can somebody please tell me how the ama rudder rule is stated. also other than a hairy approach to landing, or talking off in a crosswind why do we need to have them, especially on a delta wing.

The only thing I can say is , so you don't run to me on takeoff.
Darryl Usher

Hi,
The short answer is because AMA says so if you want to be covered under their insurance. For some reason, the rest of the world seems fine without the rudder rule, oh well...

The turbine regs state, under AIRFRAME REQUIREMENTS, item 10: Controllable rudders are required on all RC aircraft.

Doesn't matter if the model was designed without a controllable rudder, such as the Avonds F-15, it's up to you how to figure it out and install it, although by now most manufacturers have retrofits available.
Several years ago a turbine model was taking off and veered towards the pits. An AMA person reported it to Muncie and there was a knee jerk reaction to make rudders mandatory on turbine models, but not on any other type of model.
BRG,
Jon

thanks that about sums it up

Its a good rule for a good reason. After a typical jet (and just about any ROG R/C aircraft with trike landing gear) gets going pretty good on a takeoff roll, the weight on the nose gear is less and less in anticipation of rotation. This means that steering authority is rapidly going to zero. At the same time, control authority in yaw is increasing rapidly for the rudder(s). So if a gust of wind or a big runway rut turns the airframe towards the crowd, the only hope you have is rudder.

I like and support the rule. I use rudder a lot in flight and on take off and landing. Hell, you basically have 4 primary control surfaces, why cut out 25% of the fun (KNIFE EDGE!!)

Great point Sean. Low knife edge passes, four point rolls and slow rolls are 50% of the fun!

Now if I could only learn from the master how to do them

When do we see some new jet action from you WOCKET?

After RTF. November at the earliest, and perhaps after the new year. Gotta accelerate them little pink bodies to orbital velocity first.

Hi Guys,

To set the record straight; some years ago JPO put that in along with the safety barrier requirement to the AMA as a recommended change to the turbine regs, the AMA agreed.

At one event over the period of a few hours, two rudderless jets went through the pit area. One struck a lady and knocked her down, giving her several bruises. The second ran into another model and did significant damage to it, the owner at first felt it was totaled.

Then JPO president Vern Montgomery felt this need to be addressed, and it was hashed out on the JPO members list, and I think the jets list, and finally sent to the AMA along with several other recomendations.

Steven

The main problem that I have with this rule is that it totally ignores whether the aircraft in question even has a vertical stab.

Thanks to this rule, you can not have a turbine powered scale B2 model. You can, however, have a ducted fan version of that same aircraft, which can just as easily exprience the same steering problem that you describe above, and can just as easily go into the crowd. For some reason though, lack of rudder control is not considered an issue for ducted fans or for prop planes - only for turbines. So, we once again have a rule which singles out turbines just for the sake of it. The truly interesting thing here, is that the turbines are the aircraft that are most likely to have wheel brakes that can help stop a wayward aircraft... e.g. your prop jobs generally don't have brakes, so that with them you have even less options for stopping that meat cleaver before you run into the crowd.

I'm all for having operational rudders if the aircraft in question permits it - but a blanket rule enforcing rudders even if the aicraft being modelled has no vertical stab ... that's just plain dumb.

Gordon

Why not make brakes mandatory on turbine models, that way the pilot can abort takeoff. Plus it provides a lot more safety.

Brakes are mandatory.

I don't understand the resistance to having yaw control on our airplanes. Just because the rest of the world doesn't have a rule doesn't mean they're correct. Having come from an aerobatics background, I couldn't imagine flying without all the primary flight controls functional. Having to build it yourself into an aircraft that didn't have it designed in the 1st place is a weak excuse for someone building a turbine model. You should be capable of building rudders into an airplane if you're going to build/fly turbine aircraft.

I agree with you Doug, rudder is a necessity for coordinated flight. I flew a YA F-18 about 5 years ago and I remember that the rudder didn't do much though. I guess that on some jets the rudder doesn't make a lot of difference anyways.

I personally use the rudder a lot.

Maybe the B2 just wasn't designed to be fully aerobatic, and its primary flight controls ARE functional, without it having rudders.. and that kind of setup is only acceptable to the US Air Force because they weren't aware that the JPO and others said rudders are a must

Gordon

Doug,
I have a lot of respect for Phillip Avonds and here's what he has to say about an operating rudder on his F-16:
I have no problem with the rudder rule, however, if it is a safety issue it should be part of the safety code and required on ALL models.
I do not agree that just because someone is capable of flying turbines they have the expertise/knowledge to redesign a model to incorporate a functional rudder. There's a lot of factors involved in modifying a design to incorporate a rudder
Also, your statement that: , doesn't mean that we're right either, just because we have the rule.
BRG,
Jon

Seems the B2 has "rudders", it seems to have drag devices at the tip of the wing, maybe we could get the AMA to say yaw control in flight.
Darryl Usher

Having had the same airplane seriously damaged twice in less than a year while in the pits, I can attest to the need. I have also seen this happen atleast a half a dozen other times!!!!

Dice, that 15 appears to have rudders!???

I think that Northrop calls them rudders. I worked with some of the aero engineers that worked the program and I believe that is what they called the split flaps at the tips. So a B-2 should be perfectly good to go.

Those were just panel lines, not rudders !!!

That was a crazy accident. I was pitted next to BV and there must have been 20 planes parked around my Agg III. No one else got hit, just me ?!?!?!

I listened in on a conversation between a B2 pilot and some spectators at an airshow. The pilot was being asked about the effectiveness of the "drag rudders". He responded that they were not rudders, they were <insert some acronym & long winded name in here, that I can't possibly remember>. He said that the simple fact that they caused yaw did not make them rudders, and to illustrate his point he said that you could obtain yaw control by means of differential throttling on a twin, yet you still called those things engines, not rudders.

Now, maybe he got it wrong, and maybe he didn't. Bottom line though, is that if we don't all agree as to what constitues a rudder for the purposes of this rule, then the rule should perhaps be reworded as Darryl suggested.

Gordon

Just spoke to one of the engineers that designed the bird; they call them rudders. I suspect that the pilot was just being a pilot and trying to make his job of being a meat ball servo sound more glorious.

So now that we have that straight, who is going to build one?

Steven

Meat ball servo.... I LOVE it Steve!!!

Personally, I was not a pilot, but served on our subs in the navy. I know one thing - after a yard repair period, yard personnel (engineers) or pencil pushers went with us for the first shake down dives. Boy they sure could sweat!!!

P.S. It had a rudder.