RE: Waiver required?
[quote]ORIGINAL: pmerritt Has anyone read the insurance in the same interpretation I have?  Does not the wording state that we are ONLY covered if we fly at a sanctioned/AMA approved field that distinctly describes the precise requirements of that field?   Whether ANYONE is an AMA  member or NOT, if they are flying at a non-sanctioned AMA site, then they forfeit AMA insurance due to violation of policy agreement set forth in the first few paragraphs of the policy.  It's black and white to me. AMA insurance is SECONDARY to one's homeowners, considering the pilot IS indeed a homeowner.  The apartment dwellers will probably rely on the AMA insurance as primary since they aren't shelling out annual premiums.  I'm surprised most homeowners insurance would even cover remote controlled aircraft.  I would have never considered that to be a covered liability of my homeowner or at least have some fine print to void said coverage.  I'm not an insurance underwriter nor adjuster and I hope like hell that I never have to find out if it does apply or not.  To put my two cents worth in, flying anything at a NON AMA field wouldn't require waivers, elementary school education, common sense, or even a pulse.  In answer to the original question, yes, you need a turbine waiver to be ''AMA legal'' to fly at a non AMA field. But, your non AMA field set up must comply with the AMA guidelines, set forth in the AMA rules as to how the field / flightline is established .( For insurance purposes ) My understanding is the insurance is supplemental to your personal insurance, if AMA is complied with. [/quote] [/quote] I will weigh in briefly to clarify the insurance questions running throughout the thread. First off, there are really three "categories", or covered parties, in the AMA insurance program. The first is the member, the second is the club and the third is the site owner. Many people miss the fact that the real value of AMA insurance is in protecting the site owner .... if we couldn't do that, we would have far fewer flying sites in the US. The club is also important ... how many clubs would exist if they could not protect themselves against liability lawsuits? And in turn, the availability of flying sites is in some cases is linked to the existence of a club, as they are the administrative body that the site owner relies on to manage the use of the property. As to the Homeowners being primary, this works to everyone's benefit. Since the majority of homeowners policies already cover (and you pay) for liability coverage, to make the AMA insurance primary would be duplicating coverage you already have, with a significant increase in the premium. It makes no sense to pay for two primary policies (in any industry) and it is typically not done. Layering of policies is by far the predominant standard. The AMA insurance for members attaches to the individual. It matters not where you fly ... AMA property, private property or public property. You are covered in any case. When a member has a loss, it potentially exposes each and every one of us to cost. If the size of the loss exceeds the homeowners limits (or there is no homeowners coverage in force), the deductible (policy retention limit) of the AMA insurance, which is $250,000, is paid out of the AMA treasury before the insurance coverage kicks in. The AMA treasury is funded by you and me, so we all eventually have to kick in money to fund every large liability claim. Losses happen, but if you as an AMA member do irresponsible things that increase the potential for loss (for example, flying a turbine aircraft without the appropriate skills), you are really exposing all of us to potential additional cost. Lastly, the insurance coverage we buy is voluntarily offered. There is no federal regulation that says any insurance company in the land must provide individual/siteowner/club coverage to the AMA. In fact, it is a specialized coverage that falls outside of the standard general liability policy and there are only a handful of companies even willing to consider the risk. It is incumbent on the membership to fly safely and abide by the rules in order to protect this coverage. I will tell you that if we load up our insurer with claims that demonstrate our inability to follow the safety code the price will increase, limits will be reduced, the deductible will be increased or even worse, the AMA will have difficulty finding insurance at any price. If we think we have problems with the FAA, imagine what would happen to the supply of flying sites if coverage were not available, or if the limits of that coverage were cut back significantly. By the way, this also applies to US manufacturers and businesses. They are typically sued too, and if their carriers cut back or significantly raise premiums, we will see fewer products in the marketplace. I have been heavily involved in the FAA issue as president of the JPO as well. I will simply say that flying turbines is not a right, it is a privilege and it depends not only on the availability of insurance but also the blessings of the regulatory community. I encourage everyone through actions and words, particularly in public forums, to support the AMA and the safety standards and to avoid controversy and unnecessary risk of loss. As with all governance, we can work behind the scenes to change those regulations that make little sense or are no longer current, but as a SIG community we must demonstrate we are capable of self governance or the risk to the cost or even the viability of our segment of the hobby will increase. I will say one more thing ... I do like the posts that offer help to those seeking waivers. If we spend more time helping each other to make the process of complying with the safety code easier, things just get better all around. Thanks, Keith.
Posted on: 10/12/2011 7:21 AM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10761337

