| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
This is a thread for the various Toys of the air. RC planes, rc mini-indoor helicopters, Homebuilt Airplanes, kites, Hang Gliders, Gyroplanes, Paragliders, powered 'chutes, jet packs, rocket propulsion, Hot Air Balloons, Blimps.............. What ever. I'm thinking about my next toy, and there are many choices, and reasons, and rationalizations to consider. But for now... how cool is this???? http://www.sonexaircraft.com/subsonex/index.html My personal tastes run more towards the Xenos, a sweet, fast, motor glider. (Message edited by aesquire on April 03, 2014) | ||
| Aesquire |
 http://www.airdromeaeroplanes.com/ Rather like the Fokker D-VIII. Most modern fighter of WW1. The Airdrome designer changes the airfoil and balance to work, ( WW1 planes had horrible balance and safety ) using modern materials and construction techniques. Stronger, lighter, and often just as fast ( with less power ). Not rated for aerobatic flight. Most of the replicas are strong enough, but legal and training limits mean they are not allowed. Makes a lot of sense, since more than half the casualties among allied pilots in WW1 were in training. Where are you going to get training in aerobatics in a single seat WW1 fighter? Doesn't fly quite like a Pitts. I want one. | ||
| Aesquire |
I could make a small fortune if I took a large one and started making Le Rhone, Gnome, or Clerget replica engines. The market isn't huge, but a CNC'd modern replica with modern piston rings & materials would be a boon to the builders of replicas and the folk working hard to keep originals going. Maybe when I retire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerget_aircraft_engi nes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnome_et_Rh%C3%B4ne Or maybe the Mercedes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes_D.III | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.flylight.co.uk/dragons.html Trikes range from simple self launched soaring motor gliders, think mopeds of the sky.... to 2 seat 100hp 100+mph sport planes, think sport bikes. I prefer the lighter end of the spectrum. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://ardrone2.parrot.com/ When these first came out a few years back, the first thing I thought of is the scene in "Animal House" where Belushi is peeping tom on a ladder. "what a boon for college pervs!" was my take. I suppose that says something about me. A bit pricey for a toy, but it's a pretty darn good one with a lot of development behind it. I've gone though a half dozen cheap toy indoor copters. The best flying so far was a "Halo Banshee" model that flew great, until the first crash. Then.... not so much. Any testimonials on a decent indoor flier? This one works great, but is not really good indoors. http://www.amazon.com/Duck-Hunter-Indoor-Flying-Hu nt/dp/B0029Y4LY6 Bought one for my Brother in law for Christmas a few years back, it still works. One person flies the ornithopter, the other blazes away with an IR "shotgun" pistol. 3 hits and the duck stops flapping and glides to a landing. We were playing with it while camping... "excuse me sir, my robot duck landed on your camper, can we have it back please?" | ||
| Slaughter |
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/mr-ar angos-aeroplanes-3409154/?no-ist Arango did a lunch talk and they have done faithful manufacture of originals for their WWI fleet. He talked in quite the level of detail about how the Le Rhone was individually built - and there was virtually NO parts that were interchangeable. | ||
| Aesquire |
Good one. The engines of the day were real oddballs. Lots of misinformation out there. Some are like the article says, on or off. Full throttle ( it doesn't have one ) or coasting. Some had throttles just like a motorcycle, hooked to the carburetor. Others had variable ignition systems. All 9 cylinders fire, or 7 or 5 or 3 or 1. The fuel and castor oil mixture would still be flowing through the cylinders, spilling all over the cowl. I've heard one of the planes at Old Rhinebeck using this system. ( Sopwith Camel IIRC ) pop.........pop........pop....... you could actually see the propeller speed up and slow down between power pulses. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/spy-pla ne-fries-air-traffic-control-computers-shuts-down- lax-n95886 Short form, a TR-1 ( U2 ) spy plane flying past LAX made the computer go nuts when it's altitude freaked it out. The more sophisticated you make a computerized system, the more holes it has in it's programming. Apparently no one thought to "tell" the computer that an airplane could fly that high. So it thought the TR-1 was flying right through it's traffic.... instead of 5 miles higher. I remember a story about a SR-71 Blackbird sent to test the ADIZ ( air defense net ) near New Orleans in the 1970's. The crew had heard that the altitude tracking radar was down for repairs, so they came in at low altitude, and when they hit the range that the net usually can pick up an airliner, turned on their transponder, punched it, and climbed steeply. With a ground speed the same as a normal airliner, ( although they were actually supersonic...... going UP ) no one noticed anything unusual. When they got to the range that you are supposed to check in, they pointed the nose down a bit ( being about 20 miles up by that point ) accelerated to mach 3+ ground speed, and streaked across the defense zone so fast that the ground controllers thought they had a malfunction or UFO. | ||
| Sifo |
I have no clue what the story is on this, but check out the street name.  | ||
| Etennuly |
