Jump to content

Peter Jenkins

Members
  • Posts

    2,459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Peter Jenkins

  1. I have a large electric model and using these benches is a problem. First there is little clearance for a 22" prop, second, trying to fit and remove the flight battery is a right fiddle and you get too close to the prop when arming. I use the ground now with my own restraint! Just a thought.
  2. Simon, the idea is to mix rudder to throttle using a curve not just a fixed point. So, as power is increased so is the amount of rudder so that the two work in tandem - in theory. However, as aerodynamic force is proportional to speed squared, one can only really be absolutely right at one airspeed. That's why adjusting engine side and up/down thrust is the best way forward but again this also generally is only perfect around a set airspeed. For most sport aircraft you could probably get away with just mixing whereas in the world of precision aerobatics you would want to go to the absolute maximum that gave you no adverse effects with changes to the level of engine/motor power without any mixes. As you say, it requires experimentation to achieve the optimum results. Agree that there is no substitute for flying the plane but in some disciplines e.g precision aerobatics, you want an aircraft that is the easiest to fly so that you can fly the manoeuvre without needing to compensate for quirks in the model's handling. If you fly a well set up precision aerobatic model, particularly a 2 mtr one, you will find that it is so easy to fly because of the need to fly large complex manoeuvres. However, this is a long way from the OP so it's really a matter of horses for courses.
  3. A mix is an easy way to compensate for insufficient down or side thrust IF the problem is not too great. However, the mix is only good for one speed as the aerodynamic forces change according to the square of the speed. So, if you have adjusted for a set speed as you slow down or speed up the problem will recur as either too much or too little compensation. For that reason, it's best to adjust the side and down thrust to match what's shown on the plan or included in any instructions. That is not the end of the game though! After you fly it you may need to make some adjustments if you want to get the aircraft to be relatively insensitive to pitch change when you apply and reduce power. For side thrust, if you pull the aircraft into the vertical and apply full power if it pulls to the left, increase right thrust and vice versa. For a sport model, getting the adjustment spot on is not needed as it would be for an aerobatic model. What you want to avoid is having large changes in aircraft attitude with changes in power.
  4. Don't know about others, but I would replace a pack with such a gross mismatch in cell resistance. If you are using the pack to deliver its maximum rated current, the resistance of that one cell will drive the power loss in that cell causing it to heat up much more than the rest of the cells and could in the worst cause lead to cell failure and possibly a fire.
  5. It all comes down to how much you pay for your silencer. Stock silencers for petrol engines are a waste of time! Even some cheap canisters don't do the job. There are exhausts that will do an excellent job but they cost well over £100 and will need some room either in or outside the fuselage to be mounted. Krumschied is a make that will sort you but at a cost! As a generalisation, about half the cost of a DLE is needed for good silencing.
  6. Thank you Andy. I should have known better!
  7. Since you flew happily on 35 mHz without an aerial of several hundred kilometers I suspect 41 mHz might have aerials slightly smaller than those used on 35 mHz.
  8. Ah, so asking for a kilo of whatever is the same as asking for 1,000 kilos? That's what you're suggesting mate! An order of magnitude that is 3 orders of magnitude greater is no issue eh? Good work. Keep it up.
  9. My word Pete, having read about GG when it was the latest topic, I'd never ever seen a GG flight. That was quite amazing as regards the degree and smoothness of control. A great watch and a great landing!
  10. Extra Slim - depends on how well it shows up against a completely cloudy sky! Steve Colman - lovely! Both the aircraft and the scenery!
  11. Looks very smart ES. What's the underside pattern? I'm sure that with the CG in a mid position it will fly like a dream. It takes a lot to upset a good aerobatic design. Good luck with the maiden and have fun!
  12. I recently received a review of Edition 2 of my book from Andrew Palmer. Andrew flies in the the New Zealand F3A Aerobatics team and has represented NZ in many World and Continental Championships. He posted this comment on FaceBook and is happy for me to use it here: Interested in radio control aerobatics (or just improving your model setup and flying)? Peter Jenkins (UK aerobatic flying enthusiast) has recently released a second edition of his book "Model Aircraft Precision Aerobatics". This second edition is a book I would thoroughly recommend to anyone starting out in aerobatic flying. It also contains some good words of advice to more experienced pilots. Well done Peter! If you would like a copy you can buy one from Amazon ( in the UK use this link https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B09QN72NVK or just type Model Aircraft Precision Aerobatics into your country Amazon) as either a Kindle (£8.99) or paperback (£24.99) Alternatively, forumites can buy the paperback book from me by sending me a PM to get the process going. For UK based members, the cost will be £18.99 including first class post and packing. I am happy to sell to others in the world but will need to apply the appropriate postage costs.
