By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more

Member postings for John Privett

Here is a list of all the postings John Privett has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.

Thread: Proposed new drone legislation/registration
22/07/2017 16:31:45

Official definition, gangster? Good question...

"Drone" can really mean whatever you want it to mean, but usually it's an un-manned aerial vehicle - which includes conventional models. A comment from the people putting together the proposed European legislation was that they had tried, but found it very difficult to find a definition of a "traditional model aircraft" that could be used to distinguish what most of us fly from the multi-rotors that people tend to think of when "drone" is mentioned.

One of the points reported in this consultation outcome is "Again, as in other parts of the consultation responses, a clear definition of a 'drone' was called for."

Thread: Lipo Bags Rule OK!
22/07/2017 11:50:08
Posted by Kevin 216 on 04/07/2017 07:27:49:

IanR try Denbigh Army Supplies they have ...

I guess you really meant ?

Thread: Proposed new drone legislation/registration
22/07/2017 10:59:40
Posted by Daithi O Buitigh on 22/07/2017 03:05:18:

The article was in the Independent and does appear to be using the usual 'scare tactics' of...

Please don't make the mistake of confusing the website bearing the "Independent" name with the now-defunct newspaper that once went under the same name.

The website is (in my opinion!) a scummy, tabloid-style, click-bait infested site. Check any claims they make to see if they can actually quote a source...

Edited By John Privett on 22/07/2017 11:00:41

22/07/2017 10:52:17
Posted by Steve J on 22/07/2017 09:10:05:

The government response has indeed appeared -


213 people who said that they flew model aircraft responded to the consultation.


Only 213? That is depressing. We have about 36,000 BMFA members and less than 0.6% of them responded to the consultation. Where was everybody else? I know the consultation was mentioned on here a few times (eg. here, here, and here.) Should we have made it more prominent? I hope I'm not the only person from here to have responded! Who were the other 212?

Thread: Some dumb questions that have never been asked apparently
22/07/2017 02:12:30

Hi David, and welcome to the forum!

As Martin just said, the forum software is a little clunky - I think most wil agree the forum thrives despite the software, not because of it, and most of us are by now used to it's quirks and limitations.

Don't bother using the search function - it's very limited in what it does - it only searches within the titles of threads, not the actual contents... Also it will return lots of irrelevant results where the search term is just a substring of the thread title. For instance a search for 'mode' will return all threads where the title contains not just 'mode' - but also 'models', 'modeller', 'modelling' etc. etc.

It's much better to use google (which is after all a search engine!) You can restrict your search to just this site by adding to the end of your search terms. For instance try this search.

Thread: Man on the moon. Really?
19/07/2017 01:44:48
Posted by Dwain Dibley. on 19/07/2017 00:02:37:

Surely by now then, with all the tech available, we should be having day trips to the moon, which, when I was eight, was expecting to be the norm by the time I was nine. I had to be content with fireball XL5. frown


But lots of other predictions about the future made back then have turned out completely wrong too.

People ask why we haven't been back to the moon. But the real question is "why would we go back?" It remains a risky thing to do, and insanely expensive. NASA's budget is currently around 0.5% of the USA's federal spending. But for much of the 1960s it was over 3% and peaked at almost 4.5%. We know what is on the moon, so why spend huge sums of money to go back unless there is some strong reason to do so?

Thread: Fantasy Formula 1
16/07/2017 23:09:22

Overall the table now looks like this;

Championship Standings

Pos Team Manager Pts
1 Bernies Big Brown Envelope serepton PRO 1352
2 iqon racing iqon racing 1301
3 VBT Racing Yorik 1281
4 Pitts Specials john stones 1262
5 Team Webby Racing Simon Webb 1230
6 Norfolk Flyers Kevin Fairgrieve 1186
7 Revers Racing Pete B 1185
8 FalconFormulaOne Tony Hamer 1158
9 AnyoneSeenBernie johnpflyrc 1151
10 Mannschaft Carl Brotherton 1103
11 Essex Racing Tony Clark 1091
12 Flying Eagles Gary Goodfellow 1045
13 Team Charles Picd Charles Pic 1030
14 Slopeflyers F1 jimbo32010 1015
15 teewrex John Tee 751

No change in the top four today, but Simon's great result moves him up from 9th to 5th. Kev remains in 6th but Pete is pushed down two places to 7th. Eighth place sees no change but I drop two places to 9th.

