Excuse my ignorane,


If you use less than 1:1 thrust to weight, are you still allowed to fly without speed limitations?

Isn't 200 fast enough?

Thanks,

David

David,
You have GOT to be kidding! There are 'people' on this forum who wish to exceed 500 MPH. I suspect that there are even some who want to break the speed of sound.

Gordon,
Note that AIRMEN have to follow the FAR's and ATC enforces the rules. Also note that I am not the only flyer to understand the speed limits as defined in the FAR's. In other words, please do not go picking fights for me as I do that well enough without your help.

hey i want to fly past the speed of speed! but yeah, darly never said he qui, he sai a friend of his did. i think that if they keep reducing the speed they may have us down to 150 or 140. and flying at 200mph isn't about fly-byes. its about flying at 200mph, its very hard and also VERY impresive. and all flying becomes a bore to watch after you watch it for long enough. just because you don't find it interesting doesn't mean you need to alienate us. and David, im sure if he could fly 10 times a day he would, you can't compare your situation to his nor mine.

F-22 Urza,
You seem to have chosen to be alienated which was never my intent.

You are welcome to fly any were you can as fast as you are able. However, if it is outside the AMA rules you probably should have a lot of personal insurance and make sure you are not endangering anyone else's home by abusing their AMA flying site. The other thing is that you probably need to do some serious research into finding out what the top speed you can LEGALLY fly in the US. Do not depend on others words and phrases, go find out for yourself because I am sure the federal enforcement guys could care less if you are alienated.

EDITED TO ADD:

The 'people' comment was targeting those that refuse to do any planning for the actual activity but do it as a fun exercise in exploring new thngs. The real issues about going fast are strictly technical. I strongly suggest you figure out the distances covered each second at your target airspeed. Then work out what your risk factors might be. For assistance use the local driving schools research into situation recognition, decision making, and reaction times as one limit on the time you can allow a bird to move at speed X without correction. If I recall correctly the average times run just over .75 second. Add to that the distance you figure will be lost to visual acuity issues. Now you have a time and it is easy to see what distances are covered at various airspeeds.

You are comitting what philosophers call a "cathegorical error" here, i.e. you are applying your cathegories in an inapropriate context: You are talking about passenger transportation, while we are talking about R/C air sports here. Have you ever heard about a speed limit in formula 1 racing?

This does of course not mean that everybody should get into R/C jet racing. Only that those few capable of doing it should not be kept by AMA from doing it in public. Only a politically correct nature freak could think that this would not be exiting.

Let me quote from an article which which I have posted two days ago in the thread "renegade jet pilot" on the AMA discussion forum: "....But the interest in performance limits is an integral part of the fascination with (high) technology. And technological progress is as natural and unstopable as is gravitation. And as R/C jets do not have a genuine 3D capability, their speed is their true speciality. AMA functionaries tend to lack the intelligence to recognize this...."

The analogy to full scale aircraft, trains, highways etc seems essentially invalid anyway, given that we are talking about speed limits that are not applied to all R/C model aircraft, but only those that are turbine powered. For the anlalogy to hold up, the equivalent full scale rules would have to be something equally weird, like:

[ul][*] Trains that are diesel powered may not exceed X mph, whereas trains powered by electricity, etc may go as fast as you want.[*] Cars that run on high octane fuel are limited to 65 mph on the freeways; cars powered by low octane fuel, natural gas, etc., may go as fast as you want. [*] etc
[/ul]

Gordon

This is bizzar Gordon. Prehaps you can drag a little class envy into it too:

- Chevy and Ford can go 150 mph
- Buick and Mercury can go 120 mph
- Lexus and Cadalaic 90 mph max
- Poesche 55 mph
- Lambrogeni 5 mph

kammury i like the way to put that, its so hypocrital to limit us like this, and no pylon racering it really weird to me. i really wish the AMA would get a new jet branch or something.

