 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / September 2008Model B29 & Bell X1 video.... too cool for words.
http://users.skynet.be/fa926657/files/B29.wmv HDS PS, wonder what the rocket motor was used in the X1 > http://users.skynet.be/fa926657/files/B29.wmv Wow! That was too cool for words. I bet the ATF has wet dreams at night wishing they could regulate R/C airplanes.  SignatureRocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive, discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the largest collection of web links anywhere! http://www.rocketryplanet.com Darrell, I believe they are regulated. Some of them use chain saw engines for power. Their potential for ill use far exceeds that of rockets. Consider a visual downlink, and a GPS cell phone simply duct taped to the air frame. You use cell phone telemetry to get the thing near the target and then convert to visual. It's kinda scary when you think about it. Meanwhile the ATF worries about rockets that literally can't hit the broad side of a barn. IMHO, these guys should get their priorities straight. -Larry (Hey! That video was spectacular!) C. >> http://users.skynet.be/fa926657/files/B29.wmv > > Wow! That was too cool for words. > > I bet the ATF has wet dreams at night wishing they could regulate R/C > airplanes. So you think that R/C planes should be regulated by ATF because they might could possibly be used to carry a payload? You think that's getting their priorities straight? You know, a little red wagon could carry a lot of TNT. Scary isn't it? Let's regulate them as tightly as TNT! An SUV could carry an atomic bomb. They should be illegal, every SUV owner must be a terrorist! A private plane could carry a bomb and hit almost any location in the nation. We should arrest all private pilots, put them away for life and destroy all planes! No, R/C planes aren't kinda scary when I think about them. But people who suggest that the ATF should control them because they might be used as a delivery method are very scary! Dave > Darrell, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> I bet the ATF has wet dreams at night wishing they could regulate R/C >> airplanes. > So you think that R/C planes should be regulated by ATF because they might > could possibly be used to carry a payload? You think that's getting their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > suggest that the ATF should control them because they might be used as a > delivery method are very scary! Boy, I've heard of reading between the lines before, but even reading between the paragraphs, I couldn't find any such suggestion by Larry. He merely pointed out that rockets were lousy vehicles for terrorism and suggested the ATF focus elsewhere. SignatureRocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive, discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the largest collection of web links anywhere! http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> So you think that R/C planes should be regulated by ATF because they >> might could possibly be used to carry a payload? You think that's [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > merely pointed out that rockets were lousy vehicles for terrorism and > suggested the ATF focus elsewhere. The suggestion was that the ATF should be in the business of regulating possible delivery vehicles. I carried that thought (tongue firmly planted in cheek) to extremes to show how bad an idea allowing such regulation would be. I still stand by my last paragraph. No, R/C planes aren't scary when I think about them. Neither are little red wagons. But people who suggest that the ATF should "get their priorities straight" and look into controlling hypothetical delivery systems instead of controlling explosives are very scary. Dave > The suggestion was that the ATF should be in the business of regulating > possible delivery vehicles. I carried that thought (tongue firmly planted [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > controlling hypothetical delivery systems instead of controlling explosives > are very scary. That is *not* what he said and certainly *not* what he meant. He said the ATF should get their priorities straight, meaning do what they are supposed to do and leave rockets AND other delivery methods alone. By comparing R/C planes to rockets and that they are a better delivery vehicle, he is pointing out the obvious: the ATF regulate explosives, not vehicles. SignatureRocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive, discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the largest collection of web links anywhere! http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> The suggestion was that the ATF should be in the business of regulating >> possible delivery vehicles. I carried that thought (tongue firmly [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > vehicle, he is pointing out the obvious: the ATF regulate explosives, not > vehicles. Not what he meant? Possibly. Not what he said? Let's review: > Darrell, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > literally can't hit the broad side of a barn. IMHO, > these guys should get their priorities straight. To me this implies that the ATF is regulating rockets because of their delivery potential and that in his opinion, they should concern themselves with things that have more accurate delivery potential. Thus getting "their priorities straight." News flash!!! ATF is concerned with the CONTENTS of the rocket motor, not the targeting capability of the rocket. They're concerned with the availability of materials that are classified as explosive. I'm not saying that I agree with the ATF's classification of AP propellant. I am saying that regulation based on potential use as a delivery system isn't the answer. Dave