Maybe. We do seem to be talking a bit better lately, and they did ask our opinion of one proposal that they recieved earlier this year. Good comunications, both ways, is something we are striving for.

Steven

The more events I attend, the more I see the speed requirement is NOT the real issue. I see more pilots get into trouble due to the complexity of the aircraft, and not the speed.

In reality, there is little difference in flying an aircraft at 100mph or 200mph other than the fact that it covers ground faster. The flight characteristics of the aircraft itself don't change much if at all.

But now you throw in landing gear, flaps, speed brakes, wheel brakes, etc. and many new pilots will simply be overwhelmed. IMO the waiver should not focus so much on speed as making sure you can keep your head when flipping the required switches to change flight configurations.

A Diamond Dust is a terrible aircraft to prep for turbine flight IMO. It has ZERO complexity of operation, and a wing loading that will get you out of stupid mistakes unlike ANY turbine aircraft on the market.

You're much better off working with a more realistically loaded aircraft with retractable landing gear at least, and preferably flaps or more.

Doug Cronkhite
Team JR

Doug,

You are EXACTLY right! After getting my waiver and flying my 'Roo, I can tell you that for me, the speed is not an issue. Sure the 'Roo is faster than anything I've flow before, and I am very careful to be smooth and safe at high speeds, but that's the easy part. Getting the plane configured for landing without loosing it or getting seriously behind it is the real key and a plane like a Diamond Dust, or even a GP Patriot is NOT going to help. In my opinion, a big warbird with retracts, and flaps that HAVE to be used for landing, is a much better turbine trainer/demonstrator. Also, with a big warbird, you have the "nerves/pucker" factor which is a big issue when you're flying a $4K airplane.

Bob

Bob and Doug,
I'm sure that everything you say is true, but AMA wants people tested on speed. There are no warbirds that I'm aware of that are capable of 150 MPH, which is what AMA has specified. That's the reason behind the DD type planes, they're cheap, fast and meet AMA's requirements as they stand right now. As stated in another thread, without a waiver you can't fly a turbine even if you're on a buddy box. The key for us wannabe's is getting the waiver, then we can come to the field, get on the buddy box and get some experience, then go on our own. This basically what the JPO has suggested, whether AMA is amenable to change regarding the waiver remains to be seen. IF the JPO can keep the lines of communication then we may have a chance. As stated in many past threads, communications is the key. However, if past experience can be used as a guide, it seems AMA has it's "communication switch" safety wired to the transmit position when it comes to turbines.
Regards,
Jon

Jon,

I know the AMA is hung up on speed, and as I've said before, I believe that is the wrong approach. If nothing else, how are we supposted to verify that the demonstration plane goes 150 MPH or 110 MPH? After over a dozen flights, I still don't now how fast my 'Roo with a P-80 is!

Sure, a 200 MPH plane can kill, but as we saw in the latest fatility, so can a 50 MPH plane. The criteria right now allows for a complex warbird to be used as a demonstrator if it can go faster than 150 MPH. I say, take the speed limit off and go with a demonstration of the control of a "fast," complex aircraft handled with skill and safety. I'm only a CD, not a turbine CD, but I would not sign off someone to fly a turbine as the second signature on a Diamon Dust, or even maybe just a GP Patriot. They are simply not as difficult to fly and land as a jet, and things are most likely to go wrong and get dangerous in the take off, and even more so, landing phase. I would, however sign them off after seeing them fly a Top Flite 1/5 scale P-51 or almost any of the Ziroli warbirds, because I know from experience that they are as difficult to fly safely as my 'Roo - even if they don't go 150 MPH.

Bob

Hum, the AMA text found here http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...-files/538.pdf says explicitly that the model should have flaps, but does not talk about retracts.

