Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
07-06-2005, 10:24 PM
#28
Senior Member
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pensacola,
FL
Posts: 640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
I have to ask you Gordon...do you own a JJ turbine? Have you seen one run? Are you asking this to gather information for a future purchase of one?
Luis
Luis
07-06-2005, 10:37 PM
#29
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
ORIGINAL: B1Driver
I have to ask you Gordon...do you own a JJ turbine? Have you seen one run? Are you asking this to gather information for a future purchase of one?
I have to ask you Gordon...do you own a JJ turbine? Have you seen one run? Are you asking this to gather information for a future purchase of one?
As I have already stated in at least two different posts, this poll was initiated to verify or refute suggestions that the "general opinion" was that JetJoes are dangerous.
07-06-2005, 10:43 PM
#30
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bowling Green,
KY
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
I for one have seen several of these engines fly and haven't seen the first hint of dangerous happenings......but on the other hand I watched PST600R blow flames out the tailcone resulting in burning a large chunk off the tail of the plane and costing a recharge of a fire extinguisher! I look forward to seeing JetJoe enter the US market and offer a economic choice for those of us without deep pockets!
07-06-2005, 11:21 PM
#32
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
Here's my 2 cents on the Jet Joe turbines.
Not having run one, I can't say if I think they'd be more dangerous or less dangerous as a functioning turbine.
However, I do think it's dangerous having turbines priced this low. Why? Because it opens up an even greater market of people who should not even be near a turbine to purchasing one. I personally know 4 people who have said "if they ever come down to under $2000 I'll buy one" and I sit there PRAYING they never get under 2K because these people will start fires, crash hard, probably kill someone with their inablility to fly anything much less something fast.
As much as I would LOVE cheaper engines, there is something comforting about knowing that for the most part, the only people that are going to buy them are ones who REALLY want one and can afford it since they are less likely to be hap-hazzard about things. I know there are exceptions to every rule, but personally I don't mind having to work a little harder to get an engine in order to weed out some of the people who probably shouldn't have them.
I feel the same way about giant scale, seeing the prices drop like they have concerns me.
So yes, I do think JJ turbines will be more dangerous, perhaps not in regards to the physical engine, but to the market and jet side of the hobby in general.
Not having run one, I can't say if I think they'd be more dangerous or less dangerous as a functioning turbine.
However, I do think it's dangerous having turbines priced this low. Why? Because it opens up an even greater market of people who should not even be near a turbine to purchasing one. I personally know 4 people who have said "if they ever come down to under $2000 I'll buy one" and I sit there PRAYING they never get under 2K because these people will start fires, crash hard, probably kill someone with their inablility to fly anything much less something fast.
As much as I would LOVE cheaper engines, there is something comforting about knowing that for the most part, the only people that are going to buy them are ones who REALLY want one and can afford it since they are less likely to be hap-hazzard about things. I know there are exceptions to every rule, but personally I don't mind having to work a little harder to get an engine in order to weed out some of the people who probably shouldn't have them.
I feel the same way about giant scale, seeing the prices drop like they have concerns me.
So yes, I do think JJ turbines will be more dangerous, perhaps not in regards to the physical engine, but to the market and jet side of the hobby in general.
07-06-2005, 11:27 PM
#34
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
ORIGINAL: Jeremy Ferguson
Here's my 2 cents on the Jet Joe turbines.
Not having run one, I can't say if I think they'd be more dangerous or less dangerous as a functioning turbine.
However, I do think it's dangerous having turbines priced this low. Why? Because it opens up an even greater market of people who should not even be near a turbine to purchasing one. I personally know 4 people who have said "if they ever come down to under $2000 I'll buy one" and I sit there PRAYING they never get under 2K because these people will start fires, crash hard, probably kill someone with their inablility to fly anything much less something fast.
As much as I would LOVE cheaper engines, there is something comforting about knowing that for the most part, the only people that are going to buy them are ones who REALLY want one and can afford it since they are less likely to be hap-hazzard about things. I know there are exceptions to every rule, but personally I don't mind having to work a little harder to get an engine in order to weed out some of the people who probably shouldn't have them.
I feel the same way about giant scale, seeing the prices drop like they have concerns me.
So yes, I do think JJ turbines will be more dangerous, perhaps not in regards to the physical engine, but to the market and jet side of the hobby in general.
Here's my 2 cents on the Jet Joe turbines.
Not having run one, I can't say if I think they'd be more dangerous or less dangerous as a functioning turbine.
