RE: Question??
Interestingly, while people claim that Langely achieved manned powered flight a short time before the Wrights, the person he chose to be the pilot never admitted to ever sucsessfully flying the Aerodrome. In fact, a number of years after the flights were supposed to have happened, the Smithsonian lent the Aerodrome to Glenn Curtiss to see if he could achieve flight with it, thereby proving that it could have flown before the Wrights. Curtiss did get it to fly, afte several months, and at least 40 major modifications. After that, the Smithsonian withdrew all claims, and had Langely's craft restored to it's original nearly unflyable and uncontrolable condition. Langely did get several models to fly free flight, but it seems the few attempts to fy with a pilot ran into problems with catapaulting the plane. In any event, the recognition for the Wrights is for haveing an aeroplane that under it's own power, ran forward untill becoming airborn, proceeded for a distance at an altitude higher than it's starting point, and landed at a point no lower than the starting point, or words to that effect. The Wright Brothers also had a plane that was controllable in pitch, yaw, and roll. Also, they had a newspaper photographepresent to record that first flight. And for the first flight, they did not use the catapault. That came later. There were also claims that a Gustave Whitehead was making powere flights with his own design as early as 1901, there were some claimed witnesses, but no photos. And he kind of cheated. He had a 10 hp motor driving the wheels to bring his machine up to takeoff speed. In fact, one witness claimed Whitehead drove the craft to the flying sites on the road with the wings folded against the sides with a capability of going in excess of 30 mph. Early flying car? But one of Mr. Whiteheads comments was that he almost crashed into trees on one of his flights, and found out he could control the plane by moving from side to side or front to back, unlike the Wrights who used aerodynamic controls. There are no existing photos of Whitehead flying a powered aircraft, but there are photos of him flying hang gliders. Still, the Wrights are credited with the first powered flights because they had documented witnesses that day.
Posted on: 8/19/2012 9:04 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11199299

RE: Club FOX!
I think I'm going to have to try some 5% fuel on the Eagle IV I have on a Tower Super Sportster 60. Been flying it about 12 years, just getting to the point where I can start it first flight of the day with an electric starter without stalling the starter. Still won't run out a full tank, gets a bit hot as well. Might try a head shim or two. I remember starting my .59 and my K&B .61 with bare handed flipping. Still do on most of my engines. Won't even think of trying it with this Eagle. Not sure right now if I'd even try hand flipping with a thick leather glove. I usually run 10%, and sometimes 15% on .40 and smaller, and have a couple pints of 20% for 1/2A. When I get a new gallon, I'll pour a little fuel into the old bottle and add 4 to 8 ounces of castor to the new fuel. I wrecked that .59, and almost ruined my first running McCoy .35 RH by using all synthetic, 18% oil, 10% Nitro fuel. Sometimes experts shouldn't be listened to.
Posted on: 6/2/2012 9:41 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11104370

RE: Club FOX!
Well, I've been tied up with other things for a while, and haven't been on RCUnivers much for most of the time. I did spend some time not too long ago, kind of updating some of my Fox engines. Found out Dawn Power Dissolver cleans them up quite well, with little work. Even cleaned the crud of a 1960s vintage .15X RC that hasn't been run since around 1977. Getting a little concerned about my older .45s, because they had the older muffler,the new one engine has a different stack and mount, so I replaced the crankcasses on about half the .45s I have. That also gives me spares of the older style. Also changed a couple to the .46 head buttons. Did the same with some of my .35s. New crankcase, now I can mount mufflers on them. First time I ran one, noticed a major difference. I seem to remember starting with the needles opened about 3 1/2 turns, but now I had to open it almost 6.
Posted on: 6/1/2012 11:20 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11103390