I don't have experience with a big warbird, but is not the difficulty linked directly to their weight ? Any very heavy plane is difficult to fly safely, no matter which speed it is able of ( When I say heavy, I should say heavy wing loading, as the absolute weight don't matter much), so the criteria the AMA should insist upon is wing loading and complexity (retracts, flaps), as that is what make a jet more difficult than anything else, and the closest planes from that definition are still ducted fan !

Bernard
PS- What I mean is a light Mustang, regardless to its size, is a *****cat. Now, an heavy Mustang will want to snap on you as soon as you begin to relax a tid bit....

Hi Bob,
I have a Byron Mustang and there aren't many Mustangs that have a higher weight, with all the 4 blade hardware, etc, and therefore a high wing loading. However it's not very fast, with a Q42 and that prop, which isn't very efficient. Do you think something like that would something like that be acceptable to most cd's?

Bernie,
Notice the word "should", which is a suggestion. If they wanted it a requirement they would have used the word "shall". AMA is not specifying the type of plane, thank goodness, just recommending some features it "should" have.
Jon

Bernie,

You missed the most important word in that document......the word reccomended. This does not mean that it MUST have flaps, or that you MUST fly all the manouvers listed there. The monuovers were compilied by the AMA to act as a suggestion to the TCD's of manouvers that the AMA deemed important to demonstrate full control of a model airplane.

For example... A couple of weeks ago I did a sign off of an individual on his first flight he almost botched his landing, the airplane was drifting off the centerline. It was a moderate crosswind and he almost drifted off the runway when he got a little slow. What made me convinced he knew what he was doing was when I saw the rudder kick over to correct the problem. Seems like a minor thing but he saved a potential dorked airplane and it showed me that he instinctively knew how to correct a bad flight attitude with the proper control. Had he rolled it with aileron he would have snapped it into the ground. I think the majority of the turbine CD's on the list have enough experience to be able to watch a guy fly one or two flights and know if he is competent.

DR

BTW I don't even own a radar gun!

Jon,

From my experience, your ability to fly your Byron Mustang safely through takeoff, low passes, loops, rolls, etc., and make a controlled, safe LANDING says more to me about your ability to handle a jet than anything else. Remember that even the sport jets like the 'Roo have wing loadings over 50 oz./sq. ft. as someone else mentioned, and that, coupled with the cleanness of the typical jet airframe makes landings tricky and the most likely place for a screwup. During this demonstration, I would be looking also for any tendency to fly too close to the pits/runway, over your head, etc. or anything else that may make you dangerous to spectators with a jet. Also, even though the Byron Mustang can't do 150 MPH and may be considered a "slow" warbird, it still requires that you think ahead of the aircraft, plan your manuvers, and execute them smoothly - just like a jet. The only difference is that a jet physically covers more gound during the same time, but as long as your vision is corrected to 20/20, what's the difference?

The problem right now, is that AMA *requires* CD's and the applicant to sign off on a form that states that the plane was capable of 150MPH. What I'm worried about is if I sign you off as a CD, and something happens with you flying jets, are they going to come back at me and say "you KNEW a Byron Mustang couldn't do 150MPH, so you were wrong to sign him off for a turbine waiver?" That argument is BS of course because you could have flown *anything* in the world to get your waiver, even a Diamond Dust which would have met the letter of the law, and still screwed up, but in today's legal environment, its a concern in signing someone off.

Bob

Ok you're telling me you guys do not do exactly what you're recommended to ? Ho, Ok...Maybe you're human, after all !

I certainly agree that is one of these cases where the spirit of the law is a lot more important than it's letter, and I will keep that in mind when it will be time for me to start this process, I am just afraid it will work as long as you don't introduce a lawyer somewhere in there....

Bernard

Bob,
Doesn't AMA have a "hold harmless" policy regarding cd liability?
I thought I read somewhere that they did, but it's an interesting question if they don't. If something should happen and a lawyer can prove negligence on the part of the pilot, he is going to file suit against everyone. I'm not saying he's going to win, it just the "shotgun" approach: fire at as many targets as possible and hope something hits. I'm sure, but can't prove it, that as legally sophisticated as AMA is, they must have some mechanism to protect you guys.
Jon

Jon,

Maybe they do, but I've never seen it. Also, having it wouldn't keep us from getting hit by the shotgun approach at least initially, which would at best be a hassle, and at worst, cost some legal fees to get out of. Its not enough to keep me from participating in the process, but it is in the back of my mind when I do...