However, I do think it's dangerous having turbines priced this low. Why? Because it opens up an even greater market of people who should not even be near a turbine to purchasing one. I personally know 4 people who have said "if they ever come down to under $2000 I'll buy one" and I sit there PRAYING they never get under 2K because these people will start fires, crash hard, probably kill someone with their inablility to fly anything much less something fast.
As much as I would LOVE cheaper engines, there is something comforting about knowing that for the most part, the only people that are going to buy them are ones who REALLY want one and can afford it since they are less likely to be hap-hazzard about things. I know there are exceptions to every rule, but personally I don't mind having to work a little harder to get an engine in order to weed out some of the people who probably shouldn't have them.
I feel the same way about giant scale, seeing the prices drop like they have concerns me.
So yes, I do think JJ turbines will be more dangerous, perhaps not in regards to the physical engine, but to the market and jet side of the hobby in general.
lol
07-06-2005, 11:42 PM
#36
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: LA,
CA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
ORIGINAL: Jeremy Ferguson
However, I do think it's dangerous having turbines priced this low. Why? Because it opens up an even greater market of people who should not even be near a turbine to purchasing one.
I sit there PRAYING they never get under 2K because these people will start fires, crash hard, probably kill someone with their inablility to fly anything much less something fast.
the only people that are going to buy them are ones who REALLY want one and can afford it since they are less likely to be hap-hazzard about things.
However, I do think it's dangerous having turbines priced this low. Why? Because it opens up an even greater market of people who should not even be near a turbine to purchasing one.
I sit there PRAYING they never get under 2K because these people will start fires, crash hard, probably kill someone with their inablility to fly anything much less something fast.
the only people that are going to buy them are ones who REALLY want one and can afford it since they are less likely to be hap-hazzard about things.
Your argument is like saying a college proffessor with a doctorate in Mathematics pulling in $70k/year is less intelligent than a high school grad who does landscaping taking in $200k/year!
In the same field, Sepulveda, there are numerous pilots who are extremely talented but do not or can not purchase a turbine.
07-06-2005, 11:45 PM
#37
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
ORIGINAL: EASYTIGER
So true! People with more money are smarter, safer, and better pilots.
ORIGINAL: Jeremy Ferguson
Here's my 2 cents on the Jet Joe turbines.
Not having run one, I can't say if I think they'd be more dangerous or less dangerous as a functioning turbine.
However, I do think it's dangerous having turbines priced this low. Why? Because it opens up an even greater market of people who should not even be near a turbine to purchasing one. I personally know 4 people who have said "if they ever come down to under $2000 I'll buy one" and I sit there PRAYING they never get under 2K because these people will start fires, crash hard, probably kill someone with their inablility to fly anything much less something fast.
As much as I would LOVE cheaper engines, there is something comforting about knowing that for the most part, the only people that are going to buy them are ones who REALLY want one and can afford it since they are less likely to be hap-hazzard about things. I know there are exceptions to every rule, but personally I don't mind having to work a little harder to get an engine in order to weed out some of the people who probably shouldn't have them.
I feel the same way about giant scale, seeing the prices drop like they have concerns me.
So yes, I do think JJ turbines will be more dangerous, perhaps not in regards to the physical engine, but to the market and jet side of the hobby in general.
Here's my 2 cents on the Jet Joe turbines.
Not having run one, I can't say if I think they'd be more dangerous or less dangerous as a functioning turbine.
However, I do think it's dangerous having turbines priced this low. Why? Because it opens up an even greater market of people who should not even be near a turbine to purchasing one. I personally know 4 people who have said "if they ever come down to under $2000 I'll buy one" and I sit there PRAYING they never get under 2K because these people will start fires, crash hard, probably kill someone with their inablility to fly anything much less something fast.
As much as I would LOVE cheaper engines, there is something comforting about knowing that for the most part, the only people that are going to buy them are ones who REALLY want one and can afford it since they are less likely to be hap-hazzard about things. I know there are exceptions to every rule, but personally I don't mind having to work a little harder to get an engine in order to weed out some of the people who probably shouldn't have them.
I feel the same way about giant scale, seeing the prices drop like they have concerns me.
So yes, I do think JJ turbines will be more dangerous, perhaps not in regards to the physical engine, but to the market and jet side of the hobby in general.
That's not what I said, and I'm not going to let words be put in my mouth. I said there are exceptions to everything. There will always be bad pilots, with or without money, but the cost of turbines has kept them out of the hands (at least locally) of some people who really shouldn't have them. These are the people who would love to have a turbine, but won't even invest in decent servo's for a sport plane. It's not that they can't afford a $1000 engine, it's that they won't by a $4000 engine.
