RE: Is it true?
 

Hi David

I am enthused for the turbine guys over your more recent post. I have to admit that I was somewhat disheartened by your earlier post about the lack of co-operation. I know the process can be frustrating. I can remember when the combat flyers were up in arms over a rule. It took longer than they wanted, but, they did get it changed. The system that WE have in place does work, albeit slowly. We are all in this together.

I would echo the thought Branaum just posted. There is a Fun-Fly SIG and IMAC, but no SIG that is dedicated to 3D. Do you suppose that it might be wise for them to form a SIG to represent their interest? If so, would you, or anyone else on this forum for that matter, be willing to take some of your time to advise them in the beginning? You seem to have the experience.

Are any of you 3D flyers interested in forming a SIG?

JR

RE: Is it true?
 

JR,

If I am not mistaken your 3D flyers have a SIG...IF ..... you are flying Giant scale, and that is IMAA.

RE: Is it true?
 

IMAA really is not a fit. A lot of these guys are flying 40 sized planes, and of course, some are Giant Scale. The whole range needs to be represented, or at least that is my impression. Somehow, I think the guy that shows up with a Dazzler at an IMAA event is not going to be particularly welcome.

How about it guys, is IMAA what you need?

JR

RE: Is it true?
 

Well it is one facet. It would be nice if the MA could focus on that aspect a little more.

RE: Is it true?
 

IMAA is not a fit for this issue. 3D flying goes from tiny parkflyers to giant scale. Besides, with the way the rule is written, I can't even scrape the wingtip of my parkflyer when flying it in a gym. Something that I found very fun to do with my little Tiger Moth. That isn't even 3D flying.

RE: Is it true?
 

No, not for me anyway.

The only IMAA legal, 3D capable plane I have right now is electric powered. All of my other 3D planes are in the .32-1.2 engine power range.
I also fly some 7-14 oz indoor 3D planes.

There is a huge range of aircraft effected here, not just the typical 35-40% gas powered semi scale aerobatic planes.

I wouldn't like the idea of having to not only pay AMA fees, but then on top of that the SIG's fees.

However, if there were a SIG that could somehow influence the AMA to get rid of code 9 totaly, I would join right now.

Bill

RE: Is it true?
 

Hi Bill

It sounds like you have been around the block a time or two and understand what it is going to take. There is a lot of discussion taking place in other forums on RCU and elsewhere. Why not take the subject back to the guys that are concerned and see if there is interest. In this forum there are a lot of people with experience dealing with the AMA and the process. If they want to do more than discuss the issue, a SIG is the appropriate route to take. Some people are going to have do do a lot of work and put a lot of themselves into a SIG. If you can find a leader or leaders I would think they can get help here, or at least get headed in the right direction. It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but, it works.

JR

RE: Is it true?
 

I am assuming that your not just looking for pictures of planes hovering.

One of the complaints I have been seeing for some time is that magazine reviewers are, generally, incapable of flying 3D. The lament has been made in many forums that the reviewer treats the plane as a general sport plane. It may be that there are just not enough people that can build AND critique AND write AND fly 3D, submitting articles. That seems to be true of all the magazines, including MA. If you, or someone you know, is capable of such an endeavor, and, or course, has the desire to do it, why not contact MA and see if they are interested? The same can be said of "How To" articles.

JR

RE: Is it true?
 

My 2 cents-
I think we all should take all our planes/heli's/cars/toys/tools outside, put them in a big pile do the Mexican Hat dance on them and then torch the whole mess, oh wait THATS to dangerous...O.K., forget the torching part,......then go back in the house, wrap ourselves up in bubblewrap, crawl under the couch or bed, (whichever seems the safest) assume the fetal position, and have a whimpering nervous break down.......NAW. think I'll JUST GO FLY!!!!!!!!!

Jetts
Oh dear God....hope they don't see my reply to the post "Wouldn't it be cool?"........

RE: Is it true?
 

I was on a heli forum this morning. The question about the new #9 rule was raised. One of the first respondents posted this: "As written, sounds to me like a deliberate requirement to stop blade scuffing, lawn mowing and head button touching."

I guess each rule is viewed in the eye of the beholder.

JR

RE: Is it true?
 

I fly helis as well as jets and ANYONE that could possibly think that blade scuffing is not dangerous has got to be a little off.

RE: Is it true?
 

Hahahahaha...!! :D

I just hope everyone, above all else, is Safe and Has Fun!!!!
A lot we do in life is dangerous.
With the proper care AND reasonable regs. , we can all be safe AND have fun!! :D

Bri

RE: Is it true?
 

