sideshow

My Feedback: (11)

Dave, I wanted to get your thoughts on the current 55 pound rule.

The current rule says that models must have a maximum take off weight of 55 pounds or less wet (with fuel). The problem is that to make weight a modeler may carry a partial fuel load...which may end up being unsafe for a normal flight time. It also makes it difficult for a modeler to plan the build when he must factor in the variable of fuel, trading flight time for structure when things like the finish may add or decrease significantly to the final weight of an aircraft.

Would you support a rule that would indicate a dry (without fuel) weight? That way a modeler can build his model to the specified weight and then carry an appropriate fuel load for the powerplant(s) that are on board.

I appreciate your consideration.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Well, my vote was mailed in this morning, so you already have my vote regardless - but I'd still like to hear your answer on this issue.

Note that a special option allowing us to fly models that are over 55lbs wet is currently available under the AMA provisions, except for turbine powered models. Do you forsee this being changed at all ? Given some of the marvelous larger turbine powered models that we see being built and flown throughout Europe, I can only say that it would be kinda nice if we weren't always lagging behind those guys like some kind of third-world country

Gordon

Dave Mathewson

Hi Bob, Gordon,
First, Bob, I apologize for somehow missing your original question.
I can’t think of too many rules that shouldn’t at least be reviewed, on occasion, to keep pace with advancements in technology. The 55 lb. rule was created with large gas burners in mind. I doubt anyone even gave any thought to a model being powered by a working turbine.
I’ve heard of several instances of guys having to fly with partial tanks to stay within the weight limit. My concern there is that some are cutting it so close that there’s no fuel margin of error built into a flight. Add to that the fact that at some of the larger Fly Ins it’s not unusual for guys to be held for traffic burning fuel waiting to get into the air. We have a situation where it’s possible to install a turbine in a model that complies with the thrust limit and burns around 24 oz/min at full throttle. That’s several times the fuel burn of most of the large combustion engines in the field.
I know the Turbine Review Committee created by Don Lowe was working on a “Heavy Jet Class� last year but pulled it off the table. I also know that JPO is, right now, working on a proposal to present. I think it’s pretty clear that the thinking is to accommodate an increased amount of on-board fuel for turbine models. I also think there has to be a limit somewhere but I’d like to see the data that might help determine that limit. And, while I certainly can’t say I’d support the proposal without seeing it, I can say I have always been comfortable supporting their efforts in the past and can’t think of any reason why that would change now.
Dave

Gremlin Castle

My Feedback: (14)

I have always thought that the 55 lb rule was not well thought out.
A 30 lb aircraft flying at 200 mph is going to exert about 25% more energy against what ever it impacts than an 80 lb plane flying at 60 mph.
Weight per se should not be the arbitrary factor in deciding what is "safe" and what is not.
This will not be a readily solved issue as perception of danger has long been the governing factor rather than reality.
The Rubber powered modelers thought that Ignition powered models were dangerous. The Ignition modelers thought that the new glow engines produced too much power for the airframes.making them subject to loss of control in the climbout.
The glow modelers thought that the big gas engines with their larger props were a hazard to crank and would do a lot more damage when they crash.
The Gas modelers think that the jets fly too fast and carry too much fuel on board making them a greater fire hazard when they crash. And so it goes each time something new is introduced or the state of the art is advanced.
The real world would suggest that the last 65 years of well documented modeling efforts do not support the vast degree of catstrophic events that the rule makers are trying to prevent.
We will always have people with limited actual experience deciding what should be controlled.
Thankfully there are usually enough people with common sense and actual experience mixed in with the "legislators" to moderate their rule making.

You have my vote and support.

swooper

This topic was brought up by those wanting to increase the weight limit. They never offer to pay a higher membership fee, though.

On the other hand, what about cutting membership costs to those modelers limiting themselves to, say, under-5-pound models? It seems obvious that liability coverage for larger models is far more expensive. Why should small-model flyers pay the same dues as those pushing the 55 lb. limit?

I think a big reason park flyer types don't join is the 58 bucks per year. It's a nominal fee to someone flying a $10K turbine jet, but can be prohibitive to a college student flying home-built foamies with CD ROM motors and old cell-phone batteries.

just a thought...

BTW, thanks Mr. Mathewson for this unprecedented opportunity to communicate! This forum alone speaks loudly for your ability to lead the AMA into new times. Things just won't be the same in 10 years!

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

On the contrary, I bet that if the AMA offered an "above 55lb" category at extra expense, those who want the larger models (which does not include me BTW) would happily pay it.

Furthermore, the weight limit is already raised above 55lb ... except for the discrimination against turbine models.


Have a look at the statistics of which model types and which pilots cause the claims... then we can reverse your question and ask "Why should a highly experienced pilot pay the same as the guy who just got signed off on his trainer last week, or the older guy whose eyesight and reaction have dulled to the point where even a slow .25 sized model is too much for him", etc.

The fact is, the concept of tiered membership is fine if you can genuinely identify which are the high risk people or model types, but in many cases the results would be the opposite of what a lot of people think.