When prices come down, there are going to be people who will now justify $1200 for an engine, but it will be all they justify and still use $10 servo's in there.
I've seen people in our local club drop $2000 on a nice plane and use the oldest crappiest servo's possible because they are good enough. Now take that same person and give them a $2000 turbine jet carrying a half gallon of jet fuel, doing 180mph on $10 20 year old servo's. They don't think in terms of the whole package. If your clubs don't have anyone like this, then consider yourself VERY lucky, but around here, there are more than a couple people that are this way.
So flame away if you want, but I didn't say anything that doesn't hold true at least in my area.
07-06-2005, 11:46 PM
#38
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
If every Pimp from Pomona could afford a turbine, it would suck, because then guys like me and Adil would have to SHARE the groupies with all these other yutzes. THAT is why jetjoe is such a menace. Jeremy is right, there's not enough glory and chicks to spread around that we can afford having Joe Schmoo Anypilot getting one.
So, my vote is YES. JJ is extremely dangerous! It's a matter of time before a bus full of nuns takes shed blades in their eyes. For the love of God, JJ MUST BE STOPPED.
So, my vote is YES. JJ is extremely dangerous! It's a matter of time before a bus full of nuns takes shed blades in their eyes. For the love of God, JJ MUST BE STOPPED.
07-06-2005, 11:48 PM
#39
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
Ok, I obviously didn't word my thoughts correctly, with a little luck, my explanation in post #37 will clear up what I was trying to say 
For what it's worth, I don't make much money, and I certainly don't feel they should be owned ONLY by those with money. I tend to forget that in Canada there is no waiver system either which means anyone can fly a turbine regardless of experience (I know they can in the US too, but not within the rules)
For what it's worth, I don't make much money, and I certainly don't feel they should be owned ONLY by those with money. I tend to forget that in Canada there is no waiver system either which means anyone can fly a turbine regardless of experience (I know they can in the US too, but not within the rules)
07-06-2005, 11:51 PM
#40
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
"Your argument is like saying a college proffessor with a doctorate in Mathematics pulling in $70k/year is less intelligent than a high school grad who does landscaping taking in $200k/year!"
Well, it's TRUE! Not ONLY is he only pulling in a pathetic 70k, he's got $22k in student loan interest alone to pay off. Doofus!
Meanwhile, the landscraper just bought a new Tahoe to tow his new Seadoo, and he's buying lapdances for the whole house down at Badabing!
Who's the intelligent one?
Well, it's TRUE! Not ONLY is he only pulling in a pathetic 70k, he's got $22k in student loan interest alone to pay off. Doofus!
Meanwhile, the landscraper just bought a new Tahoe to tow his new Seadoo, and he's buying lapdances for the whole house down at Badabing!
Who's the intelligent one?
07-07-2005, 12:13 AM
#41
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
Actually, Jeremy has an argument.
However.....you who posted "responses" (including the guy who has to gain financially from JJ succeeding....and don't say you don't) are just playing the class card. Jeremy is a working man. If you can't respond intelligently to his argument, then you can't respond intelligently....
I mean, who would argue that if manufacturers made very powerful cars, like the Ford Mustang GT (big engine), cheaply, that people would buy the car even though the power is beyond their skill just because the cars are relatively inexpensive.
*cough*
most expensive car to insure
*cough*
Sorry boys....as much as it hurts your egos, Jeremy has an excellent point. The more you bluster (meaning bad, nonsensical arguments), the worse your position becomes.
However.....you who posted "responses" (including the guy who has to gain financially from JJ succeeding....and don't say you don't) are just playing the class card. Jeremy is a working man. If you can't respond intelligently to his argument, then you can't respond intelligently....
I mean, who would argue that if manufacturers made very powerful cars, like the Ford Mustang GT (big engine), cheaply, that people would buy the car even though the power is beyond their skill just because the cars are relatively inexpensive.
*cough*
most expensive car to insure
*cough*
Sorry boys....as much as it hurts your egos, Jeremy has an excellent point. The more you bluster (meaning bad, nonsensical arguments), the worse your position becomes.
07-07-2005, 12:19 AM
#42
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: LA,
CA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
ORIGINAL: EASYTIGER
"Your argument is like saying a college proffessor with a doctorate in Mathematics pulling in $70k/year is less intelligent than a high school grad who does landscaping taking in $200k/year!"
Well, it's TRUE! Not ONLY is he only pulling in a pathetic 70k, he's got $22k in student loan interest alone to pay off. Doofus!
Meanwhile, the landscraper just bought a new Tahoe to tow his new Seadoo, and he's buying lapdances for the whole house down at Badabing!
