Alright straight forward troll...err...question. Do you feel we need speed limits imposed by the AMA?

Of course there will be the usual suspects that will not like how I have asked the question...or they think I should have asked more...to those just refrain or start your own poll.

If you desire, please give an opinion but I ask that the responders not argue points...just let opinions stand on their merits please.

If you guys can play nice I will have a follow up troll …err….poll

Speed Limits???????

What did DB break the model speed limit record and wants to keep it to himself???

Come on to many freaking rules

only one ya left out, was the general "we don't need no stinkin speed limits" for any catagory model.

>>>>>>>>>>>
If you desire, please give an opinion but I ask that the responders not argue points...just let opinions stand on their merits please.
<<<<<<<<<

I am starting on my first DF that has been in my shop for 7 years. BV kit and all the works are there.

I plan to be doing a turbine within the next couple years. It will most likely be one of the more simple Turbine Sport models. Then, maybe on to the BV F-86 also in the shop.

Personally I do not need/want any more AMA Perceptions revised into Rules being imposed on these projects.

No speed limits or ground-proximity rules for any class.
Safety should be the concern, and as such, both speed and ground proximity are site-dependent. At fields where speed is or could be an issue, they are already not certified for turbine operation.

IMHO, DB and the AMA have grown VERY big heads since they killed SFA and have no competition.
At the same time, they did nothing to save Mile Square Park here in SoCal.

Interesting consistency in your post.

By saying that fields with speed issues are already not certified, you imply that some fields are certified for turbine operations. Where do you find that information?

When it comes to Mile Square, your post is just flat wrong. The modelers at Mile Square initially decided they could handle the problem without asking the AMA’s assistance. AFTER they managed to alienate the Orange County Board of Supervisors, THEN the called the AMA. The AMA spent countless thousands of dollars trying to repair the relationship and save Mile Square. As an aside, the modelers, in their absolute wisdom that Mile Square was not going to be lost, turned down an alternate site in Orange County. Is it any wonder that, more recently, when the El Toro site became available, that the Supervisors were not enthralled? They showed their contempt by leasing the field to the Chapter for $15,000 a year.

As an aside, and I am only guessing here, do you fly at Prado? Are you aware that the AMA GAVE $10,000 to PVMAC to finish the runway, several years ago?

As far as SFA goes, there is certainly evidence that SFA was started for the sole purpose of sueing the AMA to make money. Check with Red Schoefield for documentation.

JR

Not being a turbine (or DF pilot), I haven't looked up and/or read the fine print. A few months ago, a guy brought a turbine (just the engine) out to Whittier, and was told by the club members that he could not actually fly it at that field because it was not AMA approved/certified for turbine operation... he would have to go to Prado or Sepulveda.
Wise move... I've seen three different DF models attempt to fly at Whittier over the last 10 years. Only one was able to make it into the air, and it overran the runway on landing. I don't know if a turbine would fare any better.
I have flown at Prado a few times, but generally hang out at Whittier.
I remember some of the club members talking about the cost of the field and runway, and comments were made as to how much it cost the club. No mention was made of any AMA contribution.
As far as MSP, Hansen was resigned to it's loss two years before it closed. There was certainly no effort to contact and gain support of the local pilots OTHER than the SaveMSP.org group, which I agree did not attack the problem the right way.
Competition is still needed. Lack of competition is never good for anyone except the agency that does not have to compete.
When you have one governing body, there is no accountability to the membership... especially when the membership is not presented with viable alternatives for those in charge when it comes time for elections. Ya... everyone complains and it seems that nobody ever does anything, but like state government, what are we supposed to do if we don't have the time or ability to do the job ourself? I barely have time to build and fly. If I were to run for office, I'd have to give up all three of my hobbies.

Besides what the AMA spent on lawyers for Mile Square, they "donated" $5000 to Save Mile Square Park.

Sounds like the guys a Whittier that have turbines are showing good sense. It would not do to go down in the target range at the end of the runway There is no such thing as a trubine certified field as far as I know.

Your showing good sense as far as I am concerned, in not running for office. With what we expect of these non-paid, elected officers, there are not many that will. It's a position where you have to be at a place in your life where you are willing to put money out of your pocket in order to take the heat from the very guys you are trying to serve.

