SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by Gary Evans, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old Feb 11, 2013, 02:12 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,871 Posts
1714 was in reference to the NOTAM's
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 11, 2013, 02:12 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
29,075 Posts
Gary, you're not making any sense.
#1714 is about the 6 test sites (which FAA is overdue in choosing), which will
presumably in the middle of nowhere, and essentially irrelevant to the average hobbyist
FPV pilot who flies relatively close to wherever they live. Are you trying to say that
our discussions here in this thread in this forum need to represent all commercial and
public sector interests as well?

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 11, 2013, 02:16 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,871 Posts
Let's change to the interesting part of this topic.. I wonder if a foam plane really is less dangerous, equal or even more - than a composite plane.

Right now it's all assumptions because nobody really conducted any safety testing including collisions.

Let's assume that an FPV Plane made out of foam turns out to be the safest option .. maybe the argument could be that an FPV Plane needs to be made out of a certain material ..
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 02:17 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,473 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
Gary, you're not making any sense.
#1714 is about the 6 test sites (which FAA is overdue in choosing), which will
presumably in the middle of nowhere, and essentially irrelevant to the average hobbyist
FPV pilot who flies relatively close to wherever they live. Are you trying to say that
our discussions here in this thread in this forum need to represent all commercial and
public sector interests as well?

ian
Typo, #1716
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 02:37 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
29,075 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Evans View Post
Typo, #1716
Or #1717 even.

Lemme make an analogy. Let's say we were talking about passenger car safety on
public roads, recognizing that there are different classes and categories of vehicles.
We could start by making some assumptions about the average non-SUV
passenger car on the road today. Sub 4000lb, cruises comfortably at 45-75mph, built
with foam bumpers, crumple zones, ABS, airbags, "pedestrian friendly" hoods. etc.
We'd talk about what impact they have on other vehicles, structures, pedestrians and
established guidelines, and regs for safe operation etc.. and try to convey
those ideas to 3rd parties as consistently as possible.

In that context, your current argument sounds like "But there are cars with steel bumpers,
and others that'll go 200mph, and some that weigh 5000lbs. Just because
most people drive an average car doesn't mean we should be ignoring these.
Why is the construction of the average car relevant at all in a safety discussion?"

At least, that's how it sounds. Maybe you're trying to make some other point,
but you seem to alluding to it, rather than stating it outright.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by Daemon; Feb 11, 2013 at 02:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 03:09 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,473 Posts
Let it go!
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 03:54 PM
OSUFPV - KF7VFT
Corvallis, OR
Joined Apr 2010
1,778 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
Gary, you're not making any sense.
#1714 is about the 6 test sites (which FAA is overdue in choosing), which will
presumably in the middle of nowhere, and essentially irrelevant to the average hobbyist
FPV pilot who flies relatively close to wherever they live.
Not me hehe! Rumor is OSU will get a test site, I have no idea if it will even be
possible for me in my capacity as a random FPVer to fly there. Would be pretty
awesome if they just declared it open to all UAVs and set us loose in the
controlled zone. Again, my understanding about the test sites is zilch. Havn't
read a single concrete detail about it.

-Blues
Blueshy is offline Find More Posts by Blueshy
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 04:19 PM
Gaftopher
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
Nottingham Road South Africa/Bedford UK
Joined Feb 2007
3,961 Posts
Test sites are on hold until privacy issue is resolved.
Gary Mortimer is offline Find More Posts by Gary Mortimer
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 04:22 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
29,075 Posts
That sounds like as good an excuse for them to do nothing, as anything else I guess.
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 11, 2013, 05:23 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,871 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
That sounds like as good an excuse for them to do nothing, as anything else I guess.
Remember it's government .. hehe :-D
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 08:37 PM
Registered User
Eagle202's Avatar
United States, FL, Clearwater
Joined Aug 2011
1,604 Posts
Plane Construction

I don't think it really matters what the plane is made out of.

The pieces of the plane that can cause significant damage when falling from a great height or running into the propulsion device (prop or jet) of another plane are the batteries and motor.

The body and everything else (even the electronics, servos, ESC and camera) are relatively not as dense as the other two items.

Try popping someone in the head with a 4 cell 5000 mah battery and see how they feel about it.
Eagle202 is offline Find More Posts by Eagle202
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 08:40 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,460 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle202 View Post
I don't think it really matters what the plane is made out of.

The pieces of the plane that can cause significant damage when falling from a great height or running into the propulsion device (prop or jet) of another plane are the batteries and motor.

The body and everything else (even the electronics, servos, ESC and camera) are relatively not as dense as the other two items.

Try popping someone in the head with a 4 cell 5000 mah battery and see how they feel about it.
A goose is basically the same thing though? It's got hard parts and soft parts, mostly soft parts, and it's about the same weight and size with most of the hard stuff in the middle... isn't this what the existing UAV classifications are based on?

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...rspace-207171/
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 08:41 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
29,075 Posts
Try popping someone on the head with a battery protected by a half inch of foam or more (the whole nose),
versus having it surrounded by a built up or composite airframe. There is a difference.
There's a reason we don't use crunchies for combat.

Also, a lot of foam planes (not all) have a practical speed limit. In a vertical dive,
they're either drag limited, or they flutter, snap their wing, and spin down like a maple seed,
where some composite planes have a much higher terminal velocity. I'm not
trying to throw anyone under the bus here, but they're just simply not all the same.
I own composite sailplanes that'll do 200+mph in a dive.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by Daemon; Feb 11, 2013 at 08:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2013, 08:57 PM
Registered User
Eagle202's Avatar
United States, FL, Clearwater
Joined Aug 2011
1,604 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
Try popping someone on the head with a battery protected by a half inch of foam or more (the whole nose),
versus having it surrounded by a built up or composite airframe. There is a difference.
There's a reason we don't use crunchies for combat.

Also, a lot of foam planes (not all) have a practical speed limit. In a vertical dive,
they're either drag limited, or they flutter, snap their wing, and spin down like a maple seed,
where some composite planes have a much higher terminal velocity. I'm not
trying to throw anyone under the bus here, but they're just simply not all the same.
I own composite sailplanes that'll do 200+mph in a dive.

ian
No question that construction differences, weight and speed can determine different impact damage. Although small dense objects can penetrate even at low speeds.

Batteries don't always stay inside a plane. I saw a foamie breakup when something hit the prop. The plane did a violent corkscrew and unless it was part of the body it got thrown out into the air. One of the batteries made a pretty good imprint in the ground when it hit.
Eagle202 is offline Find More Posts by Eagle202
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 12:19 AM
Crashaffinity on youtube
CrashAffinity's Avatar
Joined Nov 2012
2,960 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
Let's change to the interesting part of this topic.. I wonder if a foam plane really is less dangerous, equal or even more - than a composite plane.

Right now it's all assumptions because nobody really conducted any safety testing including collisions.

Let's assume that an FPV Plane made out of foam turns out to be the safest option .. maybe the argument could be that an FPV Plane needs to be made out of a certain material ..
ever done a belly flop into a swimming pool? after a certain speed threshold is reached it really just doesn't matter, it HURTS
CrashAffinity is offline Find More Posts by CrashAffinity
RCG Plus Member
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Range Gary Evans FPV Talk 65 Aug 10, 2008 03:27 AM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Weight Gary Evans FPV Talk 16 Jul 30, 2008 02:30 PM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Altitude Gary Evans FPV Talk 52 Jul 30, 2008 02:05 PM