Super high altitude (100,000+ feet) glider [Archive] - WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums

cynic

01-09-2009, 03:42 PM

This is just a shot in the dark but I thought I'd ask.

I've built and launched a high altitude sounding balloon complete with a telemetry system and camera system that works like a champ.

http://icbnn.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/launch/
My favorite pictures are:
http://icbnn.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/left-img_1227.jpghttp://icbnn.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/left-img_1156.jpg

I have kicked around the idea of launching a glider from altitude using my tracking system with an altitude based parachute deployment to keep the plane from landing in Europe

I have also toyed with the idea of using some sort of a small rocket motor to boost the plane even higher.

My initial thought is I just can't do it because I would need:
A wing design that would work, which may be a problem as maximum mach number and minimum controllable airspeed collide.

A super light design with the ability to carry a small payload.

But I thought.... what the heck. Dig around on the Internet and maybe find a forum with a bunch of sail plane guys and ask.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Don

FlyWheel

01-10-2009, 03:23 AM

R6_Infantry

01-10-2009, 08:19 AM

Sounds like a pretty cool idea though. But maybe just go with the balloon and lawn chair thing and hand launch the plane that way you have eyes on the whole time...LOL

aviatordave

01-10-2009, 01:40 PM

At that altitude you'll probably need FAA permission as well. You may be planning to launch your glider well above the level of commercial flight, but it will eventually desend to this level and become a possible hazard, even if it is under your control.

Just my $0.02

True if they launch over land. Alot of guys travel out in the ocean and do these things where restrictions are less.

Murocflyer

01-10-2009, 02:44 PM

Wow, that was amazing stuff!

Frank

BigB

01-10-2009, 07:39 PM

The radio - even 2.4ghz won't work until it gets really close to you from that altitude...

I don't see how you could do it at all..

Good luck..

Better go with a carbon fiber glider or it will not survive the turbulence, or winds, or the flight at all.

If you figure it out - post it here!

cynic

01-10-2009, 09:02 PM

I have no plan to control the thing from the ground. I'd be looking to fix the flight surfaces for a best glide (least amount of induced and parasitic drag) and just launch the glider with plans to kick out a parachute at some altitude between 100,000 and 70,000 feet. From there it would drop down as a payload to be picked up. I would use my tracking system to find it.

airmail wf

01-10-2009, 09:05 PM

I think what you are doing is a bad idea. You are putting things in high altitude with no control what so ever. Now you want to put a RC ship up with it. This can be a hazard to plane traffic and can give the RC community a very bad reputation. RC is line of sight. Let me ask you this. When you balloon is in high altitude do you have any control? I'm sure chances are slight that what you are doing would cause a accident but the possibility is there. Things like this is what can really bring the FAA down on the RC community really hard. I really don't like to say things like this but if you are going to do this it would be best to keep it to yourself and keep it out of RC forums.

cynic

01-10-2009, 09:15 PM

The regulations are here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.15&idno=14

And of course I followed them :)

airmail wf

01-10-2009, 11:31 PM

Hey if there are regs and you are following them good for you.:)

MaxAdventure

01-11-2009, 12:31 AM

I have no plan to control the thing from the ground. I'd be looking to fix the fight surfaces for a best glide (least amount of induced and parasitic drag) and just launch the glider with plans to kick out a parachute at some altitude between 100,000 and 70,000 feet. From there it would drop down as a payload to be picked up. I would just use my tracking system to find it.

No R/C, so what most of us think of as a no-no, doesn't apply. (I didn't read the regs link you posted yet) I would suggest looking at some of the competition FF methods and designs.
http://www.faifreeflight.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1107&Itemid=2

the problems I see with a fix wing heavier than air (or any heavier than air) craft for this is how to power it to the altitude. The only way I can think is to boost to altitude with solid propellant and have the glider be either cargo, or variable geometry wings that deploy at apogee. I think the experiance you'll find on these pages aren't really going to help much.(IMHO) Also, I'd be concerned about efficient airfoils at that altitude vs lower, your trim settings may change every so many density factors, so 'set and forget' just won't work.

thanks for posting at least, I never realized this was done from a hobby perspective, and I love your photos!!!!

Murocflyer

01-11-2009, 01:03 AM

The regulations are here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.15&idno=14

And of course I followed them :)

I didn't read it either. Short answer is that you were legal to do the balloon thing?

