Isaiah 40:31

Ok, just a question...

In the event of a crash, should one measure from where the largest piece landed outward to all the other pieces? Or should you measure from the piece where the center of gravity was originally located? Or should you make a grid and locate all the pieces with x & y coordinates for posterity? Or should we just measure the distance between the furthest apart pieces?

I think if we standardize this we could gain better enlightment (ie. who had the best crash!) regarding such matters.

Jim C.

why would you need to?? you work for ntsb ??

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Well for me I either just measure the depth of the hole cause it went straight in, or I measure from the first piece to the last piece in the direction of flight. Of course, in the latter case it sometimes takes surveying equipment to get such long distances correct!

Zpat

My Feedback: (2)

Force 1 crash. Aircraft structural components damaged. (The most common and not very impressive))
Force 2 crash. Aircraft structure and radio damaged. (Impressive)
Force 3 crash. Aircraft, radio and engine beyond repair. (Most impressive)

Jimmbbo

How about a Force 4 crash - No identifiable pieces remaining. (Automatic nomination for R/C Hall of Fame)...

Jim

hookedonrc

Usually I measure the plastic bag that the pieces must go in. The harder the crash, the fewer big pieces left, hence a smaller bag.

Flak

My Feedback: (1)

I always have the decible meter turned on with the attatched recorder running so I can MEASURE the applause from the onlookers.
"Keep 'Em Flying!"
Flak

skier

I suggest measuring it by subtracting the cost of the recoverable parts from the cost of the plane to build.

Unstable

farthest part from impact (in feet) (parts lost in flight dont count.... or might as a bonus if you want) times the depth of the impact hole. (in inches..... if you get to measuring feet for this you win... you just win )

mAvRiCk-inactive

Thats mad funny. I would like to see a plane in the ground past the win. Now that would be a crash. I saw a Jet Crash and pieces went 200 yards away. Now, thats a crash

Dan

JoeAirPort

My Feedback: (41)

I measure in how much I spent on the plane. how's this for a scale? $ $$ $$$ $$$$ $$$$$

stuk_at_work

My Feedback: (111)

Thank-you gentleman. You've given me some ideas for a new fun-fly contest!

phread59

This is not exactly on topic but true(at least the guy who told me said so). We all remember the X-15 don't we? Well it had 4 rocket engines. It was supposed to have 1 trottleable engine. The project manager told me a story about the first 3 tests.

Seems the engine was on the test stand and all was going well until KABLOOEY! The damn thing exploded! Nothing at all was left not even the test stand! They found parts 5 MILES away in the downtown section where the plant was located. They torched 3 motors until they found the problem. That has to be the all time winner!

Mark Shuman

skythumbs

Like JoeAirPort, I just measure up the $$$$. Who cares about how far they are spread out.

Flydenfeld

I think you should gauge the crash by dividing the size/scale (w/o the decimal point --> i.e., .40 = 40) of the airplane by the weight, then multiply the result by the amount of peices it broke into.

Skeletor

Hmmnnnnnnnnnnn. There should be several measurements... Depth of hole, field of debris, and if the plane was re-buildable or not. The cost of the plane is an issue. But as we all know, depends on the size and type of plane. I doubt the percieved loss is as great for a .40 ARF as it would be for a 1/4 scale kit built plane. Lets try this:

Was the plane re-buildable? Y, N.
Did engine survive? Y,N.
Kit or ARF?
Debris field, 1 sq. yrd., 10 sq.yrd., 50 sq. yrd. 100 sq. yrd. 500+ sq. yrd.
Depth of hole, 1", 2", 3", 4", 5", 5+".
Gas or glow
Size of plane, .049-.25, .25-.40, .60-1.0, 1.0-3, 3+
Cost of repairs/kit $, $$, $$$, $$$$, $$$$$, My wife can never know!.

This is getting complicated, maby a pic would be better.

Montague

Did it hit hard enough for dust to fly out of the transmitter?

What percentage of guys watching visibly cringed on impact. That's always a good one. That "Oh, that's gotta hurt" feeling before you even get to the crash site.

Seriously though, I prefer the distance between parts method myself. Or distance from point of impact of the engine (or nose of a multi-)

Oh, I just remembered a good one. The number of guys required to carry the parts back to the pits. If one guy can hold all the parts, there aren't enough parts to qualify.