Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

"3D Waiver"?

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

"3D Waiver"?

Old 11-13-2003, 12:42 PM
  #26  
ChuckAuger
Senior Member
My Feedback: (12)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pampa, TX
Posts: 5,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

Doc, sounds like the thing to do. If you are so agitated that you resort to calling people "numb-nuts", it's time to take those ten deep breaths.

Hope it's not as bad as it seems when it all comes out in the wash.
Old 11-13-2003, 01:34 PM
  #27  
DocYates
My Feedback: (102)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

Yep, you are right.
in and out...IN and out....In and out...

Thanks for reminding me...
Tommy
Old 11-13-2003, 05:53 PM
  #28  
sfaust
My Feedback: (11)
 
sfaust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

ORIGINAL: CAPtain232

Stephen....you have brought up several good points that highlighted the faults in my comments...IE the indoor guidelines vs outdoor.

But, as you and I sit here and hash this thing out, and I am certain we could eventually come up with something that would work, the fine folks located in MUNCIE should be able to do the same thing......I just do not feel like they are truly thinking about the people that support the AMA
I agree with you, and believe that if a small group of us got together, we could hash out a reasonable set of rules that most people could live by, that would allow these maneuvers with the same level of safety that currently exists in other areas of the sport. Its just a matter of thinking it through, and working out the issues. Something I wish those in the ivory tower would consider.
Old 11-13-2003, 06:39 PM
  #29  
CAPtain232
My Feedback: (40)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Waynetown, IN
Posts: 2,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

J_R

Are you telling me that you do not know that to be an AMA sanctioned/certified/regulated, or what ever you want to call it, field there are guidelines/regulations or what ever you want to call them, that states MINIMUM dimensions for the field, pilot station, pit area and spectator area? It has been a while since I have viewed the information myself, but that was one of the first things I remember looking over.


For some reason, it sounds to me like you are on the side of the AMA......do you have some connection other than being a member


It almost seems as though I struck a nerve and you just didn't want to reveal who you are. Yeah maybe I said a few things that weren't 100% correct, but probably not far off.

So tell us why it is that the AMA seems to work more against us these days. Tell us why it is that the AMA was in part organized to help us maintain the right and freedom to fly these planes and now they are slowly taking it all away. Tell us why we have to call our DVP and complain about these things. Why can't we simply get the best representation that our dues are paying for.........What does the AMA stand for these days anyway......

They think the organization is so strong just because it is the biggest one in the states....I bet when the people get tired of some of these actions, the organization will feel just how vulnerable it really is. The people that sit in those chairs in MUNCIE INDIANA are elected to do so so that we do not have to argue fuss and fight with those that do not care about us....now it seems as though we are fighting oursleves......We can organize another group to better represent us if that is what it all comes down to....It may be a lot of heartache and trouble in the beginning, but don't think it can't be done. How do you think the AMA got started??!! The people just have to get their bellies full first and I would say that the AMA is spoon feeding us.
Old 11-13-2003, 06:51 PM
  #30  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

CAPtain232

I am telling you that none of your statements are accurate

JR
Old 11-13-2003, 06:59 PM
  #31  
Jim Branaum
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

ORIGINAL: CAPtain232

J_R

Are you telling me that you do not know that to be an AMA sanctioned/certified/regulated, or what ever you want to call it, field there are guidelines/regulations or what ever you want to call them, that states MINIMUM dimensions for the field, pilot station, pit area and spectator area? It has been a while since I have viewed the information myself, but that was one of the first things I remember looking over.


For some reason, it sounds to me like you are on the side of the AMA......do you have some connection other than being a member
CAptain232,

Each of those "regulations" you mention are SUGGESTIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS rather than requirements. Please do not misread what is presented as it can get confusing. There are many Chartered AMA Clubs flying from flying fields that DO NOT MEET those suggestions or recommendations and there is no way the AMA would withdraw support from them.

The ONLY requirements to be an Chartered AMA Club field AND have the site insured by and additional rider naming the owner as the insured are contained in the club recharter kit. However, they do NOT involve site size, shape, or other physical requirements. They DO require your club to be some distance from another or have a frequency sharing plan in place and the do require you to limit flying to AMA members only.
Old 11-13-2003, 07:09 PM
  #32  
CAPtain232
My Feedback: (40)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Waynetown, IN
Posts: 2,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

Accuracy can be measured in many ways.....

