Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

Old 01-08-2004, 01:48 PM
  #26  
P-51B
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
 
P-51B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

Again I would have to ask, how would they implement that for Life Members?
Easy additional payment if you fly those models.

When those people payed their life dues, a contract if you will, they were told that from that point on, they would not pay one more cent to the AMA for required dues.

Requiring an additional payment would be breaking that contract, and likely open themselves up to a lawsuit.

My guess is that life members wouldn't have to worry about tiered rates.
Old 01-08-2004, 01:51 PM
  #27  
P-51B
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
 
P-51B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

ORIGINAL: J_R

I agree with your assessment that the VP's have recieved very limited response to Dave's article, or to the turbine proposals themselves.

Having also talked to DB, I do not believe it was his intention to turn the membership against turbines. If he really wanted to do something like that, he could put motions on the agenda to do exactly that, without input from anyone.


JR

Actually, after reading this thread, I am wondering if the intent of the article was to put the issue out in a confusing manner, so no one would respond. Then he can by default say that since no one responded negatively, the membership must agree with him.
Old 01-08-2004, 04:25 PM
  #28  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

required dues
Dues are Dues. Insurance is Insurance. But if they were more specific, no bad, I doubt the few life time members would break the bank.
Old 01-08-2004, 04:31 PM
  #29  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

Much ado about nothing. Most life members probably dontate every year to the AMA anyway. A life membership was never purchased as a great "deal". (well, the vast majority of them anyway) Leave 'em alone regardless of tiers or whatever.
Old 01-08-2004, 04:37 PM
  #30  
3d-aholic
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
 
3d-aholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 2,024
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

I think the AMA should splinter itself into a few autonomous associations that spoke back to the main agency. If they wait too long to do that, these other groups are going to organize and form separate organizations. And depending on what association splinter group you are in, will depend your dues.

They could do it know or wait till that have no choice and also have competing associations. But its a fact that with different style of modeling has come different demands, legally, financially, and perception-wise. Don't fight and make it more complex than it is.

It is what it is, deal with it. And, don't alienate the other groups hoping they will go away. Embrace Diversity!!!!
Old 01-08-2004, 04:40 PM
  #31  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

ORIGINAL: 2MuchThrow

I think the AMA should splinter itself into a few autonomous associations that spoke back to the main agency. If they wait too long to do that, these other groups are going to organize and form separate organizations. And depending on what association splinter group you are in, will depend your dues.

They could do it know or wait till that have no choice and also have competing associations. But its a fact that with different style of modeling has come different demands, legally, financially, and perception-wise. Don't fight and make it more complex than it is.

It is what it is, deal with it. And, don't alienate the other groups hoping they will go away. Embrace Diversity!!!!
Planning on going out and finding your own diverse fields, are you? I suspect the clubs will have something to say about it.
Old 01-08-2004, 04:55 PM
  #32  
3d-aholic
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
 
3d-aholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 2,024
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

ORIGINAL: J_R

Planning on going out and finding your own diverse fields, are you? I suspect the clubs will have something to say about it.
Not me...I'm one of those regular modelers that Dave Brown likes...lol

I'm answering the question for him. He's too close to his problem and hes looking at with too much complexity. You can tell by his article --I think hes dazed and confused. Plus the answer is less than desireable...it means restructuring the entire association. Which I'm sure is very political....so maybe he would agree with me.

But it is inevitable, that these diverse groups will pull this organization apart one way or another. You can let them do it or you can help them do it in a planned, coordinated fashion that leaves AMA still the head of everything.

I hope there are some smart people up there in Muncie that can figure the very obvious but very distasteful reality out..... The clubs can and will adjust by allowing multiple insurance at their fields....if the AMA doesn't figure it out before hand.
Old 01-08-2004, 05:38 PM
  #33  
Volture
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester, TN
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

ORIGINAL: DavidR

Volture,

Who's to say that the "checkbook" modeller tht you just described won't do his dirty deed with a giant scale Extra, or a high performance helicopter.
I agree, but the potential severity of injury depends largely on the kinetic energy of the projectile (KE= 1/2MV^2):

KE of a 6 lb trainer 40 @ 100 mph = 2004 ft-lb
KE of a giant scale 20 lb plane @ 100 mph = 6680 ft-lb
KE of a 20 lb jet @ 200 mph = 26,721 ft-lb, FOUR TIMES MORE THAN THE GIANT SCALE
KE of a 55 lb lb jet @ 200 mph = 73,485 ft-lb THIRTY SEVEN TIMES MORE THAN THE TRAINER 40!!!

