Jump to content
Please be aware of scammers when using the Sale/Wanted forum areas

Mike T

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,068

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Mike T

    David Boddington Appreciation Society

    in Building from Traditional Kits and Plans

    Posted

    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...

    Pup pictures 075.jpg

    11844978_1481935242120871_516516388660392057_o (2).jpg

    11872224_1481935345454194_4619685090595633316_o.jpg

    • Like 2

    D.B. SPORT @ SCALE SE5

    in Scale and Semi-Scale kits

    Posted

    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... 🙂)

    Hobbyking coming back to the UK

    in R/C Retailers / Distributors / Manufacturers

    Posted

    On 07/12/2023 at 10:44, Erfolg said:

    ... HMRC are not behind the door when it comes to gathering tax, however tenuous the basis (business sections in the media, often write about the issue).

     

    On 07/12/2023 at 19:45, Erfolg said:

    ...If any of these businesses are not paying Vat, HMRC would be there, faster than a rat going up a drain pipe.

     

    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.

    CAA Call for Input: Review of UK UAS Regulations Aug 2023

    in All Things Model Flying

    Posted

    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...

     

     

    • Like 3

    The Big Question ?

    in Warbird kits

    Posted · Edited by Mike T
    add

    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!

    The Big Question ?

    in Warbird kits

    Posted · Edited by Mike T
    sp.

    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...

    • Like 2

    CAA Call for Input: Review of UK UAS Regulations Aug 2023

    in All Things Model Flying

    Posted · Edited by Mike T

    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'.

    • Like 7

    CAA Proposes 8.3% increase in Operator Registration Fee from April 2024

    in All Things Model Flying

    Posted

    3 hours ago, RedBaron said:

    If all the new industries that want to monopolize our skies can't fit in with what exists then it does not say much for whatever "technology" they have

    ...

    A basic requirement of all these new industries should be that they prove their technology does what is required before they leave the ground for the first time.

     

     

    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...

     

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...