Leaderboard

Just had an argument with her Ladyship. Ha, I got the last word! “Yes Dear” ?

Putting examiners qualifications aside for a moment, this is exactly why the pre-Article 16 A test exemption should be binned entirely IMO. It won't be a popular viewpoint, but a 20 year old A and a tick in a box online provides precisely zero knowledge of the current regs. Everyone should be taking the DMARES or BMFA RCC at the standard defined intervals; the BMFA being able to show 100% of their members have doen that would IMO be far more impressive to the CAA than this annual mandatory examiner RCC test. It won't happen though, as it would be too unpopular members of the more senior status.

Thanks for all your support, and explanations. My post is certainly not off topic. It is about the difficulties of obtaining modelling items from the UK, due to government's policies. I do reckon that even the most basic of computers would understand that 'oui' is not exactly subversive, and that 'brexit' is probably now one of the most commonly used words in english So, to concentrate on modelling matters, my new little biplane called Wee Boris, is a homage to a russian bear cub that I once met ernie

Well I've redone the ammo drums which should look OK after a bit more of a clean up and some black paint.

We’ve got a Massey Ferguson 135 and mowing attachment plus at least two members who almost fight over the privilege of cutting our 5 acre field, making a wonderful job of it too - it’s the next best thing to full automation!

See my previous post - it is all about managing the perceptions of the CAA. If the BMFA shows it is going "above and beyond" to ensure they are educating their members in safe, legal flying via instuctors who are fully up to date with the latest regs/Art 16 authorisation, there is less risk to that all important Article 16 Authoristaion being pulled, at least in theory.

Imformation was there for us all to read, maybe in the proposals to the AGM ? Sure I read it. ?

Simon, it does indeed get sent to all members. Sadly that doesn't mean its read and digested. A few months ago the achievement scheme review committee were contacted by a candidate who was very concerned, he had prepared extremely well for his A test, had taken the RCC and passed too, clearly someone who had taken the time to find out all that was requiried and knew his stuff. We then had an embbarrasing situation of the examiner turning up, insisted on asking the mandatory questions, but sadly the original ones from 2016, the examiner was neither aware of the RCC, Article 16 or CAP722. He still thought we were flying under CAP658! I', not sure what more we could have done to get all the news about the regulations out there, including in the BMFA News on a number of occasions. Based on some of the emails received just recently there are a few others that are not keeping up with things as they should. Taking the RCC on a yearly basis if you wish to be ratified again is a simply pragmatic solution that will not take much more than 1o minutes or so for any examiner who has kept himself up to date with any Article 16 changes.

If you have the long format Operator ID, starting with GBR-OP- it will not be changing.

I think you miss the point. A raw beginner rolls up at the club with a set they cannot buddy up. They will never have even heard of C/L, FF or article 16 so are they expected to be able to answer 40 questions on a subject which is totally alien to them before they can even get a flight under instruction?

Fascinating model Jon. In your quest for oddball types, how about modelling a model next time? The Stanger Biplane Trevor

I've managed to produce a mini kit of parts! At 1/10th scale the gun measures 115mm from muzzle to back of breech. Parts need a bit of cleaning up which I'll do tomorrow.

Gents, I grew up seeing bright orange/red and white airplanes out in the 1950s-1960s high desert of Southern California, and with this Skyhawk build I'd like to tap into those vague but absolutely fantastic memories. So I'm wading into the fray here with a California-based A4D-1 Skyhawk, either a Weekend Warrior with the US Navy reserves circa 1960 at NAS Los Alamitos, or one that served as a weapons test aircraft with the US Navy and US Marines out in the high desert of Naval Air Facility (NAF) China Lake and over water with the Pacific Missile Test Center (PMTC) at Point Mugu. So, I'll need to modify the PSSA A-4E/F Mass Build design just a bit to represent an earlier Skyhawk, the A4D-1, a designation that was later changed to the A-4A. These Skyhawks are identifiable by their shorter nose, no refueling probe, and lack of external stiffeners for the rudder. The next development, the A4D-2 (later designated A-4B), incorporated a refueling probe and the rudder stiffeners. Next came the A4DN-2 (later designated A-4C), which brought a longer nose that housed advanced avionics. Next came the A-4E and F variants with the more familiar Skyhawk shape we see in Matt and Phil's PSSA design. Unfortunately the photo here of a PMTC A4DN-2 and A4D-1 at sea off Point Mugu is lo-res, but compare the two nose shapes in that photo and you see the most prominent difference between the two marques, as well as general colour & markings for reserve and test aircraft in California during that era. The AD4N-2 is in the foreground, and behind her is an A4D-1. And I just had to include the early 1960s photo of an Point Mugu A4D-2 (A-4B) because of her fabulous AQM-37 target drones. That's a lot of aero-enthusiast mojo right there!

