Informal Clubs Club Talk

The Unofficial Central Delaware Parkflyers Association

Old 01-10-2012, 09:48 PM
  #6801  
pmikeyg
Member
 
pmikeyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Dover, DE
Posts: 683
Default

I have a line on one of these...looks pretty cool!

http://www.nitroplanes.com/usbojet5051n1.html
pmikeyg is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 01:14 AM
  #6802  
newjak
AMA Park Pilot Partner
 
newjak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheswold, DE
Posts: 4,657
Default

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
newjak is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 02:51 AM
  #6803  
NASCARNOAH
Member
 
NASCARNOAH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 749
Default



I have been sizing up the yellow P51 Mustang also.

Justin (i have his extra300) told me he bought the red P51.
NASCARNOAH is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 02:52 AM
  #6804  
NASCARNOAH
Member
 
NASCARNOAH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 749
Default

Originally Posted by 02TAC View Post
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.
Some of the parts look familiar.
NASCARNOAH is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 07:09 AM
  #6805  
02TAC
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,073
Default

Originally Posted by NASCARNOAH View Post
Some of the parts look familiar.
They should, not that 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.

Last edited by 02TAC; 01-11-2012 at 03:08 PM.
02TAC is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 01:30 PM
  #6806  
NASCARNOAH
Member
 
NASCARNOAH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 749
Default

Originally Posted by 02TAC View Post
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.

Creative......like a bicycle builder that builds a plane.
NASCARNOAH is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 03:08 PM
  #6807  
02TAC
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,073
Default

Originally Posted by NASCARNOAH View Post
Creative......like a bicycle builder that builds a plane.
Maybe because I am from the same state they were. That and I can be pretty cheap at times!

ANy indoor runnign today?
02TAC is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 03:55 PM
  #6808  
newjak
AMA Park Pilot Partner
 
newjak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheswold, DE
Posts: 4,657
Default

Mike can't access wattflyer from the office. Via text message he said it is OK to stop by today.
newjak is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 05:32 PM
  #6809  
pmikeyg
Member
 
pmikeyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Dover, DE
Posts: 683
Default

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!
pmikeyg is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 06:26 PM
  #6810  
02TAC
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,073
Default

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.

02TAC is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 06:47 PM
  #6811  
SmoothCruizer
-aggressive flyer-
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,292
Default

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.

Put a keycam or GoPro camera on board.... Adds to the enjoyable and says job well done ... Me and my son have fun watching
SmoothCruizer is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 07:58 PM
  #6812  
02TAC
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,073
Default

Originally Posted by Smoothcruizer3 View Post
Put a keycam or GoPro camera on board....
Don't have either, plus my flying skills would lead to other than a smooth stable vid, so I will save evenone the nausea and not film it from the bird.
02TAC is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 09:31 PM
  #6813  
newjak
AMA Park Pilot Partner
 
newjak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheswold, DE
Posts: 4,657
Default

Originally Posted by pmikeyg View Post
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!
Shelf Queens don't need lipos!!
newjak is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 10:01 PM
  #6814  
pmikeyg
Member
 
pmikeyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Dover, DE
Posts: 683
Default

Originally Posted by newjak View Post
Shelf Queens don't need lipos!!
Hahahahaha
pmikeyg is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 03:52 AM
  #6815  
SmoothCruizer
-aggressive flyer-
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,292
Default

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
SmoothCruizer is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 04:08 AM
  #6816  
newjak
AMA Park Pilot Partner
 
newjak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheswold, DE
Posts: 4,657
Default

http://www.toysonics.com/emax-bl2832...ess-motor.html
4S only.
5S was with another motor from HeadsupRc

Last edited by newjak; 01-12-2012 at 12:48 PM.
newjak is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 04:22 AM
  #6817  
SmoothCruizer
-aggressive flyer-
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,292
Default

thx.... whew look at that amp draw!!! Nano-tech batteries would tame her

Last edited by SmoothCruizer; 01-12-2012 at 04:45 AM.
SmoothCruizer is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 04:36 AM
  #6818  
SmoothCruizer
-aggressive flyer-
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,292
Default

Probably too small for a 1400mm mustang kit and the motor would hog the juice, makes good watts? Over 1 kw ... BUT? Decisions... Haha just kidding
SmoothCruizer is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 03:07 PM
  #6819  
02TAC
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,073
Default

Well worth watching, involves possible / probable restrictions, from the FAA, upon our hobby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIo33...07468D4C40FC9B#!
02TAC is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 04:43 PM
  #6820  
SmoothCruizer
-aggressive flyer-
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,292
Default

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 !!!
SmoothCruizer is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 06:46 PM
  #6821  
02TAC
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,073
Default

Originally Posted by Smoothcruizer3 View Post
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 !!!
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.
02TAC is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 07:15 PM
  #6822  
SmoothCruizer
-aggressive flyer-
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,292
Default

edit

Last edited by SmoothCruizer; 01-13-2012 at 12:49 AM.
SmoothCruizer is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 07:15 PM
  #6823  
Cowboy7469
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 16
Default

Originally Posted by 02TAC View Post
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.
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
Cowboy7469 is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 07:49 PM
  #6824  
SmoothCruizer
-aggressive flyer-
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,292
Default

I recommend listening to coldplay or Dave Matthews Band right now! Lol
SmoothCruizer is offline  
Old 01-12-2012, 08:08 PM
  #6825  
02TAC
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,073
Default

Originally Posted by Cowboy7469 View Post
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.
02TAC is offline  

Quick Reply: The Unofficial Central Delaware Parkflyers Association


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.21037 seconds with 13 queries