The study AMA did on pylon racer energies and protective cage effectiveness (actually performed by a guy from my club, Lee Webster, AMA 168 (that's right, 3-digits)) really opened some eyes to the damage potential of higher energies involved with fast planes.
Old 01-08-2004, 05:41 PM
  #34  
Ty
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eagle River, AB
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

I had to read it a couple of times because the first time I read it, it seemed he was useing (1) fear and (2) cost to turn modelers against the jet guy's and their sig. Then I read it again and decided he was (1) useing fear and (2) cost, to turn the membership against the jet guy's and their sig.
Sorta like if he doesn't get his way, if a jet crashes and there is a claim, we will all have to pay more for our insurance because of some high speed killing machine loaded to the hilt with fuel will sooner or later crash into a school bus and then skidd into an old folks home killing all and burning down the county, and then the government will step in and label all model planes wmd's and that will be the end of our hobby as we know it. My god we will all soon be outlaws! Qiuck hide the planes,radio's and fuel, big brother is uh comin for em. I feel another dues hike in the works and a scape- goat is already being led to the alter. Ty
Old 01-08-2004, 06:18 PM
  #35  
abel_pranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

ORIGINAL: Volture

ORIGINAL: DavidR

Volture,

Who's to say that the "checkbook" modeller tht you just described won't do his dirty deed with a giant scale Extra, or a high performance helicopter.
I agree, but the potential severity of injury depends largely on the kinetic energy of the projectile (KE= 1/2MV^2):

KE of a 6 lb trainer 40 @ 100 mph = 2004 ft-lb
KE of a giant scale 20 lb plane @ 100 mph = 6680 ft-lb
KE of a 20 lb jet @ 200 mph = 26,721 ft-lb, FOUR TIMES MORE THAN THE GIANT SCALE
KE of a 55 lb lb jet @ 200 mph = 73,485 ft-lb THIRTY SEVEN TIMES MORE THAN THE TRAINER 40!!!

The study AMA did on pylon racer energies and protective cage effectiveness (actually performed by a guy from my club, Lee Webster, AMA 168 (that's right, 3-digits)) really opened some eyes to the damage potential of higher energies involved with fast planes.
and
KE of my 6000 lb Ford Expedition @ 65 mph = 54,530,667 ft-lb............yet it's OK by the DMV and GEICO for me to drive this WMD

The provision in the rule passed by the EC (which was usurped by DB) that imposes a speed limit on the jets has been rationalized on the basis of fire hazard, should they go beyond the pilots visual range and crash as a result.
The least energetic projectile you cited has been proven (unfortunately by empirical data) to be potentially lethal if it hits someone. If somebody is killed by one of your examples, will he be more dead if it was the 55 lb jet?

Abel
Old 01-08-2004, 06:31 PM
  #36  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,256
Received 58 Likes on 50 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

i seem to remember a US Army study, that concluded that a 12# object at 5 mph was lethal in a head strike.
Old 01-08-2004, 06:41 PM
  #37  
DavidR
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oxford, MS
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

The least energetic projectile you cited has been proven (unfortunately by empirical data) to be potentially lethal if it hits someone. If somebody is killed by one of your examples, will he be more dead if it was the 55 lb jet?
Amen my Brutha!!!

Volture,

What exactly are you suggesting anyway? Should we have more seperation between the flightline and the spectators or pits? Or are you suggesting we provide little cages every time a jet is flown?
Old 01-08-2004, 08:40 PM
  #38  
Volture
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester, TN
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

[/quote]

and
KE of my 6000 lb Ford Expedition @ 65 mph = 54,530,667 ft-lb............yet it's OK by the DMV and GEICO for me to drive this WMD


Abel
[/quote]

Well Abel, sorry but you you can't calculate energies, as your Expedition's KE is only 846,750 ft-lb! (I'll explain the math if you want... ) And GEICO does charge you more for insurance than the guy driving the GEO. Based on today's news, I'm reminded that perception rules. Based by their own admision on PERCEPTION, not facts or real engineering data, U-Haul has decided to no longer rent trailers to people driving Explorers, which includes me. It's OK to tow it with my Dodge Ram, or maybe even the old Civic, but not the Explorer. A baseball has a higher KE than a park flyer, but many park authorities consider baseball safe and model aircraft dangerous.