Make a fool of me I do not care........how far off am I, and can you prove it?
Old 11-13-2003, 07:15 PM
  #33  
CAPtain232
My Feedback: (40)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Waynetown, IN
Posts: 2,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

Jim

Thank you for your guidance. Maybe this then is where things need to be rethought......Instead of all of these rules telling us how we can not fly our planes, maybe there should be REQUIRMENTS made by the AMA....These REQUIREMENTS should have 3D, JET, PYLON or any other type of flying safety designed into them.
Old 11-13-2003, 07:19 PM
  #34  
CAPtain232
My Feedback: (40)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Waynetown, IN
Posts: 2,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

JIM

Does the AMA regulate the size/shape of the flying site if EVENTS are to be held there?
Old 11-13-2003, 07:29 PM
  #35  
P-51B
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
 
P-51B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

ORIGINAL: CAPtain232

Jim

Instead of all of these rules telling us how we can not fly our planes, maybe there should be REQUIRMENTS made by the AMA....These REQUIREMENTS should have 3D, JET, PYLON or any other type of flying safety designed into them.
Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it. I don't think we need the same board that is responsible for the recent rules causing all of these threads, dictating field requirements at this point in time. They may decide that in order to fly anything over 50" span and 2 lbs the runway MUST be 600 feet away and be at least 5000 feet long. I know those are not realistic numbers, I just used them to illustrate that those making the rules may not realize the same thing.
Old 11-13-2003, 07:35 PM
  #36  
CAPtain232
My Feedback: (40)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Waynetown, IN
Posts: 2,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

P-51

Oh believe me I agree, but if we could go that route vs banning ANY type of flying, I think many would prefer it. NOT A COMBINATION OF BOTH
Old 11-13-2003, 08:55 PM
  #37  
rw Guinn
Senior Member
 
rw Guinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

ORIGINAL: CAPtain232

JIM

Does the AMA regulate the size/shape of the flying site if EVENTS are to be held there?
not Jim, but I'll answer--no!
and the AMA regulates NOTHING at the club level. It makes suggestions and recommendations.
If you want to fly a jet, go right ahead. build it and fly it. there is no law against it, no regulations on it. nobody to say no about it.
You want to tailtouch, or go wipe down your airplane while hovering--have at it!
Just don't expect to fly in competition, and most sites run by clubs will run you off, when they find you're not in compliance with their safety code, which generally includes the AMA saftey code.
And don't expect any help or sympathy if you have an accident involving property damage or injury. That would be like asking your homeowners insurance to rebuild your house after you destroyed it by manufacturing Hand Grenades for a profit in the basement...
Get it through you heads, folks-the AMA is NOT a regulatory agency. It has no power to stop you from doing what you want to do. Nor are there any laws about what kind of model airplane you can build and fly--although there may be laws regulating where you can fly.
If you want to enjoy the benefits of membership-insurance, competition (they are the only US sanctioning body for FAI) , and their brand of insurance, then join and follow the rules when at an insured site.
If not, then have at it and shut the heck up
Old 11-13-2003, 09:39 PM
  #38  
CAPtain232
My Feedback: (40)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Waynetown, IN
Posts: 2,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

RW.....

I do not recall saying anything about 3d being ILLEGAL


I think at least in MY CASE you misunderstand my point.....I KNOW THAT THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. It is the fact that we pay $58 a year to be a member of the AMA and they are in fact making THEIR RULES which are cramping peoples flying style. Most people fly at club fields and as you stated they are typically governed by club safety rules which are pretty much set by the AMA......THUS THE PROBLEM
Old 11-13-2003, 09:56 PM
  #39  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

rw Guinn

I always love it when someone like CAPtain232 lambasts the EC as making too much money. You would think that any AMA member would know that they are elected UNPAID volunteers.

CAPtain232

If you take the time to read some of the threads in this forum, you can find out exactly who I am... but, knowing reading is not your long suit, from the misinformation you posted... I am an AMA member. I am a CD and a Leader Member. I have no other affiliation with the AMA. I have no interest in holding any position with the AMA.

