Mluvara

My Feedback: (10)

Speaking about the 55lb rule, check this out - Just stopped by the AMA website tonight and saw that this was posted two days ago. Still restrictive, but looks like they removed one clause regarding flying sites/sanctions. Still no jets (turbines) allowed above 55lbs.. oh well.

Michael


Revised Experimental Aircraft Regulations
(Added 05/14/02)
The AMA Executive Council has approved the Safety Committee's recommendation to remove the "Sanction Event" only restriction and thus allow aircraft over the weight of 55 lbs. to be flown at any flying site that is of adequate size to allow for these heavier and generally larger models. Pilots are still required to have an AMA Inspector certify that each model over 55 lbs. is airworthy and issued the necessary "Permit to Fly" annually. The revised document is now posted in the AMA Documents section as Document 549.

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

The AMA in fact DOES cover aircraft like this under their 'experimental aircraft' category, though even this one is too big and heavy. Each aircraft over 55 pounds, but no more than 100 pounds must be inspected by an approved AMA examiner, and have a 'permit to fly' issued every year for the specific aircraft to be flown.

The documentation and inspection process is quite intensive, and must be performed each and every year (not auto-reissued like our turbine waivers). Interestingly.. Turbines are NOT permitted to be used in this class of aircraft.

Full details of this class of aircraft can be found at:

http://modelaircraft.org/templates/a...-files/549.pdf

-Doug

Dustflyer

My Feedback: (13)

Never heard of Seiko UAV Scale servos. Tell us more about them.

Dustflyer

My Feedback: (13)

Ozcan,

The shot was taken by one of our club members with a Nikon Coolpix 995 and is actually an enlargement of a tiny image. Amazing how good the 3 megapixel cameras are. Don't know how many shots it took to get that one but I am very fortunate to have it considering how difficult it is to get good inflight shots of model airplanes.


Woketman,

I was wondering if that was your airplane in flight. Nice picture.

fast'n'low

My Feedback: (-1)

I work for a uav company which needs to fly over the ama limit. How can i get a hold of this man in order to find out how to make it legal to fly a plane this heavy. Or if anyone else knows some information and the requirements in order to fly something this heavy that would be great if you could post them. Thanks so much.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Flying outside of the AMA rules, limits etc is not illegal, it is just not covered by their insurance etc.

However, if by "legal" you meant that you want to be covered by the AMA insurance, then I believe you are out of luck on two counts:

1) It sounds like the aircraft is being flown in a commercial capacity rather than for pleasure, and IIRC the insurance specifically prohibits this.

2) There is an "experimental class" of aircraft that you can apply to be part of, for extra heavy aircraft (over 55lbs and under 100lbs). However, I read the AMA doc on that subject just this morning, and it specifically excludes jets. See section 2.4 of http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...-files/549.pdf

Regards,
Gordon

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I believe it excludes turbines, df may be allowed. Also, there is a max speed restriction which is pretty low, something like 90 or so.

Dago Red

My Feedback: (11)

that plane is real, I saw a website about it. I notice some one say rediculous, why? Each has there own idea, Theres a guy in our club with a plane with a 16 foot wing span, FAA requirment,inspection ,ect. And people made fun of me when I had 21 wheels on my kadet senior. I told them i had a idea, and it worked,and looked impressive in the air.

jtech

the large model is real, and was on display at TOC this year. I have pics of my son standing next to it!

SECRET AGENT

My Feedback: (18)

The coolest R/C jet in the world is a full size F-4 target drone! It is a real F-4 converted to fly remotely in order to do live fire missile tests. Way cool.

BernieG

It's exactly the way it work in France and now Germany ( Not sure for England, I think Belgium has the sames rules than France) for models above 25 kilos ( about 50 pounds). To be authorized to fly, it must be inpected by a DGAC official ( same guys who inspect kit build airplanes), and have a demo flight.

If the model fly in a meeting (public flight), organisators must comply with some specific rules ( firemen, ambulance, and so forth..

but if you comply with these rules, your normal FFAM ( equivalenty of AMA) insurance will work, and you're free to fly !

BTW, there is not any specific rules for jets in France.

Bernard

Woketman

My Feedback: (6)

Secret Guy, I don't think any one of us would disagree, but when can we buy one from BVM? You gubment guys have sole source on used, full scale F-4s!

eletrick

My Feedback: (1)

A couple years ago , after FL Jets, on the "jets list" I asked this question " is the Concorde ever going to fly"?. One of the guys close to AMT emailed me off list telling me, yes it was going to fly, they just were not ready........and all this other bs. He swore it was. They claim it taxi tested....... if so, it should have been flown by now, and since it hasn't, it most likely won't!

