http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Now that is some aircraft


--
The Wanderer

A consultant will borrow your watch
Then charge if you ask him the time.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:11:19 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Now that is some aircraft

Wow!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

The Wanderer wrote:

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/
Now that is some aircraft

Sounds good too, fly it at 1km instead of 24km ... worry a few people.

On 13 Feb 2010 08:34:08 GMT Bob Eager wrote :
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:11:19 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Now that is some aircraft

Wow!

+1 Awesome!

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

The Wanderer wrote:
http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Now that is some aircraft


good landing too, on a strip that size.

Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Wanderer
saying something like:

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Now that is some aircraft

Absolutely superb. Pity it's only got the one engine, but two engines
might be next.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

You can buy very small jet engines these days.
Same technology as cruise missiles.

I have yet to see a stealth fighter model (not that i have looked much),
they can only fly by wire as they are unstable.
It used to be quite common for models to not be quite the same as the real
thing in order to make them flyable.

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

Jet A1

http://wrenturbines.co.uk/engines/tu...ren70/packages

Yours for a mere 1500 sods each, why not buy eight?

http://youtu.be/tVTaPvcBvRY

In message , The Wanderer
writes
http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Now that is some aircraft



{Conspiracy mode}

Just what you need if the government send one of those pesky drones to
spy on you


--
geoff

The Wanderer wrote:
http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Now that is some aircraft

It sure is and it begs the question of how it all works together. Is the
pitot tube at the front operational? Is it connected back to the ground
controller? I could go on for ever.

One of the lads at BAe systems (British Aerospace as it was when he
worked there) bought his first pure jet model aircraft about 5 to 8
years ago, but it was a single engine one. I have never seen it fly, but
I would be keen to go back on site and see it in action though.

I might phone him up next week and see what hoops I have to jump through
to get back on site. Security shouldn't be a problem as I had a very
high clearance when I worked there.

Thanks for prompting me in this direction.

Dave

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Wanderer
saying something like:

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Now that is some aircraft

Absolutely superb. Pity it's only got the one engine, but two engines
might be next.

The clip describes it as 'engines' as in plural. There is no intake that
could feed one engine, as it would have to be in the middle, also there
is no engine nozzle at the back centre.

Dave

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

Think they are propane burners. They start on propane anyway. Might be
paraffin thereafter.

Several commercial versions exist.

Google weren turbines. And IIRC JetCat. The turboprop is extremely
impressive - seen that fly.

dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

You can buy very small jet engines these days.
Same technology as cruise missiles.

I have yet to see a stealth fighter model (not that i have looked much),
they can only fly by wire as they are unstable.

easily fixed by moving the CG forward enough.

It used to be quite common for models to not be quite the same as the
real thing in order to make them flyable.

more to make them flyable without radio by people who didn't know what
they were doing.

Andy Burns wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

Jet A1

http://wrenturbines.co.uk/engines/tu...ren70/packages

Yours for a mere 1500 sods each, why not buy eight?


Ali Mashinchy did. posturing sod

Well 4 anyway.

http://www.alsgallery.co.uk/albums/caribbean/abc.jpg

*I* saw him smash it on landing haha. we all cheered.

http://youtu.be/tVTaPvcBvRY

Dave wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Now that is some aircraft

It sure is and it begs the question of how it all works together. Is the
pitot tube at the front operational? Is it connected back to the ground
controller? I could go on for ever.

One of the lads at BAe systems (British Aerospace as it was when he
worked there) bought his first pure jet model aircraft about 5 to 8
years ago, but it was a single engine one. I have never seen it fly, but
I would be keen to go back on site and see it in action though.

I might phone him up next week and see what hoops I have to jump through
to get back on site. Security shouldn't be a problem as I had a very
high clearance when I worked there.


if you just want to see jets fly, any model show in the year generally
has a few.


Thanks for prompting me in this direction.

Dave

Dave wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Wanderer
saying something like:

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Now that is some aircraft

Absolutely superb. Pity it's only got the one engine, but two engines
might be next.

The clip describes it as 'engines' as in plural. There is no intake that
could feed one engine, as it would have to be in the middle, also there
is no engine nozzle at the back centre.

Dave

I assumed it was a twin.

No reason not to run a pair. Only expense.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Dave
saying something like:

Absolutely superb. Pity it's only got the one engine, but two engines
might be next.

The clip describes it as 'engines' as in plural.

Typo, or deliberate mis-description.

There is no intake that
could feed one engine, as it would have to be in the middle,

Well hidden. Plus, you only hear one engine start.

also there
is no engine nozzle at the back centre.

Oh, yes there is, underneath.

Look again. It's very very well done, but need two for that total killer
appeal.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Dave
saying something like:

Absolutely superb. Pity it's only got the one engine, but two engines
might be next.
The clip describes it as 'engines' as in plural.

Typo, or deliberate mis-description.

There is no intake that
could feed one engine, as it would have to be in the middle,

Well hidden. Plus, you only hear one engine start.

also there
is no engine nozzle at the back centre.

Oh, yes there is, underneath.

