britbrat

Well, your dress certainly looks funny! [:'(] It needs to taken in a bit around the bust-line.

jhelps

... and let out around the bustle

JH

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

How about coming up to Asessippi next year and meeting genuine flyers, Like Dennis W and not someone who hitails it to the can, the rccan.
Dennis fuels up his one of a kind Pond Racer, (twin ST 3250's)
Take off to a split S, and on the way down, the right out wing panel spar fails, causing the a/c to crash,
next photo is Dennis haming it up with the remains, 20 minutes later he was flying the pants off his new 35%Ultimate,
a few weeks before his new 35% Edge had a r/c failure and went in, many brews Sat. night did not deaden the pain but he teased himself as much as everyone bugged him.
Also a 35% edge went in (wing failed) and a delta type turbine (H stab), no crying over by those either or the 7 other crashed that weekend.


.

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

............i haven't seen that many wrecks alltogether at events in 2 years?

[X(]

.......what gives?


I'll answer my own question: "spars"

How did the weather hold out? Get swamped?

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

Weather was great, burnt 3.5 gallons of gas. lots of crashes (10), lots of flying,

you probably would not have had a good time, these are not rccan type of people, at Asessippi they laugh, fly, tell jokes, drink beer, tell stories, laugh more, fly, visit, help, laugh, drink more beer ( always after flying of course), do not tell each other how swell their web site is or their event is, kinda humble fun loving group, don't know if you would fit in.
[sm=lol.gif]

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

...yeah, That's not my crowd. [:'(]

Many warbirds there?

.....hope you didn't laugh at anybody's wreck.

Jim_McIntyre

10 Crashes? Wing failures, stab failures, "rc" failures. [X(]

Is this common?

I've been to many weekend, and even week long events with few unoccupied stones and I don't think I've ever witnessed that many "failures" at one event, or even in one season!

Are the manufacturers selling faulty equipment to you guys out west?

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

Asessippi photos at [link]http://www.geocities.com/asessippi/2005photos[/link]

Jim_McIntyre

Looks like a great event.[8D]

If you ever get a chance, you really should check out some of the events out this way.

The Chatham Scale Airshow is next weekend: http://www.chathamaeronauts.com

and Kitchener's 36th Annual Scale Airshow Sept 10-11: http://www.kwflyingdutchmen.com/rallyad.php

Both on the must attend list.

Of course the MAAC Nationals should be high on that list this summer as well: http://www.maacnats.ca/

Plenty of other great events, the difficulty every summer having to choose, as there are so many more great events to attend than there are weekends....

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

Dem farmers in Sask and MB are so dang accomidatin friendly that when one guy smacks one up, 3 or 4 others smack dares up justice to make em feels better....

nice bunches

britbrat

Must be catchy, we Ottowar Vally guyz seems ta ding em a lot in komradship. Jist Sunday tree of us landed upside down all in a row -ta show solidarity wit a brudder who did his furst. [sm=bananahead.gif]

Bad ting hapuned do -- we laffed ar ar$$es off. [sm=lol.gif]

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

.......holy cowz.....I dernt tink anybodies cude laff dat much!

.........Youz see dose guys ar$$es? [&:]

britbrat

Dem guyz was all ar$e frum noze ta tale -- datz sumpin ya dernt see much eh? [sm=stupid.gif]

Jim_McIntyre

My not so subtle point (that still appears to have been missed) was not the volume of crashes, but the number attributed atributed to "failures".

Are we to assume that the quality equipment is not meeting the quality of pilots? Or am I still being too subtle?

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

The guys are flying very hard and aggressive, this weekend the limits are pushed to the max.

Jim_McIntyre

Ok, I guess I do have to spell it out ... it sounds more like the limits are being pushed beyond the max....

All politics and "friendly" banter aside, from someone with firsthand experience, what would you attribute this high failure rate to?

- overpowering?
- underengineering?
- bad throttle management?
- faulty design?
- faulty materials?
- bad maintenance?

or are you saying this kind of failure rate is acceptable, and even expected at these kind of events?

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

All of the crashes happened in front of the pilots and landed in open areas far away from anything and posed no hazard. There was four days of continious flying, 8am to 10pm a lot of flights, this year was very much higher than normal or what I've seen before any where else, stuff happens at times.


Failure rates in toy or model airplanes are hard to predict as there are no minimum standards for materials, design, maintenance or pilot proficiency. I don't believe commercial designs have had a structural analysis done by a professional aeronautical engineer but I suppose this could be another rule for a zone to introduce.

I do not know what an accepectable failure rate is for airplane models, radios, servoes, battereis, switches, engines, etc. maybe the maac safety commitee has some numbers, all I can say all the pilots were following all the rules, that is why the impacts occured away from everything, and the pilots handles their loss with grace, humility and a sense of humour.

Nobody had more than one crash.


