|
RE: B52 crash? again???
And the C17 too please. Is it Colin Straus' one? What happened to it?
|
RE: B52 crash? again???
ORIGINAL: siclick33 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). And were I them, I would do the same. How much is too much? THIS. This plane is too much. Someone needs to make an arbitrary call at how much is too much. That's how things work, it can be totally arbitrary. This line right here is the border...this side is America, and just on the other side, it's heathen barbarian country, no longer America. The line needs to be somewhere. And I think the LMA ought to draw the line before someone does it FOR them. So far, so good, nobody has been hurt, but a third one? No way. Enough already. The big elephant standing in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge is that maybe, just maybe, ordinary modelling skills, just scaled up, won't cut it for this kind of model. Not by a long shot. So he got ten flights or so in successfully on his first B-52. Does not mean much to me. How many full scale airplanes start falling out of the sky after many hours of flying? Even AFTER they have gone through some serious fatigue testing before being released to the skies? It's not that there is not always SOME risk, with any model, nobody can ameliorate ALL risk, but I think that 300 pound jets require MUCH more engineering than this project showed. Show me some math. Show me what happens after that wing has flexed up and down 500 times. Go take a cheap Chinese wire coat hanger. I don't own any, all my hangers are custom carved Nigerian Babingawood from my Carnaby Street tailors, but that's besides the point. Go bend that wire hangar in half and then return it to it's original shape. Hanger looks fine, right? So, that proves that hanger is still flightworthy. Wrong. Go bend that hanger in half and back again 20 times. What do you have? Two halves of one broken and useless hanger. Does the builder know the sheer strength of the adhesives he used? Does he know how much the wings are flexing? Does he know the forces incurred during a 5g turn? Or did he just build it as strong as he could and hope for the best? Flying a 300 pound object with 75 pounds of thrust in front of a crowd? Re-adjusting the CG right before a flight? Maybe the CG should have been set already, a long time ago during the engineering process? Did we all just dodge a very big bullet? To me, there is a UNIVERSE of difference between 55 and 300 pounds. That's that whole "physics" thing they taught you in school, "exponents" and things like that, were something weighs twice as much but might need a glue joint that is not twice as strong, but ten times as strong. A friend of mine, Joe Cox, spent his entire career at Boeing in Wichita just engineering and re-engineering the wing spars for the full scale B-52. He was one of quite a few eningeers working on this problem. Evidently, there is more to it than just "add more plywood". As an aside, he is retired now and builds model airplanes by the dozens. |
RE: B52 crash? again???
ORIGINAL: DocYates ORIGINAL: Treadstone21 ORIGINAL: DocYates Gazzer, ..You logic and superior intellect are astounding... 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???
ORIGINAL: Gazzer Philstine or worldly wise note the word "professional".............[X(] Dan |
RE: B52 crash? again???
ET,
Touche' alas I cannot, but I was trying to be nice and give them the benefit of a doubt.[:-] Tommy |
RE: B52 crash? again???
Lessee...Pepe Le Pew, Edith Piaf, Charles De Gaulle, those two guys guarding the castle in HOLY GRAIL, Napoleon I, II, and III...
Is that ten yet? Gotta go, I have three jets in the car waiting to be flown. Nice day outside! |
RE: B52 crash? again???
Woketman; He lost his cool and spat the dummy with a lot of F,ing and other obsenaties at a public show. It was not welcomed by most in attendance.
robert; It was his model. So far he has managed to have a number of incedents at shows where repairs have been called for. Running in to the grass on testinging and damaging the gear. Hitting a bollard on the side of a runway on TO. Hitting a tree at the same show. The last one was reported in Aviation Modeller, where the reporter saw the remains of the retracts in for repair at Unitracts. This was due to running of the runway into some crops. |
RE: B52 crash? again???
This is just come in on another forum in the UK:
and extract from a communication from the Chairman of the LMA: Sorry to trouble you ref the locked B52 thread,can you please report that the LMA have decided we would not endorse another rebiuld ,but he has the option of going direct to the CAA and asking for the PFA or similar to inspect." |
RE: B52 crash? again???
