James Goss

I am relatively new to giant scale, started about three years back and it has really changed my interest toward the R/C hobby. I have been in this hobby for about 30 years on and off. After you fly small scale planes for so long it is natural to move up in size. I now like 1/4, 33%,37% and 1/2 scale planes, but I still love small scale too. I have been steadfast with the AMA over the years and I would like to see them advance with me in the giant scale area. 55 pounds? Where and when did the AMA arrive at this weight limit? Does anybody know? Forty years ago the 55 pound limit may have been justified, but with the knowledge and building materials we have today it is a hindrance to the giant scale modelers. What do you think??? James Goss

Big_Bird

My Feedback: (1)

Hi James, you certainly have a point. I feel that the 55 pound rule needs to be looked at again. However, the trend among the majority of the giant scale airplanes (Extras, Caps, Edges, etc) flown is bigger and as light as possible with big engines. Really big airplanes are still in the minority at the giant scale events that I attend.

There is an Experimental class that is allowed in this country but it is pretty restrictive as to when these airplanes can be flown and under what conditions.

Of course, you can fly at a private field without AMA and fly as heavy an airplane as you want until the FAA starts taking notice.

I sure enjoy seeing the really big European airplanes in some of the magazine spreads.

Happy Holidays,
Ken

Diablo-RCU

My Feedback: (1)

I think the AMA is being overly cautious with the rules. Canada doesn't hae a 55 lb limit and I haven't heard about any terrible modeling disasters. The Europeans are leading the way with technology in large size models. The pictures from the Ferte Alais are incredible. Frank tiano ran for AMA President under the platform of lifting the weight restriction. Unfortunately, Frank lost, so it's not too likely that the rules will change in the near future. Perhaps a few more years of the Europeans flying 200 lb multi-engine aircraft without a safety incident may convince the AMA that we can do it here too.

doug l

diablo
the limit in canada is 35 kilos.(77 LBS)
NOTICE your dues increse for maac???
to pay for $5,000,000.00 increse in insurance..primary coverage.
check out the hoops they jump through in europe before you wish it on north america....
merry christmas and happy new year

James Goss

Its not that we can't fly planes over 55 pounds here in the states, we can. The AMA allows us to fly them at AMA sanctioned events and we are covered with AMA insurance. It's just that we have to get our planes certified each and every year. Here is the list that we must go through: It is called an experimental radio controlled aircraft and must weigh between 55 and 100 pounds.
An AMA appointed instector shall issue a temporary authorization to fly, valid only on the day of issue, to allow test flights while the inspector is watching. Upon satisfaction completion of test flights the inspector shall issue a permit to fly. I know this is all for safety, but it takes some of the fun out of flying. James Goss

Miniair

My Feedback: (1)

No, in Canada we are limited to 35KG (about 77LBS) though.

With MAAC's agreement with the AMA we can fly our heavier birds in the US as long as they meet our requirements and we are covered by MAAC.

Paul Grubich

My Feedback: (1)

I have a 70 lb. B-17 that is yearly certified. It is a small price to pay for the assurance that this plane is ready and safe to fly.


Paul

James Goss

Jim, now I am confused!!! Is the limit in Canada 25 Kg or is it 72 lbs? 25Kg is equal to 55 lbs, not 72 pounds. Did you mean to say 32.7 Kg. I wager that you did. James Goss

Miniair

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks for letting me know - I hit the wrong key and didn't notice it when I read it - Still a little brain dead; It's 35KG.

Once again Thanks for spotting it

rcav8tr

The weight limits on the aircraft in Canada and the USA are not imposed by MAAC or AMA. They are imposed respectively by Transport Canada and the FAA. They weight define the boundary between an RC model and a UAV(Unmanned Aerial Vehicle). In Canada the weight limit is as stated in the 72-75LB(32.7-34kg). In the USA, the weight limit is 50lbs(22.68kg). This is one reason that AMT's Concorde has not flown, other than it isn't complete yet. AMA must have limited authority regarding the planes between 50 and 100lbs. In Canada, you have to tell Transport Canada, where and when everytime you want to fly anything over the weight limit.

Ed

doug l

hey ed,
weight limit was set back in 60,s by AMA.
back when we payed $15.00 year for $500.000.00 ins.it was an arbitrary weight...who would of thought of today.??

i deal with trans canada and FAA daily.
have current 2002 FAR,S and CAR,s.
no where are unmanned veh. mentioned.
can you quote car,s or far,s that cover
this topic??????????? i know as a business person you would not want to give bad info..right?

if you supply AMA or MAAC #, i will send
info to that listed current address.
have a good one.

rcav8tr

Hi Doug

I found the info on their website a number of months back. I'll have to go back and find it again.

