Nigel Heather

I experimented today. Stuck two pieces of light ply to a scrap piece of foam, one using the contact method and one using the traditional glue method. As you said the one with the contact method adhered instantly with no wiggle room and was solid from the moment that the two parts made contact. The one using the traditional method could be slid around for quite a while, and took a lot longer for the glue to cure, I'd say a couple of hours at least, but once it had cured it was as solid as the contact method. So in my finding, the contact method is a lot quicker and allows you to conform the parts to any curves without any pinning, but the grab is instant and does allow any wriggle room. The traditional glue method, allows repositioning, takes much longer to cure and would need pinning to conform to any non-flat shape, but once cured seems just as secure. Guessing the longer cure time is because glue is open to the air.

Out of curiosity, anyone know the science behind contact adhesive. For example I watched a guide on how to use POR to glue a foam former to a foam fuselage side. The suggestion was to apply POR to the edge of the former, offer it up to the fuselage side and then immediately separate the two parts. I guess this was to allow POR to be precisely applied to the fuselage. Then after 10 minutes of drying, offer up the two parts for the final fixing. So what is the science? Why is letting the glue dry before joining more superior than just leaving the parts together in the first place and letting the glue cure with them in-situ? I always imagined that you used contact adhesive when you wanted an instant bond - for example if you were applying foam sheet over a curved turtle deck and you want the foam to conform to the curve and stay put without having to use tape and pins to hold it down. Cheers, Nigel

The Proxxon FET looks interesting but the price makes it a no-go for me, I simply don't have the needs to justify that sort of expense. Must admit I was quite shocked by the price, I was expecting to see something like £200 and even then I'd have to think about it, but £420, that's Bosch or DeWalt territory. Interesting as it looks, I simply can't justify that sort of money for the limited use I would get out of it.

Thanks for the advice - I never realised that you could use UHU POR as a contact adhesive - have always just used as a traditional glue.

Thanks for all the advice. I need to glue light ply plates inside the foam fuselage. The position is important as they have slots that a ply floor for the battery to slide into. Using gorilla glue sounds a bit risky as it would be difficult to hold the plates securely in position whilst the glue cures. So going to go with UHU POR. Cheers, Nigel

Can imagine how a bigger saw handles thicker wood better, but how does it deal with smaller stuff and balsa?

I have some Gorilla glue to, bought for DIY rather than modelling, it is brown but not sure it is the specific one you mean. It is quite runny and expands when it cures - is that the one you mean.

Just watched a YouTube video of the Proxxon KS 230, little underwhelmed to be honest.

Building a battery tray for my Max Flight Ruckus which involves gluing some light ply to the foam - I have UHU POR and two part epoxy - would one be more suitable than the other?

I stand corrected about the Proxxon - still can't comment on how good it is but it does have a toothed belt, and the Magicrose maybe a clone.

From my research I’m not convinced the Proxxon is very different to the Chinese no-name. Seen videos of several models showing the inner workings and they are all similar, a motor driving a belt to the saw. This belt means that they can skip on the protection circuitry because when the torque required is too much the belt slips. Amazon reviews have videos of the Proxxon and the Chinese no-names struggling with thicker materials - in the videos you can see the blade stop but hear the motor still spinning - so the belt must be slipping. The Proxxon has a built in power supply so can be run direct from the mains - this makes the Proxxon wider, but the saw and bed look identical to the no-name models. In fact, Amazon sell the Magicrose Electrical Mini Bench that looks identical to the Proxxon but selling for £60.

Has anyone tried a mini table saw. I’ve seen 12V ones on Amazon and eBay for around the £50-60 mark, lots of different makes but clearly all no-name Far-East stuff, and very similar, probably all the same but with different cosmetic styling. Reviews are so mixed it is difficult to tell whether they are great or rubbish. At that price it is very attractive but I wouldn’t mind paying a little more for a more reputable product. But every time I search all I find is these same Far East products or for bigger ones for doing full size woodworking.

This is what mine looked like to. Andy got the BMFA admins to correct it. I assume that there was a glitch when I renewed and the database didn’t get correctly updated - but the admins were able to rectify it quickly.

