The AMA worries about us?!!!
10-21-2002, 02:57 PM
#52
Senior Member
My Feedback: (8)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Evanston,
WY
Posts: 533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
70%
I looked at this plane at TOC and as for the robart hinges I counted the hinges on one half of the elevator there were 18. That is a lot they were spaced equally on the alerons so there had to be at least 40+ per aleron but I didn't count them.
As for any questions about this plane ask the owner he is here on RCU he goes by MISS_CONDUCT. He will answer all of your questions.
As for any questions about this plane ask the owner he is here on RCU he goes by MISS_CONDUCT. He will answer all of your questions.
10-21-2002, 04:45 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Broken Arrow,
OK
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 70%
Originally posted by JIMESTES
I looked at this plane at TOC and as for the robart hinges I counted the hinges on one half of the elevator there were 18. That is a lot they were spaced equally on the alerons so there had to be at least 40+ per aleron but I didn't count them.
I looked at this plane at TOC and as for the robart hinges I counted the hinges on one half of the elevator there were 18. That is a lot they were spaced equally on the alerons so there had to be at least 40+ per aleron but I didn't count them.
I read this guys posts here on RCU. I was in San Antonio before, and quite active, I don't remember having ever meet him. He can live his fantasy, that's his problem but this kind of realisation, in my point of view, has nothing to do with our hobby, does not bring anything new, is by no means a technological achievment, while the big Galaxy is. At least, at 75%, he could have made it scale !
Bernard
10-21-2002, 04:54 PM
#54
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA worries about us?!!!
Yep, it's ridiculous.
So, is the large one that flew at joe nall about 6 years ago. (They supposedly notified the local air traffic control when it went up)
Anything that draws the attention of federal regulation to our little hobby is not good, whether it is 300lb aircraft or turbines which explode on impact.
The last thing we need is the FAA being ENCOURAGED to scrutenize our hobby.
:boxing::spinnyeye
So, is the large one that flew at joe nall about 6 years ago. (They supposedly notified the local air traffic control when it went up)
Anything that draws the attention of federal regulation to our little hobby is not good, whether it is 300lb aircraft or turbines which explode on impact.
The last thing we need is the FAA being ENCOURAGED to scrutenize our hobby.
:boxing::spinnyeye
10-22-2002, 11:24 PM
#55
The AMA worries about us?!!!
I have seen (unfortunately) quite a few turbines bite the big one, but I have never seen an "explosion". I have seen the turbine go one way and the fuel cells the other, but no "explosion". Not that a mini mushroom / fireball wouldn't look cool, but it just doesn't happen like in the movies. Now I have seen a few burn to a crisp, but still not "explode". A pinto has more chance to explode than a turbine. And I really don't think (from talking with my FAA buddies) that they want anything to do with our hobby, they have enough problems on their hands. Ususlly the only time an agency decides it wants jurisdiction over a certain area, is because there is a substancial increase in budget for them. I don't think that tax payers would appreciate them (FAA) policing our models at their/our (taxpayer) expence. Just a couple of pennies to rub together. 
Mike
Mike
10-23-2002, 01:57 AM
#56
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
The AMA worries about us?!!!
They DO explode. Go look up the Big Apple Jet Rally thread and download the video. The black scar was still there on the runway when I was out there today. Anyway...I'm not comparing the danger between a half size staudacher and a jet, they are both dangerous.
Say...who flew the Buran for the Rooskies? Was it Bob Parks, or Tony Frackowiak? Will it do a Lomcevak?
Say...who flew the Buran for the Rooskies? Was it Bob Parks, or Tony Frackowiak? Will it do a Lomcevak?
10-23-2002, 11:11 AM
#60
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA worries about us?!!!
If the odds are so much lower (few pintos actually burned compared to the number made), why is a fire extinguisher part of the required field gear?
10-23-2002, 11:14 AM
#61
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
The AMA worries about us?!!!
Originally posted by Secret Agent
Like I said, a Pinto has more of a chance of exploding. If exploding jets were a common happening, we would already be shut down. Mike
Like I said, a Pinto has more of a chance of exploding. If exploding jets were a common happening, we would already be shut down. Mike
Anyway...I think there are a lot more fires and explosions than we hear about. Less than last year, I guess, but still a lot. Not really a laughing matter!
10-23-2002, 11:33 AM
#62
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA worries about us?!!!
Easytiger,
There is a rumor going around that part of the reason for the AMA dues increase is due to increased insurance claims, one involving a jet that got away at the big FL event and ended up in some guys basement, and burning part of the structure.
Any truth to this???
There is a rumor going around that part of the reason for the AMA dues increase is due to increased insurance claims, one involving a jet that got away at the big FL event and ended up in some guys basement, and burning part of the structure.
Any truth to this???
10-23-2002, 11:52 AM
#63
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
The AMA worries about us?!!!
No, there were ZERO turbine related insurance claims when they did the dues increase. I have not heard of "some guys basement", it may be a corruption of the true story of a jet that hit a roof at Top Gun a few years ago?
10-23-2002, 11:54 AM
#65
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oxford, MS
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA worries about us?!!!
There is a rumor going around that part of the reason for the AMA dues increase is due to increased insurance claims, one involving a jet that got away at the big FL event and ended up in some guys basement, and burning part of the structure.
10-23-2002, 12:09 PM
#67
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA worries about us?!!!
So, is AMA planning on requiring fire extinguishers as part of field gear for giant scale planes now then?????
10-23-2002, 12:11 PM
#68
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
The AMA worries about us?!!!
