Meaning that the original postings saying there is no AMA rule requiring the spinner were 100% accurate and he doesn't want to admit he was WRONG.Better back the truck up... you gonna get squashed. There are more likely OVER 100 different models over 55 lbs that get flown every year. There are LOTS that skirt right on the edge of the 55 lbs... J_R must have never been to a Big-Bird event in TX.and says nothing about requiring any spinner at any time... just recommends against use of the needle-point spinners which might be scale on some models (so they won't 100% say not to use them because that would ba a downgrade at the scale competitions)proving you are an idiot as the Fox AMA Safety nut is SPECIFICLY designed to meet the radius requirement of the competition rules where it is required to use eigther a safety nut or spinner. Write to Fox Mfg and get the specs on it.Which means he can't arbitrarilly ADD a rule without prior notice. IN WRITINGThus voiding 90% or more of the reasons people want to go to compete in Clas A, AA, AAA or AAAA events. (you won't find them sticking in arbitrary rules at the NATS...) Again... you are an idiot... you need to actually get the dimensions on that spinner-nut before claiming it does not meet the radius requirements... It meets them... It is CNC milled to meet or exceed the radius requirement by design. Write to Fox Mfg and get the specs.You try to be stupid enough to thread a chunk of dowel on and tell the CD you are meeting the rules... He'll probably boot you from the field. and you are 100% wrong butthead

************
typos... in the quote start/stop codes... and general typng.
(but then I almost always do tell WHY I edit... unlike some who edit and hope no one looks at the revision history.)

huber, I have come to the conclusion you are blind. This is a picture of the Fox 6504 Spinner YOU put the link to.

The appearance of it being pointed is an effect of lighting... get the specs dweeb... its round. I have one.

***********

J_R can bite me... I wrote to Fox so I'll get the specs... post it and prove how stuipd he is... then he can go sulk in a corner from being squashed like the bug he is.

Hopefully he will be so humilliated we will never see his ugly face again. (And I'll change my sig to Say J_R is a useless scum and has no usefull information EVER.)

So do I, and it is pointed, just like the one in the picture. You can argue, and you can whine, just as you have in every thread where you are shown wrong, but people can read and people can see and people know who is correct.

I'm done with this thread

He's done because he's proven wrong and I am offering to get the MFG'r to send the specs to prove it AGAIN...

Useless buttheaded idiot.

***************

Here's how to make a J_R clone... and where it belongs all in one.

Wow!-let me get some more popcorn and peanuts and everyone can continue with the show

WHERES THE MODERATOR its turned into a name calling match I"M TELLING MOM!!!!!!!!!

Just for the Record, and only because this thread is getting more scrunity than it deserves.

The rule book is printed on a three year cycle. The AMA now requires licensing of it's name and logo. There is no such thing as an AMA safety nut, as evidenced on the Fox page. The spinner they produce is called a Fox spinner nut 6503 (same number as before). Strictly a technicality, as far as I am concerned, but does support my statement that there is no such animal. http://www.foxmanufacturing.com/stor...s%20%26%20Nuts ,the fact that there is a link on a retail site advertising the nut notwithstanding. The license to use the AMA logo is now part of the Club Renewal Package, as it has been for the last couple of years.

As of April 29, 2004, there are 21 permits issued to 12 builders for experimental aircraft. My understanding is that a couple of those planes no longer exist. However, since it does show 21 permits, regardless of the existence of the aircraft, I will stand corrected. AMA pdf #531 http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...-files/531.pdf

Ok listen up here Gentlaemen. this may be the AMA forum where we allow a little bit more leeway in your posts but name calling has got to stop and stop now. We are suppose to be adults and you should act like adults and if you are unable to have a discussion without resorting to name calling then don't post anything. All of you have been around long enough to know that this is unacceptable![:@]

On my part, I apologize to huber for implying that he is an AMA safety nut. He certainly does not deserve to be called that.

JR

I had a Harry Higley safety nut on my bipeplane.

J_R,

While I appreciate, in the other thread, your invitation to participate here once again, above is graphic evidence of why I don't.

I enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy; but I just cannot find it in me anymore to argue with a cultural and intellectual pygmy.

How do you do it??? You must have a lot of time on your hands...

.