I’ve never managed to solve tip clogging, no matter how careful I have been. Best results I’ve found is to stand the bottle upright after use, let the glue settle for a while and then gently squeeze so that it blows air (and presumably, tiny bits of CA), then wipe the spout and put the top on. By no means perfect, but I find that I have a better chance of finding the spout unclogged on next use. But it is not a miracle cure, you will also find the tip clogs on occasions and then it I out with the needed.

Thanks for the ToolStation recommendation - I will check that out. Just had a look, they do two viscosities 20g Medium - £2.08 20g Thick - £2.58 50g Medium - £3.88 50g Thick - £4.88 This is where I usually get drawn into buying the bigger bottles, but from my personal experiences I’m going to stick to the small bottles. They don’t do thin or wicking versions but something I have read, but never tried, is that you can thin CA with acetone or cellulose thinners. Not sure I would risk that on an important airframe but if I wanted a small amount of fast setting thin CA on something not too critical I’d be prepared to experiment.

After years of thinking I was buying the best then having to replace it when more than half full I've finally got fed up of paying big bucks for Zap. Just wondering what you guys recommend - I think the key for me is to buy smaller bottles as I don't use that much. Cheers, Nigel

I have both a specific model gun and a heat stripping gun. I actually got the model one first and then the paint stripping one later when I needed to, errr, strip paint. Personally, although the paint stripping one would probably do the job I prefer the model one because it is smaller and lighter - in fact if it broke I would probably replace it rather than use the paint stripper.

I can confirm that - all displaying correctly now.

There is something wrong with your emails. I sent on Thursday 25th Jan at 18:50 - you say that has never been received I sent on Thursday 25th Jan at 22:36 - you say that went into your SPAM folder I sent the requested screenshot on 27th Jan at 09:26 - you say that you haven't received that Sounds like you have got some systems issues, databases not being updated and emails going missing. Since your email system is clearly broken, here is the screenshot Normally I would see details of the registration such as the expiry date. But the portal is not populated which makes it look like I am not registered with the CAA. I know I am, it just isn't being displayed on the BMFA Portal. Cheers, Nigel

Thanks - I have seen your response and sent the screenshot you requested - BTW my first contact was on Thursday at 18:50 over a day earlier than you say.

So more developments. Today I got an email from CAA that my registration has been renewed. But BMFA portal still shows that I am not registered. Clearly something has gone wrong with their processing Take payment - YES Send confirmation email of registration - YES Send confirmation email of payment - YES Pass information onto CAA - YES Update their database - NO I guess at least I know that it is done, just would be nice if it appeared in the BMFA Portal, otherwise what is the point of the Portal if it can’t be trusted to be accurate. Would be nice to get some sort of response from BMFA. Cheers, Nigel

I'll certainly be doing that next year.

I thought it might have been because I registered directly with the CAA last year but checking back I did it with the BMFA last year - so can't see how there is a problem. Yes email is the same with the BMFA and CAA. What's more not only is my renewal not showing but my current registration has been removed.

Yesterday I got an email from the BMFA advising me that my CAA membership was expiring soon and asking me to renew it. I logged into the BMFA portal and could see my CAA membership which runs to 21st Feb, and just in case I might forget if I left it I decided to renew then and there. I selected the renewal, paid the the fee and got a success message on a couple of emails confirming registration and payment. But when I checked in the portal it no longer shows that I have CAA membership. I left it a day to see if it just needed a few hours to update but still nothing. According to my portal I don't have CAA registration. Anyone else seeing this - I did reach out to BMFA yesterday but haven't heard anything from them yet? Cheers, Nigel

@kcand @EarlyBird Thanks for all the advice - that is very useful. A question about the plans - I have a few ideas myself but would be interest to hear your suggestions. The plan included in RCME is not large enough to show the fuselage in one piece - instead it show the front section (about 750mm) and the rear section (about 350mm). Did you find it necessary to create a single piece fuselage plan, either by cutting and joining the plan (once work on the reverse side has been completed) or making photocopies?