Ed

PS

So how would you get my address form MAAC?

doug l

paul
you are dead right on.and i know you need
to be legal for ins. reasons.these topics
scare the crap out of me..
people talking as if they never heard of liability...or safety of others...
i guess if they want to end up working for the rest of their lives,and not own any-thing...so be it.
glad to see you here. great board.take care of it.

doug l

ed.
this is the modern age.he he
take a name and given # and walah...
don,t realy need # to know if a member.
nice for a person to show it if talking about the AMA or MAAC so people know if
they have a clue of where they are comeing from.
so......do you have a MAAC #.

rcav8tr

Doug wrote:

i deal with trans canada and FAA daily.
have current 2002 FAR,S and CAR,s.
no where are unmanned veh. mentioned.
can you quote car,s or far,s that cover
this topic???????????

Doug

Please reference the following CARs, 101.01, 602.41, 623.65 or follow this link:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/general...aircraft_e.htm


Ed

doug l

ed
thank you very much
..world trade center hit 9/11/2001 .....this reg dated 9/21/2001.
wow..no such knee jerk reaction in USA.
can find nothing so far in FAR,s.
tks for the heads up..

rcav8tr

Doug

The date at the bottom of the page, was the last time the page had been updated. The last change to the rules was done in June 2001 to replace "non-piloted aircraft" to "unmanned air vehicle" (UAV). It appear these rules have been in effect for some time prior to Sept 11. 2001. It's not a knee jerk reaction.

Ed

xp8103

My Feedback: (16)

As someone who hasn't come within a stone's throw of the 55# limit, I really shouldn't speak on this subject, but as the owner of a 30% Pitts Model 12 kit, I will soon, so I will.

I'll ask the question. Should there be any limit at all? I mean, if not 55 (or 77) pounds, what then? The folks in Europe are flying 1/2+ scale 500 pound ships, many of which are capable of carrying house pets if not small children or jockeys. So carrying capacity cannot be used as a gauge.
The 55# limit was set here back in the 60's when 55# seemed like an unreachable plateau. I mean, WHO would build something that big except the military? Technology was not available for the average modeler. Even the first 1/4 scale stuff back in the late 70's was designed around geared .60 engines (the Nosen Mr. Mulligan for example) or the crude gas engines available and rarely approached 25 pounds. But here we are. 2002. Technology has passed the limit by. We have engines that are bigger than those in most in cars in England. We have servos the size of a nickle that put out enough touque to move a truck. We have materials that were once reserved for the space agencies and law enforcement.
So why the limit today?
Here's my thought. Lawyers. We have more of em than anyone. And they are a greedy crooked lot. We have a society that yearns for the deep pockets. You want a bet that some schmuck flying his 100 pound Extra without AMA authorization smucks into someone's house/car/kid/horse/trailer that the lawyers won't come looking for the AMA as well? Even if they don't get any money from the AMA, the costs will be awful in publicity alone at a time when we are coming under fire for noise and emissions. Once one state falls, just watch them all go. The fact is, we are a nation of rights without responsibilities. "I CAN FLY MY 100 POUND PLANE ANY G.D. PLACE I WANT!" We all know someone like this. More money than sense and a house full of big expensive planes in various states of repair.
By now, many of you may be thinking "Ok... is he FOR the 55# limit or AGAINST it?" To that, I say both.
I think that the AMA has set a prudent limit for large scale airplanes (just as it has for the thrust of turbines, another good idea) while making provisions for folks who wish to fly larger, heavier planes. Hey, as long as the manufacturers of lawn mowers have to put a label on the deck saying "Don't put your hands or feet under here when the mower is running you dope!", the AMA will need to set limits.
I also think that the AMA could levy a surcharge for folks who wish to fly these over-limit planes or even have a separate insurance policy for them or better, have them show proof of a personal liability policy of some minimum amount.
I think that large models and turbines alike that push the limits of the technology benefit every modeler in some way. They force our suppliers to continually improve their products and look for new technologies that always have a positive impact on modeling as a whole.
The fact is, without limits, we seem predisposed to sticking our hand under than mower deck.....

Big_Bird

My Feedback: (1)

Nik, yours is one of the most interesting posts that I've read. I first thought you were just ranting and raving but now I completely agree with your points. Controls are needed for people who would otherwise be dangerous to themselves and others. This, of necessity, penalizes the very careful and conscientious modeler who is trying to advance the state of modeling with planes heavier than 55 pounds. Although, if the rules are followed, he can fly the heavy planes.