Maybe he got a real speeding ticket?[sm=lol.gif][sm=lol.gif][sm=lol.gif]

It is too bad that "SMSP.org" didn't approach it from a better angle, but I don't think the outcome would have been any different, given the attitudes of some of the local city employees. Everyone was looking at dollar signs, and none were coming from the park users.
Some moron even started a campaign to pay the entry fee in pennies to make "our" point... like the guy in the booth really knew or cared what was going on. Heck... it was just a month ago that I found out that entry to Whittier was free if you flashed your AMA card... I've been paying my $3 for over 10 years
The unfortunate problem that we are faced with is that no land that is not ACoE and in a flood plain is safe from development, and too valuable for us to attempt to keep open as flying sites. A solid, safe flying site that is surrounded by commercial and residential development needs to be located on clear property of no less than the size of MSP. That's a big problem in a part of the state where a 1000sq ft condo sells for 1/4 mill. I see the development down on Cajalco creeping in on the field off of Temescal. Fortunately, the owner is very modeler friendly, but when he dies, or if he decides that he doesn't want to mess with the property anymore, it's gone.

We'll probably always have Santa Fe, Prado, and Sepulveda. Whittier is having problems of it's own right now, due in no small part to the actions of one or two individuals. Overflights are now totally restricted over the range, so the old "high speed approach" is no longer permitted... there's been a BMX track on the other side of the range for quite a while, but there is now a HUGE soccer field just north of that where the nursery used to be.
The runway and riverbed are safe, but the field is now shut down and locked at 2:30pm 7 days a week.

RE: Prado, I heard that they are hosting "Best of the West" there this year. Do you know the dates?

Best in the West-April 8-11, 2004 at Prado.

Next time your by the Temescal field, stop by and ask for John.

Sepulveda is under attack now. Not sure how that is going. You know that PVMAC has a second field at Norton AFB?

Awesome. Just PM'd myself so I won't forget
I noticed a thread going regarding Sepulveda but didn't look into it in any detail.
Strange that there would be issues there, given it's just a sod farm and Army Corps.
I had heard that there was a field out near Redlands. A friend used to fly at an outlaw field in the area but I never found out where it was.
Only problem with Norton (and Temescal) is my buddy is coming up from Huntington. His wife is trying to talk him into joining Trabuco, and while the facilities are top-notch (and great for her with the two kids), I can't justify the dues, plus it is a major drive. Whittier is the best compromise with both of us going the same distance, and Prado being a close second... about 5 miles more for him and a stone's throw for me. A third buddy lives in Hesperia, but rarely shows. He usually flies out at Rabbit, and I guess there's actually a new field that has opened up closer to Apple Valley.

Has PVMAC opened up on membership restrictions? I looked into joining a few years ago and they had no memberships open... only 17 open that previous January. Kinda irks me when I see a guy at Whittier EVERY weekend and he brags about being a member of SGVRCL, OC, PVMAC, and Santa Fe. It's his money and I'm glad he's supporting (all of) the local clubs, but at the same time, that's another membership unavailable to someone else for clubs with membership caps.

Anyways, I think we've done a great job os hijacking the thread....
So what's your opinion on speed and other restrictions that are safety-oriented, but highly site-dependent?

I was not unsupportive of the thrust restrictions when turbines first showed up. They were unproven, and I was happy to see the AMA relax the thust:weight ratio restrictions once they were shown to be something that the pilots could handle.
Why are we now, after over 5 years of a most excellent safety record, seeing a potential step backwards? Another thread asks where you feel less safe... when Jim is dragging his Edge's tail down the centerline, or when a rookie is on approach, possibly on his first true solo (no buddy box).

There are several fields in the IE, not mentioned. Try Bill Lee’s club locator on the District 8 web page. http://www.ama-dist-8.org/Clubs/index.html PVMAC has continued to increase it’s membership size. It was the largest club in the country in 2002 with about 450 members. They finally cut the cost for kids too. Take a look at the Sepulveda Basin thread in the clubhouse.

I have mixed emotions about speed limits. I have friends that fly sailplanes that exceed 200 mph. With turbines, as far as I can see, RIGHT NOW, the thing is a non-issue. Having said that, the march of technology continues. Here is Dave Browns reasoning, from a discussion I had with him. The maximum distance that a model can be seen and controlled at is 1400 ft. Admittedly, some may seem a little further, but not much. His major concern with turbines is fire when a one crashes. Currently, most turbines will not exceed 200. A few are capable of 250. The 200 is not ground speed, but air speed. If the turbine is flying with a 20 mph tail wind, it will actually be doing 220.

