Kevin Greene

My Feedback: (85)

Volture,

I know you didn't ask me about the recommended VNE for the AMA's max speed but I'll give you a good starting point....Go with the manufacturer's recommended VNE. For example: VNE on a BVM Composite Bandit-250MPH, VNE on a Composite ARF Rookie-200 MPH, VNE on a BVM BobCat 175 MPH.........To tell you the truth, most guys adhere to the manufacturer's recommended VNE anyway.

As far as a weight limit---How about 50 lbs dry. All along we have stated that there are 55 lb (wet) 40-50% aerobats that only carry around 2 liters of fuel. They don't need to carry much fuel as they are pretty miserly compared to jets. At 50 lbs dry this would allow the jet to go over 55 lbs when fully fueled at takeoff but be under the 55 lb weight limit upon landing.

Your last question just requires common sense----If you have to ask if it is risky then it probably is.

Kevin

DavidR

My Feedback: (1)

My thoughts....

There should exist several tiers of turbine waiver with an increase in level comes an increase in freedoms but also an increase in responsibility.

Level 1 For the new pilot must demonstrate complete control of his aircraft, buddy boxing encouraged for a period of time, speed limited to 150 mph, max thrust limited to 22#, Max airframe weight 30#

My reasoning, the new turbine pilot does not need to be transitioning to a very heavily loaded airframe without demonstrating his experience with a turbine model

Level 2 After a minimum of say 100 flights the pilot must demonstrated full control of his airplane, with a minimum of take offs and landings form both directions, right and left patterns and missed approaches from both directions. Minimal aerobatics to demonstrate full control of a turbine airframe in various attitudes. Pilot with a level 2 waiver would be restricted to 35# max thrust and 200 mph. Current AMA restrictions on the max airframe weight. No twin engined airplanes allowed.

Level 3 No minimum on flights, a rigorous testing of the pilot's abilities to control a high performance turbine model. The pilot should have expereince with both sport and scale models and should be competent enough to do a variety of precision aerobatics. The pilot should also be able to preform the above patterns, approaches, and landings in either direction, he should eb able to land within 5'+- of the centerline and demonstrate safe and fully controlled flight. He would have to be "judged" by more than one Level 3 pilot preferably also being TCD's. The actual manouvers would have to be determined, this pilot's ability would likely be very obvious. 45# max thrust, un restricted speed, and max weight of airframe 55# dry. This pilot should have demonstrated superior judgement and ability to numerous individuals.


It has been my experience (I have several thousand turbine flights to my credit) that the high time pilots already have determined what their ultimate top speed is. They know their comfort zone and don't push the envelope past that. I know when I attempt new manouvers I have already spent hours on the simulator tuning my thimbs up before I ever attempt them at the field.


The common R/C field......tough question..... what is the common R/C field? I have several models I don't fly at my local field, because the conditions aren't right for them. What are the conditions, grass, and a lack of an appropriate approach from one direction. Does that make in inapprpriate for all jets, no but for a few hat I have yes so I fly them at other locations. I go to an event in Texas every year, the runway is short and even though I fly a particular scale plane a lot I won't fly it at that field because I don't fell comfortable with the conditions. Why is it so hard for the rest of the R/C community to believe that most of us don't want to crash our planes and will attempt to fly inside our comfrot levels just like you guys do?

Volture

My Feedback: (1)

David:

Peace... I like your phased approach. Thanks for the interchange. Regarding your last sentence, I agree that any competent pilot flying glow, gas, electrics, jets, or full scale will usually make the right decision as to whether conditions are safe for flight for a given aircraft. Lights out here... have good evening!

the troll

Sounds like a diamond in the rough...better than what we have now by a long shot. Keep storming.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

This tiered system, I am now convinced, is the ultimate solution. I am not sure we will ever get to it, as these pseudo science technical issues have become so charged right now.

DavidR

My Feedback: (1)

Not just a diamond in the rough it was proposed 3 years ago by Bob Violett, and re proposed a few months after that in a two tierded form by JPO. Immediately tabled by the EC at the time. Having been involved with this issue for some time now it has appeared over and over as a set of set backs and unwillingness on the part of the AMA to accept the fact that the jet community is really concerned with the level of safety and the competency levels of the pilots. Most of us realize the fact that we are dealing with very high performance models and feel like there needs to be some form of regulations associated with them. Some of us feel like the emphasis has for far too long been placed on the model and not the modeller. The TCD requirement a few years ago was a step in the right direction toward insuring that the level of competency of the pilots was up to the challenges of turbine flight. In the early days of turbines the airframes were converted DF airframes designed for speed, now there are quite a few models designed as turbine powered sport planes that are not for speed but for relaxed flying with a turbine power plant, designed more to be like a shoulder wing second plane like most of us flew in our earlier days of RC as our second plane.

airega1

My Feedback: (204)

I'll be honest with all you guys, this crap is getting way too deep, I CD the Mid Atlantic jet Rally, been doing it for the last 14 years, now since the turbines hit the market it's been nothing but a ROYAL PITA! I understand the potential of an aircraft traveling in excess of 200mph, but every year there's more and more regulations on it. I fly jets mostly DF's I have no turbines and have no desire to own one, nor do I have anything against them, I think they are awesome, but I don't know if running this event is going to be worth the aggrevation that is coming from the AMA. By the way, to say something about the credibility of jet fliers? I have documented every crash that took place in the last 14 years of my restricted to only jets, rally events. In 14 years of an average of 30 pilots a year the total number of crashes was, 9 total and 3 of the 9 were last year! Out of the total 9-2 were turbines, one two years ago went straight in, claimed radio failure, no fire. The other turbine was last year and that was a structure failure of a brand new airplane with about 8 flights on it, no fire, heavy damage. The remaining seven were, 6 pilot error, 1 faulty battery. So the way I see it, the jet guys have thier act together, just hope it stays that way.

