David Searles

My Feedback: (49)

I have decided as an AMA Turbine CD to personally institute a Zero Tolerance Policy on all FEJ 1/7th or larger honeycomb mfg turbine jets. This means:

1. I will require the pilot/owner to prove said jet does not meet LTMA requirements, ie is less than 55lbs wet takeoff weight, tanks full, prior to flight at any event I CD or at my local club.

2. I have also applied to AMA to become an LTMA Inspector. In order to obtain an AMA LTMA Permit To Fly, any owner of a 1/7 or larger HC constructed FEJ should be aware of the following quotes from the AMA LTMA Rules
A. "If for any reason the observers are not completely satisfied with the airworthiness of the model as demonstrated, further test flights must be arranged after rectification of the faults noted."
B. " If for any reason the LTMAI is not completely satisfied with the airworthiness of the model as demonstrated, further test flights must be arranged after rectification of the faults noted."
C. "The absence of flutter must be demonstrated at the time of certification by flight through a representative sample of the normal maneuvers and speeds appropriate for the subject model airplane."

I am certain there are quite a few reasons currently, that I would not be satisfied with the airworthiness of said jets.

3. I would hope that as many current qualified turbine waiver holders as possible would immediately apply to become an LTMAI and or a Turbine CD and then agree to adopt this Zero Tolerance Policy.

If a pilot can't fly it, maybe he won't buy it to begin with.

David S

Dr Honda

My Feedback: (4)

OK... I don't fly anything that big (I'm cheap) but was there an incident that brought on this movement?

David Searles

My Feedback: (49)

Too many to enumerate or tolerate! [:'(]

David S

CARS II

My Feedback: (7)

Tony

Man! Read what happened to Dantly's F-14, then you will have half of the scoop and like you I'm also cheap when it comes to jets.

My thing is, I builded a few jets in the past to know enough to stay way from the chainise quality [:-]

bevar

My Feedback: (27)

David,

Way to step up to the plate...hopefully more CD's will follow your lead.

Folks...this is a perfect example of "Policing our own".

Beave

rcjets_63

My Feedback: (5)

I applaud you for your pro-active actions in adopting this policy. Safety is paramount!

I'm an AMA Turbine CD and I will follow your example and adopt this policy as well. I'll also look into becoming an LTMA inspector too.

Regards,

Jim

jetpilot

My Feedback: (48)

David,
I applaud you for taking a stand and being a leader in our community.
Scott

dubd

David, I applaud you and support you 100%.

raycman

Unfortunately this needs to happen, hope everybody that has hands on levers of power steps up as Dave has just done.

AndyAndrews

Bravo! It's about time our community did something about FEJ.

baronbrian

My Feedback: (13)

So who else makes a scale F-14 in the 1/7 to 1/8 scales sizes? Always a dream model of mine, as is a approx 100" Bearcat. I guess Ijust love grumman!

Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

There should be a guidebook for model composite structures that a CD could refer to who is not versed in composites. If what he see's doesn't look like whats pre approved then the aircraft in question should be denied flight pending further inspection and approval.

I bring this up because there are too many opinions on how composites work when in reality there are proven methods that should be the standard. With these standards as the rule then the manufacturers would have something to refer to when considering making a plane. Any CD could pick up this book and compare whats on the model to the description and photos in the book.

In fact any factory making open mold wet layup honeycomb, not oven curing the parts, no autoclave, is already doing it wrong. The peel strength is already compromised. These parts are supposed to be oven cured at fairly high temps as a rule and the molds have to be capable of high temps. There is a lot to composites techniques, layup schedules, tooling, post curing, etc, etc.

Going back to good old basics with proven materials and proven methods is the way unless your investing a lot of time and money into real aerospace composites, equipment and practices.

DrScoles

My Feedback: (18)

Ummm... Shouldn't this rule apply to all manufacturers? I'm all for bagging on FEJ, but rule provisions shouldn't have anything to do with who makes the plane. Even the mighty BVM should be vetted, don't you think??

Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

+1

An inspection standard with a guide book that is strictly about composites would level the field. Sound composite practices are universal.

Joe C

My Feedback: (23)

Agree!!!!

jetpilot

My Feedback: (48)

David said "FEJ 1/7th or larger honeycomb mfg turbine jets" not 1/7th or larger mfg jets. "honeycomb" being the key here. seems like its the root cause. Well flutter is probably the primary cause and honeycomb secondary.
FEJ seems to be on the beaten path making big honeycomb jets. BVM doesnt really make anything that gets over 30lbs or 1/6th scale(except UB) and doesnt use honeycomb. all his jets are proven design and capable of 200mph plus!
If BV has a problem he fixes it right away. If Anton has a problem he fixes it right away. If FEJ has a problem they do absolutely nothing.
Scott

dubd

+1
Policing our own hobby means decisions need to be made even when they are not convenient. If the community feels FEJ's application of honeycomb is unsafe, then it is up to them as an enterprising business to prove otherwise.

Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

True enough but neither BVM or SM are in your shop building your plane for you. That being said the CD is responsible for a safe event and with a guide book on accepted composite construction methods for jet model AC any CD with reasonable building experience can inspect a plane with confidence. This levels the playing field and doesn't discriminate.

Justflying1

100% agree why should we pay thousands of dollars for lemons.
There is also the most important factor which is safety.

dubd

I like the idea and would love to see it implemented. Will you draft a proposal and share with the rest of us?

Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

I would love to contribute to this. I have some composites experience but I would like to collaborate with other professionals in the art so this guide book is concise and reasonable as well.

I will create an outline for the book and then we can fill in the sections one by one. Each section will cover certain composite techniques and applications. Each section will have its own photos of good and bad examples so the CD/AC Inspector can compare and discuss with the owner/builder what they are seeing.

dubd

Chris, perhaps you can solicit the help of some of the composite experts in the f14 thread. You could create a Google Doc (docs.google.com) that can be shared for community authoring, thus leveraging the knowledge of many people.

Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

Yep for sure

kimhey

+1

(I am following this thread from the other side of the world (Norway) with great interest. Safety first!).

GhostRider 1

Dave,

Due to the resent developments (Dantleys self destructing FEJ honeycombF-14)I totally agree with your actions and back you 100%. I have read many arguements on RCUabout the 55lb weight limit and experimental aircraft waiver. Guys argue why do they have to get inspection when the planes are now availible from manufacturers as ARF's and are not home built experimental aircraft? I totally understand whyALL turbine poweredplanes should be inspected by another pair of eyes aftera build and before the maiden flight, especially the55lb +. I suggest that all manufacturers submit test planes to the AMA and let the AMA inspect andsign off safe for flightPRIOR to selling them,just like all auto makers have to submit 3 auto's forcrash testing to make sure they meet federal standards of saftey. I'm sure the AMAcould assemble qualified inspectors and the manufacturers should also submit any changes made for further approval.Just my 2 cents...