The only aftermarket speed limiter are currently unreliable. Some manufacturers say they can produce a simple seed limiter that would be reliable. (The existing one serves several other functions).

At 200 mph, a plane is traveling about 300 ft sec. That gives about 10 seconds as the plane travels from one side to the other to input controls while it is in the pilot’s vision. If you were to increase that to 300 mph the time becomes about 440 ft/sec or a pass time of about 6.4 seconds. At 400 mph, it goes to about 600 ft/sec and 4.6 seconds. Somewhere, there has to be a limit. The speed limit was set, arbitrarily, at 200 mph. This was done from a proposal from the Turbine Review Committee (TRC) which is made up of 6 members, 5 of whom are Jet Pilot Organization (JPO) members. JPO is the Special Interest Group (SIG) that represents the jet flyers. The rub comes in trying to figure out how to enforce the 200 mph limit. The JPO proposed it, but, did not come up with a way to enforce it, and that is where the problem lies. Dave Brown is adamant about speed limiters. Some of the turbine guys want the thrust to weight controls put back into place (.9 to 1). Some just want rid of the 200 mph limit.

Since you asked, I think that there has to be a limit to reduce the risk of crashes and the resulting potential for fires. Some of this is, as you suggest, site dependent. No turbine pilot in his right mind would try to fly a turbine at the Temescal field. (Wires off either end of the field and surrounded by brush, in a canyon.) IF, and that is a huge IF, reliable speed limiters were to be made available, they are not a bad answer. That would allow high T/W ratios that the guys that enjoy the maneuverability want.

This was all brought about when the Safety Committee Chairman, Don Lowe (a previous AMA President) asked for a “clean sheet proposal’ to replace the existing regulations, which everyone agrees, have flaws. The TRC started out as a group that was to have 6 member. 3 were to have been appointed by the JPO and 3 by the Safety Committee. As noted above, of the 6, 5 are JPO members. The proposal was passed by the EC, with the blessing of JPO, TRC and the SC. The fight started when manufacturers started calling the next day to say they could build a reliable speed limiter. Dave Brown called an emergency meeting of the EC, which, when the new information was presented, voted to put the new rules on hold until more information could be collected.

If you want more info, the AMA Convention will be held in Ontario, CA next weekend. Two seminars on the proposed turbine rules will be held on Saturday. I will be there.. it has GOT to be entertaining.. at the very least.

JR

Interesting... I wonder if the Anaheim club is still going.

I certainly see the point, and if the choice is between speed limiters or reduced T:W ratios, I would have to support speed limits.
T:W is far more important to capability. I don't think we'll ever see 3D performance in jets, but a scale-performing Harrier would be impressive. I remember the early DF Harrier projects and they were borderline at best.

I presume that there is (and will be) be no plan to impose similar limits on other classes (sailplane, DF)?

There certainly are no plans to impose speed limits on others. The primary concern with turbines is fire, something other models don't have nearly the problem with. The turbines have made good advances in this area, but, still present a risk.

It's going to take some serious proof that speed limiters are reliable before the jet jockies are going to accept them, which is understandable.

JR-
I understand the fire concern, but how fast does a model have to go to catch fire?

This whole rationalization for speed limits is a non sequitur. Yes, it is obviously true that a fast airplane is capable of getting out of sight more quickly than a slower one, and if it goes out out sight of the pilot it is certainly more likely to crash and start a fire. That seems to be the essence of the rationale.

Lets see how an AMA rule limiting the speed of turbine models works for me. I don't fly turbines now. Several members of my club do, including my closest flying buddy, and several have urged me to join in the fun. I have not done so and have no intention of doing so. I'm a reasonably competent R/C pilot and have served as a club and AMA Intro Pilot instructor for many years. I can afford it if I chose to - a 'checkbook modeler' if you please - I could have one RTF with all the ancillary equipment to get airborne and folks standing by to sign off on the waiver within a week, just by making a phone call. Tempting, but it is my choice not to.
I have watched many turbine model flights by my friends, and from that experience I know that I have limitations that would keep me from flying one confidently and safely. My eyesight isn't up to it, and likely reactions as well. From experience, I know that a Q500 model with a good sport engine pushes my senses and ability to the limits of what is responsible.
So, any rule regarding speed limits on turbine models is utterly superfluous to me. It will have diddley squat to do with making me a safe turbine model flyer. If it were mandated at 120 mph instead of 200 it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference. Common sense is what makes me a safe flyer as far as turbines are concerned. Common sense, recognition of personal limitations, and individual responsibility is why 95% of the members of this club choose not to fly turbine models at any speed. We don't need arbitrary AMA rules to do this, neither the majority nor the relatively fewer turbine flyers. One has been clocked at better than 230 mph (without catching fire). So what - he can do it competently and he well knows it, else he wouldn't be doing it. Would the world be a safer place if he had a 200 mph limiter in his model airplane and macular degeneration in his eyes? Try as they insistently do, AMA EC cannot rationally legislate pilot ability.