Who's the intelligent one?
"Your argument is like saying a college proffessor with a doctorate in Mathematics pulling in $70k/year is less intelligent than a high school grad who does landscaping taking in $200k/year!"
Well, it's TRUE! Not ONLY is he only pulling in a pathetic 70k, he's got $22k in student loan interest alone to pay off. Doofus!
Meanwhile, the landscraper just bought a new Tahoe to tow his new Seadoo, and he's buying lapdances for the whole house down at Badabing!
Who's the intelligent one?
07-07-2005, 02:30 AM
#43
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
5 turbine wheel pictures, all showing a turbine wheel which is only suitable for scrap.
Balancing a compressor (so far as where material is removed from) is not so critical as it does not run in very hot gas.
This turbine wheel would, if in balance, , show no signs of unreliability, UNTIL it gives up and lets go, which is a distinct possibility as it has been seriously weakened.
Just plain technical truth, disagree if you wish but please say WHY .
Regards,
David Gladwin
Balancing a compressor (so far as where material is removed from) is not so critical as it does not run in very hot gas.
This turbine wheel would, if in balance, , show no signs of unreliability, UNTIL it gives up and lets go, which is a distinct possibility as it has been seriously weakened.
Just plain technical truth, disagree if you wish but please say WHY .
Regards,
David Gladwin
07-07-2005, 04:00 AM
#45
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Newcastle, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
ORIGINAL: David Gladwin
5 turbine wheel pictures, all showing a turbine wheel which is only suitable for scrap.
Balancing a compressor (so far as where material is removed from) is not so critical as it does not run in very hot gas.
This turbine wheel would, if in balance, , show no signs of unreliability, UNTIL it gives up and lets go, which is a distinct possibility as it has been seriously weakened.
Just plain technical truth, disagree if you wish but please say WHY .
Regards,
David Gladwin
5 turbine wheel pictures, all showing a turbine wheel which is only suitable for scrap.
Balancing a compressor (so far as where material is removed from) is not so critical as it does not run in very hot gas.
This turbine wheel would, if in balance, , show no signs of unreliability, UNTIL it gives up and lets go, which is a distinct possibility as it has been seriously weakened.
Just plain technical truth, disagree if you wish but please say WHY .
Regards,
David Gladwin
This was correct, in that the early location to remove material to balance the wheel was strictly not right. As shown any material should be taken out at the outer ring. This is therefore an early wheel pre No 600 as the latest turbine wheels are all balanced in the correct position. I suppose the early Model T cars are now considered dangerous compared to a new Ford Mustang. As discussed in a little detail with Tom Wilkinson the editor of RC Jet International last Saturday the current JJs are at MK 5 and significantly different from the early Jet Joe and Wren 54's. While these Turbines are fine for home builders any novice may struggle a little. In that regard there is certainly some way to go before they are Jet Cat standard in PR presentation, though as simple turbine they are great. Are they dangerous? yes! just as Wrens, Behotecs, Jet Cats and all commercial turbines are. They are safer and more well behaved compared to some GTBA homebuilts, as the production quality is very good now rising. Anyone remember the first Chinese ASP and SCs'c engines?, shocking full of swarf in the cranks but now their Four Strokes equal or better OS.
Jet Joe owner owner Nos 672, 681 690
GTBA member early PT75 operator
Behotec J66HP
Paul
07-07-2005, 05:12 AM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Rotterdam, NETHERLANDS
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
When prices come down, there are going to be people who will now justify $1200 for an engine, but it will be all they justify and still use $10 servo's in there.
I know that the current jet-set already has its share of characters who really shouldn't be flying jets. Cheaper jets simply mean more people entering the jet scene, with more unsafe clowns amongst them. More jets will mean a higher likelihood of accidents, and a bigger push for regulation as a result. Still, I would welcome cheaper jets. I've heard many arguments from people who fear this, but it's all like saying "We should keep cars really expensive... imagine if everyone could afford one, we'd see so many unsafe drivers!".
07-07-2005, 07:25 AM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: AdeiladeSouth Australia, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
my 2 cents
I think jj turbines are great and am ordering 2 x 1400 this week and what’s that still have $1500 aus left over !!!!!!!!!!!!!! vs buying a P80! well i can see value for money there.
I also think people who continuously discredit jj motors without any real proof are just being pathetic as they are trying to justify to them self’s as to why they have spent 3 x as much $$$ as others who are having the same success for a third the price. And that the truth. If you buy something and some one else gets the same thing for less you automatically think yours is better as you paid more regardless of the facts, jealously ??
