|
||
|
Quote:
That's training wheels. Not that there's a thing in the world wrong with training wheels, for those who are in the early stages of training. Now, if you want to keep SAFE available on standby, ready at the touch of a button, that's your choice. Me, I've always taken a certain pride in knowing that I prefer not to have that "crutch" available, but maybe I'll change my mind someday. Up till now, I've never really desired to have a Return To Home function either, taking a certain amount of pride in my ability to see my models at very long ranges, but lately I've stated to daydream about some exotic projects that might greatly benefit from such a feature. |
|
Last edited by aeronaut999; Oct 26, 2020 at 08:07 PM.
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
No, the "real thing" is one you can sit in. Models are just toys.
Quote:
Real men don't have auto exposure or autofocus on their cameras. Real men have manual transmissions in their cars. Real men don't use aileron to rudder mixing, or dual rates, differential or expo. Real men walked to school when they were kids, through the June blizzards; and it was uphill both ways . And real men miss more shots, grind more gears, crash more often, and get more hip and knee replacements than those who had sense enough to take advantage of the benefits of technology. Full disclosure: I don't own any planes with SAFE, and my flying buddy student soon found it too limiting when he was learning to fly. But I'm sold on rate stabilizers - have them in every plane except a sailplane and Old-Timer. They react faster than my 60 year old thumbs and have saved me a lot of repairs. |
|
|
||
|
||
|
Quote:
Everything I fly is under 10 lbs though. I'd still probably go electric up to 20 - 25 lbs myself. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Well, it's not entirely about that. I consider one the purposes of my flying to be to gather real-world data about how high and how far away a person can reasonably expect to maintain control of a model airplane under various conditions. It wouldn't be valid data if I had the backup of knowing I could push a button and have the airplane come home, would it?
Just like full-scale motorgliders don't generally compete head-to-head with full scale unpowered sailplanes. Just my random thoughts. Maybe I'll change my mind one day. Actually, the simple truth is that neither SAFE nor Return-to-Home nor stabilization exist in the FrSky receivers I am currently using, and I haven't bothered to think about taking any steps to change the situation. |
|
||
|
Quote:
Your argument reminds me of the British Army during WWI refusing to provide parachutes to pilots (as opposed to balloon observers), on the grounds that a pilot in difficulties might no longer "do his utmost" to bring the failing machine to earth... |
|
|
||
|
||
|
Quote:
BTW, I've no idea if it's a majority or not. I suspect there might be a slim majority that use a 3-axis stab, and a minority that use a 6-axis stab with auto-level. I think it's safe to say that for model aircraft, Return-To-Home is very rare. Fair enough. I don't fly FrSky, but hear their stabilized receivers are decent. |
|
|
||
|
||
|
Quote:
|
|
Latest blog entry: Do-it-Yourself EDF Afterburner and other...
|
||
|
|
Thread OP
|
Can't say I have any problems with learners using SAFE, etc., to learn. I know I spent several years, trying to teach myself, without success. Then, once I joined a club and got an instructor (Thank you, Dick Zuidema!), I soloed in only a few months.
If stabilizers, mixing, dual rates, etc., help beginners learn and not leave the hobby in frustration, then I'm in favor of them. It's like dihedral, washout, and other aerodynamic methods that were the 'helper' technologies of the day. As to using stabilizers in flying competitions, as long as everyone has access to them, why not allow them? Rules change -- not long ago, the thought of someone entering an ARF in a scale comp would've been ridiculous. Getting back to flying smaller models, I'm not saying that because I want to see big models banned. I'm saying it because smaller stuff is becoming more practical. I'm also trying to understand what a shift to smaller models would mean to flying field requirements, which would directly impact club requirements. CD |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|||||
|
||
|
Quote:
The other issue is that after one minute of afterburner the tailfeathers start to melt off the F-35. Given that it can't supercruise, you get exactly one minute of supersonic flight. Can't fight, can't run. |
|
|
||
|
||
|
Quote:
p.s.; That said, I am not totally opposed to judicious use of stabilization systems either on my models or in an aircraft I fly in. BUT only on the premise that it augments or enhances capability rather than mask or cover up deficiencies (e.g.; the 737 Max fiasco). |
|
|
Last edited by aymodeler; Oct 28, 2020 at 06:43 AM.
|
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
The F-35 is designed to be controllable through the stall (which is a lot higher than 20 degrees) and recoverable beyond the stall. High AoA testing on the A model demonstrated good controllability through 50 degrees AoA. The B and C have different aerodynamics and mass properties so it isn't surprising that some software changes will be needed to get them to full capability -- assuming that whatever article you were reading isn't out of date. Quote:
Turning your tailpipe toward the enemy and lighting the burner is asking for a heat seaking missile up the pipe, so only an idiot would do this anyway... Here's a good article about F-35 capabilities and handling qualities, from those who actually know something about them: https://www.airspacemag.com/military...est-180971734/ |
|||
|
||||
|
||
|
Quote:
The reason both of those accidents occurred is that, in both cases the flight crews failed to follow rule #1: FLY THE AIRPLANE! They both deviated from the ELEV PITCH TRIM checklist and re-engaged the system (in the case of Ethiopian, multiple times), worsening their condition. And they had a trim wheel as an ultimate backup (we don't even have THAT in the 757/767, yet the airplane is fully flyable even at full trim deflection. It's exhausting, but it's flyable) Boeing's only fault was failure to mention this system in the manuals. But that did not kill these passengers and crew, piss-poor airmanship did. These same MCAS failures have occurred elsewhere, even in the US. Yet they were survived. Ever wonder why? I'm just getting a little tired of blaming a manufacturer when the real culprits here are the airlines (for having such low training and experience standards), and ultimately the pilots themselves, for not going back to simple basics (which would have saved lives). I do find it interesting that the CVR and FDR data have not been released by the respective governments of the two airlines. That alone is enough to see a shifting of the blame (or a refusal to place it where it really belongs). RStrowe |
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | |||||
Category | Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Discussion | Unless we stop this now, this corruption is our future. | rcposter | Life, The Universe, and Politics | 45 | Sep 30, 2019 06:16 AM |
Alert | This past weekend the near future was on display | Stresscracked | Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy | 30 | May 08, 2016 08:57 AM |
Question | help with a plan for my future steps in this hobby | minkyboodle | Electric Heli Talk | 13 | Jan 05, 2012 05:37 PM |
Rant | I fear for my future in this hobby | HappyKillmore | Electric Plane Talk | 89 | Jun 07, 2008 03:08 AM |
Discussion | Is this the future for our hobby?? | Jeremy_D | Australia | 6 | Aug 16, 2007 06:17 AM |