I just don't want us to lose the entire hobby because someone in the government decides we're piloting RPV's and not model aircraft. But again let me say... I like jets! Oh well, food for thought...
Old 01-08-2004, 08:51 PM
  #39  
Mike in DC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 993
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
If somebody is killed by one of your examples, will he be more dead if it was the 55 lb jet?
You are taking a simple concept and making it complex with a philosophic riddle. More energy means more force, which means more chance of injury. You can be killed by a 6 pound trainer, but it's not easy. The stars really have to align against you so you take a direct hit in the wrong place. In the case of the girl in GB, it seemed to me that she heard a noise, turned to see what it was, and took a hit in the face. If you take almost any defensive action, which is very easy with a plane going 40 mph (half the speed of a fast baseball), you're probably not even going to the emergency room. With the jet going 200 mph, first, you are not going to be able to dodge it, and second, it won't take a direct hit to kill you. Big difference.
Old 01-08-2004, 08:54 PM
  #40  
Volture
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester, TN
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

ORIGINAL: DavidR
Volture,

What exactly are you suggesting anyway? Should we have more seperation between the flightline and the spectators or pits? Or are you suggesting we provide little cages every time a jet is flown?
Well, I wasn't actually suggesting, but since you asked:

I would think that some R/C fields are suitable for jets and others not due to what is in the overflight area at the ends of the runways and outside of the bounds of the field. I was at Jets over Tennessee, and the Maury county airport seemed about the right size for jet flying. Lots of regular R/C fields (even though they may have sufficiently long paved runways) just have too much vulnerable stuff on each end. I only referred to the cage to illustrate the research that AMA sponsored following a rash of pylon-related injuries, and I believe, a fatality.
Old 01-08-2004, 09:53 PM
  #41  
abel_pranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

ORIGINAL: Volture
and
KE of my 6000 lb Ford Expedition @ 65 mph = 54,530,667 ft-lb............yet it's OK by the DMV and GEICO for me to drive this WMD


Abel
[/quote]

Well Abel, sorry but you you can't calculate energies, as your Expedition's KE is only 846,750 ft-lb! (I'll explain the math if you want... ) And GEICO does charge you more for insurance than the guy driving the GEO. Based on today's news, I'm reminded that perception rules. Based by their own admision on PERCEPTION, not facts or real engineering data, U-Haul has decided to no longer rent trailers to people driving Explorers, which includes me. It's OK to tow it with my Dodge Ram, or maybe even the old Civic, but not the Explorer. A baseball has a higher KE than a park flyer, but many park authorities consider baseball safe and model aircraft dangerous.


I just don't want us to lose the entire hobby because someone in the government decides we're piloting RPV's and not model aircraft. But again let me say... I like jets! Oh well, food for thought...
[/quote]

Volture-
Yer right of course, I fergot to convert the weight to mass (ouch!) and ignored the 0.5 factor in the equation (why in heck isn't Einsteins's energy eqn E=0.5mc^2???). What the hay, I quit calculatin' when the number looked impressive.<G>
I agree completely with your sentiment - I don't want to lose the hobby by any means. I guess my difference with DB and his actions re this subject comes down to a matter of trust. I know a number of people involved with jets, and every indication so far is that I can trust their judgment to be every bit as responsible as the vast majority of other modelers I know, i.e., to operate within their limits, both human and airframe. As for DB and his overriding the judgment of everybody else concerned, that's a whole different thing.....

Abel
Old 01-08-2004, 09:59 PM
  #42  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,256
Received 58 Likes on 50 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

yeah able, the line:
familiarity breeds contempt

comes to mind .
Old 01-08-2004, 10:16 PM
  #43  
DavidR
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oxford, MS
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

Volture,

Since you were at Tennessee Jets (so was I) how many crashes did you see? How many Fires did you see? How well was safety emphasized and followed at that event?

Let me go ahead and answer for you.......No crashes, No fires, and no safety violations. A very safe and pleasent event. Only problem, that was not an AMA field but it was an excellent place to fly.

But how did you come to the conclusion that was a more acceptable place to fly than a local flying field? Did you fly at that event? What vulnerable stuff did that field lack that club fields even with their long runways not lack? My local AMA field is a good place to fly jets, it does not have a paved runway and it does not have any vulnerable things at the end of the runway (whatever vulnerable things are?) What exactly made that place appear to YOU to be a better place to fly?
Old 01-08-2004, 10:29 PM
  #44  
J_R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
<SNIP>
I agree completely with your sentiment - I don't want to lose the hobby by any means. I guess my difference with DB and his actions re this subject comes down to a matter of trust. I know a number of people involved with jets, and every indication so far is that I can trust their judgment to be every bit as responsible as the vast majority of other modelers I know, i.e., to operate within their limits, both human and airframe. As for DB and his overriding the judgment of everybody else concerned, that's a whole different thing.....