  13. Looking forward to seeing it in the flesh (balsa?) tomorrow Ron!
  14. There is a good deal more than Amazon's wish to deliver by air. There are pipeline surveys that are currently carried out by full size aircraft, there are environmental controls that could use drones with great success, there are surveys of crop health that can be carried out with greater granularity than space based sensors, there are emergency services that find drones very helpful in getting a better assessment of emergency conditions to name just a few. There is the potential for new aerospace companies to enter the market with new products that may give employment and generate tax revenues as mentioned by MattyB. All of you who are looking at this as a purely model aircraft sport issue have missed the whole point of why governments around the world are trying to get into this market. I'm sorry, but whatever you think about what is offered by the CAA fee you miss the point. We are able to continue to operate much as we did before the whole drone business came up but we have more pressure for use of the lower airspace. Remember that if we fly aircraft that weigh up to 7.5 Kg MAUW, and we (members of the associations) are flying outside a FRA then we are allowed to fly up to the limits of our unaided natural eyesight. I consider that to have been a major coup for the model associations since that was as it was before. Yes, we do have to pay a fee since we have to register ourselves as an operator but that's a miniscule cost when taking all the costs of building, flying and driving to and from the flying field currently costs us. On that note, I shall not be posting on this or any other discussion on the iniquity of this regulation that has been passed by Parliament. It is a complete waste of time. We are all entitled to our views on this forum - I just won't be reading them any more.
  15. Well done Ron. I shall have to get my TF Mustang finished and in the air!
  16. Unfortunately for your argument, both have been in post since Johnson came to power in July 2019. Any model flyer who took an active role in trying to get the best out of the drone laws would have been aware that it was from a meeting with Grant Shapps and the model aircraft associations that Shapps directed the CAA (a part of the DfT) to get together with the model aircraft associations and come up with a sensible solution.
  17. Odd that 4 forumites cannot tell the difference between the roles of the Home Office and Department of Transport.
  18. Had a great time flying with the boys this morning. Mine's the funny looking one with a contra prop!
  19. Don't forget to load that all important tray Geoff!
  20. So the fact that they built a registration system that issues OPID (and pilot ID but not needed for most of us) that allows us to comply with the law of the land, fly at over 400 ft (with no upper limit in controlled airspace provided we maintain line of sight for under 7.5 Kg models - probably 90% of users excl MRs) is not a service. What does the DVLA do? Without a driving licence you cannot legally drive your car but for the vast majority of qualified drivers what other service do they provide? According to your logic they provide no service so we shouldn't bother to pay for them - which we all do via our taxation. If you want to live in a country where anything goes - move to the USA! Ah, yes, they have even more stringent requirements imposed by the FAA in the "land of the free"! Oh, what service does the Treasury provide us? They take money off us - does that count as a service. How about the Foreign Office? I think the jury might be out about what service they provide to the British public! What about the MoD? What service do they offer us model flyers? Mostly, they no longer let us fly our models on their land e.g. no Nats this year. Come on chaps, those of you who think the CAA are out to make our lives difficult are looking at the problem from the wrong direction. Come to think of it, there are loads of organisations that we pay for that don't appear to offer us a service but that comes with being a citizen of this country. We could do a lot worse as current events show us.
  21. If you look around the rest of the world Cuban 8, you will realise that we have got off fairly lightly and that is down to the efforts of the BMFA and its members in making their views known. We live in a world where there are multiple forces acting on the use of lower airspace. The reason I don't see this as "a ridiculous and overblown piece of government bureaucracy" is because of all governments desire to increase the economic activity of their nations while using a technology that has a low barrier of entry unlike traditional aerospace. So, we have a conflict of interest where some big movers wish to make full use of lower airspace for commercial reasons. Easiest solution is to stop those without a voice from continuing as before and clogging up chunks of airspace. However, due to the leadership of the BMFA, and other associations, and support from its membership, we have manage to arrive at a situation that is very much business as usual for 95%+ of members. With a membership of 30,000 or so, the BMFA dwarfs any other air sports organisation in terms of membership. Thankfully, we had a S of S for Transport who actually understands the use of lower airspace even though he only uses it to take off and land. Where would we have been with someone who had no light aviation background? Things could have been a lot worse.
  22. Beautiful day today. Had 5 flights with my Element. A lot more practice needed though!
×
×
  • Create New...