From: lew@4ccvw15.scg.hac.com (Lyman Lew)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Quickie 500 Needs to be REFORMED!!
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:04:21 GMT
Reply-To: lew@4ccvw15.UUCP (Lyman Lew)
Distribution: na
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Aug13.234429.20293@dcdwest.uucp> plb@dcdwest.uucp (Phil Blais) writes:
    >In article <22808@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> lew@hacgate.UUCP (Lyman Lew) writes:
    >>
    >> Many lines deleted
    >>
    >>2. Ban all high wing Q500 aircrafts using this powerplant since
    >>the stresses and loads are concentrated rather than evenly
    >>distributed like a low wing aircraft. This is true in positive
    >>G maneuvers.
    >>
    >>3. Ban the Nelson engine from Q500 or put some kind of performance
    >>limitation on engines of this nature.
    >>
    >
    >After initially reading this posting I just hit the 'n' key and went
    >on to the next article. Mr. Lew has a right to his own opinion and
    >was obviously expressing it. What prompted me to go back and reread
    >his article today was the sound of the Blue Angels practicing here
    >in San Diego and flying no more than 100 feet directly over my office
    >at somewhere around 300-400 knots give or take a couple.
    >
    >All weekend long hundreds of thousands of people will be in attendance
    >at the Miramar Air Show and each of them will share a certain amount
    >of the risk involved. Imagine how many would die if an F-18 Hornet
    >crashed into a typical crowd of say 200,000. The same thing applies
    >to a model airshow. Those in attendance implicitly accept a certain
    >amount of risk by just being there. They may sue if they get hurt or
    >worse but all in attendance are in fact betting that that won't
    >happen (atleast not to them!). The same is true of any event where an
    >element of danger exists e.g. Indy 500, Reno, and model airplane meets.
    >Why is it then that when an accident occurs the first reaction is to
    >BAN something? In this case the Nelson 40 from Quickie 500. If the
    >airframe can't handle the load as Mr. Lew claims isn't it possible to
    >stategically reinforce it rather than just flat ban the engine?
    >
    
I did state modifying the airframe is a solution. Now how do we know if
an aircraft is properly reinforced. We proof load it! RC competitors 
should be subjected to this if they are going to compete in an event
that is pushing the state-of-the-art.

Eventhough I had a knee-jerk reaction for banning the Nelson .40. I
would not push for a ban after the many reasons given by you and other
netters. What I wanted to do was lay ALL the cards on the table. When
confronted with what I perceived to be a problem, all options must be
laid out no matter how distasteful or repugnant. The Nelson .40 is not
the culprit, it is the pilot`s judgement in building and flying his
aircraft that is being examined. How often have you seen an RC flier
hang a hot .60 on an airplane that should take a .40? Did he properly
reinforce his airplane to take this 50% increase in power? How often
have you seen a flyer shrug off a possible safety problem just to get
that last flight of the day? It happens quite often and the
ramifications from these activities can prove to be very hazardous to
the public.


    >To keep it short there are all kinds of reasons why I think Mr. Lew is
    >way off base when he calls for a ban of the Nelson. Suffice it to say
    >that in our system of free enterprise manufacturers/superior
    >craftsman such as Nelson have a right to expect a reasonable return
    >on investment and if they don't get it for whatever reason including
    >banning a superior engine from the event it was designed for then we
    >as modelers will all get what we deserve and ask for - Milquetoast!
    >
I was off base in my remarks about the Nelson. It is an truely awesome
engine and should be and will be kept on the market by it shear demand.
But, do you recall what the original intention of Q500 was? It was to
introduce the beginner to racing with inexpensive equipment. Q500 is
the NASCAR racing of the model world. It was originally set up with
good intentions and is now out of the reach of even the most experience
but resource limited flyer.

    >>4. Relocate the contest outside of populated area. At Whittier
    >>Narrows, the Pomona Freeway is several hundred yards from the end of
    >>the RC runway. In its path are controline circles and a speed circle
    >>fence and these are located on the south side or upwind. Down wind
    >>are residences and businesses. To the east are picnic areas, trees,
    >>and soccer fields crowded with people.
    >>
    >
    >Where the heck you gonna find an unpopulated area in Southern Ca.
    >other than the desert :-)
 
The dessert is just fine! ;-) Sigh, it is a long way to go and fly.

    >>5. Put fuel shutoffs of some kind on the engines should a wing 
    >>depart from the fuselage.
    >>
    >>6. Install a drag chute in the fuselage should the wing depart
    >>from the fuselage.
    >>
    >
    >5 & 6 don't sound too bad provided the frequency of accidents justify
    >the cost. Ever try to get the city to install a stop sign or light
    >at what you and possibly many others may feel is a dangerous
    >intersection?
    >
    >>These are suggestions that I will be e-mailing to the AMA. If
    >>you netters want to discuss the pros and cons or want to offer
    >>any more suggestions, you are welcomed. I feel that something
    >>must be done. It is just a matter a time before an accident 
    >               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>happens and should a fatality occurs, you can kiss this hobby
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>goodbye!
    > ^^^^^^^
    >
    >This statement smacks of scare tactics. When you write the AMA ask
    >them how many actual fatalities have occurred as a direct result
    >of an RC anything accident. I think you might be surprised to find
    >that the number is > 0.
    >>
    >>Lyman Lew, lew@caesi.scg.hac.com
    >>
    >
    >-- 
    >=========================================================================
    >phil blais  N6KXD AMA 12662      ITT    Aerospace Communications Division
    >dcdwest!plb@ucsd.edu           DEFENSE    10060 Carroll Canyon Road
    > (619) 578-3080					San Diego, CA 92131
    
My last statement DOES have smacks of scare tactics. It is to alarm you
of the potential problems we will have if we don't consider the public's safety.
The public does not understand our toy airplanes nor the danger of these
airplanes should one runaway. However, the public will BAN anything if it
perceives a nuisance. Tell me, how many flying sites do you have in San Diego?
Is that number growing??

Lyman Lew, lew@caesi.scg.hac.com



Newsgroups: rec.models.rc