I think the EC made a mistake in the wording of Rule 9. I think that their intent is admirable.. to make sites safer. I believe that requiring seperation between aircraft and people will get the desired results. I am not against any form of aeromodeling. I am against any activity that produces a safety hazard. If you put your aircraft far enough away, you can do anything you want with it, as far as I am concerned. It amazes me that almost every sector of the hobby is thinking that the rule was aimed at them. You should see some of the posts from the heli guys. They want to be able to continue to "mow the grass" and are positive that the rule was aimed directly at them. Even the park flyers think the rule was aimed at their under 2 pound planes, to keep them from tail touching.

My position is simple. I do not want to see any modeler hurt by an accident that could have been avoided. If you can live with yourself if you seriously hurt someone else, or kill them, your not my kind of modeler.

What some fail to realize, is that clubs are going to enforce the Safety Code as a part of their AMA charter. To do otherwise is to put the club and it's members at risk of having their insurance not cover an accident. The same is true at AMA sanctioned events, where ever they might be held.

I am sick to death of seeing different sectors of the hobby pointing at each other, saying "His sector is more dangerous than mine". The park flyers, sport flyers, freestyle (3D), warbirds, pylon, heli, jet guys all point at each other and they all point at the newbie. Remember, when you point at someone else, you have three fingers pointing back at yourself, and this goes for the EC too. I can't understand why these EC members want to give of themselves like they do. They make mistakes and they try to fix them. They are human. They are individuals, not a group sitting around dreaming up things to make modelers lives miserable.

Read some of the threads in this forum or the jet forum. These guys formed a Special Interest Group (SIG). They are SLOWLY getting what they want. This is the way the AMA works. If you want to do something useful, start a SIG or support forming one for Freestyle.

We are all in this together. Remember it.

JR
Old 11-13-2003, 10:24 PM
  #40  
CAPtain232
My Feedback: (40)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Waynetown, IN
Posts: 2,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

Now we are getting somewhere.....


Thank you for clarifying J_R......

As is obvious, I am not completely up to date on the GOINGS ON in reference to the wages and a few other things. In fact I really do not care too much about what the AMA decides to do with this new rule for the simple fact that I fly at my own field, I do not compete and the only time that I use the AMA card is when I am at a club field teaching someone how to fly.......Maybe I just felt like this thing needed some stirring.

I know that I came off sounding like a hot head, but honestly I am pretty level headed. Safety is #1 in my book. In fact if you read some of my postings in regards to safety you wil see this. I preach safety to new comers.

I just simply do not think it is right for them to rule against a flying style.....They need to find a way to make the sight safe for all types of flying..

The bigger picture is simply we all need to be responsible pilots. I don't think there would be such issues if we were.
Old 11-13-2003, 10:35 PM
  #41  
Kevin Greene
My Feedback: (85)
 
Kevin Greene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jackson, TN
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

You guys need to do everything in your power to AVOID having to get a waiver. In hind sight, if I would have known what I know, now things in the jet community would be a LOT different.

I was the first JPO (Jet Pilots' Organization) Representative for District V. JPO was formed by Ralph Bailey to unite jet modelers. Ducted fans were the rule---Turbines were still in the experimental stages. Then along came the JPX T-240 turbine. As close as I recall this was the first commercially available turbine engine available to modelers. This engine ran on very volatile fuel (propane) and was entirely controlled by mechanical means rather than an ECU as todays' turbines are controlled. It was up to the user to properly set the max rpm, throttle curve, and to safely control the fueling/startup proceedure. Some of the worlds' best flyers had this little turbine in their possesion----Terry Nitsch and Bob Violett come to mind. It didn't take long for "Turbine Fever" to take hold with many ducted fan pilots buying the JPX engine.

Soon, word got out that there were a few modelers with more "bucks than ability", and a few others from other facets of our hobby that have never flown a high performance aircraft, buying turbines. The AMA asked the JPO to do a turbine study to see if the new turbines were safe for an EXPERIENCED jet modeler to own. Credit Del Ellis for his work in this area. So that every turbine modeler would be on the same page, a list of rules were developed to ensure safe turbine flying from startup to shutdown. The only fly in the buttermilk was the issue of modelers that were completely inexperienced in building, rigging, maintaining, and flying a high performance aircraft. Hence, a waiver system was developed.