Abel

Quote from RichLockyer, post #7:

"Not being a turbine (or DF pilot), I haven't looked up and/or read the fine print. A few months ago, a guy brought a turbine (just the engine) out to Whittier, and was told by the club members that he could not actually fly it at that field because it was not AMA approved/certified for turbine operation... he would have to go to Prado or Sepulveda. "

I am not aware of a certification process required by AMA for flying fields...Just where is THAT requirement??

Abel,
Just the guy I wanted to ask With a 45 pounds of thrust , what is the theoretical speed a model might reach?

For what it is worth, the picture I get is that nobody is going to get upset about a turbine that dives, with a speed limiter, reaches terminal velocity and crosses show center with a 30 mph tail wind at whatever speed.. as long as it is equipped with a speed limiter. No one is calling for cops, or radar guns or anything of the sort. You need to look at the potential new rules. The T/W is gone. Speed limiters are gone. Thrust is increased. Hence, my question.

The only thing I could come up with is to make it autonomous when you loose sight of it.

thrust available has little to do with theroretical speed available, exhaust velocity is the actual defining element for max speed, thrust available just changes the time factor to achieve max.
as in reguardless of thrust available, no aircraft will be able to exceed it's tailpipe velocity in straight level flight.


edited typo

JR,

The direction that everyone at the AMA seems to be trying to turn with the 45# thrust engines is that the modellers wanting to use them desire more thrust to go faster. I personally want a bigger engine for a particular model I am building right now, I wasnt to run it at 35# of installed thrust and with that engine I will be running it at lower rpm for ultimately more reliablity and longevity of the engine. I am currently flying a 35# thrust engine turned down on another airframe for the same reason. For some reason Dave Brown and others automatically assume that we want 45# max thrust so we can go that much faster. It just continues to demonstrate the lack of understanding that some of folks have of the jets. If it takes installing a speedlimiter on my airplanes to keep the airframe from exceeding the VNE I'll do that for my own peace of mind and not just because I am mandated to do so. This issue is all about common sense and Dave Brown etal.... are trying to assert that every guy that operates tubrines does not have the maturity to know when fast enough is fast enough for his abilities, or for the airframe he is operating. Just because 120 mph is the limit that abel-pranger feels is the limits of his abilities does not mean it is the upper limit for some of the rest of us. I feel quite comfortable flying at twice that speed. You can't regulate common sense.

BTW Abel......very good post.

Hi David

The problem with all rules is that they try to legislate common sense for those that are not gifted with it. One of the effects of the new rules will be more waiver holders. Apparently, from several posts in the Jet Forum, there are already some who have waivers, that are not gifted with common sense or ability. As the number of wiavers, and subsequently the number of common sense challenged individuals increases, what alternative is there to rules?

In the case of the new rules, the input of some of the best turbine pilots was sought. The rules that were passed, including the speed limit were directly related to that input.

I don't think I have seen anyone say that risk management is not relevant. What would you propose to keep the risk at an acceptable level to the entire membership, taking into account that the wiaver holder, with less than acceptable common sense, exists?

JR

JR,

If a way was actually in place to remove the waiver from an individual that is "common sense challenged" or that lacks the ability to control his models we would all be better off. But... the problem lies in defining the "limits" we have all seen sport pilots that crash every weekend over and over. We see that far less in the jet community but we still have a few of those individuals and yet even after numerous complaints have been voiced to the AMA the individuals still hold their waivers. So if the AMA wants to preach risk management why not listen to expereinced turbine pilots, some of whom are even Turbine CD's when a complaint is filed?

Don't get me wrong I feel like there should be some rules in place but I just don't feel like they are placing the emphasis on the correct things. Speed does not necessarily increase the probability of a crash. More stringent rules on the pilot, including tiered levels of higher performance models could place the hgiher performance models into the hands of people that have proven their ability to handle them. About 2 1/2 years ago JPO submitted a proposal that was similar to what was recently approved, it included tiered levels that would have set forth a distinct training path to higher performance turbine powered models. The proposal was tabled without any further discussion. It made a few of us that were heavily involved with it upset but not nearly the same way as this latest proposal that was carried through, voted in place and then held in abeyance without even insitituing further dialogue with the TRC.

