Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [combat-l] CL_Combat_Shutoffs

Expand Messages
  • Bill Lee
    Gary, your characterization of Doc Jackson is inaccurate, unfair and damned insulting! Doc Jackson did NOT submit the proposal, I did! Sure, another person who
    Message 1 of 43 , Nov 15, 2007
      Gary, your characterization of Doc Jackson is inaccurate, unfair and
      damned insulting! Doc Jackson did NOT submit the proposal, I did! Sure,
      another person who doesn't fly combat! But can you claim I don't know
      anything about it? Doc Jackson is far from being a dentist. He is a
      world-renowned geneticist who has participated mightily in identifying
      causes of several genetic-caused diseases. Want to read about one where
      he has had a big part? Take a look at

      http://www.cdlsusa.org/about_cdls/faq.shtml

      Very few of the rest of us can even stand in Doc's shadow!

      We have one real question to answer regarding requiring shutoffs for F2D:

      Do we sit idly by and wait for the one bad incident that will shut the
      event down completely?

      It's not a matter of "if", but rather "when". It almost happened at the
      EuroChamps (2005 I think). Will it be this year in France?

      In most countries, if you are aware of a problem, and if you know of
      solutions to the problem but do nothing, you will be mightily liable
      when the problem causes injury to some bystander. That's where F2D is
      today. We KNOW that there is a problem with fly-aways. We KNOW that a
      shut-off will help to keep a fly-away constrained. Now, if we DON'T use
      them and the next fly-away center-punches the 18-wheeler on the freeway
      nearby and causes a multi-vehicle accident with three people killed,
      what's going to happen to the people involved as well as the governing
      bodies?

      Our modeling activities are looked on with disdain by most non-flyers.
      You know their attitude: a bunch of grown men playing with their toys,
      making far too much noise and creating a dangerous environment. And it
      won't take much to shut an event down in a local area. We've already
      seen one country in the world where combat is not allowed, a decision
      that was made after that country's head of model aviation attended our
      2004 WCHs in Muncie and became aware of the F2D fly-away problem.
      Understand it was not a problem we HAD at those WCHs, it was the
      PERCEPTION OF THE POSSIBILITY! And a recent World Champs was threatened
      with shut-down by the local officials if they organizers could not keep
      the flyers constrained to the accepted flying locations. (That was
      mostly due to a noise problem, but the point is: a World Champs can be
      shut down by local authorities if the modelers don't take great care and
      be good citizens.)

      Yes, shut-offs are not perfect, but would you trade a 90% solution for a
      0% solution? (I.e., no solution at all!) Even at only 90% effective (or
      80% 0r 70% or ... it's better than 0%!

      Yes, requiring a shut-off will make the event different. Just as all of
      the previous rules changes have made the event different.

      The need and push for shut-offs in F2D has been apparent for at least a
      couple of years. That, IMHO, is quite sufficient time for interested
      folks to work on developing an effective device. The fact that only a
      few took the effort seriously and made the effort is a shame. Far too
      many spent too much time beating at the internet keyboards and
      complaining instead of being proactive to develop a solution. We've had
      sufficient time, the F2D community has known this was coming, and it's
      only the implied THREAT of DOING SOMETHING that has finally made a few
      folks start doing something. Putting this off for any more time only
      gives those who don't want to work at a solution more time to bitch and
      moan about it and do nothing positive.

      Other changes in the event to make it safer should also be investigated
      and implemented. Unfortunately, none of them prevent the fly-away
      problem. The only real solution is to fly in an enclosed hemisphere
      where a fly-away is physically constrained. But there are very few such
      locations I am afraid! Lacking that, better protection of the spectators
      with additional netting, better protection for those involved with the
      event, etc., are all being proposed now. And the are good changes. But
      unfortunately they do nothing to address the "one serious incident"
      scenario that will shut the event down for good.

      The proposal was submitted last year knowing that a kick in the butt was
      needed. And that was accomplished. The F2 subcommittee recognized the
      need and the simple, one-liner was added to the rules. Now we have the
      result of efforts to resolve the situation and they will be debated and
      voted upon in March in Lausanne at the Plenary meeting of the CIAM.

