Jump to content

Tony Harrison 2

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Tony Harrison 2's Achievements



  1. Andy, when I offered the opinion here recently that the magazine isn't terribly good, and that I was a member chiefly for the insurance, it was pointed out to me that BMFA performs a valuable service at national level, fighting their corner on behalf of model aircraft flyers. This is a fair point, and I'm grateful. But I'd say BMFA is reasonable value - not "excellent". It would be better value without the magazine - and a reduced annual sub. On receipt of my mag copy, I flip through it when I have a moment, admire one or two pictures of models, then it's recycled. As a fairly new (returned) modeller I find almost nothing in it I want to read. I hasten to add that I hardly ever buy commercial mags like RCME! But that's because I hardly ever buy any magazines, barring The Spectator or sometimes The Economist... Shockingly expensive, and again, modelling mags have very little content relevant to my interests. Re the BMFA website, when I renew each year I find the site consistently rather weird, logging on via this strange third party - it's not the most intuitive site, somewhat clunky. rgds Tony
  2. Thanks Peter, but as a freelance photographer and journalist, I'm retired - and I have far too much going on in my life to take on what you suggest! In the past I edited (voluntarily) the magazine of a national angling club, and it took up a lot of my time - in fact a big chunk of my spare time. As a tyro I doubt my input would be well received anyway - and I spend a few months each year abroad... I'm glad you appreciate the BMFA magazine, but I don't think it's terribly good, and it's not why I got back into aero-modelling after a very long time away. rgds Tony
  3. Peter, thanks - I'm actually aware of the value of the BMFA in the respects you mention, and I didn't mean to belittle it. I was trying simply to emphasise my comparative lack of interest in the magazine, other finctions of the BMFA being in my view considerably more important. My post was really about the magazine, and my opinion of its quality. rgds Tony
  4. Off the top of my head... The feel of the mag is old fashioned and although I'm over 70 myself, sometimes I think it's aimed at average readers even older than me! Lots of historical photos & articles with pics of Fred Bloggs flying his steam-powered Clodhopper in 1947 - that kind of thing. The fairly regular coverage of social events with elderly/old blokes in DJs handing one another trophies and certificates - it's not the sort of thing I ever associated with flying model aeroplanes, frankly, and I don't want to read about it. (I did buy a DJ myself in the 1970s, a cunning plan to impress a girl. Never wore it after 1978...) The amateurish and deeply unamusing cartoon inside the front page - if nothing more professional and funny is available, scrap it. I've done lots of writing (freelance) and editing in my time - many of the articles are too long, disjointed, and badly need editing. I mean, people lament that too few youngsters get into this hobby, and it could be that one look at the magazine helps to put them off - despite there being a few pictures of young modellers. Added to that, the mag seems very definitely aimed at long-experienced modellers - those old blokes in DJs, probably - and much of it passes over my head since I hadn't built a flying model aircraft in around half a century when I joined BMFA. There could be fewer photos - but bigger images spread across big chunks of the page, maybe a full DPS even, good quality images too. Yes, I'm a former pro photographer and not everyone can produce the goods, but there are an awful lot of modellers out there with good cameras producing huge file sizes, so... The technical articles tend to be esoteric, specialised - need more "intro to" articles, covering basics, features on individual model builds - that sort of thing. I could go on, but...
  5. Interesting - I wonder when that was, what sort of questions were asked, and what the figures were?
  6. I'm sure you're right - but I doubt I'm the only one who finds the mag disappointing and/or a waste of time. It really is out of date, old fashioned, clunky, dull and amateurish. It might be interesting to survey the membership on the subject.
  7. On the contrary, EB, everything's looking rosy. I'm just curious to know what you think is the reason or justification for the magazine. I can see perfectly well that a really good mag would be an asset - but I don't think it's good.
  8. Neither of these is obviously true in my opinion, and I'm not sure what you mean by "what's going on" - unless it's shows, open days etc? In general I find neither the magazine nor the occasional BMFA emails informative - at least, no information that I want or need. And my post was at least half concerned with the actual quality & style of the mag, not simply the existence of a mag for BMFA members. I'm sure others enjoy and appreciate the magazine, as you clearly do, but I just don't think it's terribly good.