10th and 11th are unchanged and Gary's Flying Eagles soar up from 14th to 12th. Charles and Jimbo slip a place each, to 13th and 14th respectively and John Tee remains in 15th.

Next up is Hungary in two weeks time. I shall be in Vancouver during the week leading up to the race so I might not get a chance to remind you to do your predictions. That's no excuse though, I want all predictions done in plenty of time... wink 2 Why not go and do them now? As for the race, I'll be on a ship heading to Alaska so goodness-knows how or when I'll get a chance to post the results! I'm sure I'll find a way though, even if I don't get to see the race which starts at 1pm UK-time (but 5am Vancouver time and 4am Alaska time!)

16/07/2017 22:54:21

The results are in, and half my predictions fell apart in the closing laps! But here is how we scored today;

Results from Great Britain

Pos Team Manager Pts
1 Team Webby Racing Simon Webb 205
2 Bernies Big Brown Envelope serepton PRO 157
3 Essex Racing Tony Clark 138
4 Flying Eagles Gary Goodfellow 134
5 FalconFormulaOne Tony Hamer 128
6 iqon racing iqon racing 128
7 VBT Racing Yorik 122
8 teewrex John Tee 120
9 Norfolk Flyers Kevin Fairgrieve 119
10 Mannschaft Carl Brotherton 118
11 Pitts Specials john stones 113
12 Revers Racing Pete B 102
13 AnyoneSeenBernie johnpflyrc 100
14 Slopeflyers F1 jimbo32010 94
15 Team Charles Picd Charles Pic 93

Simon is out top scorer today with an impressive 205 points, only 2 points short of the overall top score today, and indeed the second highest score in today out of 9857 entrants! Well done Simon.

Second with 157 points is serepton and third with 138 Tony Clark's Essex Racing.

In the next post we'll see how this affects the overall table.

Thread: Man on the moon. Really?
16/07/2017 22:45:21
Posted by Tom Sharp 2 on 16/07/2017 22:00:08:

The transmissions from the first landing were in colour but we only got them in B&W. Was that another conspiracy?

The transmissions from the moon for Apollo 11 were not in colour. We saw them in B&W because that's all we had!

They did have colour film cameras - Hasselblad cameras using 70mm film. But the still images captured on these could not be viewed until the film had been returned to Earth and developed. Below is the first image taken by Neil Armstrong with one of these cameras immediately before setting foot on the moon for the first time.

For the live TV coverage they were limited by the technology of the day and the comms bandwidth available for TV from the moon's surface for Apollo 11 was limited to a mere 700kHz. The solution was ti use a slow-scan (10fps) 320-line B&W camera transmitting its signal back to Earth, which is why the live video was not great quality.

16/07/2017 22:23:46

And the incident with Bart Sibrel - here's the key bit;

16/07/2017 22:16:04

Trevor - that was Bart Sibrel, a conspiracy theorist, who wanted Buzz Aldrin to swear on the bible that he'd walked on the moon. Buzz wanted nothing to do with the man and after being called "a coward, and a liar, and a thief" punched him in the face. No charges were brought against him for this.

Gordon - that looks like a great book, from a brief look at the preview. Allow me to quote a bit from the Author's preface which I think is very relevant to this thread;

"But in the age of the internet, this uninformed public is swimming in an ocean of information, much of which is of dubious accuracy. Among this deluge of ideas is one that tests their understanding of historical truth. In recent years, whether for financial gain or just as a pseudo-intellectual prank, people have taken to questioning the veracity of Apollo's greatest achievement. Websites abound that mock the very idea of America having achieved moonlandings in the 1960s and 1970s. They pick spurious holes in the historical record, relying on the ignorance of the public at large, and they feed on a distrust of big government in order to sell books and TV to a section of society that savours and favours mammoth conspiracy theories.

"The fact that one of the best documented events of history could be considered to be a hoax thrives partly because so few people actually know how the feat was achieved, or how the most basic laws of physics express themselves beyond the surface of our planet. I once spoke with a head teacher - an educated man in charge of over a thousand teenage pupils — who could quote Shakespeare as knowledgeably as he could discuss football. I asked him why the crews on board the Space Shuttle were seen to float about the cabin. "Because there‘s no gravity in space, of course," was the reply. At the time, I didn’t have the heart to enquire of him what kept the Moon in its orbit around Earth. I wasn‘t trying to mock him but I wanted to understand the extent to which concepts derived from basic science were understood by the public. I soon learned that ignorance in science and engineering is the norm.