JR,
I would think from all the flack, personal attacks, and unwillingness to recognize any potential problem the answer to your would have been obvious. The hue and cry is not about speed, but about turbine rules. It seems that the loudest of the guys wants NO RULES that pertain to turbines. If you wish I am sure someone can go back and find the various posts where DavidR, Mongo, Augiep38 and others have said the same thing, in at least one case in almost exactly those words. As a group it seems that they would clearly rather foist anarchy on the rest of us than participate in any attempt at making the environment safe for the entire community. I suspect the problem is that the group has not followed the current turbine rules very well and now the group is being called to account. See the ox and the gore? Guys, before you launch on me consider that I have just described what it looks like to several SILENT outsiders I have talked to.

Some of those guys howling about the turbine rules have even gotten low enough to say things that folks at my flying field laugh at. Go to your flying field and see if you can find anyone who has EVER seen a gas burner (NOT glow, but gasoline) catch fire in a crash. Then try to find SEVERAL of those kinds of fire in one year when NOT at a special class (GS racing) event! LOL Wanna bet they meant glow? Others are offended because they spend a lot of $ on their models and seem to feel that gives them the right to hold the rest of us hostage to their wealth rather than show any consideration for the rest of the community in the hobby. As a group they seem to throw up the fake straw man of "it costs an extra $200!" as impediments to improvements in the hobby when their planes frequently cost over $10,000!

Abel the problem with fires is NOT with speed alone (IIRC you have to exceed 400 mph before temperature on the structure becomes an issue), but with carrying lots of flammable liquid to the scene of the crash along with a large very hot heat source, all better known as JETA and a hot turbine. I know there are neat and tricky things in most of the CURRENT engines that shut them down on RX signal loss, but that does not cool the engine down if a servo dies, or a structure fails, or the pilot has a simple sneeze at 200 and near the limits of his visual acuity. Turbine fires happen and we all need to accept that as a fact. Now, imagine a fire in your neck of the woods started by a model turbine. How long would we be be flying models after that became the known cause of the fire?

Legislating common sense is not going to solve the problems because, as you noticed, it won't work. The turbine community needs to step up to the plate and engage in proactive management of their own segment of the hobby rather than trashing other modelers as a defense for their moral laziness and failure to do so with the current rules. From what I have read, seen, and talked to folks about the TRC attempted to put the jet community in that position while at the same time opening the genre` up to more folks.


-


Did I miss anyone?

Jim,

You are missing the whole point. The turbine community stepped up to the plate long ago and increased the level of safety. The majority of the turbine guys don't hesitate to spend extra $200 as you put it on their airplanes to insure they have the best and most reliable equipment. Proper rigging, fuel systems installations, turbine installations, heat sheilding are all topics that are routinely addressed in the jet forum here on RCU as well as at jet events with new and old turbine pilots alike. No one is trying to cram anything down anyones throat but we also want a little consideration for the effort that we as a group have spent attempting to make our segment of the hobby one of the safest out there. There will always be fires associated with turbine operation, full scale has not been able to prevent that why should we even think we can? We have however made quite a few attempts to minimize the probability of fire. The BVM Bobcat is a good example, the engine mounts are designed to be frangible and a pair of deflector plates will direct the engine away from the fuel tanks in a crash. Will it still catch fire in a crash, yes. I have seen glow powered planes crash and burn, and have also seen gasoline powered models crash and burn as well, I have even seen an electric powered model catch on fire.

My question to you is what are more rules going to accomplish? Do you want to regulate the turbines completely out of the AMA? If so why? Do we really pose that much more risk than a helicopter, or giant scale plane with a 32" prop spinning at 8000 rpm? The shear numbers of giant scale aircraft statistically suggests that their is more likelyhood of an accident occuring than with the relatively low number of jets.

yes jim, every one of the fires i said were gas, were in fact gas, not glow fuel, which i have also seen burn in a crash.
all but one of those gas fires was ignited by a battery/electrical short heating up and igniting spilled fuel after the crash. the other was a backfire into a gas loaded cowel.
i have even seen a glider catch fire and burn post crash, again a battery/electrical short.
for me, i am not saying no rules, i say rules should apply across the board, no seperating out power systems, and they should be enforceable and enforced.