RE: Top Flite B-25 ARF (Tecnical, tips, suggestions)
I wanted to say thank you to the great guys on here. One of the regulars made me a great deal on the canopy parts I needed, so I can get back in the air a LOT sooner than Tower Hobbies would allow.......
Posted on: 8/12/2009 6:02 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9011359

RE: Top Flite B-25 ARF (Tecnical, tips, suggestions)
Hey there....need some help. I dinged my B-25 a couple of weeks back and an currently repairing the wingtips and the nose. Not much damage, thank goodness. I lost power on the right hand motor right at rotation for liftoff and did a little damage to the nose and wingtips in the aftermath. I have so much static thrust from my electric setup that Vmc is pretty high on this thing, and I was not quite there. In any case, it is already well on the way to recovery! I destroyed my nose gunner canopy assembly. I have one on backorder from Tower hobbies....the date for it to be back in stock has gone from late July to Late Sept and this week back to late July. Given that is is July 28, who knows when it will be here. If there is anyone out ther that would consider selling me their vacuform and fiberglass nose parts, I would REALLY appreciate it. I am trying to get back in the air for a Sept event. I know a few folks have converted to a solid gun nose and hope there might be some spares out there. I know this part is often broken, though. If anyone would is not going to be building their B-25 for a few months, and would consider selling the nose fiberglass and vac form nose gunner glass, please send me a PM. I would send you the parts I get from Tower immediately upon arrival and pay all shipping costs.
Posted on: 7/28/2009 7:59 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8971834

RE: Top Flite B-25 ARF (Tecnical, tips, suggestions)
[quote]ORIGINAL: kochj Although electrics have conta-rotating props..... I always wondered why a manufacture doesn't produce a backwards running engine..?????????????/ THe p-factor yaw, would be cancelled out... [/quote] You used to be able to buy left handed rotation crankshafts for some K&B and OS engines, as I recall. A crank swap and the motor would run the other way.
Posted on: 7/28/2009 7:43 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8971792

RE: Flying Fields Lost and Why
The Fort Worth Thunderbirds are having to give up their field in a US Army Corps of Engineers park area at Benbrook Lake, due to a safety issue about local overflights of a lake perimeter road, especially with giant scale models, turbine models and IMAC large aerobatic models. Plus, the field has a million dollar panoramic view of the lake that the park REALLY wants to exploit for more picnic areas, camping areas and other park go-ers amenities. The good news is that the Corps of Engineers is moving us to another part of the park later this year and has more or less recreated our field (without the million dollar lake view) in a location that will be safer, with no models overflying any roads of populated park areas. Still a sad move, as we had been there for 40 years. Our club varies between 150 and 200 members.
Posted on: 7/24/2009 2:54 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8960699

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
[quote]ORIGINAL: PilotFighter ....snip...... Lately crash statistics for private pilots has jumped. Because they are buying Columbia 400s, now the Cessna 400, (once called the Lancair 4), they are buying Sirruses and they are building RV6's and RV8's. These are all hot little airplanes. Low time pilots are buying these types of airplanes and , yes, they are killing themselves. [/quote] 2008 was 1.25 fatalities per 100K GA flight hours.....not a noticiable blip upwards last year....was still trending down. Where did you see some stats that jumped? I have not found any really good year to date figures, but the trends you speak of were certainly unwer way in 2008 and well before. Won't be too long until there are some sUAS statistics to argue over....:)
Posted on: 7/14/2009 6:30 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8933444

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
[b]your original assertation that IFR was more dangerous than riding a motorcycle, or that the FAA rules made IFR more dangerous[/b].[/quote] Oh? Maybe you didn't bother to read this? [quote][b... 0.500 Scheduled Airline Passenger 0.004 [/b] [/quote] Notice the comparison to motorcycle racing where... and do not prove your [b]IFR[/b] assertations. Look at my comments highlighted above. Given that most GA
Posted on: 7/14/2009 6:21 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8933416

