55 pound limit
 

Joe

There are a number of threads in this forum about Model Aviation Magazine. If you want, we can start another. Suffice to say, in this weight related thread, AMA has to have a newsletter because it is a 501 (c) 3 educational corporation. If you analyze the numbers in the Financials, I think you will find that the actual cost per member is about $7 per AMA member. It is doubtful that the AMA could send you a dedicated newsletter for any less. If it could, the savings to you would be negligible.

JR

NASA Scale Road Show
 

http://www.scaleaero.com/scaleaero/NSRSsml.gif
You live on the left coast and don't get to Toledo. The NASA Scale Road Show is in its fourth year. Here are the seminars from last year.
http://www.scaleaero.com/nasardsho2.htm

I've been looking for a group of NASA members to conduct a Western NASA Scale Road Show.... Unfortunately no one has stepped up to the plate.

Since I introduced the NSRS project five years ago, the ultimate intention has always been to put it on the road...hence the name d:^)

While the NSRS has been a huge success at Toledo. Our SIG's management has priorities and distractions competing for what limited budget exists and I have invested more than my share many times over.

As for how large an R/C model can be and still weigh less than 34 pounds.... take a look.

http://www.scale.ch/wm2000/pics/sa2/swissteam.jpg

http://www.scale.ch/wm2000/pics/fr2/german_team.jpg

http://www.scale.ch/wm2000/pics/do/res_und_helfer.jpg

http://www.scale.ch/wm2000/pics/do/max_und_helfer.jpg

55 pound limit
 

I see everything from a tri-plane to a jet. Ed, your going to have to interpret for me. Is this good or bad? The planes look nice, although smaller than some scale plane I have seen. I assume that the tri-plane could be much larger.

Is the quality of the planes on a par with larger ones? Is the winning of an FAI contest somehow devalued because of the weight limitation?

They all look pretty good to me.

Size VS Weight
 

The photos I posted are intended to show the size of the first aircraft built to compete under the FAI's new 34# limit. They are large, extremely accurate in detail, and fly as realistic as possible for any size and weight R/C model.

I am not aware of any commercial designs that can't be built under 55#. I am aware of a number of models built which do not comply with the 55# limit. In those cases, the builder had no intention of meeting or coming close to 55# so build on and add on they did... :^) Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they reached a point where they became concerned for flying weight relative to wing loading. After investing the sum of $ in the project, they did want to see it fly.

http://www.donsmithplans.com/images/b29color.jpg
Mike Barbee's Don Smith B-29, with aluminum covering, competed on a regular basis at AMA NATs, Scale Masters, and Top Gun.

http://66.253.99.175/scaleaero/Tollftfrttable.jpg
George Maiorana's AEW Chinese TU4...electric with aluminum covering.

http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/dmaio...2000/RearA.jpg
George Maiorana's Russian TU4 electric with aluminum covering.

http://www.scaleaero.com/scaleaero/JoeRafTGstat.jpg
03 Top Gun expert class winner Joe Rafalowski's BVM F-100 with aluminum covering. While another thread on this subject builds a "head of steam", I don't understand where they want to go and why. Somehow there seems to be a feeling because we can, we must...

Obviously, I like large airplanes for the same reasons everyone does, and then some :^)

55 pound limit
 

Ed,
The weight issue with jets is not dry weight, but "ready to fly" weight: read fuel load.
With all due respect, there's a lot more to this issue than just poor building techniques. Most weight on a jet model is pretty much fixed, the models are fg/composites and there's little "wiggle " room to save weight. The engines, retracts, radio, electronics, etc are all fixed weight and cannot be changed.
A twin could carry 15 pounds or more of fuel on take off, meaning the aircraft weight would have to be 40 pounds or less, this why the jet guys want the weight measurement to be done dry instead of TO (fueled) weight.
Regards,
Jon

Weight VS Available Flight Time...
 

Please explain how there is a difference in what I have watched in the past five years performing contest routines in which there are plenty of turnaround minutes...

I understand & appreciate concerns for safety issues with respect to a 10% additional onboard fuel allowance. However I have yet to see a discussion of 55+ pounds originate with that conscience borne intention.