I can tell you honestly if I payed $4000 AUS for a P60 and then found out I could get a JJ 1400 for $1800 with everthing I would be F.... Pissed off ( excuse the language but that’s who I would feel)
As for allowing more people into the sport and that being a problem well that’s far to controversial to for anyone to be right. More people expands the sport = more products to choose from GOOD but also increases the rate for an accident BAD …. Catch 22.
e.g i have seen and know VERY wealthy people who have more turbines than they know what to do with and there for don’t fly with any where near as much conservatism as others who have only one. If people can only just afford a jj its more likely that they will fly with more respect than other who can afford many jets!
that’s what I thinks going on and we are all welcome to our own opinions! But DONT !!!!!!! Down grade a product for no real reason / proof espetially when it provides hope for many people to finally be able to afford there own turbine JET.
I think jj turbines are great and am ordering 2 x 1400 this week and what’s that still have $1500 aus left over !!!!!!!!!!!!!! vs buying a P80! well i can see value for money there.
I also think people who continuously discredit jj motors without any real proof are just being pathetic as they are trying to justify to them self’s as to why they have spent 3 x as much $$$ as others who are having the same success for a third the price. And that the truth. If you buy something and some one else gets the same thing for less you automatically think yours is better as you paid more regardless of the facts, jealously ??
I can tell you honestly if I payed $4000 AUS for a P60 and then found out I could get a JJ 1400 for $1800 with everthing I would be F.... Pissed off ( excuse the language but that’s who I would feel)
As for allowing more people into the sport and that being a problem well that’s far to controversial to for anyone to be right. More people expands the sport = more products to choose from GOOD but also increases the rate for an accident BAD …. Catch 22.
e.g i have seen and know VERY wealthy people who have more turbines than they know what to do with and there for don’t fly with any where near as much conservatism as others who have only one. If people can only just afford a jj its more likely that they will fly with more respect than other who can afford many jets!
that’s what I thinks going on and we are all welcome to our own opinions! But DONT !!!!!!! Down grade a product for no real reason / proof espetially when it provides hope for many people to finally be able to afford there own turbine JET.
07-07-2005, 07:50 AM
#50
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: South Plainfield, NJ
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is JetJoe likely to be dangerous ?
Jeremy,
I get what you are saying. The problem is no rules (AMA waiver) or pricing is going to keep idiots from being themselves. Yes, the high cost may limit the amount of idiots.
I like the car example because it does relate to turbine plane. High performance can be safer than lower performance. However, in inexperienced hands, the increased power becomes very dangerous. Proof that price and rules don't work are the accident statistics, quoted every year in the news, teens driving sports cars are responsible for more highway fatalities. So... the higher cost of the car and the higher cost of insurance and the limitations (tickets) don't seem to change this.
Now the other side of the coin is, there hasn't been a tremendous increase in fatalities since most modern cars have increased in performance. For example, a new Honda Accord has about the same performance as a 1980 something Mustang GT. Yet, we consider the Accord a tame vehicle. We do this because the new Mustang is much much faster than the old one. But, the reality is most every new car would be considered a muscle car in the 60's.
So, to get back on track, if the price of turbines would come down I believe so would the price of better servos and airframes. Basic supply and demand will rule. The idiots will be identified and hopefully restrained. People, like me, who don't have a lot of free money for toys, will be able to replace ducted fans with turbines and all will be right in the modeling world.
Mark M
I get what you are saying. The problem is no rules (AMA waiver) or pricing is going to keep idiots from being themselves. Yes, the high cost may limit the amount of idiots.
I like the car example because it does relate to turbine plane. High performance can be safer than lower performance. However, in inexperienced hands, the increased power becomes very dangerous. Proof that price and rules don't work are the accident statistics, quoted every year in the news, teens driving sports cars are responsible for more highway fatalities. So... the higher cost of the car and the higher cost of insurance and the limitations (tickets) don't seem to change this.
Now the other side of the coin is, there hasn't been a tremendous increase in fatalities since most modern cars have increased in performance. For example, a new Honda Accord has about the same performance as a 1980 something Mustang GT. Yet, we consider the Accord a tame vehicle. We do this because the new Mustang is much much faster than the old one. But, the reality is most every new car would be considered a muscle car in the 60's.
So, to get back on track, if the price of turbines would come down I believe so would the price of better servos and airframes. Basic supply and demand will rule. The idiots will be identified and hopefully restrained. People, like me, who don't have a lot of free money for toys, will be able to replace ducted fans with turbines and all will be right in the modeling world.
Mark M