Bob

Yes, there is. I have not read it in great detail, but I would not be at all surprised to find out that, like the rest of the AMA insurace, it is full of holes. Also, since the main AMA insurance is secondary / tertiary (only kicks in after other insurances are exhausted), it's quite possible that the hold-harmles policy also only applies after your own insurance has been wiped out.

Regs,
Gordon

Hello I am just getting into jets ( great planes patriot ) and it is in the process of being built... I have it loaded with spring airs and was wondering something... Actually two things...

One!!!

- What did you guys use for your wheel wells.... Today I took the ones off of my ultra sport ARF (ABS plastic) and stuck them in there... I was wondering if there is any better way...

- I have a couple of engines in my workshop.... Tower .46, and a O.S. 46FX (that is occupying the ultra sport)... Do you think it would be smart to first put on the tower and then progress up to a webra 50 gt.... O yea and what kinds of different speeds do you guys think that I will reach with each different engine.....

Your Patriot with the stock OS 46 FX will probably go about 100 MPH in level flight I have one with a OS 46 FX with a pipe and using 30% nitro it will go about 115 MPH dont worry too much about wheel wells just make it heavier and give the wheels something to catch on Get the wheels up and close the doors
then go fast they are a nice model to fly quite similar to other jets ducted fan and turbine except not quite the power or the speed do they still make these kits either in the ARF or kit models I would like to have another one any body know where to find one?

Don B MIg 15 flier Miniature Turbine S&S

March 20,2002

Mr.Carl Maroney,

PROPOSED CHANGE TO TURBINE WAIVER PROCESS.

AMA’s present requirement for Turbine Waiver applicants “performance flight” evaluation by a CD requires specific capabilities of the aircraft that is to be used. Specifically prohibited is the use of a turbine powered aircraft for the performance flight demonstration.
Most of the present pilots that hold turbine waivers came directly to turbine aircraft from ducted fan flying. Most of the waiver holders from 4-5 years ago probably had ducted fan experience and CD’s readily observed the pilots flying at events etc.
As time has progressed, more pilots from other disciplines of RC aircraft are attempting to attain waivers to fly turbines. These pilots meet all the experience requirements and have the skills, but may not presently own or have access to a ducted fan aircraft capable of 150+ MPH or a scale warbird that can fly faster than150+ MPH.(This is also a rare aircraft) The outright purchase or building of such and aircraft is prohibitive for just this purpose.

I propose the addition and deletion of wording in publication # 538 the paragraph titled "NOTE" to read as follows:

Note: The pilot cannot use a turbine engine for the purpose of this performance flight, however he/she must perform these maneuvers with a high performance model such as a ducted fan jet or scale warbird with a wing loading of not less than 48 oz/square ft and capable of 125 mph+. Complex is defined as an aircraft having retractable landing gear and flaps as a minimum all of which must be used during the demonstration flight. Speed is but one aspect of flying the typical turbine powered aircraft. The addition of flaps and retractable gear coupled with a higher wing loading greatly adds to the pilot workload while flying. The demonstration of proficiency with this type of aircraft should assure confidence in the turbine waiver applicant’s safety, abilities and acceptance for turbine operations. This type of aircraft is more common in RC flying and more readily available.

Your evaluation and consideration of the above proposals are respectfully requested.

Respectfully submitted

Nat Lancaster Lee DeMary
AMA 674 AMA 36099
CD-Turbine Waiver #850 Turbine waiver #8000

Where do you find the Patriots? Tower Hobbies doesn't have them...

They dont make these any more but you can still find some around here on RCU