Scorps4Lyfe Group: The Connection
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
QUOTE (Pico @ Sunday, Apr 15 2012, 09:06)
Feel this would be the best place to get some ideas here. I'm considering working on a customer RC plane. I want to do a jet based plane, so it'll be using an EDF motor (jet style fan configuration with an electric motor). If you could have an remote controlled plane, which one would you go with?
Not a big fan of EDF motors. I prefer those turbine engines, those are some proper crazy engines.
I´d go with something cool like a Concorde or something.
This post has been edited by Outcast on Sunday, Apr 15 2012, 19:25
cinnamon ropes Group: Zaibatsu
Joined: Feb 18, 2009
I wouldn't want to think of the cost involved with an actual turbine powered RC plane. The skill needed alone to pull it off is great.
As for the plane, I've been slowly working on it. Just made a hot wire foam cutter so I can (hopefully) shape the wings properly. I started on the fuselage, got a basic shape of... something. I think I'm going to work on a WWII style prop fighter, something like a P-51/Zero/P40/Warhawk. From what I've heard, a low slung wing is tough to fly for a beginner, but I'm willing to risk it. It'll be about 28 inches/.71m long with a wingspan of about 31-32 inch wing span.
This post has been edited by Pico on Tuesday, Apr 24 2012, 05:00
Scorps4Lyfe Group: The Connection
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
You're right, one turbine engine will probably set you back a couple Gs. What EDF motors do you have right now? And if you're going with something classic why don't you just use props instead?
Eat A Peach For Hours Group: Members
Joined: Dec 6, 2007
Concorde wasn't Great "for its time". It remains great today. Ten years ago I could leave NYC at midday and arrive in London at 11AM.
Now, I cannot.
This is a very important topic regarding technological regression. Boeing's 2707 project would have cemented Supersonic transports in the industry: every flight would today be Supersonic with 747s relegated to freight duties. The 2707 project called for a titanium/stainless-steel swing-wing widebody with a glass cockpit (the first ever concieved) to cruise at 2000MPH at 80000 feet. The technology remains staggering to this day. Funding was pulled when sonic-boom issues became political. Typical. Only a mock-up was built.
Now imagine replacing all those (millionaire) plebian seats with your very own Billionaire's facilities...
This post has been edited by visionist on Tuesday, Apr 24 2012, 13:17
Scorps4Lyfe Group: The Connection
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
Until we can break the control fossil fuels have on us today, only then will an SST really be feasible. As soon as the first 747 hit the markets the SST was dead. Its always gonna be about the money no matter how fast or how high an aircraft can fly, unfortunately.
Wilderness of Mirrors Group: The Connection
Joined: Feb 14, 2011
QUOTE (Outcast @ Tuesday, Apr 24 2012, 08:10)
You're right, one turbine engine will probably set you back a couple Gs. What EDF motors do you have right now? And if you're going with something classic why don't you just use props instead?
Keep us updated on your progress
Been working so I didn't spot this.
It's perfectly possible to build micro-turbojets from scrap turbochargers. By "perfectly possible" I mean "extremely difficult if you don't have access to CNC milling equipment", but even with someone designing and building many of the components for you, it's cheaper than a couple of grand. There have been a few relatively tech-savvy people in both the US and the 'States who have built them for less than about £100. In fact, I know someone at the moment who is building a multi-stage micro-turbofan from small turbodiesel turbochargers.
Scorps4Lyfe Group: The Connection
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 24 2012, 17:28)
QUOTE (Outcast @ Tuesday, Apr 24 2012, 08:10)
You're right, one turbine engine will probably set you back a couple Gs. What EDF motors do you have right now? And if you're going with something classic why don't you just use props instead?
Keep us updated on your progress
Been working so I didn't spot this.
It's perfectly possible to build micro-turbojets from scrap turbochargers. By "perfectly possible" I mean "extremely difficult if you don't have access to CNC milling equipment", but even with someone designing and building many of the components for you, it's cheaper than a couple of grand. There have been a few relatively tech-savvy people in both the US and the 'States who have built them for less than about £100. In fact, I know someone at the moment who is building a multi-stage micro-turbofan from small turbodiesel turbochargers.
i meant something like this
Off the shelf an RC turbine costs at least a grand, but of course if you have the know-how to make one yourself it would be cheaper. I mean just compare an Alienware desktop to a DIY with the same specs, the price difference is quite noticeable.
Wilderness of Mirrors Group: The Connection
Joined: Feb 14, 2011
QUOTE (Outcast @ Tuesday, Apr 24 2012, 18:50)
Off the shelf an RC turbine costs at least a grand, but of course if you have the know-how to make one yourself it would be cheaper. I mean just compare an Alienware desktop to a DIY with the same specs, the price difference is quite noticeable.
The biggest issue will always be fuelling one. Though you can run them on just about anything in theory, most of the commercially-available ones need a jet fuel/racing 2-stroke oil mix to avoid them seizing up and whilst racing 2-stroke oil is easy to buy, jet fuel isn't. I suppose you could run one on a kerosene/oil mix, but I doubt you'd see a very long service life out of it.
cinnamon ropes Group: Zaibatsu
Joined: Feb 18, 2009
Sorry, forgot to mention I've ditched the EDF motor idea for this one, going to go with a single standard prop.
As for the cost with a turbine, it's not just the engine itself. Aside from it and it's required co ponents, you're also looking at the need for high strength materials. Standard services won't do. If you're kithing that much work into it then you're likely adding retractable landing gear with closing doors and possibly extra flaps, so with that you can't use a standard 4 or 5 channel wireless sender/receiver unit... it all keeps adding up until you've spent countless hours and thousands. Not a project I'm looking to get into lol. Now a quick and dirty jet powered one... could probably do within $500. It won't be pretty and too much speed may tear it apart, but it'd work, hahah.
