Here is a list of all the postings John Bisset has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Registration marks query|
Thanks all. I thought that was the 'number' required. It's just so darn long, to no purpose.
Edited By John Bisset on 27/04/2020 21:55:36
This is a query which shows poor my memory is and how slowly things get done in remoter rural areas (or how little attention we pay to central 'authority'!) I'm sure some one her must have already covered this, but my searches didn't find those.
Having refurbished some models and completed a couple of half built projects, I was thinking about adding my CAA Operator number to them.
For the first time, I had a proper look at the email they sent me. Ignoring the obvious and unnecessary 'OP-' part, the reference is seven digits long, using both letters and numbers. Is that what we are supposed to put on our machines?
If my arithmetic is right, that reference allows between 4.6x1010 to 6.4x1010 unique numbers, depending on whether I & O are included or not. That is a huge number, given that the population of the UK is around 6.0x107 and around 2.0x104 at most of those fly radio control models. Why so large? (Why not use our BMFA numbers - they are shorter and easier to get right!)
So - is that the number I should use? Chances of anyone ever writing it down correctly, even if I don't spoonerise it, are slim! Shall take copy of the email with all the rest of the paperwork when I fly, just in case...
|Thread: First "Drone" deliveries next week|
I understand it is part of the UAV development work Steve, thanks. I simply feel it is an overly complex solution to a problem already easily solved. That of course will appeal to those 'in charge' many of whom seem to prefer complexity to simplicity. (Possibly explains why so many government projects fail, go over budget or don't perform the task adequately.)
I note that two safety pilots are required, with runways etc. As said by others, what benefit does this provide? A light aircraft can do this with lower probability of failure. Sending a drone for the mainland to the Isle of Wight is a relatively simple & easy task, especially if using airfields. If they view that as difficult enough to need a safety pilot at each end, what chance this can ever be of use elsewhere around the country at large? I'm not sure this provides much learning for later use.
I live in a remote part of this country, where quite frequently even full size aircraft fully equipped with identification systems are not tracked by any systems below 5 to 6000 feet. What chance of tracking drones? Delivery by drones will be very hit & miss for a very long time.. As it is deliveries by road, even using GPS mapping etc, still often go astray. Several time per month we are asked for help by deliverers.
I am not averse to the use of new technology; a large part of my career has involved bringing new technology into use and tweaking it to make it work. Often that meant we had to take a good hard look at what we thought we knew about the world, stuff we took for granted. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure just ain't so." - Mark Twain.
I suspect that too many of those who are supporting this at high level have the faintest idea of the real challenges involved in making this work in a practical sense. Are they still being fascinated by the 'Ooh - shiny' bit ? Maybe I am being too sceptical.
As Cuban8 says, a normal aircraft could do this more simply. As Barrie L says - a lot of money being spent, for little benefit
The Civil Air Patrol were being mentioned as one organisation which could do deliveries of urgent hospital equipment and medical samples at little cost. They are volunteers, are organised and ready., They have, I believe, already carried out one such urgent task.
This is playing to the gallery.
|Thread: Flair Puppeteer|
Like you, barryt, I am dithering about the front end. Don Fry's hinged cowl area sounds interesting - I haven't heard of that before. Maybe a scrap trial build is needed!
|Thread: Insanity seems to be setting in|
According to some psychologists people panic buy toilet roll because it comes in large packages and hence easily helps satisfy the urge to have a stock of stuff. Hmm !
|Thread: Flair Puppeteer|
Hi barryt - glad to find someone else going electric. I have a similar problem; our airfield has permission for electric R/C only, which seems a tad strange given that R/C aeroplanes are generally quieter than fullsize !
Nice to see what the tail sections look like when covered. I shall probably use translucent covering
I agree, Don Fry, closed loop is light and looks good. I did my both Wot 4s that way for elevator and rudder and also rudder on a kit Jungmeister (the elevators on that I operated by internally rigged pushrod, since that mimicked the fullsize machine)
I use 'Laystrate' lightweight 3 strand control line cablle for my closed loop systems, which I find excellent. One reel should last a lifetime - I only ever used two lengths for C/L, many many years ago and then when someone passed on his old modelling gear I fell heir to another reel !
This is a most interesting & timely thread since, like Ashley, I am building a Puppeteer which I bought probably in the mid to late 80s. I restarted work on it about three weeks ago after several years gap due to house moves etc. So far I've built one set of wings and the tail, so the fuselage is next.
Not sure whether it is a Mk1 or Mk 2 kit - how do you tell? The instructions, written by Dudley Pattinson, do mention some 'minor alterations' in the kit, so possibly Mk2.
I am intending to fit an electric motor, so was wondering about weight & balance and possibly extending the nose. Any comments/thoughts on this?
Thanks i12fly and J D 8 - the rigging modifications you suggest sound useful for storage, though I hope to be able to leave the machine at my local airfield much of the time.
|Thread: CAA ID number discussion|
For all but my few fancier models, I shall just write the number on - 'permanent marker' comes off with simple solvents. For the fancy ones I shall put the number on a sticky label, one inside and one outside (under the tail) That way I am covered if the outer one falls off.
