55 pound increase
 

ProfLooney

Actually, the cost of insurance in 2002 for the commercial policy was $768,191. 2003 will cost more. The information is in the financial statement.

You keep complaining about the old farts. Have you ever met the guys on the EC? You keep complaining about stale rules, yet the experimental class to 100 pounds is fairly new. These old farts are pretty dynamic. Sure, they occasionally make a mistake. Do you?

What do you know about your DVP? Why would you elect someone else? Who do you know that can do what we expect of our elected officers and is willing to do it for free? Heck, what is it you expect of your DVP? Of the DVP's that I have met, and gotten close enough to, to ask, all put a substantial amount of money out of their own pocket to do the job, above and beyond the pitance they receive for T&E.

Has it occurred to you that there are only a few main reasons people don't vote in the elections? 1. They are satisfied and just want to fly. 2. They believe that their vote will have no effect. 3. They don't know the candidates or the issues and don't wish to cast an uninformed vote. 4. They have no idea how the AMA is organized or what the AMA is and decline to find out, and don't bother to vote. I believe most are happy and don't chose to become involved in the politics, but, that is just my opinion.

Think about your own experience with YOUR club. The guys are happy. Why would they want to change things if they are happy? What makes you think that they are not an accurate reflection of the AMA membership as a whole?

Nowhere have I seen any information posted by you that supports your position that big is not more dangerous. Just saying over and over: 'it's what I want', is not going to change anyone's mind. Prove it. If that takes time to develop statistics, so be it. To get what you would like, your going to have to work within the system.

I suppose you can say the AMA is a monopoly if you want to play the AMA's game and compete in their events. No one forces you to do either. There are plenty of guys out there that are not AMA members. The AMA and UMA are in no way comparable. Just for openers, UMA is, as far as I know, for profit, and when you look at the cost of the AMA's insurance, UMA should, indeed, be very, very, profitable.


JR

waivers
 

True they have a fair waivered program, BUT those of us that like the slightly larger planes for whatever our reasons even if we were to waiver them can not compete with them not even at some funfly event. they change it so I can compete with a larger or waivered plane and i would be happy. As for saying larger isnt more dangerous it is just part common sense and part experience. As was posted by several people already on this thread with reguards to safety issues concerning small vs giant. Now if you can show me where to go where the AMA has documented its own research to support THEIR claims that the larger planes are more of a liability than the smaller ones and how there are more insurance claims on the larger planes than the smaller i think it would take care of the concerns those of us have with the AMA's own reasoning. The whole problem is the AMA has the resources to post claims info on their insurance showing how much of an added liability the larger planes are and how many claims are from small planes and how many from large to justify their concerns and so far i havent seen any of that or maybe i am looking in the wrong place.

If they want to justify anything they do then they should at least INFORM the membership with documented research which is causeing them to make or not make the changes. You seem to expect US to justify why we can have large planes or jets when all the FACTS are right there in the insurance reports in the hands of the AMA it is THEIR job to inform us of the statistics to back their claims and if they cant do that or prove their reasoning then we have a RIGHT to question them and feel they are not listening to us.

Joe

Joe

55 pound increase
 

Joe

I don't think you get the point. There is not enough information yet to determine the risk on planes larger than 55 pounds. The waiver program will allow the collection of that data. Then, maybe, consideration would be given to larger planes. What insurance company do you know that will insure any event where the risk factor is unknown? I am sure the commercial carrier wants data. Remember, the AMA is self-insured up to the first $250,000 per claim. The EC has a responsibility to the membership to protect the organization for all of us.

It is apparent that the AMA is not going to raise the limit across the board and then determine if the risk is greater. Cutting the weight limit would verge on impossible, once it has been raised.

Look at the reaction to Dave Brown's comments to lower limits on technological improvements. They may try cut the amount of power, speed, thrust, or create other technological limits, but, can you imagine the reaction of the membership if the weight limit is decreased to, say, the new FAI limit of 34 pounds? The IMAC guys are not real happy with the efforts to reduce noise. How about the current Giant Scale guys? What do you think they will do if the limit on weight was dropped from the existing limits. My guess is that if they stop technology at it's current level, that is all that they can do. I can not imagine that they will be able to go backward.

