By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more

Member postings for Gordon Whitehead 1

Here is a list of all the postings Gordon Whitehead 1 has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.

Thread: Spinner choice ?
26/07/2018 16:32:08

You might make a better job of keeping the spinner backplate hole central if you use a propeller reamer.


Thread: New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018
26/07/2018 06:39:08

Somewhere within these 38 pages Geoff is a reference in the official documents defining ground level as just that, ignoring buildings, trees etc. I read and noted it because we have tall trees bordering our flying field so our club has a vested interest in knowing the situation ref ground level. But I'm not wading back through this lot to find it!


25/07/2018 13:15:51
Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 25/07/2018 13:13:51:

It is however a choice you can make. Makes the £34 BMFA membership fee look even more of a bargain.

It's always been a bargain since I joined back in the 1960's

25/07/2018 12:59:26

The law is that the Air Navigation Order applies to every man woman and child in this country.

Edited By Gordon Whitehead 1 on 25/07/2018 12:59:42

25/07/2018 12:40:13

Congratulations to the BMFA and the allied associations for negotiating an excellent result.

There's just one area which I've been trying to clarify by reading the new permission document, the ANO Article 94, the relevant but now out-of date BMFA Handbook sections 8.1(4)(b) and 8.1(4)(c) and the BMFA update.

The old BMFA rules (2017 edition) page14, paras 8.1(4), 8.1(4)(b) and 8.1(4)(c) were perfectly clear that model flying within an aerodrome traffic zone was restricted to below 400ft for models weighing over 7kg and that those weighing less than 7kg weren't so restricted. Note that para 8.1(4) subsumes all subsequent sub-paras.

The new permission document isn't quite so clear. Para 3a of the permission does state that the mass of the SUA shall not exceed 7kg etc, but does not subsume para 3d, which states that the permission shall not apply to any flight within the flight restriction zone of a protected aerodrome ... etc.

This means to me that the old rule whereby you could fly a sub-7kg model above 400ft within an air traffic zone has gone, but I might be wrong.

The BMFA update states that any model aircraft flying within 1km of the boundary of a licensed airfield at any height will have to be with the permission of the airfield air traffic control or airfield operator. Clearly this applies to all models whether under or over 7kg. Is this 1km limit the same as the "flight restriction zone" mentioned earlier, which is a far smaller area than the ATZ? Or does "flight restriction zone" mean "ATZ"

What I'd like to have clarified, in the context of the majority of model flyers, is this: which of the following statements applies in regards to, say, Manchester Airport ATZ, Birmingham Airport ATZ, etc:

a. Nothing flies over 400ft

b. Models under 7kg can still fly over 400ft but those over 7kg are prohibited.

There are quite a lot of model flyers located near airports who will be affected by the answer.


Thread: RAF's Finest Biplane? Hawker Fury MkI
24/07/2018 12:29:07

Hi Danny

It's not my photo sequence. The last time I had to trim a spinner was years ago, well before I found this photo sequence, and I can't really remember how I did it. Probably by chain-drilling a series of holes, joining the holes with a very thin rat-tail file, then finishing off using a dremel with coarse grit grindstone to get the overall shape, with a half-round rat-tail file for finishing.


Thread: New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018
24/07/2018 12:14:42

WOW! That video was a real conversation stopper! Is everyone just too gobsmacked, or has everyone gone on holiday?

OK, let's attempt to cheer things up with another video which shows my miserable attempt at doing an unscripted uncoordinated aerobatic sequence within a 300ft height restriction back in 2011. Due to other defined "no fly" areas (this was on an airfield too !!) the entire box was about 300 yards long by 200 yards across, just a bit bigger than the sheep field I fly in these days. It's just possible that I did stray a bit out of the "box" on occasion, but not by much. My thanks to Harry Curzon on camera for staying on his feet when he should have been dizzy, and filming each of the two flights in its entirety so there was no need for stitching bits together.

It's not pretty! Here's hoping we get the required height exemption.


Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 24/07/2018 16:12:34

Thread: RAF's Finest Biplane? Hawker Fury MkI
24/07/2018 11:36:17

Ref spinner cutting. I found this series of annotated photos on a forum some time ago. Apologies for not noting the name of the originator.

01 draw.jpg

02 fold.jpg

03 cross.jpg

04 centre-line.jpg

05 prop-exit.jpg

06 height.jpg

07 template-2.jpg

08 prop-fitted.jpg

Hope this helps


Thread: New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018
22/07/2018 20:58:59
Posted by Piers Bowlan on 22/07/2018 07:49:23:

I hope you do complete your JP design Gordon as I have a Wren 44 and a JP would be just the ticket for it.

A clubmate is relying on me doing a plan, Piers, so I'll get on with it soon and probably do a build thread too. It'll be a JP5A which allows the choice of with/without tip tanks, and whether or not to decorate and equip as a Strikemaster. Apologies for delayed response.


22/07/2018 20:17:15

Back in the 1970s at RAF Brize Norton we flew from one side of the airfield, with VC10s and Hercs operating on the main runway. ATC would usually, but not always, fire off a flare to warn us to land when a big 'un was inbound or about to leave. Nobody must have thought then about a height restriction.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I used to fly at a club on an RAF airfield which hosted an ATC Volunteer Glider School. After about 20 years of problem-free flying we suddenly had a 300ft altitude restriction imposed at the whim of an incoming school commandant. No misery, we just got on with it of course. But depending on what you flew your flying style might have had to change somewhat, not least those who liked to fly thermal-hunting gliders.



Edited By Gordon Whitehead 1 on 22/07/2018 20:19:02

22/07/2018 18:11:03
Posted by PatMc on 22/07/2018 15:40:47:
Under 7Kg @ 400ft ceiling : result misery crying thumbs down

Logic : eludes me. questionface 22

You're the first one here to mention misery laugh

22/07/2018 14:36:29

If ever compulsory altitude recording was required, then compulsory sensor calibration would also be required to prevent folks making their 400ft bigger than anyone else's 400ft wink

22/07/2018 11:48:47

Bob, my Nano weighs 5.5kg so isn't subject to the 7kg 400ft height restriction. That's what makes small jets attractive to me, apart from being much cheaper to build and operate than those big enough to need height restrictions. There's no speed limit that I'm aware of, and flown around the circuit in my normal fashion, which is not to be a speed merchant but to practice and to perform airshow style aerobatics pleasing to me, the Nano's top speed maxes at about 130mph. That's because much of each flight is flown at significantly less than full throttle, which is only applied when needed for the figure being performed.

Regarding Pat's comments about the LMA and the 400ft limit, I suspect that for their displays they apply for an exemption: so that they can adequately display their models' capabilities to the public. Since this exemption is only for displays and comps, presumably the LMA flyers somehow practice their display routines within the 400ft restriction at other times.

Fun is where you find it.

22/07/2018 07:43:16

Because it will be, and that's all there is to it.

21/07/2018 21:46:31

Hi Erf

On and off for the past year or so I've been designing a Jet Provost to replace my 9 year old Nano. The full size JP was an elegant airshow aerobat in its day despite its relatively low power, and nobody else is going to design one for a Wren 44.

However, a permanent 400ft height limit will so restrict my model's ability to display that I might well decide that it'll be a waste of time proceeding with the design and build.


Thread: Info on new plane
21/07/2018 21:33:29

Outerzone has the plan as a free download, along with the original magazine article.

It looks as if it will be a light model, and was for 49-61 power back then, ie Merco. Looking at the magazine article, I see that Terry fitted the same radio gear I had at the time, the Ripmax Futaba Digimax 4, which was my first propo outfit.


Thread: New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018
21/07/2018 14:31:07

Thanks for your figures Steve, Martin and Mike. I don't have automatic data logging so had to look at the Tx display when doing my height checks, then I forgot to post the figures. The Katana weighs about 6.6lb with 800W. The totem pole went up to about 600ft, the rolling loop about 530, and the figure M which is one of my favourite figures went to about 500ft. My Boomerang Nano which does all the figures with more gusto would have topped at 800ft easily.