The intent is to make ident of legitimate operation easy, not to be picky about little details - police are not going to nit pick unless a modeller is being unduly difficult with them. If you do want to play hardball, make sure you have every base covered first - and remember, there is always another law the police can find if you really push them!
Edited By John Bisset on 22/02/2020 16:49:27
Edited By John Bisset on 22/02/2020 16:49:45
I'd agree - well done BMFA for all this year's impressive & effective wrangling on our behalf !
Even though I did struggle today to figure out how to upload my 'Registration Competency Document to my BMFA Member's records. Finally got there, thanks to my wife asking the right sort of questions - - evidently I don't think in the same way that web page designers do...
|Thread: C.A.A Reg number ,inside or outside ????|
I usually soak labelled jamjars in warm water, then lightly scrape off the top surface. A little white spirit on a swab or a cloth takes off all the rest easily.
|Thread: Help Needed for Kids Xmas Bike Modification|
Aha - something new. Thanks MattyB - I shall look up 'balance bikes.
Also a good reminder to me about pedal threads...
Several quite different views here!
Personally I - we -found no problem teaching our kids to ride bikes with the pedals attached, They had all had a tricycle to play on first which may have helped a little.Typically all three were happily away with less than a couple of days's of help - holding the saddle lightly from behind to add stability, then running up and down our quiet cul de sac.
First one at five,the other two younger, since younger kids are always desperate to catch up.
So personally I 'd say you are over-complicating. By all means add trainer wheels or take the pedals off if you must. Other than that, keep it simple., Kids are keen to learn, and learn fast! Hope your grandchild has fun...
|Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread|
(Good post yesterday Matty - thanks)
Nigel, I wondered about Qu 4 too. I suspect the BBC option as a source of info is a red herring & having checked I can see no sign of anything relevant. The snag with multiple choice is that the wrong answers must be ~believable, Well, that is one of the snags with multiple choice...
I presumed the dronesafe website was correct when spelt correctly (!) and that the 'app' would also be correct, though I have not seen such a beast. (Late addendum : A 'drone app' might be about other drone related matters, so possibly a wrong option. Hmm.)
Like you I thought Qus 16-19 were potentially awkward and since I don't use camera equipped machines, personally irrelevant. Hopefully the apparently commonsense answers will be correct.
Well done the BMFA for issuing this so promptly in a clear easy to understand way. Now to find out if my 'common sense' thinking works!
Edited By John Bisset on 07/12/2019 14:56:12
I believe Chris Berry's recent posts have it fairly well right.
The aspiration of 'authority' to have on board identification and real time tracking of everything airborne is clear. It is not, however practical yet, not for some time to come. Theory is one thing, practice another.
I have two separate conspicuity/anti-collision systems in one aircraft of mine; it still frequently fails to be 'seen' in flight by remote stations even at medium altitudes. Earlier this week while flying I was struck by the number of calls for people to re-squawk because ATC was not picking up the transponders.
For close range collision avoidance the systems work well enough overall, as an addition to and back up for see-and-be-seen, which is what they are for. They are still expensive, power hungry and problematic at a distance except when flying high, say 10,000ft and above. At medium or low level, forget any distant monitoring except in very intensely monitored and geographically benign environments. This will change, but slowly. The degradation of signal at low altitude will continue to be an effective limiter.
Personally as a pilot routinely flying in and around the levels likely to be mostly used by drones, I'd be unhappy at the idea of everything transmitting its position, or trying to. That causes distraction, confusion and chaos, working against safety. For light aircraft operations, having radio control aircraft giving out position data will just confuse - we are not routinely flying below 500ft except around airfields or when on special tasks. We need the BMFA making this point clearly on our behalf - forget position info from R/C aircraft! Expensive, short range, useless and confusing for real world traffic.
For drones I only want info from the higher flying ones. Even between 500 to 1000ft the range available will be low, so its really collision avoidance stuff, not real tracking. Once a good, say ADS-B equivalent, set up exists at low cost and with high reliability, maybe worthwhile anti-colision will become feasible. Meantime, we keep our eyes open - and incidentally only believe a small proportion of the airliner's drone airmiss 'reports'.
Oops - nice comment Andy!
I got around ten repeats I think, all within seconds of each other.
|Thread: A new caption competition - winner declared!|
There I was upside down, nothing on the clock...
|Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread|
Cuban8, I'm with you too !
|Thread: Stampe SR7 building blog|
That is superb Peter. Just needs the chequerboard markings on the rudder! , as Chris said.
Indeed, Peter. Greatly missed, Mr Lecomber. I think he kept his Stampe even when he had moved his team on to ?Extra 300s? I think. The start of his book 'Talk Down; showed how much he liked the Stampe for gentle aerobatics. I still recall a lovely conversation I had with him when I was debating doing a Lycoming conversion. He had a 200HP Lycoming with VP prop and turbo for sale; he tried to persuade me to fit that to my Stampe - "Just think how much vertical you could get with that!" I felt it was the down vertical maneouvres that might be the limit, unless I could fit airbrakes(!) - the Stampe had quite a low flick roll limit speed. He was a terrific character and a superbly thoughtful, careful pilot.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!