RE: MAN .60 shoot out
I haven't been on this site for a while for various personal reasons, and am just gettring back to browsing. Notice quite a bit of discussion about Fox engines. Seems a lot of people just don't like fox. I'm one who does. I remember when MAN had the shoot-out with .40 size engines. They rated the Fox .40 pretty high. Some club members were threatening to cancel their subscriptions. I remember one Fox hater coming to the field one day and making a comment about a plane I was flying "Look, he finally got rid of that Fox and got a Rossi." It was still a Fox. I also remember the report that RC Reports did on the Fox Eagle III or IV .60. With smaller props, it was still above average. With larger props,I think 13-6 and 14-6, it turned with some off the better 1.20s. And I think it was the person who replaced Chinn as engine tester for MAN. He ran a leter from a reader who said that he tried to use the various magazines' reviews as a guide to buying his engines. He'd never been able to duplicate the test results, till he bought an Eagle. The Eagle he bought matched the ads and a couple test reports. Wondered what was up. The columnist responded that generally when they want to do a review on an engine, they send a request to the manufacturer. They then get a sample or two to test, with a prepaid shipping box, and a request to return the engine within a certain time. When he did the Fox, he got a letter from Fox with a couple purchase orders, and a suggestion that he get his sample engines from local hobby shops. There was also a suggestion, apparently confirmed by a rep from K&B that test engines for review were specials.
Posted on: 6/1/2012 10:50 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11103372

RE: Real or Fake
SUV sliding sideways, probably down to 45 mph, getting broadsided by a big rig, probably doing around 60-65. 5,500 pounds getting hit by a vehicle, if empty, that could weigh around 36000 to 40,000 pounds, and up to 80,000 pounds loaded. If you've ever seen the results of this situation, you'd believe that video was real. In tests, a driver has a reaction time to recognize a situation and decide to take action of 300 to 500 milliseconds. Takes approximately the same time to move the foot onto the brake pedal to start a brake application. That's in a test situation, where the driver under study is expecting something to happen. Now, a car has nearly instantaneous response to the brake pedal application because of the vacuum boosted hydraulic system. A large truck, on the other hand, with air brakes, requires an additional 200 to 500 milliseconds from the time the brake pedal starts to move till the time the brake chambers build up enough pressure to start brake application. I've seen, and even been in a few close calls like this- - from both sides. When driving, pay attention to what you're doing, keep the mind on your driving. Don't drive when sleepy. Don't be constantly changing radio stations, don't carry on conversations on ANY type of cell phone, and especially, don't text while driving.
Posted on: 6/1/2012 9:22 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "Off Topic Forum - Planes/Helis"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11103325

RE: Pictures
I just got into a pause in uploading images to a couple threads in another site, and when a file is too large, I either modify it's size with the editing function in ACDSEE, or I submit it to a file reducer on the Hippocket Aeronautics website. Use of the Hippocket utility requires registering on their site.
Posted on: 5/31/2012 10:50 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11102062

RE: helis & fixed wing
At our club, we pretty much will fly multiple planes at a time, but when a heli goes up, most will either sit and watch, or go further away to fly. the Heli and 3D guys seem to fly in close to the flight lin, within about 75' to maybe 100' from the flight stations. For myself, I'll usually go out at least 150' to 200', and stay at least that distance away.
Posted on: 5/31/2012 10:42 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11102058

RE: RC Plane Guys Are Cheap!
I agree about RCers being on the cheap side. Guy at a local furniture rebuild shop decided to phase in a hobby department, to try to smooth out the feast or famine nature of his work. Started with dollhouses, sort of related to what he mainly did. Not bad, but slow. Added model railroading and some boats. Again, no problems. Since he was on on again-off again CL flyer, he brought in some of that. So, nearly all of these lines were fairly irregular, small customer base except for the model railroading. Started getting close to a consistent income month by month. Then he added RC. Some of the hardest customers to deal with. In fact, he had an incident with a (former) rc customer. Guy was interested in a Duraplane. Wanted to see what it was like. Asked the proprietor to get one in. Frank got one in, spent over an hour with the customer showing off the kit, answering questions. The guy liked what he saw, said he was going to get one. Frank offered him a deal, but the turkey told him he was going to buy his from some on-line source that was offering them for almost what Frank had to pay for the kit. He just wanted to see if he liked the kit before buyiing it. Frank told him to leave and not come back. I handled an estate sale for a deceased club menmber. Never again. Got told my buddy and I were asking too much money. For example, for a finished Senior Kadet, stroke .60, finished, with radio installed, we were asking $200.00. Ready to fly, assembled and covered plane, 4S engine, tank, Wheels, installed radio, too expensive at $200.Most people were trying to suggest it should be less than a hundred. Haven't seen anything like this in any other area of model aviation, or even much of it in model railroading.
Posted on: 5/31/2012 10:31 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11102053

