What constitutes a Park Flyer ?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Given all the threads on the new Regs, and strong feelings about them, I find this thread somewhat Ironic. 😉

[Don Fry]

Try a bolting horse, spooked, Toto. Or said toy hitting a bike rider, or causing a fall trying to get out of the way. Public spaces are public, and the definition of where is safe has a lot to do with the space, a lot to do with skill levels, and in particular where to crash the model if needed. Read John Stones post,

Edited January 22 by Don Fry
Not the one above, wot sneaked in, the one two hours ago.

[toto]

I think I covered that Don ....

 

I suggested it depended on actual space, useage of the space ( ie is it a major thoroughfare ) attitude of pilot and common sense etc etc. I was maybe speaking generally but only to save typing every conceivable example.

 

without an actual example of a particular space its hard to cover all considerations which I think is the actual point.

 

Please don't take my response as intended to be aggravating. Much respect Sir.

 

toto

[Arthur Harris]

5 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

A park flyer is something flown in a Park, hopefully within the law and by laws.

That's just it! As I posted, some of our local public parks are graced by multi-engine planes of over 6-foot span! (I loved seeing a huge Gotha sedately flying around). As far as I am aware, 'park flyer' is not a legal term, it is what is permitted in parks. In fact, some councils mention model planes as one of the attractions of their parks, along with family picnic areas and canoeing etc.

[Arthur Harris]

15 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

That's just it! As I posted, some of our local public parks are graced by multi-engine planes of over 6-foot span! (I loved seeing a huge Gotha sedately flying around). As far as I am aware, 'park flyer' is not a legal term, it is what is permitted in parks. In fact, some councils mention model planes as one of the attractions of their parks, along with family picnic areas and canoeing etc.

@PDB- why do you put a laughing emoji? Don't you agree? Or is it too commonplace?

[leccyflyer]

39 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

That's just it! As I posted, some of our local public parks are graced by multi-engine planes of over 6-foot span! (I loved seeing a huge Gotha sedately flying around). As far as I am aware, 'park flyer' is not a legal term, it is what is permitted in parks. In fact, some councils mention model planes as one of the attractions of their parks, along with family picnic areas and canoeing etc.

That doesn't make them park flyers though.

 

Park flyer is a well understood term in the electric flight world and it has been, for a couple of decades, It describes a class of model and the fact that a particular model might have flown in a space described as a park doesn't make it a park flyer.

 

Don't believe that?  Take a trip to Weston Park, for example - those half scale Extras and multi-turbine jet models aren't park flyers either.

 

 

 

[Arthur Harris]

6 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

That doesn't make them park flyers though.

 

Park flyer is a well understood term in the electric flight world and it has been, for a couple of decades, It describes a class of model and the fact that a particular model might have flown in a space described as a park doesn't make it a park flyer.

 

Don't believe that?  Take a trip to Weston Park, for example - those half scale Extras and multi-turbine jet models aren't park flyers either.

 

 

 

I'm not arguing about the term park flyer, I've already said that. It is a general term. I am surprised that many model flyers don't realise that model flying, even with large planes, is not only condoned but encouraged by many local councils. Here's an example from my local council: Model aircraft flying - Warwick District Council (warwickdc.gov.uk)

As model flyers surely it is something we should support, not complain about? The public love seeing the planes and being EP even if they are multi-engine, they are quiet. 

I have argued in a different thread that us modest EP flyers are a different breed from the turbine flyers. And should be treated differently by the CAA. We probably will be, too.

Edited January 22 by Arthur Harris

[leccyflyer]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

I'm not arguing about the term park flyer, I've already said that. It is a general term. I am surprised that many model flyers don't realise that model flying, even with large planes, is not only condoned but encouraged by many local councils. Here's an example: Model aircraft flying - Warwick District Council (warwickdc.gov.uk)

As model flyers surely it is something we should support, not complain about?