Are these guys seriously ripping each other apart over this stupid issue? If you guys would go get to work on building or flying some airplanes I think you'd get more enjoyment out of the hobby.

I could have sworn, at some time, that I read that bare engine shaft threads were prohibited...you had to cover them with a spinner or spinner nut with at least 1/4" radius. I didn't think this was in some recommended guidelines, but was part of the Safety Code. Not Combat Competition or anything that selective, but General RC.

The reason I even thought about it is..the little electric planes I have been flying have exposed shafts. You can run a GWS rubber spinner if you have a GWS gearbox with stock shaft, but if you run a collet-style prop adapter then the rubber spinners won't work anymore. I have not flown one without the rubber spinner at an AMA field or event, but I will be shortly...I'd hate to be grounded due to exposed threads on my shaft.

Like I said, I thought this was right up there with no gaseous boost or Benzene (or whatever the prohibited fuel additives are).

And in keeping with the spirit of this thread, I was going to call Art an "Old Goat", but now that I think about it, I don't think I will.

chuck, 10-15 years ago, it was included in the SC, as you have a memory of. why it changed is not something i was privy to. maby someone else knows the reason it was droped, the part about no exposed crank threads.

I remember some guys in the clubs preaching that I HAD to have spinner or I'd hurt the engine, or that the plane wouldn't fly as good, or that it would damage the engine when using an electric starter, and other excuses. But I have never seen any of the concerns as written rules. I think this is an urban legend.

Nor have I experieced any of the warnings since I have flown a number of planes, including combat, without a spinner.

Is a hubnut perceived as a spinner? Spinners look kinda goofy on a Corsair. And a Fokker Triplane would look goofy with even a hubnut.

Just wait Mongo FHHubber will be along in a bit and explain all

Thanks, Mongo. I didn't think I had just dreamed this up, the detail about the 1/4" radius (and needle-nosed spinners I'm pretty sure were also mentioned) wasn't something I would have pulled from the air. In fact, I had a buddy who at one time made some spinner nuts (BC Products) and I remember talking to him about this radius.

I can remember way back about forty or more years ago, the AMA mandated that all engines must have a safety nut of some fashion to cover exposed threads. I am not dreaming this - it was fact at the time. That rule was so ingrained into my brain that I never fly an airplane without a round spinner of some type on it, and have been doing so for many years. I gave up competition flying years ago also, and haven't read the rule book since, but you won't see me flying without a spinner regardless of what the rule book says today.

It just makes good sense to cover those exposed threads with a spinner of some sort, and so I agree with Mr. & Mrs Education. It's the right thing to do.

Since safety is always our number one concern - what's the use of arguing? Just do it! It's that simple. When you hit somebody with your plane, you can argue in court that you were really safety concious all you could be - "See - my plane had a spinner on it, and it's not even in the rule book as being required. If I wasn't safety concious, it wouldn't have been there."

With a spinner nut: open casket. Exposed threads: closed casket.

Not bad. That is pretty much my thoughts. If confronted with the business end of a plane that is being held on with 6 bolts (as described by the starter of this thread), the least of my concerns is whether it has a spinner or not.

I do use spinners on all my planes, mostly as an aid to starting or for appearances.

And I too, have recollections of a rule requiring all planes to have spinners.

If some one want's to get there hear out. A few years ago there was AMA nuts that came in a assorted box, They were aluminum( check spelling) took about a 3/4 wrench to tighten them and they were not supposed to spinn off. If I had a Cam. I have the box and some nuts nodt my own to prove It. Not that I agree with the FHH but he has 2 Points.

RC Outlaw

I think what you are describing is an acorn nut. So named because the area where the wrench was applied and the roundness of the end made them appear like an acorn. If so, I have some too. Their existence was never in question.

In thinking about the removal of the spinner requirement from the safety code, I wonder if it was because of the manufactur's recommendations on glow 4 stroke engines for a nut and a lock nut. I am just guessing on this, I don't remember the reasoning.

The J_R problem is soleved... I put IT on ignore.

The points I wanted to make were proven and driven into the ground... and J_R would't quit making up reasons to dissagree (when he'd been proven to be a fool) Unfortunately I allowed that to make me mad... A wise man argues with a fool and it gets hard to tell who's the fool... so I won't argue with J_R any more. He's in my list of fools.

Good! It's about time that you guys start acting like adults.