PDA

View Full Version : British Turbine Powered Giant B-52 Videos


qban_flyer
12-24-2005, 07:15 AM
I know this has nothing to do with e-flight, but in cleaning up my favorite's folder, I found this URL that had been sitting there since early in the year.

This model is a superb example of workmanship and the combined effort of several modelers. Watching the videos gives me goose bumps even though I have watched them countless times.

Unfortunately on the fourth clip, the B-52 is captured as it meets its demise due some sort of in flight failure. The crash is as spectacular as if it had been that of a full sized B-52.

Model's wingspan is 23 feet. Dry weight 297 pounds and 330 pounds ready to take flight. The rest of the specs. are given on the page.

Enjoy!:)

http://www.mcgirt.net/RC/VIDEOS/Giant_B52/

SLJ2137694
12-24-2005, 02:45 PM
The video I saw showed the airplane banking way too far and the wings lost lift and it crashed. This is the same way a full sized B-52 crashed that I saw a video of. I think the failure was pilot error?!?

U812
12-24-2005, 09:29 PM
No. Too heavy. It was always a problem with this jet. They are now building another, lighter version. The high winds didn't help either on the down wind turn.;)

Steve

qban_flyer
12-24-2005, 11:16 PM
I have no clue as to what happened, but it was a really spectacular flying machine. On the long video, when it is taxiing back into the camera, it looks real, and that sound!:)

On the first flight they had one left engine flame out in flight. Considering how heavy that model is and having only 96 pounds of thrust available from all eight turbines, losing one of the is not a good thing to happen.:eek:

As sad as the crash video is, it was an awesome sight to see. It crashed like the real thing!:o

qban_flyer
12-24-2005, 11:18 PM
The video I saw showed the airplane banking way too far and the wings lost lift and it crashed. This is the same way a full sized B-52 crashed that I saw a video of. I think the failure was pilot error?!?

It had a tendency to slip to the left. It is very obvious on the long clip on take off. It gives the impression it is going to fall out of the sky. The landing was a bit on the hard side also, it is as if the model was a flying brick.

But what a gorgeous flying brick!:D

easytiger
12-25-2005, 04:09 AM
No, it simply crashed due to pilot disorientation, the pilot himself said so, VERY clearly.
The second one...100 pounds lighter...crashed on the first takeoff, the pilot said he thought some battery packs slipped and changed the CG, he had moved the packs on a temporary basis to adjust the CG and had not secured them well enough.

The British LMA denied him a permit to build a third.

easytiger
12-25-2005, 04:11 AM
The video I saw showed the airplane banking way too far and the wings lost lift and it crashed. This is the same way a full sized B-52 crashed that I saw a video of. I think the failure was pilot error?!?

That full scale crash was pilot error, yes.
Somewhere on the web there is a totally fascinating monograph on the breakdown of command and discipline that led up to that accident...the guy was an accident waiting to happen, and he should have been grounded...instead, three other guys died with him. All with families and kids and such. A lot of people refused to fly with the guy in the past...

qban_flyer
12-25-2005, 04:10 PM
The second one...100 pounds lighter...crashed on the first takeoff, the pilot said he thought some battery packs slipped and changed the CG, he had moved the packs on a temporary basis to adjust the CG and had not secured them well enough.One has to give the man credit for trying again.

The British LMA denied him a permit to build a third.

Can anyone blame them?:rolleyes:

easytiger
12-25-2005, 04:19 PM
Agreed on both!

I think, though, that there is a lot to be learned here. The fact that the second one was ONE HUNDRED POUNDS lighter, what does that say about the engineering of the first?

I think there reaches a point(like, say, three hundred pounds!) where just adding more balsa and ply does not cut it, and somebody needs to get out the slide rule and actually do some engineering and math.
The first one crashed in the backyard of a house, with lots of flames. A little too close for comfort.
When do we say "when"?

qban_flyer
12-25-2005, 04:35 PM
That's what I like about the A.M.A.

Their safety rules will prohibit anything over their "dictated" weight to be flown at any of their chartered/sanctioned sites, period.