RE: New Jetcat V3 Turbo Prop!
Steve converted mine a couple of months back and I am very happy with the engine so far. It starts well, is much quieter and (kow) it is very reliable. Plenty of power. The ECU is also better and I like being able to set prop RPM. Feels to me like a form of constant speed prop.
Posted on: 6/14/2011 7:14 AM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10573296

RE: Turbo Props
Well, the weather was not good today so no flying, but I did pick up the Tucano from Steve Burnett who did the JetCat install and had an opportunity to run the engine a couple of times. All went well. It was getting dark when I took the picture, but you can see how the engine went in. My thanks to Steve. I consider myself to be a decent builder, but when ultra precision is called for, no one is better than Steve. He is a true CNC whisperer!
Posted on: 3/20/2011 5:36 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10412445

RE: Turbo Props
I doubt I could do anything that would dissuade you from giving me crap. I do want you to notice how late I am up tonight, though, for an old fart.
Posted on: 3/16/2011 9:22 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10405151

RE: Turbo Props
Geez, Boli and Paul. You are supposed to be my friends and have my back .... [8D] I have owned the Turbo Raven and the Tucano. The Raven looks better but the Tucano is easier to fly. With the flaps and tricycle gear, landings are a breeze. Plane flies like a big trainer. As for the TP engines, I have owned two Jet Centrals and will be getting my first experience with the JetCat this weekend if things fall into place. I won't engage in a religious forum debate on the engines, but if anyone wants to PM me, I'll share what facts I have as I gain some experience with the JetCat.
Posted on: 3/16/2011 8:48 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10405095

RE: JPO Update on FAA
I spoke to Dave last week as part of the routine follow up that the JPO does on the FAA regulatory process. Here is what I learned: 1) The recent meetings with the FAA have remained positive. There have really been no material changes in attitude or information since the webinar. Again, you may access the printed materials and the recording of the webinar on the JPO site www.jetpilots.org 2) The proposed date for the NPRM has not changed. It is still expected in July but may be delayed. 3) Dave had mentioned previously in his column that at some point, the modeling community would be wise to begin educating our elected representatives on our issues. This is not a panic reaction to any significant deterioration in FAA discussions or impending bans, but rather a thoughtful step. The AMA will soon ask the modeling community to partake in this effort. As this call to action from the AMA takes place, there will be a natural reaction on the part of some modelers to overreact. I would strongly urge you not to do so. If people needlessly panic the unintended consequences, particularly for manufacturers, may in part become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Common sense would suggest: 1) Work with the AMA to the fullest extent possible to get the word out to elected representatives 2) Please don't post "the sky is falling" threads on RCU or other boards. The JPO is working hard to be a credible source of information for the jet community and we hope that you trust us. 3) Pass our updates along to other jet modelers who may not frequent the message boards so that they have accurate and timely information as well. 4) Please feel free to contact me or your JPO district VP if you have any questions or want further information. We all try to respond promptly to all emails and PMs. 5) For JPO members, we will host another webinar in the next 60 days to provide direct access to information from the AMA and another chance to ask them questions. Stay tuned. Thanks, Keith.
Posted on: 2/12/2011 9:24 AM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10330488

RE: Turbo Props and brakes...
I have been down this road a couple of times with the AMA on behalf of the JPO and while the language could be clearer, I have been told that "on command" means brakes. I asked why not just use the word "brakes" and was told that the authors of the wording wanted to leave room for thrust reversing systems. How true this really is, I don't know as I was getting the info second hand. Does anyone have any good data on turbine prop RPMs at idle as opposed to normal 2 cycle engines? I am thinking that if the data shows similar thrust at idle between recip and turbine prop aircraft, that would almost be a defacto argument to get the rule changed. Boli, you have both ... do you think it would be worth your time doing a little data gathering?
Posted on: 1/6/2011 6:50 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10244749

