The Unofficial Central Delaware Parkflyers Association
01-10-2012, 09:48 PM
#6801
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Dover, DE
Posts: 683
01-11-2012, 01:14 AM
#6802
AMA Park Pilot Partner
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheswold, DE
Posts: 4,657
I've got my eye on these two.
http://www.nitroplanes.com/93a333-14...ract-flap.html
http://www.nitroplanes.com/93a300-14...2-red-arf.html
http://www.nitroplanes.com/93a333-14...ract-flap.html
http://www.nitroplanes.com/93a300-14...2-red-arf.html
01-11-2012, 02:51 AM
#6803
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 749
Originally Posted by newjak
I've got my eye on these two.
http://www.nitroplanes.com/93a333-14...ract-flap.html
http://www.nitroplanes.com/93a300-14...2-red-arf.html
http://www.nitroplanes.com/93a333-14...ract-flap.html
http://www.nitroplanes.com/93a300-14...2-red-arf.html
I have been sizing up the yellow P51 Mustang also.
Justin (i have his extra300) told me he bought the red P51.
01-11-2012, 02:52 AM
#6804
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 749
Originally Posted by 02TAC
Followed up yesterdays Shutte flying with a remaiden of the Funtanastick out at KCAM yesterday afternoon; in the FLURRIES! She flies pretty well, but need to dial in a bit more rudder for knife-edging.
01-11-2012, 07:09 AM
#6805
Super Contributor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by NASCARNOAH
Some of the parts look familiar.
Rather than spend the $$ for another Funtana fuselage, I simply worked with what I had on hand, Flies a bit different as it has a longer tail moment so it is not quite as reactive as the Funtana was.
Last edited by 02TAC; 01-11-2012 at 03:08 PM.
01-11-2012, 01:30 PM
#6806
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 749
Originally Posted by 02TAC
They should, not thta long ago a pic was posted of them in a pile at Schutte! Rather than spend the $$ for another Funtana fuselage, I simply worked with what I had on hand, Flies a bit different as it has a longer tail moment so it is not quite as reactive as the Funtana was.
Rather than spend the $$ for another Funtana fuselage, I simply worked with what I had on hand, Flies a bit different as it has a longer tail moment so it is not quite as reactive as the Funtana was.Creative......like a bicycle builder that builds a plane.
That and I can be pretty cheap at times!
01-11-2012, 06:47 PM
#6811
-aggressive flyer-
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,292
Nice morning of flying out at KCAM. 4ch birds are fun, but there is something relaxing and just plain enjoyable about a Slow Stick in a bit of breeze.
01-11-2012, 07:58 PM
#6812
Super Contributor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by Smoothcruizer3
Put a keycam or GoPro camera on board....
01-11-2012, 09:31 PM
#6813
AMA Park Pilot Partner
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheswold, DE
Posts: 4,657
Originally Posted by pmikeyg
Since the Doc told me I have bronchitis, I am going to use the next few days to get batteries charged and planes/helis flight worthy!
01-12-2012, 03:52 AM
#6815
-aggressive flyer-
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,292
Shelf Queens don't need lipos!![/quote]
Newjak, did you ever happen to find another EMAX like the one you had on your Ultrastick 25e ? ... That is a nasty powerful motor and did you 5s before it failed on you? I'm just doing some homework
[/quote]Newjak, did you ever happen to find another EMAX like the one you had on your Ultrastick 25e ? ... That is a nasty powerful motor and did you 5s before it failed on you? I'm just doing some homework
01-12-2012, 04:08 AM
#6816
AMA Park Pilot Partner
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheswold, DE
Posts: 4,657
http://www.toysonics.com/emax-bl2832...ess-motor.html
4S only.
5S was with another motor from HeadsupRc
4S only.
5S was with another motor from HeadsupRc
Last edited by newjak; 01-12-2012 at 12:48 PM.
01-12-2012, 03:07 PM
#6819
Super Contributor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,073
Well worth watching, involves possible / probable restrictions, from the FAA, upon our hobby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIo33...07468D4C40FC9B#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIo33...07468D4C40FC9B#!