 That's the basic point of the thread though.

 

It's not a thread about whether there are parks that may be flown in,  whether that be in designated areas - as in the example you've just cited - or not.

 

It's a thread on what constitutes a park flyer. 

 

 

[Arthur Harris]

7 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

 That's the basic point of the thread though.

 

It's not a thread about whether there are parks that may be flown in,  whether that be in designated areas - as in the example you've just cited - or not.

 

It's a thread on what constitutes a park flyer. 

 

 

So, you think when discussing park flyers, we should not mention the planes that are legally allowed to be flown in parks? That seems to be ignoring reality. Imagine me explaining to my family what a park flyer is, and then we go out and see a 6-foot span S.26 or Gotha being legally flown (which we have seen)? Do I say "Cover your eyes! They are not really there!"

I agree we all know what a park flyer is in general conversation, and I used that term in that way in the thread that sparked this thread, it was others who wanted to nail down precise definitions. And that would include the planes that fly in parks. RC flyers may not like it, but that is the reality.

[GrumpyGnome]

8 hours ago, Arthur Harris said:

I'm not arguing about the term park flyer, I've already said that. It is a general term. I am surprised that many model flyers don't realise that model flying, even with large planes, is not only condoned but encouraged by many local councils. Here's an example from my local council: Model aircraft flying - Warwick District Council (warwickdc.gov.uk)

As model flyers surely it is something we should support, not complain about? The public love seeing the planes and being EP even if they are multi-engine, they are quiet. 

I have argued in a different thread that us modest EP flyers are a different breed from the turbine flyers. And should be treated differently by the CAA. We probably will be, too.

The very purpose of the thread IS to discuss the term Park Flyer. Many individuals have explained this to you but you refuse to acknowledge this. That's fine. You're entitled to your views.

 

I don't know in what grounds you think many modellers don't realise flying in areas designated as parks takes place...... I expect the vast majority of modellers knows it happens, irrespective if whether it's allowed, or safe.  I myself often flew in my local park, but I only flew slow models under 16oz, and only until the dog walkers arrived.  I wouldn't have even thought for a moment to fly, for example a Riot, or those Tower Hobbies planes....... I refused to join one local club previously as they flew, with the council's agreement, on a site that was shared with the general public.

 

I don't know of many councils that encourage model flying. The vast majority of parks near where I have lived in my model flying career have either been patently unsuitable, or it has been actually prohibited.  Personally, I think Warwick council are very much in the minority - but I have no evidence to back up this opinion. I'm sure you could list more of the 'many' councils like Warwick. 

 

The vast majority of flyers I have cone across encourage safe model flying at ANY appropriate location - I can only recall a very few who do not share this view. 

 

I'd point out, again, that not all electric planes are quiet - I have owned a number that are far louder than some of my four stroke ic planes. It only takes someone to make a nuisance of themselves with such planes to make people change their minds.

 

I really don't understand why you want the CAA to introduce more complex regulations based on some arbitrary classification..... seems a particularly selfish point of view.

 

Anyway, that's my final contribution to this rather pointless discussion.

Edited January 23 by GrumpyGnome

[leccyflyer]

48 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

So, you think when discussing park flyers, we should not mention the planes that are legally allowed to be flown in parks? That seems to be ignoring reality. Imagine me explaining to my family what a park flyer is, and then we go out and see a 6-foot span S.26 or Gotha being legally flown (which we have seen)? Do I say "Cover your eyes! They are not really there!"

I agree we all know what a park flyer is in general conversation, and I used that term in that way in the thread that sparked this thread, it was others who wanted to nail down precise definitions. And that would include the planes that fly in parks. RC flyers may not like it, but that is the reality.

This discussion resulted from you not liking GG saying that a Riot isn't a park flyer - which it isn't. That's the crux of how this discussion started. As mentioned earlier that is ironic, since it's only a couple of weeks when you were advocating throwing all sorts of other model flying under the bus, considering that the BMFA really should only be concerned with protecting the rights to fly of your own particular brand of modest electric flying - Riots and suchlike.