RE: Ama Insurance
[quote]ORIGINAL: frankp Keith, What and how much is covered under a members personal liability coverage is not what is in question. The question is why the AMA has primary liability coverage for the EC and other employees, club officers, including the recently added Safety Officer but does not supply the same insurance coverage to CD's, AVP's, Large Aircraft Inspectors, and District Safety Officers. I suggest that the reason is money. I would also suggest that if you are one of the people not covered by the AMA primary insurance and are actively performing one of the above mentioned services, that you contact your District VP and ask if he supports providing the coverage. I would let him know that if he does not support the purchase of the insurance, you may be forced to withold your services. Frank [/quote] I agree it is about the money, but I am probably thinking about different money. Since AMA insurance carries a $250,000 retention limit (deductible) your proposal would shift the burden of paying for these potential losses from private insurance directly on to the membership of the AMA. If there is a premium increase due to losses of this nature now being primary, the membership pays for that too. We all do literally 100s of things in our private and recreational life that expose us to liability, and virtually none of them are covered by anything other than personal liability insurance. I understand where you are coming from as on the surface it seems unfair that these groups have primary coverage and many other who perform administrative duties on behalf of the AMA have to use personal insurance first (the list is actually longer than you have outlined), but what is good for the general membership might actually be to move the existing groups to secondary coverage rather than continuing to load up the membership dues of the AMA with more exposure. Maybe another way to look at it is if a jury finds that I am liable because I can't demonstrate I have exercised reasonable care in inspecting an airplane, why shouldn't I (and my personal insurance company) be responsible for that rather than pushing it off on the rest of the membership? I'm already paying for this anyhow. One other point ... if the AMA is primary and that takes my personal insurance out of the picture, I might actually have less total coverage to apply to a loss than if my personal insurance is primary, cause I know the AMA insurance is there as secondary. I don't have the answer on this one, but I am researching this now. I understand you may not agree and my intent is not to debate the issue ... just to show that there are "sub surface" considerations to this issue and perhaps alternate ways to think about it. By the way, I am an experimental inspector, a turbine CD who signs off on waivers, a committee chair, a leader member and I have also had a hand in penning some the existing AMA regulations and I have no primary coverage. So if anyone should complain, I should be the guy. Thanks Frank. Hope you don't mind the opposing view.
Posted on: 1/1/2011 4:02 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10232618

RE: Ama Insurance
Sorry Frank, I should have been clearer. I meant to ask if you thought there was no coverage from a person's primary insurer ... e.g. Homeowners liability, tenant's policy, personal injury protection policy or umbrella coverage?
Posted on: 1/1/2011 7:33 AM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10231512

RE: JPO Update on FAA
Ok, guys, the webinar recording is now on the JPO site, front page. www.jetpilots.org Sorry for the delay, but as you may know, Rich Hanson's headset died shortly after the start of the presentation and the audio quality was pretty poor til we got the the Q&A. Rich generously volunteered to re-record the audio and overlay it on the presentation. Nothing new has really transpired over the holidays ... I would expect I will have another update for everyone after the FAA/AMA meetings in early January. Thanks and Happy New Years to all. Regards, Keith.
Posted on: 12/28/2010 2:04 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10223408

RE: JPO/AMA webinar
Just a heads up ... the Powerpoint Rich Hanson walked JPO members through in the 12/15 Webinar is now posted to the JPO web site. www.jetpilots.org The recording had poor audio for the first 30 minutes, and it is being re-recorded by Dave and Rich. The full audio transcript will be posted to the JPO site some time early next week. Thanks, Keith.
Posted on: 12/18/2010 9:01 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10205537

RE: JPO Update on FAA
Just a heads up ... the Powerpoint Rich Hanson walked JPO members through in the 12/15 Webinar is now posted to the JPO web site. www.jetpilots.org The recording had poor audio for the first 30 minutes, and it is being re-recorded by Dave and Rich. The full audio transcript will be posted to the JPO site some time early next week. Thanks, Keith.
Posted on: 12/18/2010 8:59 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10205534

RE: Ama Insurance
Frank, do you think there is no insurance coverage at all?
Posted on: 12/18/2010 5:10 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10205211

RE: JPO/AMA webinar
I will have the powerpoint on the website tomorrow. Waiting on the recording and will post it too as soon as it arrives. Thanks for the excellent summary, Bob.
Posted on: 12/17/2010 6:32 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10203612

RE: Why did my engine shutdown inflight
We are guessing here but I have seen two other potential causes. Not long ago, I was having the same problem, though fortunately the engine was shutting down on taxi out, not on takeoff. Turns out that I had to retrain the ECU to recognize the proper cutoff and idle pulse widths. I had previously trained the ECU and had a number of successful flights so I am not sure why the ECU lost the parameters, but that was the problem. Also, if you weather conditions were cool and dry, this may have been a static shutdown, particularly if you saw no white smoke. Typically, if the engine shuts down from an air bubble or other non ECU commanded event, you will get vaporization of unburned kero. If it is an ECU commanded event that closes the solenoid, no white smoke trail. Having said this, most ECUs will have a message something like "power fail" that signals an anomaly like a static induced processor interruption. Good luck in trouble shooting your issue.
Posted on: 12/14/2010 3:43 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10197268