Originally posted by DavidR
Wow now that's a good rumor. Plenty of excitement and it just sounds Soooooooo believable. Where do you guys come up with this stuff????
Wow now that's a good rumor. Plenty of excitement and it just sounds Soooooooo believable. Where do you guys come up with this stuff????
10-23-2002, 12:15 PM
#69
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
The AMA worries about us?!!!
Originally posted by P-51B
So, is AMA planning on requiring fire extinguishers as part of field gear for giant scale planes now then?????
So, is AMA planning on requiring fire extinguishers as part of field gear for giant scale planes now then?????
I think, though, that the danger from turbines is quite DIFFERENT from that of gas burners. There are no wet starts with flames belching from the tail. There is no eight hundred degree tailpipe. And they do not burst into flame upon impact with the ground.
Anybody who says(and some people still are saying this) "giant scale planes are just as dangerous as turbines" is not only completely DELUDED, but they are doing a great disservice to us turbine modellers, too. When Joe Blow off the street sees both types fly, it's immediately obvious to HIM that turbines are much more dangerous...you BLINK and BANG! Anybody who cannot come to grips with this one simple salient fact either A) has some sort of other agenda, or B) REALLY does not have the judgement to be flying turbines.
10-23-2002, 12:20 PM
#70
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA worries about us?!!!
Originally posted by EASYTIGER
I don't fly gassies, myself, but I always thought it was a mandatory part of your field gear already? If not, it ought to be.
I think, though, that the danger from turbines is quite DIFFERENT from that of gas burners. There are no wet starts with flames belching from the tail. There is no eight hundred degree tailpipe. And they do not burst into flame upon impact with the ground.
Anybody who says(and some people still are saying this) "giant scale planes are just as dangerous as turbines" is not only completely DELUDED, but they are doing a great disservice to us turbine modellers, too. When Joe Blow off the street sees both types fly, it's immediately obvious to HIM that turbines are much more dangerous...you BLINK and BANG! Anybody who cannot come to grips with this one simple salient fact either A) has some sort of other agenda, or B) REALLY does not have the judgement to be flying turbines.
I don't fly gassies, myself, but I always thought it was a mandatory part of your field gear already? If not, it ought to be.
I think, though, that the danger from turbines is quite DIFFERENT from that of gas burners. There are no wet starts with flames belching from the tail. There is no eight hundred degree tailpipe. And they do not burst into flame upon impact with the ground.
Anybody who says(and some people still are saying this) "giant scale planes are just as dangerous as turbines" is not only completely DELUDED, but they are doing a great disservice to us turbine modellers, too. When Joe Blow off the street sees both types fly, it's immediately obvious to HIM that turbines are much more dangerous...you BLINK and BANG! Anybody who cannot come to grips with this one simple salient fact either A) has some sort of other agenda, or B) REALLY does not have the judgement to be flying turbines.
I don't fly them either, YET! I'll have to look in to the fire extinguisher thing, as I have never seen anyone flying gassers with one.
As for the second part regarding turbines vs gassers... WELL SAID!
10-23-2002, 12:22 PM
#71
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA worries about us?!!!
Originally posted by DavidR
Wow now that's a good rumor. Plenty of excitement and it just sounds Soooooooo believable. Where do you guys come up with this stuff????
Wow now that's a good rumor. Plenty of excitement and it just sounds Soooooooo believable. Where do you guys come up with this stuff????
That was why I ASKED if it was true!!!!!
10-23-2002, 01:02 PM
#73
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
The AMA worries about us?!!!
Hey, this thread would be GREAT if it were moved to the brilliant new "AMA Issues" forum here on RCU. Rather then stinkin' up our nice JETS forum yet again.
I have NEVER seen a giant scale gas model burn. Never. Nor a glow plane. Well, ONCE I had a fire when I overprimed a 91 on a Yellow A4 and had a backfire. Good thing I had my turbine fire extinguisher there. I know there have been ISOLATED incidents of fires, usually shorted battery packs.
But NOTHING like turbines. Nothing. I can think of a dozen fire incidents already, and they have only been around for five or seven years. So PLEASE don't tell me the sky is green when it's blue. And don't try to tell AMA, and don't try to tell the general public. And don't try to tell our insurer. Because nobody is buying it.
I have NEVER seen a giant scale gas model burn. Never. Nor a glow plane. Well, ONCE I had a fire when I overprimed a 91 on a Yellow A4 and had a backfire. Good thing I had my turbine fire extinguisher there. I know there have been ISOLATED incidents of fires, usually shorted battery packs.
But NOTHING like turbines. Nothing. I can think of a dozen fire incidents already, and they have only been around for five or seven years. So PLEASE don't tell me the sky is green when it's blue. And don't try to tell AMA, and don't try to tell the general public. And don't try to tell our insurer. Because nobody is buying it.
10-23-2002, 01:26 PM
#75
Banned
My Feedback: (119)
The AMA worries about us?!!!
Over here, the gloves can come off! En Garde!
Seriously...tell me about the giant scale fires. How many, where, when, how did they happen? Over the course of how many flights?
What is the REAL statistical probablilty of a fire happening with a giant scale plane? One in ten crashes? One in a hundred? One in a thousand?
Support your assertion with specific examples of fires that have started from gas burners crashing.
Seriously...tell me about the giant scale fires. How many, where, when, how did they happen? Over the course of how many flights?
What is the REAL statistical probablilty of a fire happening with a giant scale plane? One in ten crashes? One in a hundred? One in a thousand?
Support your assertion with specific examples of fires that have started from gas burners crashing.