Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 25/02/22 in all areas

  1. IMO This is going to end up with a short comment and then a very long winded qualifying statement to put the comment into context. At that point just refer to the BMFA examiner guidance notes for clarity. Or carry on splitting hairs ?
    3 points
  2. Indeed, the guidelines state (my emphasis): "Whatever model is brought by the candidate it must be suitable to fly the manoeuvres required by the test they are taking. It is a common misconception that the candidate for the 'B' Certificate needs to fly an 'aerobatic model'. In fact the test can be performed with most powered fixed wing models. The options allowed in the test mean that even a three channel trainer can cope if well trimmed and flown. Having said this, on no account may the candidate use the performance of the model as an excuse for a poor performance on their part. For instance, a candidate flying a three channel model through the rolling manoeuvres accurately deserves the credit but one who makes a mess of the rolls with the same type of model cannot say that it is the fault of the model. You should make no allowances on this point. You do not have the authority to alter the required manoeuvres to suit a model and if, in your opinion, the model is unsuitable for the test then you should explain this to the candidate and tell them that they cannot use that model. The selection of the model to do the test is the responsibility of the pilot and it is they you are testing, not the model. Similarly, the type of model presented cannot be used as an excuse for not completing certain manoeuvres. A pilot cannot turn up with a twin, for instance, and then say that the spin is too dangerous because the model would not pull out of it. Another important point to remember is that the candidate is not expected to build or even own the model they use. There is no reason why a flyer who does not own a suitable model could not borrow one from a friend or club mate."
    2 points
  3. All the woodwork has been completed with the fitting of the cabin roof and shaping of the nose. Also another small milestone has been achieved: first fitting of the engine. I knew that 8BA box spanner I bought 40-odd years ago would come in handy again: We're now ready for the first coats of dope to be applied...
    1 point
  4. I`m on top, more changes here than on track. ?
    1 point
  5. Yaaaay. Finally got out for a few hours. Was at the field for 3 hours - flew my Foamy Wots Wot once and my Arrows Viper once. About 20 mph wind..... Spent most time watching my mate flying his Wot4XL. As soon as I started to pack up, the wind dropped by about 50%. Darn those weather-gods! Going to take my Ultra-Stick to the field to fettle the engine tomorrow..... will pop wings in car "just in case"
    1 point
  6. Surprised to report that sales of my book (Kindle and paperback) have now passed 600 world-wide. Way beyond my expectations!
    1 point
  7. I am in, ready to prop up the bottom again. ? But for now I am on top.
    1 point
  8. I am inclined to agree - it may have been stalled initially, but it shouldn't have been in that dive given the rate of spiral appeared fairly low (for a model of that type). If it was an HK Radjet I believe they have the dreaded foam hinges; fine at the start, but they always go eventually....
    1 point
  9. No problem. Oak, Mahogany, Beech, Spruce.
    1 point
  10. Not on my screen you're not John..... ?
    1 point
  11. I am in....I am already at the top of the league ?
    1 point
  12. Nice job, EB, you're making good progress.
    1 point
  13. For anyone interested I have found another reasonable solution. A clubmate has lent me a set of Forstner drill bits. They make a superb, clean circle which is almost flat-bottomed, with just a small indentation in the middle of the recess.
    1 point
  14. Yes I moved it up parallel to maintain the same incidence. The tailplane incidence and relative wing incidence are very important and must be built as the plan. Interestingly I usually look for a reference line but on this one there isn't an obvious one going from front to back but the uprights are all parallel and at right angles to the cabin windowsill and floor. The tailplane is the same, at right angles to the uprights. Whereas the wing seat has a slight positive incidence. So working on the basis that the designer knew more than me this is one thing I will never change. Well I might once I have test flown the model. John, Have I convinced you to do the same? ???