RE: JPO Update on FAA
[quote]ORIGINAL: Nick Yuhasz Keith: Thanks for the update and JPO's efforts. Since I and other JPO members don't always log onto RCU regularly, I would appreciate receiving JPO updates via E-Mail also. JPO has its members E-Mail addresses, please use them to keep us up to date and not just for membership renewal reminders. Nick [/quote] Nick, good idea. Thanks. K.
Posted on: 12/9/2010 8:31 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10187621

RE: JPO Update on FAA
[quote]ORIGINAL: Eddie P [quote]ORIGINAL: pilott28 I will have to follow up on this subject. Through my involvement in the insurance committee I know that we are looking for ways to solve the liability problems associated with joint EAA/Model events (to encourage them), but beyond that, I'm not sure what connectivity there would be on the sUAS initiative. [/quote] Would you be in a position
Posted on: 12/9/2010 8:30 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10187618

RE: JPO Update on FAA
[quote]ORIGINAL: Eddie P Can you speak to the cooperation that has been discussed superficially between the EAA (experimental aircraft association) and the AMA in recent times? As you are probably aware, the need for political action in the form of lobbying and grass roots campaigning has been and continues to be the subtle leverage that the EAA community has been forced to use to exist in any sort of attractive format. I certainly don't look forward to the costs associated with this sort of track, but at the end of the day it may not only be a wise move to have had discussion with a lobbyist, but possibly a couple lobbyists to make sure the direction and feedback is what we need to see before committing to one or another. Not only that, a plan has to be excecuted when needed, not formed in the heat of the moment. I trust these things are being considered. I have limited experience in this field and there do exist, (surprise surprise), bs'ers and scammers calling themselves lobbyists that all too happy to take money for not a lot of results. [/quote] I will have to follow up on this subject. Through my involvement in the insurance committee I know that we are looking for ways to solve the liability problems associated with joint EAA/Model events (to encourage them), but beyond that, I'm not sure what connectivity there would be on the sUAS initiative.
Posted on: 12/7/2010 7:26 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10183415

JPO Update on FAA
This is a JPO update on the current discussions between the FAA and the AMA on potential regulations impacting model aviation. This update is based upon an ongoing dialog that the JPO is having with Dave Mathewson, our latest exchange having occurred this morning. I am starting a new post as several of the running threads on the subject have gotten pretty lengthy. First, let me repeat that I have never gotten the impression that Dave or the AMA Executive Committee feel the turbine community is unimportant, despite our relatively small size. They have discussed and supported turbines openly with the FAA and are always responsive to my calls and emails. I will tell you it is my personal opinion that the turbine community is very fortunate to have this leadership team in place at the AMA during these times. So here is a recap of what I know at this point. 1) The FAA continues (by law) to keep the specifics of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) private, however, it is clear that several issues will be important to them including speed, altitude, size of model and proximity to full scale operations. While various numbers and alternatives have been batted about, what the FAA will ultimately recommend in the NPRM is far from certain. 2) While the NPRM is not due to be published until next summer, the AMA continues to meet with the FAA almost weekly in the hope that current dialog and education of FAA officials on our modeling operations will result in a more realistic and workable NPRM. This strategy makes a lot of sense and should be more collaborative than simply waiting for the NPRM and then responding in a defensive fashion. 3) You should expect that the FAA discussions will run hot and cold. Part of the issue is that the leadership at the FAA has changed multiple times. In the early fall, discussions hit a low point, but there are signs that things may be turning around. The latest round of meetings have been more collaborative, an FAA official with modeling experience is engaging positively in the process, and the FAA has accepted an invitation to participate in the AMA Expo in January ... all signs we should find encouraging. 4) As I mentioned earlier, the AMA and FAA have openly discussed turbines and at this point, there is no indication that the FAA intends on prohibiting turbine operations under the auspices of the AMA. In fact, the waiver program has been held out as a positive component of the AMA's overall safety record. 5) As Dave and Rich Hanson have pointed out, there may come a time where certain aspects of the final NPRM simply would be detrimental to our hobby (or business), and at that point the membership will be asked to support a lobbying effort. We are not there yet. As a precautionary measure, the AMA has also engaged a lobbyist to advise us should this become a legislative issue and to help open the door to elected representatives if needed. 6) The AMA will step up communications efforts with its membership in coming months. The JPO is working with the AMA on a potential webcast specifically for our SIG members to let us hear first hand about the latest developments in the FAA discussions.... another indication of the AMA's support of our community. 7) Right now, the NPRM is not due out until June 2011 at the earliest, though the FAA has the ability to modify its release date. If this happens I will publish an update. While the process continues to wind its way to a conclusion, I would encourage everyone to fly safely, abide by and encourage others to abide by the regulations, and please don't spread misinformation. There is no reason to believe at this point that the FAA will do anything to prohibit our operations. Thanks, and please feel free to contact me at pilot114@aol.com if you have further questions. I will continue to try to provide reliable and timely information as things progress. Your support of the JPO (or any other SIG representing any of your other RC interests) is important to the modeling community, and if you have not joined and wish to do so, visit our website www.jetpilots.org and click on the join button. Dues are $25 a year. Happy holidays to all from me and the rest of the JPO officers.
Posted on: 12/7/2010 3:26 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10182873