It certainly does look like an awesome project.

Frank

cynic

01-11-2009, 03:19 AM

thanks for posting at least, I never realized this was done from a hobby perspective, and I love your photos!!!!

Thanks for the link... I found a free flight forum and that may be a more appropriate place to start asking questions.

The entire project can be done with off the shelf electronics and just a little programming and for about $700.00

The snippet of regs that would apply is: § 101.1 Applicability. (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.15&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.15.1.9.1) (a) This part prescribes rules governing the operation in the United States, of the following:
<snip>

(4) any unmanned free balloon that—
(i) Carries a payload package that weighs more than four pounds and has a weight/size ratio.... blah blah blah

(ii) Carries a payload package that weighs more than six pounds;

As long as your payload is pretty small and light (under 4lbs) and you use common sense (like maybe don't launch in the parking lot at the airport :) its plenty safe and legal.

You might check out the cell phone GPS backup I used. Works like a champ. It was about $180.00 and the battery lasts 48 hours. If you call the number it will SMS text you the GPS location. So if you lose your airplane in the trees you can have some help finding it.

Thanks again and have fun.

R6_Infantry

01-11-2009, 05:13 AM

I have a friend in my unit who is our weather forcaster, on any given day we need his data he will put up at least 1 balloon (200g) every 2 hrs with radiosonde, with or with out a chute, as well as the rest of the train, a majority of them are launched at Ft. Lewis Wa. as well as other areas within the Pacific NW, yes we are the military however, most of the time he needs no cleareance to do so. I spoke to him about your idea and he is very interested, I am going to pass him your info on this board perhaps you two can get together online sometime. I still like the idea of lawn chair with balloons hand launch, don't forget the bb gun.

Suman

01-12-2009, 12:07 AM

Cynic:

Can you send me a PM?

I am getting ready to do something like this.

Suman
Lawrence KS

Roaddog

05-15-2010, 03:53 PM

Hey, cynic (http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/member.php?u=28123)!
Seems t' me I saw something about this project somewhere else, and I heartily approve!
B/M'd your blog an' will be MOST interested in th' Vids.
Good t' see you here.
RD
Montross, Va.

Rockin Robbins

05-19-2010, 07:49 PM

And again someone new from outside the pale comes in and shows us that no matter what experts we fancy ourselves, our accomplishments have just been squished like a cockroach on the kitchen floor:Hey, my altimeter shows 1500 feet on my last sailplane flight from a 450 foot launch! Mondo cool!!!!!!
Then we get to read this, watch awesome video and photos, see a Google Earth plot of a flight ten miles high and a craft chased for 123 miles as the crow flies, precision snatched from a treetop in the trackless Florida jungle.

Yeah, we can all go home with our tails between our legs now. Shut down WattFlyer. No need to lock the door. Nothing worth stealing here anyway...:D

No, really, even though we can't seem to be much help, I'd appreciate it if you could use this thread to keep us posted on your future activities.

I think any free flight plane you put up there would end up in Africa somewhere. It would have to be self-piloting because no existing radio control equipment has that kind of range and you couldn't see the plane anyway. As long as you were above the jet stream, assuming you could do anything other than fall like a rock in that thin stuff that passes for air up there, you would have to program as flat a glide toward the west as you could, then dive through the jet stream as fast as you could, and resume gliding westward.

It's possible that a combination of GPS and gyro technology could make all this possible, along with radio control servos. The plane itself would have to be incredibly strong and have high speed/low drag but decent glide ratio. It wouldn't have to be a sailplane by any stretch of the imagination with that kind of altitude to burn off. Wind penetration, strength and speed would be the qualities you would want to optimize. I would envision a stretch-wing space shuttle type vehicle.

When it got near the ground you probably would want remote piloting capability to choose a landing site better than a tree!:tc:

JetPlaneFlyer

05-19-2010, 08:20 PM

As cynic mentiones, the hardest part of the design may be the conflict between minimum flying speed and limiting mach number. The same issue that means, for instance, the U2 spy plane is flying on a knife edge between structural failure due to exceeding it's limiting mach number and stalling due to falling below it's minimum flying speed in the thin air.

You would either need to build very light to reduce flying speed or design for transonic/supersonic flight.. A very interesting design challenge for sure!

Steve

Rockin Robbins

05-19-2010, 08:35 PM

Building extremely light isn't a possibility if you want to survive to ground level. That means transonic/supersonic flight is almost a necessity at high altitude.

