http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3212-full.html?ET=avweb:e3212:323843a:&st=email#225438

wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3212-full.html?ET=avweb:e3212:323843a:&st=email#225438


Declared biggest RC model. But local pilot has a single engine airplane
that was originally an RC controlled drone for towing targets for the USAF.
Not a model, but real airplane. I think is a Cessna, but not sure.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:00:40 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3212-full.html?ET=avweb:e3212:323843a:&st=email#225438


Declared biggest RC model. But local pilot has a single engine airplane
that was originally an RC controlled drone for towing targets for the USAF.
Not a model, but real airplane. I think is a Cessna, but not sure.

That is an airplane but so are the 55lb+ RC jobs.

BTW someone posted this on the real boat board about drone no fly
zones around DC.

http://www.thehulltruth.com/attachments/dockside-chat/601074d1451305164-explain-drone-no-fly-rules-drone.jpg

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-5, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3212-full.html?ET=avweb:e3212:323843a:&st=email#225438


Declared biggest RC model. But local pilot has a single engine airplane
that was originally an RC controlled drone for towing targets for the USAF.
Not a model, but real airplane. I think is a Cessna, but not sure.

And there are larger "real" airplanes than a Cessna that have been converted to remote control. So what? This claim is for a *model* airplane that was never designed or meant to carry a pilot or passengers. It was hand-built by a hobbyist in his workshop, modeled from a real plane but just scaled down. As such, it has the current standing of the largest RC model airplane.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:06:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-5, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3212-full.html?ET=avweb:e3212:323843a:&st=email#225438


Declared biggest RC model. But local pilot has a single engine airplane
that was originally an RC controlled drone for towing targets for the USAF.
Not a model, but real airplane. I think is a Cessna, but not sure.

And there are larger "real" airplanes than a Cessna that have been converted to remote control. So what? This claim is for a *model* airplane that was never designed or meant to carry a pilot or passengers. It was hand-built by a hobbyist in his workshop, modeled from a real plane but just scaled down. As such, it has the current standing of the largest RC model airplane.

Joe Kennedy jr, the oldest Kennedy kid died in a B24 "drone" before we
had that name. It was going to be a flying bomb in response to the V
weapons. It couldn't take off under RC control so he was supposed to
get to operational altitude and bail out ... after he armed the bomb
on board. The bomb exploded when he armed it.

Nobody knows or was willing to admit who screwed up.

They also built other successful RC planes after the war for various
uses, usually as AA targets.

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 9:26:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:06:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-5, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3212-full.html?ET=avweb:e3212:323843a:&st=email#225438


Declared biggest RC model. But local pilot has a single engine airplane
that was originally an RC controlled drone for towing targets for the USAF.
Not a model, but real airplane. I think is a Cessna, but not sure.

And there are larger "real" airplanes than a Cessna that have been converted to remote control. So what? This claim is for a *model* airplane that was never designed or meant to carry a pilot or passengers. It was hand-built by a hobbyist in his workshop, modeled from a real plane but just scaled down. As such, it has the current standing of the largest RC model airplane.

Joe Kennedy jr, the oldest Kennedy kid died in a B24 "drone" before we
had that name. It was going to be a flying bomb in response to the V
weapons. It couldn't take off under RC control so he was supposed to
get to operational altitude and bail out ... after he armed the bomb
on board. The bomb exploded when he armed it.

Nobody knows or was willing to admit who screwed up.

They also built other successful RC planes after the war for various
uses, usually as AA targets.

Absolutely agree, those are what I'm talking about. Purpose built, usually by a contractor for the military. They are a far cry from a *model* RC airplane.

BTW, the model in the video uses 4 turbine engines, each with 30 lbs of thrust. Each engine cost $3800! The build took ~2000 hours. That was over 20 grand in the air.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:24:21 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:00:40 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3212-full.html?ET=avweb:e3212:323843a:&st=email#225438


Declared biggest RC model. But local pilot has a single engine airplane
that was originally an RC controlled drone for towing targets for the USAF.
Not a model, but real airplane. I think is a Cessna, but not sure.

That is an airplane but so are the 55lb+ RC jobs.

BTW someone posted this on the real boat board about drone no fly
zones around DC.

http://www.thehulltruth.com/attachments/dockside-chat/601074d1451305164-explain-drone-no-fly-rules-drone.jpg

Here's the latest email I got, which includes not just drones, but all RC aircraft at
the RC airfields in question. I think someone in the FAA simply has a hard-on for the
AMA and is doing what they can to stop flying wherever they can. All of our local
airfields are now closed, although there has *never* been an irresponsible flight
incident attached to any of them.

PGRC Members,

On 25 November, the FAA issued Notice N JO 7110.891 that prohibits model aircraft
operations in the DC Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) without specific authorization
(see paragraph 8.c.(2)(i) of the first attachment). We have been directed by the AMA
to suspend flying at PGRC while the AMA and FAA work out an agreement that provides
this "specific authorization" to enable the 14 model airplane clubs within the SFRA
to fly.

The AMA and the FAA are concerned that any model aircraft activity in the SFRA in
violation of the Notice may impede the AMA-FAA negotiations, and delay the reopening
of the fields in the SFRA. See the e-mail below from Brian Throop, an FAA Special
Operations Security Manager, to the AMA Executive Council dated 23 December. Also
see the e-mail below sent yesterday from Jay Marsh, AMA District IV VP. The second
attachment is the Ray Stinchcomb letter referenced in Jay Marsh's e-mail.

We all hope that this suspension is, in fact, temporary as stated in the AMA and FAA
e-mails. We expect all our members to comply and refrain from flying while the issue
is being addressed. We will pass along to you any pertinent information that we
receive as the AMA-FAA deliberations continue.

