Nigel R

I concur about brand choice, for second hand. End of season, run the engine dry off possible. That's the only after run precautions I ever take. Jons advice is all spot on.

Or use less throttle stick?

I'm just saying what I see Simon; I agree entirely with what you say. Everyone wanted ARTF, so we had ARTF, now ARTF is too expensive for a lot of people and the volume goes down. ARTF were very cheap, artificially I suspect (because various global/political factors which have now changed), and now they are not cheap, and shifting in lower volumes. I agree, a similar problem, but market forces are what they are. Balsa and glow? Perhaps, liteply and petrol. Times change. None of us can predict the future. It will not be so bleak as all that. Just... different. Maybe in 10 years, turbines will cost 1/2 what they do now... 10 years ago, a foamie jet with a tiny turbine was still sci-fi.

Depends. How big is your model? How many servos? What kind of servos? What is the engine - single cylinder 2 stroke? Seven cylinder radial?

I can't see there being much money in small engines. Without money there will be no commercial offerings. There is money where there is mass market, and some where there is expensive fancy sunday bests. The expensive fancy sunday bests are no longer mid-to-large size glow, instead that seems to be big petrols, going up to massive motorbike sized petrol radials for 1/3 scale warbirds, then there are turbines, etc. The mass market in small engines? Might be something with RC cars I guess. Everyone wanted electric. Now we have electric. Electric power makes props turn round but is quite dull. Electric does not have the mechanical beauty of a finely engineered IC. That's ok if you don't really care about the motor as a toy in and of itself; if you simply want to plug in a battery and fly. Not everyone wants a swiss watch, but, anyone who wants to mess about with small engines is the minority and the minority does not get a diverse selection of manufacturers vying for our cash. I also don't see very many on here rushing out buying new small or mid size glow motors (with the exception of some Laser aficionados, although that has now ended, not sure what you guys are going to splash out on now. OS? Saito? Move up to a big Valach? 20cc and up is still dominated by petrol, so that's an indication of what people want, in that size. The 2 strokes are easy enough to operate and probably cost a lot less than electric, following recent price rises on electric clobber. Seems to be a future there.

Not worth messing with it, I would agree with the above posters suggesting getting rid and replacing

Make some hatches in the wing from thin ply, fix some wood blocks to the hatch, mount servo to the blocks. Or some pre-rolled: https://www.elitemodelsonline.co.uk/More/Radio-Equipment/Radio-Accessories/Servo-Mounts/40994-/Micro-Wing-Servo-Mount-2pcs?fo_c=3984&fo_k=582ee6f617e198858da484827152f322&fo_s=gsuruk&srsltid=AfmBOopx3hG4j84BGbo3vgVmwtsCecIvy_U7Z-MjinW5ZodtKAdJm3Adx6E Lots of ways to skin the cat. Or, just fit the upright and let the servo arm stick out into the breeze, this is usually the quickest way.

Not every aviation company is in that place.

I should say, despite what you might think given previous postings, I do find the whole field of manned multirotors interesting. I simply don't think that going off half baked, with people inside these things, over places with people living in them, is the right answer. It isn't 1903, we're not the Wright brothers, this isn't precisely a new field of knowledge we're exploring and discovering, and we do know how to do safety critical engineering.

Because replication and redundancy comes with its own issues, it's not necessarily easy, and in life-or-death scenarios such as this, a glib sales pitch means squat. If there are two spare rotors going up, now you have a problem regarding re-routing power around between the other rotors? You've added complexity to the control systems now. Are the rotors truly redundant? As in, any and all mission scenario is possible with one or two not working or not present? Or "redundant", as in, not really redundant, but you can limp down to the ground without fatal impact? Whatever the answers - taking three copies of multiple systems up into the air is cargo you don't want to be carrying, that's reduced range or time. End of day, I wouldn't say it's extra safety in the slightest - far from it, they're doing this in order to meet basic safety needs of the cert basis. Why repeat a system three times otherwise? Customer pays extra for extra copies. As an aside, and this is a total straw man argument - the kind of language you are seeing from these kind of places is exactly the same as was seen from that ill fated Titantic tourist submarine. At its core, it was a sales pitch of "it's brilliant, because <waves hands like Paul Daniels> technology". They also thought taking multiple copies of mission critical systems onboard was "extra safety", too. And don't even mention the technology (or total lack of) in the hull of that death trap.

Not going to go into much depth but I will say that including the redundant copies of various bits of hardware makes me extremely suspicious of the quality of the parts being duplicated in this manner. Another way of putting it is, they are so certain these critical parts will fail, they are fitting extra ones to take over when it happens. This doesn't feel like a project that is inspiring confidence in its basis for certification.

You cannot (and, nor can I) simply look at a picture and say "I see more redundancy therefore must be safer" because the actual safety and actual engineering behind both those craft is totally invisible to a casual observer, which, I think, is what you and I both are. The real value in any aircraft is in the guarantees that certification provides. Neither of us know what Velocopter have got in the bag so far - although I will note they are late with their TC. Splat. Or more likely, a parachute pops out the top and it lands on the nearest field/person/house. Got it in one. If, and it does look like quite the big if right now, multirotors can beat helicopters as an overall package, then they will win out. And I will fly to my job at the nuclear fusion power plant in one. 😈

The necessity of Certifying a multi rotor for use in anywhere you'd actually want an air taxi will quickly sort out the dreams and reality. We already have multi rotor full size aircraft. Count them on the fingers of one hand. Then compare to the numbers of single rotor helicopters. Minimum viable thing here is basically a Hughes 500. Etc.

Routine emergency does are already a reality. Bunch of horse manure from an mp.

looks great fun!

Well done to all involved with Laser for bringing some true quality engines to our hobby. As the late great Douglas Adams said - so long, and thanks for all the fish.

brilliant bit of kit yes, makes dust, and this needs dealing with (somehow)

Bought an engine. Os40fp i think. It was exactly as described. Pretty sure it was apod i bought a silencer from, it which battered by parcel force, apod did a full refund. Happy customer.

What airframe are we talking about here?

Red case Irvine 40 or 46 would be ideal for the Sky. I'd avoid the older silver case ones, bit of a minefield - although they are good runners, they do not have particularly effective silencers, and many of them have plastic carbs which are not great. The red case ones are a good engine all round, such as: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/166626726799 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/355438298923 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/276354592841

Sounds reassuring. Don't blame you for binning those off. I wonder if New Power will still be around when I've finally worked my way through my sizeable pile of JR 507s that refuse to give up the ghost...

Nice. I almost did a scaled up Chilli instead of the Challenger. Electric or IC?

Recent (ish) build for new, maidened a few weeks ago. Steve Burgess Challenger, 1984 plan in RCME: Power is an OS 61 SFP with a Brian Gardner liner and Macs pipe.

Resistance doesn't dictate their heat rating. The colours on the cards might simply be related to volt range for driving them? Or as Paul says, cold might be blue etc.