No there are no speed limits in formula 1 racing but the safety factor is a lot higher than we have. You see them with baracades around the track, you don't see the crowd right up at the track either. Accidents do happen and spectators do occasionally get hurt but the potential for that is minimal compared to how we run jet meets with the crowds allowed only feet from the pits or flight line

I have to say that the 200 mph rule does not bother me, I don't find it fun just flying in a circle going really really fast. I do like the occasional high speed pass right down the runway, but usually on the outer edge of the runway and when I am flying at my home field. I have to admit I expected something like this sooner and be glad that they left it at 200mph, they could have made it a significantly lower number. I think it is a smart thing to have the limit set, my first time going to Florida Jets a few years ago a well known and respected pilot was making a very high speed pass when a rudder came off, lucky for him and the crowd that the plane went down in a spot between two cars. 20 feet in either direction and it would have gone into the crowd. I have also seen someone else come down the runway for a high speed pass and their radio went into lockout and fortunate for them the plane was straight and level when it did and crashed at the end of the runway, could you imagine if he had been in a turn banked at the crowd.

All you guys that are b*tching about the 200 mph limit just think about how much worse it could have been.

Patrick.

That there looks like guys think they can handle there speed, by going over 200mph+, but how many of ya ever did it?

I'd think that one of them jets going over 200+mph would be tough to keep from messing up? By the sound of it, sounds like most guys would crash em if they were allowed over that speed.

Keep da shiny side up,
Herb J.

Actually NASCAR and IRL effectively have speed limits, and I assume that Formula 1 does also. I assume that you have heard of restrictor plates. For many of the tracks there is a speed above which the insurance is canceled (sound familiar?). If during practice people start getting to close to this number it is not unheard of for NASCAR to make a few changes to slow thing down a bit. This year I noticed that the new rules appear to have added a pure drag device to the roof of all cup cars. Some of these restrictions are done for competitive reasons, but some are for safety.

Steven

Etiquette, Etiquette guys........

That mega-font, Ferrari red/Splat black type is ruining my turbine Karma....[:@]

I can refer you to a couple of religious or political forums where you can vent in giant living color all day and night if you want.....


T.....

Amen brutha!!!

What needs to be restricted is recklessness, not speed. End of story.

Hi,
Of course there's a "speed limit" in F1. Why do you think they mandated grooved tires years ago, put chicane's on the straightaways, eliminated traction control, modified the tracks, etc? To keep the speeds under control! F1A is famous (infamous?) for changing the rules all the time, sometimes for speed, sometimes for safety and sometimes because Bernie wants it that way! Not sure about IRL or Champ cars, don't follow them anymore since Tony George destroyed open wheel racing in the US years ago, but F1 and NASCAR will do whatever is necessary to keep the speeds below 200 MPH. There's that number again!
BRG,
Jon

No body ever put a speed limit on a bullet..... uhmmm

Eddie Weeks

So if I was able to buy a Ferrari Enzo or a Saleen S-7, I would be wasting my money cuz I'm restricted to the current speed limit? Speed is not everything, grasshoppa! In reality just like you'll find guys with the fast cars bragging about how fast their car can go, in my experience most of them chicken out past sustained speeds in excess of 130mph or so. I believe the same applies to the average RC turbine pilot where most start to get behind the curve around 160-190ish (my observations).

IMO, most of the complaints or whining I hear about the AMA and such things as not being able to fly over 200 mph come from guys that have little or no turbine time. As someone stated earlier, it's not an environment you want to spend much time in and after a few high speed passes maybe approaching or exceeding 200mph it gets pretty boring. So, whoopee what next? Why don't we work on overall flight technique such as precision approaches and landings, aerobatics and symmetry, fly close to stall speed, etc., to help overall smoothness and achieve realistic flight.....we should always be striving to set goals and be a "good stick". For example, you can go to just about any jet rally and see guys constantly blowing their approaches and landings. Like the "3D" heli pilot that can do any trick in the book but can't really hover, most of us should focus on the basic building blocks of flying before we try to bore 200+mph holes in the sky.

I believe the new AMA rules are just fine and no big deal. Just fly and burn lots of fuel. You can discover plenty of other challenges besides just going fast, or you can set goals for each flight which should keep you and the spectators entertained for a long time.

So, just because you find it boring, everyone else should ?

Using the exact same logic - there are plenty of other challenges besides flying turbines, so why not just ban turbines while we are at it ?

Gordon

We had no rules for F1 except the race lay out and timers. When I was testing or just plane flying my f1 there were no rules for me or my aircraft.
Darryl Usher

THe basic rationale given by the AMA for a speed limit was to contain a fire closer to the flying site. Basically, a faster plane will go farther when out of control than a slower one, all things being equal. This of course assumes that turbines burn in a crash more often than other planes.


