HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Feb 03, 2011, 11:46 PM
Registered User
Gree's Avatar
Sydney, Australia
Joined Jun 2006
2,937 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dag214 View Post
Hey all,
I think the off topic conversations need to have their own thread. I have tried not to say anything, but I am getting tons of e-mails from engineers, aerospace guys, and just RC guys asking me to start a new thread so they don't have to plow thru all the off topic stuff. I don't want to ditch this thread and use my blog to post the B-36 being finished, but this thread has complete went off topic (though the info is interesting and cool), but the e-mails I am getting about off topic is killing me as I try to answer every e-mail. So unless its about aviation concerning or in a loose way attached to a B36 please get on topic, I will try to get more B-36 up when I can. I have had people un-subscribe as they hate getting e-mail alerts that a new post has been posted on the B-36 to only find a post that has nothing to do with the B36.

Thanks, Damon
THANK YOU! I haven't read this thread in months because of all the guff. Even though I love the project. Hopefully from now on it will be all B-36. Really appreciate this move Dag.
Gree is offline Find More Posts by Gree
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 04, 2011, 07:29 AM
RCHN #150
Rickn816's Avatar
Lawrenceville, GA
Joined Nov 2007
5,985 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dag214 View Post
Hey all,
I think the off topic conversations need to have their own thread. I have tried not to say anything, but I am getting tons of e-mails from engineers, aerospace guys, and just RC guys asking me to start a new thread so they don't have to plow thru all the off topic stuff. I don't want to ditch this thread and use my blog to post the B-36 being finished, but this thread has complete went off topic (though the info is interesting and cool), but the e-mails I am getting about off topic is killing me as I try to answer every e-mail. So unless its about aviation concerning or in a loose way attached to a B36 please get on topic, I will try to get more B-36 up when I can. I have had people un-subscribe as they hate getting e-mail alerts that a new post has been posted on the B-36 to only find a post that has nothing to do with the B36.

Thanks, Damon

You know, the e-mail notifications are optional . . .

Mine are all turned off.

Rick
Rickn816 is offline Find More Posts by Rickn816
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2011, 04:53 PM
I fly, therefore, I crash!!!
SteveT.'s Avatar
San Jose, CA
Joined Jan 2008
26,170 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickn816 View Post
You know, the e-mail notifications are optional . . .

Mine are all turned off.

Rick
But this is Dag's thread, and he should be able set the rules...

SteveT
SteveT. is offline Find More Posts by SteveT.
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: My hangar...
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2011, 10:59 PM
War Eagle!
sneasle's Avatar
United States, AL, Huntsville
Joined Sep 2006
2,832 Posts
You do realize that the talk about notifications and thread rules is also off topic, right?

:P
sneasle is offline Find More Posts by sneasle
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2011, 10:55 AM
Semi-world famous!
Click the Pirate's Avatar
USA, TX, GRAND PRAIRIE
Joined Oct 2003
1,015 Posts
So Damon, has there been any progress on the 36???
Click the Pirate is offline Find More Posts by Click the Pirate
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2011, 10:56 AM
Corporate Jet Mech
Halownr's Avatar
KVNY
Joined Oct 2006
72 Posts
Smoking Phantoms

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmisuinas View Post
If it is a picture of one of the re-engined Phantoms, it would not be unusual for no smoke (no, the US did not do a re-engine job, and yes, I do know what I am talking about after a 30 year career in the USAF)...Pete M

Easy Pete, I am fully aware that they were re-engined. Just having some fun.

Made me think of them again the other day- watched a RR Spey powered GIIB takeoff and leave a thick black trail that lingered aloft for awhile... These things have come a long way in terms of emissions and noise...

Loved the out-takes video DAG! Who better to poke fun at than yourself?

And besides, your loyal followers wouldn't allow anyone else to!!

KUTGW - on both levels


Hal
Halownr is offline Find More Posts by Halownr
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2011, 10:18 PM
Registered User
Michigan
Joined Aug 2004
765 Posts
Great move on getting rid of the useless chatter! Some people still won't get the point though! More on the 36!!!
IloveFLIGHT! is offline Find More Posts by IloveFLIGHT!
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 06, 2011, 06:54 AM
Hey Guys, Watch This.......
mike2663's Avatar
USA, TX, El Paso
Joined Dec 2003
6,042 Posts
Any chance of removing all the off topic posts? I'm sure it would be a very time consuming task though.
Mike
mike2663 is online now Find More Posts by mike2663
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 07, 2011, 06:38 AM
It only takes one good idea
dag214's Avatar
Fishers, Indiana
Joined Oct 2004
5,820 Posts
Hey all,

SEFF is a big thing to me, so most my spare time is in the Emmaselle II to have for SEFF 2011. I have worked a little on the flaps for the B-36, and tweaked the air system a bit as I have people come by to see the B-36 and like to show off the gear and gear doors actuating. I hope in 4 weeks to have the Emmaselle II done, and then hopefully by then it will warm up enough to get the garage back and go full bore on the B-36. I hope some of you don't think I am being a ass about trying to keep the forum on track, but this has become more of a pain than fun when I get e-mails that people are un-scribing, and leaving do to some of the none B-36 info. I look at the forum as a book about this task, and anything B-36, or even closely related is fine (and aviation history is fine, I love the F100 info, and other stuff), but I look at this as my little piece of history (all though small) that I am trying to share.