Look again. It's very very well done, but need two for that total killer
appeal.
MM. I think you are right.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Burns
saying something like:

Yours for a mere 1500 sods each, why not buy eight?

http://youtu.be/tVTaPvcBvRY

A flying Hoover.

dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

You can buy very small jet engines these days.
Same technology as cruise missiles.

I have yet to see a stealth fighter model (not that i have looked much),
they can only fly by wire as they are unstable.
It used to be quite common for models to not be quite the same as the
real thing in order to make them flyable.

If the original was fly by wire, then the centre of lift and centre of
gravity would have to be within a very short distance of each other.
That is the only way you could fly it without quadruplex computer
systems and a back up computer to get you home.

Dave

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

You can buy very small jet engines these days.
Same technology as cruise missiles.

I have yet to see a stealth fighter model (not that i have looked
much), they can only fly by wire as they are unstable.

easily fixed by moving the CG forward enough.

I have never thought about that. Was it moved back, or forwards?
And I spent 21 years working on this. :-(

Dave

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Dave
saying something like:

Absolutely superb. Pity it's only got the one engine, but two engines
might be next.
The clip describes it as 'engines' as in plural.

Typo, or deliberate mis-description.

There is no intake that
could feed one engine, as it would have to be in the middle,

Well hidden. Plus, you only hear one engine start.

also there
is no engine nozzle at the back centre.

Oh, yes there is, underneath.

Look again. It's very very well done, but need two for that total killer
appeal.

I'll get back to you on this when I phone my model flying mate.

Dave

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Dave
saying something like:

Absolutely superb. Pity it's only got the one engine, but two engines
might be next.
The clip describes it as 'engines' as in plural.

Typo, or deliberate mis-description.

There is no intake that could feed one engine, as it would have to be
in the middle,

Well hidden. Plus, you only hear one engine start.

also there is no engine nozzle at the back centre.

Oh, yes there is, underneath.

Look again. It's very very well done, but need two for that total killer
appeal.
MM. I think you are right.

Without destroying my link back to this, just what is the path of the
intake to the engines?

Dave

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Dave
saying something like:

Without destroying my link back to this, just what is the path of the
intake to the engines?

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/
Probably ducted in from the two dummies - only way that makes sense.

Dave wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

You can buy very small jet engines these days.
Same technology as cruise missiles.

I have yet to see a stealth fighter model (not that i have looked
much), they can only fly by wire as they are unstable.
It used to be quite common for models to not be quite the same as the
real thing in order to make them flyable.

If the original was fly by wire, then the centre of lift and centre of
gravity would have to be within a very short distance of each other.
That is the only way you could fly it without quadruplex computer
systems and a back up computer to get you home.

center of lift is ALWAYS on the center of gravity, by definition.

Stability is satisfied if a rising nose or falling airspeed moves the
center of lift backwards and vice versa.

i.e. its the first differential of lift with respect to airspeed, angle
of attack, or both that defines stability in pitch..

Normally any stability issues can be solved by moving the CG forward,
and compensating with up elevator.

Dave

Dave wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

You can buy very small jet engines these days.
Same technology as cruise missiles.

I have yet to see a stealth fighter model (not that i have looked
much), they can only fly by wire as they are unstable.

easily fixed by moving the CG forward enough.

I have never thought about that. Was it moved back, or forwards?
And I spent 21 years working on this. :-(

Forwards.

Dave

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

center of lift is ALWAYS on the center of gravity, by definition.

So why does a paperclip on the nose end make a paper plane
flyable?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:11:19 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Trying to play it crashes my browser every time. Bloody stealth
technology!

Jules wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:11:19 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Trying to play it crashes my browser every time. Bloody stealth
technology!

Assuming that's not a wind up, this is the same thing

http://youtu.be/SDbQ5xvsrIU

Chris J Dixon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

center of lift is ALWAYS on the center of gravity, by definition.

So why does a paperclip on the nose end make a paper plane
flyable?


Because it encourages the center of lift and center of gravity to
coincide *with the plane in a nice glide*.

A falling bomb is nice and stable too. But it doesn't glide very far..


Dnt confuse stability, with performance in other areas.


Anyway, MY paper planes don't need paperclips ;-)


Chris

In message , Andy
Burns writes
Jules wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:11:19 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Trying to play it crashes my browser every time. Bloody stealth
technology!

Assuming that's not a wind up, this is the same thing

I don't think that clockwork technology met with a great deal of success
in the aviation world


http://youtu.be/SDbQ5xvsrIU

--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just
takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

You can buy very small jet engines these days.
Same technology as cruise missiles.

I have yet to see a stealth fighter model (not that i have looked
much), they can only fly by wire as they are unstable.

easily fixed by moving the CG forward enough.

I have never thought about that. Was it moved back, or forwards?
And I spent 21 years working on this. :-(

Forwards.

I feel thick now, knowing that. Hence the canards at the front being the
deciding factor.

Dave

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:46:54 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

Jules wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:11:19 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Trying to play it crashes my browser every time. Bloody stealth
technology!

