This just hit the news. http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankbi/2015/01/28/grounded-dji-to-prevent-drones-from-flying-in-washington-d-c/

     Your absolutely right Mike. Another one of life's dirty little tricks. With the MO-1 we have a 3-view and all kinds of pictures and still don't build it to scale and get to fly it in carrier. What would happen if we left off the cabin and radiator on the carrier version of the P-51? I'm sure that there is a 3-view of the prototype Barracuda P1767 somewhere we just haven't found it yet. The prototype would be the ideal plane because the elevator is down in the slip stream where it would give more authority in the hang and wouldn't be breaking off on the cartwheels. I'll try e-mailing Matthew Willis at the Airoplane magazine and see if he can come up with a 3-view of the prototype.  Eric

In an attempt to answer Mike G's question directly, and not to add fuel to a debate:

If you are operating a model and it injures someone or causes property damage the person who suffered the loss can file a legal action against you and anyone else who was a "legal cause" of the injury. The rules vary from state to state but the basic principles are similar throughout the US. The injured person will assert that you were somehow "negligent" in causing the injury, meaning your conduct fell below the standard of care that society expects of everyone. It could also be alleged that your activity was "ultra hazardous" (like keeping a Bengal tiger in your yard) and that a "strict liability" standard should apply, not a negligence standard. If you are flying a quarter-scale RC jet with a 500 mph speed capacity, that could be ultra hazardous, arguably. I don't see anything except routine "negligence" being raised in a claim involving tethered models with a 55 mph speed range.

Belonging to the AMA or having insurance does not prevent you being sued. Instead it provides for attorneys and claims adjusters to defend you and pay any settlement or judgment within policy limits. There is always the potential for a beyond-limits judgment if your model maims a rising star hedge fund manager who suffers a billion-dollar loss of income, but unless you are flying on Wall Street that's not likely. You have to decide for yourself how much insurance is "enough" and that depends on the laws of a particular state. I am in California and I regard the AMA limits as adequate, so that says something.

Thanks Jim will do.

Cliff

There are a couple of pix of one going together in this message:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php/topic,8697.msg75136.html#msg75136

Basically, it is a Bearclaw wing in a Ringmaster fuse.

There are other references in the 1/2A section to a design in Model Aviation by Jim Petro - but that is a different design.

edit:  Just found a couple of shots of one in flight:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php/topic,9137.msg79117.html#msg79117

It is a yellow profile and shows up in several photos through the whole thread.

Thanks, Ringmaster for the nice words about the testbed twin. Actually it was designed to do the pattern at a slower than normal pace. The two props provide lots of low-gear torque, but also provide lots of downhill brakes as well. I have 20 total inches of disk span on this ship.

Later - Bob

Mike, asking on here will only get things off in a tangent, even if one person does know the answer.. CALL the AMA. That's one reason they are there, for you, no matter what all the nay sayers say.

 
Well, the Secret Service has been screwing up alot lately.

Here are a few pictures of the Wingmaster and one of the Stuka that were with the stuff I recv'd.

Please take notice that the wings have a straight T.E. so the Wingmaster is not an O.T.S. legal model.

Hello Bob, That is cool looking twin electric powered plane. I bet she will really move fast. That is real sweet I like that Thanks for showing me that.