|
|
Post by jetmex on Sept 4, 2004 17:51:01 GMT -7
I'm pretty sure many of you have seen photos of the giant turbine B-52 that has been flying in England for a while. The model was lost due to a radio failure a few days ago at a scale show, coming down in a field fairly close to a private home. The airplane was destroyed and there was a fire. www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244337So a question for all of you RC drivers out there. How big is too big? There are some really large models flying in Europe, and a few here. Some of them border on meeting FAA regs for full size airplanes. Should models of this size be regulated? I think I read somewhere that the B-52 model was over 300 pounds--some ultralights don't weigh that much. I'd like to know what you think. My opinion--I like big models just as much as the next guy, but something like that is a little too big to be completely safe. There are enough variables as it is flying small models, and the errors and malfunctions seem to multiply as the size of the model grows. I think the 50 pound weight limit set by the AMA is reasonable. Let the discussion begin..... |
|
bp4rc
New arrival
Posts: 6
|
Post by bp4rc on Sept 7, 2004 11:01:51 GMT -7
I do think we are coming to a point where the size of our RC aircraft is going to force a level of safety inspection and/or pilot proficiency checks.
The issue is not always size. To be truthful it is energy level. In this case speed can become a dominent factor. The reality is the only size (weight) can be objectively documented.
I for one, am in favor of AMA keeping the present weight restriction, though this has been a subject of debate. If we lift the restriction, there will be planes/pilots/builders pressing the limit again.
I hear loud claims of proficiency of the pilot. Redudency of the systems. Quality of construction. None of these truths can overcome a complete loss of control, and it will happen. Don't tell me that PCM failsafe will solve the problem. The only benefit of failsafe is the ability to reduce throttle to idle/kill. No small benefit, i agree. On the other hand, there is no flight control configuration that can save a plane from causing damage or injury, if it is on the wrong path at the wrong time in the wrong place.
One last point before I put on my flame suit ... I am going to choke the next time someone tells me they have built in protection by having one battery pack for the Rx and another for the servos. They are actually telling me that they have just doubled their chance for failure. Unless one set will cover for the other as in a reduntant system, you cannot control your aircraft if either set fails.
Nomex on!
Bedford
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnC on Sept 7, 2004 12:45:17 GMT -7
While that B-52 (and all the other "more than giant scale") are super impressive, the first thing that comes to mind is "I don't wanna be around when that mother crashes!"
Redundant systems are fine, and so are all the other safety features. But, having worked on Nuclear Weapons for twenty years, I'm well aware of Mr. Murphy and his prodigious family!
Unless we can have a Stinger missle or two to shoot down that rare runaway monster, I vote for the 50 lb AMA limit... after that we're getting mighty close to building UAV's! JohnC
P.S. It's a shame abut the B-52, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Sept 7, 2004 18:46:59 GMT -7
Apparently that monster had a 27' wing span and weighed somewhere between 250 & 300 lbs -- depending upon how much fuel was on board. At 100 mph+, there is a hell of a lot of energy in the airframe alone, without 50lbs (or whatever it was) of fuel going ka-bang.
It was a beautiful model, but it was a dangerous & scary beast. Thankfully no one, or nothing other than the model, was destroyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by RonaldFodge on May 1, 2005 19:38:43 GMT -7
I cant say as what the limit should be.But they have been flying big planes in the. British Isles for years.They have lots of inspection they go though.But things do go wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Junior on May 2, 2005 20:58:22 GMT -7
Hello all, I thougt that I'd add my 2 bits worth to this... I'm pretty sure ya'll have heard this argument as well, but I'll bring it up here (again) Why just a weight limit?? A 20lb plane doing 100mph does the same damage as a 100lb plane doing 20 mph.... Speed kills as well. I've seen a video of a train moving at ~25-30 mph splatter a person who crossed the tracks at the wrong time. By "splatter," I mean LITTLE pieces of that person hit the camera that was placed across the street from impact. As we all know, just about any RC plane out there can kill or seriously injure a person. This includes the pilot. If you read the following link, you'll see that p=mv. id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/momentum/definition/momentumDefinition1.htmlSeems to me there should be momentum limit. You can have a bigger plane then, but you would have to limit it's speed. or vice versa. Obvioulsy this would limit the planes weight at some point because one would not be able to get enough speed to get a heavier plane off the ground. I also think that instead of a flat rate for AMA insurance, there should be competancy tests to determine how much a person pays for insurance. Or even qualification check off's for pilots.... For example: I get checked off for my High wing trainer. When I want to move on to my low wing 4*40, I have to do a check flight, or have to fly with someone certified to fly that type of model.... This would help ensure that the pilot flying the plane is capable of flying that plane.... Again these are just some thoughts..... Junior |
|
|
|
Post by ctdahle on May 5, 2005 11:49:32 GMT -7
The idea of sliding scale AMA dues has been floating around for a while, and while it has initial appeal, I think everyone needs to be aware that it would mean doing a costly underwriting analysis of every AMA member.
In the past I have had many opportunities to crawl around the insurance industry and become aware of the costs associated with insuring things. If we were looking at insuring AMA members based on the models they fly and their skill and craftsmanship in assembling and flying them, the cost to do the risk analysis would far exceed the current ama dues.
It would probably mean that flyers would have to have thier models inspected and their flying evaluated by "somehow certified" AMA officials, also known as "club busybodies", and while volunteers do this for the small number of jet flyers and those in those flying in the "experimental" category, can you imagine the bureacratic nightmare of having to have your model inspected and certified flightworthy by some club member every time you crashed and repaired?
Our system puts everyone in the same risk pool and while the result is that some members get a greater potential insurance benefit than others, we ALL pay a much lower premium than if we tried to allocate premiums according to each individual's risk.
By contrast, compare the cost of health insurance. A large part of the premium dollar goes to the administrative cost of running the insurance company, which includes trying to weed out high risk insureds, classifying risk catagories, and adjusting premiums to account for the age, sex, and health history of each insured.
In fact, if our health insurance system were operated in the same way as the AMA, we would all pay much lower health insurance premiums and far more people would be insured.
As far as the 50 pound limit goes, I think it is a reasonable one. The limit doesn't mean that you can't build and fly a larger airplane. It just means that people who DO need to look elsewhere for insurance. It means a single, relatively low insurance cost to cover the overwhelming majority of modelers and their airplanes, and an equitable cost burden on the relatively small number of modelers who fly the big iron.
|
|
