The Red Baron is down!

Papa · November 25, 2010, 08:13:21 PM

Don't forget the power of the road! Get close to it and you are subconsciously making a turn away and if you don't have enough speed you have a recipe for disaster. Panic, low speed and a turn what can be worse? Oh! I forgot low or no battery.

I think two things cause crashes. The first and most often cause is pilot error and the second is mechanical or structural failure. However too often the former is blamed as the later. I know in my case all my crashes were pilot error or deliberate because I ran out of options and or skill and panicked.

In this day and age any well proven radio system is virtually bullet proof. The number of radio failures is minuscule compared to the hours of use we get. How many go flying today without a range check and get away with it. I have no experience with older systems but there must have been a reason why range checking was a safety mantra. They must have been less reliable or particularly susceptible to interference.

Jack.

pmackenzie · November 26, 2010, 08:45:52 PM

Pretty sure the time goes faster for the satellites due to their speed relative to the earths reference fame.
Classic twin paradox: You fly away at high speed and when you get back your twin is much older than you are.

Or put another way, you can only go forward in time. We are all going forward in time. But if you travel at high speeds you will go forward faster than those you left behind.

Pat MacKenzie

Papa · November 26, 2010, 10:12:42 PM

What we need is a "Time And Relative Dimension In Space" machine and then we can fly forward and backward in time.

Jack.

flying saucer · November 26, 2010, 10:28:11 PM

The Faster you travel, the slower time passes for you relative to an observer travelling slower (or on earth)

Of course if you happen to be inside a flying saucer, all bets are off since most likely you are travelling inter-dimesionally where time may have no meaning. [

)]

thehaze · November 26, 2010, 10:30:01 PM

Personally I think the Illuminati are responsible for the crashes in that area of the field.

pmackenzie · November 27, 2010, 01:51:21 PM

I think we are on to something.
It is a relativistic effect of turning from downwind to upwind.
The electronics take a moment to reset their time frame to the new reality and this gets out of phase with the air molecules that have to do the same thing.

So you snap/spin in as a result. It's all Albert Einstien's fault![

]

Pat MacKenzie

Papa · November 27, 2010, 03:19:06 PM

Good now that we know what's causing it I'm getting Dr. Who, the Time Lord, to drop in and fix it!

Jack.

pmackenzie · November 27, 2010, 05:33:25 PM

Can't blame Al or the "NE triangle" for this one.
South end of the field. just past the end of the runway.
Pure dumb thumbs.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16664623&postcount=200

Pat MacKenzie

Gregor77 · November 30, 2010, 08:14:28 AM

Well another issue to the field is that the surface is a bit ruff for smaller scale planes. The DR-1 is having issues at the mid and most east of the field. I have to plan a good path prior to taking off. The bumps cause the tri-plane to get out of control just before take off. There is a video on you boob that has a great planes dr1 just taking off and the surface is bouncing the poor plane around. It ends up flipping the plane and busting the upper wing. This happens all the time on these planes if the take off is not perfect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkJS-_8O_kI

Here are comments from the post: rdawson55 — March 06, 2009 — PILOT CRASHES NEW GREAT PLANES FOKKER SOPWITH DR. 1 TRIPLANE ON FIRST FLIGHT. WORLD WAR 1 AIRCRAFT. KIT NO LONGER MADE. HIGHLY COLLECTIBLE! IF YOU FIND ONE BUY IT!!! JUST DONT FLY IT

Although very funny in some respect, after being in this hobby for 6 months I feel his pain!

Papa · November 30, 2010, 04:36:27 PM

I don't think that qualifies as a small scale model and I think it was pilot error more than a bumpy take off. looks to me like he did not have enough speed for flight controls to be effective.

jack.

Michael · November 30, 2010, 07:16:38 PM

Suggestions:

1. Taxi with full up elevator.

2. As speed increases, reduce up elevator.

3. Do not takeoff until full flying speed is reached.

Michael

thehaze · November 30, 2010, 09:28:55 PM

I did some Internet research over the last few days and I've figured out how you can avoid crashing the Fokker next time you take it out to the field.

Remove the prop.

That should ensure that you won't reach both an unsafe velocity and/or altitude, thus keeping your plane safe from harm.

Trust me, I'm an instructor.

battlestu · December 01, 2010, 05:45:42 PM

I vote for Michael's advice... just not saying which one [:p]

flying saucer · December 04, 2010, 11:13:25 PM

Yes the field is indeed quite bumpy and full of irregularities. This effects not only smaller scale planes but larger ones with smaller or stiff landing gear as well. I remember just a few weeks ago another member at the field doing taxi tests with a very nice bi-plane model. It was getting bounced around and beatup pretty good. He came back and tried to get up in the air and fly, he ended up taking off at a odd angle causing him to narrowly miss the protective fence.

flying saucer · December 05, 2010, 09:04:02 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Papa

I don't think that qualifies as a small scale model and I think it was pilot error more than a bumpy take off. looks to me like he did not have enough speed for flight controls to be effective.

jack.

I think you're right, the error is he should'nt of tried to take off at that location.