|
JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
Hello Everybody,
The JPO has published a [link=http://www.jetpilots.org/PDF%20files/JPO%20position%20paper%20on%20new%20regs-ver2.pdf]Position Paper[/link] regarding the new turbine regulations that were enacted on November 1, 2003 and subsequently suspended. The [link=http://www.jetpilots.org/PDF%20files/JPO%20position%20paper%20on%20new%20regs-ver2.pdf]Position Paper[/link] may be viewed at the JPO website at: http://www.jetpilots.org/ FYI, Gordon Dickens JPO District V Rep. |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
Very well written and to the point.
|
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
There are two points in the logic that I question.
1. The existing rules allow for 70 pounds of thrust on twins. Reducing it to 50 pounds would seem to allow longer flight times on the existing aircraft, but, at the same time, would appear to make the aircraft less safe in the sense that the aircraft would be difficult, if not impossible, to control on the lower thrust of one engine (a flame out on one engine). 2. The argument of “mean time between failure” appears to be a poor use of logic. If the statement that “it isn't whether the speed sensor will have a hardware failure but when it will fail” applies equally to all electronic parts. If that is true, the ECU is not reliable either. That reasoning calls into question the safety of turbines in general, and, IMHO the entire argument should be scrapped. |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
If that is true, the ECU is not reliable either. That reasoning calls into question the safety of turbines in general, and, IMHO the entire argument should be scrapped. Gotta take you to task on this one. If we use your logic the transmitter and receiver would also be included. If we go that way then no R/C equipment is reliable and all R/C should be scrapped. The radio and ECU are required for basic flight, a speed limiter is not. A speed limiter only regulates flight to an arbitrary speed set by the AMA. |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
Your making my point exactly. Why should the logic apply only to something that is deemed undesirable, in the opinion of some? The point is safety, and if electronics can not be trusted, with a reasonable degree of certainty, then the entire concept is unsafe, including, but not limited to the speed limiter, the ECU and the radio. It is the logic that will come back to haunt the JPO, not the facts, IMHO.
|
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
ORIGINAL: J_R There are two points in the logic that I question. 1. The existing rules allow for 70 pounds of thrust on twins. Reducing it to 50 pounds would seem to allow longer flight times on the existing aircraft, but, at the same time, would appear to make the aircraft less safe in the sense that the aircraft would be difficult, if not impossible, to control on the lower thrust of one engine (a flame out on one engine). 2. The argument of “mean time between failure” appears to be a poor use of logic. If the statement that “it isn't whether the speed sensor will have a hardware failure but when it will fail” applies equally to all electronic parts. If that is true, the ECU is not reliable either. That reasoning calls into question the safety of turbines in general, and, IMHO the entire argument should be scrapped. Abel |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger <SNIP> The logic is fine. Adding another series element to the contol loop for the engine must reduce the overall MTBF of the system, unless that element is utterly faiure proof. Putting a cheap device capable of overriding pilot/ECU commands in the control loop of their very expensive models is very reasonably a cause for concern. To me it seems analogous to putting a cheapo cruise control kit from the JC Whitney catalog in a Maserati Barchetta. Abel |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
Where does that leave a requirement for a speed control integrated in the ECU, such as a couple of the top selling turbines have available? There seems to be reasonable arguments against the add-on series type unit. What most of us have a problem with is the idea that all jets must have one, regardless of top speed. Why should I have to add a limited to ensure that I don't exceed 200 MPH when my airframe isn't capable of exceeding 200 in a dive, with a really good tail wind. Most planes just have too much drag to even approach 200. On that thought, you may want to read a thread over in the jet section about an F-18 with what I believe is a 34 lb thrust engine where the pilots talk about how full throttle doesn't make the plane any faster than 1/2 throttle, but the vertical is amazing. I could live with the limiter idea if it was reserved for planes capable of exceeding 200. |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
ORIGINAL: rcmigpilot SNIP I could live with the limiter idea if it was reserved for planes capable of exceeding 200. The out of production engines are just that, out of production and a problem that only the aftermarket stuff will address and probably should be a choice deal between limiter or .9 to 1 T/W. However after much gnashing of teeth, bad vibes, ill thought out arrows, it turns out that there do not seem to be any serious numbers; such as VNE; for the existing airframes. Further problems come with the selection of airframe/engine combinations. DO we REALLY want to have the AMA make those decisions FOR us? Who is going to have the list to look at each and every time a new jet turns up at the field? Enforcement of that is going to be a real nightmare. So I think it makes MUCH more sense to provide limiters for the power plants than to require certification of all the airframes. Asbestos suit on, fire away. |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
[quote]ORIGINAL: J_R