One area that has not been addressed much is a trend toward putting 150cc engines in very light airframes. Some of these planes do come apart when flown to extremes. However, they are covered under the 55 pound rule. It seems to me that a well designed and flown 60 pound airplane is more safe than a 22 pound muscle machine.

Ken

BladeRunner

The short answer is; "unfortunately you can't legislate common sense!" I like to believe that the majority of modlers are a responsible group, however we all know that there are dummies out there that care little about others and even less about themselves.

These are the idiots we need to be protected from, they give the whole hobby a bad name, I can't say what the right answer is,but, if we all could use just a bit of common sense and consider our limits I think a lot of problems would fade away. This can and should be done by every club and association, train new flyers with safety first-no exceptions!

Those that think they know it all and refuse to be considerate to others should find a new hobby--far-far away from those who want to continue to do the right thing. Soap box done-see-ya.-------BladeRunner.

cubfan

Nik,
Could not have said it any better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

stevezero

My Feedback: (11)

I totally agree with Nik's post, because we have become a victim oriented society, we now have to make an attempt to "legislate common sense" to quote blade runner. Another example is the tobacco industry, they sell products that will kill you, put warnings on them, yet people still go out and spend billions of dollars supporting it. Then, when they become severly ill, they tie up valuable hospital resources, sue the manufacturer, AND WIN!!!. The whole "second hand smoke" movement, where people said " I can smoke my GD cigarrettes anywhere I want" (changing around Niks statement a little") developed into smoke free workplaces, restaraunts, etc. Those who were effected negatively (meaning they couldnt smoke where they wanted too) have had to adjust, but has that not made it a safer place for the rest of us?


The AMA had an article in Model Aviation recently, and posted the amounts from a "small" insurance claim and lawsuit about a child being hit in the pits. They paid out alot of money, most of that being attorneys fees, not to mention the poor child who has to face several eye surgical procedures. I have a 6 year old who comes to the field with me on occasion, and I flinched when I read that story. How many of these types of incidents will take place before the AMA's insurance company says, well, we will insure you, but its going to cost 4 times your current premium. Or even worse, wont cover us at all. Will you add a rider statement to you homeowners policy so you can fly your plane, or go uninsured and take the risk?" Will your club have to carry its own policy to be able to fly at its field? What would that do to your dues?

It scares me to think of any size plane, from the smallest 1/2 A plane up to the new Aero-tech 52% extra getting lost over the pits, flightline, etc. Props spinning at 16000 rpms can kill you just as dead as the blunt trauma of meeting a wing with your head. The posts on rc-online about the guys catching the large edge I think it was were ranging from common sense reservations, to total lack of common sense, even stupidity. Yes, I will admit, it was a spectacle to see a young guy catch the plane that was TR'd down to him. The flight envelopes have changed drastically since the 55lb rule was first put into action. We are flying larger, more powerful planes, closer in towards ourselves. That was unthinkable back then.

I agree that most who choose to model airplanes are a pretty sensible group, but accidents do happen. Just about everyone who flies has either put thier finger in the prop arc, or known someone who has. Even the best have bad days, and they also have "circumstances beyond thier control" I believe it were the Nolls last year at the Joe Nall show who lost two of thier high dollar planes in a very short time span, one due to someone "turning on" and basically shooting the plane down. We can always say "well what if........" and be here for hours contemplating every possible scenario, but somethings are more relevant and probable to happen than others.

With our flight envelopes slowly closing due to development near flying fields, noise problems, and the always present safety concerns, do we really need to increase our risk, just because someone wants to have the largest plane out there? Goodness, the 52% extra I spoke of earlier is almost the same size as a single seat teenie 2 aircraft that you can sit in and fly. The 325 lb 4 engine constellation over in europe, you probably could fly in.

I think it is a wise thing that we (meaning modellers) impose and maintain restrictions on ourselves, so we dont have the government come in and do it for us.

Full scale pilots always err on the side of caution, why should we be any different?

I will get off my soapbox now, before I find and errant patch of soap and break my neck on the way down

Steve

stalspin-delete

Newbie to list,

the 55# limit was set by the IMAA as a point to stop at when they were getting into the SIG positionThe AMA safety committee agreed with the limit and in conjunction wrote the book.
hope this helps.

stalspin-delete

The 55# limit was a limit set by the IMAA when seeking SIG status
and the AMA safety committee along with the IMAA set the rules. it was the IMAA that proposed the 55#