70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
08-29-2004, 12:20 PM
#26
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Woodlands,
TX
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
wow... that is awesome. Not inly am I flabbergasted by the scale to which you've built that thing, the plane itself is awesome too.
I hate the stock raven scheme, but with that blue/yellow/silver, it is a beautiful aircraft!
I hate the stock raven scheme, but with that blue/yellow/silver, it is a beautiful aircraft!
08-30-2004, 09:20 PM
#28
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: WinnipegManitoba, CANADA
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
Not to rain on anybodies parade here, but let me just broach a delicate topic... You'll see elsewhere in several threads right now the recent incident in which control was lost of a 42% plane on takeoff which hit a guy almost killing him. Elsewhere in a few other threads discussion regarding the crash Sunday with the 8 turbine B-52 going in. Yes, big planes are very cool and I really do appreciate those with the wallet and building skills to get there. I can't but help wonder though at what point it's too much? 70% size and a 684cc 60HP engine is truly well into Ultralight class - heck, many Piper Cubs only have 65HP and they'll carry two people! These bigger projects are really starting to push the limits of sanity. For the record, I have a 23 Lb G-62 powered plane and can't even imagine 600+cc - sure makes those 100 and 150cc TOC planes look kind of small! You have to jump through all kinds of certification hoops with a small aircraft to ensure the engineering is safe and that it's properly designed, yet to a certain extent if you have the bucks you can buy a giant plane and go flying! Lets be honest here - we all know that there are people with deep pockets buying partly or fully prefabricated giant scale planes. Not to say that they're not accomplished pilots, or knowledgeable about maintaining and operating these big planes safely, but you have to wonder where we're going with all this. I'll tell you, at 23 Lbs and with that 62cc Zenoah in my big gasser, I'm very conscious of the increased danger it poses. That big engine in that 42% broke that guys leg in 3 places and almost cut his leg off! I got talking one day with a guy that stuck his hand in the prop of a .60 at idle and it took two finger tips off at the first knuckles - a .60! I don't believe in safety getting in the way of having fun, but I can't help but think that this rash of bad accidents within the last year aren't doing the hobby any good... I know in Canada, MAAC, our governing body (similar to AMA) is very concerned about continueing to be able to get affordable insurance coverage. I realise very few people are going to go out and build or buy something as big as this 70% Raven, but you do have to wonder at what point maybe we're pushing our luck - there has been quite a few real bad accidents within the last year or so, and quite a few other close calls with considerable potential.
08-31-2004, 10:20 AM
#30
Senior Member
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 680
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
ORIGINAL: Daryl Martel
Not to rain on anybodies parade here, but let me just broach a delicate topic...
Not to rain on anybodies parade here, but let me just broach a delicate topic...
Not to rain on your parade, but with this attitude we'd have never gotten to the moon.
08-31-2004, 11:05 AM
#32
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Pasadena,
CA
Posts: 2,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
ORIGINAL: Daryl Martel
Not to rain on anybodies parade here, but let me just broach a delicate topic... You'll see elsewhere in several threads right now the recent incident in which control was lost of a 42% plane on takeoff which hit a guy almost killing him. Elsewhere in a few other threads discussion regarding the crash Sunday with the 8 turbine B-52 going in. Yes, big planes are very cool and I really do appreciate those with the wallet and building skills to get there. I can't but help wonder though at what point it's too much? 70% size and a 684cc 60HP engine is truly well into Ultralight class - heck, many Piper Cubs only have 65HP and they'll carry two people! These bigger projects are really starting to push the limits of sanity. For the record, I have a 23 Lb G-62 powered plane and can't even imagine 600+cc - sure makes those 100 and 150cc TOC planes look kind of small! You have to jump through all kinds of certification hoops with a small aircraft to ensure the engineering is safe and that it's properly designed, yet to a certain extent if you have the bucks you can buy a giant plane and go flying! Lets be honest here - we all know that there are people with deep pockets buying partly or fully prefabricated giant scale planes. Not to say that they're not accomplished pilots, or knowledgeable about maintaining and operating these big planes safely, but you have to wonder where we're going with all this. I'll tell you, at 23 Lbs and with that 62cc Zenoah in my big gasser, I'm very conscious of the increased danger it poses. That big engine in that 42% broke that guys leg in 3 places and almost cut his leg off! I got talking one day with a guy that stuck his hand in the prop of a .60 at idle and it took two finger tips off at the first knuckles - a .60! I don't believe in safety getting in the way of having fun, but I can't help but think that this rash of bad accidents within the last year aren't doing the hobby any good... I know in Canada, MAAC, our governing body (similar to AMA) is very concerned about continueing to be able to get affordable insurance coverage. I realise very few people are going to go out and build or buy something as big as this 70% Raven, but you do have to wonder at what point maybe we're pushing our luck - there has been quite a few real bad accidents within the last year or so, and quite a few other close calls with considerable potential.