I suppose you could elect not to fly at all in those low density altitudes and just choose the glide angle of a buffalo turd until you reach the air density that allows sane flight.

JetPlaneFlyer

05-19-2010, 10:46 PM

Building extremely light isn't a possibility if you want to survive to ground level.

Why?

MadMonkey

05-19-2010, 11:03 PM

I'd guess an extremely strong but lightweight style of plane like a hotliner (but unpowered and obviously composite) would be ideal. Use an autopilot and any sort of tracking system inside so you can locate it once it comes down.

If you program the autopilot to return to the base station, once it has enough air for control it's going to keep its nose toward you and at minimum won't end up in a different country :) With luck you might end up within a short distance (though short is a relative term when we're talking about these altitudes)! A hotliner, even unpowered with a 1-1 glide ratio could cover a lot of ground.

You might try the RCGroups UAV section for more ideas. Sounds like an awesome project!

JetPlaneFlyer

05-19-2010, 11:42 PM

Actually perhaps this isnt quite so hard as it first appears. Lets use some ballpark numbers:
At some altitude above 100,000ft the air density would be something like 1/100 of that at sea level.

Stall speed is proportional to the square root of air density so if the density was 100 times lower the stall speed would be 10 times higher. This is a big problem for real subsonic planes because their stall speeds might be around 100mph at sea level, so stall speed at that altitude would be well above supersonic.

For a lightweight model it's not such a problem. A reasonably light glider may stall at 10mph at sea level, so up above 100,000ft it would stall at 100mph... Still not even close to a speed where you would have any issues at all with critical mach number.

It looks on the face of it like a normal freeflight glider would be up to the task. Descent could be controlled by a standard dethermaliser (pop up tail) arrangement triggered by altitude.

Steve

stuart

05-20-2010, 12:38 AM

absolutely sounds outrageously cool!!!!!!

be sure to put your AMA # on it so when it lands thousands of miles away we can return it to ya.....and you can fix the windshield...lol:Q.

LipoPilot

05-20-2010, 01:11 AM

Amazing project, to bad he went elsewhere :(

MadMonkey

05-20-2010, 02:25 AM

Wow, I didn't even see the previous dates... I feel dumb now.

Rockin Robbins

05-20-2010, 02:36 AM

I'm thinking that the jet stream is 100mph. The boundary layers above and below would have turbulence that would rip anything extremely lightweight into quarter sized pieces of debris. It's possible that something built for dynamic soaring might stand a chance. But the longer the wings the more mechanical advantage that turbulence has to tear your aircraft apart.

As was said earlier, even a 1:1 glide ratio would give you enormous latitude for picking a place to land. I would think that you could get somewhere around 10:1 with a high speed configuration with relatively stubby wings, perhaps proportioned about twice the Space Shuttle's wingspan to length ratio, and still have enormous strength to deal with the immense aerodynamic forces that might be expected entering and leaving the jet stream and in any thunderheads you might be forced to encounter.

MadMonkey

05-20-2010, 04:53 AM

Since the thread is still going on I'll post this...

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/

This low-budget project hit 93k feet and landed 20 miles away from the launch site. I'd say with a little planning, an aircraft would have little trouble coming all the way home.

Man, I might have to try this one day...

JetPlaneFlyer

05-20-2010, 06:45 AM

I'm thinking that the jet stream is 100mph. The boundary layers above and below would have turbulence that would rip anything extremely lightweight into quarter sized pieces of debris.

I'm not thinking of gossamer light indoor duration type models (http://www.indoorduration.com), just ordinary light weight thermal/duration type freeflight gliders (http://www.ruppert-composite.ch/english/images/f1a.jpg). These are despite their light weight actually very strong.

I don’t think turbulence should be a big issue, providing you picked a suitable launch time and site taking weather and atmospheric conditions into consideration. For starters the ascent vehicle is a fragile balloon.. If violent turbulence was the norm then that would get ripped to bits before it even got up to altitude.. Second it's been done already; NASA put the incredibly fragile Helios (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-068-DFRC.html) up to about 100,000 ft

Last point is that the glider would HAVE to be very lightweight otherwise the balloon could not lift it to the required altitude. This is a private project on a very limited budget. Vast balloons which would be needed to lift a heavy model to over 100,000 ft would be out of the question.

