Neil James
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Everything posted by Neil James
-
-
-
-
-
Having discussed the kamikaze option for a fail safe I must say that my preferred setting is throttle to idle and controls to produce a gentle circular descent, hopefully then keeping it within the flying field. All bets are off it it's in the middle of a lomçevak at the time! Now that radio equipment is more sophisticated and smaller it's definitely time that flight control systems were included in more receivers, or available as an option in the way that telemetry modules are.
-
No, it's not intended just to protect other aircraft, it's much more wide ranging than that. The relevant legislation is in the Air Navigation Order 2016: Endangering safety of an aircraft 240. A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft. Endangering safety of any person or property 241. A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property. Article 240 covers any activity, by any person, which might endanger an aircraft, article 241 applies specifically to us as aircraft operators and stipulates ANY person or property, not just other aircraft.
-
Forum members' new models: Let's see them.
Neil James replied to Paul Marsh's topic in All Things Model Flying
Here's mine. Back to flying after around 12 years so I though something less frangible would be a good start while I got my thumbs back! Had its first flight last week which after a couple of failed launches (I'd forgotten to reflex the control surfaces) went off very well. -
-
-
That's my understanding too, FS is intended to keep everybody else safe, not just full size aircraft, the end condition of the model is not relevant. In fact, if only you could guarantee that the model never strays outside the flying site (which should be free of people or anything valuable) the authorities would be happy to see it put into a spin and brought down vertically. In any case the minimum it should do is stop a flyaway because you really don't want it disappearing into the distance and possibly powering into a crowd!
-
Found some more information about this on rcgroups: it turns out that the 60mm location I calculated is the preferred position by those who've flown it and it seems to fly well set up like that. Haven't been able to fly mine yet but it's taken 70g of lead so far and is still tail heavy, according to the instructions! I'm now at 50mm so I think I'll test fly it there and see what happens. Just need the wind to drop now!
-
Thanks guys, I calculated a position 60mm from the LE which looks more realistic based on experience, but yes, I'd like to here from someone who's flown it before I try! At least too far forward is better than too far back.
-
Hi just finishing an FMS 100mm Typhoon ARTF, (what little finishing it needed!) and I'm trying to balance it. The instruction sheet says the CoG should be 40/45mm behind the LE but even with a larger than suggested battery mine is nowhere near that. I've stuck 2oz of lead inside the nose so far and it is still a bit rearward. To me the suggested position looks a bit far forward but I'm sure someone on here will know for sure Any suggestions?