 

You say that we all know what a park flyer is in general conversation, but that clearly is not the case. The discussion started with your claiming that a Riot is a parkflyer. It's not a parkflyer. Neither is a 6 foot wingspan Gotha, or a third scale Extra, or a quarter scale Vulcan, just because they might have been flown in a park. Neither does the fact that a retailer lists certain models amongst their "park flyers" for marketing purposes make those models park flyers.  It might say Bovril on the side of the bus, but that doesn't mean that they sell it on the back deck.

[Arthur Harris]

So is there a consensus as to what a park flyer actually is? I'm happy to accept the definition if there is one. I've always thought it was a foamie, usually EP, that people fly in parks.

[Brian Cooper]

Park Flyer is an unfortunate name for them. . It suggests they can be successfully flown in a public park, straight out of the box.  

No doubt there have been many birthday presents which have had a brief life that ended in a park. 

Perhaps we should be grateful that the "pilots" don't realise they need to learn to fly, so the model lasts only a few seconds before being totally demolished. 

 

A better name for them would be Foam Flyer. . At least there would be no subliminal suggestion of an irresponsible venue where the uninformed will attempt to fly them. 

[leccyflyer]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGnome said:

I don't know of many councils that encourage model flying. The vast majority of parks near where I have lived in my model flying career have either been patently unsuitable, or it has been actually prohibited.  Personally, I think Warwick council are very much in the minority - but I have no evidence to back up this opinion. I'm sure you could list more of the 'many' councils like Warwick. 

 

The vast majority of flyers I have cone across encourage safe model flying at ANY appropriate location - I can only recall a very few who do not share this view. 

 

As mentioned earlier parks come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, but there are certainly flying sites, including official club-administered flying sites in parks up and down the country. Some examples that spring to mind are Tatton Park near Knutsford and the aforementioned Weston Park at which lots of models, which would not be termed park flyers may be flown. In fact one of my own clubs has one of our flying sites, by arrangement with the local council, in a large park slap bang in the middle of the city. That site is risk assessed, has operating procedures - agreed with the council - in place, such that only silent flight (electric and bungee/winch launched gliders) operate from there during daylight hours. 

 

Like you, I don't believe that this thread is meant to be centred on discussion of flying sites in parks and somewhat despair of the attempts to seek to drag definitions of parks with regards to over-reaching regulations into this discussion about a type of model, rather than a type of flying site.

[Learner]

13 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

So is there a consensus as to what a park flyer actually is? I'm happy to accept the definition if there is one. I've always thought it was a foamie, usually EP, that people fly in 

No there isnt a concensus or a specific nationwide rule. 

Anyone who has had a rc plane crash for whatever reason should realise themselves on what size plane is or not safe to fly in a park.

Being on your 3rd riot I'd say your not safe to fly anything in a park!

 

[leccyflyer]

20 minutes ago, Brian Cooper said:

Park Flyer is an unfortunate name for them. . It suggests they can be successfully flown in a public park, straight out of the box.  

No doubt there have been many birthday presents which have had a brief life that ended in a park. 

Perhaps we should be grateful that the "pilots" don't realise they need to learn to fly, so the model lasts only a few seconds before being totally demolished. 

 

A better name for them would be Foam Flyer. . At least there would be no subliminal suggestion of an irresponsible venue where the uninformed will attempt to fly them. 

When the term parkflyer started to be used online and in the modelling magazines, at least twenty odd years ago, there was a degree of overlap with the term slow-flyer. That did generally describe the same sort of lightweight, slow flying, electric powered model - note, not necessarily made of foam, there were also conventionally built balsa slow flyers/park flyers. It was a recognisable class of model though, characterised by that low weight, slow speed operation suitable for flying in small spaces. The term backyard flyer predates even park flyer and even goes back into the 1950's.

