porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Wasn't that an Eflite F-86 Sabre and F=4, both battery powered? Brilliant job by them picking two very difficult planes to fly! Epic fail!

Duncman

I'll believe it when I see it in writing, if you don't mind.

Duncman

Crazy, insane!!!!

Duncman

I am hoping you are correct but at this time I do not have a warm and fuzzy. I can't help but remember that we are dealing with an agency that at one time or another considered controlling all airspace from the ground up everywhere not just within 5 miles of an airport, which is probably still on the table, or the one that was bantered about requiring RC pilots within the 5 mile radius of a controlled airspace to get clearance to fly from the tower, which also may still be on the table.

There is a formula in place for at least a knee jerk reaction and at worst emplacement of draconian measures. First the FAA is in an empire building mode, second they have a noble cause in the Drone issue, third they have been given a drop dead date by both the Executive and Legislative branches of the Government. Mix all this together in a bowl and bake for a while at 350* and you get disaster cake. I apologize for my pessimism but I spent 25 years working for them, I know all to well how quickly things can spiral out of control and the effort required to effect recovery. My optimism side does tell me that eventually we will get it right but at what effort.

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

Some of the copters now have directional control irregardless of the orientation of the craft. Forward is away from you, back is towards you, etc. I can't imagine flying like that unless you have special programming.
When I see someone flying like that in a park I just hope there aren't any other people around. We've all had dumb thumbs.
And when i see someone flipping a big helicopter a few feet from their face I get nervous.. Things happen.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Yup...it can be scary. I'm always behind the pilot at all times while his heli is in front of him.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy
In my view, the FAA is pursuing the Drone's=multi rotor sUAV's , that have been constantly in the news regarding near misses with full scale aircraft Airliners and Police copters, and FireFighting Tankers. Creating huge problems in every area, airports cities, fields, mountains,city parks, you name it. Oh don't forget the White House, very very important stuff there. The White House was 3 drunk government cronies tat wanted to see how the Quad handled bad weather ... Not even mentioned again after they determined who it was.

Not once was a fixed wing aircraft in the RC catagory ever mentioned , because it did not happen with fixed wing RC aircraft, just the new drones that have been on the market the last year or so.
AGAIN, it is not the DRONES the FAA is trying to regulate, but the OWNERS of them, and the only possible way is to have the new buyers register the thing with serial # etc with the seller of the Drone, the seller sends the info to the FAA so they can track it to that person if something ever happens. Will that happen? who know's.
The fools that have created this mess in the beginning by violating every possible rule of Flight Safety and doing it repeatedly in almost every city in the U.S.A. Lets not forget the Privacy Issues of Trespassing, here is the other side of this alligator with Jaws wide open waiting. It never ends with these clowns.!!!
I, in my opinion do not think the FAA will ever try to regulate or have people register their Giant Scale Yak's or EXTRA's. I sure hope not, I have too many of em!!!!!!!!!
I sure hope U are a good fortune teller ... Else get ready to pay.


Now where is the guy that builds his Quad (Drone) from scratch going to get a serial number? budy has 3 he built and only one he bought. What makes him even want to register a scratch built Quad. Did U see that plane that had the 4 tilt moters Qhat catagory does that fall in?

Duncman

Me three and sometimes that isn't even the safest spot.

rgburrill

Never seen a 7 foot long electric jet. How much C4 could you carry in one?

mattster1971

Thats the kind of comment that gets you watched by the FBI and Secret Service man. I don't quite see how they are going to register or require registration of all drones. Its just too massive, more than guns and they cant keep track of those hardly at all.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

rgburril asked: Never seen a 7 foot long electric jet. How much C4 could you carry in one?


You haven't looked hard enough I guess. Here's my buddies giant scale electric A-10, 10 foot wingspan. Two 12 cell packs for the twin 125 mm fans. It sounds sooo sweet. Our club isn't that far from you, take a ride up sometime. He flies this as well as his BVM Bandit, F-16, F-18 turbines and more.



Not sure what the payload for this one would be, for a one way trip configured properly I'm sure it could pack a few extra pounds.

So what were the 7 foot turbine planes these folks were going to use? I only recall one story a few years back, and they were ducted fan, this one specifically. Doesn't look 7 feet long, and I doubt it could haul less than an extra pound of weight, although the guy had purchased more than that (fake C4 of course).

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by porcia83
Wasn't that an Eflite F-86 Sabre and F=4, both battery powered? Brilliant job by them picking two very difficult planes to fly! Epic fail!

Internal or External stores. For the most in a fighter type I'd take a model of an A-10 for a bomber I'd go with a B-52D. Just saying. The B-52d would have to carry 2 AGM28B missiles (Hound Dogs) Of Course not 24 MK 84 Puny 500 pounders. B-52D, with the 'Big Belly' mod could carry B-52D, with the 'Big Belly' mod could carry 80 Mk. 84s 500 lb bombs in clips in the internal bomb bay. They also carried an additional 24 bombs on the wing pylons, 12 on each side. Where the Hound Dogs Hung.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

We're talking toys planes, not the real deal. I think you just wanted to squeeze in a reference to your namesake missile. Ha

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

OK caught me. But think a string of 108 Mk 82's 500 pounders would look like coming out of a 6 foot B-52D's Two Bomb Bays and the two Hound Dogs fireing off first as it come in for the bomb run.