Why not demand working bombs and missiles on models? There is no proof that the risk is higher. The reasoning is the same.

If you want a larger plane NOW, it is going to have to be within the waiver procedure. If you want a jet, it had best weigh 55 pounds wet.

JR

planes
 

Well guys have been flying giant scale planes very close to the 55 lb limit now for a long time do you think that adding 10 lbs to the limit is really going to make the planes that much more dangerous? Also there are only a handlful of waivered planes out there out of all the threads and websites with people shown flying these things that weigh more than 55 lbs that maybe dont fly at chartered fields if there had been a major accident we def would have heard about it by now. If you take the smaller planes and pit them against the gassers you would get a really good idea of which of the two is more dangerous. and if you look at it most glow planes fly faster than the average giant plane not counting those for racing, and they would naturally be more of a danger it is only experience and common sense. Anyone that has been to a big event with both kinds of planes have seen the differences between the two groups in the way they fly their planes. usually the smaller planes the guys are tearing up the skys full throttle doing everything under the sun and most of the giant guys are lumbering around in a scale manner seeming to baby their planes especially due to replacement costs. so which is going to be the most dangerous.

Joe

55 pound increase
 

JR-
It's just amazing how rationalizing one's own position can defy the law of gravity. I've seen this topic discussed many times, and somebody always seems to truly believe that his 54.9 lb. turbine powered, 240 mph model poses no more risk of injury than a microfilm covered indoor duration model. In a previous discussion, I had a reply from one fellow that posited the latter is more dangerous as indoor rubber power flyers use helium balloons to steer models, and helium tanks have been known to explode. It's silly, but defensible as far we know, because no statistics are available, or have been made available to us, upon which to base an assessment of the actual risk.
When turbojets crash, they fireball, unless the pilot had the presence of mind to kill the engine in the milliseconds between the realization that he has lost control and contact with terra firma.
Has this resulted in AMA paying damages for losses due to fire started by a model airplane? I really don't know, but a few years ago (pre-turbine models) when an unfriendly neighbor of our field was crying wolf to local officials over the fire danger presented by our our models, I contacted AMA for related claims statistics and learned that AMA had never paid a claim for damages due to a fire started by a model airplane. It's very obvious that the potential has increased with jets, but whether or not that potential has been realized, I know not.
A major obstacle to instituting tiered rates in fair proportion to risk is the go/no go approach AMA currently takes to the decision whether or not to insure given activities of modelers. The Safety Code, which essentially defines what they are willing to insure and not, has no tiers - it's black and white, insured or not insured. With no grey-scale of of risk there is no possible basis for tiered rates.
Some rules seem absurd, as the requirement to have name, AMA number, etc. affixed to the model. Not that it's a bad idea, but does a model airplane lacking this tag really represent a greater liability risk, and to a degree that makes it unacceptable for insurance purposes? I doubt it. This rule was recommended for deletion by a subcommittee charged with revision of the Safety Code. The rationale for this exclusion from insurance coverage was explained to the EC by Dave Brown and the recommendation of the committee overridden, but his rationale was not included in the minutes of the meeting published for the benefit of AMA members. Don't you wonder why DB doesn't want us to know? Point is, the way things stand now there appears to be little correlation between risk and insurability.
What I pay for nearly every other form of insurance I have is based on risk. I live in an area covered with dry chapparel remote from the nearest fire station - and so I understand why I pay more for homeowner's insurance. I live in CA, and so I know there are exceptions. Though my risk of having an auto accident is far less in my rural community than in Los Angeles, the leftest bureaucracy deems that all CA drivers should pay equally. That's the way it is with AMA insurance, except there doesn't appear to be any real basis in risk assessment at all.
I think a tiered rate for insurance would benefit AMA, if it had some realistic basis in apportionment of rates to liability risk. The fastest growing segment of our hobby is park fliers. Park fliers have done at least a cursory qualitative assessment of the risk they face, and apparently concluded it is below the threshold that warrants buying into AMA. They don't perceive a risk anywhere near as great as posed by the typical AMA member's models, and I think they are right. They are staying away from AMA in droves, and I don't think they'll be impressed by the exciting new and improved trial membership that's coming down the pike. We'll see.
Tiered rates just aren't going fly, at least until AMA gets their house in order and provides or denies insurance coverage based on legitimate assessment of risk, rather than compulsions to control. I am less confident in the prospect of living to see that happen than you are.