01-12-2012, 04:43 PM
#6820
-aggressive flyer-
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,292
The folks from the FAA seem very nice. I just watched half of the 6 videos and I don't mind them sticking their noses into the hobby at all... Me and us if we had to comply? Again I would not have any problem... The general public should be inform of the safety aspect of aviation... You just can't jump into a full size cessna or full size aircraft and fly around commercial planes... Same should be the same with RC unmanned aircraft ... FIRST starting with FPV !!!
01-12-2012, 06:46 PM
#6821
Super Contributor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by Smoothcruizer3
The folks from the FAA seem very nice. I just watched half of the 6 videos and I don't mind them sticking their noses into the hobby at all... Me and us if we had to comply? Again I would not have any problem... The general public should be inform of the safety aspect of aviation... You just can't jump into a full size cessna or full size aircraft and fly around commercial planes... Same should be the same with RC unmanned aircraft ... FIRST starting with FPV !!!
---- It is understood that the FAA is considering going outside the ARC’s recommendation and extending the “area of concern” around the nation’s 19,760 airports beyond the current 3-mile radius that has been the standard for more than 29 years. The intent to extend this radius has absolutely no statistical basis, has no supporting data and has no accident or incident correlation. Doing so would exponentially impact the number of existing flying sites affected by the rule. Extending the radius by as little as 2 miles (to 5 miles) would nearly triple the area of concern and create more than 1,784,000 square miles in which “no fly without permission” restrictions would be imposed.
Second, are you saying that the FAA should establish and enforce a training / licensing / regulating system for ALL RC pilots? I doubt they would do that, but they could very easily mandate that the only legal places to fly are at "official" flying sites such as AMA sanctioned fields. I know of only three in the state of Delaware. Also, I like being able to fly over the field behind my house.
Here are a couple more possible restrictions.
ALTITUDE: As proposed, the rule would impose a nationwide altitude ceiling of 400 feet. AMA recognizes the need for altitude limitations when model aircraft are operated in close proximity to airports, and this concept is supported in AMA’s current Safety Code. However, a nationwide altitude ceiling for model aircraft is impractical, unnecessary, unrealistic and unenforceable through any reasonable means of compliance and detection.
SPEED: It is likely that the rule will attempt to limit model aircraft performance by establishing a set speed limit such as 100 mph. Imposing such a speed limit will have little to no effect on aircraft performance and is both undetectable and unenforceable through any practical, cost-effective means.
WEIGHT: As proposed, the sUAS rule will limit small unmanned aircraft to 55 pounds or less, and the implication for AMA’s Large Model Aircraft Program has not yet been determined. Without an acceptable standard or an alternative means of compliance, this rule may well curtail a vital element of the modeling activity that drives creativity, innovation and technological development.
TURBINE BAN: The blanket prohibition of gas turbine engines suggested in the ARC recommendations does not consider the wide range of products currently in the marketplace. The inclusion of this prohibition in the proposed rule will impose a significant and unjustified economic impact on the industry.
One final question - are there any manned RC aircraft.
01-12-2012, 07:15 PM
#6823
New Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by 02TAC
First, just one of the proposals would eliminate the primary weekend flying site for those on this thread; the school wich might actually be illegal anyway as it very well may fall with in the exisiting three miles from an airport rule. Has anyone ever checked teh VFR distance and/or sought permission from teh base to fly at the school?
---- It is understood that the FAA is considering going outside the ARC’s recommendation and extending the “area of concern” around the nation’s 19,760 airports beyond the current 3-mile radius that has been the standard for more than 29 years. The intent to extend this radius has absolutely no statistical basis, has no supporting data and has no accident or incident correlation. Doing so would exponentially impact the number of existing flying sites affected by the rule. Extending the radius by as little as 2 miles (to 5 miles) would nearly triple the area of concern and create more than 1,784,000 square miles in which “no fly without permission” restrictions would be imposed.
