JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Im sure the ratio of turbines to gas planes burning is a TON different. I seen pics here of the plane, a large gas plane, that actually started on fire when flying around, and I searched and cant find it. Its probably one in a thousand or million, but still.

Anyhow, just letting you know it can happen, even though not often the chance is there, is that not enough to be aware?

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

People get hit on the head by metorites now and then, too.
I'm still walking the streets without a helmet.
It seemed to me that the point you were trying to make is that "giant scale gas planes are just as dangerous as turbines". Which some have said before.
I'm not saying that giant scale planes are NOT dangerous, but turbines are totally different, much MORE dangerous, and for totally different reasons.
If you are NOT saying that, then please clarify.

J_R

1) This is from the 2003 AMA safety code, on the AMA web site, which references doc #513 which relates turbines:

"A fire extinguisher must be present and manned for all operations, including crash recovery. For organized events, fire-fighting equipment must be on call"

2) Prop planes do burn, reference just completed TOC

3) Dues increase: A large portion of the dues increase was insurance. Most of that insurance increase was directly related to 9/11. Most of the balance of the insurance increase was due to liability claims NOT RELATED to the aircraft operations. It was related to things like trip and fall accidents.

4) Any plane can cause a fire. A few years ago, one of the members of my club was flying a glow, 60 sized plane and hit some power wires, starting a fire.

Comment: The AMA Safety code and the related documents should answer most of your questions related to turbines. Fires related to model operations are a very small part of the insurance picture.

JR

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

EZ,

I disagree with your feelings that turbines are MORE dangerous. I do agree that there is a greater chance of a fire if they crash, but that just makes the danger DIFFERENT, not higher. In many cases. jets and turbines are LESS dangerous. Not much chance of a prop strike in the hand with a jet, which is probably FAR more common then a turbine fire. I have proof of that with the missing little finger on my left hand. And ask Jason Shulman if a gasser can burn, or at least the owner of the model Jason was flying at the TOC.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Good point! Prop strikes are certainly the most common cause of injury. Does not need to be a gas burner, either.
But propstrikes just come with the turf. The vast majority of models have props, and we are not going to ban props anytime soon...
I should think that prop planes are INFINITELY more dangerous...TO THE MODELLER. But I get a feeling that what the AMA and the insurer and most of us are concerned about is the risk to spectators, perfect strangers sitting in their living rooms when a plane comes through the window, and property damage, like forest fires. I know if I were the insurer, I would not be thinking about the lost fingers, which will be paid out by the AMA themselves, as they are well under the deductable, but I WOULD be thinking about the worst case scenario, like flaming fuel and parts going into a crowd(nearly happened at Big Apple...batteries and parts made it another hundred feet beyond the crash site and damaged airplanes in the pits).
Yes, I would ALSO be very worried about a half-scale CAP with a 32 horsepower meat cleaver going into the crowd, too.
What happened at TOC?

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

1) This is from the 2003 AMA safety code, on the AMA web site, which references doc #513 which relates turbines:

"A fire extinguisher must be present and manned for all operations, including crash recovery. For organized events, fire-fighting equipment must be on call"

Yes.
Question: Do gas burners also REQUIRE a fire extinguisher?

2) Prop planes do burn, reference just completed TOC

Yes, but not very often. Not like turbines.

3) Dues increase: A large portion of the dues increase was insurance. Most of that insurance increase was directly related to 9/11. Most of the balance of the insurance increase was due to liability claims NOT RELATED to the aircraft operations. It was related to things like trip and fall accidents.

Absolutely, positively correct.
But we are also changing our risk factor. While I have not heard of any claims yet relating to either a turbine or a really large giant scale crashing, they have not been around that long, and I think(and AmA probably thinks, and the insurer probably thinks) that it is only a matter of time.
But it's not like our insurance rates have gone up due to turbines or giants. Yet.

4) Any plane can cause a fire. A few years ago, one of the members of my club was flying a glow, 60 sized plane and hit some power wires, starting a fire.

