Wattflyer RC Network: RC Universe :: RCU Magazine :: RCU Forums :: RCU Classifieds :: RCU User Reviews :: RCU YouTube
Home Who's Online Calendar Today's Posts RealTime Post Spy Mark Forums Read
Go Back   WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums - Discuss radio control eflight > Electric R/C Airplanes > Hi-Performance and Sailplanes
Register Members List Wattflyer Extras Articles Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Social Groups

Hi-Performance and Sailplanes RC hotliners, electric pylon racers, F5B, F5D, sailplanes and gliders

Thank you for your support (hide ads)
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-14-2010, 06:02 PM   #51
Rockin Robbins
Super Contributor
 
Rockin Robbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 1,652
Thanked 139 Times in 137 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)
Default

Two pounds of thrust for 30 seconds. I like that!

Now, is a glider going to have any soup to glide in at 180,000 feet? At what point is the atmosphere thick enough to expect any non-rock behavior at all?
Rockin Robbins is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 08:56 PM   #52
cynic
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (1)
Default

Somewhere a physicist is laughing at me. You should see our water filed milk jug to inflate the balloon with the proper volume of helium. Its not precise either.

anyway... I dunno how well it will glide above 100,000 feet. Not well is my guess.

Does this look like a good option? I might have to expand the payload capacity a bit. Thoughts?

http://www.skykingrcproducts.com/rcp...whirlwind.html
cynic is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2010, 03:30 AM   #53
TM4197
Dope&Fabric
 
TM4197's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Virginia/Delaware
Posts: 1,355
Thanked 82 Times in 76 Posts
Club: Mile High Club
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (3)
Default

I would write this guy about his glider and tell him what your project is, If I were him, I would give you a few as prototypes...the end result of your project would make him more than a few test planes for free.!!!
I have a choc. lab that you can also figure in to maybe paradrop over mid-america...shes about 80 pounds!

Good luck cynic....I'am gonna watch this one!
TM4197 is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2011, 04:19 AM   #54
jrsphoto
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (1)
Default

Cynic, this is a great project, one I have been slowly working on for about a year now. I haven't got as far as you.

My thought was just to use a lifting body, something like the guy at www dot liftingbody dot com uses. Now his stuff is actually a rocket so his models might actually work better for your needs. I like the idea of the lifting body. My thought was to have it controlled / stabilized by the Ardupilot. Wind speed in an upper level jet stream are high and I had my doubts that a normal model airplane could survive the return flight through it, but I'm likely incorrect. A lifting body just seems more robust and it looks cool as hell.

I have tried to contact this guy for any drawing he had of his models but I got no response. I have access to a CNC router so my plan was to have the router cut out a top half and a bottom half of the lifting body, add cutouts for electronics and go from there. Weight is the big issue for anything like this, as you well know.

shoot me an email, I would love to talk with you / work with you further on this.

Cheers

John
jrsphoto is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2011, 09:56 AM   #55
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 4,431
Thanked 490 Times in 456 Posts
Awards Showcase

5kW  Outstanding Contributor Award  1kW 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)
Default

Guys,

All you really need is some form of freeflight glider. Freeflight gliders are designed to be stable enough to fly with no external control input; they just fly themselves. Most R/C models aren't stable enough to fly themselves unless you install some form of very advanced autopilot system and that's going to be horribly expensive. You could of course build a very stable R/C model, some trainer types would probably work ok as they are. Trouble is by the time the model descended low enough to control by normal R/C it would have drifted way out of range anyway.. Basically conventional R/C is a non starter.

Choice appears to be either a cheap and simple freeflight model with a tracker so you can locate it wherever it lands. Or a very sophisticated autopilot/GPS controlled model that will return to base, which is great but probably very expensive, especially if something goes wrong and it crashes or flies away.