Where does that leave a requirement for a speed control integrated in the ECU, such as a couple of the top selling turbines have available? There seems to be reasonable arguments against the add-on series type unit. There is a trade-off in adding anything to the basic functionality of any system, i.e., the benefit of added functionality comes at a cost of reliability. Buy all the power options when you purchase a car if they increase your comfort and enjoyment of it, but realize that it is going to cost you more trips to the repair shop. The issue I see with the speed limiter, particularly the aftermarket sort, is there is no tangible benefit to offset the added cost in probability of failure. I'm ready (but not holding my breath) to see the rationale of those EC members that opposed this motion in the first place, including DB, Oberdieck, and of couse that expert on all things related to high-performance R/C flying, McNeill. Abel |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
ORIGINAL: rcmigpilot Where does that leave a requirement for a speed control integrated in the ECU, such as a couple of the top selling turbines have available? There seems to be reasonable arguments against the add-on series type unit. What most of us have a problem with is the idea that all jets must have one, regardless of top speed. Why should I have to add a limited to ensure that I don't exceed 200 MPH when my airframe isn't capable of exceeding 200 in a dive, with a really good tail wind. Most planes just have too much drag to even approach 200. On that thought, you may want to read a thread over in the jet section about an F-18 with what I believe is a 34 lb thrust engine where the pilots talk about how full throttle doesn't make the plane any faster than 1/2 throttle, but the vertical is amazing. I could live with the limiter idea if it was reserved for planes capable of exceeding 200. I think it would take care of most complaints about the 200 mph limit and limiting speed. |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
ORIGINAL: rcmigpilot Where does that leave a requirement for a speed control integrated in the ECU, such as a couple of the top selling turbines have available? There seems to be reasonable arguments against the add-on series type unit. What most of us have a problem with is the idea that all jets must have one, regardless of top speed. Why should I have to add a limited to ensure that I don't exceed 200 MPH when my airframe isn't capable of exceeding 200 in a dive, with a really good tail wind. Most planes just have too much drag to even approach 200. On that thought, you may want to read a thread over in the jet section about an F-18 with what I believe is a 34 lb thrust engine where the pilots talk about how full throttle doesn't make the plane any faster than 1/2 throttle, but the vertical is amazing. I could live with the limiter idea if it was reserved for planes capable of exceeding 200. Advertised Aircraft Weight: 24 pounds Turbine Adv. Thrust: 27.5 pounds Equals T/W Ratio of 1.14:1! Quoting FT: "The wide envelope is what makes the F-16 so much fun to fly. You can make a blistering pass at a click under 200 mph or fly by really slow, in full control, at under 40 mph. The TJT Eagle 3000 has great throttle response and allows pretty quick spool-up time, allowing the pilot a lot of freedom of choice with the speed of his maneuvers. Not that you'd want to, but if the AMA didn't have a speed limit of 200 mph for turbine models, this bird would get up to 250 pretty easy." page 92, "AIRBORNE" sidebar. He mentions the AMA imposed 200 mph speed limit but does NOT say anything about the fact that he has violated the .9:1 T/W ratio... OR HAS he violated it? If he never goes to 100% throttle, then he would not attain the 27.5 thrust! But he DOES mention that he has 'hit the turbine into high gear" in vertical maneuvers at show center.... He never mentioned whether he is using any "flight speed limiter". I am not interested in flaming anybody or whatever, just reporting what was posted in a nationally available magazine.. |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
Bob
Does it say where the flight took place? If it was not at an AMA chartered club field, or sanctioned event, he is on his own, but has viloated no rule. |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
UGH this is where we get into trouble, overstating the speed potential. If that is the F-16 I saw I highly doubt it could get to 250, and by doubt I mean I would wager it could not.
The current rules are clear: If the installed thrust to weight ratio is better than .9 to 1 (using DRY weight) then a speed limiter must be used. THe speed limiter must be set to the manufacturers Vne, or 170 mph if a Vne is not published. In no case may the speed limit be set to over 200. If a lower thrust setting is used (so called "dialed down" installed thrust) then the user must set the turbine to the lower thrust level per manufacturers instruction. It cannot be done with the transmitter , the throttle stick or whatever. Has to be done on the ground. So I leave it to the reader to interpret the article |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
We have this great performance potential of our models, everyone that flies ANY kind of model is proud of their model and in most cases is very happy to tell you about its potential. Since there is very little actual speed measurement going on nowadays at the jet rallies (remember the speed runs of the DF days....sniff sniff) a lot of the "speed" conversations that take place have very little merit. No factual data is there to back it up other than the pilot says "I can go 250 mph if I open this baby up" I'm with Matt on this one, there are NOT a great number of airplanes out there that can do much more than 200 mph, and very few that will hit 250.
|
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
No disagreement, HOWEVER that is NOT the issue. The issue is what the rest of the world PERCEIVES! These jet guys who puff their product with outrageous claims of high and higher speeds bring the wrong perception to the table for the rest of us uneducated dummies.