So..... if the forum stays on topic great, if not I will just drop this, and continue on my blog where I can erase/delete what I don't care for.


Rock On!!!

DAG
dag214 is online now Find More Posts by dag214
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 07, 2011, 08:22 AM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2011
7 Posts
Hi Dag,
I hope you keep this going. I think using the forum for your design is a great idea. I am a Project Manager and I am huge on documentation, and I think this can easily be referenced to as your journal for discussion with the community, especially if you run in to an issue somewhere where someone else's expertise can aid the situation.
MrSilvia is offline Find More Posts by MrSilvia
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 07, 2011, 10:02 AM
Registered User
Doug Bartley's Avatar
Canada, ON, Owen Sound
Joined Oct 2008
2,716 Posts
Hi Dag: I for one hope you will continue with this thread to show everyone interested in the B36 to its conclusion.
I have not added to the worthless banter of unrelated topics, and will not.
This is a story of your ambition to build and see fly YOUR B36, the rest of the stuff is just pure BS!!
I will not quit watching, anything pertaining to your build will be fervently studied, and I will wait patiently until you are ready to pursue the B36 again.
I would think that the people resonsible for pulling this thread so far off the real topic could find something better to do with their time.
ROCK ON< DAG!!! 110%+ Doug Bartley
Doug Bartley is online now Find More Posts by Doug Bartley
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 08, 2011, 01:45 PM
Flying high since '85
rdogg32's Avatar
Corvallis, Oregon
Joined Apr 2001
516 Posts
Hey dag, please don't drop this thread. It isn't that wouldn't follow your blog, but I have noticed that more and more people notice your thread and read up on the project as time goes on. I feel if you were to update only on your blog many people would miss out on the amazing project this is.
rdogg32 is online now Find More Posts by rdogg32
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 08, 2011, 04:01 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2009
51 Posts
Hello, Dag. Have been following this thread after finding RC Groups this past November. Just got back into static modeling myself after many years away and working to develop skills towards more ambitions projects in the future. As a mechanical design engineer, I say congratulations on this and other projects and keep plugging away by YOUR time schedule. Too much of today's engineering projects are rushed into production without thorough understanding of both design & functional requirements. Great job on the B36. Look forward towards seeing it WHEN IT IS READY

Kurt
Cincy, OH
JAVMAN83 is offline Find More Posts by JAVMAN83
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 08, 2011, 10:11 PM
It only takes one good idea
dag214's Avatar
Fishers, Indiana
Joined Oct 2004
5,820 Posts
AMA: FAA Seeks To Restrict Model Aircraft Flight
Tue, 08 Feb '11
Academy Of Model Aeronautics Warns About Heavy Restrictions Coming From Washington
The Academy of Model Aeronautics tells ANN that the FAA is set to place "heavy restrictions" on the hobbyists who fly model aircraft. In a circular sent to ANN over the weekend, the AMA indicates that the agency is poised to impose severe restrictions on the model aviation hobby, sport and industry that will have a potentially devastating impact on a recreational and educational activity pursued by hundreds of thousands of enthusiasts, tens of thousands of employees and an industry that generates more than $1 billion in revenue.
According to the AMA, the FAA created an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) in 2008 tasked with proposing recommendations for small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) that have been proliferating, particularly those in the commercial realm. The ARC’s charge was to draft recommended rules relative to establishing regulations for commercial sUAS and to define model aircraft – nothing more. AMA’s members are strictly hobbyists, sportsmen and educators. They are recreational users that do not participate in commercial activities. AMA was assured that the recreational modeler would be exempted from regulation.
In 2008, the ARC began its work with 20 members, more than half of which were from the commercial and public sectors with partisan interests. AMA was the lone seat for the hobbyist. AMA’s says its views and concerns were quickly swept aside in the haste to create enabling regulation for the commercial/public use sUAS industry. Subsequent protests and historical data presented by AMA have been repeatedly dismissed.
In March 2009, the ARC submitted its report to the FAA recommending a two-path approach for model aviation. This two-path approach proposes a “default path” that contains a devastating set of heavy-handed regulations and restrictions that will have a detrimental impact on the industry and thousands of aeromodeling enthusiasts not involved in AMA’s membership or programming. Alternatively, AMA must develop and fund an acceptable set of standards in order to overcome the restrictive effects of the default regulations. The two-path approach is extremely problematic and will adversely affect the aeromodeling community. AMA voiced strong opposition to this approach in the ARC’s report to the FAA.
AMA says that over the past 18 months it has worked diligently in an attempt to develop an acceptable set of standards to address FAA concerns. At the same time, however, the ground rules continue to change, creating a moving target and mounting frustration.
AMA believes that the proposed regulations fail to address the substantial diversity of the hobby and its applications and establishes unenforceable restrictions, while leaving absent a safety surveillance program to support the thousands of modelers outside of AMA’s formal structure and standards.