Scorps4Lyfe Group: The Connection
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
Yeah, I've flown on the Emirates and Singapore Airlines A380 numerous times. All throughout 2009-2011, I flew the Singapore Airlines A380 exclusively between Europe and Asia. I now fly KLM though as they've opened some new routes to Asia which serve me better than SQ.
The A380 is damn quiet though and the seats are noticeably wider, the difference is apparent when you connect from an A380 to a B777. To be honest, I'm not much of a fan of the A380. The 747-8I, on the other hand, I cannot wait to fly on.
EDIT: you know what would be cool? if there were a proper A380 competitor. Something like this would be awesome
McDonnell Douglas MD-12 (concept)
This post has been edited by Outcast on Friday, May 11 2012, 03:01
You can forget about the miscarrige or keep drinking. Group: Members
Joined: Aug 8, 2008
Living outside of Philadelphia, I fly US Airways the most. Although a lot of people hate them, I have never had a bad experience on them. I want to become a pilot and in all likelihood I would probably be flying for a regional airline here. My favorite plane is the Embraer e-jet family. I know it's nothing compared to a 777, 747, or A380 but I like it.
BTW: Outcast, I notice your sig is Porter Air, are you connected with them in any way?
I love the E-Jets! Small, fast, reliable. You have everything you need in an E-Jet and I think they're definately underrated.
I've seen some videos from an A380 and I was really suprised just how quiet they were. Even on the outside they don't sound at all like you'd expect. Also I was watching a takeoff video from a 777 with RR Trent 800's, with that glorious whining and roaring. Then I watched a 787 takeoff, my god, it's almost completely silent! I think that would be so weird, when you look at those engines you expect them to be as load as they are powerful, I don't know if I could get used to this new economy-friendly, silent way of flying. I don't know about others but the louder the engine the better. It's all part of the experience for me.
Scorps4Lyfe Group: The Connection
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
QUOTE (SmC12 @ Saturday, Jun 2 2012, 23:50)
I don't know about others but the louder the engine the better. It's all part of the experience for me.
As a frequent flyer I'd hate for the engines to get louder. Especially since a lot of the routes I fly are 10+ hours. I do like it when they spool the engines for take-off though so I don't mind the loudness, I just don't want the engines to be that loud at cruising speed.
cinnamon ropes Group: Zaibatsu
Joined: Feb 18, 2009
QUOTE (Outcast)
As a frequent flyer I'd hate for the engines to get louder. Especially since a lot of the routes I fly are 10+ hours. I do like it when they spool the engines for take-off though so I don't mind the loudness, I just don't want the engines to be that loud at cruising speed.
Only have been on a few flights and take off is definitely the best. The roar of the engines and surge from their thrust is amazing! However, I recall on my first flight that once we got in the air the engines made a constant roar. Movies tricked the sh*t out of me... somehow I expected it to be as quiet as a library. I haven't flown for more than 4 hours, not sure if I can handle any longer.
QUOTE (Outcast @ Sunday, Apr 29 2012, 04:42)
have you decided what sort of aircraft you're building?
I'm going with a P-51/P-40/Mitsu Zero/etc style WWII fighter type plane. Since it's my first time doing such a thing and working with primarily foam I am not going to do it exactly to scale or to any specific design specifications. Just base it off the planes of that era.
The below is more of a "where I'm at" with this, so unless you care about what's involved with this you can pass it up.
I've got the main fuselage pretty much shaped up. It's still a bit rough because I need to determine how I'm going to put the rest together. I think I'll create the wings, rudder, and elevators first and worry about attaching later on. Keep everything rough then work on cutting into the fuselage. I ended up scrapping my first fuselage as the shape was junk and would have been too much work to fix.
To help cut through the foam I made a hot wire cutter. Consists of a dimmer switch, transformer, and a bare wire (using guitar string) that heats up and cuts through foam like butter. It's helped a bit, but my wire keeps flexing and ruining cuts. Need to figure that out. I started working on the canopy and decided I'd rather have that look nice and clean... so I create a plastic vacuum former Cost me a total of $10 in parts, works wonderfully for my purposes. Working on the mold for the canopy now. As I type this I've got base of primer drying to be sanded for a smooth surface so the plastic doesn't pick up a bunch of bumps when molding.
It's amazing how much work is involved in just the basics of making your own plane. Sure, I could have been finished in a week, but I'm looking to have this one last and look decent so I am spending my time to ensure it's going to function properly and have a nice appearance. Definitely a fun way to spend my down time when I actually have it!
This post has been edited by Pico on Tuesday, Jun 5 2012, 00:37
Last night I watched a program on Channel 4 called "The plane crash" where they crash a Boeing 727 to better understand what goes on during a crash. I would greatly recommend watching it as it's very interesting and some of the images of the airliner crusing above the desert with a clear blue sky just looks amazing.
Wilderness of Mirrors Group: The Connection
Joined: Feb 14, 2011
There was something similar done back in the 80s by the FAA as part of the Controlled Impact Demonstration test series- ostensibly to test anti-misting additives for kerosene designed to prevent an explosive flash-over of evaporating JP1 in the event of a crash, but also to do things like monitor impact forces. It failed in its original aim but was extremely successful in establishing crash-worthiness comparisons for other commercial airliners.
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
Cost me a total of $10 in parts, works wonderfully for my purposes. Working on the mold for the canopy now. As I type this I've got base of primer drying to be sanded for a smooth surface so the plastic doesn't pick up a bunch of bumps when molding.