Remember, IF he was outside AMA coveages or not the PERCEPTION is what is driving this thing. |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
ORIGINAL: Jim Branaum No disagreement, HOWEVER that is NOT the issue. The issue is what the rest of the world PERCEIVES! These jet guys who puff their product with outrageous claims of high and higher speeds bring the wrong perception to the table for the rest of us uneducated dummies. Remember, IF he was outside AMA coveages or not the PERCEPTION is what is driving this thing. Not really. It's what some people on the inside believe the outside people's perception could be. |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
ORIGINAL: Phil Cole Not really. It's what some people on the inside believe the outside people's perception could be. Abel |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
ORIGINAL: Jim Branaum ... it turns out that there do not seem to be any serious numbers; such as VNE; for the existing airframes. Further problems come with the selection of airframe/engine combinations. .... Asbestos suit on, fire away. Demonstrating the idiocy of overpowering stuff by taking it to an extreme... (Who does that kind of satire on the radio? ;) usually politically related...) If you are going to start putting HARD VNE limits on any one kit... you are going to open a can of beans where [:'(]Lawyers[:'(] will see it as pointing out that stupid modelrs can't be trusted to figure if thier plane can handle the engine they want to strap on. (some can't... but that's another safety issue.) |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
ORIGINAL: J_R Bob Does it say where the flight took place? If it was not at an AMA chartered club field, or sanctioned event, he is on his own, but has viloated no rule. AS a CONDITION of MEMBERSHIP you SIGNED a statement that ANY TIME you flew a model you AGREED to OBEY the SAFETY CODE. doen't matter if you are at the local club field, Visiting the National Flying site at Muncie, giving a flight demo at LaGuardia or flying out of Uncle Bob's Hog pen... If you disobey the safety code... you disobeyed the safety code. |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
That's what I thought... The rules are made for the flyer, not where he flys or what he flys....
Of course WHAT he flys determines his ability to stay within those rules... WHERE he flys determines his exposure to law suits... |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
ORIGINAL: FHHuber ORIGINAL: J_R Bob Does it say where the flight took place? If it was not at an AMA chartered club field, or sanctioned event, he is on his own, but has viloated no rule. AS a CONDITION of MEMBERSHIP you SIGNED a statement that ANY TIME you flew a model you AGREED to OBEY the SAFETY CODE. doen't matter if you are at the local club field, Visiting the National Flying site at Muncie, giving a flight demo at LaGuardia or flying out of Uncle Bob's Hog pen... If you disobey the safety code... you disobeyed the safety code. I would submit this to you, as the actual wording on an application, along with the thought that this was simply not an applicable operation. "I agree to comply with the AMA Safety Code for all applicable model operations. I understand that my failure to comply with the Safety Code may endanger my liability coverage for any damages or claims so caused. I further understand that written notice of the occurrence of any incident must be immediately provided. "I am aware that modeling may present hazards to participants and spectators. I exempt, waive, and relieve the Academy of Model Aeronautics, Incorporated (AMA) from all current or future liability for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death caused by negligence." JR |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
Well... if someone wants to split hairs and say a given model aircraft flight wasn't "applicable"... then I think its a VERY good thing he didn't succeed in his attempt to become AMA president.
If I were to: fly a model aircraft, blatantly violating a portion of the AMA Safety code... and do a review of it for an magazine using AMA leadership status (among other qualifications, assuming I REALLY had those qualifications...) to validate my opinion of the model... specificly point out that AMA safety code could limit use of the model.... and then try to claim its not an "aplicable" flight of a model under AMA rules. I would EXPECT people to call me a LIAR and a FRAUD. Now... either he violated the code or not. I think he should be notified that he certainly gave the APPEARANCE of violating the safety code limitations for turbine models by his own statments of how he flew the model. Maybe he avoided the having to obey the AMA Safety Code by not getting the turbine waiver for the model? (obey the rules when they are convenient... to heck with them otherwise.) But isn't it one waiver per person, not one waiver per model? (I'm not an expert on the turbine waiver system.) Hold the "respected" members to the published standard at least.... |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
A waiver is issued to the pilot, not to the aircraft, just as you surmised.
I am certain that Frank has a waiver. You might want to take into consideration that many others have done things that certainly do not fall within the Safety Code. As a rather sterling example: I can remember seeing recounts of things that Don Lowe, who is now the AMA Safety Committee Chairman, did when he was testing RPV's that certainly were not within the code. He was doing what was required by his employer... as is Frank, who makes his living in the hobby world. |
RE: JPO Position Paper Regarding The New Turbine Regulations
An RPV is one thing... a model intended for retail to the average modeler is another. (well... not exactly average when you are talking turbine... but something off the shelf at the hobby shop... if you go to the right one.)
RPV is generally for commercial or military use. (both can make use of the RC frequencies for models... undesireable if not illegal.) Generally the RPV will be larger (well... that new one they shoot from a 155 Howitzer is mighty small... and there are the "Super Size" B-29's and such flying on waivers) Generally, there is gong to be something about an RPV that will make it OBVIOUSLY not fit the Safety Code. (especially with the update and no enhanced vision rule, no autonompus flight... these updates MEANT to separate RPV and UMAV from models.) I wouldn't compare RPV research to evaluating a model aircraft for a magazine ad. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:24 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.