"The provocative suggestion that the Moon landings were faked is what evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins would call a successful meme. Like the gene, it is self-replicating; an idea that has the requisite characteristics that allow it to sustain and be passed from one credulous mind to the next - carried forward because it can easily replicate through a population who are largely scientifically illiterate. Distorting facts to support a false theory is a straightforward exercise, including a sprinkling of pseudo-scientific jargon, when the audience lacks the tools, and often the inclination, to examine them critically. To refute these false tales requires intellectual rigour and a well-grounded knowledge of the physical world, the possession of which would likely inoculate a person from taking such claims seriously in the first place. One of my motives for writing this book was to provide a little of the knowledge that might help to refute the absurd assertion that Apollo was faked."

16/07/2017 21:05:46

Is it April 1st already?

All the "arguments" put forward by the conspiracy theorists can be easily refuted - and have been frequently. Not that the conspiracy theorists will listen - they just move on to the next question, state that "obviously" such-and-such is fake and then throw around a few personal insults before starting again with the original question and looping ad-infinitum.

If nothing else, consider how difficult/impossible it would have been with 1960's technology to fake not just Apollo 11 but the entire Apollo series - and to do it all without a single thing going wrong to expose the fraud. How many thousands of people would have to have been involved, yet none have come forward to confess in the 48 years since then. Let's face it, in that era, Nixon couldn't even keep secret a simple burglary involving 5 men!

I know what I saw live on TV in the early hours of 21st July 1969, and nothing I've seen since has convinced me otherwise, or even come close to doing so.

Thread: **NEW POLL** - How many metres do you have to walk with your models and gear to the flying area?
15/07/2017 14:53:43
Posted by Mike Etheridge 1 on 12/07/2017 15:47:03:

I have voted for between 20 and 100 metres, this is for one club that flies at a well know horse racing course in Surrey.

I'm assuming the question means from the parking to the pits (though it's little unclear!) in which case I think you need a new measuring tape, Mike! wink 2

Google Earth shows me that from the best parking position to the closest edge of the pits it's around 220m.

Thread: Fantasy Formula 1
14/07/2017 23:12:46

I'm sure we don't need reminding this week as we get ready for the British GP. But, just in case...

Don't forget your predictions!

It looks like Mercedes are the team to beat at Silverstone, and this weekend it's Bottas' turn to suffer a 5-place grid penalty for a gearbox change. So make your predictions bearing that in mind!  Remember,  the pole place prediction is for the driver who starts on pole on Sunday - not necessarily the one who recorded the fastest time in Q3...


Edited By John Privett on 14/07/2017 23:14:00

09/07/2017 21:45:21

Only 50 for my predictions (though that's the best I've done for ages!) and 106 for my team. I'm happy with that!

09/07/2017 21:19:46

After Austria, our league looks like this;

Championship Standings

Pos Team Manager Pts
1 Bernies Big Brown Envelope serepton PRO 1195
2 iqon racing iqon racing 1173
3 VBT Racing Yorik 1159
4 Pitts Specials john stones 1149
5 Revers Racing Pete B 1083
6 Norfolk Flyers Kevin Fairgrieve 1067
7 AnyoneSeenBernie johnpflyrc 1051
8 FalconFormulaOne Tony Hamer 1030
9 Team Webby Racing Simon Webb 1025
10 Mannschaft Carl Brotherton 985
11 Essex Racing Tony Clark 953
12 Team Charles Picd Charles Pic 937
13 Slopeflyers F1 jimbo32010 921
14 Flying Eagles Gary Goodfellow 911
15 teewrex John Tee 631

No change in the top three, but John's first place today takes the Pitts Specials up a place to fourth at the expense of Pete who slips a place to fifth. My second place today takes me up to 7th with Tony following me up to 8th and Simon slipping down to 9th.

Carl remains in 10th but Tony's Essex Racing move up from 13th to 11th, pushing Charles down a place to 12th and Jimbo's slopeflyers down to 13th. There's no change to 14th or 15th places.

Next up is Silverstone in only a week's time. Don't forget your predictions!

09/07/2017 21:10:58

So, who did what today. The channel 4 coverage must be over by now, and the results are up on, so how do today's score look?