Abel
Abel

I would like to say I agree, but, I don't. David has agreed that there are some waiver holders that should not have waivers. Not many, but, they exist. The new rules will make it easier to get a waiver, and, just by the laws of probability, there will be additional waiver holders that should not have one. People that are flying beyond their limits, in your words. What do you do about them? Rules, are aimed at just such people. The guy that is marginally proficient at 200 is going to be a threat at a higher speed. What is the answer?

It's pretty obvious that you're not fond of Dave Brown. I can even understand that. What I do not understand is who you think, on the EC, will fold thier cards and throw in their convictions becasue he says so. I think we can all name one, but, other than him, who among the EC do you believe would vote his conscience in the face of DB's opposition at the EC meeting, and then turn around and change that convicition in a phone call... all without new information?

JR
Old 01-08-2004, 10:40 PM
  #45  
CaptainHook
My Feedback: (80)
 
CaptainHook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Swartz Creek, MI
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation


KE of a 6 lb trainer 40 @ 100 mph = 2004 ft-lb
KE of a giant scale 20 lb plane @ 100 mph = 6680 ft-lb
KE of a 20 lb jet @ 200 mph = 26,721 ft-lb, FOUR TIMES MORE THAN THE GIANT SCALE
KE of a 55 lb lb jet @ 200 mph = 73,485 ft-lb THIRTY SEVEN TIMES MORE THAN THE TRAINER 40!!!

The study AMA did on pylon racer energies and protective cage effectiveness (actually performed by a guy from my club, Lee Webster, AMA 168 (that's right, 3-digits)) really opened some eyes to the damage potential of higher energies involved with fast planes.
So whats the point? 2004 ft-lbs will likely kill as much as much as 73,485 ft-lbs. The only difference I see is that you may not know what hit you.
Old 01-08-2004, 10:40 PM
  #46  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

ORIGINAL: Volture

I agree, but the potential severity of injury depends largely on the kinetic energy of the projectile (KE= 1/2MV^2):

KE of a 6 lb trainer 40 @ 100 mph = 2004 ft-lb
KE of a giant scale 20 lb plane @ 100 mph = 6680 ft-lb
KE of a 20 lb jet @ 200 mph = 26,721 ft-lb, FOUR TIMES MORE THAN THE GIANT SCALE
KE of a 55 lb lb jet @ 200 mph = 73,485 ft-lb THIRTY SEVEN TIMES MORE THAN THE TRAINER 40!!!

The study AMA did on pylon racer energies and protective cage effectiveness (actually performed by a guy from my club, Lee Webster, AMA 168 (that's right, 3-digits)) really opened some eyes to the damage potential of higher energies involved with fast planes.
Yet, with all the eye opening and all the money spent for building cages for all racers to haul around to events, the designs were flawed and a
Q-40 went right through one. Thus the moving the judges to off-the-course came into being.
If one gets hit with something regardless of whatever, but the the impact position is just right, the lights can go out and all these BS kinetic energy theories are out the window.
So what if one gets hit by a 4lb. Q-40, spinning an 8" circular-saw blade at 20,000RPM?, at 201 mph? Is that better than a 15Lb. sport turbine doing 120 mph? I don't have a clue and neither does Mr. Brown as it really matters not.
I can snap a deer's neck at 30 yards with my .44 magnum Black Hawk revolver, either 180 grains or 280 grains, or I can do same at 200 yards with a Browning semi-auto rifle using a 150 grain 7mm Remington mag.(all I ever shoot). Do you think it matters to the deer?

To use increased distance requirements will simply negate many facilities from accommodating jets, yet that is what is slowly destroying pylon racing. Is that a plan?
While I think the doctrinaire political action so demonstrated in this subject item and the tail-touch issue so far overrides the actual rule positions themselves, that such discussion as goes on in these forums & threads is the biggest waste of kinetic energy going. You people just refuse to see what is really happening in the AMA. In layman's terms, you continue to stomp pi$$-ants and the elephants are thundering down on you.[:@]
Old 01-08-2004, 10:48 PM
  #47  
DavidR
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oxford, MS
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

