Here is a list of all the postings stu knowles has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Priory models Lancaster|
I have the Priory Lanc, built pretty much as per plans except with four brushless motors, paired inners and outers, running from two 1300 3s lipos. Covering is brown paper and pva and it carries no ballast. Flight times exceed 10 mins without any bother. I left some of the sheeting off the bottom of the nacelles to keep the speed controllers cool
Perhaps the only thing I would change would be to fit a rudder to tidy up the turns, it seems to have adverse yaw in right turns,, although could this be a thrust line issue?? All the motor are mounted square, no out or down thrust.
Mine flies on 35meg, using the flight batteries for power, not had any issues with control at all. Three of the SCs have one wire removed to disable the BEC facility. The RX is powered by one of the inner motor SCs. The batteries get pretty warm if flown at speed but with good throttle management they don't get too stressed at all. I don't fly the batteries to their limits of capacity. touch wood, all has worked well so far.
I think that it looks right in the air, but to be fair, it was only ever designed to be 'stand off and squint' scale, so I'm not sure that fitting retracts is that good an idea in this model. The TN 72" Lanc would be a better proposition in that respect.
Edited By stu knowles on 19/10/2011 10:35:09
|Thread: Engine choice for flair puppeteer|
OS 50 two stroke, Flair in cowl silencer, large prop. 2.1 ./ 6v batt in the tank bay.
Quiet, no cowl extension, no lead
One of my fave aeroplanes, try also with the Flair vintage floats .
|Thread: Priory Lancaster|
I built my priory Lanc last year and it flies well. I have 4 brushless with 4 x SC coming back to two 3s Lipo, paired inner and outer. Only one ESC is used to power the RX. I usually fly with either a 1000 ma/hr plus a 1300 or 1300 and a 2200. the larger battery bveing on the inners which also power the RX. Everything works fine.
If I were to build another, I would incorporate a rudder, just to tidy up the look of the flight, at low speed the ailerons aren't that effective, I think that it would be improved with rudder control but to be fair, its OK as is.
Mine is covered with brown paper using PVA, The nose section is held on by internal bands and is pulled aside to load the batteries. otherwise. it's built as per the instructions included.
At the moment, I don't have a pic to post but I'll try to get on over the next few days.
|Thread: Anything I need to knowabout large depron wings..??|
There is also a guy going by the name of e-flite ray from Wales who has built a scale Sunderland (90inch) and a Dauntless (around 70 inch) mainly from Depron.
Just at the moment I don't have a link but a search will surely find him.#
|Thread: Club Code of Conduct?|
In matter of this nature snap decisions are best avoided even if richly deserved.
Putting the issue before the committee, inviting the 'offender' to be present, with 'friend' to advise and offering a right of appeal (even if the appeal is to the same committee) all result in a process which demonstrates fairness and one which is very difficult for anyone to challenge later.
Edited By stu knowles on 22/08/2011 14:24:19
|Thread: Belair Kit Cutters|
When you say 'useless' what exactly do you mean. Do they match the part shown on the plan??
I have often wondered how laser cut kits are made from paper plans (rather than CAD drawn plans) A simple scan must bring lots of opportunities for error.
|Thread: Flying Witch on Sheppey|
Does anyone know where a plan or info about the design details of these 'Flying Witches' could be found??
Often thought that i'd like to try one but frankly, wouldn't know where to start.
|Thread: Are you or will you be building from a traditional kit or plan?|
If I have had an ARTF, (very few ), then I have generally refinished them to make them a bit more of an individual model.
To be honest though, I have a reasonable fleet in the hanger and so long as I have something to fly, I think it unlikely that another ARTF will get in there. i have come to think that the build quality is pretty poor and that they (in general) are not a very good deal. They always look fantastic but rarely last long before starting to fall apart.
By and large, Plan builds for me
|Thread: Retracts for YT 120 Spitfire|
Yes mine was a version one of this model. I can't remember off hand but you will need as much as you can sensibly get in there.
Mine legs also stood slightly proud of the wing under surface, annoying when first found but invisible in the air.
Which ever you use, you will need to tilt them forwards from the 'stock' wing mount. If you fly off tarmac you may get away with it at the expense of chipped props, On grass it was near impossible to accelerate from rest without it tipping forward onto the prop.
I used the retracts as supplied by YT. The units themselves were OK, the fill valve and actuating valve less so.
I have no experience of the electric retracts so couldn't advise.
The flying weight of this model is well up there so do go for something robust and well able to bear the weight.
All said , this model looks good and flys well. Mine is in for a refurb and new paint scheme. I also want to take out the 91FX (two stroke glow) and replace it with a petrol. I am told that some of the 20cc petrols can be fitted.
Post some pics of yours.
|Thread: ARTF P47 trickery|
By any chance, are you related to Reginald Molehusband who was a well known TV personality and motoring guru ?? I am a fan of your films and would love to be the owner of a signed photograph......... or item of clothing............
As an aside, what are you using to produce the flat finish on the Clearcoat?? If I try to flat it off with wet&dry the surface always seems quite 'rubbery' and does flat well.
Your in admiration,
|Thread: The 3rd UK model Autogyro fly-in 2011|
Having seen Richards very succesful gyros on YouTube I am keen to see and learn more, so I will be making the trip to Winterton on Sunday.
Hope that you all have a good weekend,
|Thread: Airbrush or spray-gun?|
If you have a decent compressor, my choice would always be a small spray gun. I have a good quality airbrush which I very rarely use, it is too fine, ( I assume that we are talking of models 48" and up.
I have a 'touch uo' spray gun, cost was about £20 which I use for large areas and fine detail.