Results from Austria

Pos Team Manager Pts
1 Pitts Specials john stones 164
2 AnyoneSeenBernie johnpflyrc 156
3 Norfolk Flyers Kevin Fairgrieve 148
4 iqon racing iqon racing 144
5 Essex Racing Tony Clark 137
6 FalconFormulaOne Tony Hamer 136
7 VBT Racing Yorik 133
8 Team Webby Racing Simon Webb 129
9 Bernies Big Brown Envelope serepton PRO 123
10 Flying Eagles Gary Goodfellow 106
11 Revers Racing Pete B 98
12 Mannschaft Carl Brotherton 98
13 Team Charles Picd Charles Pic 98
14 Slopeflyers F1 jimbo32010 83
15 teewrex John Tee 73

Top scorer today was John's Pitts Specials with 164 points. Eight points back from John was myself, and Kev brings up third place today another 8 points back.

In the next post, what does this mean for the overall championship?

07/07/2017 23:33:19

Right folks, it's now two weeks later, and time for the Austrian GP. So as usual, I will say this only once...

Don't forget your predictions!

And may I remind you of what the pole position prediction actuially means; From fantasygp

***Note: Pole Position is the driver who is officially classified as being on 1st place in the starting grid going by official FIA classification. If a driver has the fastest time on Saturday but has a penalty, they won’t be on Pole Position so Pole Position prediction points will be awarded to the driver who does eventually have Pole Position when the lights go out on Sunday.

You might want to consider the implications of the above and the news of Hamilton's unauthorised gearbox change when deciding on your predictions!

25/06/2017 22:39:00

Championship Standings

Pos Team Manager Pts
1 Bernies Big Brown Envelope serepton PRO 1072
2 iqon racing iqon racing 1029
3 VBT Racing Yorik 1026
4 Revers Racing Pete B 985
5 Pitts Specials john stones 985
6 Norfolk Flyers Kevin Fairgrieve 919
7 Team Webby Racing Simon Webb 896
8 AnyoneSeenBernie johnpflyrc 895
9 FalconFormulaOne Tony Hamer 894
10 Mannschaft Carl Brotherton 887
11 Team Charles Picd Charles Pic 839
12 Slopeflyers F1 jimbo32010 838
13 Essex Racing Tony Clark 816
14 Flying Eagles Gary Goodfellow 805
15 teewrex John Tee 558

So the top three remain unchanged, but John S and Pete B swap 4th and 5th places - though both are now on 985 points. Kev remains in 6th but Simon moves up a place to 7th and I move up 2 places to 8th with Tony H moving down 2 places to 9th. But there's only one point between 7th and 8th, and also between 8th and 9th!

Down one place to 10th is Carl with Charles moving up 3 places to 11th. Jimbo's slopeflyers stay 12th but Tony C slips two places to 13th. GAry slips a place to 14th and John T remains 15th.

Well nobody can deny today's race was somewhat 'eventful' - I wonder how many predicted the right number of safety cars! It was a shame to see Hamilton lose the race for a silly reason, and rather concerning to see Vettel's appalling reaction to his own mistake. I thought he'd matured somewhat in the last couple of seasons, but apparently not.

Austria next in 2 weeks, with Silverstone just around the corner...

25/06/2017 22:23:26

Results time! And it looks like a fairly low-scoring round for our league members today - and indeed for fantasygp as a whole with a result that I think few would have predicted! Fantasgp overall high-score today was only 169.

Here is how we scored in Azerbaijan;

Results from Azerbaijan

Pos Team Manager Pts
1 AnyoneSeenBernie johnpflyrc 112
2 VBT Racing Yorik 108
3 Bernies Big Brown Envelope serepton PRO 107
4 Team Webby Racing Simon Webb 102
5 Mannschaft Carl Brotherton 102
6 Team Charles Picd Charles Pic 99
7 iqon racing iqon racing 92
8 Revers Racing Pete B 89
9 Slopeflyers F1 jimbo32010 81
10 FalconFormulaOne Tony Hamer 77
11 Norfolk Flyers Kevin Fairgrieve 77
12 Pitts Specials john stones 72
13 teewrex John Tee 72
14 Flying Eagles Gary Goodfellow 60
15 Essex Racing Tony Clark 55

Up next, how has this affected the overall places?

Email News - Join our newsletter

Love Model Aircraft? Sign up to our emails for the latest news and special offers!

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
TJD Models
Expo Tools 14 July
Gliders Distribution
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
How many metres do you have to walk with your models and gear to the flying area?
Q: How many metres do you have to walk with your models and gear to the flying area?

 Less than 20m
 20 to 100m
 100 to 200m
 200 to 500m
 More than 500m

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us