I say ban 'em !

[TonyS]

I say let's ban moderators from starting really contentious threads on pain of withholding sticky bun privileges. 

And while I'm on, can we ban motorbikes with loud exhausts, large women (or men) that wear crop tops, snot-nosed kids from ,well...everywhere and paying tax.

[Bill_B]

Posted by Bravedan:   ''On another tack.........I'm no jet person, but it looked to me that the setup being used in this video had no FOD, if so, surely that alone is irresponsible and increasing the chance that the plane will be unexpectedly put out of full control at speed??''

 

Hi Bravedan, apologies for being pedantic, but  FOD = Foreign Object Damage.  I assume you mean debris guard?  Anyway, IMO I don't think it is iriresponsible to fly a turbine model without a guard. A model jet is highly unlikely to get FOD whilst actually flying and is more likely to suffer fueling problems or a mechanical failure, similar to what can and does happen to an ic powered plane. FOD is a risk during taxiing, the take off run and roll out on landing.  What I would be more concerned about is the integrity of the airframe. The motor mount area looks positively rough and ready, and tape to hold the hatch on??  Maybe a turbine model such as this needs to be inspected during and after construction to assure a level of conformance and integrity.

 

As for speed? You can never have too much!! 

[Lee Smalley]

fair enough timbo !!  

Ps very funny chris headless bunny rabbit !! lol

 

[Simon Chaddock]

If I may add my bit.

 

The engineer in me is fascinated at the progress of these small gas turbines.

 

My late Dad having made one from scratch over 50 years ago (it did not work properly) would have been amazed, but my aero modeller side is concerned.

 

The bigger, faster and more popular things get I fear it is only a matter of time before more stringent regulation appears.

Such regulation won't srop aero modelling, it will simply get more expensive.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Seems to me that as a hobby we have a choice.

 

Self regulation or state regulation.  I prefer the former.

 

We do need to realise that our equipment has moved on massively while our physical abilities and vulnerabilities haven't.  When I started RC flying in the mid 70s a 40 was a serious engine and 60s were the province of the expert.  As far as I remember, not aspiring to such great heights at the time, a large model was defined as over 5kg and came under the control of the CAA with an exemption needed.

 

Some of this was highlighted when I took my grandaughter to the Hop Farm a couple of years ago.  I really couldn't enjoy the fast jets because all I could think about was the consequence of a failure causing a few degrees shift in heading of an out of control projectile.  I don't mind admitting that I viewed things very differently on that day - but continue to enjoy high performance modelling in a relatively safe environment.

 

I'm quite aware that even a small model going out of control at a public show could have awful results but the amount of energy in one of these fast models represents a considerable potential danger and we must be aware of this and act accordingly.

[Tim Mackey]

Posted by Chris Channon on 09/11/2010 19:05:42:

Blimey, ban them ? i wonder just how many are flying in the UK as we speak?

 

I think Glider D/S should be banned right NOW, imagine a poor bunny popping his head up to see what all the fuss is about then, WHOOSH, one headless bunny, just not fair or British.

 

Regards

Chris

 

 

I assume your post was in humour Chris - but please, if not - read the whole OP and subsequent clarifications - I have NOT asked to ban jets.

[Tim Mackey]

Posted by TonyS on 09/11/2010 20:09:53:

I say let's ban moderators from starting really contentious threads on pain of withholding sticky bun privileges. 

And while I'm on, can we ban motorbikes with loud exhausts, large women (or men) that wear crop tops, snot-nosed kids from ,well...everywhere and paying tax.

 

Listen Tony - you go withholding my sticky bun ration and I will really get  cantankerous never mind contentious

[kiwi g]

 but somehow, the type of "performance" seen in this video should be BANNED.

 

simply tim I agree.

Guys, that line sums up that you want dangerous flying habits banned.

All the OP is saying is make sure you fly safely whatever you fly.

it doesnt say bann jets or flying or any sort of aircraft.

Or have Iread it wrong AGAIN.

 

The video is the problem. it looks as if bad habits are being used.

At 5.20 on the video ,the plane is in front of the pylon on landing approach. probably camera angle and perspective give a wrong impression. same with the takeoff into the sun. the camera being more sensitive to the light.

 

So was the guy being dangerous. probably not. Then we cannot tell.

But do people fly in dangerous situation . yes

Thats what needs to be BANNED.

FLY ,THINK ,SAFE.,ENJOY.

[Tim Mackey]

Spot on kiwi G

Glad some of you guys can see the point I was trying to make

[Slopetrashuk]

That's a little condescending don't you think Timbo especially with all the back peddling thats been going on here.

Where are the mods when you need 'em!

[Guest]

I remember back in the 80's there was this craze for microlights There was NO licence for them at that time and well JOE PUBLIC thought to themselves Corr I'd like one of them so 100's of Joe Public's went out and made or brought them.

