Did anyone hear of a proposal that was passed to allow 55 pound dry weight turbines, possibly under the experimental category?


Thanks,

Check out the motions on the AMA site for the recent EC meeting.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/1005ecmotions.asp

Just a WAG, Matt. It may have been one of the recommendations of the Safety Committee (which were not disclosed beyond the EC, AFAIK) that were ratified as a result of Motion #3 at the EC confab of last weekend. If you have a contact on that committee, he may shed some light on your question. Else try your DVP. He voted on that motion, and presumably knew what he was voting for (???).

Abel

That's cool, wonder where I can get the wording of that safety committee recommendation?

My choice would be to drop a note to Rich Hanson <[email protected]>. He likely has a copy, and is good about responding.

Abel

Hi,
I talked to Dave Mathewson today and he's getting a copy in a couple of days and will send it to me. I'll post it when I recieve it.
This issue was discussed several months ago on RCU and other forums then it disappeared. When it was brought up, no one in the know would respond.
I heard through the grapevine that the JPO didn't want this discussed on the various forums for fear the discussion would get out of hand and they might lose the vote.
BRG,
Jon

F106A:

When this came out of the Safety Committee, it required two sponsers, in addition to the endorsement of the committee.

Are you ready for this? I understand Dave Brown was one of the sponsers.

Matt:

Are you surprised that an organization in such desperate financial straits, as you seem to believe, can afford to cover a new class of models? Maybe things ain't so bad after all.

guys i fly aircraft in the exp. program and am now pushing the 100 lb limit, i did some checking with the faa and there is no regs. in this country for operating remote cont. aircraft ,size weight or speed .the only mention is operating within 3 miles of an airport lim. to 400 feet elv. so should the brits have all the fun. build em bigger and better because we can . vern

Two points.

The experimental class is an AMA class. If you want to fly with AMA insurance, you must comply with the rules set by the AMA. The FAA standards are irrelevant. If you don't care about AMA insurance, AMA chartered club fields, etc., then the FAA regs, or lack of them, come into play.

The second point is that the only altitude limit is set forth in an FAA advisory. The suggested altitude limit is 400 ft everywhere. Informing an airport within 3 miles of where you are operating is another issue. The advisory is here:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf

there are no hard rules set by the faa 400 ft. alt is only suggestive the faa reconises the ama as a suggestive body only

What new class of model?

I know they just saved a bunch of money after the last meeting, BTW

When you have followed the Yellow Brick Road that Abel pointed you to, you will have the defintion of the new class. OTOH, you may be able to get it from the JPO. I don't have it for you. Sounds like F106A may have it in a few days.

may be if they insure airplanes not coverers by the ama they might generate greater interest .DENNY CRAIN

i am currently working on a 200inch A-10 the only thing we nead to fly these large aircraft is ins. some flyins do carry there own ins wich alows us to fly along with ama piolts. i have been in the ama for 25 years and have always enjoyed it when somone shows up with a huge scale aircraft. there are an awful lot of aircraft being flown at 54lbs when in reality there in the 60s so what do we do ?????????? DENNY CRAIN

I thought turbines up to 55 pounds dry were already acceptable.

Anyway, I've got a query off to Tony Stillman.

It's 55 pounds wet.

Build lighter.

You LIE! Dave Brown HATES jets and wants them banned!

Bigger? You going to top that 300 pound B-52? THEN you are king of the hill. Oh, and you got to build and crash TWO of them in a row.
Frankly, I think "bigger and better because you can" is not really advancing the hobby in any way, just someone's ego.
I think 100 pounds is PLENTY for a model, and nothing is really proved by building larger. Well, except maybe that balsa and ply and "that looks about right" engineering don't cut it for a 200 pound model, and you need actual mathematics and such behind you to make it safe.

Et,
You are, of course, correct, that's why I can't believe he was a co-sponsor of this proposal, although J_R's information has always been accurate.
I'll contact DM Monday and see if this is accurate.
If it is accurate, DB's action is a real head scratcher.
Jon

It's just so darned weird, how he hates jets so bad. Although when I have talked about them to him, he has said very plainly that he thinks they are totally cool. Maybe you should call him up and ask him what he has against jets.

F106A

You have proved you're pretty level headed. Why not take ET's suggestion, and call or write Dave Brown as well as Mathewson. If you plan to post what DB has to say, let him know upfront. It might be interesting to see what he has to say.

I can tell you that Dave Brown's company has been a sponser for some jet events. I can also tell you that he has been concerned about the risk of some aspects of turbines. Find out where his current thinking is.

You have been developing more contacts within the AMA. Take another step forward. It has been my experience that virtually every member of the EC and AMA staff are resposive to inquiries made in any reasonable manner.

lighter is fine but i dont believe in sacrificing structural integrity to save a few pounds a15 min. fuel load and 5 min . reserve is always my goal with giant scale DENNY CRAIN pet the musket.

weiht is going to be less than 150lb dry. not much balsa mostly carbon fiber plate aluminum spar and bulk heads the airframe will be less than 5000$ electronics and eng/turbines are the main exspense

Hi J_R and ET,
DB is against turbines, despite ET protestations to the contrary, for the following reasons:

No other aspect of the sport could bankrupt AMA in the event of a serious crash. As DB has stated, the insurance payout from a turbine model crashing and starting a fire similar to those in CA could cause AMA not to get insurance, or at a prohibitively high premium.

How would AMA would respond to the press and government agencies trying to explain/justify this type of modeling.

It is unfair for 99% of the membership to subsidize, through their dues and hence paying the insurance premium, the 1% (turbine modelers) that engage in the highest risk section of modeling.

The whole activity is inherently too dangerous; the speed, fire danger, etc and should not be included in AMA’s policy.


Anyone who’s followed turbines vs. DB, and I have since way back when turbines were new and being discussed on the Jet List, then RCO, RCU, MA, etc, knows the above is accurate.
His actions speak louder than words: the Wolfgang Khlur incident, the “emergency meeting” when he found out he wasn’t going to prevail in the vote of the regs, and on and on.
The above are his words, not mine, both spoken and written. I did not attribute exact quotes to the above because I have no desire to go through my archives of MA, e-mails and posts on RCO and RCU to find his “exact” words. I’d rather spend the time building my Vampire.
Has he changed his mind? Who knows? I do know over the years I’ve e-mailed him on three separate occasions to discuss various statements he made about turbine’s and he’s never given me the courtesy of a reply, so there’s not much reason to send him another one on this subject.
BRG,
Jon