Frank A Rega 2849

Hossfly

Mr. Reid, some 7 years ago, I visited Violett's place and we had a rather long talk about the future of jet models. At the time Bob was very interested in the AMA's future.
Bob Violett is a person always on the leading edge of technology and a true leader in model aviation. Not only does he have the needed infrastructure, but he also has the true ability to lead AMA in this world of daily change.
With the support of real jet leaders as yourself, Mr. Reid, I think Bob Violett could become interested in being the man to lead AMA in these times. At the moment, I do not recall whether Bob has performed any of the required past services for AMA Presidential qualifications, however those opportunities are also available this year. There will be another Presidential election in another three years.
May I suggest that you and friends start talking to Mr. Violett. VP this year, then EVP and right up to Pres. It could be done.

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

I am not familiar with GEICO, but with most companies, the reason insurance costs more for the explorer than the GEO is that the explorer costs more!

DavidR

My Feedback: (1)

Interesting thought. I kind of doubt that Bob will really be interested in that but since I will be at his place a week from today I will ask him about it. It will make for an interesting conversation without a doubt. The tiered waiver system has been his brain child from the start. It makes sense, although it would not be without its own set of enforcement problems.

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

I'll vote for him.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

there is a reason why the tiered approch to waivers will not work, that yall are missing.
CD workload.
and i am not talking about at jet rallys, or jet only events. it is the poor cd at a fun fly where 1 jet guy shows up unexpectedly. yer asking him to have scales and means of measuring thrust and speed available to verify that this guy is in line with his waiver restrictions. on top of everything else he has to do. talk about a recipe for ignoring the rules, that is it.
i have had jet guy show up at the heli ff i was running. they can and do show up at events where they are not expected, and ya really don't wana just send em packing with a "we are not prepared to handle processing ya to fly at this event".
cd "pay" just got cut in half, and yall talking foolishness about increasing their responsibilitys unnecessarily.

realdeal

My Feedback: (45)

This statement really outlines my problem with Dave Brown's approach to safety/insurance/regulations. The only solution he has demonstrated to a "perceived" threat is to try and eliminate that "perceived" threat. It doesn't matter that the perception is WRONG.

We need new leadership who will work to correct the perception. They will need to be persuasive among AMA members, media members, government types, and the general public. They should fight on our behalf to allow the "advanced" activities with liberal limits. We need tough negotiators and I don't believe we have them. I think it would be worthwhile to make the AMA president a HIGHLY paid full-time contract position. We may even need to change our election process to one where the VP's hire a president so we can consider candidates from outside the organization. I believe that with the right person in place a $250K+ salary could pay for itself in reduced insurance hikes, more freedom to fly what we want and less government interference down the road.

Sport_Pilot

You actually let him fly? Last time I wanted to fly my 90 sized scale plane when there was a plane fun fly I had to wait till the contest was over. I would think a heli FF and a turbine jet would be a worse mix.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

actually, we, i as cd, treated him as an invited demo pilot.
we hadn't planed any shut down for demos, but i added 4 spots for him to fly. works well for both us. he got to fly after driving and spending on a hotel, and our concession stand got more business from the breaks in open flying, 2 of which happened to be at lunchtimes.

Hossfly

Careful there Mongo, versatility and flexibility must be forbidden somewhere in AMA events / rules.

rw Guinn

Probably true---but..
Didn't the AMA go thru all this before the gasoline engines were finally approved? I seem to recall, in the 60's and 70's that gosoline engines were forbidden 9at least in FF and RC) because of the danger of fires. When technology inproved, they became acceptable, then accepted, and approved.
I was out of the AMA during most of the 80's, so I don't recall the details, and will backtrack if wrong.
Some of the long-timers give us the details...

Roger

Hossfly

Well, I miss the correlation of your gas-engine restriction and my jest to Mongo as a compliment for his quick thinking and action to make all happy with a jet pilot at a heli-event, and maybe I'm also missing something else.

I was flying FF and CL in the 60s and early 70s. I do not remember any ban on gas engines by any AMA stipulations. Some guys were flying Anderson Spitfires, spark ignition gas, in RC in the 60s. Old Time FF was still spark-gas. Lots of CLers were still playing with sparkers. I flew a Super Cyke sparker CL Stunt-Sport until well past the early '60s.
In the early '70s when I started RC, I saw some of the first chain-saw conversions being flown at a number of the sites around Chicago-land.
My RC mentor, Bob Bently, then Du-Bro shop foreman, was a foremost pioneer in those big-birds, one which he designed and made of cardboard and ply, and flew with one of those O&R gas engines of something like 1 or 1.2 cu. ins -- not to be confused with the older O&R model engines.

If there were any restrictions, they escape me -- easily done -- however there could have been any kind of local restrictions around over the country.

rw Guinn

actually, the correlation was that there is some flexibility if what followed was true.
Apparently what I remember was either locally enabled, or somebody's interpretation of something. That is why I aske the question.
They say the memory's the second thing to go with age. I forget what the first one is...

Roger