I'd not worry too much about turbulence, providing the model is built reasonably strong it should be fine. The air at high altitude is usually smooth anyway. If a fragile balloon can survive the ascent then a glider should be fine on the way down. Look at planes that have flown that high, like the NASA Helios.. incredibly fragile and lightweight.
You want something that is reasonably light and slow flying otherwise you might run into mach issues when gliding at high altitude, which would break the model up for sure. For this reason and others I don't think a lifting body is what you need, they were developed for re-entry at speeds of about 17,000mph.. that's not the issue in this endeavour.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 06:33 PM   #56
cynic
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (1)
Default

Originally Posted by jrsphoto View Post
Cynic, this is a great project, one I have been slowly working on for about a year now. I haven't got as far as you.

My thought was just to use a lifting body, something like the guy at www dot liftingbody dot com uses. Now his stuff is actually a rocket so his models might actually work better for your needs. I like the idea of the lifting body. My thought was to have it controlled / stabilized by the Ardupilot. Wind speed in an upper level jet stream are high and I had my doubts that a normal model airplane could survive the return flight through it, but I'm likely incorrect. A lifting body just seems more robust and it looks cool as hell.

I have tried to contact this guy for any drawing he had of his models but I got no response. I have access to a CNC router so my plan was to have the router cut out a top half and a bottom half of the lifting body, add cutouts for electronics and go from there. Weight is the big issue for anything like this, as you well know.

shoot me an email, I would love to talk with you / work with you further on this.

Cheers

John
Hi John,

I just sent you an email via the message board. Hopefully you'll get it and have my email address....
cynic is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 03:43 AM   #57
57sailplane
Motorcalc Junky
 
57sailplane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NEBRASKA
Posts: 63
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Awards Showcase

100mph Speed Demon 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (1)
Default

so what i have read is that this glider needs to be fairly strong at high speeds and able to carry some weight. how about a jw60 it holds the record for being the fastest foam glider, its can carry a lot of weight its reached 200+ if you use an fma infrared pilot system its should be able to land easily. people pound these int the ground at over 100 mph and they come back for more.. i think the jw70 would be better but they dont make it anymore. a glilder along these lines is tuff has the most wing area and can remain stable in the terible turbulance as a matter of fact that is what they are designed for.


Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	web_JW60_36_ds.jpg
Views:	116
Size:	73.4 KB
ID:	142629  

I am a Speed Freak!!!
57sailplane is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 09:09 PM   #58
cynic
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (1)
Default

I've done electronics work on this over the last year and done another launch to test using a gumstix computer for flight control and telemetry. Go figure the gumstix CPU just happens to cycle at exactly a harmonic for the GPS frequency and is as a result... a GPS jammer. nice lol

Anyway.... I'd really like to have ardupilot fly the airplane back to a point after re-entry but that puts me on the wrong side of FAA rules on UAVs. As a result I think I've just settled on building a gimbaled motor mount for a rocket that will be actively stabilized (not guided so no need to sound the alarms )

That glider looks like a good fit aside from a small potential area for payload.

I keep googling around on the topic and this thread which I started pops up so I guess this is now the definitive guide on the internet
cynic is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2012, 04:35 AM   #59
CanadaFlier
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

Hi all,

So I was googling info on a project I'm beginning and came across this thread. Mine sounds identical except without the rocket motor for the additional altitude. What kind of GPS tracker are you using?

CanadaFlier
CanadaFlier is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 07:31 PM   #60
cynic
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (1)
Default

sent you a pm....
cynic is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 04:25 PM   #61
vanputten
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

Google 'canuck-boffin glider' and you will find a project over 10 jears old. Very usefull information with design and 5 flights with altitudes ranging from 11,000ft to 74,000ft.
vanputten is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 07:01 AM   #62
Jfan
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

Hi everyone. I'm new here.

I've been reading this thread for a while wanting to see if the original poster has any updates on his project. Tried to contact him on his youtube channel but I'm still waiting on his reply, so I thought I would ask here.

I'm fairly interested in his project because I'm doing something similar to what he's been working on.
So I thought I would also ask questions here without trying to distract too much from his original project.

In my case I've been studying the feasibility of putting a glider at 60-70k feet without the help of a balloon. That's the challenge I would like to tackle on since it hasn't been done so far (afaik), and it's one I've been wanting to do for a long time. But it is plagued with many difficulties.

