Here is a list of all the postings Peter Christy has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
Well done all those who have worked so hard for this, both within the BMFA, and those who have pestered the DfT, CAA and their MPs.
|Thread: All weather flyer.|
Shoulder-wing, for easy hand-launching from a muddy field, moderately stable to assist landing in turbulence, not too light, so it doesn't get bounced around too much and small enough to get in the back of the car quickly when the heavens open up!
A Tauri (or similar) springs to mind!
|Thread: Analog versus Digital servos|
I would be very wary of letting anyone who displayed such a poor grasp of RC systems anywhere near my radios!
"Analog" servos (poor terminology, but it will have to do) will only work with low-frame rate radios. ALL 35 MHz radios are low frame-rate. The 10KHz channel spacing doesn't allow enough bandwidth for high frame rate.
"Digital" servos (again, poor terminology) will work with both low and high frame rate systems. Only spread spectrum radios are capable of high frame rate, and most default to low frame rate to avoid damaging analog servos inadvertently connected.
The only time you will find high frame rate on a 35 MHz radio is in the output of a high-end gyro - usually only employed on helicopters.
In other words, "digital" servos (except very expensive tail-rotor servos) will work happily with high or low frame rates. "Analog" will only work with low frame rates, and can be damaged if connected to a high frame rate radio.
Find yourself a proper service engineer! Mike Ridley springs to mind!
|Thread: Taurus - Model Aeroplane News|
I believe I do remember it, Brian! When I first moved from Devon to the Watford area, around 1974, I had a Taurus clone. It was called a Tornado and had been produced by a Devon kit maker, but was really a Taurus with a foam wing!
I modified mine to conventional ailerons (never liked strip ailerons!) which was very easy with foam wings. And it was powered by that same Webra as is now in the KingPin!
I eventually retired it when I replaced it with a Gangster 63 (also powered by that same Webra!), and John Sharman bought it off me. I've no idea what happened to it after that....
Not by me, it wouldn't!
The "KingPin" appears to be Dave Platt's variation of a "Taurus" (many of the designs of that era were Taurus clones!) and uses the construction you suggest - plus a fully sheeted wing.
Looks like a Taurus and flies like a Taurus! The only difficulty I found was in accurately joining the two wings without the benefit of dihedral braces / doublers.
I have to disagree! Castor fuel belongs in a museum, not an engine! I'm running quite a few 60s era engines (including OS MAX 40H, pre-Blackhead Webra 61, and several HB25s - same internally as the Vecos of that era) and all run perfectly happily on a good synthetic oil.
I bought the Webra in 1968, and it is still hauling a Dave Platt Kingpin (very similar to a Taurus) around in grand style today. The only recommendation I would make is to use a good quality helicopter fuel (I use Model Technics Bekra fuel) as this is intended for applications where cooling is restricted.
Although cooling is not restricted in a Taurus, these old engines can run a bit hotter than modern ones!
Also, most old engines use long reach plugs. Although they will run on short reach plugs, it does remove the element from where it really needs to be, and reduces the compression slightly. 4-stroke plugs are generally long reach types, and work really well in older engines.
BTW, one trick to forming the "wrap-around" leading edge on a Taurus is to wet ONE side of the LE sheet with water. This will make the wood curl up, and make it much easier to glue in place without splitting the sheeting!
Nice project BTW! My Kingpin turned out about 2lbs lighter than the design weight, not because I'm a light builder (I'm not!), but because modern radio gear is MUCH lighter than that for which the model was designed!
|Thread: Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones|
Quite right, Chris. If we left EASA, it would be the end of international flights to and from Europe - if not elsewhere - until alternative arrangements could be worked out.
Hence my earlier comments about remaining in EASA regardless of Brexit!
|Thread: Thinking aloud about Spits...|
My limited experience of model Spits (had it about 18 months) is that the well designed ones are no more difficult to fly than any low-winger. The tricky bit is the landing!
A combination of narrow track undercarriage, small (scale) wheels, and wheels close to the CofG makes them prone to nosing over on landing. Take-offs usually aren't a problem, as we tend to over-power our models!
If you have a nice smooth runway (short grass or solid), a Spit shouldn't be a problem. Beware of trying to slow it too much on the approach, and if using full flaps, keep a bit of power on until just about to touch down.
Otherwise they are generally very nice to fly.
|Thread: OS 40 four stroke, inverted?...|
I ran an OS20FS inverted for years in an "Attila". At first I had a few issues due to the tank being positioned as shown on the plan, which was too high. Once I moved it down to the floor of the fuselage, it ran beautifully.
I never had a problem with flooding, but I was always careful to turn it over by hand a few times before applying a starter!
Still got the engine, and an untouched kit in the garage, awaiting their turn on the building board!
|Thread: Check and tighten those prop bolts!|
Don't feel to bad about it! It happened to someone I knew in a full-size motor-glider! A loud bang and the prop went AWOL!
Luckily, he managed to glide back to the airfield, but it was some time before the prop was located - in an apple tree of a little old lady in a country village!
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
And you could make exactly the same arguments about BBC and ITN cameramen (to pick a couple of examples), as they will no doubt have more than one drone and be personally responsible for its maintenance.
Indeed, I doubt if ANY commercial operation currently expects anyone other than the pilots to determine "when, where, and by whom the drones are flown". Just as with any commercial aircraft, the pilot can refuse to fly if he doesn't believe the flight can be conducted safely, so he, and not the "operator", is determining "when, where, etc..."