Second, are you saying that the FAA should establish and enforce a training / licensing / regulating system for ALL RC pilots? I doubt they would do that, but they could very easily mandate that the only legal places to fly are at "official" flying sites such as AMA sanctioned fields. I know of only three in the state of Delaware. Also, I like being able to fly over the field behind my house.
Here are a couple more possible restrictions.
ALTITUDE: As proposed, the rule would impose a nationwide altitude ceiling of 400 feet. AMA recognizes the need for altitude limitations when model aircraft are operated in close proximity to airports, and this concept is supported in AMA’s current Safety Code. However, a nationwide altitude ceiling for model aircraft is impractical, unnecessary, unrealistic and unenforceable through any reasonable means of compliance and detection.
SPEED: It is likely that the rule will attempt to limit model aircraft performance by establishing a set speed limit such as 100 mph. Imposing such a speed limit will have little to no effect on aircraft performance and is both undetectable and unenforceable through any practical, cost-effective means.
WEIGHT: As proposed, the sUAS rule will limit small unmanned aircraft to 55 pounds or less, and the implication for AMA’s Large Model Aircraft Program has not yet been determined. Without an acceptable standard or an alternative means of compliance, this rule may well curtail a vital element of the modeling activity that drives creativity, innovation and technological development.
TURBINE BAN: The blanket prohibition of gas turbine engines suggested in the ARC recommendations does not consider the wide range of products currently in the marketplace. The inclusion of this prohibition in the proposed rule will impose a significant and unjustified economic impact on the industry.
One final question - are there any manned RC aircraft.
---- It is understood that the FAA is considering going outside the ARC’s recommendation and extending the “area of concern” around the nation’s 19,760 airports beyond the current 3-mile radius that has been the standard for more than 29 years. The intent to extend this radius has absolutely no statistical basis, has no supporting data and has no accident or incident correlation. Doing so would exponentially impact the number of existing flying sites affected by the rule. Extending the radius by as little as 2 miles (to 5 miles) would nearly triple the area of concern and create more than 1,784,000 square miles in which “no fly without permission” restrictions would be imposed.
Second, are you saying that the FAA should establish and enforce a training / licensing / regulating system for ALL RC pilots? I doubt they would do that, but they could very easily mandate that the only legal places to fly are at "official" flying sites such as AMA sanctioned fields. I know of only three in the state of Delaware. Also, I like being able to fly over the field behind my house.
Here are a couple more possible restrictions.
ALTITUDE: As proposed, the rule would impose a nationwide altitude ceiling of 400 feet. AMA recognizes the need for altitude limitations when model aircraft are operated in close proximity to airports, and this concept is supported in AMA’s current Safety Code. However, a nationwide altitude ceiling for model aircraft is impractical, unnecessary, unrealistic and unenforceable through any reasonable means of compliance and detection.
SPEED: It is likely that the rule will attempt to limit model aircraft performance by establishing a set speed limit such as 100 mph. Imposing such a speed limit will have little to no effect on aircraft performance and is both undetectable and unenforceable through any practical, cost-effective means.
WEIGHT: As proposed, the sUAS rule will limit small unmanned aircraft to 55 pounds or less, and the implication for AMA’s Large Model Aircraft Program has not yet been determined. Without an acceptable standard or an alternative means of compliance, this rule may well curtail a vital element of the modeling activity that drives creativity, innovation and technological development.
TURBINE BAN: The blanket prohibition of gas turbine engines suggested in the ARC recommendations does not consider the wide range of products currently in the marketplace. The inclusion of this prohibition in the proposed rule will impose a significant and unjustified economic impact on the industry.
One final question - are there any manned RC aircraft.
01-12-2012, 08:08 PM
#6825
Super Contributor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by Cowboy7469
After watching it it seems that there will not be any "Turbine Ban" or ban on altitude. Im guessing its going to be a wait and see what is proposed then go from there. Im farely new to this but have worked for the goverment for many years. What I have learned is that there will always be changes till its been voted on and then still changes after that. lol
Hopefully, the FAA (and other agencies) will realize that Joe Hobbiest is not the threat and focus on the people that are the threat. Go after the person that is the problem, not the tool he might choose to use.