RE: RCU Buy/Sell
Problems happen with technology, though an outage this extensive is pretty rare. What I find a little odd is the lack of communication from RCU about the issues.
Posted on: 12/5/2010 1:45 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10178240

RE: Absolute best scale(ish) fighter for short grass operation?
Not sure if you like L39's but they are excellent airplanes for grass .... big sprung gear and wheels, the doors close with the gear extended so there is nothing hanging down, high pipe position which is easy on the grass, it slows down nicely for short fields, is easy to fly and there are a bunch of kit options and used aircraft for sale that cover the price and size range. I have flown the skymaster and airworld versions and they are both good choices. I own a yellow F15 and while it would be OK on a really good grass field, it would not be my first choice.
Posted on: 11/25/2010 11:50 AM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10158989

RE: skymaster F 16 1/6 scale with a p200
I have one in the box and asked Dave Carter for his thoughts as he has owned several, including P180 and P200 powered versions. He liked the 180 ok but when I asked about the 200 he grinned from ear to ear. That's what I will eventually install. Dave may weigh in directly as he does monitor the forum.
Posted on: 11/23/2010 9:00 AM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10153964

RE: FAA Decision Looms on Model Aircraft Regulations
Shaz, visit the website www.jetpilots.org and click the join button on the left, then select new from the slide out menu. You provide a couple of pieces of data and can pay using paypal or send our treasurer a check. Thanks for the interest.
Posted on: 11/10/2010 10:54 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10127951

RE: Talk to me about the Waiver
Thanks for jumping in, Mark.
Posted on: 11/10/2010 10:47 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10127942

RE: AMA 75th Anniversry Celebration
Bob is the JPO District VP for the Northwest Area and I wanted to thank him here publicly for volunteering to coordinate jet modelers participation in this event. Thanks Bob!
Posted on: 11/10/2010 9:35 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10127814

RE: Talk to me about the Waiver
To find a list of turbine guys in your area, go the the AMA site, log in to the members only section, and pull up doc 510M. You will need a signoff from someone who is listed as a CD in the far right column, as well as one other signature from any other wavier holder. If you have trouble finding someone, send me a PM and I'll work through your JPO rep to find someone for you. The best advice I have is to find someone to help you who is a turbine pilot, acquire your first turbine and fly it using the buddy box until you are ready for your qualification flight. The aircraft you use must be at least 12 pounds. The reason prop planes are no longer allowed is that some guys were handing out waivers based on lightweight foamies, and ultimately it was felt that if you are going for a turbine waiver, you should have a turbine aircraft to fly. It is the only way to learn the complexities of turbine lag, ECU programming and usage, and the true speed capabilities of these planes.
Posted on: 11/10/2010 9:29 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10127796