To do this, I thought I would need a fairly fast and durable plane. One with a rate of climb of 300ft/s to reach the desired altitude while having some battery juice left for servos, OSD etc.
Once the plane reaches 40-50k ft (hopefully) it would switch back to a rocket engine to keep climbing to 70k ft, or higher.

I initially thought of using a EPP foam glider for this, but then watching some videos of pylon racers on youtube I thought these planes could fit the bill well. They are extremely strong, light and fast.

So I decided on either an Enigma F5B or a Siren Hotliner for initial tests. Based on the feedback I may get with them while I test them I would create my own model in CAD and then produce/print a prototype.

Now the Siren and Enigma are fiberglass bodies with carbon composite. The F5B can easily reach speeds of over 250MPH, and, assuming it can maintain that airspeed while doing a steep climb it *should*, in theory, do 20k ft per every few minutes.
That is, if the battery and motor combination can take the abuse. This is where I am having doubts about the use of such powerplant. I would of course keep the battery warmed up at high altitudes.

I'm still figuring out if it would be better to use a brushless/rocket combination, or just go with a turbine engine if I make my own or buy the cheapest one available. Any comments, ideas here?

For telemetry and radio control I would use a Dragonlink UFH radio. The goal is to fly the plane "up there" and fly it back down manually, so to speak, so as to not get in trouble with the FAA in regards to UAS policies.

To stabilize the plane I'm looking at a Cyclops Storm OSD, or a similar stabilization system that could help fight any turbulence I may encounter during flight, and also inform me about my altitude, airspeed, etc.
A 1.3GHz FPV combo, with a 420TVL Sony camera and long range antennas will allow me to have live video during the whole flight.


Anyways, I would appreciate any constructive comments, and my apologies to the original poster if I hijacked your thread a bit, but I thought it's still sort of on topic and didn't want to open another one without first an introduction.

To the OP keep up with the good work.
Jfan is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 12:40 PM   #63
quorneng
Super Contributor
 
quorneng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 1,241
Thanked 40 Times in 39 Posts
Club: A lone flyer!
Awards Showcase

Scratchbuilders Award 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (7)
Default

cynic
Interesting what you have achieved so far but 2 pounds thrust for 30 seconds is most definitely not going to take 6 pounds of anything up a further 50,000ft. Gravity will see to that.
quorneng is online now  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 01:42 PM   #64
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 4,431
Thanked 490 Times in 456 Posts
Awards Showcase

5kW  Outstanding Contributor Award  1kW 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)
Default

Originally Posted by Jfan View Post
Now the Siren and Enigma are fiberglass bodies with carbon composite. The F5B can easily reach speeds of over 250MPH, and, assuming it can maintain that airspeed while doing a steep climb it *should*, in theory, do 20k ft per every few minutes.
That's not going to work because an F5B only has the battery capacity for seconds of WOT power burst. It would be impossible to pack enough battery capacity in them to take the model up to anything like 50,000ft.

Best of luck with your challenge but I think you will have to re-think your power source because I dont think battery power will get you that high.

Solar power drones have done it before but you would need a huge budget to make that happen.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 07:43 PM   #65
Jfan
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

That's not going to work because an F5B only has the battery capacity for seconds of WOT power burst.
Hmm, interesting thought. I know pylon pilots are able to put 5000mAh 3s batteries in these planes, and assuming we don't do WOT, but instead go with 70% to 80% throttle management, any comments?

Jet propulsion would be nice, but I'm afraid it's too heavy and unsure of how reliable it would be at higher altitudes. It would have to be a small turbine for sure, and it can be done if I keep the costs down.

On other thought, I've seen a youtube video of a FPV flier taking his plane up to 30K ft, but haven't found one flying up to 40k ft, yet.

What's the highest anybody has been able to go?
Jfan is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 07:56 PM   #66
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 4,431
Thanked 490 Times in 456 Posts
Awards Showcase

5kW  Outstanding Contributor Award  1kW 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)
Default

Been doing some thinking and I think your best option is to forget about speed, speed just created huge amounts of drag and wastes energy. Think about driving your car, if you want to maximise your range do you drive flat out?