Milliways,
I take it that was the Triplane (allegedly) damaged in the tent on the Sat night? A certain show about half way between you and I? I was there and heard the whole thing. Pretty disgusting and unneccessary in front of young children. Regards Scott |
RE: B52 crash? again???
He lost his cool and spat the dummy with a lot of F,ing and other obsenaties at a public show. It was not welcomed by most in attendance. Enrique |
RE: B52 crash? again???
ORIGINAL: erbroens He lost his cool and spat the dummy with a lot of F,ing and other obsenaties at a public show. It was not welcomed by most in attendance. Enrique Hi, It was not Gordon that I was refering to in that instance. It was the owner of a 1/2 scale Triplane. Just setting the records straight. |
RE: B52 crash? again???
Ok, no problem. But the same applies to the fokker dude too....;)
Enrique |
RE: B52 crash? again???
ET,
You make some candidly good points and your use of vocabulary continues to show quality wordsmithing. Most average models are well over engineered simply by the relative strengths of materials to stresses undertaken in the flight. Helicopters are a brilliant example, would we expect the full size to work as they do, well I doubt it!!! If they did the pilot would die through excessive G anyway!!:D But, if I wanted to build a monster model and joined the LMA etc, and took part in their inspection program etc..... would the onus on engineering be down to them, not to design, but to approve the quality and suitability of the design and build? On full size, the various powers insist on certain capabilites, which in turn are usually exceeded by the manufacturers, the most spectacular I have seen is the wing test on a Boeing or Airbus, which failed at about 170% of the target with about an 8 metre bend! So the arbitary nature should be reduced by adopting scaled down full size practices with the LMA and the CAA agreeing on how to monitor and examine such things. That does not abbregate the designer and the builder of responsibility but might restrict things to practical levels where the element of engineering is an exact science. Scaling it down may be hard work, but should be a mathmatical process, perhaps the engineers amongst us could comment, bring Joe Cox back from retirement! I don't know what the LMA inspection procedures involve and how rigorous they are, but no doubt some info will be forthcoming. Milliways, you have stated what you don't like unequivocally, so what do you like, where do you draw the line, that would perhaps help in understanding your view, which at the moment I can't? ET you missed out Asterix, Obelix and Tin Tin.......:) Dan, know where you spend your spare sheckles and it aint the same as a digestive......;) Gazzer |
RE: B52 crash? again???
ORIGINAL: Gazzer Dan, know where you spend your spare sheckles and it aint the same as a digestive......;) Dan |
RE: B52 crash? again???
ORIGINAL: F16-Jockey I take it that was the Triplane (allegedly) damaged in the tent on the Sat night? A certain show about half way between you and I? I was there and heard the whole thing. Pretty disgusting and unneccessary in front of young children. I wouldnt expect anything less from that chap - he is an idiot. |
RE: B52 crash? again???
ORIGINAL: Gazzer .. but 3 Rich Tea heavenly!!!!!![8D] Gazzer |
RE: B52 crash? again???
Well,
Hobnobs to you then TS buddy, chocolate ones my preference!! Gazzer |
RE: B52 crash? again???
