John Emms 1

Thanks Simon, PicaSim is now set up. The "secret" was to scroll down in joystick to the individual controls, and that down on pitch is down stick, and not down elevator. Thanks again All, John

Thanks Trevor, I already had the cables on order, and I had little difficulty in setting up two virtual trainers for Sandra. I am not sure if the tiniest spot of Vaseline for the pins helped with insertion, but so far so good with the cables. Setting up the Futaba for PicaSim appears to be a little more complex though. Thanks for the help, John

Thanks Simon, The cables are on order, so fingers crossed. Thanks again, John

So, my wife is now serious about learning to fly. A super strong thermal ate her Orion-E (we got the bits back), and we have moved onto the superb Ares Gama Pro (seriously). Searching for a sim to work with our old PC (Windows 8.1, Intel Core 3.3GHz, 4GB RAM) left me baffled, and given recommendations on here, I downloaded PicaSim. I have got the trainer flying using the mouse, but we really need to hook up a transmitter. We would like to use a Futaba T6EXA with the square 6 pin trainer socket. Could anyone please advise me on what I need to buy? And where to buy it? Thanks, John And yes, PicaSim looks superb.

An MVVS 40 would be supplied with an ICU-L that is intended for use with 2s LiPo. The lead looks like it may have a tiny component under the heatshrink, but it may simply be a spacer for the leads on the LED. MVVS can, of course, advise (keep the e-mail in simple English). The LED lead is available as a spare, so MVVS dealers should be able to get it, and MVVS should be able to supply directly. Hope that helps, John

Posted by PatMc on 11/05/2020 21:39:18: Posted by John Emms 1 on 11/05/2020 11:37:42: From memory, the first motors to have the repositionable shaft were the HET motors, but they were not particularly well made IMHO, or particularly efficient, but I believe they set the expectation for reversible shafts. Ales Pelikán, the owner of Model Motors, glued the shafts into AXi motors (not personally!) to maintain accuracy and efficiency. We bought static display motors that looked perfect, but did not meet the spec for accuracy, and would have been down on efficiency, if they ran at all. Mr Palická, the AXi designer, moved to HVP (that had been the Czech state ARTF producer), to develop his design ideas, and the product of that were the HVP Roton motors (an outrunner with the shaft supported at both ends in a case). I also saw Mr Palická producing prototypes for an outrunner motor in a spinner, to take a pair of folding blades. I believe that the culmination of Mr Palická's design work came at MVVS, where the Roton ideas were developed with a move back to motors where all the parts could be replaced (in common with all of his earlier brushed motor designs). And the point? During engine training at MVVS, I was told, yes, they supply replacement shafts, but the motor may not be so efficient after the shaft has been replaced.... Yes, Puffin Models, and perhaps that level of service coupled with low margins (not peddling low cost motors as premium quality) is the reason why I am back teaching (including the use of hand tools to an accuracy of 0.06mm), and Sandra is now a Qualified Nursing Assistant. For the future? We have outline plans for a move to Houston, TX. Do take care Y'All John I see no explanation in this as to why the replacement of a shaft in a motor is so difficult that it is likely to degrade it's performance. Speaking from experience I've never had any problems with the several motors that I've reversed shaft on. Shame you backed the wrong horse in your Puffin business venture John. Good luck for the future. Take care, Pat. We bought static display motors that looked perfect, but did not meet the spec for accuracy, and would have been down on efficiency, if they ran at all. During engine training at MVVS, I was told, yes, they supply replacement shafts, but the motor may not be so efficient after the shaft has been replaced.... Hope that helps, John

From memory, the first motors to have the repositionable shaft were the HET motors, but they were not particularly well made IMHO, or particularly efficient, but I believe they set the expectation for reversible shafts. Ales Pelikán, the owner of Model Motors, glued the shafts into AXi motors (not personally!) to maintain accuracy and efficiency. We bought static display motors that looked perfect, but did not meet the spec for accuracy, and would have been down on efficiency, if they ran at all. Mr Palická, the AXi designer, moved to HVP (that had been the Czech state ARTF producer), to develop his design ideas, and the product of that were the HVP Roton motors (an outrunner with the shaft supported at both ends in a case). I also saw Mr Palická producing prototypes for an outrunner motor in a spinner, to take a pair of folding blades. I believe that the culmination of Mr Palická's design work came at MVVS, where the Roton ideas were developed with a move back to motors where all the parts could be replaced (in common with all of his earlier brushed motor designs). And the point? During engine training at MVVS, I was told, yes, they supply replacement shafts, but the motor may not be so efficient after the shaft has been replaced.... Yes, Puffin Models, and perhaps that level of service coupled with low margins (not peddling low cost motors as premium quality) is the reason why I am back teaching (including the use of hand tools to an accuracy of 0.06mm), and Sandra is now a Qualified Nursing Assistant. For the future? We have outline plans for a move to Houston, TX. Do take care Y'All John