Not to rain on anybodies parade here, but let me just broach a delicate topic... You'll see elsewhere in several threads right now the recent incident in which control was lost of a 42% plane on takeoff which hit a guy almost killing him. Elsewhere in a few other threads discussion regarding the crash Sunday with the 8 turbine B-52 going in. Yes, big planes are very cool and I really do appreciate those with the wallet and building skills to get there. I can't but help wonder though at what point it's too much? 70% size and a 684cc 60HP engine is truly well into Ultralight class - heck, many Piper Cubs only have 65HP and they'll carry two people! These bigger projects are really starting to push the limits of sanity. For the record, I have a 23 Lb G-62 powered plane and can't even imagine 600+cc - sure makes those 100 and 150cc TOC planes look kind of small! You have to jump through all kinds of certification hoops with a small aircraft to ensure the engineering is safe and that it's properly designed, yet to a certain extent if you have the bucks you can buy a giant plane and go flying! Lets be honest here - we all know that there are people with deep pockets buying partly or fully prefabricated giant scale planes. Not to say that they're not accomplished pilots, or knowledgeable about maintaining and operating these big planes safely, but you have to wonder where we're going with all this. I'll tell you, at 23 Lbs and with that 62cc Zenoah in my big gasser, I'm very conscious of the increased danger it poses. That big engine in that 42% broke that guys leg in 3 places and almost cut his leg off! I got talking one day with a guy that stuck his hand in the prop of a .60 at idle and it took two finger tips off at the first knuckles - a .60! I don't believe in safety getting in the way of having fun, but I can't help but think that this rash of bad accidents within the last year aren't doing the hobby any good... I know in Canada, MAAC, our governing body (similar to AMA) is very concerned about continueing to be able to get affordable insurance coverage. I realise very few people are going to go out and build or buy something as big as this 70% Raven, but you do have to wonder at what point maybe we're pushing our luck - there has been quite a few real bad accidents within the last year or so, and quite a few other close calls with considerable potential.
DKjens
08-31-2004, 02:55 PM
#34
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: WinnipegManitoba, CANADA
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
DKjens - what facts am I missing? The numbers speak for themselves. Things have changed - 10 years ago we didn't have the abundance of 200-300 MPH turbine powered jets and 40% scale big gas planes we have nowadays. Bigger flys better, but it comes with additional risk. When a .40 or .60 size glow powered plane goes in there's rarely a fire - not so with the bigger stuff. Bigger planes make bigger holes when they crash. These are the facts as I see it. The number of accidents and possible associated "perceived" risk by underwriters is nothing to sneeze about, especially when the law gets involved. If you don't think there will be an investigation after a major accident involving death or serious injury you're mistaken. Hopefully such investigations don't result in false conclusions which could jeopardize the hobby for the majority. I do think that the vast majority of people in the hobby, particularly operating the bigger more expensive stuff, are extremely professional, knowledgeable and safety minded. This is why I pose the question how big is too big and where does it stop? Please don't get me wrong - I don't for a second think we should freeze RC development or progress, but I can't help but feel we're starting to walk a thin line here. DKjens - maybe you don't have all the facts - here in North America there have already been a few very unpleasant accidents involving both death and serious injury currently under investigation you may not be aware of. Not all of the accidents make it to the forum for discussion - enough said. Do we police ourselves or wait for the boot to fall? Lets have fun out there but be safety minded is all I'm saying. I'm a mechanic in full sized aviation where safety is paramount and the big stuff is actually engineered and certified.