There was another rationale given by the AMA for a speed limit. That is that if we have a big incident and we have no limits, then we are opening ourselves up to the potential for tight regulation by someone outside of the AMA. If we have limits, then at least we can claim we had SOME kind of restrictions, and then we can go on after the incident by just claiming it was a fluke, and that we were in control, and our existing regulations just needed some tweaking.


Of course the old rules had "restrictions" as well. Just a different kind. Sort of a 3 way restriction, balancing T/W ratio, speed limiters and overall turbine thrust. I think the assault on the speed limiter took away one leg of that 3 legged stool :-) That's when overall speed limits came in, I guess not really sure.

I still think the best approach is a super demanding test/waiver, very tough to pass, granted once a year in Muncie. The tiered system. When you get to that level you can fly anything you want. BV's original proposal, as it were.

IMHO from what I saw at Muncie first hand, the EC, the AMA Safety Committee, JPO, the TRC are working well together. I believe that new rules proposals will be entertained in the coming years, and we have a good group representing us in that process.

Well when most guys who_think_they are doing 200 (when really they are doing maybe 180) get passed by someone doing a legitimate 280, it is not boring!

Again, IMO that is fixing the wrong thing. If distance is the issue, fix the distance - or at a minimum use a combo - such as no X mph+ passes more than Y ft out from the flightline or more than Z ft to either side of show central. Note also, that when someone does a high-speed pass, they usually do it "close in" rather than on their "downwind" leg of a circuit. The slower downwind leg is further away than the faster close-in leg, so the argument falls apart.

Furthermore, if the prime reason for speed limits is as suggested above, then it should be a "default" limit set by the AMA but which could be overruled by individual clubs. Wy should a club that is in the middle of the dessert where the sand won't burn, be constrained by a rule designed to protect a club that is sitting in the middle of a million acres of dry grass ? We already have numerous club that have the common sense to limit turbine use to those months of the year when there is less fire risk.

... and so, when there is an incident involving a 55lb giant scale racer that was going 240+ mph before it hit the bus full of nuns (d'ya remember them from the other thread ? ), and it is shown that the AMA has no speed limits in place for these aircraft, then what ? The fact that the AMA has imposed speed limits on some models, while ignoring other types, would probably increase the chance of a succesful prosecution against the AMA, not decrease it.

Many of these "justifications" might make some sense if they were "across the board" rather than being confined to turbines.


Works for me. At least it gives some hope, and it gives pilots something to aim for. Even if it was something that I personally could not pass right now for some reason, it would at least be something to aspire to, and it could be a "carrot" that encourages people to improve their skills in order to gain the privilege of flying above 200 mph.

Gordon

edit: fix tag

There has never been a reason for the 200mph rule. It's was originally pulled out of thin air, and in the most recent negotations, 200 mph was traded to get rid of some other out of date rules, and instute some up to date rules. Like no speed limitors, waivers issued based upon pilot ability not a written test and so on.

It's not a perfect world, and our rules are not perfect either. One thing is for sure. I would like to go 200 with up to 45lbs of thrust with no fuel limits than be limited to something much less. That's really how we got to 200.

If we are smart, and act responsibly, we may get more speed down the road. We will hopefully get special heavy limit permits sooner rathar than later too.

I have flown 200+ and it's not much fun. 160 -180 is all any of us needs, and most go slower than that. Some clown wants to go 550. I have no idea how he can ever do that because that is about 800 feet per second. Assuming you can safely see on of these birds up to about 1/3 of a mile (1760'), the only question left to be answered is where it's going to crash???

On what basis do you assume that you know what the rest of us need ?

Gordon

You wanna measure speed AND 3 dimensional placement of the plane......we can't even enforce a 55 pound rule, and all you need for that is a bathroom scale!


Well right wrong or indifferent, the EC says that they think an isolated case of property damage or even death (even of nuns and orphans) will be handled by the insurance coverage we have now. The nightmare scenario is fire, burning 1 million acres of California or Florida and getting picked up by the national media. The feeling is that turbines and turbines alone have a uniquely greater chance of causing such a scenario to occur, hence the special consideration for turbines.