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot [quote]Got any proof to back that up? [/quote] http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/safety http://www.arthurhu.com/index/health/airsafe.htm http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2001/html/chapter_06.html VFR flying is safer than a motorcycle but still more dangerous than an automobile. IFR flying was more dangerous but may be slightly better now that GA aviation has improved. However, the GA fatality rate has improved in part because those without finances for better aircraft and instruments are either flying less or not at all. Your 7 out of 10 accidents in VFR is because there are a lot more hours of VFR flying, not because IFR is safer. However this is all off topic except to point out there are less aircraft flying around for our models to fly into. And yes the FAA is partly to blame. They have done wonders for commercial aviation, but only minor improvements in GA. [/quote] Some of the typical GA safety sites, but nowhere does it prove your original assertation that IFR was more dangerous than riding a motorcycle, or that the FAA rules made IFR more dangerous. The single most dangerous thing about flying is the lack of quailty decisions and judgements made by some pilots, which has nearly nothing to do with the FAA. While not precisely on topic, some discussion of FAA statistics and regualtions is not terribly far of topic in this thread. In the future, we will see more of the same type of discussions, with UAVs included.
Posted on: 7/13/2009 4:04 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8929643

RE: Epoxy Advice Needed
[quote]ORIGINAL: Erik Steinbring Bkdavy, I went back and reread your post.  You make it appear that you are getting a lot of shrinkage and that cannot be the case.  Epoxies are 100% solids meaning there are no carriers there is nothing to leave the system.  Any shrinkage is nominal out numerous decimal places.  ,,,,,snip......[/quote] Erik, what you are saying is sort of true, but if you take full scale sailplanes as an example, there is evidence that there is some post cure shrinkage. This is found in the upper wing skins of a full scale sailplane that are joined to the composite wing spar, with a thin coat of epoxy and filler material. Over time, the perfect upper surface of the wing from the mold becomes faintly marred by area shrinkage at the spar cap area. Some of the more modern sailplanes have been able to reduce this effect greatly, but many middle age sailplanes and older sailplanes are affected by it. The effect gradually gets worse as years pass. Some sailplane versions as less affected than others. I personally know this is true, as I have helped a buddy sand out the wings of his glass slipper sabout 25 years back, when I was an active glider pilot. I have seen the spar cap shrinkage on a number of sailplanes, hwen the light was just right. This .pdf link to a sailplane test discusses the shrinkage issues to some degree: http://www.oxaero.com/EffectsOfWingSurfaceDistortions.pdf Ergo....epoxy can shrink. i
Posted on: 7/12/2009 8:28 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "Composites Fabrication And Repair"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8927434

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot The FAA has killed GA by not doing anything to improve GA safety. A motorcycle is safer than flying a small plane, at least as IFR. Burt Rutan proposed some changes that would improve safety, espically IFR but of course that might mean laying off controllers. The aviation community denys this but swtistics compiled by Aviation Consumer years ago proved they are not as safe as they should be. But no matter the reason, the fact is there just are not any GA aircraft to run into in many areas. [/quote] Got any proof to back that up? I happen to be an inactive private pilot and follow the accident statics some myself. Fatalities per 100,000 flight hours in GA are down about 20% over the last 20 years, from 1.52 to 1.25. Most accidents are caused by pilot error and tend to be things like continued VFR into IFR conditions, stall/spin accidents, running out of fuel. In fact, about 7 out of 10 GA accidents are related to VFR operations and have nothing to do with IFR ops. (flying into IFR conditions when you are not rated for IFR is not the fault of the IFR system) Airspace rules and lots of regulations have certainly taken some of the fun out of GA, but other than that, the decrease in GA activity is caused by other things, not the FAA.
Posted on: 7/12/2009 7:57 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8927354

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
[quote]ORIGINAL: PilotFighter [quote]ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot The FAA has all but killed GA and there is almost no planes to collide with, and fewer models. [/quote] A Bonanza is nearly a million dollars and gas was recently over 6 bucks a gallon, but the FAA killed GA . LMFAO ![:)] [/quote] If you look at student pilot registrations and the total light aircraft fleet over time, the industy has contracted. I think the FAA regs had a little something to do with it, but it is not the prime cause. The cost of a Bonanza going to a million bucks and the price of avgas going to 6 bucks a gallon is due to lots of issues, the least of which is probably the FAA regs.
Posted on: 7/12/2009 2:32 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8926688

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
Red, if this thread has that effect on you, why are you posting to it? Feel free to tune it out and ignore it if you don't like it. IMO, dipping in and posting about how many posts each person has made in a thread you don't like seems silly to me, as does the randon abuse about the thread in general. This debate, however silly it might be in yours or anyone else's opinion, does not require your blessing or approval.
Posted on: 7/11/2009 8:59 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8925059