Abel

55 pound increase
 

Look at the reaction to Dave Brown's comments to lower limits on technological improvements. They may try cut the amount of power, speed, thrust, or create other technological limits, but, can you imagine the reaction of the membership if the weight limit is decreased to, say, the new FAI limit of 34 pounds? The IMAC guys are not real happy with the efforts to reduce noise. How about the current Giant Scale guys? What do you think they will do if the limit on weight was dropped from the existing limits.

J_R,
Do you really think that Dave Brown gives a hoot what the membership thinks? DB is going to push ahead to get the weight limits lowered to the FAI's limit. Why? Because he wants too!
Hey, it's great to be the king.
I liked your marching analogy, sorta like AMA and new technology, AMA is usually out of step.
Regads,
Jon

55 pound increase
 

I have a couple of questions.

What does weight have to do with new technology or technological advances? Certainly, it is not weight itself, weight (mass) has been around a couple of years already. I suspect that all the technological advances in mass have taken place already. At least I think they has. (Well, maybe if we accelerate it to the speed of light...)

Turbines appear to be made in smaller sizes as well as large, so where is the problem with technology being stifled? Making smaller turbines more efficient through technological increases is an advance, or I think it would be.

Scale planes have can be made in smaller sizes, so where is technology being stifled?

Smaller engines appear to put out more horsepower per cubic inch, so where is engine technology stifled?

Building materials, like composites, have been used for years in smaller models so where is that being stifled?

The only good reasons I have ever heard for bigger planes is they fly more realistically and they are easier to see. I can not see that a minor increase in mass will improve either of these. At the same time, our planes have taken advantage of the advances in technology and allowed our smaller planes to fly more realistically while eye enhancement has continued to improve as well.

It seems to me that technological improvements generally mean a smaller package performing the same function as a larger one did previously, such as servos and Rx's.

Just exactly what technological improvements have, or would be, stifled by either maintaining the current weight limit or decreasing it? What am I missing?

JR

55 pound increase
 

Okay - then I would like to submit the following idea for consideration by the AMA...

Walking Waiver:
All AMA members must posses a Walking Waiver in order to be covered for any "Trip & Fall" type of accidents. A special new "WCD" (Walking CD) CD category shall be instituted. Applications for these positions shall be considered for any AMA member in good standing who has been walking for at least 2 years, and who is recommended to the AMA by the Walking SIG.

A series of Walking Manuevers will be drawn up by the Walking Committee, outlining the crawling capabilities that the Walker must demonstrate to 2 CDs (one of which must be a WCD). The propective Walker must be able to perform these maneuvers during a Check-Crawl, and must additionally submit the following: A completed self-test paper on walking (which will including comparissons to crawling & jogging) plus a signature from a Shoe Manufacturer indicating that the Walker has attended Shoe School and learned the basics of perambulation as well as the care of footware.

Note that the Walker designee may not actually Walk during his Walking Waiver demonstration, unless a special "interim" Walking Waiver is utilised - this will involve a check-walk in which the Walker holds onto the hand of another AMA member who already possesses a Walking Waiver. This may only be done on the day leading up to a sanctioned walking event, by the event's WCD.

Walkers may only perform walking while using footwear from an AMA approved manufacturer. Note that the combination of footwear and shoe-laces is considered an integral unit. The use of third-party shoe-laces with approved footwear is not permitted. For those who like to work with leather, a special program will be set up by which you may have your home-built Walking Apparel (aka Shoes) designated as approved.

Walkers must abide by the Walking Guidelines. These include, but are not limited to: Walkers must bring a folding chair or stretcher with them to the flying field; in the event of a walking failure, recovery of the fallen Walker must be done from the upwind direction, with the folding chair or stretcher being taken to the fall-scene regardless of whether any evidence of abrasion is apparent; Walkers must either be outfitted with a pedometer (in which case they may walk no faster than 4.3 mph), or must limit their calorie intake for the day to 0.9 * the average minimum intake require for maintaining weight equillibrium.

