Here is a list of all the postings Robert Welford has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Prop failure|
Thanks Jon. I will go this route.
I've just starting flying a Toni Clark (TC) CAP21 with a Zenoah 62. I'm using a carbon propeller together with a TC spinner. The spinner is epoxy grp with a nylon back plate. I notice after running the propeller rotates slightly relative to the spinner. The engine is hand started. I tighten up the single prop bolt as tight as I can, but the problem is that the surfaces of the propeller and spinner backplate are smooth. The Zenoah's prop driver is serrated.
I thought of making a double sided washer from 120 grit glass paper placed between propeller and spinner backplate. Anyone any other suggestions?
Jon, what engine is the propeller/spinner off? 20x10 wood - I assume not a Laser 4 stroke.
|Thread: Wot 4 Squared|
Jacob, where are you paragliding? Is it Snowdonia?
|Thread: Multiplex Dual Receivers|
Peter, I've sent you a message. Robert
|Thread: C of G Question|
Assuming normal tailplane area and tail moment 30% of mean wing chord is a good starting point for CofG.
See recent "CofG" thread for in-flight testing for appropriate CofG position.
Yes I agree it sounds like the CofG is nose heavy - too far forward
To assess the CofG position for powered aircraft: trim for level flight; pull into 45 degree upline; roll to inverted and observe the trajectory. Aircraft should gently descend whilst inverted.
If the (inverted) aircraft pulls down => CofG too far forward
If the (inverted) aircraft pulls up => CofG too far back
If the aircraft trajectory stays constant at 45 degree upline => CofG maybe ok for 3D, but still too far back for general aerobatic flying.
For gliders dive (in trim state) in a 45 degree downline and see what happens.
|Thread: David Vaughan P-51B|
Richard, do you now own David's original P-51B model?
I remember reading the original build article in RCM & E. The model was and still is a masterpiece.
|Thread: Curare Plan|
Thank you CP for the pointer to the Curare CAD plan.
I currently fly a Schweighofer version of the Curare, but I'm also interested in building one based on the MK plan.
|Thread: New Drone/Aerodrome Regulations - Is your club at risk?|
To operate an airband transceiver you need an RT licence, but not an airband receiver. They cost from less than £100. Yes - agreed it's a no brainer.
David, if you were asked to release the data to a 3rd party would you and possibly incriminate yourself?
Piers - yes the 400 ft height club rule is unenforceable, but it won't stop the OW "Safety Police" from claiming you are flying too high. I been criticised in the past for flying too far away!
Like Martin I have instrumented a few models with altimeter telemetry (via my Multiplex radio) to see how low 400 ft is particularly when flying aerobatics.
The real problem is that we operate on an active airfield. The procedure is that models are required to land as soon as full-size aircraft commit to an overhead join. On occasions aircraft have come in directly on finals and haven't been spotted, so the most dangerous height band is 0 to 200 ft.
I have suggested that we operate airband receivers on the Old Warden frequency to enhance our situational awareness of traffic intending to land. The committee didn't like that as an idea.
Edited By Robert Welford on 17/04/2019 11:32:31
I agree Martin. I'm involved in other clubs; another model club and a full-size gliding club and both are run very democratically with important issues communicated and discussed with the membership.
I would have thought a 400 ft height rule was a sufficiently important issue that needed to be discussed with the membership.
I'm am member because Old Warden airfield is a great place to fly. Going forward how we resolve this and other issues requires further consideration.
Edited By Robert Welford on 16/04/2019 23:22:44
Sadly we are "not out of the woods" yet.
Despite the latest amended CAA Exemption allowing normal height limits (none for < 7kg, 400 ft >7kg) for Old Warden Model Aircraft Club, the club committee have decided to retain the 400 ft height limit that was introduced with CAP 1763 on 13 March 19.
The committee have refused to provide any justification for their decision and before you ask it isn't the Shuttleworth Trust who are insisting on a height limit.
The only upside is that if anyone were to fly higher than 400 ft for < 7kg (inadvertently) they are no longer in breach of the CAP 1763, but only of the club rule. In addition, model flying events are now free to have no height limit.
Edited By Robert Welford on 16/04/2019 21:05:36
Thank you Andy and your colleagues for resolving this issue with the CAA. This means that model events and club flying at Old Warden may no longer be affected by the FRZ 400 ft height limit
Edited By Robert Welford on 10/04/2019 18:19:21
Not as yet. CAP 1763 is still the problem - we are awaiting an amendment.
Edited By Robert Welford on 09/04/2019 10:44:34
|Thread: matt fuelproofer|
Available from Phil Clark at **LINK**
|Thread: Lightweight Filler|
I hadn't noticed that it in the context of filling foam.
Trevor are you aware of the boiling water technique? You can get dings and bruises out of foam by pouring boiling water over the affected area.
Polyfilla Fine Surface. Similar to balsa wood in hardness, so it blends in when sanded.
|Thread: Vintage airframe coverings.|
In my opinion vintage models do not look right covered in film.
Natural or vintage Solartex (or Oratex equivalent) is suitable on larger models and is a good substitute for doped nylon.
On smaller models Polyspan is definitely worth considering. It is a heat shrink polymer and is much more puncture resistance than tissue, but the finish looks like tissue.
It also adds torsional strength to wings/tailplanes - unlike Litespan.
Edited By Robert Welford on 01/04/2019 15:07:05
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!