P-51B,

Seems there are two conversations here but to answer your question regarding full scale military there is no term equivalent to what RC guys refer to as 3d flying as there are no military planes that can perform the things we do with our models short of possibley the "cobra manuever" which the Russian SU-27 can perform. This is really a positive wall into a positive waterfall or push-over. Definately off the wing and controlled via vectored thrust. For the most part non of this is practical or desired for military purposes. And at the speeds we typically fly totally unrealistic. Now as far as the full scale Zivko Edge is concerned Kirby Chambliss absolutely performs exactly many of the same 3d manuevers we perform with our models and many consider him and Matt Chapman at the leading edge of aerobatic performance. Given enough power to weight (and one day they will get there) they will perform the same things the models do. If you doubt it, Kirby has done unbelievable Lomcevaks where the plane it literally rotating arounf the lateral axis wingtip to wingtip 5 - 6 times in the same airspace. Both he and Matt have done torque rolls, waterfalls (as good as they can), incredible spinning manuevers, and walls. All of these manuevers utilize vectored thrust for controllability versus flying off the wing. So maybe I really did answer your question as the military term would most likely be "vectored thrust" manuevering.

Mike

RE: Is it true?
 

Sure there is, it's called "high alpha" and they have test planes exploring that flight envelope.

RE: Is it true?
 

AFSalmon

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. Although I know of the cobra maneuver and vectored thrust advancements, I didn't really think these were the same thing.

RE: Is it true?
 

Hey, Mike

Don't forget Jim Leroy with the Bulldog Pitt's Special.
IMHO he clearly puts on a better show than those mentioned above, with lots of 3D type manuevers.

Bill

RE: Is it true?
 

I have been flying for 28 years and have flow just about every type of plane from patter to jets. From what I have seen at my flying site it's not the 3D pilots or the Jet or heli pilots that I have to worry about! In the last two years I have been afraid for my safety because of the new pilots that are turned loose after 1 good solo flight! Most have never been put in an emergency situation before they are turned loose. Last weekend I saw several crash and one almost fly into the pits and hit me! One thing that bothers me is that after learning to fly, some new pilots go right from a trainer to a full blown war bird (ARF) and then wonder why they have problems! Stop Trying to regulate planes just because they are big or fly fast and work on solving the real problem! Poor training for new pilots.......

RE: Is it true?
 

i am probably the last guy on the face of the earth that wants htis, but it probably is time for an organised training sylabus for r/c.
we got folks comming in to the hobby, not because of a life long love of flight, but because the arf/rtf was on sale at hobbies are us or someplace. they need a little time spent in dedicated training about safety stuff and some time spent in the common courtisy stuff that we all expect at the flying field. it probably should be nationaly standardised, and shouldn't require more than 8-12 classroom hous to complete. for the most part, it could probably be done between training flights on one weekend.
i know that i have found and made arangements with the city fathers for a place to fly by myself, party because of the growing uncomfortable feeling i was getting at club fields with all the newbies doing stuff that i find just plane scarey.

RE: Is it true?
 

That's funny- because I watch for the beginners and expect them to be a bit wild. What I hate is the "I know what I'm doing-I've been doing this since 1985!" jerk who has no concept of where he is with respect to the pits, spectators, and other planes-and who jumps salty when anybody suggests that he might want to start that turn a little farther out...
It is the 200-500 hour pilot who generally gets into trouble. The recently soloed are cautious, and the ones who survive the 500 hours have been there...

Roger

RE: Is it true?
 

dunno dude, the only guy that ever hit me with an airplane, was 4 hour wonder.
got all crossed up on a quartering crosswind landing.

RE: Is it true?
 

If I were you I would raise heck and ask my club to throw out those AMA instructors they sent from Muncie and have the club take over and start their own training program. Then maybe you could have some control over who is certified to fly unasisted. Man, that AMA has to quit interfereing with the way we run our clubs, don't you think?

JR

RE: Is it true?
 

[sm=confused.gif]

JR
Just don't get it. Care to elaborate? What AMA instructors are you talking about? I don't see where geneh-RCU referred to the AMA instructors or their interference. Are you just taking a shot at the responder like you do me or what?

RE: Is it true?
 

Well, troll, don’t feel alone. I don’t get it either.

We have people upset because they are convinced rule #9 was aimed at (chose one) A. electrics B. fun fly planes C. IMAC-IMAA sized planes D. Helicopters E. Wing dragging on touch and goes, F. Belly landings when the retracts don’t work.

We have people upset at the Good ‘ol boys on the EC, and we have people upset because the EC can not make up their own minds, and people that believe that the independent members of the EC are being forced to change their mind by a tyrant.

We have people that want more rules and people that want less rules

We have people that want the clubs left alone to do as they see fit and people that want the EC to tell the clubs what to do

We have people that believe they are great pilots and nothing can go wrong, and we have people that seem to think that things like interference should be taken into account

JR

RE: Is it true?
 

well then,
it sounds as if all is normal then.
such has it been for a while, and such shall it be for the forseeable future.

RE: Is it true?
 

Amen