      Your efforts are to be applauded. A special forum to define and design
      workable solutions is good. And your advice is the best: cut out the
      bitching and whining and contribute to the solution.

      Regards,

      Bill

      Gary James wrote:
      > There seems to be the misconception among our European friends that
      > F2D combat flyers in the United States WANT shutoffs for F2D. Nothing
      > could be further from the truth. The proposal to REQUIRE shutoffs in
      > F2D was submitted to the FAI by an AMA-appointed NON flyer(Dr. Laird
      > Jackson, a Dentist) WITHOUT ANY consultation AT ALL with active F2D
      > pilots in the US.
      >
      > Given that the requirement to have workable shutoffs in F2D is being
      > shoved up our asses without our consent, and that there is NOTHING
      > that we can do about it if we want to keep flying, it would benefit us
      > all to stop whining and bitching about it and find a workable
      > solution. There have been many good ideas thrown about on this chat
      > list, but without any organized thought or the use of a rational
      > engineering approach. To that end, and to help reduce the amount of
      > shutoff-related whining on this group, I have started a new discussion
      > group that is specifically intended to be used to discuss, design and
      > develop CL Combat Shutoffs for use in F2d and other CL combat events.
      >
      > While we in the US have several years of experience with shutoffs,
      > mainly due to their mandate in AMA combat, we do not have all the
      > answers (but we have a good start).
      >
      > I want contributors to help develop a matrix of possible solutions to
      > the problem, and to use real, verifiable engineering methodology to
      > help create a solution to the problem that we all can live with.
      >
      > The name of the group is: CL_Combat_Shutoffs
      >
      > I invite your thoughtful contributions. No bitching or whining or
      > I'll ban your ass.
      >
      >
      >
      > Please visit MACA's Web Site:
      >
      > www.maca.hobby-site.org
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this email list, send a blank email message to:
      >
      > combat-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • jeffrey_a_rein
      ... I saw the photo of that failure. The spruce used in the cap seemed to be a bit substandard with only 6 lines of grain across the entire width of the cap,
      Message 43 of 43 , Nov 30, 2007
        --- In combat-l@yahoogroups.com, Tom Siegler <tmsiegler@...> wrote:
        >
        I saw the photo of that failure. The spruce used in the cap seemed to
        be a bit substandard with only 6 lines of grain across the entire
        width of the cap, and it split. My planes have about 12-15. In any
        case there are 2 simple solutions. Last night I epoxied a 1 1/2" long
        piece of 1/16" plywood on top and redrilled the hole. I then used my
        pull test scale and test pulled it at 50 pounds, problem solved. The
        other way which my friend in San Diago is better. He installed the
        bellcrank 3/4" further forward. This way the bolt goes through 4
        times as much bass wood. Also it locates the bellcrank in a strait
        line with the leadouts for less friction. This can't be done with
        internal controls as it would interfere with the fuel cavity. Also he
        uses 1 hole in the leadout wire and runs both lines through them and
        hooks up directly to the bellcrank. Do you suppose there would be
        less drag if the lines are together and there are no big pieces of
        fuel tubing at the end of the leadouts to make the line connections?
        Hmmmmmmm.


        > Chris,
        > A friend tested one on a ukarine f2d plane. the center rib failed
        with a hard hand pull (jerk) in flight. the top rib cap let go. i'm
        concerned with an external control on an rtf plane made for an
        internal bellcrank as all the load is going in the top of the rib not
        half into both top and bottom as on an internal mount.
        > Tom
        >
        > Iskandar Taib <ntaib@...> wrote:
        > chicken_lovernz <chris_renton@...> wrote:
        >
        > > Not to start an argument but you cant really say
        > > something has been
        > > proven until it has been used in actual F2D
        > > contests.
        >
        > Jeff HAS used it in F2D competition.
        >
        > Iskandar
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------
        > Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail.
        See how.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.