I've seen 3 mid airs at one fun fly in one day, some events do not have crashed.

the ones I seen happned becasue:

1: turbine delta type - elevator flutter then departure - at medum speed, so it could be design and / or materials and or maintenance.
2. Pond racer, outer right wing panel failed at spar - design and / or materials / and or maintenance.
3. 35% Edge - right wing failed outside of wing tube - design and / or materials / and or maintenance
4. Four cubs flying formation - one pilot got confused and watched another cub and his went in - pilot caused.
5. Sig Astro Hog Bipe - pilot disorientation
6. 25% Edge 200 - stalled in stall turn - too high wing loading or pilot caused or insufficient height for recovery.

Jim_McIntyre

Thanks for your frank answers Ken, maybe we can have a respectable conversation online?

First, I'm not about to propose any new rules.... we have too many now that are not enforceable (sorry Marc )

I will comment that I am a bit concerned about these failures as I have noticed a trend toward overpowering aircraft with little thought given to strengthening structure. The growing trend of larger aircraft, cheap ARFs, extreme 3D and ever more powerful engines, combined with an all too common lack of knowledge about power management and you have ... "failures".

Now I have no bias against large scale or 3d (in fact, I participate in both) but, I do have concerns about the rising number of airframe failures.
The list in the previous post is what I tend to attribute them to.... thoughts?

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

when I started in 1978, I would see a crash almost every second or third night due to r/c failure, where it was interference or dead batteries, or using the same r/x over again after a crash becasue we never had spare /c components they were going in on a regual basis.

The radios are much better, the engines better, the planes fly better, so we crash less and the airframes last longer and have much more flights on them.

Evenutally we have some detoriation in the airframe, which we do not detect that leads to a small failure that usually takes out the airframe, for instance in our club is a 1/3 scale Laser 200 that is now flying into it's 10th year, it has had many owners, many many lovechvaks, a few dings but it keeps on going, 20 years ago it would be unheard off to have an airframe last that long, eventually it will have a structural failure if the pilot does not plant it first.

Secondly we fly more agressive, we've learned manouevers outside the std loops and loops and rolls, and this takes a toll plus the arfs make you rprized model easily replaceable thus I can take the chance at zero clearnce inverted pass, becasue a call to Tower Hobbies replaces Patty.

Thirdly the airframes are built lighter, whether this a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not sure, is a 10 pound plane pulling 6g better that that same airplane built stronger to 12 pounds pulling 6g giving a 72 pound pull.

The key thing to remember is that on any flight your prized r/c model can turn into an unguided air to surface object, so it's best to lfy where noghting can be hit should you have a structural, mechanical, electrical, guidance, failure, or commit an error in piloting.
I don't see crashes increasing or decreasing lately.

What I did notice is that when you have a proper airfield such as Asessippi, the roominess provides a safety factor when hosting a big event. lots of space out there.

Jim_McIntyre

Wow! We started into the hobby about the same time (doing the math, I was 12 before I had my first RC, making it about 1974, I flew rubber and gas FF b4 that). Yeah, I saw a lot of crashes but, they were in famrers fields with nothing to hit but the occasional cow... alas, these days, given urban sprawl, that's no longer the case.[]

My observations:
Positive:
- The number of crashes that can truly be attributed to radio failure (discounting poor maintenance, especially batteries and switches) is greatly reduced
- The number of "dumb-thumb" crashes are slightly reduce, maybe attributable to better training programs being offered?
Negative:
- The number of structural failures are on the rise.
- The number of crashes due to pushing beyond ones own limitations are on a significant rise, likely attributeable to the "consumeable" airframe scenario (Patty) you referred to.

Jason Holdaway

I may have to agree with Jim on this one.

elevator flutter sounds like it could have been a maintenance issue, if it had several prior flights without flutter. flutter is your spotters signal to keep an eye to see where the plane is going to crash when the flutter stops. (if the pilot doesn't know enough to cut the throttle and bring it in ASAP) I've seen it at too high of speed too, but that doesn't sound like the case here.

wing panel failure-too fast or not built to take the speed. same for the edge
four cubs flying. if they didn't have easily noticable different identification marks the what were they thinking?
pilot disorientation-it happens. I like to have a lot of contrast on my bottom wing panels. most of my open combat ships are black on the top, black on the bottom right panel, flourecent orange on the bottem left, and flourecent orange ailerons. Obviously this wouldn't be ideal for a lot of aircraft out there.
edge 200-pilot error.

We fly our combat ships as hard as hard gets, but we build them to take it. most of the throws are set so high that a 5mph wind increase is all that is needed to snap pulling elevator downwind. It's kind of funny watching someone panic after the first snap and keep pulling hard trying to get out of it. I've seen up to 5 conseccutive snaps right into the ground. I've seen people test their "new and improved" designs and fold the wings 10 seconds after launching them too. My wings are blue foam, fiberglass leading edge (some of the older wings are 1/4" dowel though) carbon fiber top and bottom, tip to tip, ripstock nylon covered wings, glassed in the center. even with this set up, you can see the wing bow in a real hard turn, but I've never seen one fail.

britbrat

This is a good discussion.

