Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Jet Compromise Proposal >

Jet Compromise Proposal

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

Jet Compromise Proposal

Old 08-29-2003, 06:19 PM
  #1  
J_R
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Jet Compromise Proposal

What do all you JPO guys think of the compromise proposal before the EC?

http://modelaircraft.org/templates/a...3ecminutes.asp
Old 08-29-2003, 07:37 PM
  #2  
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default Re: Jet Compromise Proposal

Are you referring to the 55 pound dry, 1.5 gallon fuel proposal?

Do you still consider this issue "whining"?
Old 08-29-2003, 08:21 PM
  #3  
J_R
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Jet Compromise Proposal

That's the one. I am not sure I ever called it "whining". I did poke at the thoughts of some to see whether their opinion was based in fact or just "I wanna". Some of what appeared was well thought out and other I would characterize as whining, now that you ask.

Although the issue is not settled, I am curious to see what the thoughts of those involved are. The minutes also express a major concern about fire and I would be interested to see what you feel about that as well.

JR
Old 08-29-2003, 08:57 PM
  #4  
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default I like the proposal

I think it is a good compromise, because as i think you yourself pointed out, a dry limit with no fuel limit could produce some unintended consequences.

This proposal would provide AMA sanction to the operation of some neat new planes that are on several drawing boards, 1/6 scale F-18, 1/7 scale F-14, etc.
Old 08-29-2003, 09:14 PM
  #5  
J_R
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Jet Compromise Proposal

Do you think that the kit manufacturers will show restraint and will design the kits so that if a good builder builds one it will come in at about 50 pounds and leave a few pounds for the fellow that is not as talented a builder, or the one that wants more detail can still build one and bring it in under 55 pounds?

Dave Brown has told me that his nightmare scenario has changed from a 40% Cap hitting a school bus full of kids to a jet starting a fire in an area like the recent Phoenix fire with the attendant loss of homes. What can be done to assure that does not happen?

JR
Old 08-29-2003, 10:05 PM
  #6  
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default Jet Compromise Proposal

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dave Brown has told me that his nightmare scenario has changed from a 40% Cap hitting a school bus full of kids to a jet starting a fire in an area like the recent Phoenix fire with the attendant loss of homes. What can be done to assure that does not happen?

JR
<<<<<<<<<<<<<,

There are no definites in this world except death and taxes. Birth is terminal.
Take reasonable care and go for whatever.

The USAF, back in the late '50s and early '60s quit teaching air-to-air combat so as to reduce the *accident rate*. Only cost about 300 fighter-bombers in the South East Asian War Games before they finally got the Israeli AF to help 'em set up what later became Red Flag so guys could learn to return the favors to the Chinese AF over Vietnam. (All those generals can look good when a flight of four fly overhead and then "Red" division is "wiped out". ) Not really like that in the real shooting games, as many of you out there are well aware.
Those Israelis are the best fighter pilots in the world, not simply because of skill, but because they don't have someone always on their back making more rules-of-engagement. I knew one fairly well at one time and they had the Patton attitude: Don't die for your country -- Let that other SOB die for his. They did that very well.
All people in this country want is to make a rule but never enforce any. If you enforce a rule, then you might lose the guy's money. Yuck!

Aviation at any level is bascially safe, however as long as people are involved, there are no ZERO accident rates.
Provide reasonable guidelines and training and whatever happens will, just use it for education, and press on.
Old 08-29-2003, 10:17 PM
  #7  
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default Re: Jet Compromise Proposal

Originally posted by J_R
What do all you JPO guys think of the compromise proposal before the EC?

http://modelaircraft.org/templates/a...3ecminutes.asp
Go to the Jet Forum and ask the real players. Lots of names there I don't see here.
Old 08-29-2003, 11:57 PM
  #8  
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default Jet Compromise Proposal

Originally posted by J_R
Do you think that the kit manufacturers will show restraint and will design the kits so that if a good builder builds one it will come in at about 50 pounds and leave a few pounds for the fellow that is not as talented a builder, or the one that wants more detail can still build one and bring it in under 55 pounds?

I guess they would have the same restraint they have right now. I can honestly say there are not many planes (kits) near the limit now, and a couple that were in design were stopped because the weight was not going to be achievable.

We are starting to weigh planes at jet rallies to keep overweight planes out. IMHO the jet community has always been very keen on safety and has an exemplary record to show for it.

Originally posted by J_R


Dave Brown has told me that his nightmare scenario has changed from a 40% Cap hitting a school bus full of kids to a jet starting a fire in an area like the recent Phoenix fire with the attendant loss of homes. What can be done to assure that does not happen?

JR
You seem like a pretty smart guy, and so am I so don't hand me a loaded question like that. You know as well as I do there is nothing that can stop accidents, only minimize the chance of them occuring and taking precautions to address them if they do occur.

I lost an 18K dollar BVM F-4 recently. I lost the plane, but did not start a fire, with over a gallon of fuel on board in a 32 pound 220 mph jet.

I had a safety feature that we (JetCat) designed in. Many people did not want to use conventional failsafe in their jets, as a little glitch (short failsafe) would kill the motor. So we came up with a system to kill the motor after a small programmable delay. We have found that if the motor is off, any a second or two before impact, then there is little chance of starting a fire. So in the jet community we have a lot of mutual support with spotters, helpers etc to make sure the motors are off before impact.

N ow I could have run my plane without this feature, and probably would have it today as I got control back after the failsafe....but I purposely set it up to prevent fires. I know many others that do the same thing.