While we are on, Buy cheap celly thinners, srill available from motorist discount centre at around £10 for 5 litre, Good for thinning paint, gun cleaning, cleaning everything under the sun. wouldn't be without it,
I like celly paint, if you can find it, best for petrol engined models. For glow models I have had good results with Spectrum matt paints and Solarlac. I have had one go with the water based Wardbird Colours which worked OK but there is a knack to applyiing it.
I warn you that the later types of car paint which are used with a clear lacquer are very Not fuel proof to glow fuels, steer well clear of those.
|Thread: Judging Landing Approachs - how best to practice?|
IFor me, I make frequent glances from the model to the touchdown point and back to the model. By referencing where the strip is in relation to the model i get a better awareness of where I am on the glidescope and by not fixating on the model I seem to get a better idea of speed, distance and line of approach.
As the other have said, Practice, practice. Nearly all of my flights include several approaches and overshoots (if retract equipped) or T&G;s if not.
|Thread: Hypothetical glitch|
I notice that you don't make it clear who was doing what in your OP but the bottom line is that only the TX with the frequency peg should have been switched ON. Whomever else had one on was way, way out of order.
Now that 35meg is in a minority, it might be that the risk of complacency rises. You / your club needs to get a grip of this NOW.
As Ken says, if someone has switched on without the peg and brought someone else's model down, then that person has just bought the wreckage at full price.
Stu K (still on 35 meg)
|Thread: The BMFA|
I too have listened to your arguments and suggestions and see ery little of merit in what you propose. I don't share your view of the BMFA in its present form nor do I think that there is a general feeling among its members that change is necessary.
Some of your suggestion would put additional strain (and importance ) on the few individuals at the centre at the expense of who populate the regions and specialist group. Not a welcome development IMHO
As others have said, most people who approach the BMFA for help and support, get everything that they need and often more than they expect so, having watched the washing go around a few more times, I'll leave it at that.
OK then BEB, Erfolg and others, If I were to buy into your ideas, can you give me a specific example what the sort of communication/ interaction / vote or ballot that you feel should be taking place and isn't??
The other point I would make is that (in so far as I know) there isn't an all powerful group at the centre of the BMFA structure that decides or dictates policy or how things will be done in the future.
There are the Area Committees, Specific Groups like Scale and other disciplines, The Flying Site Consultant, each of which do what they do, but none have the power to dictate how others will think or act.Andy made the point earlier that 'The BMFA are its members, its as flat as an organisation can be.
Undoubtedly there are those that join the BMFA because they are told to (in order to join a club) or simply to get the Insurance, but anyone who is a long term devotee joins their Nation Body in order to secure the future of their hobby and simply 'to belong'
I'm almost sorry that you have such a dim view of the way things are.
Al C, this is a discussion forum, I thought that generally chewing the fat is the idea
I can't imagine what issue would cause the BMFA to meed to contact all of its members so urgently? and to do so would bypass those members and groups which form the existing structure.
I also think it likely that if members were afforded such easy access to the centre, then they would be inundated with puerile complaints that 'so and so flies like a lemon but has a B certificate.'' My club committee won't do what I want them to do and many many more.' None of which have anything to do with the BMFA.
The demise of the BMFA forum was due (in part) to a few members stridently refusing to believe that their views were not popular or wanted, and perhaps give an indication of what might happen if there was direct access.
BEB this is a hot topic for you and I doubt that anything said by others will cause you to change your mind. In my view, if the BMFA were to be organised along the lines that you suggest, the outcome would be pretty disastrous. If 28000 people were supposed to take all of their questions, suggestions and needs straight to the centre, then nothing would get done because te centre would be overwhelmed. By having the centre do what the centre does and the area committees do what they do, linking together at regular intervals, then order is maintained and everyone has a voice.
The system works, I haven't seen anything in your suggestions which ( I feel ) would be an improvement. Good debate though.
Edited By stu knowles on 19/03/2011 08:42:52
I have been away from the box for a while so have only just happened on this thread.
I would like to say that I think that the BMFA works well.
When there have been challenges and threat to the hobby on a national scale, the BMFA countered them very well.
When organising fly ins and club days, the local area committee supported the event with practical help which included picking up a three figure bill on every occasion.
At club level they offer guidance and support if asked, Planning threats and site advice
They stage the Nats and support the whole spectrum of aeromodelling.
Before asking for reform, why not try engaging with the system as it is, you may find that it does much more than you know?
|Thread: The end of 35Mhz for me!|
Some interesting comments here. As a cave dwelling 35meg user, I'll concede that there may be some advantages in 2.4 for small models and lekky, although in my limited experience of the dark art, 35 is working well in my fleet of a Parkzone fighter, an Rc Factory Yak and a MPX Gemini.
In a free world, if 2.4 works for you and you feel that the advantages it has brought is worth the outlay, then that's absolutely fine, 2.4 is progress and offers a development of the hobby in general.
I do feel a wee bit tetchy though when 'converts' start to justify their choice by making inferences that somehow 35 gear is not quite 'safe' In fairness, it hasn't been said on this thread but if you frequent the various forums (forii?) you will know what I mean. The insistence on 2.4 only for many shows seems to be a big leap to me. Is there evidence to support this change??
TBH, when 2.4 came along, work took me away from flying, so for a couple of years I was standing on the touchlines watching as an interested observer. (otherwise things may have been different) I saw the mass changeover in my club and in the mags. I also saw some grief with the new tech as the bugs were ironed out.
Now that I'm back and the dust has settled, I see no pressing need to change. I might buy a cheap conversion ( FrSky) for a redundant FF8 for small stuff, but I'm content to wait and let things develop. Telemetry. what next?
Since I got back into flying, 35meg has just got better and better. At the club. there is only one or two even using 35 let alone sharing a channel. At a fly in, no TX pound was needed and for all except one afternoon of the weekend, I had my channel to myself.
Stu k fence sitter!
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!