Both Bob and Terry have been able to negotiate their entire flight routines using twins...even with the high drag coef...F4. I'm not being argumentative here... I simply have not seen a "need" for a weight increase considering the flights I have witnessed in scale competition have not been rushed to completion... Our resident turbine crews in Houston enjoy excess flight time within the same weight constraints to the extent of getting bored and landing with plenty of fuel onboard.

Again, I'm all for an additional 10% fuel allowance onboard if that is a legit concern...however, I have not seen that is an issue on Rafael's, F4's, or F18's over the last five years. We can only imagine turbines are getting more and more effecient...though I doubt that translates into fuel economy as thrust is what they are after.

55 pound limit
 

Can an FAI scale plane be competitive, at the top level, against an AMA scale plane? How about jets in particular?

JR

Re: Weight VS Available Flight Time...
 

Then read BV's website on the matter. First he states that 2 of the models you mention (the Rafael and the F-18 are very close to the limit, the F-18 to such a degree that they must take off with less fuel than they can carry, and have no wing stores, etc.

The F-4 is a single and nowhere near the limit.

I think this is coming from the jet community as many would like to model an OPTIMUM scale twin (like an F-18). It turns out that due to the motor size and the fuel requirement, we are right there with a roughly 50 pound dry weight.

The feeling is change the takeoff weight to dry weight, that change is pretty easy to swallow.

55 pound limit
 

You are right on the money mr_matt.

55 pound limit
 

I am at a loss to understand why a small change in the weight limit will solve so many problems.

From what I read there are some currently available models that are difficult to build to less than 55 lb. Quite a few of these models were designed after the 55 lb limit came into being. Either the designers didn't do a good job, or the builders are not building them properly.

In any case, raising the limit may make these models less marginal, but new models will be designed to take advantage of the higher limit. Sooner or later, these new designs will be cited as an example of why the new 65 lb (of whatever) limit needs to be raised.

Most countries have mass limits for RC model aircraft. Above the limit, they have an inspection and approval process. Mostly the limit is quite a bit less than 55 lb.

55 pound limit
 

Nobody is soliciting to change the weight of 55lb. If the syntax is changed to 55lb dry weight, then we should be in good shape.

Regards

Ben
AMA 9119

Who can argue that logic?
 

No one is arguing that a 55 pound dry weight is golden. Sure if it goes up, then who is to say someone won't want one ounce over the limit, no matter what the limit is.

What I am saying is that because of the natural progression of turbines (and the related technology), a 55 pound dry weight makes sense. Why you might ask?

Well first the AMA has already recognized the wisdom of allowing a powerful twin installation, with the 70 pound installed thrust limit for a twin turbine.

Now motors of this size tend to need about a gallon of fuel each, maybe a little less. So lets say 1.75 gallons for a twin. The fuel alone weighs over 11 pounds.

So now you need about a 42 to 43 pound dry airframe to make the wet weight limit. With the weight of twin turbines in the size class (of turbine) that everyone owns, this is hard to do.

Plus the US economy really needs the boost that an F-18 kit (made by you know who) would provide, a 10,000 dollar kit that many will buy!!

55 pound limit
 

This is what I see:

Carl Maroney is the chairman of the Safety Committee. Carl Maroney is on the Insurance Committee and probably knows more about the AMA's insurance policy than anyone else.

Bob Violet has talked to Carl and has been told that the AMA is not interested in raising the limit. His web site also makes it clear that there are insurance risks with jets that are different and that even some of those with waivers are not trained throughly.

Ed Clayman, who has the tenacity of a pit bull, has given up on higher weight limits because of the insurance situation.

There are approximately 700-750 jet waivers in existence. About .4 percent of the AMA membership.

The jets were designed up against the 55 pound limit and the guys building them are having a hard time staying under the limit.

Given these facts, If I was going to invest in a jet, it would not be one that might not meet the 55# limit.

The outlook of raising the weight limit is slim and the proposal to keep the limit, but, weigh dry does not look to have a bright future either.

Maybe it is time for the Jet drivers to start to press on the kit manufacturer's for planes that will weigh 40 pounds dry.