The only way to prevent fires is to ban everything. the biggest fire we had in Van Nuys was started by the battery in a 40 size trainer.

We are trying to be careful and so far it is working.

BTW I am a jet guy, I do not even have a prop plane right now, I have about 1000 flights on turbines since 1998.
Old 08-30-2003, 12:21 AM
  #9  
J_R
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Jet Compromise Proposal

I didn't intentionally hand you a loaded question. I see in the minutes that banning flight under certain fire conditions is being considered. At the same time, I am not a Jet guy and was totally unaware that a device was even available to prevent a fire, other than shutting down the engine either manually or with a failsafe. With the EC considering the issue, that's pretty significant. I know JPO has direct input into the EC, but, I often wonder if the communications trickle down.

You still have a relatively small group and communications should not be a major problem, at this point. I hope I have never come across as anti-jet. As you know, several on the EC read this forum and it is an opportunity to have input other than through JPO to at least a few EC members, although JPO seems to do a good job.

From some direct communications with those on the Council, I knew there was concern about planes taking off with too little fuel to be safe in competition and that there was some room for compromise by some on the EC. At the same time, I know there is substantial Resistance to planes that weigh 75 pounds wet. Of course there will be substantial screaming from the "prop" guys if the rule is applied only to jets. It would seem that there is a lot of discussion yet to take place.

JR
Old 08-30-2003, 12:30 AM
  #10  
My Feedback: (2)
 
F106A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Jet Compromise Proposal

J_R,
As Mr. Matt says, there's no guarantee about anything. IMHO, DB's remark just goes to reinforce his disdain toward turbine models. It is my opinion from reading his articles and comments he's made that he feels it's technology run amok.
This whole weight issue is enforced with a wink as far as non turbine models are concerned. Look at the latest Joe Nall video with Bob Walker's 1/3rd scale F-4F. He's asked that the weight must be around 55 lbs, he says "yea, something like that". Let a turbine model go over 55 pounds and you'll see DB pointing his finger at turbine models yelling "unsafe-unsafe"!
That being said, the proposal makes no sense! The jet fraternity's original reason for wanting a change from 55 lbs wet to 55 lbs dry was to help out the models with twin turbines. Single engine models are not involved because even the biggest single engine model is in the forty pound range. With the current maximum thrust being 35 lbs, I can't see the singles getting much bigger before becoming power limited. Twins are relatively big jet models, eg. the Y/A twin F-18, and to comply with the 55 lbs wet requirement would have to be built to a dry weight of approximately 40-42 lbs, which is difficult to do. Each engine would burn approximately 1.5 gallons, for a total of three gallons during a typical flight: eight minutes with enough reserve for a couple of go arounds. Increasing the weight but limiting the amount of fuel to 1.5 gallons defeats the whole purpose of the proposal!
As far as kit manufacturers, they're going to make what will sell. They're certainly not going to invest the time and money to bring out a model that no one will buy because they can't fly it.
Regards,
Jon
Old 08-30-2003, 12:42 AM
  #11  
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default Jet Compromise Proposal

Originally posted by J_R
I didn't intentionally hand you a loaded question.
OK sorry if I came off a bit harsh.

Yes I think there will be a lot more more discussion. We have had a very good realtionship with the AMA so far...not without the occasional bump in the road and hurt feelings, but still very productive.


THere are realtively few jet fliers. That is true. We hope we can continue to work within the AMA system. It is the best system that I can even imagine right now.
Old 08-30-2003, 12:48 AM
  #12  
J_R
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Jet Compromise Proposal

Hi Jon

Without trying to pick a fight, is there something onerous about building an F18 with two smaller turbines that use less fuel? On the prop side of the world, the guy that wants to build a B17 does not choose the biggest engines he can find, but, chooses smaller engines. Why does the same not apply where turbines are concerned? Is there some inherent difference between smaller turbines and large ones, other than the actual thrust?

JR
Old 08-30-2003, 01:12 AM
  #13  
My Feedback: (2)
 
F106A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Jet Compromise Proposal

Hi J_R,
The whole issue IS thrust. Originally there was a requirement that the TOTAL thrust for a model was 35 lbs, meaning on a twin, the max size an engine could be was no bigger than 17 pounds. This caused a problem if one of the engines flamed out, you are now trying to fly a 45 pound model on 17 pounds of asymmetric thrust, with leaves no margin for safety. AMA changed the requirement to 35 pounds per engine. If we go to a smaller engine, the your right back where we started from.
I would also like to say that, contrary to what some on the EC think, turbine modelers are not the wild cowboys they think we are. If it's dry, we're not going to fly and risk a big fire. We are all well aware of what the consequences will be. No one wants to give any entity a reason to regulate/control/eliminate the hobby.
Regards,
Jon
Old 08-30-2003, 04:33 AM
  #14  
J_R
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Jet Compromise Proposal

Hi Jon

Is there anyone that kitted at 25 + or - pound F18 that could be flown on two of the lower thrust engines? Was it still a disaster when one flamed out? I hate to admit that I have no idea about the kits available for jets.

I realize you are in NY. The weather here in Calif, and the Southwest, for that matter, produces dried weeds about 6 months of the year. Very few fields have grass. Matter of fact, I can only think of two in the L.A. area. I would think that from what your saying, that would eliminate flying at a lot of fields for a significant portion of the year. I wonder if the guys that fly jets out here agree.

Matt,

other than the Basin, is there anyplace where you can fly this time of year? Isn't Prado surrounded by weeds now? I would think that AZ and NM have even worse problems. Is Whitter large enough for jets?

JR

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences 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.