RE: Eveyone knows it's Windy !
I remember being stationed a Forbes AFB in Topeka in 67-68, seeing guys flying single channel rudder only, or rudder/throttle planes in winds to 30 mph. Talking with one of the cluvb members, he told me that down there, if you were afraid of a little wind, you needed to find a new hobby. Fly in wind, or don't fly.
Posted on: 5/31/2012 10:12 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11102039

RE: Cleaning Solutions
I just did a number of older engines with the Dawn Power disolver, and found it works great. In the past, I've used a product that used to be sold for cleaning glow engines, can't remember the name, but it used to require setting a half hour or more before rinsing off. I cleaned off an old Cox Golden Bee from castor oil goop and assorted other crud from 40 years accumulation in just 15 minutes. I just applied the Daw, let it sit about 5 minutes, then cleaned off with an old tooothbrush and warm, soapy water. Just had to repeat once on part of the cylinder fins. My experience with all synthetic fuels gave me the impression that while they might be great for most newer engines with things like AAC, ABC, ABN plating technologies, but if you have older iron piston/steel cylinder engines, have aat least 20% oil, and at least half that oil being Castor. I wrecked a couple very good steel/iron engines the first time I tryied all-Syn fuel
Posted on: 5/31/2012 10:05 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11102030

RE: Regulation passed the House
Sorry about the double post. My first attempt came back with a server error, so I resubmitted. They both went through.
Posted on: 2/12/2012 1:58 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10955737

RE: Regulation passed the House
I can't believe this thread is going on this long with so much BS. The FAA has seen that unregulated UAV operation, either hobby or commercial, could become a serious problem. They are currently forming regulations to try to avoid future problems. As part of the process, they apparently were going to include model airplanes as part of the problem. The AMA went to bat for us, represented us in front of the FAA, and also set up a letter writing effort to Congress and to the Senate to get the FAA off our backs. The compromise bill, now passed by both the House and the Senate, soon to go up by itself for the Presidential signature, gives us the freedom from FAA regulation, as long as we stay within a few simple guidelines that are pretty much safety related, which amount to stay out of the way of full size aircraft, and maintain direct visual contact with your plane. Don't let it get out of sight. In fact, I'd almost guess that we could fly our own UPVs as long as we can take control in an emergency, as long as we can see them. STOP INVENTING PROBLEMS, go out and fly something, and chill! Get those chips off your shoulders. Stop inviting or manufacturing problems.
Posted on: 2/12/2012 1:52 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10955727

RE: Regulation passed the House
I can't believe this thread is going on this long with so much BS. The FAA has seen that unregulated UAV operation, either hobby or commercial, could become a serious problem. They are currently forming regulations to try to avoid future problems. As part of the process, they apparently were going to include model airplanes as part of the problem. The AMA went to bat for us, represented us in front of the FAA, and also set up a letter writing effort to Congress and to the Senate to get the FAA off our backs. The compromise bill, now passed by both the House and the Senate, soon to go up by itself for the Presidential signature, gives us the freedom from FAA regulation, as long as we stay within a few simple guidelines that are pretty much safety related, which amount to stay out of the way of full size aircraft, and maintain direct visual contact with your plane. Don't let it get out of sight. In fact, I'd almost guess that we could fly our own UPVs as long as we can take control in an emergency, as long as we can see them. STOP INVENTING PROBLEMS, go out and fly something, and chill! Get those chips off your shoulders. Stop inviting or manufacturing problems.
Posted on: 2/12/2012 1:51 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10955725