Steve

cynic

05-20-2010, 02:31 PM

Actually I was gone but got a posting alert so I'm back.

Not sure if you guys saw the second launch using a much smaller gumstix computer and an HD video camera. http://icbnn.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/our-list-of-things-to-buy-for-launch-number-two/ My math indicates the flight topped out at about 125,000 feet. The primary GPS failed due to RF interference. Antennas shifted on a rough launch and thank goodness for the backup GPS! You can also see the parachute failed due to the failure of a cut away circuit; the balloon fragments got wrapped into the parachute. Thanks goodness for the tree!

You can see a snippet of the video here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PD0GHcK5-YThe balloon pops at 6 minutes and 20 seconds. I thought that it was cool that the falls starts out silent and you pick up wind noise as it re-enters the denser atmosphere.

Anyway... I'm still tinkering with the idea of a glider. I might try to rebuild the flight system using an arduino board to reduce power consumption and weight. I've bought the boards but just haven't put it all together yet.

I've been reading on ardupilot - http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/ardupilot-main-page

This is a system that could control a glider or a rocket motor mounted to a gimbal. Gyros are a no go as gyroscopic drift would be a real problem so thermopile sensors are what I plan to use.

So yeah... I could use some help! Aomeone want to volunteer to build a glider that can house a small HD camera, has large wings to support stable flight from 100,000 to ~250,000 ? I'd like the glider to be boosted with a rocket. Maybe the rocket is a better way to go.

I've gone back and forth between an amateur rocket build and small glider to boost the flight close to 100KM. See what happens when your wife says "go ahead, build your own satellite" and rolls her eyes :)

Oh yeah... and the mach number is not a problem. Well unless I go with a rocket. Then I'd be pushing a top speed of 4000MPH and run into COCOM limits on the GPS. Its complicated but I've been thinking on it for two years now. I also need to keep the total payload to under 10 pounds. 6 pounds would be ideal. Baby steps and hide the receipts from my wife :)

Edit - One other thing. I have built a small vacuum chamber complete with a reversed bicycle pump. I can drop the pressure to -29 inches which is close to conditions at 100,000 I've not fired off an APCP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_perchlorate_composite_propellant) motor inside yet but I have done igniter tests which look promising. I'm pretty sure the APCP booster motors will ignite and burn in the near vacuum but wanted to make sure. I'll post a video when I get round to doing a test burn next week.

Octavius

05-20-2010, 07:09 PM

Wow, cool video. Question: How do you locate and recover the camera and how far was it from the launch point?

It would be nice (for the viewer) if you could figure out how to make it not spin.

cynic

05-20-2010, 08:17 PM

Tracking is via voice communications with an SMS backup.

Yeah... the spinning needs to stop. You should see the whole video.

ArneH

05-21-2010, 10:32 AM

Actually I was gone but got a posting alert so I'm back.

Not sure if you guys saw the second launch using a much smaller gumstix computer and an HD video camera. .

Interesting project. Please stay here to keep the readers updated about this adventure.:cool:

Old Tin Man

05-21-2010, 09:36 PM

Man that is one of the very coolest videos that I have seen in a while. I know that I am new here but I would also like to see where your project goes.

ArneH

05-21-2010, 10:15 PM

I was thinking of a smaller durable Discus Launch Glider type. Made of the modern composite materials. Something like this maybe:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:DOvNGoQDhJ7AbM:http://www.icare-rc.com/catalog/images/sofia-dlg.jpg

They are light,and can be launched by the balloon. They also have good lift. Just thinking.:rolleyes:

Rockin Robbins

05-21-2010, 10:48 PM

cynic

05-22-2010, 02:53 AM

OK, seeing the NASA solar project I'm convinced this is possible with what we do. I think the DLG wouldn't be able to hold the amount of equipment needed but the construction techniques are bang on. Composite is the way to go.

I like where this thing is headed. Now the FAA will have to rear its ugly head and regulations have to be investigated. If NASA can do it then it can be done. Just have to identify the hoops and jump through them...

Hey has anyone thought that by using a nose hook like a towed glider, the glider might become the stabilizer eliminating spin for the photography from the balloon?

I think the spinning was due in part to tension on the string between the balloon and payload.

Yes it MUST be composite. Nothing else in my price range will work.

Ultimately I'd like to have the glider fitted with a small APCP rocket motor(s) to boost the glider well beyond 100,000 feet.