Large Model Aircraft
Although the exact language of the proposed regulation is not yet known, there are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from the ARC recommendations. The following are AMA’s areas of concern, the restrictions that are likely to be imposed and their effect on the model aviation community:
• ALTITUDE: As proposed, the rule would impose a nationwide altitude ceiling of 400 feet. AMA recognizes the need for altitude limitations when model aircraft are operated in close proximity to airports, and this concept is supported in AMA’s current Safety Code. However, a nationwide altitude ceiling for model aircraft is impractical, unnecessary, unrealistic and unenforceable through any reasonable means of compliance and detection.
• SPEED: It is likely that the rule will attempt to limit model aircraft performance by establishing a set speed limit such as 100 mph. Imposing such a speed limit will have little to no effect on aircraft performance and is both undetectable and unenforceable through any practical, cost-effective means.
• WEIGHT: As proposed, the sUAS rule will limit small unmanned aircraft to 55 pounds or less, and the implication for AMA’s Large Model Aircraft Program has not yet been determined. Without an acceptable standard or an alternative means of compliance, this rule may well curtail a vital element of the modeling activity that drives creativity, innovation and technological development.
• TURBINE BAN: The blanket prohibition of gas turbine engines suggested in the ARC recommendations does not consider the wide range of products currently in the marketplace. The inclusion of this prohibition in the proposed rule will impose a significant and unjustified economic impact on the industry.
• AIRPORT PROXIMITY: It is understood that the FAA is considering going outside the ARC’s recommendation and extending the “area of concern” around the nation’s 19,760 airports beyond the current 3-mile radius that has been the standard for more than 29 years. The intent to extend this radius has absolutely no statistical basis, has no supporting data and has no accident or incident correlation. Doing so would exponentially impact the number of existing flying sites affected by the rule. Extending the radius by as little as 2 miles (to 5 miles) would nearly triple the area of concern and create more than 1,784,000 square miles in which “no fly without permission” restrictions would be imposed.
It is the position of the AMA that, based upon the direction the rule is headed, it is clearly evident that the intent is not to objectively evaluate the model aircraft operations and realistically assess the risks. It is rather to unfairly eliminate model aviation from the safety equation by arbitrarily eliminating it from the airspace it has revered and safely used for decades. The organization urges all who are in favor of full analysis, regulatory restraint and fair play to help AMA save a hobby, a dynamic sport, a vital educational pursuit, and a $1 billion industry from what it says is undue government intervention that will have devastating consequences.
FMI: http://modelaircraft.org, www.faa.gov

PLEASE DO NOT DERAIL THIS THREAD, WRITE OR CALL YOU SENATOR ASAP.

Thanks, DAG
dag214 is online now Find More Posts by dag214
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 09, 2011, 02:52 AM
I'd Rather Be Flying
RCBlackSheep's Avatar
Stockton CA
Joined Feb 2009
576 Posts
If you decide to move this thread, please let me know where its moved to. I am very interested in this project and I am very interested in following it. As far as the AMA and the FAA issues are concerned, what I have been reading in MA (AMA's magazine I recieve as a benefit of membership) It seems that the FAA has a good understanding of the RC market and all of us that are members of the RC community and not interested in stepping on our toes but want some structure to what happens in US airspace for our own protection. (thank you 9/11) grrrrr How to make everybody happy and protect them all at the same time? I dunno either... The AMA is trying to stay involved and make this come out in our favor. History has proven that govenment cannot stop the inevitable. Civil war happened, women got the right to vote, moonshine got made and drank and I could go on and on but this B-36 will fly and there aint nuttin they can do about it. Dag rock us on! Thank you in advance. hehehe
RCBlackSheep is offline Find More Posts by RCBlackSheep
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good B-36 site (drawing with cross sections, too!) Thomas B Scale Kit/Scratch Built 26 Oct 11, 2011 09:14 PM
Discussion B-36 B-52 kgmorris Scale Kit/Scratch Built 20 Jan 02, 2009 06:27 AM
b-36 dorysch1 Scale Kit/Scratch Built 32 Feb 01, 2004 08:33 PM
Questions about my wally B-36...I'm new to foam. Boba_Fett Foamies (Kits) 8 Jun 11, 2002 03:36 PM
B 36 Trobber Parkflyers 3 Dec 30, 2001 12:33 PM