Walkers must be able to stand completely stationary. Anyone who is unable to remain staitonary on their own, must bring an accomplice to hold them upright while stationary.

Anyone who intends to walk at an AMA chartered club or an AMA sanctioned event, may not weight more than 155 lbs. The weight must be assessed with a full stomach and bladder.

Regards,
Gordon

(I'm sure that more rules than the above would be needed, but this should at least server as a suitable starting point for discussion)

55 pound increase
 

This from an RCU moderator? Is this really your opinion? It would seem that, just maybe, you have lost any objectivity and credibility about this issue that you might ever have had.

JR

55 pound increase
 

LMAO,

JR, Gordon is only making a satire of the AMA turbine rule.

BTW, I am still LMAO after reading his post.
Regards

Ben

55 pound increase
 

Gordon,
I was reading your post and laughing so hard people were coming in my office wanting to know what was so funny. Like some on RCU, even if I explained it they still wouldn't get it.
Regards,
Jon

A LOT!
 

Jr Said Okay, I’ll take a shot at this one. To answer the first part of your question “what technological advancements HAVE been stifled”? So far not much but no one can say for sure unless they know of specific instances and are on the production side of modeling in some way. To suggest that technological advancements have no connection to weight is to fail to see what advancements were made directly in response to weight. As an example let’s look at the late seventies and early eighties. In particular lets look at servo technology then and now. Anyone that flew RC then and still flies now will have to admit to great advancement in this technology. Back then; most models were in the .40 to .60-size range with weights well under the twenty-pound mark. I might add that the “Ceiling" as it were, was some 35 pounds away at that time. However as models grew larger companies responded by producing better and better equipment to control those models. Nowadays we have great servo technology as a by-product of the advancements that were brought on by the original need to control those ever increasing sizes of models.
With engines we see the same thing. As need for more power is responded to, the technology that is gained is applied across the board. You admit this in your post when you realize that small engines are getting better. As models grow in size and weight (which go hand in hand) they leave in their wake a great deal of advancement that benefits all of modeling. If in the mid eighties the AMA had put a weight restriction on all models of 25 pounds do you really think you we would see the range and quality of power plants radios and airframes that we currently have that meet that requirement now?
Modeling advancements are made much in the same way as their full-scale counterparts.

If in the mid forties full scale aircraft designers had stopped their quest for aircraft that could break the sound barrier do you think you could hop on a commercial jet liner and fly to anywhere in the world simply because they don’t break the speed of sound? Not a chance? If in the sixties we had decided that we did not need to go to the moon simply because we believed it benefited no one here do you think we would be using cell phones, computers, this internet thing (thanks to Al Gore of course) and a hundred more everyday items?

I know of several companies (mine included) that have projects on hold as this weight issue is debated. I can tell you that there are advancements in servo technology from JR just around the corner that will greatly benefit all modelers and this technology was brought about by the search for servos that could handle the strenuous weights and loads of the TOC type models currently flown by a growing population of RCers. The leading manufacturer of jets has brought new technology to manufacturing of those jets due to the ever-increasing weight and speed. They have a project that is shelved due to the weight issue as well.
Modeling technology in the last fifteen years has increased more than that since modeling was looked upon as a hobby from the very beginning. I like to look at these past fifteen years as Modeling’s 20th century in that; more was gained and created in that short period than in any other period of equal length in modeling.

To look ahead and ask, “what technological improvements would be stifled by a weight limit at or below where we currently are” is a mute point. Our models are right at this limit in nearly all aspects. That is to say I don’t expect to see park fliers in the fifty-five pound range - ever. (Let me know if you need an explanation for that one). While I believe there will be advancements made no matter what weight limit we have, I believe it is naïve to suggest that we will gain nothing by having larger, heavier models. JM2CW.

55 pound increase
 

NOW WAIT A DOGGONE MINUTE!

Gordon,

Are you trying to tell me that I need an AMA membership just to WALK? Or are we now supposed to market AMA coverage to spectators?