I like model rockets myself. Home made versions were/are much more fun than kit forms. My standard everyday rocket was a 36" Christmas paper wrap tube with pizza box wings and a styrofoam nose cone covered with masking tape then the whole thing was coated with fiberglass resin. I made a "D" size motor mount that used hot glue to lock the motor in. The nose cone popped off with a recovery chute. I kept a launch count on each of my rockets, this one made over fifty launch and recoveries. I won't go into the single shot 1/4 sticks hot glued to a "D" motor with three wings and a straw launch tube. I made a large two stage recovery rocket out of several Christmas wrapping paper tubes, hot glue, and resin. It ended up being 13.5 feet tall, six inches in diameter, weighing 6.8 pounds. It took four "E" size motors to launch it to about 500 feet. It was painted up white/black/silver kind of like the Apollo/Mercury rockets. It looked like a telephone pole in the air. The motors would burn out at about 400 feet and it would coast another 100 feet then nose over with the wind. It had several recovery chutes, two on the nose half and three on the booster end. It came back in two pieces splitting itself in the middle when the chute charge kicked. It was quite awesomely loud and very smoky and slow going off the launch pad. The launch pad was a custom made 10' tall metal gantry affair. It made nine successful launches, number ten involved a too quick reload/relaunch, too many beers, and an impatient crowd of on lookers rushing the soldering of the igniter wires and their installation, and too many beers. It was a most awesome failed launch ever! Only two of the "E" motors lit. It took ten seconds of burn time to get to thirty feet, that being with the engines only five feet or so hovering above the launch tower. The smoke and noise was fantastic. It stayed straight up vertical until the motors burned out. It fell back onto the launch pad tipping over to fall across a small rocket pad a few feet away then the nose cone hit my neighbors car that we were using for a 12 volt power source for launching. It was the greatest day I ever had with the rockets! A perfect large rocket launch/flight/recovery in front of seventy people, then the wreck everyone wanted to see a half hour later. Like I learned driving race cars, if you are going to put on a great show or really screw up, make sure it is a big crowd or someone has camera running(this was before cell phone cameras were everywhere). | ||
| Aesquire |
I made almost every Estes rocket. my neighbor made a beautiful "Little Joe II" model ( Centuri iirc ) this was the rocket NASA uses to test the escape tower for the Apollo Program. A simple solid fuel booster with an Apollo Command module & escape tower on top. ( the Little Joe was used to do the same with the Mercury program ) Nice big model, with a delicate, multi part plastic escape tower. Took days for my bud to build. On it's first launch it went up, turned around and flew straight down into the cornfield we we flying from. When we found it, it had hit a 2 foot chunk of asphalt in the middle of a huge cornfield. Head on. Dead center. Looked like a cartoon rocket used by Wiley Coyote.... wrinkled like an accordion. The plastic escape tower defined "smithereens". No witnesses, you'll have to take my word.  | ||
| Etennuly |
 I have many of those old stories that.....well.....are best told in front of at least one witness to the event . With no one who was there you can get laughed out of an otherwise fun party. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.thundermustang.com/ The high end of the aviation world. Carbon fiber full scale P-51 replica with 640 hp. V-12. Lighter, stronger, ( but you won't be carrying 500lb bombs ) and ( despite the claims ) nearly as fast. one of these gets raced at Reno nearly every year. The engine is a V-12 well proven in boat racing, and the Thunder Mustang has shown it does 390mph with ease. Faster than that and they seem to hit reliability problems. They've hit 1000 hp in tests, but the 640 rating is good for all day. The Allison V-12 used in the P-38,P-39,P-40 and early P-51 was one of the first engines of it's kind to hit 1000hp and it took years to achieve that reliably with the resources of a major corporation behind it. I wouldn't hold my breath if you want much more than 640 out of this one, but if 390 mph around a tight race course just isn't good enough for you, you can always throw a turbo prop on. ( not legal for racing at Reno ) I'm afraid it's too pricey for my blood. OTOH it's cheaper than a Bugatti, and should produce endorphins for you and your female passenger...... sufficient onto the day. | ||
| Sifo |
I had a tendency to "misuse" rocket engines. Best I ever did was when I had a plastic model of an F4 Phantom that I was tired of looking at. The jet engine was designed to slip out the back end of the jet to also display the engine. Once I realized that the resulting hole in the back was almost a perfect fit for a pair of rocket engines placed side by side...  I figured about where the balance should be, built a bulkhead inside to place the motors and lit the fuse. I had it sitting on it's landing gear on nice smooth pavement. My expectations were really quite low. When the engines lit it skittered along the pavement for 3-4 feet and actually lifted off gaining altitude. It actually achieved stable flight! Up to about 10 feet high or so... That was when the thrust broke my improvised bulkhead failed letting the engines rip right through the fuselage exploding it into many pieces. Best disposal of an old plastic model I ever had! Less spectacular, but an old favorite was to glue the nose cone of a rocket in place so that the ejection charge would blow apart the rocket's body. Now that I'm older and wiser, I realize how much better some old fashioned black powder would make that.  Using any product in a manner not approved of by the manufacturer can be dangerous and may cause severe injury or death. Always carefully read and follow the manufacturers instructions. Mixing rocket engines, explosives, and things not specifically to fly may have unforeseen and exciting results. It's not a party until the fire department get called. | ||