I went to this field, when I live in Milton Keynes, this field was next to a road and it was being built on at the time by the way, and there you had loads of these microlights and loads of bystanders, there was No safety rules as such if any, and there you had bystanders standing within 4foot of running prop's I and a friend watched at a very safe distant in amazement at these crazy people.

There was no patten of safe take off. and yes there were one or two mishaps.

 

So flying a model Jet at these speeds and then posting it on you-tube reminds me of these people back in the 80's your going to get Joe Public saying corr I'd like one of these how much do they cost MR......

It should never of been posted on there, and if people wish to fly these things it should stay in the clubs. You only need one or two Jack*ss who thinks that there clever and dose some real damage THEN???...........

 

 So I know what TIM Was getting at.

[Ross Clarkson]

I'm going to be a coward and just stay quiet and sit on the face with regards to this thread!!!!!!!!

I am enjoying it though and can see most people's opinions. I do agree that the title wasn't the best use of words though Timbo, even if you then did explain yourself clearly in the narrative.

As my mum used to say to my brother and i, "it will end in tears" ha ha.

[Klippy]

Lots of food for thought here! I marvelled at the expertize of the pilot, felt sorry for the camera man! However, study of the footage shows the aircraft (jet sled) disappearing into cloudbase! Said cloudbase looked to be about 1000ft AGL, that's got to be dangerous! It also looks like they got lucky when it went 'dead stick' in one of the few areas of flight phase where it would make it back to the patch.

I'd like to see all of this kind of footage (not just aircraft) banned from You tube and the like. It gives the crazies too many bad ideas!

Bottom line, people (adrenaline junkies) will do these things, you can't stop it, you just drive it underground. Sadly there will be some serious accidents, and deaths. The best we can hope for is that these people will see the dangers and become 'self regulatory'.

Rant over.

[Slopetrashuk]

I agree. Quick let's all look the other way. If nobody is talking about it they will surely stop.

 

See you on the Gliding forum.

Unsubscribed.

 

Andy

[David Turner 5]

To say that our choice is "self-regulate or be government-regulated" is to present a false dichotomy ... these are not the only choices available.

 

A third choice would be to grow some cojones.

 

The BMFA has quite a few members. Now, suppose that the BMFA started a fund ... with the express purpose of mounting a legal challenge against the "ban-it" brigade. After all, the "ban-it" crowd rely upon the fact that they are usually imposing their views upon a small or weak minority. That is the tyranny of democracy.

 

Imagine that, when a local council decided to flex its muscles, the BMFA could throw a half-million quid into a legal challenge.  Certainly, most councils would think twice before getting muscular ... and there would also be the prospect of setting some sort of precedent.

 

What's more, the BMFA need not stand alone. How many sportsmen and hobbyists face similar problems? An alliance could be forged, to form an effective fighting force.

 

Aeromodellers have been rolling over, belly-up, for as long as I can remember ... yet the "ban-it" crowd is relentless. It is never satisfied. So, in my opinion, "being accommodating" is a counsel of despair. They simply pick us off, one by one.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

The thing is David, while feeling no deficiency in the spherical department, some of us might not want to defend the right to fly in that manner.

 

BEB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Am I alone in not seeing some of the "errors" in the flight in question?

 

The take off into sun was nothing of the sort.  The sun was the best part of 45 degrees to the left of the take off heading and the model turned right - look at the pilot's shadow shortly before launch.

 

It's always difficult to tell with telephoto lenses but I can't see any reason to suspect the flight path went through the power lines.

 

I wouldn't like to state that it went into cloud - the auto exposure was having trouble compensating and it would be anyone's guess where the model was at times but the cloudbase looked to be at least 3000 feet judging by the well defined fair weather Cumulus.

 

Where on earth does the suggestion of going dead stick come from?  The engine was still running at touch down.

 

Although the merits of publicising the performance of cutting edge models to the general public may be debatable, I saw the flight as being well controlled and conducted in a safe environment.

 

In response to David, I still stand by my statement that we have the two choices - his "additional" example is surely just a facet of self regulation.

Edited By Martin Harris on 10/11/2010 09:41:26

[David Turner 5]

I think that there might be an element of "projection" at work, here.

 

Let me explain.

 

I'm a pretty good and consistent flyer. However, when I see videos like the one in question, I think to myself, "My God, I could never do that. It's so small and fast, that I'd lose it ... probably on the first reversal."

 

Being human, it's natural to then think, "Well, if I'm a decent flyer and I couldn't fly that model safely, that guy absolutely must be pushing the envelope. He must be an accident just looking for a venue."

 

That's human. And it's completely flawed thinking. It's part of the same psychological deception that makes us go "Wow" when we see a skilled tight-rope artiste or a bloke juggling sharp knives.

 

I've seen it many times. It's easy to impress people with your flying ... but only those people who don't appreciate that the route from novice to master is one of infinite increments. And, when you are a novice, observing a master, you can be forgiven for thinking that you are seeing something magical ... or else something which is higly dangerous.

