Ducted R/C Jet Crash

[Steel2686]

Hit a telephone pole... Ouch!

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

[Performin Norman]

Oh that is bad. I'll bet that was an expensive mistake.

[FroSSty]

"ohh nooooo, what happened?" priceless...

[Joe 1320]

"ohh nooooo, what happened?" priceless...

He was in trouble from the start. The T-45 Goshawk is a Navy trainer, that particular model wasn't set right from the beginning. The horizontal stabs should have anhedral (the outer tips are lower than the root) literally the 3 tail surfaces should form a triangular three point, this one clearly has flat horizontal stabs. That's going to cause a funky handling issue with the airframe and it sure didn't look too stable. I know..... I've had a few and still have the rear half of the last one I destroyed. It's tricky.

Once past that.......... NEVER fly near power lines or poles. You're just begging for trouble.

[Steel2686]

Once past that.......... NEVER fly near power lines or poles. You're just begging for trouble.

It's really funny you say this being it's so obvious, yet it seems it's overlooked so easily.

My brother works with someone who is bigtime into R/C heli's. He was at a school field with a few other enthusiasts, and one of them set up in the parking lot where there were a couple power lines running to the building from the road. He was worried about colliding with another copter in the field becuase he claimed there were a few "amateurs" running out there, so he took off from the lot. You can guess what happened next.

It came back down in three pieces before the pavement took care of the rest.

The rest of the "amateurs"? They left later that day with their heli's in the same condition they brought them in.

[Joe 1320]

I remember the time some guy was flying in an aera that he should not have been flying around and sure enough, flew right into the power liines. The moment the carbon fiber rods touched the power lines there was a big flash of electricity and smoke. Not much made it to the ground.


Here a couple of small jets pictured with yours truly. These are a nice size for dogfighting with the buzzards.

[Steel2686]

Joe, the Phantom is sweet... But that Hornet is downright nasty!

Out of the two... Which is easiest to control? The Phantom looks more stable, but the F-18 looks like it would be an absolute rocket.

[Joe 1320]

Joe, the Phantom is sweet... But that Hornet is downright nasty!

Out of the two... Which is easiest to control? The Phantom looks more stable, but the F-18 looks like it would be an absolute rocket.

They are entirely different. The F-18F Super Hornet is more agile and easier to control. Landings are a breeze (relatively) and you can glide down gentliy even in the event of a total engine failure (known as dead-stick landing). I can see why the Navy uses them for carrier based aircraft.

The F-4 Phantom needs alot of speed for things to start working well. At slow speed it handles like a tank. Ram it though the air very fast and it handles like it's on rails. Lose power and it drops like a rock. It has to be flown down at speed all the way to the ground before shutting off the power.





If I had to make an automotive comparison, the F-18F is like a new Z07 Corvette. The F-4 Phantom is like a Shelby cobra with a blown 500 CID Keith Black Hemi. Both have gobs of power but are completely different animals.

[Steel2686]

I learn something new everyday.

Okay... Maybe once a month.

I would have thought the Hornet would be tough to fly, but nothing beats hands-on experience.

Now you just have to find someone with an R/C USS Nimitz and you'll be all set!

[Joe 1320]

funny you should mention that.







Carrier landings are a biotch. I must have hundreds of hours on a simulator just doing carrier landings, it's nuts. Night is worse.

[Steel2686]

You've got to be kidding me.

That is incredible. It doesn't actually float, does it? I couldn't imagine trying to land an R/C jet on a to-scale carrier.

It's hard enough getting my nitro-powered R/C truck lined up on a decent sized jump. Of course, it's going about 40 mph when I attempt it... But still. I have to imagine the jets are as well when coming in for a landing. Then you factor in air effects (turbulence, wind gusts, etc...)

Landing a jet on a parking lot has to be tough. A carrier? Yikes...

[Joe 1320]

Negative on the float, ghostrider. It would sink like a stone. It can however, be towed behind a truck for a moving target. On the simulators, coming down to a carrier they tend to look like a postage stamp in the middle of the ocean.

[Steel2686]

That would be fun... Attempting a carrier landing while it's being towed by a truck.

Of course, only if it were someone else's R/C jet.

[Joe 1320]

There's more too the handling info. The F-18 is technically a high wing plane. that means the wing is on top of the fuse, the center of gravity hangs below that point. The plane's weight below the wing helps recenter the plane after the wings are banked as the weight wants to return to a neutral point and hang strainght down. The F-4 is a low wing plane. The center of gravity sits on top of the wing. This helps low speed banking response but makes for a plane that doesn't really want to center itself after a turn. Here's what that means..... Bank the wings on an F-18 and take you hand off the stick, gradually the plane will level it's wings without pilot input. It's much more pronounced with a plane such as a Cessna or Cub as the entire planes weight is hanging below the wing. High wing planes are ultra stable. Try that with a low wing plane and the thing stays banked and will likely continue to roll over on it's back if it even keeps the nose up. There is no self righting at all. Low wing jets like a passenger jet uses "Dihedral" to accomplish something similar. The outer wing tips are much higher than the wing root, the angle upward toward the dips. "Anheadral" is the opposite. The tips are lower than the root and creases an opposite affect. The AV-8 Harrier shows this clearly. Note the wing tips are lower than where the wing root joins the fuselage.

[Steel2686]

Now it makes more sense.

When I was younger, I used to have those cheap, balsa wood gliders. I had the perfect setup to throw them because we lived on a hill with a huge, open area below.

The stunt gliders were always low-winged setups. These were the ones that would loop as soon as you threw them. The distance gliders were ALWAYS top-wing models. They would fly level for a decent span before gradually settling down with an easy landing.

I keep threatening to get into R/C planes. It might soon be time.

Have a simulator you recommend, Joe?