Simon Burch 1

Yes and no Grumpy. Certainly, on thermal gliders with polyhedral or curved wings, using rudder and elevator only (perhaps with spoilers too) can save weight and complexity, and their inbuilt stability can make them easier to fly. On a slope soarer though, ailerons can offer more positive control, and there are a number of aileron-elevator slope soarer models around (eg flying wings; Balsacraft/SLEC Coyote). It depends upon what you want out of your model.

Nigel, if you do choose to rebuild the Aerobat, I'd recommend moving the tailplane from the bottom of the fuselage to the top. It's an easy modification; it looks better, it brings the tailplane into closer alignment with the wing, and it gives better ground clearance (our 'patch' is quite rough). In this configuration, I've been unable to spin my Aerobat without holding on full control deflection and, so far, I've not lost control (I built it 2 years ago). Also, I'd recommend building it with individual servos for each aileron and a bolt-on wing. It took time to get the flying set-up right; in particular, I found that I needed to move the CG some way aft of the plan position to achieve decent aerobatic handling. Maybe it's not as good in the air as a more modern design, but it does reward time and effort. I'm sure I've seen a thread dedicated to an Aerobat build somewhere else on this forum.

Yes Brian - I think that's the case, and I certainly agree that, with 2.4GHz kit, it's safer to take your TX with you when retrieving an electric model (with throttle cut selected and throttle held closed). The following extract from the current BMFA Handbook 13.3 appears to confirm this view: (p) When using 35mHz care must be taken at all times to avoid overflying operating transmitters. Pilots should stand together and should not be allowed to wander over the flying area when operating transmitters. If an TX is taken onto the landing area there is, perhaps, a greater chance of it being overflown. Apparently, this could cause problems with 35MHz kit.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating 'going it alone'. At best, that's a recipe for frustration; at worst, it's dangerous. However, in my experience beginners who fly a powered glider, rather than a standard 4-channel powered trainer, usually progress more rapidly to the point where they can practise safely without an instructor. This can be particularly important if the club doesn't have many instructors. Certainly, despite our best efforts, my club has a chronic shortage of instructors, and this is frustrating for beginners who want to fly at a time of their choice. It's during this 'solo' practise phase that the minor mishaps I mentioned are most likely to occur.

I'll stick my neck out here and suggest that the easiest (if perhaps not the best) way into RC might be to use a good PC-based RC simulator, and a flat-field foamie electric glider (eg Radian or similar). In my experience, the two main reasons for an 'early finish' to a flying training session are undercarriage damage and prop damage. With no undercarriage and a folding prop, an electric glider is less vulnerable to these issues. Types with over-wing mounted pusher props are even better in this respect; in this configuration, the motor and prop are well protected. Foam construction seems to be more forgiving when it comes to the inevitable mishaps, and field repairs are, I think, easier. With gliders, things tend to happen a little more slowly than they do with a standard 4-channel trainer; this gives the flyer more time to think and react. As he or she gains experience, a glider also offers the chance of extended flights. Properly used, an RC sim should enable the beginner to get the hang of the controls and, perhaps most importantly, left/right orientation before taking to the air. I hasten to add that I didn’t learn to fly like this......I'm from the old-fashioned build-fly-crash-rebuild-repeat school. I don't recommend that.

I built an Aerobat in 2022, having had the plan filed away in the loft for 27 years. I made similar modifications to yours, but use a 3S 3300, which gives 420W with a Graupner 10x6 CAM Slim Prop and 400 with the APC equivalent. It's a bit lardy at 3lbs 7oz, but still has vertical performance on a full charge. Its maiden flight ended up in the poo - literally....

Leccy, you're absolutely right. For what its worth, I advise new flyers to learn the answers to the BMFA's 'Mandatory 20 Questions', even if they hold an RCC, and test themselves every month or so (it only takes a few minutes to scroll through). That helps to maintain a good knowledge of the most important aspects of Article 16. None of this is too onerous.

You're right, and I'm not sure that RID is the only problem. As I see it, if geo-fencing becomes a msndatory requirement too, it would effectively mandate an autopilot as well as RID equipment. Merry Christmas!

Andy, you're right - 'clear the airspace' is the wrong term. Perhaps 'control the airspace' would be more appropriate - ie 'you can only fly here if you carry certain equipment and comply with certain rules'. That's how controlled airspace currently works. To my mind, what the CAA's proposals do is, effectively, extend controlled airspace-type regulation (specifically rules and equipment) into airspace that is currently uncontrolled, and to apply those controls to aircraft types that are presently subject to minimal regulation. We'll have to accept some of that. As you rightly say, we need to do our best to ensure that: 'whatever proposals are implemented are proportional and pragmatic so we can carry on our activities with as little impact as possible'.

Interesting point - I wonder what the statistics are regarding that? My own full-size flying background is in helicopters, which are usually smaller than commercial aircraft and fly comparatively slowly. Birdstrikes were a fairly regular occurance; I experienced one at low speed - around 40kts - which is a typical drone or model aircraft speed. Birds were certainly a hazard for us slow-movers in the low-level environment, and I'm sure the same would apply to UAS. I don't remember any collisions with model aircraft, although there were certainly some airprox incidents. Model flyers could hear us coming, and the overwhelming majority moved out of the way quickly. That might have changed now.

I agree - clearing lower airspace for government and commercial UASs is, I'm sure, one of the CAA's aims. Of course, the CAA can ban us, confine us to reserved areas and/or mandate RID and electronic conspicuity. However, it can't ban birds. Hundreds of canada geese live near our flying site, and they are big. I understand that they can weigh in excess of 3kg. Even a pigeon (18m in the UK) weighs around 500g. I wonder whether the risk of UASs hitting birds is being considered? It must surely be massively greater than the risk of colliding with a model aircraft.

Simply saying 'we want to be exempt from UAS regulation' would, I'm sure, reflect the the views of most model flyers but, sadly, taking that line in isolation won't do us any favours. As you said in an earlier post, the CAA has almost certainly already made up its mind. The new regulations, including RID and geo-fencing, are coming whether we like it or not. For the continued future existence of this hobby, it is surely essential for us all to highlight the many flaws in the CAA's UAS proposals, and thus, hopefully, help to minimise their impact upon model flying. I think the BMFA's response does a pretty good job in this respect, and it deserves our support.

I stick Sellotape on the top and bottom of the ribs to protect them while planing and sanding. Works for me. (Other makes of sticky-back plastic tape are available).

Surely the Thesaurus wouldn't split an infinitive....

This is an interesting point. As far as I know, there is no legal requirement for the Op ID holder to be present when the model is being flown. We have a number of junior members (ie under-18s) who can't hold Op IDs. Normally, their Op ID are held by parents who, in some cases, have almost no knowledge about model flying, and they may well be absent during a flying session. Of course, as a club, we do our best to help them, and we encourage Op ID holders to sit alongside their 'charge' while they take the BMFA RCC. For our club trainers, we simply use a printed Op ID stuck on with transparent film. When necessary, this is removed and replaced by another. It's worked well so far.