Do we have to take the state insurance exam, or have you worked out some tricky way to sell insurance without it?




I think it would make more sense just to tax, er license breathing.

.

.

.

.

.

.

BTW, I think you have too much free time. <G>

55 pound increase
 

Jon - glad you got a chuckle out of it.

Back in the days of using deja.com to access rec.models.rc.air, I used to periodically post a (hopefully) humorous round-up tieing all of the recent major topics together while poking some good natured fun at them. They're probably all long gone & forgotten by now, but they were fun to do.

Gordon

Re: A LOT!
 

Hi Patrick

Let me play devil's advocate on some of your points.

The increase in the quality of radio equipment has been an extension of other businesses run by the radio manufacturer'. If it were not for their other enterprises, radio control systems might have advanced much more slowly. They took what was then, to them, existing technology and applied it to our systems.

As I see it, making an engine bigger is not an advance in technology. Things we saw in the past, such as schnurle porting are technical advances, not machining bigger pistons. Look at the advances in the 4 stroke glow engines, which are not used in the heavier planes. There has been substantial technological advancement there. The larger engines are just larger. How many have trispherical heads, a 25 year old technology that has still not made its way to models. There is tremendous room for improvement of the larger engines at or less than their current weight.

If the AMA had placed a 25 pound limit on planes years ago, it is likely that considerably more of the existing technology would have found it's way into model engines by now and airframes, for that matter.

One thing you pointed to is quality of existing airframes. That is just not so. Take a look at the R/C sailplane community. They have no engines, so they have to make progress exclusively in the airframes they use. Composites that they have been using for 25 years still show up rarely in production powered airframes. The quality of powered model aircraft is lagging far behind. If the power modelers used the same techniques, the airframes would weigh a fraction of what they do... and be structurally superior. When it gets to jets, there is a better quality airframe there, but, not of the quality of sailplanes. Lots of room to use existing technology to make a bigger plane with less weight.

With your full scale analogy you seem to want to re-invent the wheel. The technology is there and has been for years. You may have taken note that the airliners that did exceed the speed of sound are being taken out of service. That was the result of manufacturer's producing a product that was unacceptable to most governments. Manufacturer's have a way of doing that. You may remember the muscle cars of the 60's being chased out by insurance companies, then again in the early 90's when the twin turbo Supra's, Z's and 3000 GT's were chased out. That is not to say there was no demand, but the cars had become impractical and dangerous, in the eyes of the insurance companies.

Sometimes, manufacturer's have to back off, or get hurt when their new products are blocked by outside forces. In the 60's the car manufacture's had bigger engines ready to go. In the 90's the products were already available in other countries. In both cases, it cost them a lot of money not to see the handwriting on the wall.

I can't see that the future is a mute point. Any technological gains can be applied to small planes as well as large. By your own admission, the weights of smaller planes have decreased just because of the radio systems we now have.

As far as the TOC is concerned, I have watched as the size of the planes increased. They had no weight limitation, and, as I recall, the heaviest was around 42 pounds. I assume that was dry.

The planes and helicopters that we currently fly will do things that their full sized counterparts could never duplicate. Where do these things quit being models?

As was my premise, I see no examples of technology slowing or being inhibited by a weight limit. I do see some manufacture's that would love to tap a forbidden market with bigger products, not technologically superior ones, but bigger and heavier. Bigger and heavier do not have to go hand in hand as I pointed out with the sailplane example.

JR

Re: Re: A LOT!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by J_R
With your full scale analogy you seem to want to re-invent the wheel. The technology is there and has been for years. You may have taken note that the airliners that did exceed the speed of sound are being taken out of service. That was the result of manufacturer's producing a product that was unacceptable to most governments. Manufacturer's have a way of doing that. You may remember the muscle cars of the 60's being chased out by insurance companies, then again in the early 90's when the twin turbo Supra's, Z's and 3000 GT's were chased out. That is not to say there was no demand, but the cars had become impractical and dangerous, in the eyes of the insurance companies.

