Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: straffo on April 07, 2005, 04:04:23 PM
-
See
http://andersh.privat.ldp.no/ventus_medium2.wmv
-
Aw nuts, I thought it was a real tragedy like gscholoz reproducing or something really bad.
Shame about the plane it looked pretty nice but the wings flexed a lot there. Must have been a heavy load on them.
-
LOL
G-forces = 1 point
RC nerd = 0 points
-
It was obvious from the wing flex that there was a design error to begin with.
-
Those wings scared me from the start, I guess they were supposed to be imbreakable. Poor guy.
-
If you install a jet engine to a glider which leads to overstress it's a design flaw. :rolleyes:
-
No where near as bad as the RC B52 taking the plunge.
-
Cry me a river Gsholz.
Attitude like yours lead directly to the accident. The added weight of the jet and unnaturally high speeds lead to the catastrofic failure.
You just can't admit it for some reason.
-
Jeez just get a room you two, you're not fooling anybody.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
oooh ..not good ...
I watched a vid of one of mate's jet r/c model crash ......first flight , it only lasted a bout 10 seconds in the air before spiraling into the tarmac...Then some joker from air traffic asked if he needed crash n rescue to come out :)
Got to say it though the wing flex was quite considerable , with the wings flexing upwards and downwards .....
Still makes me feel slightly better as i only bent the u/c and snapped the prop on my Cub the other day :)
-
Too bad, was a nice looking airplane.
I think at that level of size and expense these guys should just get a real airplane.
-
The plane was flying perfectly fine until the RC pilot made it pull too many G's.
With almost 45 degrees of wing flex and a construction that was most likely meant for powerless flight or a very light engine.
There's no excuse for stupidity, they wasted 3000 hours of work building an RC that couldn't handle even the very basic movements without breaking apart. It's not like he was attempting aerobatics or something, just a regular turn broke it apart.
The takeoff revealed that the design was made for extremely low airspeeds. From the wingflex you can assume that they exceeded the design weight for the airframe considerably.
It was just a matter of time when a gush of wind or a control movement would break it apart.
-
He did try to loop it. However a regular RC can easily take a loop like that. His one would too unless it had a completely flawed design.
As far as cars go, it's a design fault to put an overpowered engine to a chassis that's built to handle less than half of the power and top speed.
That's why it's illegal in most countries.
A Beetle like that would be dangerous to drive and prone to damage. Just like the overpowered glider was.
-
So youre saying every lawmaker is stupid for having regulations on car designs for example?
Riiight...
What kind of a moron builds an RC plane which can't be flown for fun? The whole concept was flawed for an RC plane to begin with if it was so fragile it had to be flown like a commercial airliner to stay intact.
-
LOL
I need you to translate some documents for me Siaf. Seems when I read something I am totally missing the actual message.
What kind of a moron builds an RC plane which can't be flown for fun? The whole concept was flawed for an RC plane to begin with if it was so fragile it had to be flown like a commercial airliner to stay intact.
Ok let me try this reading between the lines thing out.
So are you saying Siaf that all commercial airliners are designed like crap and are dangerous to fly because if you tried to loop them they would fall apart?
-
It was doomed, why you ask?
Not design flaws. Not bad flying...
Gay music.
I was praying for the damn thing to crash to wake me out of the gay music induced stupor.
-
No Habu I'm saying that an RC should never have been designed so fragile that it couldn't take the standard joyride RC's are commonly subjected to.
Which is why I said:
if it was so fragile it had to be flown like a commercial airliner to stay intact.
In essence: Commercial airliners are not built for aerobatics nor they should. Rc's however are different.
-
well, back to the drawing board. ;)
-
Gscholz I assume the guy who flew the plane also designed it. Obviously it didn't fulfill the purpose he intended it for as it broke down while he flew it.
Define 'within reason' cuz a beetle that's designed for top 100mph going at 200mph doesn't seem within reason to me.
Cars that are designed for those speeds have different suspension, aerodynamics, brakes etc. for the sole reason of driving those speeds controllably.
-
eeerm my old 72 1200cc beetle would do 78mph...on the flat , my 66 1300 would go a tad faster ....
-
Originally posted by GScholz
A regular turn? Did you even see the movie? He made a high speed loop you dolt!
By your standards every single airplane ever built are flawed designs since you can easily overstress them all.
If you take a VW Beetle and put a big engine in it and go flying off the road at 200 kph ... is it then the engine's fault? Of course not, it's YOUR fault.
Who was talking about beetles and 200mph again?
If you run out of arguments, save your personal insults and move on.
Btw I believe my mercedes is quite safe to drive with its designed top speed (250km/h) on autobahn.
-
This thread is getting more painful to read than the original vid to watch...
-
AaaaaH! Way too much wrong that day....:(
-
Gsholz the difference is other has a proper design to fulfill the task and the other does not which means the others design is flawed for the purpose IF the purpose is to fly loops or drive 200mph.
You should know the limitations of the design and keep within them. An RC sailplane is not designed to pull so many G's.
Exactly and that's why he should never have built the thing with a jet engine in the first place. The design of a glider is not suitable for a heavy jet engine and high speed flying.
That contraption would have broken to pieces from a strong gush of wind just as likely it did while looping it.