Safety first is what they are concerned with. :)

That B-52 was something else to see though. I saved the file to my hard drive. One never knows when the site may go South altogether.:eek:

easytiger
12-25-2005, 04:55 PM
I'm not sure that's so...you can fly whatever you want wherever you want, you just will not be covered by AMA insurance if the model falls outside the AMA rules. AMA is not the FAA, they do not make laws. LMA in the UK is done under the auspices of the British equivalent of the FAA, I do beleive they can actually prohibit you from flying a model without their approval? Not sure.
It's a free country, you can go out in the desert and fly whatever you want, but my two cents are that we need to show a little restraint, lest the FAA step in and decide to restrain us themselves. 300 pounds, is, to me, over the top. I don't want to PROHIBIT anybody from doing that...I just want them to not do it!

easytiger
12-25-2005, 04:56 PM
PS you DO know the Slow Stick is a ripoff of a plane by Ikarus?

qban_flyer
12-26-2005, 02:59 AM
I have had the Ikarus Bleriot II since 2001. Though they may look similar, the Slow Stick is a better engineered and executed model. It also is furnished with a better gearbox/motor/propeller combination than the Bleriot II ever had.

For one, the Slow Stick won't have its dihedral change in flight nor does it need to have a kevlar string threaded from the front wing reinforcing rod to the back one to prevent its undercamber from fluctuating while in flight. The Slow Stick does not need flying wires to survive in 10MPH breezes either. The Slow Stick's landing gear can take the abuse the Bleriot II could not dream of.

While the Bleriot II may have the inspiration GWS needed to get going with the Slow Stick, they did their home work and came up with a superior model at half the cost.:)

qban_flyer
12-26-2005, 03:02 AM
I'm not sure that's so...you can fly whatever you want wherever you want, you just will not be covered by AMA insurance if the model falls outside the AMA rules. AMA is not the FAA, they do not make laws. LMA in the UK is done under the auspices of the British equivalent of the FAA, I do beleive they can actually prohibit you from flying a model without their approval? Not sure.
It's a free country, you can go out in the desert and fly whatever you want, but my two cents are that we need to show a little restraint, lest the FAA step in and decide to restrain us themselves. 300 pounds, is, to me, over the top. I don't want to PROHIBIT anybody from doing that...I just want them to not do it!

There is a retired US Marine in the area with a 10' Waco bipe that weighs in at 63 pounds. No club in the area has allowed him to fly it in their premises since it was found ti exceeded the AMA sanctioned weight limit.:confused:

easytiger
12-26-2005, 03:46 AM
There is a retired US Marine in the area with a 10' Waco bipe that weighs in at 63 pounds. No club in the area has allowed him to fly it in their premises since it was found ti exceeded the AMA sanctioned weight limit.:confused:

Because the club will not be covered by AMA insurance...that's up to them. If they are willing to forgo the insurance, he can fly. It will not invalidate the insurance.
He has three options here:
Find someplace else to fly, and fly without insurance. Plenty of airports and private property, if you are lucky.
Lose eight pounds.
Get an AMA experimental wavier. It will let him fly up to 100 pounds. Seems like very few take that option, I belive only a dozen or so guys have done that.

qban_flyer
12-26-2005, 04:43 AM
Because the club will not be covered by AMA insurance...that's up to them.Exactly If they are willing to forgo the insurance, he can fly. It will never happen in this area, they are too A.M.A. conscious.It will not invalidate the insurance.
He has three options here:
Find someplace else to fly, and fly without insurance. Plenty of airports and private property, if you are lucky. He can loose everyting he owns if he were to have an accident, and he knows it. Too many bloodthirsty lawyers around, so he has opted not to fly it until the Waco is ten pounds lighter.
Lose eight pounds. He is in the process of shaving off ten.
Get an AMA experimental wavier. It will let him fly up to 100 pounds. Seems like very few take that option, I belive only a dozen or so guys have done that.Unfortunately, it is not his style. He'd rather be within the rules, not outside of them. :o

easytiger
12-26-2005, 05:04 AM
No, the rules allow him to fly a 100 pound airplane under AMA insurance, he just needs to have it inspected, and pass a flight test, or something like that, to get an experimental wavier. AMA allows up to 100 pounds, with certain restrictions.

qban_flyer
12-26-2005, 05:10 AM
No, the rules allow him to fly a 100 pound airplane under AMA insurance, he just needs to have it inspected, and pass a flight test, or something like that, to get an experimental wavier. AMA allows up to 100 pounds, with certain restrictions.

It is his plane, it is his money, and it is his decision period.

End of discussion regarding the 10' Waco and or the Slow Stick being a rip-off of the Ikarus Bleriot II. I am not here to get in a p---ing match with anyone about anything.

EOM!

easytiger
12-26-2005, 02:15 PM
"Unfortunately, it is not his style. He'd rather be within the rules, not outside of them."

What does that mean?

Are you listening? I don't think so...I already explained to you that he CAN fly this under AMA rules if he jumps through the few Experimental Class hoops.