______________

If you would care to note; The "new" generation of Muscle cars is back.
The 350z, the 2003 Mustang Mach 1 (my car), the Mazda RX8, the Marauder, GTO (next year). and more are in design.
TO counter with the same example. IT's making it's 3rd come back... and why?? because that's what the people want... damn the corporate mongers that are out of touch with the real world. THey look at everything as a number. What's the bottom line, how can i fatten my wallet... No one cares about the people they serve anymore. If someone creates and uses something correctly, where's the risk? for that matter maybe I shouldn't walk out my front door in the rain I could get hit by lightening. MY close friend died when we were 12 - he got hit in the chest with a baseball out of a pitching machine, wasn't going fast at all. He stepped over the plate and square in the chest, happened to time exactly inbetween the neuro-impulses that fire causing your heartbeat... Dead instantly... no chance at all.... so maybe we should stop little league for children... You can't live life without some risk. LIve a little fly a 70lb plane at 200mph land it and tell me that brick you dropped in your shorts wasn't worth it. I get the same feeling when i invert and roll my 40 sized profile 8 feet off the deck... To each his own.. I also have a 15lb 60 sized warbird i want 100"+ soon...

People have to stop thinking about the bottom line and learn to enjoy life... It's short and in the end you're dead anyway. Might as well enjoy the trip.

55 pound increase
 

WarpdSPazm

You made my point better than I did. In spite of the fact that engine sizes had to be reduced and bodies lightened, the hot cars are back, and when they get chased, there will be a new generation. Nobody has made a case that big has to be heavy. Technology can overcome the restraints, and that is the point.

JR

55 pound increase
 

Gordon,
You need to make sure that you are only walking at AMA designated areas. If you've been walking certified by any other insurance agency you wont be allowed to walk at a ama designated area. You must also crawl to the designated area before beginning to walk :^) LOVE IT, LOL. Jon

Crawling
 

jonkoppisch you are wrong you cannot crawl there unless you have AMA's crawl insurance just in case you cut you hand or knee on a blade of grass or happen to crawl into a planes prop.

Joe

55 pound increase
 

lol, Oops, my mistake. Jon

Bigger and heavier
 

Well the ENGINE in my car is of smaller displacement, true. 4.6l are to the origianl 7.0l and yes it makes MORE HP and TQ then the older one. but that's the engine. My entire car weighs in at the same - 3760lbs.... WHY? when mine is fiberglass and new composites (like you mentioned with sail planes) Because of all the extras i have... A/C, power everything, a nice stereo system , and the list goes on... I'm faster to accelerate and higher top speed than the old one (and yes i do handle better)

Where I think some people are missing the boat is by assuming the 55 lbs to 65+ issue is all about fuel and engine.... Maybe for some yes, but not for all... for me - i want to be able to have a 2/4 engine bomber all scaled out at like 120" (extreme and why i like this hobby) that'll come in over 55lbs is if put EVERYTHING in it... but it's by no means a speed demon. do some simple physics work... massX velocity type equations. at only about 60MPH i wouldn't do as much damage with an 80lb'er (example) as a 55lb'er at 200+ .... So why can't i put in full scale cockpit and bomb racks and gun ports and...... most people will drop the details which is a real loss.

So what if i wait 10 years and they make an engine that weighs HALF the one i'd need today. OK so i've saved X lbs which is enough to now fly the SAME EXACT plane from 10 years ago exactly as i would have with the slight extra weight (of the old engines and dead weight lets say) whats the difference???? NOTHING

Maybe i'm having a problem with the wght issue because it's NOT about bigger engine and more fuel I don't see a point in flying R/C at 240+
Look what Jeff did with his custom 13foot Corsair... That's a valid reason to increase weight.

55 pound increase
 

Hello JR,

I guess we will agree to disagree. In my previous post I admit that advancement in modeling technology is not totally due to size/weight increases in models over the past twenty or so years but that for sure it has a great deal to do with it. I responded to your statement that seemed to suggest that it (weight and size increases in models) had NOTHING to do with the current advancements in modeling. I disagree.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would suggest that market expansions such as we have seen in the past twenty years have no bearing on where the technology is going. You mention four strokes not powering heavy models. Why did O.S. develop their large four and five cylinder engines? Why Is Saito producing an expanding ranges of very powerful multiple cylinder four strokes? Since Saito brought out their in-line twin cylinder 200 four-stroke, what are the odds this will be followed up by smaller in-line twins? Why did they do the big ones first?