Regards,
Charlie



From: ]
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 10:17 AM
[Addressees deleted]
Subject: Request for your assistance
Good morning everyone.
As we continue our efforts to develop a plan for the resumption of model aircraft
operations in the Washington, D.C. Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA), we are hearing
reports that some individuals may be flying inside the SFRA even though they know it
is in violation of the current airspace restrictions. We are asking for your help
in spreading the word to the National Capitol Region model aircraft community that
such activity is subject to enforcement action, and could damage our efforts to
secure the interagency concurrence that is critical to this effort. As I have told
many of you over the last weeks and months, there is increasing governmental support
to make this happen, both within FAA and the whole of government, but our combined
efforts could easily be delayed, or derailed entirely, by any incidents that involve
folks knowingly operating within the SFRA in violation of current airspace
restrictions. We know that the vast, vast majority of model aircraft
hobbyists/enthusiasts, whether they are members of a formal organization or not,
wholeheartedly follow the rules, police themselves and others, and do everything they
can to operate safely and legitimately. Anything you can do to help us get the word
out would be deeply appreciated. The last thing anyone wants to hear from the
federal government is "be patient", but you folks have been patient, and
understanding, and we sincerely appreciate both as we work to try and get you back in
the air.
On another note, many of you have invited FAA and our interagency security partners
to come out and visit your flying sites and talk to your members, etc. We
appreciate the invites and have extended them to our interagency law enforcement and
security partners. We hope to take you up on the invitations in the near future.
Additionally, I know that many of your members and fellow model aircraft enthusiasts
have questions and concerns, about both the SFRA issue and model aircraft operations
in general. I would be happy to address them directly, either in person or via
telcon or email, and I'm sure my partners from FAA Legal, the UAS Integration Office,
and Flight Standards would be more than willing to join in the discourse. If you
are interested in such a discussion, just let me know.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all of you.
Thanks
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

wrote:
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 9:26:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:06:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-5, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3212-full.html?ET=avweb:e3212:323843a:&st=email#225438


Declared biggest RC model. But local pilot has a single engine airplane
that was originally an RC controlled drone for towing targets for the USAF.
Not a model, but real airplane. I think is a Cessna, but not sure.

And there are larger "real" airplanes than a Cessna that have been
converted to remote control. So what? This claim is for a *model*
airplane that was never designed or meant to carry a pilot or
passengers. It was hand-built by a hobbyist in his workshop, modeled
from a real plane but just scaled down. As such, it has the current
standing of the largest RC model airplane.

Joe Kennedy jr, the oldest Kennedy kid died in a B24 "drone" before we
had that name. It was going to be a flying bomb in response to the V
weapons. It couldn't take off under RC control so he was supposed to
get to operational altitude and bail out ... after he armed the bomb
on board. The bomb exploded when he armed it.

Nobody knows or was willing to admit who screwed up.

They also built other successful RC planes after the war for various
uses, usually as AA targets.

Absolutely agree, those are what I'm talking about. Purpose built,
usually by a contractor for the military. They are a far cry from a *model* RC airplane.

BTW, the model in the video uses 4 turbine engines, each with 30 lbs of
thrust. Each engine cost $3800! The build took ~2000 hours. That was
over 20 grand in the air.


You want a big remote controlled airplane crash?
http://youtu.be/vVyZeSgxmsw

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:06:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-5, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3212-full.html?ET=avweb:e3212:323843a:&st=email#225438


Declared biggest RC model. But local pilot has a single engine airplane
that was originally an RC controlled drone for towing targets for the USAF.
Not a model, but real airplane. I think is a Cessna, but not sure.

And there are larger "real" airplanes than a Cessna that have been converted to remote control. So what? This claim is for a *model* airplane that was never designed or meant to carry a pilot or passengers. It was hand-built by a hobbyist in his workshop, modeled from a real plane but just scaled down. As such, it has the current standing of the largest RC model airplane.

Key word, 'model'.

Here's the direct YouTube link. That is one beautiful model. I love the way the
take-off and landing is so realistic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akoJ2zBwX1o

--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:26:53 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

wrote:
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 9:26:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:06:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-5, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3212-full.html?ET=avweb:e3212:323843a:&st=email#225438


Declared biggest RC model. But local pilot has a single engine airplane
that was originally an RC controlled drone for towing targets for the USAF.
Not a model, but real airplane. I think is a Cessna, but not sure.

And there are larger "real" airplanes than a Cessna that have been
converted to remote control. So what? This claim is for a *model*
airplane that was never designed or meant to carry a pilot or
passengers. It was hand-built by a hobbyist in his workshop, modeled
from a real plane but just scaled down. As such, it has the current
standing of the largest RC model airplane.

Joe Kennedy jr, the oldest Kennedy kid died in a B24 "drone" before we
had that name. It was going to be a flying bomb in response to the V
weapons. It couldn't take off under RC control so he was supposed to
get to operational altitude and bail out ... after he armed the bomb
on board. The bomb exploded when he armed it.

Nobody knows or was willing to admit who screwed up.

They also built other successful RC planes after the war for various
uses, usually as AA targets.

Absolutely agree, those are what I'm talking about. Purpose built,
usually by a contractor for the military. They are a far cry from a *model* RC airplane.

BTW, the model in the video uses 4 turbine engines, each with 30 lbs of
thrust. Each engine cost $3800! The build took ~2000 hours. That was
over 20 grand in the air.


You want a big remote controlled airplane crash?
http://youtu.be/vVyZeSgxmsw


I'm thinking the fuel additive wasn't very effective.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!