Hi, Gang. Larry here. Let me see, am I the devil incarnate? Nah. I don't have aspirations that lofty. Now. What was it I said? I don't know. Not sure why so many people care. FWIW, I *do* believe in regulation, even of our activities.OTOH, I believe there should be reasonable provisions so that we can lawfully pursue our activities - which are not in any way mean-spirited. Further, I don't believe that government agencies should pretend our activities and equipment are what they are not, so that they can shoehorn them into their mandates like an ugly stepsister into a glass slipper. More than that, I don't believe we should have a government of overlapping fiefdoms, all trying to extend their little spheres of petty influence, and I believe that is what we have. As for scariness. Yes. I believe the scenario I described is scary. Why shouldn't it be? Seems to me that is the question, here, and not whether I said something politically incorrect. So did I say something politically incorrect? Why... I think I did! Chill out, folks. -Larry (Not the Devil, but maybe Pazuzu) C. > That is *not* what he said and certainly *not* what he meant. He said > the ATF should get their priorities straight, meaning do what they are > supposed to do and leave rockets AND other delivery methods alone. By > comparing R/C planes to rockets and that they are a better delivery > vehicle, he is pointing out the obvious: the ATF regulate explosives, > not vehicles. Yep, and if the ATF would attempt to regulate RC ACFT, such as my Carden Aircraft 35% CAP232, powered by a 100cc two stroke, I would more than likely tell them to go pi$$ in the wind, (our something like that), and have the many thousands of AMA members and there voting clout to back up that thought..(:-) >So you think that R/C planes should be regulated by ATF because they might >could possibly be used to carry a payload? You think that's getting their [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Dave Larry's point was that it would be easier to destroy something with an R/C airplane than one of our rockets. But if all this gets SUVs off the road, count me in. Especially if the SUV is being driven by a moron that can't pay attention because they are talking on the phone. I can hear it now - don't bother flaming me - I've already heard it. Regulated by whom?? > Darrell, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > > http://www.rocketryplanet.com > Meanwhile the ATF worries about rockets that > literally can't hit the broad side of a barn. IMHO, > these guys should get their priorities straight. The ATFs job is to regulate explosives, not potential delivery systems. THey are illegally operating outside their enabling legislation. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. > The ATFs job is to regulate explosives, not potential delivery systems. THey > are illegally operating outside their enabling legislation. Since when did that stop them? SignatureRocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive, discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the largest collection of web links anywhere! http://www.rocketryplanet.com The only really regulated models are the models using miniature jet engines. Mainly because of the regulations for handling of the fuel and the requirements for reinforcing the fuel tanks on those models. There is the AMA, but they are not government based and only supply you with a license wich is required at most airfields. Patrick >Darrell, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> I bet the ATF has wet dreams at night wishing they could regulate R/C >> airplanes. > http://users.skynet.be/fa926657/files/B29.wmv > > HDS > > PS, wonder what the rocket motor was used in the X1 is this the six year old video that has been brought up here at least three times? and i believe it was an aerotech G > > http://users.skynet.be/fa926657/files/B29.wmv > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > and i believe it was an aerotech G If it's only turned up three times, and it's six years old, and the first time it turned up was when it was new, that's only once every three years which isn't bad at all. I for one don't remember having seen it before, and am awfully glad to have come across it now. Gee, I have an idea! Why didn't we think of this? Instead of controlling the potential uses of every possible object or substance, why don't we make terrorism ITSELF illegal? After all, no one could possibly do anything against the law (like use a chemical other than how it was intended) so then we'd all be safe! What...? You're kidding! For an exercise, look up what percentage of gun crimes are committed with a legally registered and carried firearm. > Gee, I have an idea! Why didn't we think of this? Instead of > controlling the potential uses of every possible object or substance, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > For an exercise, look up what percentage of gun crimes are committed > with a legally registered and carried firearm. Aw, come on, We're all to lazy for that. Just tell Us. :) > > For an exercise, look up what percentage of gun crimes are committed > > with a legally registered and carried firearm. > > Aw, come on, We're all to lazy for that. Just tell Us. :) No, really - I wanted someone to do this for me! I haven't been able to get any realistic numbers. What I see is "almost never happens" or " a few percent", etc. The worst number I've seen was that 48% of guns used in crimes WERE AT SOME POINT legally owned; but "almost all" had been subsequently stolen before their criminal use. One would think this is a critical statistic, but it seems very hard to find. I wonder why? I DO, however, know the number of hobbyist ACPC motors used to down aircraft... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.