For the most part, the jet waiver system has done its' job. There have been a few that have slipped through the cracks but those individuals now are being watched very carefully. The problem jet modelers now have is OVER regulation. Many things have changed over the years....Propane fueled turbines are no longer commercially made. Turbines now start with a flick of a TX switch. Wet starts are now very rare due to ECU controlled starts. All in all, turbine technology has progressed to the point that our engines are very trouble free and EXTREMELY safe.

When "we", as jet modelers, say we would like to see some of the rules relaxed it is for good reason. Although the JPO has made recommendations, the AMA has imposed some rules that were very detrimental to jets, especially the larger twins. Power was restricted to the point that if you did have a flame out you would be very lucky to get your jet back on the remaining engine....Even at full power. I won't go into all of the details of the rest of the problems but this is a good example.

The main argument over one of the latest potential new rules is the requirement for ALL jets to have a speed limiter. At first glance this may seem like a good idea. If you know anything about jets it is a nightmare. First of all there is only one commercial turbine company that offers a speed limiter. The only other speed limiter available is an aftermarket item made by a company that doesn't even produce turbines!!! It the jet forum there have been a few examples of guys that have used the aftermarket speed limiter.....One guy blames a crash on his limiter and several others have stated how theirs didn't work properly, potentially causing a crash. The main complaint of the limiter is that when the limiter "kicks in", the turbine is radically throttled back and the return of control to the pilot is so long that the model can get dangerously slow!!! Would you want THAT on your model???

The problem we have is one man in the AMA dictating rules over a facet of the hobby he knows nothing about. No tests have been conducted to see if speed limiters are even compatable with all of our commercially available turbines. He just wants it done....Period.

Get the picture??? Run as fast as you can from this type of ignorant regulation.

Kevin
Old 11-13-2003, 10:38 PM
  #42  
Tired Old Man
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Valley Springs, CA
Posts: 18,602
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

Regarding waivers;

Eliminate all waivers.

Instead REQUIRE for all types of R/C vehicle operation: Hard Hats, Full Body Armor, Face Shields, Safety Goggles, Steel Toe Boots, Welding Gloves, Respirators w/ Self Contained Air Supply, (3) Flight Spotters per Aircraft or Ground or Water Craft, ....

I could go on and on, but I think everyone gets the point. Too many people believe that nothing can be safe unless it is completely regulated and closely supervised. Unless you are one of those who has become completely devoid of common sense with the advent of computer technology (you know who you are), nothing could be further from the truth.

Increasing the regulation of anything only increases the cost and decreases the potential for enjoyment. Basic rules should be enough for any type of flight. Overstepping the basics should remove that person from the flying field. Shouldn't take any more than that.

Silversurfer
Old 11-13-2003, 10:48 PM
  #43  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

What about just a certification for anything over 10, 15 or maybe 20lbs, maybe this could also apply to planes that expected to fly in excess of 100 MPH? Also a solo certification for planes under 10 lbs. That way someone qualified would have to certify that students can safely fly their planes, and a higher standard for larger and faster planes. The certification should include a written test to show the owner can maintain and operate his aircraft safely. This is where I think we are headed. Not now maybe, but if we start losing sites due to accidents then it will become a necessary evil.
Old 11-13-2003, 11:02 PM
  #44  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

Kevin

Great post. It gives some of us some history and insight.

It is my understanding that the speed limiters were part of the JPO recommendations. Is that not the case?

I have also been told that Lowe and Niche are doing the testing, for the upcoming conference call, to determine the merits of speed limiters. Do you know anything about that?

How difficult is it to become comfortable with the lag associated with the turbine spooling up? Is this enough of a reason to continue the waivers, coupled with the need for a ground school covering safety?

JR
Old 11-13-2003, 11:54 PM
  #45  
Kevin Greene
My Feedback: (85)
 
Kevin Greene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jackson, TN
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

JR,

As I recall the thrust to weight rule was written...If an airframe/engine combo exceeded the .9:1 thrust to weight ratio, a speed limiter must be used to keep the model either below 200 MPH or at the manufacturers stated VNE for that airframe. If no manufacturer VNE is given, then the VNE will be 175MPH. Also is allowed the opportunity for the modeler to turn the engine down in power to stay within the guidelines. As the rule was written, if a particular turbine/airframe combo met the .9:1 ratio then no speed limiter is needed and you could also exceed 200MPH.