| Ourdee |
Prior to becoming teenagers, My neighbor and I made rockets with aluminum cigar tubes for bodies and used 12 gram steel CO2 cartridges for engine casings. Drilled out the nozzles, loaded with powdered zinc and sulphur (one to two by weight). Then capped with a rubber plug with nichrome wire as an igniter. Used a 4' tube welded on a steel plate with a hole drilled in the bottom for a launcher. We used the battery in a riding mower in a shed for an ignition source and a safe place to launch from. Learned how to die kerosene and put it in a tank in the nose with a hole on top and the side to leave pretty vapor trails. That was another age when parents would teach you to weld and the pharmacist would answer kid's questions. Then still help you order from Sergeants Chemicals. The tank could hold other stuff and be drilled to accept heat from the motor. It's not a party until the fire department get called. It was only 7 acres of weeds. "I wasn't there" | ||
| Etennuly |
Pictures or it didn't happen! I'm going to dig some pictures up and scan them in. I'll see if I can make them go. I tried some a while back that would not send well. | ||
| Hootowl |
I used to fly a lot, but got tired of the inane bird chatter. I've decided to live on the ground, even though there's a lot of inane chatter down here too. Loosely paraphrased from Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. | ||
| Sifo |
That Thunder Mustang kit looks pretty sweet! Well beyond the price of most home builders though. Performance for the buck may be a good value though. Any idea how many hours they estimate to build those? I didn't find that info on their web site. | ||
| Aesquire |
About 500 hours before it looks like an airplane. Then a thousand plus to install all the fiddling bits. Engine instruments and paint take more time than the structural stuff. That's just "glass" work with serious OCD. The contest winning fast glass planes often have over a thousand hours of just sanding. Primer to fill pinholes and sand and primer and sand and primer...... Then it's fancy paint job time. | ||
| Aesquire |
Most if the company's do a week long workshop where you come in and use their jigs and tooling. You get the really critical structure done and are up to speed on technique, then take it home. The FAA lets you contract out avionics and engine install. Most people do the grunt work and basic wiring so the pro's just have final install & calibration. A lot of builders do it all. There have been problems with hired guns building the expensive fast planes for rich people so you need to prove you did 51% of the work. It's supposed to be an educational experience. The kit makers know the legal ropes. | ||
| Sifo |
That really doesn't sound so bad for that sort of finished product. I did see where you can "build it at their factory with expert help" for a huge up-charge. That whole 51% thing can get a bit silly IMO. If a "kit" involves finished parts that only need to be bolted together, who did most of the building (think motorcycle chopper kits available lately)? What happens when a kit changes hands a couple of times during the build process? I've seen some kits where you are expected to learn to make dies to form sheet aluminum into 3D parts. This kit comes with a fuselage in two halfs. There's just no parity from one kit to the next. If I were rich, I would certainly consider this sort of hobby. I've built plenty of small scale aircraft. To be able to get into a kit Mustang!  I wonder if they have any options for mounting the guns in the wings? | ||
| Pwnzor |
I've been having a lot of fun with my new LaTrax Alias quadcopter. Currently awaiting the camera I have ordered for it. So far, I have been learning to control it pretty well... BUT: When it's WAAAYYYY up high, even on a calm day, I have discovered there can be strong air currents up there... so I am also getting some use out of my hiking boots and machete. The quad made an unscheduled stop about 400 yards into the trees, and found some vines to get tangled in... about 12 feet off the ground. But I got it back. Fun was had by all. | ||
| Sifo |
You can fly that in a huge field with only a single tree and KNOW where you will have to retrieve it from. | ||
| Aesquire |
Once upon a time you just got plans. Then a box of wood or sheetmetal to cut to shape. Then they started doing the critical welded & machined parts. Now the quickbuild metal kits are cnc cut & drilled. You start by clecoing together the parts......( in the before time that was months down the road ) then drill to size dimple & rivet. You take apart and reassemble multiple times. I skipped de-burring anti corrosion primer and cursing. Glass kits same thing. Various levels of pre done bits. And...... plans alone builders are still at it. The cheapest way. Seriously the making it done enough to sit in it and make engine noises is about half to a third done. The last 10% is most of the work. Quick build is a relative term. Build a real Mustang at home? Decades. | ||