RE: Regulation passed the House
Red, it appears you're right again.
Posted on: 2/11/2012 10:36 AM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10954305

RE: Regulation passed the House
model aviation. Over the last 50 or so years, I seem to recall at least 4 groups trying to supplant
Posted on: 2/10/2012 6:45 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10953489

RE: Regulation passed the House
I like the attitudes of a number of people here towards the subject, people like KidEpoxy, Silent-AV8R, and many others who really seem to understand what's going on, and accept it as good. They understandably celebrate what has happened here, rather than unjustably knocking it, and the AMA's connection with it. Thanks to all of you. But then, intelligent discussion of all viewpoints is always a good thing. An American thing.
Posted on: 2/8/2012 11:17 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10950869

RE: Regulation passed the House
Why are so many people on this thread trying to imagine or invent problems? 91-57 has been around since 1981. Has anybody ever been stomped on for exceeding 400' altitude? Does anybody out there even know of anybody that has been? I haven't. Seems to me that as long as we operate in a reasonably safe manner, nothing negative is likely to happen. The FAA has in the past expressed satisfaction with us, and we have had an excellent safety record, even if about 20 years years ago a couple non-conformists did fly a plane into one of the Goodyear Blimps. Why would we have any trouble with them if we don't screw up?
Posted on: 2/7/2012 4:20 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10948714

RE: Regulation passed the House
Or does the AMA Safety Code now eventually replace the AC91-57? Seems that right now, the AMA is the only member based organization in the country with such a set of guidlines. I don't have any problem with that! The Safety Code specifies the 400' limit only up to 3 miles from an airport, not beyond, and suggests, or requests, that a flyer operating within that distance notify the airport operations people. Seems now that the situation leaves us fairly free to operate pretty much as we have been doing. Of course, some parts of that situation still kind of worries me, considering what some people on a couple forums have written about what they like to do.
Posted on: 2/6/2012 9:19 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10947480

RE: Regulation passed the House
Silent-AV8R, sad, but true. I wonder if the NRA has this kind of opposition among shooters.
Posted on: 2/6/2012 7:55 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10947385

RE: Club FOX!
[size=1][/size]I remember a couple Fox haters in my club really set their hooks in this recommendation as something that had to be done on all Fox engines. Frankly, I never ran into anybody ever felt they needed to do that. The article suggested it might be needed ofr SOME engines. I seem to remember seeing the same thing in the Owner's manual for a different engine. One of these guys had a complaint about metal chips in one of his engines. Interestingly, at the same time, the Engine Guru in RCM had just mentioned that this actually had become a very common problem on an entire run of Webra, I think, and at least one other high end engine. This friend was again the only person I ever met who'd run into this, also.
Posted on: 2/6/2012 7:41 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10947363

RE: Regulation passed the House
[size=4][/size]Just did a quick look see on line, and the earliest mention I found of a 400 foot altitude limit for model aircraft is in an FAA advisory document, 91-57, dated June 9, 1981. It references 400' above ground level. The AMA has recommended a 400' altitude limit when within 3 miles of an airport. FAA has never complained or objected that I'm aware of. One of my questions happens to be, how many people actually are capable of judging the altitude of their model, or any model, within 400'? We've tried this at our club a couple times, using a recording altimeter mounted in several different planes. On one occasion, 7 of us guessed the altitude of a 6' span Cub between 200' to 4000'. Nobody guessed the correct altitude, from the instrument, of 2260'. Another time, a Goldberg Falcon 56 was flown approximately where most of us spent most of out time. Guesses were from 20' to 500' Recorded altitue was 135'. Again, nobody was right. It's harder to do than you'd think. And I seem to recall seeing somebody on a previous page during a discussion of LOS range, saying it wouldn't be hard to increase the transmitter power. Technically true, but completely illegal. The FCC would definitely object. Also, while searching the AMA site, a message came up that the Senate had approved the Bill. Seems all that remains to get the shadow at least partially lifted is for the President to sign it. This definitely won't be a blank check to start (or for some people) stupid, unsafe flying.
Posted on: 2/6/2012 7:09 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10947328