If the glider could be made to be dynamically stable throughout a boost phase. For example... Given X thrust I'd calculate a nose up pitch angle of Y and a climb rate of Z then I might be able to get by with no active stabilization systems on board and rely on an altitude read on descent to activate a parachute and stop the glide.

I'd also tinkered with the idea of a stabilized (not guided :eek: ) rocket. Using thermopile sensors I could control a a gimbal mounted motor.

My calculations show drag to be pretty close to zero. I'm not sure which is better. A rocket or a glider. Still thinking.

Really I need to get the arduino system built. That should save on weight.

Larry3215

05-22-2010, 03:35 AM

I think your correct on the cause of the spinning. Maybe try using two or three strings attached at slightly different points. That should eliminate the coiling and uncoiling of the single string.

Rockin Robbins

05-22-2010, 03:47 AM

OK, then you could just dispense with the balloon altogether! http://www.ddeville.com/derek/CSXT.htm
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/dog11.gif

Lol. I thought your main aim was controlled return all the way to a chosen spot on earth. Guess I misread your real goal there.

You've already got 130k feet from a balloon alone. What's the gain from a rocket? Now with the glider, you couldn't go Mach 5. You'd have to have a long duration, relatively low impulse burn to get any reasonable increase in altitude. The rocket would end up being many times larger than the glider, which wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

ArneH

05-22-2010, 12:06 PM

There has been several gliders fitted with a rocket engine trough the history. So the concept is well known. But jet or rocket engines are expensive, if you don't make them your self then.:rolleyes:
The little Messerschmidt 163 is a rocket powered glider. Maybe something like this?

Huffy01

05-22-2010, 06:29 PM

NASA was experimenting with something called a "Lifting body" aircraft, I think it could have been in the 50's or 60's.
It was launched from the B-52 mothership and had powered and un-powered versions.
If you look in the aeronautics section www.nasa.gov (http://www.nasa.gov) you can see the prototype models launched from a RC mothership.

cynic

05-23-2010, 01:23 AM

Lol. I thought your main aim was controlled return all the way to a chosen spot on earth. Guess I misread your real goal there.

You've already got 130k feet from a balloon alone. What's the gain from a rocket? Now with the glider, you couldn't go Mach 5. You'd have to have a long duration, relatively low impulse burn to get any reasonable increase in altitude. The rocket would end up being many times larger than the glider, which wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

I agree. I have no clear goal. Well, to put something into space is my goal I guess. And then from there orbit and obviously a moon base from which I build an army so that I can extort 1 million dollars from the UN.

But seriously, ardupilot on a free flying glider would be pretty cool. Anybody here tinkered with that?

DragonWeezel

06-01-2010, 09:49 PM

Here is a guy who has been cleared for permission to launch some pretty High scale balloons. There was an article about him recently because NASA wanted to know how he got those pictures. Did yall look at those?

He did a lot with off the shelf parts.

His goal? Not much different than many of ours.

Basically all us boys have the same goal. see how far a paper airplane can fly when you release it from somewhere "REALLY" tall.

He's just going stratopheric on yall. Same thing, different scale, and he knows how to get permission.

I like the autopilot Idea, combined w/a few gyros to keep it at a perfect glide attitude. I bet you stay up for 3 days. Longer if you can teach the AP to ride thermals! Lots of stuff in the UAV section.

and there is this guy too: http://diydrones.com/ Which might help you out, but you've already seen that. Somehow I missed a whole page of this thread :)

Good luck!

Octavius

06-01-2010, 10:07 PM

1 million-bazillion-fafilion-zubidu-zillion?

cynic

06-04-2010, 08:47 PM

Hmmmm.... It looks like a glider using ardupliot to return to me may run afoul of FAA rules without a waiver. Sigh... would be a cool project. Maybe I'll build it and make a road trip to Canada for launch :) It's a shame. The whole thing would weigh less than 4 pounds so it's not much of a hazard to anything.

cynic

06-13-2010, 09:51 PM

Ok guys. I am in the correct place and I need some help.

I did some tests this afternoon to confirm that an APCP rocket motor will in fact ignite in a vacuum. It will :)

I've settled on using either Ardupilot or the FMA co-pilot for active stabilization. My rocket glider will not be guided so I think that takes care of FAA rules on UAVs and line of sight.