The Nano has both airspeed and height telemetry. On the level its max speed is a not too impressive 125mph. The top speed I've seen, however, is just on 150mph. To get this speed requires a climb to 1500ft (announced by the altimeter's beeper), followed by a vertical dive almost to ground level, with the 150mph announced by the telemetry ASI beeper.

If we don't get an exemption there's going to be a lot less flying fun to be had for many of us. In fact a lot less reason to go R/C flying at all.

(Off topic, the real reason for the airspeed telemetry on the Nano is to let me know when the landing approach speed has fallen to below 38mph, which means the model is then slow enough to land comfortably within the confines of our 65m strip.)


Thread: Martyn's Dalotel
19/07/2018 10:09:57

Super job Martyn. I've always liked the Dalotel and I'm looking forward to seeing yours performing down at the field.


Thread: No Hosepipe Then?
18/07/2018 21:31:02

As we're to be fined £1000 for breaking the hosepipe ban, and as there are no other water companies in England likely to need to impose a ban, it seems only fair that United Utilities should be fined a healthy amount for every day the hosepipe ban is in place.

If moving to another company would guarantee Percy and me an unrestricted water supply, that would imply that pipework exists to supply water from other areas into the northwest. In which case United Utilities could obtain water from other areas and not impose a ban. It seems to me that the necessary pipework doesn't currently exist, and that the Govt needs to get the water companies to do something about that.

Thread: New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018
18/07/2018 21:12:26

I've been flying models using Spekky altimeters for over 8 years. Initially because we had a 300ft height limit imposed at Chivenor airfield where I flew. Keeping a Nano Boomerang jet below 300ft whilst doing aerobatics was possible but a bit taxing. During the past 4 years I flew with a 400ft height restriction for my over 7kg Jungmeister as my current club field lies within the Manchester ATZ. On my old Spekky system (DX18 Gen 1 so only beep and vibe warnings, no voice) I would set the alt to beep at 20ft below the height limit and generally fly within the limitation with the occasional brief excursion above depending upon the figure being flown.

Today I fitted an altimeter to my 6 or 7 year old 5S Sebart Katana hack aerobat with the beeper set to 400ft to see what effect the new rules would have on my hitherto carefree flying activities with this model. Doing my usual aerobatic routines, the model was mostly below 400ft as you should expect, as flying this type of model all the time at 400ft and above is unnecessary. However, many of my favourite manoeuvres had the plane popping up higher than the limit for brief periods, eg: vertical 4-point roll topped with a vertical snap roll and stall turn with a one-turn spin and 4-point roll on the down line (called the "Totem Pole" by Neil Williams in his "Aerobatics" book; rolling 8-point hesitation loop with 1/2-rolls in each leg; figure M - the old FAI manoeuver comprising vertical 1/4-rolls with stall turns and an inverted recovery to vertical in the middle; vertical figure 8. All these could be squashed into a smaller vertical distance but with less satisfaction due to the rushed nature of the manoeuvers, and made more difficult and less pleasing because of the trees over which one has to fly at our sheep pasture site, thereby raising the "hard deck" to maybe 40 ft above ground level.

To me, model flying has always meant aerobatics, so that's the way I like to fly. Naturally, by far the greater proportion of every flight has always been flown below 400ft because there's no need to spend lots of time really high up doing aeros as the model becomes too small to control with any great degree of accuracy. Also, whilst aerobatting, it's important not to barge into anyone else's model flying airspace so you need to be well aware of what's going on around you.

Regarding any fly-in, I think that 400ft might not provide enough separation between models if upwards of 3 or 4 are flying at once each doing its own thing.

Well, that's my experience for what it's worth. Has anyone else out there got similar experience?

Edited By Gordon Whitehead 1 on 18/07/2018 21:14:42

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E! 

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Cambridge Gliding Club
Wings & Wheels 2019
Gliders Distribution
electricwingman 2017
Addlestone Models
Pepe Aircraft
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
New Poll - Sticky situations...
Q: How often - when using superglue - do you end up with it on your fingers?

 Every time
 Wear rubber gloves

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us