RE: Pump Limit Reached
[quote]ORIGINAL: Molar mender Thanks for the replies. That is what I thought, also. This is my first Jet Central, but all turbines should react the same. My PST's show a voltage increase when they get clogged. So, I checked all the lines, except the one under the engine cover, and then cleaned out the filter. I did a restart and slowly advanced the throttle one click at a time and found the message pops up at the very last click of throttle input. As long as I don't use the last click of throttle, I don't get a message. I managed a couple of additional flights that day but did not peg the throttle stick and the message did not show again. The PW shows 75 at idle and over 800 at almost (one click short of) WOT giving 116,000 RPM. I should have checked the original WOT PW reading when I first got the engine, but neglected to do so. I don't have a baseline for the WOT. I also charge the battery every flight. I will check under the engine cover and re-clean the external filter and give it another try. Thanks. Roy [/quote] Eric will confirm, but my understanding is that the PW is roughly the ratio of the total voltage available that the ECU has to supply to the pump to maintain the requested RPM. I have several Rhinos and at full throttle, they all read in the low 500's, or roughly half of the voltage available. If you reach 1000, that means there is no more voltage available and the pump can't maintain the requested RPM, thus the error message. As has been explained here, poor battery condition that leads to an excessive drop in voltage under load and fuel system blockage are typical causes. I have had this condition twice and traced the first to a blockage in the little red fuel filter supplied with the engines (looked like grease) and the second was a faulty fuel pump. If the batteries maintain voltage under load and the plane fuels and defuels normally, replace the fuel filter, check the fuel solenoid for proper operation and make sure there are no kinks or wire ties that could constrict fuel flow. You might also pull the fuel line at the engine connection and run the pump in test mode to make sure you get a good steady flow of fuel. I would guess Eric will contact you shortly.
Posted on: 11/10/2010 8:51 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "Jet Central Turbines - Artes Jet"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10127707

RE: FAA Decision Looms on Model Aircraft Regulations
[quote]ORIGINAL: FalconWings $249.99 for your Ultra Bandit now!!! [/quote] Sorry, I am not accepting any offers under $300.
Posted on: 11/10/2010 8:36 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10127650

RE: FAA Decision Looms on Model Aircraft Regulations
[quote]ORIGINAL: bevar I'm not trying to say anything here...but if my intel is correct, Seivers just picked up his 2nd giant scale warbird this past weekend. He bought a Prosser built T-28 to go with his Moki 250 powered C-ARF F4U. Hmmmm... Beave [sm=spinnyeyes.gif] [/quote] Boli, what a twisted, rumour mongering, shameful thing to say ..... P.S. Anyone interested in a custom Bobcat, a DV8R, a Tams F18, a SM F16, a Yellow F15, two F100s, a firebird, a MIBO A10, an Ultra Bandit or a SM L39 please PM me. Trades for big slow warbirds accepted .......
Posted on: 11/10/2010 8:35 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10127573

RE: FAA Decision Looms on Model Aircraft Regulations
I gave Dave a call today to discuss Rich's note and here is what I learned. * He confirmed that the information I have shared is accurate. * The AMA is not aware of what is in the NPRM, and by law, the FAA cannot discuss what is in the NPRM until it is published. The FAA position right now is that June of 11 will be the date of release, but it could be a little earlier at their discretion. * The AMA continues to actively meet with the FAA. They have had two meetings in the last six weeks, and more are planned, including a meeting with the primary official that is accountable for this initiative. * Throughout these meetings, there have been no hints that the FAA intends to single out turbine aircraft for any onerous regulation if it is conducted under the auspices of the approved guidelines for the AMA. * In reading between the lines at these meetings, the hot buttons will be altitude, speed and proximity to full scale operations. It doesn't matter if it is a turbine, a glider or a prop driven model. * The AMA has reworked most if not all of the current AMA regulations, including turbine regulations, into the format and style used by the FAA and the FAA is aware that the AMA is preparing an initial submission. * The AMA is also planning to be proactive on the lobbying front, and Rich's letter is the first "wake up" note to the modeling community that there is an effort which will require their support. I believe the AMA will provide, in the not too distant future, suggested text and contacts for modelers to lobby on this issue. When the time comes, Dave will issue the "call to arms" and we should all make an effort to respond. * There is likely to be a lot of misinformation floating around and we should all be careful not to overreact. It is my personal belief that the modeling world will change a bit, but that in the end, reason will prevail and the FAA will not pass a body of regulations that are impossible or prohibitively expensive to enforce. Ultimately, what will separate us from most of the rest of the UAS community is our line of sight control requirement, the long standing nature of our hobby and (hopefully) the FAA's ultimate hesitancy to get themselves intertwined with pure modeling activities. Just my 2 cents worth. Thanks, Keith.
Posted on: 11/10/2010 8:29 PM by Author "pilott28" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10127634