It happens. But pretty rarely. I would GUESS that 1 in 10 turbine crashes ends up in a fire.

Comment: The AMA Safety code and the related documents should answer most of your questions related to turbines. Fires related to model operations are a very small part of the insurance picture.


So far. But how long until there is a major fire, and the insurer gets a claim, and ups the rates for all of us, when he recognizes the increased risk? Who knows?
I am very much pro-turbine, I just think we have to be pro-active in policing OURSELVES, lest someone else do it for us! And I don't think it's very productive to say "giant scale is just as bad..." Let's worry about getting our own house in order.

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

ET, I am not saying one is more dangerous than the other, just making a comment is all.

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Anyhooooo, seems like I got everyone side-tracked.
Didn't mean to start any fights :boxing:

Back to; yep, the 70%er is silly!!!

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

I like the 70%er, if I had the time/money/skill/room/place to fly/money Id build a monster plane too.

SilverEagle2

My Feedback: (9)

You might like this.

Here is myself and my four month old at the TOC!

BernieG

I beg to differ, as it has been proved recently at the TOC that a big gaser can totally burn and self destroy on impact. There is many reasons for that: gas is much more inflamable than kerosene, the tank is directly in the same path as the engine, and they are not in kevlar. Granted, there is less fire risks when you START, but on inpact, they are basically the same.

Now, there is more reponsabilities flying a turbine rather than a 1/3 aerobat, because of speed, but about damages to properties, I am not sure the kinetic energy developped by a 20 pounds plane at 200 mph would be much higher than the one developped by a 40 pounds aerobat at 100 mph......

Bernard

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Actually, it's quite a bit higher with the faster example. But my point on danger and safety is that the turbine models are in many ways far safer then a prop plane. Let's face it, a prop plane has a spinning buzz saw on the front of it. How often are there accidents with those things? A lot! Planes taxiing into people, runaways in the pits, starting and needle valve adjusting accidents. On and on. Yes, a crash of a turbine jet can have a higher chance of a ground fire. But in the vast amount of cases, unless that ground fire is uncontained, there will be no real property damage or personal injury, so no insurance claim. Heck, one fire I saw, when the fire department was called to put it out, they let it burn for a while because they had wanted to clear the brush anyway! That is why in the turbine regs fire extinguishers and fire-fighting equipment are required. To contain the crash fire if it occurs. It would seem to me that with the crash at the TOC, the AMA might want to make that a requirement for flying a gasser.

GrnBrt

My Feedback: (5)

I dont fly turbines, never have but I still have a fire extingusher on the flight line. Have you ever seen a gasser catch fire?? How about a nitro engine??? I have and they burn fast so it's wise to be prepared!

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

At our field we've had two small fires caused by turbines.

However, the biggest fire so far (9 fire engines, one bulldozer and one CDF fire-fighting helicopter) caused by a little-old two-stroke helicopter.

Gordon

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Turbines may burn more, but there are 1000 prop flights for every turbine flight, I think the average prop job crashes more frequently per flight as well.

The biggest fire at our field was a 40 sized Right Flier, battery shorted burned 20 acres.

SECRET AGENT

My Feedback: (18)

Easy, sorry it took me so long to get back. My point was only that I have never seen a turbine "explode", I have seen them burn once, and have seen about a dozen high impact crashes. Do turbines have a greater propensity to burn in an accident than other models, absolutely. Will turbines most likely explode on impact, no. Most likely, they will just crash with the parts scattering to the four winds. On occasion they will burn to a crisp and require fire fighting equipment to contain a possible grass fire. And once in a while, one will "explode". I also believe the odds of an "explosion" are greater with turbine models without Kevlar tanks. I believe that is a wonderful safety net. I am in no way saying that turbines cannot explode on impact. Given the correct situation with a concrete or asphalt runway, and non Kevlar tanks, it is in the higher percentage group for an explosion (especially if the turbine model went straight in and not a glancing blow). Responsible use of turbines and the models they fly will keep us in JP for a long time. Regards, Mike

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Wow! Interesting posts. Mr. Matt's, especially. Good stuff...