the links for the pictures are not working for me.
I wouldn't be suprised since there were no links. Seriously, I hate to take pictures of carnage like that. It only serves to remind me of the negatives.
I took my F-22 for a few flights. The thing looks incredible in the air. I did a few manouvers on each flight, tweaking the controls for response. The third flight............oh, the carnage. I crashed after I lost one engine on a low level pass. It basically was a flame out, the plane was just starting a right bank against the wind and at that moment flipped inverted and shot to the ground. It literally broke in half just behind the air intakes, but she's repairable. All the electronics are fine, the motors and fans are fine but one speed controller fried. I'll just replace the other for insurance and it will fly again.
The sound it made hitting the deck just made me cringe. That was some serious impact.
Yea your buzzing along then all of a sudden dead silence. You know it's over then.
2002 Electron Blue Vette, 1SC, FE3/Z51, G92 3.15 gears, 308.9 RWHP 321.7 RWTQ (before any mods), SLP headers, Z06 exhaust, MSD Ignition Wires, AC Delco Iridium Spark Plugs, 160 t-stat, lots of ECM tuning
Yea your buzzing along then all of a sudden dead silence. You know it's over then.
Yep. The instant that happened, I just said "uh..oh"...... that was it. Wham! No way to recover on that one. The physical breakage was easy to fix, the failed parts are the only thing that has the plane grounded. I didn't have a spare speed controller so I gotta wait.
Joe, how long can one of those planes fly when fully charged up?
That depends on the battery and motor choice. There have been monumental advancements in battery technology in the last few years. For example, the Lithuim Polymer battery that I use for the F-22 can give me a 10 minute flight with low throttle. The F-16 with a single engine could probably go for 15 or more. I just haven't pushed it to find out. Lithium batteries charge and discharge differently than a regular nimh. They are not discharged as deeply to prevent cell damage, they sustain a higher current for longer, each cell can be charged independantly too. I have a few small indoor flyers that use the same battery technology. I get roughly 10-12 minute flights depending on throttle useage, those are a single 4.2 volt cell that is about the size of a nickel and weigh only a few grams.
Now imagine a 10.5 oz battery that will sustain a continuous 60 amp discharge for minutes at a time. That is amazing. My F-22 needs that kind of juice with twin 75mm fans, the battery is overkill in my single engine F-16. One of these days I'll find the limits, but this one advancement coupled with brushless motors has made electronics now capable of defeating glow power in competitions in virtually every catagory. The only area where fuel has an advantage is that the airplane gets lighter as fuel is consumed, thereby performance increases.
How about this......should vegetarians eat animal crackers?
Nah, I think animals should eat vegitarian crackers. The problem around here though is the crackers are shooting the animals who don't eat vegitarians and the vegitarians are treating the crackers like animals.
Nah, I think animals should eat vegitarian crackers. The problem around here though is the crackers are shooting the animals who don't eat vegitarians and the vegitarians are treating the crackers like animals.
.
If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking, and there is no woman around to hear him.....is he still wrong?
Broke an F-4 Phantom in half today. I was trying out an old video camera and even though it wasn't in the field of view at the moment of impact, man can you hear it. Then it pole vaults into view. A fitting end to a plane that had so much glue holding it together from countless botched landings and crashes. That's what this is for, to horse around and not destroy good planes. I'll bet I can still patch it up and it will fly.
Hey Joe. Did it ever occur to you that it is a countless blessing that you are a RC pilot, not a real one?
Actually, real pilots make crummy RC pilots. They can't adapt to the reversing of contros that you have to do when the plane changes direction and comes towards you. There was a challenge once with real Navy pilots vs. some RC pilots using RC jets, and the real pilots fubar'd the missions. Of course, it's no doubt that the RC pilots would have sat there with their thumbs up their butts in a real cockpit. I guess fair is fair.
Honestly, Joe, I have to get one of those. Whadya say? a grand or so for an entire complete setup?
After further reflection, I am now persuaded that the plane takes off.
The situation posited would be the same as if the moving conveyor belt were topped with ice and the plane had skis instead of freely moving wheels (that is, a theoretically perfect "zero-friction" situation).
Planes take off -- and land -- on ice all the time, though they may need a longer "runway" to do so if they depend upon wheel braking in addition to reverse-thrust engine braking.
Sorry about your F-22, Joe. For what it's worth (and not much compared to your F-22), I crash paper airplanes.
R.i.K.
'98 WS6 TA (white, of course!), Hurst Billet/Plus shifter, BBK intake manifold, McGard “blue-ring” lug nuts (12x1.5), PowerSlot brake rotors, Hawk brake pads, Stainless steel braided brake lines, Pontiac arrow, Hotchkis strut tower brace, MBA MAF ends, Reflective Concepts lettering, MTI carbon-fiber look airbox lid . . . and one greying, somewhat eccentric owner.
Comment