Sorry, doesn't hold water.
I still stand by my original thesis that the law cannot allow one association - be it the BBC, Amazon or whoever - to act as the "operator" for one group of pilots, but not another association, be it the BMFA or a club.
The big difference is in the operator liability should anything go wrong. Public companies will have liability insurance, and limited liability for their directors - that's what a limited company is. However, some model clubs are already limited companies - they had to be to get a mortgage to purchase their own land - and should therefore have no problem registering as the "operator".
And as I've already pointed out, the current rage for LLPs (Limited Liability Partnerships) - which seem to be primarily money laundering operations - mean that such companies can be bought "off the shelf", and should provide the protection needed.
Neither the CAA nor the DfT have come out and branded such a scheme illegal, as far as I'm aware, limiting themselves to saying the it would not be "appropriate".
That tells me that they recognise a loophole when they see one!
|Thread: One for the single channel fans|
Tom: Nah! You'd never have got all the valves and HT batteries in a box that size!
Doug: Glad to hear its still in use and being enjoyed (as is mine)!
Funnily enough, I built 35 MHz one of those for a chap a couple of years back!
And for those of you who don't know what single channel meant, here's a primer!
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
This just confirms what I've been saying all along - the CAA are NOT the problem, the DfT is! Fortunately, we now have a Secretary of State who may be on side, though I suspect he has other matters on his mind at the moment! And whether he (and the Baroness for that matter) will still have their jobs by the time the regulations are due to be implemented is anybody's guess!
National Flying Centre - the BMFA flying field at Buckminster, near Leicester.
Although I live a long way from it (4.5 to 5 hr drive), I have been up to several events there, and it is a superb site with excellent facilities.
No complaints from me, at all!
Similarly, £16.50 is a trivial amount, but that is not the issue. The Baroness was always singing the mantra of "the user pays". Fair enough. But if I pay for something, I expect to get something in return. I pay National Insurance, I get the NHS. I pay car tax, I get the roads. (OK, that last one is a bit of a joke, but you get my drift!)
As far as I can make out, if I pay the registration, I get NOTHING in return! And that is my objection to it.
It is legalised robbery!
Edited By Peter Christy on 02/09/2019 14:17:06
Edited By Peter Christy on 02/09/2019 14:17:47
Paul V: You come across as someone who is responsible, and has done everything "by the book" to pursue your commercial aspirations. Good for you! The problem is that amongst drone flyers, you appear to be very much in a minority!
I live in a seaside / holiday area near a picturesque steam railway. If you search through my previous posts you will find many tales of totally inappropriate - and illegal - drone operation outside and over my house!
The most recent incident involved an idiot parking (illegally!) at the roadside, taking off from the pavement and over a busy road, over neighbouring houses at low altitude, and buzzing the steam railway - something they have specifically asked drone operators not to do without prior, written permission!
When approached he was completely oblivious of any wrong-doing, justifying it by saying "I'm not doing any harm!". I left him packing up in no doubt as to the harm he was doing to the reputation of legitimate operators! As I left, the neighbour, over whose house he had been flying, came out and gave him a right ear-bashing over invasion of privacy, dangerous flying, etc, etc.
Said neighbour is NOT anti-drone. Just anti idiots! Only a week earlier, he had been quite happy to let a BBC camera crew fly a drone from his garden to get some shots of a train carrying Portillo, for one of his railway journey shows. All above board and legit, with documentation to prove it.
Unfortunately, the idiots appear to be in a substantial majority, and it is not only legitimate drone flyers who are suffering the consequences. Those consequences extend into our territory too!
Regarding club and BMFA shows, as others have pointed out, it is down to each organisation to specify rules to fly at their event. If they require an A or B certificate, that is their choice.
Jeremy W: Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful posts! Very refreshing to hear a balanced and calmly considered point of view.
I have no idea what is going to happen in the future - my crystal ball has never been a particularly good guide - but I'm certainly not going to rush in to registering. I'll be quite happy to sit out the winter months and see what happens come spring. Given the present political turmoil, who knows what might happen!
In any event, it is *always* the pilot that is legally responsible for the safe flight of the aircraft. The operator *may* be liable for ensuring proper maintenance, but even then it is still the pilot's responsibility to make sure the aircraft is airworthy prior to taking off.
I really can't see the difference between Amazon (or the BBC, or ITN) being the "operator" or the BMFA (or a local club). Indeed, I suspect that the powers-that-be have overlooked this as well, as they are quoted as saying that it would be "inappropriate" - not illegal - for an association to register as the operator. And if they changed the law to preclude this, it would drop Amazon, et al, in the same boat - something they seem desperate to avoid!
Steve: I've been having that argument with the BMFA since Pontius was a pilot!
As you say, the BMFA state that the Achievement Scheme certificates are purely a measure of personal achievement, and not intended to be used as a license or demonstration of competence! They then insist on a "B" cert to fly at the Nats!
When I raised this, many years ago, I was informed by the (then) Technical Secretary that you didn't need a "B" cert to fly at the Nats - you simply needed one to obtain an entry form to fly at the Nats!
I hope anyone going to Sywell will be polite to the CAA. They have always been pretty model friendly in the past, and I believe they would be now, if it was left to them. Unfortunately, they take their orders from the DfT, and it is the DfT that are calling the shots on this one, leaving the CAA to take the flack.
So by all means express your views strongly, but bear in mind that it is almost certainly NOT the CAA's doing. And if there is a change of heart by the DfT, we will need the CAA on side!
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!