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot So I don't see why I could not get a UAV certificate and fly my model as a UAV above 400 feet. [/quote] You need to read up on the link on my previous post before you say that. With a few exceptions: Class I sUAS aircraft are not to operate above 400 feet, Class II, III are limited to 400 feet, unless in Class G Airspace outside of Mode C rules. If so, they get to go all the way up to 700 feet Class IV Are ONLY allowed to operate in Class G airspace outside of Mode C rules, and at test centers. These larger (55lb or less) sUAS aircraft can more or less fly at up to 700 feet and sometimes to 1200 feet. If you notifiy ATC, you can get permission to fly above 400 feet under certain circumstances, sometimes with waivers and sometimes with simple notifications only. Nothing simple or easy about it, though.
Posted on: 7/10/2009 8:01 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8922518

RE: Mark's Models 'History' and Welcome Mark
What about the 1/4 scale ASW-20 sailplane kit that MM produced for a while?
Posted on: 7/10/2009 6:43 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "Golden Age, Vintage & Antique RC"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8922549

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R It is abundantly clear the KE has not actually read the entire ARC document, or if he has he has not understood what it says. At the very least I suggest people obtain the entire document and read pages 55 to 61 of the main text. These table summarize the actual sUAS Groups that the ARC recommended. Of course models are not in this group, so they do not show on the table. But the table does detail exactly what will be required to operate an aircraft as a sUAS under the recommendations as presented by the ARC. [/quote] That would shoot too many holes in his beloved position. The link to the full ARC is here: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/rulemaking/media/sUAS_ARC_Recs.pdf The charts on pages 65-71 are a good summation of the requirements for the sUAS licensing, pilot and crew requirments and operations for Group I, Group II, Group III and Group IV sUAS aircraft. And it proves my point that it will be anything but simple. Many of the requirments cannot be met with a "normal" model aircraft, proving that flying a model aircraft as a SUAS in groups II-IV is a non starter.
Posted on: 7/10/2009 6:09 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8922486

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
[quote]ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy Sport [quote]So I don't see why I could not get a UAV certificate and fly my model as a UAV above 400 feet. I think that is the tier that the Kid is talking about. Just because the AMA wants to completely ignore this fact doesn't mean these tiers don't exist.[/quote] Yup it really is that simple. [b]Silent[/b] Just what section of the ARC do you claim
Posted on: 7/10/2009 5:33 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8922409

RE: Top Flite B-25 ARF
I will be converting my doors to the correct cycle effect this winter. Not all that hard to do. Will need 3 more servos, two minis, one for each set of main doors and one micro for the nose gear door and a little electronic sequencer module. There is a link to someone that has already done it over in the big thread. He used a Futaba 14Z and the tx programming, though, instead of a module...;) Easy to make little tabs that are sprng loaded for the tiny doors that stay open for the gear legs.
Posted on: 7/6/2009 8:19 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8911691

RE: Top Flite B-25 ARF (Tecnical, tips, suggestions)
[quote]ORIGINAL: Mustang Fever snip...... Thomas: I noticed you removed the black and white stripes from the aft fuse. Were they trim or covering? .....................[:D] [/quote] The white trim stripes appeared to be Monokote iron on material. They peeled off fairly easily, but it took some surface scrubbing with lacquer thinner to get rid of the left over non colored residue. There is a very
Posted on: 7/6/2009 8:12 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8903779

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
process....:) Let's all hope that the AMA prevails on behalf of [b]ALL [/b]modelers
Posted on: 7/6/2009 7:54 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8911614

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Stickbuilder Bob, you are going to have speed restrictions regardless of who is doing what. Even full scale aircraft are regulated as to speed below 10000 feet. We are not goig to be flying at higher altitudes than that, so the current regulation concerning max airspeed would apply to us as well. Bill, AMA 4720 [/quote] I think the vast majority of us can live with a 250 knot speed limit below 10000 feet, if that limit happens to get stuck into the new model aircraft rules. Technically, since we are not aircraft in the FAA sense of the word, that rule does not apply to us, yet. For that tiny group of people that need to go faster, perhaps for certain turbine speed events, a waiver can be applied for and used as needed to fly faster. Interestingly, the dynamic soaring crowd out in SoCal have set a speed record for DS of 392 mph, which is rather impressive. If a speed limit ends up as part of the new rules, they will need a waiver to do high speed DS as well....:)
Posted on: 7/4/2009 4:48 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8906479

