RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Tea with milk? [:'(]

Here in the colonies, we call this an "English Muffin". ;)

Dan

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!:D:D

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

[/quote]
"Opportunity does not occur without risk. You can't steal second base with your foot firmly planted on first base."[/quote]

Whew, that's a H$!! of a quote Tommy. That has to be one of the best I've heard in a while, so true.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

I once had a crumpet who had an English muffin. Welsh, actually. I'm going to get in trouble again, especially since there are minors in the room...minors telling guys building B-52s they ought to buy a trainer and practice...ahem.

My two cents? And it's just an opinion, not to be construed as a fact...just some hyuk's two cents?
That first B52 was pretty frightening. 300 pounds? Over the top. And no real engineering, just an oversized balsa model. Not sure why it went in, the pilot said pilot error, I think, but I think it was doomed anyway, and it came down in somebody's back garden, only by the grace of god did it miss the house. Scary. Why so scary? When you get into 300 pound models, you need to actually think about serious engneering issues, not just balsa, ca, and epoxy and ply. The loads are just so different. How far does the wingtip flex up when you enter a turn? Are the gaps between the surfaces engineered to accomodate such flex? What about fatigue cycles? It's really another story from a smaller model. And I did not see that engineering in this model.
It's pretty cool, it's something of a neat accomplishment, but, to me, it's kind of we've been there, done that, and I don't see a need for more models that size, it's not really breaking new ground or proving anything.
But, hey, if a guy has a hankering to do one like that, go for it, I don't want to see anybody stop him, I just hope nobody is underneath it when it stops flying.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Another two cents? Four recivers or not, I don't feel comfortable with hobby-grade radio gear flying a 300 pound model anywhere near a crowd. Out in the desert, sure, but it's just too unreliable and vulnerable to fly something like that near people on model airplane radio gear.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

'fraid I'll go with Gazzer on this one on the very rare occasion I forgo a Tim Hortons or Starbucks......

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Glad to report this at last,

As seen today on the large model association forum post 214



DAVE JOHNSON and LMA Committee

There has been much speculation reference the B52,we can confirm this crashed on test flight last week.There has also been speculation on other moddelling forums,that a 3rd B52 could be built.The present committee have spent many hours today discussing this,and have decided we will NOT endorse another rebuild [or new build]

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Well, to be honest Gazzer, the second definition of a "crumpet" interest me more....;)
I sort of figured you could put something like bourbon in that tea rather than milk, for goodness sake what's the point....:eek: Might as well have an R/C cola and a moonpie, of course that's a southern delicacy, we have that around "onesy, or maybe twosey", and then move on to a can of vienna sausages around three....;)
Tommy

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

I do find this curious,

The first crash was researched and attributed to pilot error, not structural failure. I'm building my second exact same CAP at the moment having stuffed the first due to pilot error!!

I have not seen why this one went down, and the circumstances. Perhaps they will reveal something.

I truly wonder what the motivation is in this decision? If the model was defective, then surely the inspection system has a part to play so change that, not the desire to build and try again. If it was pilot error, then re certificate the flyer or get a new pilot.

I will wholly reserve judgement but will take a particular interest in the crash report. Can't help feeling there is one bloke who had an idea and the determination to do something spectacular now being isolated by what appear at this stage to be rushed judgements, but ignorance of the facts does not make good decision making.

That some should be glad about a decision to ground another attempt confuses me even more.

What is the issue?[:-]

Gazzer

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Perhaps the decision to not allow any more building of B-52's to this an larger scales and by the same person, may be simply to safe guard all other large models on the books with the LMA/CAA. or it my be just common sense not to build an unstable prototype like a B-52.

Afterall one crash is unfortunate and a shame. .. . . . but 2 crashes might be telling you something . . . .However, doing it a third time is just irresponsible on a grand scale.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Ah, Vienna sausages. Here in NYC you might serve some at a very hip party, in an ironic, twisted, humoristical kind of way. Nobody would eat them, but people would laugh. Down south of the masie-dixie line, you might have them as a midafternoon snack, not too bad, like iff'n you forgots to bring the Slim Jims and Hooters wuz closed, but I hopes you remembert to brung the can opener, or it's possums for snack agin'.
Now, you take that same lil' can of Vienna Sausages, and you bring it to ENGLAND, and it will become the culinary sensation of the century. Compared to the fiberglass-and-foam snacks they serve in the British Isles, where they consider sweetbreads(guts and gizzards) to be a delicacy, little canned sausages composed mostly of pork knees and lips are simply spectacular in comparison.


