What do you consider?

again its like comparing apples to oranges. You can not say that one is more sane or more recreational than the other.

Reply to
tailfeathers
Loading thread data ...

tell that to the IMAA........."BIGGER FLIES BETTER AND IS SAFER" It is part of their slogan

Reply to
tailfeathers

Reply to
tailfeathers

The Jefco Aeromodelers of Colorado fly from a State Park.

  1. Lobbying the FCC for frequency protection, etc. 2. Lobbying the Department of Interior for use of public lands for flying sites.
  2. The magazine which keeps us informed about our organization. 4. Youth programs to help feed the attrition!

Reply to
tailfeathers

Dummy I was refering to the post he was replying too, your other post didn't show up till a few more down.

Robert

  1. Lobbying the FCC for frequency protection, etc.
  2. Lobbying the Department of Interior for use of public lands for flying sites.

  1. The magazine which keeps us informed about our organization.

  1. Youth programs to help feed the attrition!

Reply to
Robert Williams

As always, there are exceptions to every rule. The question should be, of the 2000 plus AMA clubs and the unknown numbers of renegades, how many fit the example of Jefco? And how many fall somewhere closer to the pit bull?

Reply to
C.O.Jones

Mike,

I would venture to say that though 99% may understand the dangers, something less than that actually think of them while participating in the hobby. When they're starting their engine perhaps. But once airborne, way too many are totally oblivious to the potential disaster they have at the end of that fragile RF link. I've seen it way too many times to think anywhere near 99% really understand.

Reply to
C.O.Jones

Actually, this thread started out asking what function of the AMA you thought was the most important?

Reply to
C.O.Jones

Again, that is one instance. The rare exception to the rule. There should be many, many more such arrangements for it to be the norm.

  1. Lobbying the FCC for frequency protection, etc.
  2. Lobbying the Department of Interior for use of public lands for flying sites.

  1. The magazine which keeps us informed about our organization.

  1. Youth programs to help feed the attrition!

Reply to
C.O.Jones

Doug,

City Park is far different from a State Park. Different authorities, different rules. I would expect to see a lot of flying in city and county parks. But not State or National parks.

DOI is the Department of Interior. Biggest government land owner in the US with DOD a close second.

Reply to
C.O.Jones

tailfeathers:

i didn't miss your point. you stated that you thought 3d flying was dangerous because the wing was stalled. i suggested that there were several flaws in your statment. nothing ambiguous about that.

Reply to
PaulBK58

What he said is absolutely true, that the larger and heavier they are the greater POTENTIAL for injury. I believe that the IMAA would agree with that as well.

Reply to
Paul McIntosh

Go down to the county level and you will find MANY flying sites.

Reply to
Paul McIntosh

If one of the primary goals should be PRIVATE fling sites, then what does that have to do with ANY Government organization? I, too, believe that flying sites should be privately owned.

Reply to
Paul McIntosh

This brings up an interesting question. What criteria do you use to determine potential for injury? Is it just the size and speed of the model to begin with? Or does the experience of the pilot, quality of the equipment, current weather and soundness of the airframe all play into it?

If perhaps you could determine that a given 1/4 model and pilot combination had a 1 % chance of crashing! And a Park Flyer had a 50 % chance of crashing! Which do you think would have the greater potential to do injury? And then you'd have to determine the chance of their hitting someone. Granted! When it comes down to the impact, the bigger and faster wins hands down. But who's to say the bigger will crash as much or more than the little stuff?

I don't think we can arbitrarily say that one type of model has a more or less potential for injury. At least not until we define the conditions under which we make this judgment. The reason being, there are simply too many variables that can too easily make one type more dangerous one minute, and the other type more dangerous the next. And in the end, it all boils down to the competency of the people involved. From the builder to the pilot.

Reply to
C.O.Jones

But that is at the county level! That is local to the club and it would be a waste of time and money for the AMA to actively chase every county level issue. But DoI and DoD are national level. And it would be expected for the AMA to approach them and get some kind of policy established. Not that I expect either of them to do it.

Reply to
C.O.Jones

You may not have missed the point but, you responded to the wrong post!

Reply to
C.O.Jones

Do you really expect ANY DoD involvement with allowing the genral public on their land for model aircraft use? The irrational reaction to the terrorist threat even impacts me when I am travelling on official business, using my official passport and showing orders. I am afraid that The DoD is completely out of the picture as long as the crazies are running the "Homeland Defense Department".

The county and local levels are the best place to deal with flying sites since that is where virtually all the available land lies. Sure, the DoI owns a lot of land, but not too many of us want to fly in the middle of Nevada!

Reply to
Paul McIntosh

When just dealing with the model, the larger, more powerful one has more POTENTIAL for injury. Any contact with one while it is flying WILL cause injury. The likelihood of injury from contact with a park flier is demonstrably less.

Now, add a pilot, crowds, weather, etc and the variables start stacking up. That is the main reason for spectator lines being set back farther for larger scale and faster plane events such as pylon racing.

combination

Reply to
Paul McIntosh

Dear Ms. Jones:

For guns, energy (foot-pounds) is the standard measure of potency, which might be considered potential for injury. The formula is:

E = 1/2*(weight/32.2)*velocity^2 The velocity is feet/sec, and 32.2 makes the formula correct for weight in pounds. (Yes, I know it convers pounds weight to the English mass unint called the slug. Just use it - it works.)

A 50 lb plane at 60 MPH (88 ft/sec), is a bit over 6000 foot-pounds. Do the same formula for a 1 pound park flyer at 15 MPH, and you get 7.5 foot-pounds.

In other words, ignore all idiots that say that park flyers have injury potential similar to a large, heavy model.

-- Mike Norton

Reply to
Mike Norton

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.