Assuming that's not a wind up, this is the same thing

http://youtu.be/SDbQ5xvsrIU

That worked - ta! I don't know what it is about some of these "non
Youtube" sites but my browser hates 'em but is always fine with "the same
content" if it exists on YT.

Initial comment: should have made the plane a little bigger, then he could
have sat in it and it would have been even more fun :-)

I don't know about engine vs. engines - about 1:35 when it starts moving,
it looks like the grass is being blown all the way across the back, not
just in the middle, but that might just be an effect of the low quality /
high compression in the vid itself.

Is it possible that the engine(s) are mounted inboard in the fuselage, but
ducted via the wings to the 'normal' engine exhausts? I'm not sure if
that'd work without too much flow restriction (or problems with
overheating). I'm sure it'd be possible with the intakes though (although
maybe there's an intake toward the front on the underside of the fuselage
- I'm not sure if it'd be possible to see it in the video even if there
was)

cheers

Jules

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

You can buy very small jet engines these days.
Same technology as cruise missiles.

I have yet to see a stealth fighter model (not that i have looked
much), they can only fly by wire as they are unstable.
It used to be quite common for models to not be quite the same as the
real thing in order to make them flyable.

If the original was fly by wire, then the centre of lift and centre of
gravity would have to be within a very short distance of each other.
That is the only way you could fly it without quadruplex computer
systems and a back up computer to get you home.

center of lift is ALWAYS on the center of gravity, by definition.

No it isn't. I have, on and off spent the last 30 years working on
turning stable centre of lift aircraft into fly by wire that were unstable.

Starting with a Jaguar that was made slightly unstable by changing the
aerodynamics. Computers were added to compensate for flight for the pilot.

Followed by the EAP (Experimental Aircraft Project). This had canards at
the front. This resulted in the development of the eurofighter Typhone.



Dave

Chris J Dixon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

center of lift is ALWAYS on the center of gravity, by definition.

So why does a paperclip on the nose end make a paper plane
flyable?

It puts its centre of gravity over the centre of lift. The *basic*
principle of flight. As the NP says.

Fly by wire is different, much different.

Dave

Jules wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:11:19 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

http://www.wimp.com/rcjet/

Trying to play it crashes my browser every time. Bloody stealth
technology!

I worked on that in the aerospace industry for many years. Did I do OK then?

Dave

Dave wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just
takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

You can buy very small jet engines these days.
Same technology as cruise missiles.

I have yet to see a stealth fighter model (not that i have looked
much), they can only fly by wire as they are unstable.

easily fixed by moving the CG forward enough.

I have never thought about that. Was it moved back, or forwards?
And I spent 21 years working on this. :-(

Forwards.

I feel thick now, knowing that. Hence the canards at the front being the
deciding factor.


canards at the front require a very forward CG, or if you think of them
as aircraft with very large tails. a very rearward one ;-)


Dave

Dave wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just
takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

You can buy very small jet engines these days.
Same technology as cruise missiles.

I have yet to see a stealth fighter model (not that i have looked
much), they can only fly by wire as they are unstable.
It used to be quite common for models to not be quite the same as
the real thing in order to make them flyable.

If the original was fly by wire, then the centre of lift and centre
of gravity would have to be within a very short distance of each other.
That is the only way you could fly it without quadruplex computer
systems and a back up computer to get you home.

center of lift is ALWAYS on the center of gravity, by definition.

No it isn't. I have, on and off spent the last 30 years working on
turning stable centre of lift aircraft into fly by wire that were unstable.

Starting with a Jaguar that was made slightly unstable by changing the
aerodynamics. Computers were added to compensate for flight for the pilot.

Followed by the EAP (Experimental Aircraft Project). This had canards at
the front. This resulted in the development of the eurofighter Typhone.


Shame you didnt do a basic physics course first.

The function of fly by wire is to make sure that the CG IS at the centre
of lift, at all times..moving the elevators changes the center of lift
dramatically ;-)


Go back and check your definitions., I know what you are saying, but it
isn't the correct way to say it.




Dave

Dave wrote:
Chris J Dixon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

center of lift is ALWAYS on the center of gravity, by definition.

So why does a paperclip on the nose end make a paper plane
flyable?

It puts its centre of gravity over the centre of lift. The *basic*
principle of flight. As the NP says.

No, I said it puts it there when its in a stable gliding attitude.
Center of lift varies all over the place depending on airspeed and attitude.

If it isn't at the center of lift, teh plane will fall over. Fly by wire
wire is equivalent to riding a unicycle. It can be done, but requires
constant input.

Normal planes are like sitting in a unicycle with te tyre removed
suspended upside down. by a cable. It's stable.


Its the confusion between the first differential of lift position with
lift position itself. If the centre of lift e.g. moves aft as the plane
puts its nose down, and the weight is not low enough for some sort of
pendulum stability, its unstable in pitch and will tend to 'tuck
under;' Its VERY hard to fly a plane like that, and beyond a certain
limit, impossible. Pull the nose up, and it responds by snapping into a
stall.





Fly by wire is different, much different.



Dave