This B-52, it's a bit much. I mean, its cool, but when do you say "when?" What's the REAL accomplishment in this? Why not double it? Make it 50 feet in span? What's stopping someone from doing that? What's the POINT? "Look, mine's BIGGER?" So? Except for having a LOT of everything(8 engines, etc) and everything is LARGER, I don't see any real epiphany here in modelling. Others have done the B-52 before, too.

I'm glad they are not certifying him for a third Buff...how would the LMA be on the line if a third one went in and hurt someone?

Again...that crash in the backyard was incredibly frightening. It was too close for comfort.

I'm not going to point fingers at WHY it crashed...pilot error, whatever...the fact remains that these planes DO crash, and will continue to crash, for any number of reasons, and if WE don't retain some self-control, someone else will do it FOR us. I can TOTALLY see a mandate coming down from the FAA, in a heartbeat. It would be short and simple, something like "no models over 25 pounds" and that's that. Go see how far the protest will get, in today's "homeland security" environment. So I worry that one guy who has to prove "his is bigger" will jeopardize us all.
Did you see the pics of the first crash? Flaming wreckage, about twenty feet from a house. What IF a 300 pound 8 engined turbine went into the house?

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Hey, I won't point fingers at WHY it crashed...could just be bad, bad luck. But I have to agree in that it's pretty likely that the third will crash, too.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Sadly in this country I can recall two fatalities with model aircraft in the last few years.

One was a a 60 inch type model and the other an aerobatic craft of relatively standard size maybe about 70 inch or so, neither were large. One was in an area with public access, and several factors came in to play. The other at a club where not proof or evidence was found but radio interference was the most likely cause.

So it aint, the size of the craft that is the deadly factor, its the impact and proximity to people and building, vehicles etc.

However, I would agree a 300lb model likely to do more damage than a 5lb model.

My point is that they are all dangerous, and as such safeguards must be taken, the larger they are, the more safeguards are taken and inspections etc, etc. Maybe if such precuations had been taken for the two smaller aircraft, the incidents may have turned out differently. Perhaps one standard for all......[:-]

Secondly,

If the demise of one is for a totally different reason than the demise of the other, than why would a third be expected fail? The probability of being hit by lightening is bigger than winning the lottery but there are more millionaires than shocked people!!!!:D

I said earlier I could not make a judgement, information is not available to do so, I have not found out even had a hint at what happened apart from Volkans initial bits, which may or may not be the case.

If the reasons for the crashes are totally unrelated, the issue of building another one or not should be in the context of that.

It could well be on revelation of the problems, that I could agree a 3rd one would be folly, but for now, I know why one went down and that really is a shame, but will await info on the 2nd.:eek:

Finally I take ET's point about where do you finish up, with a full size radio controlled model........... Large is for me interesting, challenging and incredible, but not the be all and end all of this hobby.

But like my crumpet, I do like 'em big!!!:)

Gazzer

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Gazzer,
You logic and superior intellect are astounding. the more I talk with you I realize I may be corresponding with First Officer Spock. BTW if you like large crumpets you defintely need to come down to the south, we got sum big'uns down here....;)
Tommy

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Well in the past year the following large models have had mishaps (crashes). There have been others but I don't have the details.

the big ME-262 (now repaired and re-built)
the big C-17 (many mishapps so-far) last time this happened it arrived in a crop field.
the big Valiant crashed and is being re-built for the next few months.
the big herk crashed at a show recently (pics in the mags on that hit)
just recently the big triplane had a prang at a show and the owner lost his mind and his tounge.

My point is that I am begining to wonder if the skills of some of the pilots are up to scratch. I know most of these guys and though I had thought that by them having big models made them look good ad were to be applauded, I am affarid to say the skills required to do the task of flying these models has been shown to be lacking some what with what I have witnessed.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Beam me down Doc!!!!:D

That is very kind, actually I am not known for my intellect, good looks or charm, but hopefully just as a mortal human being appreciating viewpoints and occasionally sticking up for what I believe in.;)

I'll bring the Crumpet (whey hey!) you bring the Vienna Sausages..........[sm=spinnyeyes.gif]

Logical??