No, the way to get the highest would I'm pretty sure be with a slow flying high efficiency sailplane type model. Very large high aspect ratio wings, as light as possible, and carrying lots of batteries. You could use two or three batteries which could even be jettisoned when depleted and parachute down, this would lighten the wing loading considerably which would be required to keep climbing in thin air.

It might not be as spectacular as F5B or pylon racers but I'm sure if flying as high as possible is the aim then it's the only way to go. If you look at any very high altitude prop powered plane they all follow this sailplane like design brief.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 08:30 PM   #67
Jfan
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

Thinking upon what you said makes sense. Your analogy of the car made me think of my quick&heavy Mercury Marauder. I could go fast with it, but it sure will use lots of energy, and gas! Good point.

Ok, will something like the one in the attached pics work?

It's a WIP Radian. I've been working on it since months. I'm building it for aerial photography use with a brushless gimbal. It's got reinforcement everywhere, from carbon rods inside the wings, a lightweight steel rod throught the fuse, fiberglass tape all over the body reinforced with ekonokote. Has ample space to accomodate a 4500+mAh, besides other mods.

I would like to have a composite frame, however. Even though the Radian is pretty stiff right now, it's still a EPP foam plane after all.
Any recommendations on a good fiberglass/carbon body saiplane similar to my AP Radian?

Thank you for helping out!


Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7288.jpg
Views:	34
Size:	105.3 KB
ID:	170745   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7289.jpg
Views:	30
Size:	136.3 KB
ID:	170746  
Jfan is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 09:09 PM   #68
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 4,431
Thanked 490 Times in 456 Posts
Awards Showcase

5kW  Outstanding Contributor Award  1kW 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)
Default

The Radian is on the right lines but to get anywhere near your goal I think is going to need something MUCH bigger (and a lot harder on the wallet).

A 4m F5J type model but with a larger fuselage to accommodate much more battery capacity might be a good starter:

YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 09:13 PM   #69
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 4,431
Thanked 490 Times in 456 Posts
Awards Showcase

5kW  Outstanding Contributor Award  1kW 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)
Default

The 4m Pulsar might be another option, a little more affordable:
YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 09:44 PM   #70
Jfan
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

Nice sailplane. Cost would be prohibitive though, I don't know how much the F5j goes for, but looks rather expensive. Any idea on the cost of the Pulsar?

The goal would be to get something more affordable, the more economical the airframe the better, a balance between quality and price would be where I'm aiming at. Losing one of those planes would hurt $$$ a lot with all the combined electronics.

The Radian's current wingspan is 11ft or 3.35mts long. It's a bit smaller compared to those birds, but definitevely not as strong.

On a related article, I found this link to have lots of useful info on the powerplant:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213592

Great thoughts, keep 'em coming.
Jfan is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 10:10 PM   #71
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 4,431
Thanked 490 Times in 456 Posts
Awards Showcase

5kW  Outstanding Contributor Award  1kW 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)
Default

Sorry, but IMHO if you want to fly to 50,000ft by electric power as opposed to balloon then you are going to need a budget of several thousands of $. I think the pulsar would work out about $800 for the airframe, but that's the thin and of the wedge. You said you wanted a composite airframe, they don't come cheap.

To be honest to get anywhere near your goal these designs are probably not even close to big enough in wingspan or cost.

To put the challenge into context, you are talking about similar altitudes as reached by the NASA Pathfinder and Helios electric drones. These NASA projects featured aircraft of 100 ft plus wing span (over 200ft in some cases) and development budgets of many millions of $, plus access to the best brains and technology on the planet. And some of those aircraft still failed
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 10:51 PM   #72
Jfan
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

$800 is not terribly bad for a composite frame, I thought it would have been in the $1.5k+ figure.

From my research I haven't found anybody going past 16,000 feet high with electric, some even claim 20k feet. Not saying the electric can't go any higher, I think it can with the right prop based off the studies conducted in the rcgroups link I posted above.

But I may have to agree with you that a bigger frame may be needed for more than one battery.

The only way to figure it out is to try different setups and see what happens.

Hmm, back to the drawing board...