Thanks everyone who replied, great info & advice. ? It seems that the deals I found initially did seem a bit expensive for what was in them so I've ordered from MDP given in Andy C's link. I'll probably be posting again in the near future picking brains on how to use it. ?

My experience is just like Max Z, above. Rolls can feed in without a holder, and the standard free software does everything I want, which often involves tracing an outline from an imported picture in one of the common formats (.jpg .bmp etc.) and editing it. I do use the cutting mat quite regularly as it allows me to use small offcuts of vinyl that are too small to feed in through the rollers. I find it also makes loading the media a little bit easier because of its rigidity.

I have a cameo 3 that I bought as a bundle form MDP supplies (really good service).... MDP Supplies Cameo 4 It came with everything I needed (cutting mat, auto blade, squeegie, transfer tape, etc) and I got 20 or so sheets of normal vinyl and a smaller selection of heat transfer vinyl. The latter I have used on T-shirts etc with the kids. The latter for loads of different things. I also run solatrim through it. I use cutting mat a lot but not all the time. Role of transfer tape is essential. I only have the free software but it does everything I need including creating outlines from JPEGS.

The day-glo orange and the white look great together - I also really quite like how the orange at the nose traces the shape of the Stars and Bars with the little white border. Great scheme John!!

There is no option. You need; a drill press, a lathe, a mill, persuade SWMBO that it beats handbags and diamonds.

Subs seem pretty good value to me. More power to the bmfa.

I have a Cameo 3. It does not have a feed roller, and I don't miss it. I just leave the vinyl roll in front of the Cameo, and it sorts itself. About the "auto blade", don't bother if it does not come with the deal. It works, but the concert of clacks it needs to get to the setting as dictated from the software is quite annoying. I don't use it and set the blade manually with the standard blade holder. As for the Silhouette Studio Designer Edition, you have to decide if it's worth the extra cost. I decided not to take it, the only attraction would have been the extended import formats, but the standard software accepts .dxf files which can be exported from the majority of cad software ( I use Rhinoceros to create my cutting patterns). Cheers, Max.

I use this site: Sign Making and Supplies: Sign Vinyl, T-Shirt Vinyl, Application Tape They offer 20 A4 sheets of random colours for £2.99 if you want to have a play with the machine. I have never use the carrier sheet or the cutting mat for what I do.

I am in that " 24 years ago + " catagory, which is why I consider myself a tyro, a beginer , again, which is why I did the RCC. If I can pass it then anyone can, it ain't rocket science. If when I join a club again I have to re take an A, so be it, no problem, happy to oblige. In fact I look forward to it.

Personally I'd be inclined to go for one of the less expensive options, as you'll need to get to the stage of using the kit for a while before seeing what you need - I'd think it worthwhile to have a spare blade and holder and a spare cutting mat, I haven't used a carrier sheet at all- it's a bit messier doing it the way I do with masking tape. Spatulas and pickers you might well have something suitable anyway in your modelling tools - the tip of a 10a scalpel blade is about the only tool I use. The cost for vinyl seems expensive in the offer, for just a small sheet - I prefer matt vinyl for markings and have found an excellent supplier on eBay which does 5m rolls for about a tenner. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/191585214109

I use my Silhouette Cameo 3 for making vinyl decals and paint masks. I purchased the extra feed roller for my machine, which, I believe, is built-in on the Cameo 4. The only other upgrade I went for is to the software. I think it cost all of £29 for a lifetime license for Silhouette Studio Designer Edition!! Martin.

Surely the club flying site has the up to date info on RCC and article 16, as well as any "club rules and conditions" on prominent display ? If so then no problem, if not, perhaps they should be ? Just my 2 pennies worth... I try to keep up to date as much as possible and take documents etc. with me when model flying. If challenged I can say " have a look at this...." I think it's fair and good that examiners should pass an annual RCC, seems sensible to me. Seems sensible examiners should have a periodical " assesment" , maybe every 5 years ? Practical and theoretical, so still up to a high standard, firm but I fair.