[Arthur Harris]

3 hours ago, Learner said:

 

Being on your 3rd riot I'd say your not safe to fly anything in a park!

 

Lol! I agree! That's why I'm a club man.

[Arthur Harris]

3 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

When the term parkflyer started to be used online and in the modelling magazines, at least twenty odd years ago, there was a degree of overlap with the term slow-flyer. That did generally describe the same sort of lightweight, slow flying, electric powered model - note, not necessarily made of foam, there were also conventionally built balsa slow flyers/park flyers. It was a recognisable class of model though, characterised by that low weight, slow speed operation suitable for flying in small spaces. The term backyard flyer predates even park flyer and even goes back into the 1950's.

Now this makes sense. But again, when I used the term "park flyer" in the other thread, I was using it as an example opposed to a plane that needs careful setting up. Like @Brian Cooper says: Park Flyer is an unfortunate name for them. . It suggests they can be successfully flown in a public park, straight out of the box.  

[leccyflyer]

1 minute ago, Arthur Harris said:

Now this makes sense. But again, when I used the term "park flyer" in the other thread, I was using it as an example opposed to a plane that needs careful setting up. Like @Brian Cooper says: Park Flyer is an unfortunate name for them. . It suggests they can be successfully flown in a public park, straight out of the box.  

Which, by the generally understood usage of the term in electric flight circles more than twenty odd years ago, they could - and not necessarily out of the box. Peter Rake is just one designed who designed a huge number of parkflyer scale slow flying models, fully built up to a well practiced formula, which could be flown in a park, straight from the building board. Not a single bead of foam in sight. My boy's first scale model that he built himself was a Peter Rake Eindekker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dickw]

Only 1.6Kg ready to fly and 2m wingspan. Mine came ready painted with servos and linkages already installed. I prefer to chose my own power unit, but you can get them with a suitable motor/esc/prop installed for you.

All you really need to do yourself is fit your own radio gear and then go fly.

So is it a "park flyer"? 😀

 

Dick

[leccyflyer]

Beautiful - looks rapid just "parked" there. 🙂

[ken anderson.]

Suppose it's all ok/ish....until your 'park flyer' Kapows someone and then you will be in deep trouble.the times we live in dictate you will be taken to the cleaners....and if you've not taken heed of all the rules and regs in force.... you'll be out on a limb...☠️

 

Ken Anderson....ne....1....worst case scenarios dept.

Edited January 23 by ken anderson.

[Arthur Harris]

13 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

As mentioned earlier that is ironic, since it's only a couple of weeks when you were advocating throwing all sorts of other model flying under the bus, considering that the BMFA really should only be concerned with protecting the rights to fly of your own particular brand of modest electric flying - Riots and suchlike.

 

Not at all, and I am sure most people realise that. I have no power or wish to throw anyone under a bus. I was merely making the point that a noisy minority could cause problems for the majority.

This I think is a good analogy: imagine a council tells a house full of noisy students: "there's complaints about the noise, if you don't keep it down, you will all be evicted". Most students want to stay in the house, and listen to music comparatively quietly, but a small group says, "it's our fundamental right to listen to loud rock music at 2am if we want to, we should all stand together and challenge the council!" And then they all get evicted.

It's not a bad analogy is it, and a reasonable argument?

 

 

[Arthur Harris]

9 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

Which, by the generally understood usage of the term in electric flight circles more than twenty odd years ago, they could - and not necessarily out of the box. Peter Rake is just one designed who designed a huge number of parkflyer scale slow flying models, fully built up to a well practiced formula, which could be flown in a park, straight from the building board. Not a single bead of foam in sight. My boy's first scale model that he built himself was a Peter Rake Eindekker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the perfect example of what I would call a park flyer! A lovely little model that can probably be safely flown anywhere.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Think it's the silent minorty who're the problem at present.