JR,

A lot of the new rules with respect to how to obtain a waiver stem from some other simple facts about the change in technology. When I first started flying jets the ratio was about 20% Turbine 80 % Ducted fan. We did speed runs at events and several of the manufacturers sold fast DF jets capable of sustained flight above 150 mph. Then the popularity of the turbines took off, jet modellers got what we had dreamed about for years... real jets. The Ducted fan market went to the basement. If I am not mistaken it was three years ago when BVM stopped selling the Aggressor, Ultra Viper, and the Maverick. A lot of us still had those planes but a lot of us had sold those planes to finance our growing obsession for turbine power. What all this means is that the demand for DF airplanes decreased to the point where it was no longer profitable for companies to produce airframes and develope further the DF technology. It also means that the DF airplane population was starting to diminish, people that were, and are getting into the jet segment of the hobby kept asking why do I need to spend $2000 on a DF jet to fly it 50 times so I can get a turbine waiver? Well the good ole AMA says we can't fly turbines on a buddy box....what a crock of horse puckies.... why not??? It has got to be one of the safest and most practical methods for teaching someone to fly ANY model. Well several years ago we started trying to get that allowed as part of the turbine regulations, what an advance that would be. Teach a guy to fly a model he actually wants to fly, let him gain the experience in a logical, and safe way, make sure he gets the help and guidance from an experienced modeller. Too logical.

Now enter 2004 we have very few airframes capable of 150 mph sustained flight. We have a system where we have Turbine CD's that HAVE to witness at least one flight supposedly with a model capable of those speeds. The AMA does not even define that model so guys want to take waiver tests with diamond dusts, or lanier shrikes nothing like a jet in complexity or wing loading. But they go fast! Well how are we to follow that rule? Do we let them use the diamond dust or do we as responsible jet pilots (obivously with SOME level of judgement) insist that they go spend $2000 on an airplane, or do we allow them to use a heavily loaded warbird with flaps, and retracts that closer demonstrates their ability to think, and react to a more complex model. OH OH......I broke another rule!! Shame on me an irresponsible jet guy.

The new rules do at least make an attempt to provide a way for the "bad apples" to be culled out.
Old 01-08-2004, 10:49 PM
  #48  
Volture
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester, TN
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

ORIGINAL: DavidR

But how did you come to the conclusion that was a more acceptable place to fly than a local flying field? Did you fly at that event? What vulnerable stuff did that field lack that club fields even with their long runways not lack? My local AMA field is a good place to fly jets, it does not have a paved runway and it does not have any vulnerable things at the end of the runway (whatever vulnerable things are?) What exactly made that place appear to YOU to be a better place to fly?
I was generically referring to vulnerable things as "stuff that's expensive enough or populated enough that you really don't want to crash into it". Stuff like busy parks (like in South Nashville at Cane Ridge park) , public golf courses or skeet ranges (like next to my home field in Tullahoma), homes, shopping centers, busy interstate interchanges, etc. At the airport, with 6000-8000 ft of runway, there's not much chance of hitting anything important at either end of the flightline.

The guys I observed at Jets over Tennessee were superb flyers - no crashes, no fires, no close calls. But that doesn't mean crashes never happen, especially since there are jet crash videos available for purchase.

Like my original post implied, it's not the experienced competent flyers who concern me. It's the tyro who has insufficient or no instruction who goes out and gets a jet. Signing out...
Old 01-08-2004, 11:00 PM
  #49  
DavidR
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oxford, MS
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

I was generically referring to vulnerable things as "stuff that's expensive enough or populated enough that you really don't want to crash into it". Stuff like busy parks (like in South Nashville at Cane Ridge park) , public golf courses or skeet ranges (like next to my home field in Tullahoma), homes, shopping centers, busy interstate interchanges, etc. At the airport, with 6000-8000 ft of runway, there's not much chance of hitting anything important at either end of the flightline.
Volture,

There were factories, expensive airplanes behind the flightline, and a scrap yard within sight of the airport. What is the difference? I am not picking at you simply trying to see what the rationale for your blessing on one flying site over another was.

The guys I observed at Jets over Tennessee were superb flyers - no crashes, no fires, no close calls. But that doesn't mean crashes never happen, especially since there are jet crash videos available for purchase.
I have several crasher tapes, and while there are jets on them I see a WHOLE lot more variety than just jets. BTW I don't know of any specifically jet crash videos for sale.

FWIW I am also very concerned about the incompetent modellers that wind up flying jets. How do I stop them? THe speed limiter is not going to stop them from flying any more than the T/W rule is. There will ALWAYS be incompetent pilots in every aspect of this hobby. The tyro that you are pointing the finger at is not necessarily going to attemtp to follow the rules anyway so what's the point?
Old 01-08-2004, 11:14 PM
  #50  
Volture
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester, TN
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Dave Brown in Feb04 Model Aviation

OK DavidR -- a truly non-contoversial, non-antagonistic question for you as knowledgeable jet guy:

What should be the max AMA speed allowed for jets or should there be a speed limit?
What should be the max AMA weight allowed for jets, or should there be a weight limit?
Is there any speed or weight at which a model R/C airplane becomes too risky and dangerous to fly from a common R/C field?

thoughts?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.