| Sifo |
One of the original home build kits...  It would also be a very cool plane to have today if you don't mind the occasional screaming death. A dozen or so years ago I had a manager who was building a glass kit at home. I think it was a Glasair. He showed me some pictures. You would still pretty much have to be told it was an airplane unless you were sharp enough to recognize what airplane parts look like. A "real" Mustang? Yeah, this isn't that. Probably better in many ways, but still not the real deal. I'm sure it's cheaper to operate and maintain. They claim better performance, but I think that claim is probably limited to low altitudes. Back in high school I got to sit in an AT-6 pilot seat. That was pretty cool. It belonged to a friend's dad and was being worked on at our local vocational tech school that had some aircraft classes. It's got to be an experience being in there with a big radial engine doing it's thing. I ran into him again many years later at an airport open house. He had a business restoring vintage aircraft. He showed up that day in a customer's Cessna 190. It looked like it had just rolled off the production line. I'm not sure what era was/will be the best for general aviation. It's all pretty cool stuff! | ||
| Aesquire |
Correction. It's avionics paint & upholstery that are exempt from the hired gun rules. Not engine installation. It's still ok to hire that done ( and wise if you're not an aircraft gearhead ) if you've done the majority of the work on an amateur basis. You can get all the unpaid expert help you want & need. Since you can get the "repairman certificate" on your homebuilt it's a good idea to know how the engine stuff works. You can work on your own plane only ( not another like it ) when you build. If you buy a plane you have to pay a pro to do most major work. Including the annual inspection. Before you can fly a homebuilt it needs to be inspected for airworthyness by an FAA inspector. Smart builders with control of their egos have other builders and pros look at it first. You have them really try and find anything at all that's not perfect. Not paint runs ( oh yeah you'll hear about that ) but that every nut & washer is right and things are safety wired and proper. Really smart builders have BBQ for the purpose and invite everyone in the area to look. Then you fix all the issues they find before the feds get there. I've even been to one for a new ultralight that wasn't going to get FAA inspected. Hot dogs and gearheads being maximum picky. In the interest of safety...... and a bit of showing off. doing a crappy job in that situation won't get you admiration. But the kind of guy who does crappy work wouldn't invite others to inspect his toy either. | ||
| Aesquire |
For GA planes it's either the 30's or 60's that's the golden age. For homebuilts it's now. A lot of companies went out of business in the last 8 years but what's left seems to be really good. Brutal Darwinian action by lawyer....... and good engineering. | ||
| Sifo |
Correction. It's avionics paint & upholstery that are exempt from the hired gun rules. Not engine installation. This is from the Thunder Mustang website...
I read that to mean that engine installation would be exempt from the 51% thing. I would personally put the golden age post WWII. Some great technology was available, but still seat of your pants flying, and not too strangled with regulations and air traffic control. I could see a good argument for the 30's too. | ||
| Aesquire |
I deny this polite correction and personally attack you for pointing out what you seem to think is an error on my part. You stink. Dress funny. Must be a Communist.  Sorry... I was channeling someone.... who I don't recall.  Darn... I hate it when I was right the first time & backtrack. The greatest time in Military aviation has to be the 50's through early 60's. The sound barrier, jets, supersonic fighters, Mach freaking 3 Bombers, SPACE PLANES!!!! ( and the Valkyrie was most beautiful insanely lethal flying machine ever ) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:North_Ameri can_XB-70_in_flight_ECN-2128.jpg It's harder to say for GA. The 30's had the great Beech Staggerwing, Waco's, the racers, etc. etc. The postwar era had all that tech developed during the war, and so I suppose '45-'69 is better than "the '60s" for a golden age. The Gee Bee Super Sportster ( Model R ) is a great example. ( El Chupacabra for you Disney fans ) The only pilot who was really a winner in it was Jimmie Doolittle. Also one of the survivors. It wasn't unstable, exactly.... but a ham fisted pilot was doomed. A jerk on the stick would make it snap roll, and at low altitude, that was it. The rest of the Granville Brothers Aircraft line were not as short coupled and flew very well. Doolittle said it was a sweet flying machine, but there were few better and smoother pilots. Not a plane for the jerky and sloppy. Even pros got bit, one famous crash happened when the gas cap flew off on a high speed low pass and hit the windshield. At that speed the flinch was enough to snap roll and.... Here's a real pro flying the superb reproduction plane. Delmar Benjamin. the 1931 crash, looks like the wing failed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KTyYVnSyq4 Website on the Granville Bro's planes http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.ge ocities.com/CapeCanaveral/lab/4515/index3.html& "Doolittle tames the Gee Bee" http://www.donhollway.com/doolittle-geebee/index.h tml | ||
| Sifo |
I take great offense to your insults and would like to challenge you to a fight! http://aircombat.com/ |