The problem that I and a great deal of other jet modelers have with the proposed mandated speed limiter rule is that a great many jet designs won't go 200MPH even if they were over powered!!! For an individual to put in a blanket rule that mandates that everyone have a speed limiter is ignorant concerning our jets. To insist that everyone install a speed limiter when the speed limiters haven't been perfected is again ignorant of our needs. Due to the fact that the speed limiter is directly connected to the ECU...I'm not so sure that many of the manufacturers' warranties would still be valid. Dave Brown has done absolutely NO homework concerning compatability, reliability, and warranty issues on this matter.

I don't know if Terry Nitsch and Don Lowe are doing any testing. Since I can give an educated guess in stating that Terry doesn't own an example of every turbine made, how can he adequately state that the speed limiter will work reliably with ALL turbines???

Throttle lag is a problem for some guys to get used to, especially if you have never flown ducted fans. However, some turbines spool up AND down faster and slower than others...It really depends upon the make, model, version of ECU, etc....Not all turbines have the same lag time. Some are up to twice a slow as some of the fastest.

I still think that there should be a turbine waiver needed. We need this to catch the ones that want to jump into jets with both feet before thinking their choices through. You would not believe the amount of questions we get in the jet forum from newbee's that want to start out with a high performance model. Though I've seen the same thing in other forums where a rank beginner wants to start out with a warbird. I still think that the turbine waiver is needed. The problem is that the AMA at times makes regulations without really listening to experienced jet modelers. As a result, we are over regulated as technology has made jet flying a more safe and reliable experience. Our current JPO President, Steve Ellzey, has worked very hard with the AMA EC to draft a new set of rules to complement our current regs, as to keep up with the improved technology. The results were an AMA EC 8 to 3 vote in favor of the new rules. Dave Brown doesn't like the new rules and wants to recind parts of it. Dave Brown even called the 8 to 3 passage a "split vote"!!!

Hey 3D flyers....How would you like it if a rule was passed limiting YOUR thrust to weight ratio---How would you ever ever begin to hover if you had a thrust to weight ratio less than one to one???? Think it can't happen??? Food for thought...

Kevin
Old 11-14-2003, 12:04 AM
  #46  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,498
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

ya done prety good with the history of JPO/waiver post. just one small correction.
before baily got the jpo, some guy in florida, dave something or other, actually started it. he sorta fell down on the job, and it languished fer a few years till ralph restarted the effort and it became what it is today.
Old 11-14-2003, 12:32 AM
  #47  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

Kevin

I am not sure how to word this, so I will do the best I can. It's my understanding that turbine manufacturer's have some kind of rating system that implies or states speed capability. I was told that the wording of the speed limiter rule would have to have the correct wording so that this information can be taken into account in order for the rule to get support among the VP's. In other words, and you can rephrase the above for me, turbines that won't go 200 mph will not have to have limiters.

I understand fully what DB has done. I would suggest to you, and to the other turbine flyers, that it is better to have a friend than an enemy when this is over. Remember, if you are going to shoot at the king, you darned well better kill him. Only a few have actually talked to him, and it might be wise to withhold judgement until the issue is resolved. Just my opinion, but, some of the e-mails that have been sent and posted on RCU are somewhat less than diplomatic.

JR
Old 11-14-2003, 05:59 PM
  #48  
Kevin Greene
My Feedback: (85)
 
Kevin Greene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jackson, TN
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

JR,

You're right about diplomacy....It's just very hard to be diplomatic when the guy on the other end won't listen to reasoning. It seems as if he has his own agenda, as proven when he is attempting to overturn a majority EC 8 to 3 vote.