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Red Scholefield FWIW We stuck one of the Winged Shadows altimeters in a number of different planes during a normal flying session at our field. Planes were everything from profile electric foamies, trainers to 35% 3D gassers - a dozen or more in all, and they did their thing. We were quite surprised to find they seldom exceeded 400 ft and when they did it was only by a very small amount. [/quote] Yep, I believe that. The only place is is really going to matter is soaring and perhaps certain large turbine aircraft that do 500 foot high loops. The free flight contest type guys have no way to stay below 400 feet for sure, unless they create some sort of new D/T device based on an altimeter...:)
Posted on: 7/4/2009 4:47 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8906488

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
[quote]ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf [quote]ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R As I have pointed out numerous times, if this happens, and 400 feet is the number, then a very large number of modelers will be forced to stop enjoying the hobby. [/quote] Ok...show us where AMA was fighting the inevitable 400' limit to give your argument any credibility or show us where we perceive AMA was trying to install the inevitable 400' limit...I didn't think so...ha We can show you where lots of irrelevant AMA ''guideline CBO SC speak'' was introduced in the ARC's final recommendations... AMA’s fight should have only focused on retaining as much latitude as possible for model aviation in general…i.. [/quote] the previous part 97 recomendations were never rules, just suggestions. It was a silly suggestion to begin with. I would be glad to show you where the AMA is now fighting the inevitable 400' altitude limit for ALL modelers, even though you think the AMA postions have no value. Click the AMA ARC link, check out section 3.3, part 5 of the proposed general operating limitations for model aircraft. http://www.modelaircraft.org/faa/recommendations.pdf The AMA alternative view, highlighted in yellow, clearly states reasons they are against the 400 foot alitude limit, unless the model is operating near an airport. Your wrong minded suggestion that the AMA should not be involved in the process of the ARC is, thank goodness, a very tiny majority. I predict a poll asking that question here on R/C universe would count the people that agree with you in single digits.
Posted on: 7/4/2009 4:33 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8906436

RE: Aeromodeling Tiers, OK cause voluntary?
Still arguing the tier thing, huh? I am glad that only one or two people are looking at this through binoculars made from toilet paper rolls..... Your silly specualtion that modelers would be able to opt into being a full fledged sUAS unit with the attending airworthiness regulations and operation limitations is....silly. Not going to happen, not even in your personal fictional universe. The AMA intent on Section 3 of the ARC is settled, unless you like to argue for the sake of arguing, or prefer to believe in conspiracy theories rather than the truth. Moving on to the altitude discussion. I think the FAA can be made to understand that the 400 foot limit, when not near an airfield, is overly restrictive. In 40 years of R/C flying, I have seen extremely few full scale aircraft fly over a model field at less than 1000 feet of altitude, unless said model field was near an airport. Most prudent full scale pilots stay above 1500 or so when wandering over the countryside, to have a chance of making a forced landing safely, with a little time to deal with it. When it is not close to an airport, the first 1000 to 1500 feet or so AGL being used by models does not endanger the national airspace.
Posted on: 7/4/2009 4:09 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8906398

RE: Is it time to revisit AMA safety code rule 4 ?:
I think the dangers of maiden flights in general are overrated and that is why I posted the thread to begin with. The case of the Aero-Design events proves that maiden flights with a degree of risk can be made in from of a crowd and that the risks can be made reasonable. Given that most maiden flights at R/C type fly in events would be of proven model designs, the risk there is pretty minimal. even in front of a crowd. I think it is prudent to not maiden a model of experimental design in front of a large crowd, even more so if it is large and heavy. I recently maidened 4 smaller models of my own on the day before SMALL Steps in Little Rock, AR, plus a couple of others for other folks. There were around 20 early arrivals at the field that day and there were several other maidens performed as well. All were without issues and the models performed well all weekend.I madened a 5th model Friday, after event hours. I maidened a 6th and final model after the event was over on Sunday afternoon. Everything was safely accomplished. My building and flying time is limited by job and family duties and I often do not get a chance to fly during the couple of weeks before an event. Thus, I safely test new and modified models before an event or after event hours. Some folks like to have others maiden a model and the talent pool at a fly in is often much greater than at the local flying field. Given other flight risks at model events (Midairs, equipment failure, pilot error), the slight additional risk of a maiden flight is extremely minimal.
Posted on: 7/4/2009 3:51 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8906357