RE: Club FOX!
Thought I'd send this along about the Fox carb needle initial adjustments. Also, for years I've been wrecking those odd ball slotted nuts fox uses to retain their needle springs with needle nosed pliers. Asked the person at Fox last time I called in for parts (Crankcases for three older .45s. The old straight style muffler is no longer available, and the new flanges have a different opening size and mounting screw spacing) where they get what appears to be a security type spanner. The tech said they just make them out of a hard metal tubing, and file the ends down to get the nubs to fit in the slots.
Posted on: 2/5/2012 9:37 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "Glow Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10945921

RE: Dale Root's Low Ender
Somebody there mentioned Root's Little Freak 27? Here's a copy of the Hobby Helper's plan.
Posted on: 2/5/2012 6:31 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10945718

RE: How Many Builders Are Left?
Myself, I prefer to build. Might be from starting back in 1948 when my dad would snap apart a Gillette Blue Blade, cover the back with a piece od mstic tape, so I could cut out the pieces for Comet and Megow kits and try to build them. What a treat, when sometime before 1950, my dad brought home a Cleveland kitm with the new Die cut parts, where all one had to do was glue a 1/16" strip of sandpaper to a piece of stripwood, then use it to sand in the stringer notches. I seem to have bad luck with ARFs, starting with the Wen Mac Aeromite with a plastic fuselage that fell apart before I ever got the engine to run, about 8 years later. The last ARF I hadm had a wing panel slide off from the center, second, and third ribs while coming out of a deliberate spin. I've uncovered and opened a couple ARFs, and am usually dissapointed to find things like only spot gluing with what looks like a hot-melt, and LG blocks actually mounted in balsa ribs without any kind of ply bracing.
Posted on: 2/5/2012 6:10 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10945684

Making toys flyable, Sometimes.
Last year I invested in flying toys on a couple spur of the moments type thingies. One was the Air Hogs Osprey Tilt Wing whatever you want to call it from Toys R Us, and the other was the Gryphon Helicopter from Target. Out of the box, neither seemed able to handle any wind, so I went to my FF field box (I always have a couple HLGs and small rubber powered FF models with me, even at the RC field) and tried adding a bit of lead putty to the nose of each. The lead putty I use is from a model railroad supplier, A-line.
Posted on: 2/5/2012 5:18 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "Toy-Grade RC Products"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10945626

RE: Where do you like to fly?
I like to fly anywhere I can do it safely. Since I started in this hobby/sport in 1948, I've flown is school yard, parks, sports stadiums, and some nice club fields. Also have flown in my last employer's parking lot, andin the town hall meeting area. With one club in the 8th grade, even flew Cox PeeWee RTP and Jetco ROG's in the Park Department auditorium. I've even flown on a frozen lake in Northern Sweden, and on a salt flat in Lybia. I even flew small scratch built rubber powered helicopter at a local mall during a show our club put on. And once, I startled one of our female engineers by flying an EZ-B in the lab, flying right around her as she was leaving another cube. There are times I like having the entire field to myself so I can do all the flying I want that day, and there are times I'll come out, set up one or more planes (usually many more) and spend 5 or 6 hours at the field sitting under the shelter and just BSing. In all these years, I have seen only been 2 clubs I would not be willing to join. One, flying over the pits was treated as a big joke, and their attitude towards no drinking and flying meant put your beer down before taking off, and the other club was not only very cliquish, but one time I was at their field, one of the members took off when a Piper Cub, owned by a local farmer, was on approach to a landing on his farm,, and went to fly formation behind him. The members there thought it was a cool thing. When I asked about it, I was told he does that all the time, and he knows what he's doing, besides, he's the club president. I never went back. This club has rarely held a field for more than a couple years, and has frequently been kicked out of fields for similar "Incidents". Doing stupid things from ignorance is one thing, intentionally doing them is outright stupidity.
Posted on: 2/5/2012 4:36 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10945577