As far as the new speed limiter rules, I'm out of the loop. I'm only getting information from the ones in the know through PM's and Emails. The manufacturers "system" as you refer to is recommended Velocity Not to Exceed (VNE) Although a given airframe may have a VNE of 200 MPH, some designs will go over 200 even with the recommended turbines in use and a thrust to weight ratio of .9:1 or less. An example of this would be a BVM Bandit. Even with a 17lb turbine installed, a 20lb Bandit is capable of over 200 MPH. Under the old rules this was acceptable. Now, it seems that Dave Brown wants to limit ALL jets to under 200MPH. I don't understand this as there are giant scale pylon racers going much faster than 200MPH. Of course putting a speed limiter on them would kill giant scale racing. Ducted fans don't have to abide by the 200 MPH rule....What gives??? At the jet events, speed is not important anymore as it was when ducted fans were the rule. Everyone I've spoken to has the opinion of, "Now, everyone can go fast so what's the point?!?!?" The speed wars of the past are long gone. There was a radar gun at the last Superman Jet Rally. The fastest planes that I personally saw were right at 200MPH. I would say the average top speeds were somewhere in the 150-165 range. It appeared that the jet pilots were policing themselves very well.

The rules state that the VNE must not exceed the manufacturers' recommended VNE. If no VNE is given then the VNE for that airframe will be 175MPH. There are TWO ways to not exceed the VNE. One is with a speed limiter. The other is by turning the turbine down in thrust. If you can turn down the turbine so that the jet will not exceed the VNE, then why mandate that it MUST have a speed limiter too??? I hope the EC straightens all of this out...

Mongo,

You're right about the JPO. It has been so long ago...I turned 40 a year and a half ago and EVERYTHING in my body went to *ell!!!

To add something about my support of the waiver system....The system forces you to be aware of turbine ops. The written section and the mandatory ground school forces the modeler to take note. This ensures EVERYONE that pilots a turbine model will be on the same page and know what's expected of them. Most of the Turbine CD's (TCD) that I know are very thorough in their training, not only going over turbine ops but the do's and dont's of rigging a plane. For those that don't know, turbine power exerts more stresses on an airframe than with ducted fan power. In the infancy of turbine power, there were not any kits devoted to turbine use. Jet modelers had to take great care in modifying their ducted fan powered airframes to turbine power. A carefull assessment of the airframe must be made ensuring that the ducted fan fuel hadn't soaked the airframe, weakening it. Additionally, the airframe must be modified for the additional stresses of turbine flight. Not all ducted fan models were suitable for conversion to turbine. The waiver system makes these points clear, like I stated earlier, keeping everyone on the same page.

Kevin
Old 11-14-2003, 07:16 PM
  #49  
lov2flyrc
My Feedback: (24)
 
lov2flyrc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Daytona Beach
Posts: 6,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

Excellent posts Kevin!


J_R,
It's my understanding that turbine manufacturer's have some kind of rating system that implies or states speed capability.
I believe what you may be describing here is actually thrust output. Most manufacturers have a RPM = Thrust chart for their engines so that when we set up a turbine powered aircraft we can "De-rate" or lower the thrust output of the engine to match the airframe(IE: we set the max rpm in the engine, thus controlling or max thrust). Now, depending on the airframe, we may not always derate the engine to .9 to 1 settings. If we are flying a high drag airframe like an F-15 or Eurofighter, we benefit greatly from having more thrust to weight ratios, Takeoff and go-around maneuvers are much easier, vertical performance is improved greatly and the aircraft is vastly more maneuverable and controllable. Even at 1.5 to 1 thrust ratio, my eurofighter would never see 175mph at full throttle in a dive, the airframe just has too much drag! Why would I need to install a speed limiter in an airplane that is not capable of reaching 200mph? Thats like installing a retract valve on a plane with fixed gear, pretty silly..... I have attached a thrust chart for a Jetcat P-120 to give you an idea what I am describing..
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Ca82180.jpg
Views:	9
Size:	27.3 KB
ID:	74756   Click image for larger version

Name:	Gb88527.jpg
Views:	9
Size:	49.7 KB
ID:	74757  
Old 11-14-2003, 09:22 PM
  #50  
rw Guinn
Senior Member
 
rw Guinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: How about a "3D Waiver"?

ORIGINAL: J_R

CAPtain232

I am telling you that none of your statements are accurate

JR
and I am agreeing with him 100%

Roger
AMA5536 CD
Former RAF president AMA Club1254

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.