The plan is to pull the glider with camera to approximately 130,000 via a balloon. At that altitude the glider will separate from the balloon and small APCP rocket motors will push the glider up another 50,000 feet or so. Ardupilot will provide stabilization during the boost phase and a short glide phase after burnout. At some altitude prior to hitting the jet stream on the way down I will deploy a parachute to stop the glide and prevent the thing from landing too far away.

I'll track it in flight using a separate telemetry system that I've built and tested.

So my question is:

What kind of glider do I want? I may look for wing design software. I may look at a simple ARF foam RC aircraft. Suggestions? High wing loading and glider like aspect ratio?

Something cheap. I'm already into this project for waaaaayyy too much $$.

Thanks!

Rockin Robbins

06-13-2010, 10:43 PM

Well, it's time to calculate landing zones for different glide ratios. All depends on how long you have to chase it before you run out of land! You were already 1/3 of the way across Florida, so...

I can't wait to see what you come up with and how it turns out!

ArneH

06-13-2010, 11:26 PM

There are a lot of gliders to choose from. Need to now the size of the glider,and what materials preferred. Also need to know how much room there must be in the fuselage to install the electronic equipment and camera. I don't think you need a complicated big glider. But it must be a durable model. Now it is time to search the marked for simple solid, not so expensive gliders.:)
And give it some days, and i think we will come up with a suitable model. Maybe a EPP foam glider?

cynic

06-14-2010, 02:26 AM

I need to have enough room to install a canon digital camera. Two arduino micro-controller boards. See the attached image for a size reference.

There will also be a backup SMS /GPS comm system. This is about about the size of a small cell phone. Then I will have batteries, think the size of two 9 volt batteries. Finally, a radio for communicating telemetry. See the attached picture although it has been stripped down to just a circuit board.

Oh yes... I'll need to bundle a small parachute to be deployed that will terminate the glide.

As for preferred materials. Foam is light and insulates electronics. Temperatures will plummet to as low as -60.

Expected weights follow:
Total weight on my payload should be about 750 grams.
Weight for APCP motors - 375 grams
Total - 1125 grams

I really need the total weight which includes payload, motors and glider to be under 6 pounds (2700 grams)

If I can keep the glider to 1000 grams that would be ideal.

One more important note - I need controllable ailerons and elevator surfaces. The glider will be a free flight glider but it will be actively stabilized for level flight and a pitch angle relative to the horizon that is Vy (Best rate of climb) Essentially, the pitch where the sum of induced and parasitic drag are lowest. As a rtesult of the active stabilization the glider does not have to be perfectly balanced. Just controllable.

DragonWeezel

06-14-2010, 06:24 AM

could be Epp Foam, but would end up being reinforced by fiber glass or strapped tape. I think even something like the Radian if you took out the motor, prop, & batteries, and installed what you need, probably would be a simillar weight. You'd have room for your two boards, and Locator, and it could still carry more. No ailerons though, it's rudder and elevator.

You'll need some rough calculations on drag at that altitude.

What speed would the plane need to attain to hit that extra 50K mark? Anyone know what the effective drag is on a radian @ 40mph during a loop? <-- that's where the radian usually fails, but there wont' be so much air on it, nor should you be pulling G's in any direction but "backward." So if you aren't going over that limit, my guess is you could use a small foam plane.

I imagine that you'd climb fast during boost because you'll already be so far up, have less drag making it that much easier on the plane to move fast. But a burning motor will burn foam or a monocoat covered wood glider. You'd have to mount the motors on the outside bottom of the wings, getting alignment "just right."

I do have an old ABX fuselage somewhere, but it's probably too damaged / draggy for this. Those wings can hold a ton though.

You could also set up a stryker if you can eject the motors to keep weight down. People have rocket boosted those all over youtube. And it glides very well.

I can't wait to hear more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGZhwGEoGDE

cynic

06-14-2010, 01:32 PM

Yeah.... There are two approaches here. One is to figure out how to use wing design software or an airfoil selector of some sort.

The other (which pretty well follows my design methodology so far) is to figure out which prebuilt foam (light and easy to cut payload bays into) RC airplane or glider weighs round about 1000 grams and is cheap enough.

I'm still taking suggestions :)

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/atmosi.html

The glider will weigh in about 1000 grams. Payload will be just under that. Motors will be almost 400 grams and provide an average of two pound of thrust. I may stage them such that I get a continuous two pounds of thrust for 30 seconds.