I think its a big hanger queen, instead of parade'in it around as a dust collector, lets see what the real deal is!

Richard Newman

sfaust

My Feedback: (11)

I guess you missed it at TOC, in person!

Yes, its real, and built by a professional with extensive background in aviation. Its not so silly a project at all. In fact, its quite impressive in my opinion.

Then again, I am biased, with a 50% Decathlon in the works

SECRET AGENT

My Feedback: (18)

Wocketman, It makes me get all teary eyed whenever they shoot one of those beautiful F-4's out of the sky. Do you think they are near as expensive as the BVM ones? Boy, when I win the lotto, watch out. Cheers, Mike

P.S.- I hope all is well with you and yours now that the hurricane season is almost thru.

RampRat

What about the fullsize B707 that NASA crashed to test a new "crash-proof" fuel? Now that must have been the biggest R/C jet ever??

JET FX

Now I have to agree with Ramp Rat....re- 707, I wonder how much TX stick time the R/C pilot had on that one before he had that enviable task?
and where would you be standing.... If its the crash I am thinking of? The fuel certainly was not fire resistant at all. I would like to hear some more gossip on that project!!!! what brand of Tx was he using, and 1/4 scale servos? :surprised

Cheers-

SECRET AGENT

My Feedback: (18)

I remember watching a special on that crash, the pilot was flying a simulator that was remotely controlling the real jet. The fuel people were complaining that he hit the barriers at the wrong angle, and that caused the huge explosion! OK, so as long as you are in a crash at the right angle, you wont be incinerated in the fireball? Whatever. Cool show though, you are right, that has to be the biggest RC ever.

On another note, this is for any fulsize pilots in the know. When an engine on a 747 starts up and belches a huge cloud of white smoke, is that a wet start / hot start? And is it bad for the turbine? I see that on occasion and wonder every time.

Flyfalcons

The smoke is just oil getting cleared out. Kinda like when radial engines start up too.

The 707 experiment was to test a fuel additive that was to prevent 'misted' fuel from igniting. If I remember right, the plane landed short, crashing into the barriers at an inappropriate manner. The test was semi-successful, however: although the plane burst into flames, the temperatures recorded inside the cabin were lower than without the additive. The additive wasn't worth the cost for the marginal benefits it gave. You can find a video clip of the crash at the NASA Dryden Research website.

For the ultimate R/C: Can anyone tell me whether or not the Russians flew their shuttle? I am pretty sure they did, in an unmanned test.

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I'm almost certain that the Russian "shuttle" was autonomous, not piloted.

My personal opinion, the AMA has it just about right on the limits they've set on size. After all, we are modelers, not UAV manufacturers. Maybe if there are significant improvements in the security and redundancy of our current control systems the limits can be adjusted. But right now we are flying on basically unsecured RF links, with power outputs in milliwatts! It amazes me that the reliability of our control link is as good as it is. But these "monster" models, IMO, require a substantially higher level of security.

Just an opinion based on 35 years of modelling and 15 years of UAV and Research Model experience.

JET FX

Here's the 'Rest of the Story' of the worlds largest R/C jet crash-
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/index.html

The video footage is cool! :surprised

JoeEagle

My Feedback: (26)

Yup, the 70% Staudecker (sp) is real, i saw it at TOC. it hasnt flown, and has been taken around the county in a trailer. we have heard that it was damaged in transit either/both to oshkosh and to TOC.

i certainly am not questioning that it was built by a professional, but why would you use robart hinge points on the control surfaces. these only go in about 3/4 of an inch. the ailerons had 16 or 17 on each side, i think the elevator had 6 or 7 each side.

elevator was not an airfoil, just a slab. i took some pics of it when i was at toc. just can't imagine that the control surfaces are going to be real happy with that attachment arangement.

any comments out there??

joe

Woketman

My Feedback: (6)

FlyFalcons, you and Tony are correct. The Soviet COPY of our shuttle was flown once, and only once, in an un-manned mode. The one that flew was named Buran (translated = Snow Storm), and they kind of all became known as Burans. They had at least 4 or 5 of them at different levels of assembly when the program was deemed too expensive and was canceled about the time the Soviet Union was breaking up. It was said many many times that their system was not a direct copy of ours just that it was so similar due to similar requirements. I always said that was a load of crap and I was correct. It has recently come out (even the date of the meeting) that they decided to directly copy the configuration of our orbiter because it was so successful. The only real difference is that their reusable engine technology was crap so they throw the engines away each flight by mounting them on the ass end of the Energia booster/external tank.

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

The owner of the 70% staud is on RCU, find him for answers.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Were those engines made in Florida? Did they come with a free orange T-shirt and blue hat?