  9. Speaking as a tyro flyer I have to say that frankly, I find the BMFA mag dull and hardly ever useful. I wonder what proportion of the BMFA membership appreciates, values or enjoys the magazine? I wonder by how much the sub could be reduced by ditching the magazine? I belong purely for the insurance and because my club requires it. If the magazine was better - and I've worked professionally with many magazine titles, UK and abroad - it might provide added value to membership, but really, it's hopelessly old fashioned and amateurish.
  10. Mine has just died! Bought it several years ago from Maplin Electronics, now unfortunately defunct. Where to get a replacement... Agreed,an ultrasonic is ideal for cleaning airbrush components, though I found a good scouring beforehand is necessary, and warm water plus a drop of detergent, with multiple repeat sessions. Tony
  11. I really wouldn't try to save money by using domestic acrylic paints from B&Q. It's a different beast from the very fine specialist paints from top modelling-paint producers. I use Vallejo and find it a consistently excellent product. Should explain that while building static plastic aircraft & car kits, and venturing into airbrushing, it took me a long time to get sorted! Maybe I was a slow learner, but I struggled; now of course it's a doddle: use disposable plastic 3ml pipettes (Ebay) to dribble acrylic into the airbrush cup, add maybe 10-20% water (filtered, or purefied for preference), then a single drop of Rowney's flow enhancer (from art supply shops), mix thoroughly, works fine. I've tried thinning with isopropyl alcohol, and windscreen washer fluid, found no advantage over good pure water. Re airbrushes, I also advise against trying to save a few quid by buying el-cheapo Chinese knock-offs of quality models. Been there, done that, waste of time and money. Cheap rubbish doesn'tproduce results and will drive you to distraction. I have three Japanese Iwatas, 2 x HPC-Plus and an older, smaller, HPB. Shop around for best deal: I bought a couple from Thailand at good prices, and another s/h on Ebay. Clean them religiously and they'll work really well. Hope this helps, good luck! Tony
  12. HK Bixler pusher-prop foamy trainer, flown a very few times only, in very good flyable condition with usual minor dings – see pics. (An attraction for me was the ready availability of cheap replacement fuselage and wings, in case of accidents.) I was confused from the start about designation! Not sure if it's a Mk1 or Mk2, or an amalgam of these – it came originally from HobbyKing in the Netherlands. I found it a little too light for my personal taste, but that quality will appeal to others. Just needs your choice of receiver and 3S battery. Note the saddle clamp things on the upper wings: these are my replacement wing-mounting system, in preference to the ally machine screws provided; the plastic pegs in the poly bag are used with a large rubber band stretched across the fuselage, hold wings firmly in place but would give a little in case of a crash. It hasn't been crashed! I could pack this and post, but it would be rather bulky, not sure how much postage would be.Would prefer collection from near Totnes in S.Devon – and I make trips occasionally to Oxfordshire via Bristol, heading that way in a very few days' time, minor detour might be acceptable. £60 payable in cash or via PayPal, plus post & packing if that's necessary. Message me here for more details. rgds Tony
  13. I have an electrified Arising Star, fitted for its initial trials with a prop 11x5.5 - I have in reserve, or if found to be necessary, additional props 11x7 and 11x8. This is an interesting thread! Wish I'd come across it earlier, as one of those older (70+) newbie flyers who's made very slow progress so far in getting into the air... (In addition to what might be poor aptitude & age, I move between England and France so no continuity, have unfortunately lost a couple of experienced guys who started to train me, and English winter weather is just so atrocious there's rarely any point in visiting the field. Most of my training has taken place in France, during the sunny months - thanks David!) But I bought an Arising Star in good nick (except for the seized-up OS46!) which had been in someone's attic for a dozen years, and have electrified it. The CoG seems spot on, and I look forward to getting it into the air, with an experienced chum and buddy lead. Its significant weightiness gives me confidence - earlier in this thread someone mentioned beginners having difficulties with light foamy so-called "trainers" and that has been exactly my experience. I hate planes that get blown around by every tiny gust, very nerve racking and irritating. In fact I hate windy weather in general... Much of the aerodynamic argument here passes me by, but I like the look and feel of my Arising Star, hope it works for me. rgds Tony (pic shows Arising Star as it was, unaltered - will post another pic here in a while showing the modified plane, redesigned nose for electric, bigger wheels...)
  14. Hi David, and thanks - sorry for my belated reply but I've only just seen your helpful comment! I couldn't be bothered to drive ten miles to the shop, then wait an indefinite period for a replacement to arrive - so I epoxied it together again. It works fine, very useful. Best, Tony
  • Create New...