08-31-2004, 04:30 PM
#35
Senior Member
My Feedback: (36)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Alta Loma, CA
Posts: 2,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
Let's not come down on Daryl because he voices his opinion...he has a legitimate concern.
Getting back to the intended topic...
weimo, congratulations on your outstanding work! Can you fill us in on the electrical system used and the number and type of receivers? Also, has the 3W engine been run? What size prop are you using? Thanks!
Getting back to the intended topic...
weimo, congratulations on your outstanding work! Can you fill us in on the electrical system used and the number and type of receivers? Also, has the 3W engine been run? What size prop are you using? Thanks!
08-31-2004, 05:19 PM
#36
Senior Member
My Feedback: (26)
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
Dayrl,
I agree with you a hundred percent on all the comments you made in regard to safety and model size. Recently a poster posted video showing himself flying from the back of truck down a rural highway somewhere in the midwest USA. I pointed out that stunts like this should not be applauded but shuned. No other posters agreed with me.
I agree with you a hundred percent on all the comments you made in regard to safety and model size. Recently a poster posted video showing himself flying from the back of truck down a rural highway somewhere in the midwest USA. I pointed out that stunts like this should not be applauded but shuned. No other posters agreed with me.
08-31-2004, 05:24 PM
#37
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Pasadena,
CA
Posts: 2,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
ORIGINAL: ptgarcia
Let's not come down on Daryl because he voices his opinion...he has a legitimate concern.
Let's not come down on Daryl because he voices his opinion...he has a legitimate concern.
DKjens
08-31-2004, 05:57 PM
#38
Senior Member
My Feedback: (36)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Alta Loma, CA
Posts: 2,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
It doesn't matter what caused the "incident". The fact remains...a remotely controlled aircraft struck a man and caused serious injury! There's no debating this. Too many more "incidents" such as this and outside agencies will begin to intervene. I don't think anyone wants this to happen. That leaves the modelling community the task of preventing this from occurring. I'm not saying how, but it is something we will need to face all too soon.
08-31-2004, 08:44 PM
#40
Senior Member
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Glen Robertson, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
ORIGINAL: ptgarcia
It doesn't matter what caused the "incident". The fact remains...a remotely controlled aircraft struck a man and caused serious injury! There's no debating this. Too many more "incidents" such as this and outside agencies will begin to intervene. I don't think anyone wants this to happen. That leaves the modelling community the task of preventing this from occurring. I'm not saying how, but it is something we will need to face all too soon.
It doesn't matter what caused the "incident". The fact remains...a remotely controlled aircraft struck a man and caused serious injury! There's no debating this. Too many more "incidents" such as this and outside agencies will begin to intervene. I don't think anyone wants this to happen. That leaves the modelling community the task of preventing this from occurring. I'm not saying how, but it is something we will need to face all too soon.
Can we stick to the subject matter which about a wonderfull airplane..
Thank you.
Roger
09-01-2004, 10:23 AM
#42
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northamptonshire , UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 4,994
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
Have any of these models (it feels strange calling something this big a model) flown yet. If so how was the performance and are there any videos.
I read at the start of this post that there may be a kit available. What if I wanted to buy one of these models ready to fly. Is this something that is possible and if so what sort of cost am I looking at for a complete ready to fly package.
I read at the start of this post that there may be a kit available. What if I wanted to buy one of these models ready to fly. Is this something that is possible and if so what sort of cost am I looking at for a complete ready to fly package.
09-05-2004, 10:08 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Shelby,
NC
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
Hi, im a little late entering the conversation and i havent had time to read everything but i live in the u.s. (nc) and i have a 33% raven, the guy i bought it from also has a 47% raven that hasnt been built yet. Here is some pics of mine. Youll need to tell me how to load a picture. That is, if ya want to see it.
03-23-2007, 08:47 PM
#44
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: winston salem,
NC
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 70% Raven wingspan 17 ft.
I know this is a super old post, but I am looking for a video of the huge raven. I found one a year or so ago but I cant find it now. I thought it was on raven520 but I cant remember, its not there. Anybody have it?
I got it now thanks.
I got it now thanks.