Gordon

abel_pranger

Hi Gordon-

I have a feeling this whole issue is going to become moot when somebody at AMA takes a look at the applicable law, or FAA tells them what it is. The US is a member state of International Civil Aeronautics Organization (ICAO) and FAA has a branch charged with representing US participation. ICAO defines what a model airplane is, and that definition includes a weight limit of 25 Kg (54.95 lbs). AMA didn't invent the 55 lb weight limit nor does it have control over it, but apparently that has been forgotten. I suspect that when/if the feds decide on a definition of what a model airplane (unregulated) is that distinguishes it from a UAV (regulated), anything over 55 lbs will require a waiver, and it won't be AMA that has the authority to grant them, though I suppose it could possibly be delegated to them. I know the European's have a waiver process for models over 25 Kg, but not what agencies process them.

Abel

the-plumber

Depends on the specific country. In France it's the civil aviation authority which grants 'permits' for the large models; their 'Fed' shows up at, for example, La Ferte Alais every year to certify the giants being flown in that event.

In UK it's the Large Model Association (LMA), the giant model "SIG" of the British Model Flying Association (BMFA), which acts on behalf of their 'Fed' to certify those large models.

Methinks the LMA/BMFA arragement vis a vis large models might well serve as a pattern for AMA, if AMA ever gets past the paranoia of having to deal with THE Fed. While AMA's Experimental Class rules needs a bit of work to be really useful, the rules exist along with a method of 'certificating' Experimental Class inspectors. I see no good reason why AMA couldn't go to FAA and make the case that AMA Experimental Class inspectors be authorized to certify large models, say, up to the FAA weight limit ultralights.

Bear in mind, FAA don't regulate models per se although the advent of large UAVs/RPVs has changed that a bit. If we had a weight limit in the neighborhood of 250 pounds (or more), we might well see large B-52s and C-17s and other giant jets at our larger meets. I won't hold my breath, though.

In another thread there is a discussion about mandating fail safes. The BMFA model for that problem might also be an example to follow. The BMFA were forced to do _something_ when a young boy was killed by an errant model, and one of the findings of the inquiry was that the model in question was equipped with a fail safe, but the modeler didn't know what the fail safe setting was at the time of the accident . Turned out the default setting was 'hold', and that was a major contributor to the fatality; a setting of 'idle' would have prevented the model ever reaching the lad. After the uproar settled down a bit, BMFA seems to have settled for mandating that the pilots of fail safe equipped models be able to identify the current setting, and their recommendation was "kill", but I don't know if that setting was ever mandated versus recommended.

AMA have lost the lead with respect to large models; witness the sad state of IMAA. We need to change that Real Soon Now.

Shahid

This might be a bit late, but try the BMFA's rule on overwieght airplanes, it works fine and there is no limit but plenty of safety.

www.bmfa.org

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Unfortunately, the US is nowhere near as advanced as the UK some areas ... and this is one of them. Oh well ... live in the UK and get crappy weather ; live in the US and get crappy rules. Nowhere is perfect, I guess.

robert

Live in France and get both!

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Leave it to the Irish to make such a profound statement in only six words

Bravo!

markdam

My Feedback: (15)

ok at the risk of inciting a riot i am secretly assisting a fellow modler who has much turbine expeience and he is building a LARGE twin turbine aircraft. at this time it is 50% complete and the best guess of weight is quite a few pounds over 55lbs. it willbe nice and VERY scale ill check in here as we go but what are your thoughts of a 60+ lb twin turbine aircraft ?

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Thud?

markdam

My Feedback: (15)

why thud? many 55lb ers fly fine why not a 65 lb der?

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

as in 105

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

The 105 had a single engine, a J-75.
BRG,
Jon

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

That was the sound of the door closing on any chance of sanity in this thread. (g)

Yes, the Republic Ironworks only put ONE engine in the THUD, so maybe I should have said "Thump" being the sound of (dead?) bodies falling on the floor.

Actually, I think that is not a bad idea but it is against the rules as they are currently written. The BFMA has a good set of rules that allow for those excursions into weighty aircraft, but I don't see the US bunch giving up their freedoms.

J_R

65# wet or dry? If wet, reduce the fuel load, if possible. If it’s dry, look at the realities.

El Toro is to small.

At Prado, the pilot might be found hung from a tree if he is found out, for exceeding the AMA limit.

He can always go to the Basin, if he really does not like how the plane turns out and is willing to be shot down. He might want to take along three armed friends to keep an eye on the frequency board.

As a practical matter, why not head to the desert and find a nice dry lake? Be sure to have a frequency scanner in hand. He might also want to have an umbrella policy in place.

markdam

My Feedback: (15)

weeel see she may just squeak by.... re weighed a few parts and re calculated..... she may just squeak by

bdavison

My Feedback: (1)

I think many of you are missing what happens when one of these planes goes in. There are video's around that show these large heavy planes going in. Perhaps the most impressive was the video of that crash with the commercial jet (747?) I saw a while back. As I watched the video, it was a miracle that that thing didnt come down in the crowd, or on the nearby house. The crashes are very similar to real jet crashes just smaller.

GIANT fireballs, flaming fuel spread all over, pieces of aircraft, motor, and everything else thrown hundreds of feet in the air.

If they get heavier, its going to get to point where we need aviation fire/crash trucks at your local flying field. I think the only reason we have not had a major disaster with these types of craft, is because there are so few of them.

Im not against heavy craft, I just think before they go changing the rules, they need to carefully consider how to write them with everybody's best interests in mind.

You figure most of these planes measure fuel capacity in lbs not ounces, with that much fuel it could literally destroy a house, burn down acres of land, destroy someones car, or worst case scenario...kill.

Im all for flying larger aircraft, I just think this issue needs to be carefully concidered before changing the rules.