You mention my analogy of full-scale evolution when you say the following This was in reply to my post I am not sure what you mean, or thought, but I would like to clarify. When I said that you would not be flying in commercial aircraft to anywhere in the world had it not been for the race to break the sound barrier, this is because it has less to do with the speed of sound than you think. First of all, other than the Concord, there are no other in-service airliners breaking the speed of sound so no one is pulling airliners out of service due to this fact. (Ours and the Russian super sonic jets never made it to service). Airliners are pulled from service when they reach a certain number of service hours OR they are no longer profitable to operate or so I have been told. In my post I was trying to relate that jet engine technology that was obtained in the race for speed had the by-product of allowing very high and very fast large aircraft capable of carrying heavy payloads. The jet engine alone provided this ability. No Airline today could operate with reciprocating engined aircraft on their long haul, high-density routes. Those routes would not exist; there fore you could not travel that way. So where did I re-invent the wheel? I am saying that technology at one end of the spectum has a way to benifit a totaly unrelated section. I beleive it is the same in modeling and have seen proof of this myself.

Muscle cars are gone? Are you kidding? I have a 4000 pound 300 HP plus sedan that I will put up against just about anything from that era. Have you driven a VIPER? A CORVETTE? MUSTANG GT? Z-28? (sorry for all those others I missed guys – this is what I know) LATELY? Heck, even the ¾ ton pickup trucks these days have respectable quarter mile times!

The future of modeling is (in my opinion) a mute point only if we stop growing and expanding the limits. This issue is becoming so politicized that we are losing focus. Your statement that “some manufacturers would love to tap a forbidden market” shows some serious political hype. It makes it sound like there is a whole portion of modelers that are not only willing pay a manufacturer more than fair market value for product but also are not spending any of their money until this “forbidden fruit” is offered to them. Your statement flys in the face of a free and open market and plays to audience hungry to find a reason to hate said market and all who participate. I find it unfortunate that this hobby has taken on some of the undesirable aspects of our countries politics but am still glad to participate.

In my original post I tried to point out reasons why I believe modeling has benefited from our miniature aircraft growing in size and weight. I acknowledged that not all market growth was due to bigger and bigger models but that a majority of the advancement is. I see that you stand firm on the belief that modeling has experienced ZERO growth due to larger, faster and heavier models in the past and therefore you believe we don’t need any of these types in the future.

Regards

55 lb limit
 

JR in one of your posts you mentioned there were no statistics available on giants to make an accurate risk analysis that they were or werent more dangerous. Do you follow the european circuit at all? take for example the Laferte which is held every year outside of Paris. almost all the planes there are 30% and larger heavy A** planes http://www.followme.ch/KurtMarti/LaFerte2003

There are other rallies held in europe but the La Ferte is the bigest. Check out the stuff on Big Stuff UK http://vzone.virgin.net/bigstuff.uk/...ffuk/index.htm there are tons of big planes flying over in europe and I bet there has already been research done over there. with those big beautiful beasties and the crowds they fly in front of if there was major problems dont you think they would have shut them down by now after all these years.

It is useless to state that the big birds cause more of a risk thus should face the brunt of the insurance and that the technology is not there to make them just as safe as any other plane. the AMA just needs to get off their duffs and do the research but what i seriously believe is they are too afraid of what they would find out and that of course as you read by the reply to my email by DB is against everything he wants to do and that is to shove the AMA backwards.

Joe

Re: 55 lb limit
 

Joe,
Sorry, but I think are comparing apples to oranges. In England (and in Europe I think but do not know for sure) they have a PILOT certification program AND an aircraft standards program.

In other words, they are much more heavily regulated than we are and in this case the comparison is NOT valid. We are talking about raising the weight limit, not building an entire set of new pilot competency requirements the AMA is to maintain (and thereby drive modelers away.

There currently IS a program within AMA to fly heavier planes, lets fix it instead of creating more monsters.

55 pound increase
 

Let's do the easy one first. Joe, where are the statistics? Not subjective guessing. Where are they?

JR