RE: Club/Field with multi hobbies.
We have had people run cars at our field, and the previous property owner allowed us to use a pond at the base of the hill for RC boats, but the new owner is concerned about migratory waterfowl. Some of us when there isn't Radio flying going on, do some CL and FF flying there as well. Anbd I've flown a couple boomerangs there also. We're not predjudiced. In fact, we even allow RC helicopters.
Posted on: 2/5/2012 3:35 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10945521

RE: Snow
Snow? What's that? Only saw 2 falls this year, and on one, by the time I got out and started the snowthower, it was already turning into a messy slush. In fact, most of January and February so far, the temperature has been over freezing, very unusual for the Sunny Southern Shore of Lake Erie. In fact, I've been enjoying the first couple months of my 22nd year of all weather flyer. Sure beats the heck out of March 1990, when I had to get my flights in with a Guillow rubber FF job on a VERY frozen Lake HArvannan in Northern Sweden.
Posted on: 2/5/2012 3:28 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "The Clubhouse"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10945511

RE: Regulation passed the House
Yesterday, a club member, who works for the local FAA, sent out an E-copy of the current House bill to the club roster, in which the definition is not restricted to Radio Controlled models This is apparently the reconcilliation bill to compromise on differences between the original House and Senate versions. With everything going on, it will probably be passed, almost as an afterthought. The bill says nothing about having to join the AMA. Just says that if you want to fly, do it in accordance with a Community Based Organisation. At this time, the AMA happens to be the only one around in the US. Basically, to avoid trouble, just fly the plane safely, keep it in sight, and don't get in the way of full size people carrying aircraft.
Posted on: 2/5/2012 3:14 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10945501

RE: Lawsuit filed against AMA
I remember an episode at my RC club about 20 years ago. One of the self proclaimed "Best Pilots in the Club" was doing some show-off flying. We were setting up for a pylon race, and 4 club pilots were flying laps around the pylons to let the crew working the race (our first) get some experience. The BP started flying laps inverted with a Q-500. He started drifting out of the legitimate flight area, came over our regular pit, at which time we started calling out for him to get back, and even sent a runner out to try to get the situation under control. He wouldn't listen. Piled the plane into the parking lot, right between the CD's motor home and a group of young kids playing in that parking lot. The motor home, as well as some of the kids, were splashed with fuel from the tank rupturing when hitting the ground. The kids, and a lot of adults in the area, got scared. The pilot denied having any fault or responsibility for what happend, and claimed that it was people trying to tell him to get upright and back over the flying field who cused the crash. And besides, nobody was hurt, no vehicle was damage. Lataer, the father of one of the children mad the statement that if his sone had been hit, the lawsuit he'd have filed would have cleaned out the full AMA coverage and the homeowner's insurance and financial holdings of EVERY club member. Thing is, the errant pilot had an area wide reputation for being a dangerous pilot. And the pylon layout had the flight path almost 200' from the pit line and over 300' from the point of impact. When somebody gets hurt, he has right to bring suit against the people who he(or his lawyer) think are respnsible. This is based on the various state laws. Will he be awarded the amount he asks for? Will he collect the full amount? or even any amount? No way to tell untill the trial and appeals process is over. Who is responsible in this case? I'd bet each party involved will have his or her own opinion. And the court system can only do so mucjd
Posted on: 6/15/2011 1:51 PM by Author "50+AirYears" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10575804