Bringing absolute stupidity to a new low!

[Devcon1]

Not that many years ago took the kids on a camping weekend to Dartmoor, round trip of about 100 miles. Tent laid out, groundsheet pegged out, car mostly emptied guess where the poles were ?

[J D 8]

Found a sure way of not damaging or crashing any aeroplanes,

Just do not take any flight packs or RX batt's with you to the field.

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by Devcon1 on 31/01/2017 18:59:04:

Not that many years ago took the kids on a camping weekend to Dartmoor, round trip of about 100 miles. Tent laid out, groundsheet pegged out, car mostly emptied guess where the poles were ?

Poland ?

[cymaz]

Maiden flight and checked the ailerons....looked but didn't see that they were reversed.....PRIZE IDIOT ( and a lot of swearing by me for being a twit)

[David Davis]

I always remember the advice that an old timer gave to a young beginner concerning flight checks.

"Stand behind the model, push the aileron stick to the right and the aileron should rise to meet it. Ditto with the left stick. Then check the other controls."

It's advice which I've subsequently adhered to.

[cymaz]

I do that David..but for some bizarre reason it never registered with my thick head that the ailerons were going the wrong way.

Thankfully, I've never done since

[onetenor]

Posted by Mike Etheridge 1 on 21/05/2016 11:19:17:

There is a routine on Epsom Downs enforced by those responsible for the A and B tests. On every visit to the Downs, prior to flying any model a range check has to be carried out in the usual way with aerials lowered on 35 mhz, and an equivalent arrangement on 2,4 gear, not that I possess any 2.4 equipment. This practice appears to work very well but of course does not guarantee no crashes, but movements of all controls are checked from about 40 yards distance. At my other club it would seem that most flyers will only range check when a model is new or has not flown for a while but certainly not on every trip to the flying field, although that could be a misjudgement on my part ?

Not good weather again , I have only been out once with the IC planes this year, so perhaps I will nip into the garage and do a bit more refurbishment of my 54 year old Junior 60 which I am re-covering with Oratex. Some of the balsa frame on the fuselage has become very brittle and gluing with Super Glue where the old Balsa Cement has failed has not been satisfactory.

Balsa cement makes brittle joints anyway Old balsa wood is very dry and would benefit from a dose of steam ,and regluing with a flexible glue like white wood ,Aliphatic or superphaticwhich contain moisture. Or steam then a P.U. like Gorrilla. Don't forget to clamp flat while drying out

[Colin Leighfield]

I smashed up a Durafly Spitfire 24 not long ago. I had to re-bind the receiver at the field and forgot that when setting it up I had reversed the ailerons to get them in the right sense. After re-binding they had gone to the original default setting and I didn't check. Immediately after take-off I rolled it into the hard runway and realised what I had done too late. I normally check everything pre-flight and can't imagine now why I didn't then.

It's worth remembering that the designer of the Lancaster, Roy Chadwick, was killed in the prototype Avro Tudor 2 in a take-off crash caused by reversed ailerons. It seems hard to believe that normal pre-flight checks obviously failed in a case like that, but clearly they did. None of us are immune from the effects of muddle-headedness, it would seem!

[Andy Fox]

ah, the old reversed aileron trick - last time it happened to me I was flying a twin electric.... you know as soon as its airborne whats wrong.

I managed to more or less keep it level, albeit inverted, killed the power because it was gradually turning back towards me. It started gathering speed downwind and I watched it arrive inverted back where I was pitting from.

Trouble was, my Lancaster was waiting there too and that of course became the target!

 

Edited By Andy Fox on 31/01/2017 22:24:45

[ERIC CLAPHAM]

I launched my Soar Birdy ( all time fav slope hack.) directly into the wind, off a favourite vertical cliff site, only to realise that I had not switched the Rx on ! Luckily, there was slight up elevator dialled in and a natural tendency - (OK! Warp ! ) to to do a shallow turn to the left. The Birdy rose a couple of metres after the launch - conditions were light - turning left with gentle oscillations to face the cliff but losing height each cycle. As it was just about to collide with the rock face about a metre under the top lip, the model hit the narrow lift band just enough to clear and it slid to a stop without a scratch on it. Time to buy a lottery ticket. Forgot to mention that the tide was in with no beach to land on.

[Dave Bran]

Many years ago I was flying a powered model glider from a flat field. I was alone. The weather was ideal.

I'd picked up a decent steady thermal and the plane was circling, climbing very slowly, at approx 350 feet and maybe a quarter mile upwind with a footling breeze inside the flying field boundary and well in sight.

I had not used any power since the launch and climb out getting near 30 minutes ago.

I had chosen to take and fly this plane, one I had been given, as it was a particularly nice summers day, the field was otherwise deserted, and I fancied a rare change from "fast and furious". I was happy there sat in a garden folding chair, seeming to be the only one on the planet, with only birds and bees for company, and everything was well with the world.

A sudden noise caused me to jump.

I'd fallen asleep and the disgusted plane had returned and landed on the patch undamaged all by itself.

From that day to this I have NOT flown a model sitting down, the only exception I have allowed myself being much more recently with FPV in order to avoid "apparent motion" sickness, but then in that case I'm flying fast and low with plenty of adrenaline pumping and falling asleep is the least of my concerns!

Thermal Gliding is a dangerous sport, much more dangerous than Pylon Racing or Race Quads! Who knew!!

[David Davis]

Posted by Dave Bran on 01/02/2017 07:43:53:

Thermal Gliding is a dangerous sport, much more dangerous than Pylon Racing or Race Quads! Who knew!!