Unfortunately, people are going to incredibly frustrated by this post: I know there have been articles, and it appears some have been successful in doing this, but never attempt to reverse the shaft on an outrunner motor. I would suggest that if someone cannot afford the radial mount set, then they most certainly can't afford to take the risk of wrecking a motor. A quality motor will have the shaft firmly assembled to the rotor, the whole assembly checked for true, and may be balanced. A quality motor could have this glued together to make sure nothing moves (the forces are incredible). Reversing the shaft risks damage to the motor, and if it is achieved the rotor could be slightly out of line, reducing motor efficiency, if it runs at all. It would be fair to say that I have a decent motor collection, but if I did not have a suitable motor, I would simply buy one that was suitable, rather than risk wrecking a motor. I also think it would be fair to say that I know a little bit about electric motors..... I hope that has not frustrated TOO many readers. Take care in these days, John

Hi All, I happened to be chatting with the deputy chair of the local Conservatives this morning (we were both laying wreaths for the local parties), and he is also a Chipping Sodbury Town Councillor. I mentioned about the history of model flying in Chipping Sodbury, the fact that the official site on the Common is inaccessible, and the Ridings says that "drones" are banned. I also said that I am a model flying instructor, qualified to fly at public displays, and that if I flew one of my models over now, he would not hear it. I also spoke of the social advantages to older people, and that I have never known of a model flyer developing dementia (Dementia prevention and dementia friendliness being a big thing right now). He said that there is a Town Council meeting this week, and he will mention it. Whilst not wanting to step on the local club's toes, I see real possibilities of flying "sensible" electric models on accessible areas of the Common, and on the Ridings when it is not being used for other purposes, as a part of the Chipping Sodbury club. So, if you are a model flyer who lives in (or close to) Chipping Sodbury and Yate, please do get in touch. Regards, John

Yes, and the DB kits. I built the Moth 40 that is now their electric demo - way over 25 years ago!

I am STILL building my GP Electricub, the kit for which certainly suffered as a result of a start to laser cutting parts - take that as it having been hard work... I have flown a couple of Flair Cubs, which with their semi-symmetrical wing, handle less than smooth air well. The Flair Cubs I flew had OS FP and LA 40s, and that was a perfect package, so pretty much any 4S LiPo electric system using up to 12" props will be fine. I am on the lookout for a Flair Cub with the lighter built up wing for exactly this. There are some new Chinese built up Cub kits that are specifically electric, and look quite nice - on the web..... I have built a few Sig kits, and they are all first class. The older Sig Cubs, being lightweight designs from the 70s and 80s, are perfect for electric conversion. Good luck! John

I have a ready to cover GP Electricub 2. I have taken out the Cub Yellow film, and was about to start. But for a variety of reasons, I would like to finish it as a military Cub, and for a number of personal reasons, ideally a US military Cub. I could convert it to a L4, but I would prefer to leave it as a J3. There are the camouflage airship squadron finishes, but I would prefer to avoid the mess of spraying (picky, I know!). What about the trainer schemes? Were there any all yellow military trainers? What about the standard trainer scheme of yellow wings and blue fuz - was the J3 too late into service for that? Were there really any with base coat silver wings and yellow fus? BTW I have cub yellow, silver, and mid blue film here. And I have a technique for making film US Army Air Force markings. All comments and advice VERY welcome! John