PS: I would start with baby steps first. First try and get to 35k ft, then do 40k ft, and so on.
Jfan is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 06:29 AM   #73
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 4,431
Thanked 490 Times in 456 Posts
Awards Showcase

5kW  Outstanding Contributor Award  1kW 
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (8)
Default

Originally Posted by Jfan View Post
PS: I would start with baby steps first. First try and get to 35k ft, then do 40k ft, and so on.
35k ft is no baby step by any stretch of the imagination few propeller driven aircraft can fly higher than that, even in the world of full size planes.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2013, 05:25 AM   #74
Jfan
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader: (0)
Friends: (0)
Default

Well, what a pity, it can't be done. Hey, at least we tried.

No, 35k feet is not a small feat, I agree, but that's part of the challenge, and you have to start from somewhere. That's why I said you take baby steps, keeping everything in context to the goal in mind.

Anyways, I appreciated the help given, I mean it.

Best regards
Jfan is offline  
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2013, 05:58 AM   #75
kyleservicetech
Dennis V
 
kyleservicetech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 8,051
Thanked 698 Times in 680 Posts
Club: www.racinercclub.com (I'm the newsletter editor)
Awards Showcase

Outstanding Contributor Award  3kW  2kW  100mph Speed Demon 
iTrader: (1)
Friends: (20)
Default

Originally Posted by Jfan View Post
Well, what a pity, it can't be done. Hey, at least we tried.

No, 35k feet is not a small feat, I agree, but that's part of the challenge, and you have to start from somewhere. That's why I said you take baby steps, keeping everything in context to the goal in mind.

Anyways, I appreciated the help given, I mean it.

Best regards
Back in the mid 1980's I was a small part of a local team that did cross country sailplane racing. That involved getting a 14-16 foot wingspan sailplane model up to about 6600 feet, then going on a closed course of 45 miles with a chase vehicle. At 6500 feet, that sailplane was just a spec in the sky, and take your eyes off of it, and you will never find it again. We verified that 6500 feet with a full scale airplane. It wasn't supposed to be there.

Some of the guys that competed were indicating that a sailplane has an absolute maximum altitude it can reach, due to atmospheric issues. At a high enough altitude, updrafts simply don't exist. Unless you're flying around thunderstorms. South West of Chicago, Ill, that maximum altitude was under 10,000 feet while we were there.

As for battery launches, it doesn't take a lot of calculations to show that pure battery power will never reach the altitude you are trying to reach. These LiPo batteries simply do not contain enough watt hours or horsepower hours. Adding more batteries is not an option either, weight becomes a big issue. I remember Maynard Hill set a whole bunch of records with gasoline powered models back in the 1980's, reaching the altitudes you've described more than once. I met the guy once. That was an interesting person.

When you get to the 14 foot plus wingspan models, the model has to be self stabilizing. One of our team members had a 15 foot sailplane with a wing joiner made from 1/8 by 3 by 30 inches of high strength steel plate. That model got flying to fast at about 4000 feet, flutter hit it, and that wing joiner ripped apart like a piece of toilet paper. He got the model back in pretty much one piece by spinning the good wing and fuse. Yes, those wings were strong.

DennyV
Retired and the days are just too short, busier than ever!
kyleservicetech is online now  
  Reply With Quote
Reply

  WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums - Discuss radio control eflight > Electric R/C Airplanes > Hi-Performance and Sailplanes

Tags
000 , 100 , altitude , feet , glider , high , super

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GWS Formosa with BP-21 High Altitude fishmaniam General Electric Discussions 1 10-20-2007 09:25 PM
High Altitude E-Starter Build - Will she Fly? fishmaniam General Electric Discussions 5 10-11-2007 03:31 PM
Losing orientation of your plane at high altitude, a problem? phupper General Electric Discussions 19 09-10-2007 02:16 AM
High altitude on board video (Easy Glider) Craneman Aerial Photography 5 08-26-2007 07:57 PM
Electrics At High Altitude? Sky Sharkster Power Systems 5 06-29-2007 07:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:40 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 WattfFlyer.com
RCU Eflight HQ

Charities we support Select: Yorkie Rescue  ::  Crohn's & Colitis Foundation



Page generated in 0.71465 seconds with 74 queries