RE: Top Flite B-25 ARF (Tecnical, tips, suggestions)
A few more B-25 pics, this time from it's first public outing, at the Waco, Tx Scale Fly In on June 20. Mananged to loose a battery hatch from the right nacelle on the last flight. I made a quickie fiberglass mold of the left hatch and laid up a copy of it. Will do some filling and sanding as needed on the new hatch to blend it to the right nacelle. Was a hot day in Waco, nearly 100 degrees. Had a brisk wind right down the runway and the B-25 was landing fine with no flaps, as the last pic shows.
Posted on: 7/1/2009 10:23 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8899480

RE: Top Flite B-25 ARF (Tecnical, tips, suggestions)
Understand your frustration. It would indeed make your repair much easier if TF could help with a part drawing or something like that. A shame they are not set up to do so. Likely they want to protect the CAD of the kit, but one part should not really be an issue. I would send a PM to the gentleman that started this thread, who was one of the designers for TF that helped create the B-25.. He is very helpful and might be able to break out the the part drawing you need or perhaps help in some other way. His R/C Universe name is kproton.
Posted on: 7/1/2009 10:12 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8899440

RE: Top Flite B-25 ARF (Tecnical, tips, suggestions)
cobi, sorry to hear about your crash.......no one likes to ever see that happen. I was wondering why you expect Top Flite to replace the broken parts, when you stated the crash was due to a bad servo? Top Flite will replace parts proven defective and they will even replace an entire model if it can be proven it was a manufacturing defect that caused the crash. In your case, Top Flite had no connection with the crash. So, why sould they pay or send new parts? In any case, it does look like you are doing a fine job rebuilding and will have a very nice gun nose bird when you are finished.
Posted on: 7/1/2009 8:44 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8899217

RE: New source for Cox products
Scott, As I recall, the Sportavia tooling was originally at Kyosho and they molded the model for you, like the early Cox Centurion. Does Kyosho still have the original tooling for the original Cox Glow and Electric Eportavia?
Posted on: 7/1/2009 2:50 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8898231

RE: You gotta love copyrights!
A sudden rebirth for a 4 years dormant thread.......
Posted on: 6/27/2009 4:28 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8886175

RE: New source for Cox products
Any chance that the warrior princess might be considering rereleasing some of the classic Cox R/C aircraft models in the future? The Kyosho RF-5 Sportavia that Cox used to have the exclusive on here in the US is screaming to be released again.......
Posted on: 6/27/2009 4:25 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum ""1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8886167

RE: Is it time to revisit AMA safety code rule 4 ?:
[quote]ORIGINAL: Gremlin Castle Your club events add into all of the other clubs events happening at the same time around the country increasing the risk of a problem if a model is tested during an event. As for testing before or after an event even by one minute the number of people in the potential flight area are a lot fewer than during the event. They don't all suddenly appear and dissapear by the clock. They do however get quite involved in the middle hours of the event increasing the chance of a problem should something happen. Also I do not recall the Aero events running 3 to 5 flightlines. Correct me if I am wrong. [/quote] No doubt there are more AMA events. But, I maintain that the average model that would be first flown at an event is far less likely to crash than the highly experimental load lifters at the Aero Design events. I am still of the opinion that there are safe ways to manange first flights at events and have mentioned ways in previous posts to do so. There have been many dozens of Aero design events over the years, two per year for many years. Still quite a record of first flights in public. Yes, the Aero Design events are single flight line. I don't think it matters, though. I could see reserving the fist hour or last hour of an event for a first flight...like you said, the tempo is lower then. I have never seen a very large difference in population at events from the pilots meeting to the middle of the day, but things do thin out towards the end of the day. I do not think your generalization that there are a lot fewer people present at the beginning and ending of the event is always true. Probably less spectators early and late, though. First flights are beig done once in a while at events, anyway...why not work to make the happen in the safest possible way?
Posted on: 6/26/2009 8:00 PM by Author "Thomas B" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8884107