6 seconds to drop two bomb bays of 500 pounders or maybe 750's. 1:16 to 1:22 on the time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGLgZ8htLI4

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

N410DC

You are correct, for the most part. However, the Piker case is certainly worth noting. Even if fixed wing aircraft were not mentioned in the recent press conference, I doubt that the FAA will forget about him as they decide on new regulations.

This is a very good question. I am not sure how they will address the problem. The most logical proposal I have heard is to use the flight controller's serial number. If registration mandate is limited to only aircraft that have cameras, perhaps the S/N for the camera (one one/all of the cameras) could be used. Granted, some guys swap out flight controllers and cameras more often than they change their underwear. This may necessitate frequent re-registration of hardware.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

familial connection to Faa upper level staff that shall remain un-named for now.

Rob2160

Yes what you are talking about is IOC mode (Intelligent orientation control) That is available on some flight controllers, especially those with GPS. Its good for newcomers with no RC flying skills but if you already know how to fly RC it feels counter intuitive and many experienced pilots will never use it.

I can assure you this video is 100% pilot skill. I spent at day a the park with him and all flights are done in Acro mode where Fwd / Back elevator just pitches the quad, Left / Right Aileron rolls it, Left / Right rudder yaws it and throttle is power control. No software cheats in the controller at all and no self level.

That first video I posted was using a 3S battery - this one is 4S.

I agree with you about being cautious around big 3D helis.

Sport_Pilot

In a way they have. The Piker case had nothing to do with protecting the NAS. Piker was claiming the FAA had no authority to enforce safety standards on model airplanes. The judge agreed, but on appeal the higher NTSB judge ruled that the model was an airplane Not sure but did not fully back the FAA on the safety regulation aspect. That is the ruled for the FAA but the written opinion was lukewarm. So they settled out of court with Piker, reduced fine but his legal fees were probably higher. Since then AFAIK the FAA has only brought charges for flying near airports or at high altitudes, not for nearly hitting a building or person near the ground. Though I think some local and state police have.

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

"A judge ruled that drones weren't aircraft"....Really?

That goes against everything I thought I knew. I thought an aircraft could be anything from a rocket, hot air balloon, hang glider, to a paper airplane. Anything capable of flight.

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

Rod: Read this page, http://motherboard.vice.com/read/faa...ls-court-rules


Then read this page: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the...-and-baseballs

Frisbie's and Baseballs? goes beyond common sense. The legal experts make the language so difficult and obscure, you don't know what you read after the 3rd time and still don't understand what they mean. So the definition of an aircraft is still open for debate, that's why all the B.S. The FAA and the Court have to make a clear and understood specification on what is an Aircraft. I think, the FAA only wants all RC flying OBJECTS, stay under 400' within 5 miles of an airport or obtain a waiver from them for a specific reason to go over that altitude. Where is the representation from the AMA?
Not unreasonable in my opinion. 400' is quite a ways up when flying RC, and line of site goes away real quick.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

[QUOTE=Flight Risk;12119955]"A judge ruled that drones weren't aircraft"....Really?

That goes against everything I thought I knew. I thought an aircraft could be anything from a rocket, hot air balloon, hang glider, to a paper airplane. Anything capable of flight. [
/QUOTE]
Anything (Man Maid) capable of flight. Else Birds. Bats, Butterflies, Bees, Flies and even Flying Squirrels might be considered an Aircraft i.e. Drone.
Just taking it to the ridiculous. Hey may I could work for the Gove-er-n-mnt.
They apparently Like Re-Duc-U-les.
Hell no "WORK" is a 4 letter "WORD".
Speaking of "WOOOK!!!" I spent 2 days cleaning the gutters on my
Park Model Awning. Very difficult to remove years of dirt and debris form something with little to no access. Anyway after finishing every thing but the down spouts
,which were off, it rained so hard that the small holes for the down spouts could not handle the water and marble size hail and the gutters over flowed just as when they were full of crap. Now the out door carpet will be soaked for a couple of days at best.
But U know what it's still 1000 times better than "SNOW".

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

Yes, I forgot to include man made.
Then your comment made me wonder how we should classify something like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTVOK2yvbBM
And I hadn't seen this before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EqWxYpRyf4

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

OH! what the Heck U Asked. How about Kat Tastic Drone or Sand Box Quad or
9+1 lives Drone or MR Flat Cat or DeadKat Quad.

Sport_Pilot

He was correct, the judge rulled that it was a model airplane aka drone. The administrative judge's said it was an airplane on appeal..