Gazzer

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Milliways,

You could well be right, how many hours are spent in a simulator before the real thing takes to the air? Perhaps such a view could be thought through and work with some of the simulator manufacturers to provide a learning environment. Problem simulation could also be part of the training routine, i.e. engine failure (that's what took the Hercules out I believe), control surface failure etc etc,

Whilst not the same as the real thing, the predictability and behaviurs surely could be assimilated and used to good effect. It might also allow those doubters to have a go and establish a view from a non risk perspective!!!!

Gazzer

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

I would be very interested to learn the details of the 'ban'.

Are they intending to ban all future B52's or just one's built/flown by this team? What about other multi-engined turbines?

What if someone else builds one, would members of this team be allowed to be involved?

Maybe GN could sell the plans, or would that be prohibited too?


If it was pilot error then change the pilot, if it was a mechnical failure (especially if it was a battery moving as earlier posts suggests) then I think the LMA has to take a large part of the blame for it's inspection procedures.

I don't agree with the fact that because two have crashed it is likely that the third one will. Hopefully every crash teaches a lesson, so maybe the next one is less likely to have an accident. I do agree that all new models are probably more likely to have problems whilst test flying than after they have been proven. I don't know the full history of this bird, but maybe the major failing of this project was the LMA allowing it to be flown at major events fairly early in it's flying life.



What about other large models? Are the LMA going to instigate a 'two strikes and you're out' policy.

All sounds like a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to me. I would be interested to see on what basis this decision was made.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

I'll bring 'em, but I ain't eating 'em. You never know what they put in those things. ET said lips and knees, but I'm thinking that might be the least of the primary offenders in one of those little weiners.
Tommy

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

I like 1/A crumpet, myself...

WHY would a third one fail, even if the two first crashes were for different reasons? Because the thing is not properly engineered in the first place. It will just find a THIRD reason to crash.

It's a free country, if you want to go out in the desert and have at it, go nuts. But in front of people, or under the auspices of the AMA, it's just one guy jeopardizing the freedoms of all the others. You do NOT want to get involved in Homeland Security, people like that. And when you start talking 300 pounds, they start looking hard at "how much could that thing carry..." , that kind of thing.
How much is too much?
Well...that B-52, in my OPINION, is too much.

People always talk about "statistically, 40 sized trainers cause more fatalities than jets, or giant scale, etc..." the facile inanity of that argument would make even Mr. Spock laugh! Hey, statistically speaking, nuclear power is totally safe, can we put a plant in YOUR backyard? The fact of the matter is for every turbine or LMA type flight, there are probably 50,000 "regular" model airplane flights. So all it would take is ONE fatality involving a jet to change the statistics to read "jets 10,000 times more likely to cause a fatality". It's such absurd logic. Just because something has not happened yet does not make it an impossibility.
Hey, models crash. Sometimes you don't even know the reason. So it's just a matter of time before the next LMA plane gets into an accident. And I think a 1/2scale triplane will just cause less destruction than a 300 pound, 8 egined turbine.
Enough is enough, in my OPINION. And that's all you can offer, an OPINION. Nobody can say I am "right" or I am "wrong" on this subject. But I hope you do not find that the FAA or CAA decides I was right and decides for us when enough is enough. Better we excercise some self-restraint, before someone does it for us.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Impossible :)....this is the gentlman who puts milk in his tea...probably that sterilized stuff too..[:@]

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Treadstone,
you are confusing "taste" and "intellect"...they are not the same thing. Let's look at the Frendh, they eat snails, but they have a few smart fellas over there....:D
Tommy

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

The amount of damage that a 300lb aircraft can cause is not a difficult question to answer. Model aircraft can (and will) crash on a fairly regular basis.


Depsite this, the LMA did allow the model to be built and now it won't. Either they have a concern about the ability of the team involved, or they need to review what their overall restrictions are with regard to size, weight and powerplant(s).

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Ts,

Hows your coffee break?

Oh by the way, just found this on the web......

"Before the tea is auctioned, whether in Calcutta, London or elsewhere, it is tasted by professional tea-tasters. Here, in a tea-tasting room in Calcutta, the flavour and quality of the tea is being assessed. Tell-tale signs include the way the milk dissolves in the tea, the mark it leaves on the cup, the feel of the leaves after they have had water squeezed throught them and, of course, the actual taste before the tea is spat out again. A price is then suggested for the larger batch at the next auction. ":D:D

Philstine or worldly wise note the word "professional".............[X(]

However, two digestives is about right, but 3 Rich Tea heavenly!!!!!![8D]

Gazzer

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Milliways, can you shed more light on "just recently the big triplane had a prang at a show and the owner lost his mind and his tounge"? Thanks.