still be tugging our forelocks to his Lordship as he drove by in his carriage...

Yes. But those 'disinterested' parties who think we should be restricted may alter their opinion if required to contribute to the cost 😉

A few days ago I typed a huge screed re twins and lost the exsanguinating lot when the forum timed out on me before I pressed 'submit'. I'm not going to do it again, so - quick and dirty: Sleek, simple twins are best because they have less complicated airframes (e.g. Mossie 'in', Black Widow 'out') This still gives plenty of scope e.g. Whirlwind, Beaufighter/fort, Petlyakov PE2, Mitchell, Marauder, Hudson, DC3, etc. No u/c. You can build a model large enough to have some 'presence' but is still easy to hand launch (either self or helper) and can belly land without incident. and this is the biggie: capitalise on the widespread availability of (what I call) the 'standard' sport electric set up - 11 x 5-8" prop. 35XX 900-1200kv motor, 40/60 A ESC and 2200-3000 3S LiPo. Pretty much everybody must have this kind of set up in their stash - at the lower end of the ranges I mention, it's the standard set up in the Wot 4 foam-e. I've got several 🙂 The problem with most twins available today is that they are either too small (using Speed 480-size motors) or too large (using 55XX series motors and associated kit, which is an order of magnitude more expensive that the Wot 4 gear - TN's Mossie a case in point). Designing around the Wot 4/Riot power train plays to people who already have the gear and results in a twin (or more...) worth building. My 2c...

I see that the BMFA has put out a 'call to action' urging all members to complete the CAA Consultation document and they include a link to the 'model response' prepared in consultation with the LMA. Readers of this thread will need no urging I'm sure, but I think it's worth pointing out that as the BMFA/BDF/LMA are organising bodies, they are likely going to be quite measured in their responses. I would urge those who have not yet completed the doc to be more bloody minded. We've seen the way the previous analyses have been tabulated. Reasonableness works against us. 'Somewhat agrees' and 'somewhat disagrees' just get lumped into a blurred middle ground. Any suggestion or proposal which impinges further on us either financially or operationally should be responded to with outright opposition. For us, it's the only valid response. Furthermore, in the commentaries, we should be firmly demanding that if any further financial burdens or operating restrictions are placed on us, it's the people who want to impose said burdens/restrictions who should foot the bill, whether they be commercial interests or Daily Heil-reading nimbys who think that 'this sort of thing should be banned'. PS - to pick up Leccyfliers point - it should be for third parties to provide justification for further restriction and requirement, not for us to find resons to rebut them. Burden of proof lies with 'them'.

Exactly this. The rights of existing (98 years and counting) lower airspace users should be protected. The burden (including costs) of ensuring that new 'commercial' entrants to the use of this airspace should fall on said new entrants. They are the people who should be charged for 'innovation' as they are the ones who will profit from it. If the best solution turns out to require some form of remote ID on all UAVs, then the cost of equipping the 'hobby' flyers should be borne by the commercial operators. After all, the technology will be simple and cheap...