In case of confusion, I think I’m correct in saying that 5 questions from the site rules and handbook still need to be answered - it’s just the mandatory “20 questions” that are replaced by the RCC.

Scuse I for quoting your Post Andy, something similar happened to me, new lad very keen and setting his stall out to do his A, we were talking and he said he doesn't have to answer the mandatory questions having done the online RCC, news to me says I, anyway on getting home I had a look, then messaged him saying yes you're correct, missed it. Have to say I prefer the new way.

The fuz shouldn't be any problem.You will need to know what type resin is used for a good repair , epoxy or polyester then use the same type for the repair. Keep it light and only use enough epoxt to wet the glass enough to adhere to the repair area . cosmetic finishing can be made with a two pack filler like Ronseal woodfill . sets very quik , sands very easily and is lighter than car filler . I would start on the fuz by making a light glass fiber cone joiner long enough to bridghe a couple of inches either side of the break . Make from some glass cloth as Cloth is stronger and easier to use in these small repiars . Once hard this can then be slid down the front half making a tight fit and fixed with appropriate resin. When set the rear half can be aligned and fitted to the protruding part of the cone . Any cracks or tears in the fuz can be aligned and tacked with cyano then backed up with some glass cloth and resin . Not sure about that wing though ! Perhaps worth checking first as it looka as though the wing tube might have been torn loose . I would open it up if possible to check on damage and if worth doing. The fuz on model below a , Kyosh Illusion was smashed really badly . Wing was replaced with a foam veneered job and fuz repaired as described above . I did go over the ypop with the paint though and used two pack automotive adding a little bit of weight ? .

Hi Andy. I never knew that and it's good to hear.

All this is great for the (hopefully) majority of examiners who keep up to date but how often have we read comments like “just throw it in the bin onopened”. Having kept up to date, the RCC test will take less time than a properly conducted A test to run through on a cold damp winter’s evening - surely not something that a committed examiner would begrudge?

Yes, but many have stated on this forum that they just throw the BMFA News in the bin. So, the BMFA is taking the extra step of showing the CAA that they are taking Air Law seriously by having Club Examiners do a refresher test every year. Personally, I think it's a good idea and even if nothing has changed it makes you go and re-read the last Article 16 document. I also think the 3 points committees should consider prior to re-ratifying their Club Examiner is helpful and in particular whether their Examiner can fly the B test to an adequate standard. As ever, some will disagree but how do you demonstrate what is an acceptable B test flight if you are unable to fly one?

Any amendments could easily be ditsributed via the BMFA News, which as far as I know goes to all members.

Ron, that is correct, but the requirement is for Club Examiners to sit the test every year so that they are up-to-date for when they administer Achievement Scheme tests. Under the new scheme where candidates can take the test on-line and show the Examiner their pass certificate that means there is technically a gap in that the person taking the test may not be up-to-date with any changes in the Article 16 compliance. You have to draw the line somewhere otherwise everyone would have to take the test every year! I'm sure that wouldn't go down well. Having just taken the test, and passed (phew!), one question was slightly confusing and I just forgot one of the tick boxes on the other a "tick all that apply" section. Not too shabby for an old git! That's it for another year!

That's the best news I've had all day. - thanks Andy. ?

None done through the BMFA are due until February, the CAA hadn't got their systems up and running in time. However there is nothing to stop you logging in and renewing it yourself or doing your BMFA membership yourself through the portal. Its nothing to do with being a country member.

Hi all, I am absolutely stunned, I have been censored, yes censored....After many many years of contributing to this excellent forum, I have had a post deleted. Of course a degree of censorship is needed, indeed to be encouraged..No dirty stories, No rude words, No political rantings, and no foreign languages. But what have I done to annoy, even enrage the RCM&E hierarchy? Maybe it was the use of the French word OUI...Its not particularly offensive in either language. It means yes...If you need confirmation ask Paul de Tourbillon, he sounds like he would know. Or maybe I should'nt have alluded to our politicians not thinking things through. Its not a new concept....Plato, alexandre the Great, Napoleon, and even the great Winston Churchill have all been accused of the same fault. Does RCM&E now censor concepts that are universally accepted

Did he do a lot of tests, provide guidance, demonstrate the A or B etc. If the answer is no to all, then what have you lost? I would put the word out in the club that you are looking for people to step up to be an Examiner and see what happens. You might also mention the help that would be to the club. As for some benefit of taking the trouble to get themselves up to standard perhaps you might provide them with a year of membership for free?

this thread is getting muddled....started off as examiner, now its heading to raw beginners turning up at a site etc...i think that AS link above says it all really....and needs to be read...as its a totally different subject.... ken anderson...ne..1..raw beginners dept.

