Light Jet Class
 

This came up in that OTHER thread that is now, unfortuntely, shut down...
What do you think of a second AMA category for light turbines? Like, under ten pounds weight or under ten pounds thrust?
With the MW44, Simjet700, the soon to be released Toki and smaller Jetjoe, and who knows what others, a whole new class of less critical, less intimidating jets are coming out, models that might be a little more appropriate for the average club field.

What do you think of a new category, a simplified or non-existent wavier process, etc? Ideas?

RE: Light Jet Class
 

RE: Light Jet Class
 

I guess I can see the idea of flying under the AMA radar....but it's still a turbine powered aircraft that carries kerosene and can go 300 miles an hour.

It's still very....evil.

Muhaha. Muhahaha. Muhahahahaha!

RE: Light Jet Class
 

[X(] Curtis , have you falllen and hit your head ? I am nevrous enough everytime I go to Floyd Bennett to fly and see some one flying a Park Flyer less than a quarter of a mile from our runway. They could care less about safety, and guess what these park flyers aint on 27 MHZ ! So letting someone fly a smaller missle that makes a smaller hole in the ground, without the need for someone to check the pilot out is really asking for trouble. bye way was that you at FB flying that park flyer?
Don

RE: Light Jet Class
 

Huh? What on earth are you talking about? You can say many things about FB, but I have NEVER seen a park flyer there, ever. I've never seen it CALM enough for a park flyer! What does this have to do with park flyers, anyway? And no, you did not see ME with a park flyer...or riding a moped.

RE: Light Jet Class
 

I disagree. Show some data to back up your baseless assertion.

RE: Light Jet Class
 

Curtis
Bah humbug ! Per AMA if it's a turbine you will have a waiver....In this case size makes NO difference. Now if you want to talk about the sizes of "Chimichangas"
Semper Fi
Joe

RE: Light Jet Class
 

So, how about a DIFFERENT wavier? I definitely see a difference in perception between, say, a Schreiner and Savex L-39 at 8 pounds and a 30 pound F-16.
How can WE take advantage of that difference in perception to open up more fields and more flyers?

RE: Light Jet Class
 

Curtis
In an ideal world , your suggestion of different waviers is fine, but here in this sue happy nation....IMO no way . Analogy.... 22 caliber & 45 cal, bullets both can & will kill.. one just makes a bigger hole. As long as there is fire coming out the back end ,our law(Rule) writers don't care.
FWIW I think the AMA blew it when they got out of the certification of "Turbines" for use in the states. When certified by the ama at least one person with authority(To approve/disapprove) would have hands on time with turbines and would realize that they(Turbines) are not life threating as some view them.
Semper Fi
Joe

RE: Light Jet Class
 

So, how about slightly relaxed aircraft systems requirements for less than 10 lb aircraft? Are both brakes and operable rudders really necessary for light jets flying off grass? How about one, or the other, either brakes or an operable rudder?

RE: Light Jet Class
 

A jet weighing 13lbs wet can kill a man or start a fire just as easy as a 32lbs jet can, same goes for any plane as far as thats concerned jet or prop. A smaller plane has just as much of a chance to crash aswell, if not more because of vision.

RE: Light Jet Class
 

Joe, not sure suggesting that some people think turbines are "life threatening", while even that might be true, I wasn't at the meetings and have no idea what the decision makers believe to be so threatening about RC turbine jets as to require the waiver process. Know what I mean?

That said, it is what it is, and the waiver process is now much simpler, just deal with it fellas, it's cheap insurance (so to speak ;) )

RE: Light Jet Class
 

You can't tell me that a 10 pound plane does not present less of a hazard than a 30 pound one.
And you cannot tell me that the PERCEPTION of such a plane is not different.
And, again, perception is reality. Take your MW44 with L-39, a 48 inch plane, to your local field, and fire it up, then take your Fiberclassics Mig-29 with two P-120s to the same field and fire it up. Ask people which they think is more dangerous.
So maybe this has the possibility of opening up more fields to turbines?

RE: Light Jet Class
 

I think rudders really, really help. Brakes, well, if the plane can stop at idle, that's good enough for me. And that subtracts $200 or so from the cost of a jet.

RE: Light Jet Class
 

If you don´t believe that perception is reality, then yes, I can tell you.:D

I am against at any type of "class" waiver. I only believe in good insurance and a well suited place to fly your particular aircraft.

Enrique

RE: Light Jet Class
 

Curtis
I guess it is on how close to the inpact area one is..:) No matter what size, they are liabilities , have insurance and fly only in SAFE areas & comply with the AMA turbine & local field orders

Seanreit
poor choice on my selection of "Life threating" on my part. maybe property damage,
Semper Fi
Joe

RE: Light Jet Class
 

If you take what you've said right there and apply it to those with less accurate eyesight that have been wanting to get into turbines but looking for lower prices and wanting to avoid the waiver process, or those with less flight skills, etc. You're asking for disaster.

The bigger airplanes fly better, are easier to see, can carry more fuel for longer flight times and better chances at going around.

I have seen that little A-7 fly that they built down here in texas for an MW-44. I have seen other airplanes fly on small engines. I have yet to find one person (Just one!!) that will say that any of those small airplanes fly BETTER than a Eurofighter or a Kingcat, or any other of the very large airplanes. Even the Big Yellow F-18 flys better than the small
18.

So now the suggestion is to take harder to fly turbine jets with more skill required to fly them, make it easier for people to get the ticket to fly them, give them less fuel and more concern for getting them on the ground, and now you want to take that and put it in more fields?

To me, this is completely ass backwards from what should be promoted, and considering that I often agree with some of what you write, this I have to say I'm completely confused as to why this would be suggested.

RE: Light Jet Class
 

I think you have "mixed your metaphors" here.

If your question is "will most newbies/non flyers/dilettantes think an 8 pound turbine (which I have yet to see one) is less dangerous".......well maybe, but I am not sure this is a relevant question.

It appears that your question should be "will the club BODs/Parks Departments/land owners/AMA think there is enough of a difference to establsh criteria and by extension a discrimination between the 2 types of turbine planes"....to me that is a giant leap and not likely to be the case.

Just the administration of such a rule makes it almost impossible. The only rules I see that are even remotely similar are administered/enforced at competitions/fun flys (weight, wingspan, powerplant, etc.) Even the giant scale events argue about wingspan. I have never once had anyone check my waiver outside of a jet event. Anyone remember the wars over measuring thrust (for thrust to weight calculations), weighing planes....forget it.

You really think this proposal would help the Prado situation? A 10 pound thrust turbine with a 500 mph exit velocity can put a small airframe at escape velocity and punch through 400 feet in less than 2 seconds.

And I have yet to see a 10 pound AUW turbine model, much less someone who can weigh it at the field and manage those fights.

Again, newbies or uninitiated (meaning "ignorant" ) might think this would work, but informed people (like the AMA) won't.


You asked.