For my 60th birthday, I was bought an "Experience Day", a flight in a Tiger Moth. To cut an extremely long story short, Sandra and I finally arrived at Eaglescott Airfield **LINK** on Friday evening. I expected this to be very much an air cadet type experience, but how wrong I was - this was a full experience evening, for only Sandra and I! We arrived to find the Tiger safely behind the hangar doors, waiting for the wind to die down. We were waved down to the hangar by Barry Pearson, and the reason was for Sandra (now 62), and I to roll the aircraft out of the hangar. Time and space was allowed to take the obligatory photos and video, and then it was time for me to be shown how to enter the front cockpit safely, have the pre-flight briefing (including the operation of the controls), and check coms. It is rude of me not to remember the name of the lady who is hugely privileged to be the owner of this Moth, but she and Barry worked together to start the engine, while I held the stick firmly back against the pressure of the spring that provides the elevator trim. The engine started on the third "flick". I was aware that we would need to wait for engine warm up, but very soon, we were taxiing over the iron age mound, and out to the runway. The take off appeared to be without drama. Barry said we would simply accelerate, and then elevate, and that was exactly what happened. After a short climb to height, Barry took me through some exercises using elevator and aileron, and I was then flying for the rest of a guided sight seeing trip over beautiful countryside. Those who know me are very aware that popular culture passed me well by, so I did not know of the personalities mentioned (other than Vera Lynn who signed the aircraft), and the main point was, I enjoyed flying the aircraft. I have flown Chipmunk, Kirby Cadet glider, Sedberg glider and Blanic (the gliders solo). I found the Blanic extremely heavy on the controls, and frankly, hard work. The Moth is in complete contrast, extremely light on the controls, responsive, and extremely stable, staying just in the attitude it was left (either straight and level, or in a turn). The way to fly the Moth appears to be just like I would fly a Super 60 type model, with very light touches of control to guide it to the attitude required. I did some turning exercises, and I am not sure if that was to position for the sight seeing, or break up the straight and level. I flew the Moth through the circuit (and a little turbulence as we got lower) after Barry adjusted the throttle. After landing, it was time to unbuckle and climb out (leaning back to avoid the centre section), and help put the aircraft away. It is fantastic that people keep these old aeroplanes flying, and I very much appreciate this Moth being made available for others to enjoy. This was an incredible experience that I will never forget. Lessons learnt? For those who can afford it, it is well worth the cost and effort, and an incredible evening. I would book directly with the venue, and cut out the experience company. For those wanting the sight seeing experience, I am told it is well worth having the 40 minutes to fly along the coast, but the 30 minutes of flying the aircraft out to the coast and back was what I really appreciated. For those who can't pull the aircraft out, don't worry, there are three people there for Moth flights. Barry absolutely makes this a special evening, and if I ever want to do a PPL, I want Barry to be my instructor. I did ask Sandra if she would like to own half a Tiger Moth, but unfortunately she has ideas of owning a Mustang in the sun (I am told that I can borrow it). Perhaps Sandra has a point, the Mustang doesn't need a large hangar to store it, two people to start it, or three people to pull it out before the engine can be started. Enjoy!

Posted by john stones 1 on 09/06/2018 10:46:17: Same here, we have dead areas either end, so if you mess up a little it's no biggie, gradually we taught/encouraged landing parallel and dealing with crosswinds, rudder/elevator models or other types affected badly by the breeze, pilots less able or confident ? a solution is there so you can fly n enjoy your day, it's not gonna be aiming at the crowd line though. John, I am assuming that you are quite competent in using the rudder during cross wind landings, though I don't need to (until the last couple of seconds) using my method. The way to check if the crosswind issue with rudder elevator models is down to the pilot is to try it yourself with an old rudder elevator model. I guarantee that you will suddenly become one of the less competent pilots. It is said that rudder elevator models rely on the secondary effect of rudder ie yaw is followed by roll, but from observing the effect with a number of rudder elevator models, I am convinced that it is the dihedral that presents one wing at a higher aoa to the oncoming air when the model is yawed, and that it is the higher aoa that results in the roll for turn. This argument is supported by the fact that a model without dihedral will simply yaw with rudder, and not roll. The issue with cross wind take off with a R/E model is that immediately you are presenting one wing at a higher aoa, so as soon as the model is lifting off the ground there will be a very strong roll, and most times, that will result in the model rolling into the ground. The same is true on landing, because as soon as the model is on the ground, it then has one wing presented at a higher aoa, and in a good cross wind, it will roll and crash. The good R/E pilot will make sure that the model is facing directly into wind for take off, and in a decent breeze, will need to land directly into wind - learnt over many years of getting it wrong. Of course, if the flying of ANY model would result in over flying a crowd line, or pits area, then the thing to do is simply not fly that model at that time. Regards, John

Perhaps I should expand on my earlier post. My usual method for cross wind landing is to set the model up so that the nose is pointing into wind, with the result that the track of the model in relation to the ground is along the runway. When about to touch down, the model is "kicked" with a "boot full" of rudder, to be pointing along the runway just before the wheels touch. I am sure that is how I was taught when gliding in the '70s. I have one model that must approach as slow as possible, touch down at the threshold, and can take most of the length of the runway to slow down. One day I was flying circuits using my normal method, and also having some success in keeping the wings level, and adjusting the track using rudder, but commented to an airline pilot stood next to me that I preferred my normal method of flying the model into wind so the resultant track is down the runway. The comment I got back was "Yes, I prefer that method with full size too." There has to be some understanding that rudder/elevator models MUST take off into wind, because the cross wind, or yaw component is what results in the roll for turn - but these models tend to be small, light, and quickly out of the way. I also have a light aileron model (TopModel Antic) that is a danger to itself if there is an attempt to take off cross wind - but, pointing into wind, it is safely off the ground within a couple of metres, and turning into circuit shortly after. BUT I wait until the runway is quiet, I ask if others are happy for me to take off across the narrow runway, and I am mindful of others. I spend no less time in the pilot's box than anyone taking off along the runway. Have a great day! John