    1 point
  15. Oh dear this is turning into a real quagmire of misunderstanding. I wouldn't ever pass someone who can't meet the minimum standard as judged my myself and the other examiner. but it's just easier to pass the test with some models than others 'nuf said.
    1 point
  16. Due to the unfortunate demise of a very good friend recently, I have been gifted a Taranis Tx. He was familiar with Frsky, etc, and the radio seems to work, but how he got it to work is a complete mystery. Anyway, as I am an old dinosaur, the likes of Frsky and Open Tx are completely alien territories to me. I have just read through this thread (yes, sad isn't it...) and have come to the realisation that I am completely out of my depth with these "self service" systems. For example, I haven't got a clue about any of the following terms: ACCESS ISRM. Ethos. XJT-Lite. MPM. LUA. OTA. GitHub. DJT Module . PARA. ACCST. BETA. NDA. RSSI. OTX/Edge. DUAL BOOT. Firmware + hardware. It's a whole new language. Best of luck to all you guys who understand all this stuff, BUT.... I think that the Taranis will stay in its case, and I shall continue with my Spektrum radios which, when switched on, just work.... and work brilliantly, without brain damage.
    1 point
  17. Really? I didn’t think that was in the ‘testing’ criteria / examiner guidelines.
    1 point
  18. I really like mine, it is what the X12S should have been. LUA adds a whole new dimension to the TX. I also thought I would not need it, as I used them seldom if ever on my X12S but I am converted. A big shout out to those who can code them so that us mere mortals can enjoy them. Setting them up is a breeze and not at all complicated. Many of them also work on the X12 and X10 with the ISRM upgrade or the Express model of the X10. Please someone develop one for the SMModelbau Unisens-E If you go down the route of the Tandem receiver, you will also need to update the RF firmware to the latest 2.2.0 as this adds support for TDR18. The Tandem RX will also need a firmware update. OTA updates are simple once the RX is Registered and bound. Like my other FrSky TX I keep a copy of the latest files on the SD card to make things simple. Always test your settings after an update. I have found no issue`s with the process.
    1 point
  19. My experience of flying wing types is get them into a spin they tend to stay there. The aircraft in the video looks to me to go into more of a spiral dive than a spin.
    1 point
  20. difficult to say because of the distance, but it could be failure of control surface or servo. What type of model was it?
    1 point
  21. Absolutely agree with you Cuban 8. As for the folk who like to fly inverted at 6 in off the ground - best of luck but I won't be following in your footsteps. I fly F3A competitively, and while practicing one day, my clubmate said that it all looked very boring. I replied that it required a great deal of concentration and a lot of practice to make it look boring! He said a knife edge pass at 10 ft would look fantastic. Against my better judgement(!), I flew a KE pass at 10 ft - the aeroplane was rock steady - as it always is - and the only issue was my nervousness at risking my competition bird doing this silly stunt. My clubmate thought it was fantastic and raved about how good it looked for ages. I said it required very little skill to fly that type of manoeuvre but a lot of nerve! What does that tell us? Show flying and competition flying are 2 quite different things. As a full size aerobatic pilot (he was in the GB team) told me, he gets rave reviews for flying air shows that require a moderate degree of precision and he gets paid for it. Fly in a competition and he has to pay an entry fee and gets told how badly he flew when he was flying to a much higher standard. The difference is that for the average club modeller who has little or no experience of precision aerobatics, flashy flying low down to a lowish standard of accuracy is far preferred to watching competition flying where a much higher standard of flying (e.g. centre means exactly on centre, roll rates to be exactly the same etc) is on display. In my experience, where pilots have not thought through what they want to fly before getting airborne we have a recipe for disaster. At least if you have considered the manoeuvres you are going to fly you should think them through and consider what might happen if things go wrong and what to do if they do go wrong. Preparation for what you are about to fly and staying ahead of the aircraft are 2 good ways to avoid the black bag syndrome! Those are great learning points to take from the B Certificate and keep with your for the rest of your flying days.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...