 

In the last analysis, that pilot's decisions are nothing to do with me ... or you. If he screws up, it is him that should answer to a Court.

 

You know, this argument puts me in mind of the gun-control-Nazis. Whenever there's a shooting, they take the guns from the people who didn't do it.

 

If modellers don't want to fall victim to the same distorted thinking, then they have to associate and stand up for themselves. That means taking their arguments before the Courts.

 

 

[David Turner 5]

Or, maybe it's just the British disease ... "I don't like it ..I'm gonna make sure that he can't do it."

 

That's prevalent.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

The usual winners from going to court are the lawyers.  However a "test" case against a council came out, there's a danger that this would provide the oxygen of publicity to the very people that you fear, resulting in even more pressure on the hobby.

 

In the case of the rogue flyer having his transgressions hauled in front of a court, yes, it will be him that suffers directly with possible fines or imprisonment but again, the negative publicity generated would in all probability, affect you and I very badly.

Edited By Martin Harris on 10/11/2010 10:28:21

[David Turner 5]

In response to David, I still stand by my statement that we have the two choices - his "additional" example is surely just a facet of self regulation.

 

 

Fair point. It could be construed as that..

 

 

 

 

If I may be permitted another sojourn into the realms of "pop-psychology", I'll relate to you another tale.

 

Some time ago, I used to teach people how to fly. Now, sometimes, I'd inject a bit of aerobatics' instruction into the PPL syllabus. This made a refreshing break ... and most students thought it was great fun.

 

However, there was one guy, with whom I worked, who tried his level best to get "someone" to stop me ... to "ban it". This particular guy was a very mediocre pilot and quite incapable of teaching aerobatics ... yet he was well able to appreciate that the students enjoyed it.

 

What better, then, than to play the "safety card" in an attempt to have it stopped? He couldn't say, "I'm envious."   But, he could say, " That's dangerous. Those students will think that it's OK for them to go off and do aeros on their own. This has to be stopped." 

 

It's hard to argue with a call for "more safety." ?

 

It's a hugely common human ambition to have others dragged down to your level. Ergo, the semi-socialist State in which we live.

 

Now, I've no doubt that some of you will be thinking, "Yeah, I agree with him. Those students could go off and kill themselves."   Well, there's no hope for you, then. Those students were adults, most of them pretty smart. They were self-directing and autonomous beings and it was not my place to constrain their behaviour. They should be punished BY their sins, not FOR them.

 

He didn't win.

 

I'm just trying to illustrate the devious workings of the human mind... not suggesting that this "parable" applies to any of the contributors on here.

Edited By David Turner 5 on 10/11/2010 10:32:57

Edited By David Turner 5 on 10/11/2010 10:39:41

Edited By David Turner 5 on 10/11/2010 10:40:53

[Tim Mackey]

Actually no Andy I didnt think it was condescending at all - but then that kinda follows the theme of the thread really - different people will have different ideas about things.

As we drift more and more away from the actual detail and did he or didnt he type questions, it ( to me anyway ) sort of polarizes the original point., and that is, there is surely a time and place for these superfast and potentially very dangerous machines.

There were enough suggestions (and lack of clear detail to prove otherwise) that this flight was perhaps not made in the safest of conditions or surroundings.

Now if thats not the case - fair enough - and as I have stated several times I apologize to the two guys involved.  However, it still provided the impetus for the discussion, and the statement by me that

" inappropriate operation of these things will attract bad press and trouble for us modellers" - more so than your average club model IMO.

I may well have used a dramatic and provocative title - so what - the content of the post was clear - we shouldnt condone uncontrolled operation of these things.

And PS I am not back-pedelling either - just trying to respond to certain allegations.

Seems to me there are several people in agreement with the general gist of my statement.  

[Bob Moore]

The average Joe public would have trouble figuring out which way the servos and control surfaces would work, and I don't see them rushing out and spending hundreds of pounds or more on a 400 mph jet as a first plane. 

 

They are more likely to go and buy a large rc plane and fly it in the park.  I've seen videos of newbies trying to fly Prangsters in the park where they were barely in control and where there are people walking dogs and kds around.  Far more dangerous in my opinion.  At least most of these things are flown by people with plenty of experience and flying skills, who have progressed through the ranks of model flying.

Edited By Bob Moore on 10/11/2010 10:34:56

Edited By Bob Moore on 10/11/2010 10:35:41

[Mowerman]

123 posts in 58 hours, is this a record.

I often have similar reactions to products of LMA members, the thought of a 12 foot model with an engine as big as my last motorcycle (Vincent Comet) going into a crowded spectator line

I also recall the video of the B52 model crash and resulting fire.

Just think, a 40 powered trainer has caused a fatality.

However having said all that, should we ban them? I really can not decide, freedom or controll.

Every 'freedom' must be ballanced by an equally important responsibility.

 

[David Turner 5]

Vincent motorcycles ... drool!