I'll say! We were all in the clubhouse, I can't remember why, some sort of meeting probably, but we all piled out and got out models ready to fly. The first to get airborne was B, who is not as good a pilot as he thinks he is and who likes state-of-the-art electric powered thermal soarers. I watched as the powerful motor took his three or four meter glider skyward at a steep angle until it became a mere spec in the sky. Then it disappeared completely! Few people have better long distance eyesight than me so if I can't see it, it's lost! We organised two search parties but we couldn't find it.

Some blokes working in a field miles away found it a couple of months later and as we are the only model flying club in the area, the glider was eventually re-united with its owner.

[John F]

I treated myself to a new Futaba radio system to compliment my newly built Galaxy Sorcerer.

Wiggle of the sticks OK, engine purring lovely and off it went straight and true off the board. Nice.  

Throttle back a little and a bit of trim, into the first turn, nice. Levelled out and opened the throttle a bit more.

It started to wobble then wobble some more, turning and wobbling to an uncontrollable level until it buried itself into the turf. I remember to this day the wings as they flew off in different directions as if it were slow motion.

Getting the bits together it was clear what the issue was - the vibrations in the air had popped off the control horn off the servo! I had forgotten to put the servo horn screw in!

 

Edited By John F on 01/02/2017 08:21:11

[Mike Etheridge 1]

Onetenor, I did not mention that just prior to take off on Epsom Downs on the first flight of the day ,we must on the runway restrain our planes with out legs and set full throttle and check all controls to their fullest extent. During a test we must call out what we are testing. In the 2008 picture below Steve Hummel then of Westons UK tests out my Uproar last built by Chris Olsen prior to putting it through virtually every stunt manoeuvre he could think off. Admittedly he is not on the runway at Bartons Point.

Edited By Mike Etheridge 1 on 01/02/2017 10:24:57

Edited By Mike Etheridge 1 on 01/02/2017 10:25:37

[Manish Chandrayan]

A diesel powered (AM 2.5) two channel (rudder and elevator) job, that needed hand launch, Have been guilty of launching without switching on the Rx. Well actually guilty of not checking with the launcher if Rx was on or checking controls to see if model was powered on.

Post a beautiful launch, the model sank a little bit and then rose in a gentle left hand climbing turn and kept on. That was the time I realized that the Rx was not on.

Resulted in a long chase on foot, motorcycle and finally a bicycle to retrieve the model that had executed a perfect landing after a long gliding decent once the fuel had run out

[buster prop]

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 31/01/2017 21:47:59:

It's worth remembering that the designer of the Lancaster, Roy Chadwick, was killed in the prototype Avro Tudor 2 in a take-off crash caused by reversed ailerons. It seems hard to believe that normal pre-flight checks obviously failed in a case like that, but clearly they did. None of us are immune from the effects of muddle-headedness, it would seem!

Remember that the ailerons and other surfaces weren’t visible from the flight deck so Bill Thorn, the pilot just checked for free movement of the stick and rudder bar as usual before take-off. He trusted the maintenance guys to have ensured that the ailerons and other controls moved in the right sense. He could have asked for a visual check by radio I suppose, but the resulting crash killed himself and Roy Chadwick. A maintenance failure rather than pilot error.

[Colin Leighfield]

Hi buster prop, I wasn't trying to suggest that it was pilot error, pre-flight checks are a team responsibility with a large plane like that. It just goes to show that even at that level, cock-ups happen.

Although it's not been widely publicised, I understand that the reason the freshly serviced Air France Concorde that crashed was off the centre-line of the runway, causing it to hit debris at the edge and was also below normal take-off speed at the point of no return, was that a wheel spacer had been left out by the maintenance engineers. That wheel was dragging and created the impossible position the pilot was in. He had no choice but to lift off at too high alpha, that combined with reduced power caused by flame ingestion into the engines meant that he couldn't gain any altitude to get back round, if the fire had allowed him to. One small error in the hangar and catastrophe. Air France didn't want that to get out.

I think that pretty much all of my model plane prangs over the years have been caused by my own incompetence, if not in preparation, in my mediocre flying ability!

[Don Fry]

Nothing to do with a single skin tank, what saved a lot of weight, but was a slight problem when bits flew into it. Or indeed the tyres, inflated to a pressure greater than the manufacturer liked, and changed often to mollify but still overstressed, what blew when they hit debris. And punctured the tank.

A problem waiting for its day.

But I take your point. Stupid is universal.

[J D 8]

As I understand the Concord lifted off early because the drag from the wheel was taking it in the direction of a 747 waiting at the side to cross the runway and the pilot had act to avoid a collision. At this point the fire was just starting and the motors were still giving full power and flight was possible despite the damage from the tire.

As the aircraft climbed out flames were being ingested by the motors but there was still enough power for flight, however soon the fire alarms for the affected engines were going off and then one or more engines were shut down as per fire procedure. This then sealed the Concords fate along with the already high alpha slow flight angle with the now reduced power a stall was inevitable.

[Colin Leighfield]

Donald and J D 8, both absolutely correct. But the fact remains that if the wheel spacer hadn't been left out because of human error, it wouldn't have happened, debris or not. The plane wasn't where it was supposed to be.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

That's certainly what I have seen and it was also supposed to have hit a runway light, parts of which were ingested by an engine. I understand that the No.1 engine was shut down by the co-pilot without the authority of the captain and outside of standard operating procedures - had it been kept running it would theoretically have provided sufficient thrust to avoid the stall - although the aircraft was reported to be over weight and with an excessively rearward C of G - even past the limit that the test pilots ever flew it!

[Don Fry]

So we are agreed that we see a whole croud of idiots for performing to their lowest common denominator, for various reasons. Not the pilot, he is under time pressure. From origional design, contract constraints, maintenance. Makes us look good, at least we do the lot as jack of all trades