ORIGINAL: Gazzer ET, You make some candidly good points and your use of vocabulary continues to show quality wordsmithing. Most average models are well over engineered simply by the relative strengths of materials to stresses undertaken in the flight. Helicopters are a brilliant example, would we expect the full size to work as they do, well I doubt it!!! If they did the pilot would die through excessive G anyway!!:D But, if I wanted to build a monster model and joined the LMA etc, and took part in their inspection program etc..... would the onus on engineering be down to them, not to design, but to approve the quality and suitability of the design and build? On full size, the various powers insist on certain capabilites, which in turn are usually exceeded by the manufacturers, the most spectacular I have seen is the wing test on a Boeing or Airbus, which failed at about 170% of the target with about an 8 metre bend! So the arbitary nature should be reduced by adopting scaled down full size practices with the LMA and the CAA agreeing on how to monitor and examine such things. That does not abbregate the designer and the builder of responsibility but might restrict things to practical levels where the element of engineering is an exact science. Scaling it down may be hard work, but should be a mathmatical process, perhaps the engineers amongst us could comment, bring Joe Cox back from retirement! I don't know what the LMA inspection procedures involve and how rigorous they are, but no doubt some info will be forthcoming. Milliways, you have stated what you don't like unequivocally, so what do you like, where do you draw the line, that would perhaps help in understanding your view, which at the moment I can't? ET you missed out Asterix, Obelix and Tin Tin.......:) Dan, know where you spend your spare sheckles and it aint the same as a digestive......;) Gazzer I still think it was doomed, either way, and a third one would just have found a third, new way to crash. It's just too much to be attacking a project like that without having some solid engineering behind you. I'm sticking to that. I feel terrible for the guy, it WAS a neat plane, but I think it just pointed out the limits. THAT is the limit. By the way, the first one had some 50 flights on it, as I heard, not ten, before it went in. |
RE: B52 crash? again???
ORIGINAL: Gazzer ..chocolate ones my preference!! Gazzer |
RE: B52 crash? again???
50 flights on it,
Blimey 44 more than I managed with my proven CAP232 model...........!!![:D[&:] Gazzer |
RE: B52 crash? again???
Gazzer / TS
If you guys could stop making with the tea and crumpets maybe you could get some turbine stick time in! Since we started corresponding on these threads I have built three models, flown two (thirty odd flights to date) and still had time to fire the odd broadside at ET. Come on guys, once you are airborne I will breathe a sigh of relief. John |
RE: B52 crash? again???
Hey hey,
John, Last 6 weeks of time...... Built fuz wing and feathers..... for a CAP 232 to replace the one I "landed" last year. Have built 1/3 of BVM T-33, have ruined one set of wing cores for a facet, built 3/4 of Facet fuz and new cores should be with me soon.:D Agree less tea and crumpets would increase building time...... . Say now you have done that you must have some time on your hands...... can get some stuff to you to build for me!!!:) In London today so time for a Starbucks, quick, not too expensive and on company Barclaycard anyway! Gazzer |
RE: B52 crash? again???
Gazzer
The Super Bandito is now on the building board and about 75% complete with all the woodwork complete and the flying surfaces filmed. As you know you can't just throw a BVM kit together!! If you are really stuck and want to send me a model I will build it for you as I like to build! Not another BVM though!! John |
RE: B52 crash? again???
If, as Milliways stated in post 13, this guy has a record of stuffing big birds - that should be enough for anyone to see why he wouldn't be certified to try this again.
Some people seem to say that the fact that the LMA certified it, relieves the owner of some responsibility. Not so. You still need to think that you can build a man-carrying ultralight at less weight. Perhaps this will lead to requirements for actual engineering reports validating the design of something this big. Being able to put together a report about the bird is a very good indication that it was built with an actual plan, and not just a TLAR approach. |
RE: B52 crash? again???
JohnG,
We all have records of stuffing things, and if you only build one large model, then you stuff it, how do you get to continue? Gordon has built several large models, his Victor even wore out the turbines he flew it so much without crashing, so I think the record here is not an issue, just the way in which it is out of context. Regarding the LMA, the point I believe was that the LMA had to take some responsibility for the engineering, not in terms of design but in terms of suitability and fit for purpose. If I joined the LMA as an inspector, I could not do the job as my background is not an engineering/airframe one, so those inspecting must have some authority, knowledge and expertise to be granted inspection status. Thus whilst the designer bears a responsibility so does the certifier!!! I could agree that some structural analysis and more formal certification for such exceptional models could be the way forward, and I guess this may be some of the information to be analysed. I also think I had a good idea about simulation being used for pilot training (the full size guys do it!!). But let us not forget that the first Buff to perish was down to pilot error, candid and honestly admitted, and that as yet, we do not know what the cause of the demise of this one. Conclusions and jumping come to mind, Gazzer |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:30 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.