No, they would be able to have a trial flight under 'close supervision'. Our guide to Article 16 says 10. Provisions for ‘trial flights’ Our Authorisation permits the continuance of ‘trial flights’ for non-members. The non-member may operate the controls of the model aircraft and does not need to comply with the competency requirements whilst under the direct supervision of a member. The member supervising the flight must be registered as an Operator and display their Operator I.D. on the aircraft.

Never had an issue with any HK Lipos and TBH I suspect that many of the other brands of Lipos that are sourced from some domestic suppliers are similar items merely just badged up with a logo and hiked in price. Comfortingly expensive and all that. Certainly some packs are tested and selected from the mainstream production and then sold as higher performance items, but how much more superior they are versus the extra cost for the average sport flyer, I wouldn't like to say. BTW, have a look on catch up at a recent 'Dispatches' programme entitled The truth about electric cars.......some interesting stuff about the performance claims about EV batteries.

Yes that is 3s.

If the spar and ribs are a snug fit (and in my experience most of the engineered German kits are very precise), then slide everything in place, pin everything down over the (plastic-covered) plan in their exact positions, then zap each joint in turn with thin CA, which will wick right through. A mistake with CA can always be rectified later with CA de-bonder, but this won't be likely if you follow the above sequence. I almost never use medium CA these days, and only use epoxy for high-strength areas (e.g. wing-root joiner tubes or ballast tubes) where gap-filling extra strength is needed. PS - just seen your reply as I was typing mine - go for it! What's the model by the way?

Good lateral thinking, but for a model of this sort - weight, size, fuel residue everywhere - I'd personally prefer an adequate number of hinges buried in balsa, rather than surface-applied film which could lift and deteriorate over time.

Could you use the covering in addition to the cyano hinges, or even instead of?

The BMFA RCC test is not difficult to pass. 40 multi choice questions, you need to get 30 right to pass. You can have as many goes as you like, its completely free, and at the end of the test you get a full list of all the questions and the answers. It couldnt really be much easier and it is certainly nothing that should put people off. In fact I dont think it does, what puts people off is other people telling them its all a big palaver when it really really isn't.

That would do it, Mick Reeves recommends this to stick his epoxy glass skins. And once stuck, you can use them as a wood chopper. The thin cyano would also be good if well fitted. A tight hole, cuts deeper than removed material, would do the job. as in position it, wick the glue in. Phillip is right, get it in position, glue it. Not the other way round.

Cyno will glue to any wood in a flash and you will never be able to break the glue joint so make sure it's definitely in the right place because a second later you won't move it, if you are gluing in say a dowel to take a screw into a carbon tube you need to get it into the tuber real quick and in one smoot motion, the bond is so strong I wouldn't even consider using anything else, if you can glue a couple of spare bits together first and you will see what I mean.

Not my area of expertise SW, they a good fit ? If so i would think medium/thick cyano would do it.

They are 5ft up to 6ft wingspan. You are correct in that I pick a scale that will just fit up the basement stairs and into the car in one piece. The American Army bomber is the six engined 1922 Barling long range Bomber XBNL-l. That one is huge in one piece with a 72” wingspan standing 24” tall. Very interesting history: It bankrupted the manufacturer, had a crew of 7 or 6, was larger and taller that the B17, had 10 landing wheels plus 2 training nose wheels to start, and with six engines could not fly over the Appalachian mountains. All that remains are two enormous wheels in a museum in the US. Let me see if I have some flight video from my friend Chuck. The model is an evil thing to fly for someone like me with medium flying skills. Link to Barling flight with my friend Dave on the sticks.

I don't think its just the RCC test that is "putting off" examiners. (With the potential loss of all that knowledge and experience). As has been discussed on other threads, like it or not the average age of us "flyers" is getting older, not younger. Not everybody is up with the latest computer jargon, and to some it might as well be a foreign language. Putting a stamp on a letter is more or less a thing of the past. Not everybody finds it easy to "https://achievements.bmfa.uk/rcc-upload" etc.etc. Ok, with the help of the younger generation it could probably be completed now and again. But every year?. For what its worth, I think this whole issue is an unneccessary burden, which appears to be already losing valuable examiners.