JR

55 pound limit
 

JR

With proper arrangements, the devil can see god .

Regards

Ben
AMA 9119

This Is Where I Came In...:^)
 

There has always seemed to be a can do attitude within the R/C marketplace. Someone asks...then someone says "I can do that" and down the road we've gone for the last 35 years.

It just seems as though everyone is accommodating to everyone until we reach the outside world where insurance actuarials exist and someone else's money, time & resources are required before the usual "I can do that" resounds again.

We experienced this with the inability to verify through anything less than destructive analysis, an adherence to giant scale air racing guidelines for airframe construction. Wanna go faster, use composites was the echo until nothing was left in the plane but composites bonded to eachother in some sort of fashion....maybe.

The "maybe" turned up after a crash, after an opps, after an engine fell off, or more often flew off the front end of someone's whatever. You walked over to the "scene" and found all kinds of corners being cut, or simply no compliance at all.

What does this have to do with 55+. Maybe JR is right... Maybe a certain credo is not necessarily correct... Maybe bigger isn't better in all venues of modeling.

Just reflecting on these threads.

55 pound limit
 

:) Hope springs eternal and... well... it is spring

JR

55 pound limit
 

I rather try and fail than not try. If we succeed then everybody benefits from it. If we fail, then we all go home knowing we gave it our best.

Regards

Ben

Argumentative Approach Is No Approach
 

The turbine pilot perspective seems to be narrow in scope if what I read is literal. Wouldn't it be wise to ammend the current rule to state "dry" for both prop and turbine? In this manner the EC will not be placed in a conflict with the majority of AMA members.
http://www.scaleaero.com/scaleaero/turblades.jpg
Yes, I understand the issue is desired to be viewed from a safety perspective...but does jacking a car up higher on one axle make for a stable situation when what was desired was a larger tire on only one side of that axle?

In reality, the turbine discussion and proposals to the EC may not be exclusive to turbines, but that's not what is being implied.

As many of you know, Ed Clayman supports higher gross flying weights than we are permitted today. My visibility in this is more than a momentary blip on a popular radar screen. I was solicited to join this tread because of my position on this issue. I am sure I was not the only person sought out...

I believe change must have an opportunity. Until we were faced with the doubling of our insurance premium, I felt we were getting closer to compromise. My view is shared by many others.

Today, I personally believe we can gain some latitude in this area if the EC will consider the % of payout against claims for accidents involving aircraft on the high end of the weight rule. You as John Doe AMA member are not permitted to see that % because of the non-disclosure aspects of nearly all claim settlements.

There are movements in what I personally consider a positive direction when our membership uses its SIGs and elected officials to speak to the EC as a whole. Contrary to some points of view an EC member is only human. He is not going to rush to support something "alone".

Bob's approach to the turbine side of this issue is a positive one. The prop side of this issue needs an official spokes person who can communicate "with" the EC.
http://www.scaleaero.com/scaleaero/g...ing_md_wht.gif
The spokes person should be a LM and CD with an engineering background and "gas" giant aircraft experience. At this point, I only see the prop side riding Bob's coat tail. This is not good for turbine or prop side either one!

There are those who will attempt to use this topic for their own political purpose. That friends is not what will win friends and influence the EC to seriously consider change. This is best left as a mechanical issue and resolved with cool heads and not hidden agendas

55 pound limit
 

Hey guys, come to Canada, our limit is 74 lbs.

Fussing here AIN"T the way!!!
 

Check the thread, "So You want changes at AMA". If you get it rolling, there is still time. You are in Dist VI. get someone on the ballot and get him elected.

There is an opportunity to get 5 new Vice Presidents on the EC for 2004.

Therein lies the answer. Arguing with Ed Clayman is about like arguing with a tree, except a strong wind can bend a tree!!??

Ben, your AMA # indicates Leader Member. If so, have a bud write, "I nominate Ben...." and send it to AMA post haste.

The Ballot Box is the place to originate a change.

55 pound limit
 

Quote from a famous AMA member, made in this forum:

"Speaking of wasting money -- well, it seems 'ta' me that elections and meetings are useless and simply wasteful. No one cares about the work and responsibility."