I started this silly modelling game in the late 1940's & every model crashed after a few flights. This wild attrition persisted through the 50's & 60's, pretty much regardless of what modelling discipline was employed (free-flight, UC, RC). By the 1970's, in RC the radios were so much better that those who survived the learning period occasionally had models that lasted several years in regular use, although the learning "hump" was still really steep.

Now it is not at all uncommon to have models that are more than a decade old (I have five that are more than 10 yrs old). Teaching is much more refined & disciplined, & the teaching tools are fabulous -- giving most beginners a chance of learning to fly with just a single model. Safety rules are well thought out, field layouts are much improved and there is a high degree of self discipline among the pilot population. The attrition rate has fallen accordingly.

I'm not sure that there is a real problem developing.

Jim, why do you say that there is a rising rate of mechanical failure? If it is so, is it confined to the burgeoning ARF world?

I doubt if model builders have changed much in habits & techniques. Materials are better now (certainly in the case of engines, radios, fittings & adhesives).

I hear what you are saying about overpowering models & 3D types are very susceptible to this behaviour, but are they really crashing at a rising rate? Perhaps it is a constant rate, but with numbers increasing due to greater involvement.

I recently killed a very tired 10 yr old Ultra Sport 40 by stuffing it full of 60-size motor & trying to exceed 100 mph with it. I knew that the failure was a real possibility & took care to fly when I was alone with a buddy & to keep it pointed in a "safe" direction. It shed its tired old wings in most spectacular fashion. I guess it was a "statistic", but mechanical failure after 10 yrs of brutal treatment does not suggest a trend to rising rates of mechanical failure.

I personally don't think that there is much of a problem --- but maybe??

can773

My Feedback: (1)

Just for fun....

This summer will see my third Worlds....first in Ireland with 104 pilots, second Poland with 97 pilots and this summer in France with so far 118 pilots.....

There has been 2 crashes to date (obviously not including France)....one crash was due to structural failure from a faulty design (not an obvious oversight), the other due to some radio failure. I dont have the details on the radio failure, but I did witness the wing failure.....composite wing which had the LE split in flight and basically explode...very spectacular.

Assuming there are no crashes in France, thats 1576 flights with 2 incidents.....

In 10 years of competing in pattern I have witnessed maybe a handful of crashes.....of those its a pretty even split among structural, radio and midair's (thats actually fairly common). I have personally never crashed a competition model and have probably in the neighbourhood of 5000 flights combined over the years.

The reliablility of the components is there, I think it ends up being the end user that ultimately determine how reliable their plane is.....if you do a full throttle dive at the ground and haul in 30 degrees of elevator you cant expect your plane to survive long :-) If you fly your plane within its limits there is no reason not to get 2000 flights from a model.

Mid-airs....thats kinda tough to predict.

jhelps

Midairs

If Ken is talking about the ones I think he is, we were running a fun fly with a limit of four planes in the air at one time (small field lots of spectators so we kept it controlled). We had a PA set up and a fellow doing announcing so the first time visitors had some idea of the planes that were flying and what was going on as well as to call pilots when their frequency was open. He was in the middle of some talk about aircraft when it happened, that sick THWACK !! sound and two of the birds were on their way down (I think one deadsticked in OK). The announcer (I wish I could remember his name) made a fantastic recovery and trying to put a positive spin on things started telling folks "Ladies and Gentlemen you have just witnessed a very rare event. I have been flying models for over ten years and have never witnessed a mid air at a funfly before. Usually there is little interference ..." TWACK !! The remaining two aircraft have a midair and there is now dead silence as the bits of these two totally destroyed planes drifted to the ground. With only a pregnant pause the announcer says " ... Pilots ... there are now 4 frequencies open".

JH

can773

My Feedback: (1)

Thats entertainment :-)

The odd thing with pattern is you usually run two flightlines parallel to each other, each guy is trying to fly at the same distance in front of themselves (150 meters) to get the best scores.....more often then not there is not enough space to accomodate both lines box so that the planes never share the same space (the lines would need to have nearly 1/2 mile separation)......so its not uncommon for a couple of planes to occupy the same space at the same time :-)

The most spectacular I have ever witnessed was at last years US Nats, one guy just making his downwind pass and Sean McMurtry (many time TOC pilot) coming out of the backside of an outside loop (read high energy).....I was watching Sean because he is one of the guys to beat and BOOOOOM....scared the hell out of me! Both planes fell to the ground right where they hit.....complete destruction. Obviously both were disappointed but shook hands and came back to the line smiling.....both had backups out and fueled for the next round :-)

The spinner of Sean's plane showing the dead nuts spinner to spinner impact...



The other showing both planes in all their glory...they decellerated so fast it ripped the controls off