This is flying!!!

I was shown this and thought that some of you would like to see it.

Higher than a hull

Dan

TOO cool!

Can't wait to see the take-off from the ground...maybe laying on a large skateboard?

That is incredible! It would be a great way to die <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> I mean if you were about to die anyway. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

That is pretty cool!! Taking off will be cool but I want to see a landing!!!!

Landing = parachute.

I believe I see duct tape.

That is what I am saying, when he can take off underpower and land underpower I will be impressed. You can make a brick fly if you strap enough rockets to it. Look at all those motors he has on that thing.

I looked over that page and it doesn't say much about abilities of this machine, it says that he can fly level but nothing about climbing??? Can he gain altitude?

Yes he can fly level. He can gain altitude and he can also bank turn. I have seen a few videos of him testing it and in one of the videos he does 3 banks turns before deploying his chute and landing. He is capable of moving small flaps on the wings that all him to roll side to side.

Here is a youtube video in which a small overview is given and flight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEXxkWXncuo

[color:"green"]Gree:

If you looked over the page enough you would see that this is the first one and they are already making the second. More time in the next one. This must be a very exciting project to these guys! The motors are all model airplane jets. I am sure they will have their sites on takeoff and landing, though I think that the parachute is a great idea to get down safely.[/color]

[color:"blue"]Jake:

Say it is not so. I was thinking that was a lens for a camera but when you mentioned it all I could see was duct (duck) tape.[/color]

Later,
Dan

I have several friends that are into the jet r/c planes and the engines that I am familiar with are the same brand but are about 75% the size of those he has there. Those things pack a hell of a wallup even sitting static on a driveway, throttle it up and one of them will clear it completely of leaves for about 100 feet. Once airborn and getting air rammed in the intake, their power increases dramatically.

He can climb - at the end of the video it specifies the rate. I don't remember the climb rate (and don't have time to watch it again) but he could climb at 100km/h at, I think, 100 meters a minute. His limitation is fuel - he's limited to a 5 minute run in the current configuration.

Well, I stand corrected. I had some more time so I went and looked around some more and I will admit it can do more than I thought.

Being able to climb is what impresses me, with that you are flying. Before that it is just extending a glide. I wonder how he carries fuel? Compressed or just in tanks?

Those banked turns he did are pretty cool, I could see something like this being a big hit at airshows and other stuff like that.

Those engines have a small chip that controls their startup process. First, they spin the turbine up with a DC electric motor (the small pod right on the intake of the turbine). Once the computer senses they are at full electric motor supplied rpms, it injects propane into the combustion area and ignites a spark igniter. The propane usually comes from a tiny cartridge very similar to a CO2 cartridge used in pellet guns. Once the propane cycle has ignited, the DC motor turns off and the engine continues to spin faster and faster. Once the computer senses it has reached enough RPM for the JP4 (somewhat similar to kerosene), it starts feeding in the real jet fuel and shuts off the propane feed. From there it's simply a matter of metering the JP4 for throttle control. It's really quite a spectacle to just see one of these relatively tiny things ignite, chuff and spit fire, then whine up smooth as silk as the exhaust outlet turns cherry red and the noise becomes almost unbearable.

It is also quite a spectacle to see a twin turbine propelled model jet turn into a 200mph Frisbee when a homemade fake air to air missile implement breaks off and takes out the horizontal stabilizer. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Gree,
Where did you learn that phrase? Were you ever in the Air Force? We used that term a lot at my first assignment... we weren't talking about US jets, we would use that phrase to describe some of the older MiG designs. That phrase brought back some good memories.

-Rob V.

When I went through USAF pilot training, the saying was, "If you put enough motor on it, you can make a barn door fly, but they had to put two of them on the F4!" Nicknamed the Lead Sled.

But this guy looks more like Buzz Lightyear...

I wonder why he just doesn't run off the edge of a very high cliff to launch.

Running with that gettup might be a little tricky. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

" I wonder why he just doesn't run off the edge of a very high cliff to launch. " That reminded me of this dude...Loïc Jean-Albert. Who flys about 15 feet off the ground at 100mph in a wing suit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7FAync1ioA

Enjoy.

I am not sure where that phrase came from. I just like using it when it fits!

1000 ft / min


Wouter

<****.

You guys had real trouble beating the Mig 15 (a Sovjet 40's jet design) all the way up to the Sabre jet which was introduced halveway in the Korean conflict. And then you made the same mistake again with respect to the Mig-17's and 21's (both 50's design) in Vietnam. They were the reason the board cannon was brought back from the moth balls. An detail that had been left out in the orginal F4 design. And we can go on with the Mig-25 foxbat, Mig-29 fullcrum, Sukhoi-27 (70's and 80's) with the last two jets being able to do manouvres that even the best US plane F15 eagle can't do.


If the Sovjet planes are inferiour (and they are in some aspects) then it is in the area of aviatronics and fuel efficiency. But most certainly NOT in aerodynamics or even construction.

Believing otherwise despite ample documentation against it is being brainwashed. But for some of us here that is a normal condition

Wouter

Wouter,

For an Air Force person (of any nationality) to rag on the planes of their chief rival is normal. Take a look at the friendly "discussions" the ensue here between the F16 and F18 guys. I'm sure that Russian AF pilots have similar sayings about US planes.

Except that the F-15 is no longer the best US plane. And analysis of the Soviet planes through inspection by Aviation Week and Space technologies (defector planes) showed that indeed the construction techniques were a bit crude, even though nobody could argue the effectiveness of the designs and implementation. Maybe they're built better these days.

Hey Wouter. We won the Cold War. Argument is moot :P

Interesting book: John Boyd- Fighter Pilot. This gives an interesting contrarian overview of an F-86 pilot who was actually in Korea, then flew every jet we had, and went on to do very interesting things. Boyd helped design the F-15 & F-16 for highest possible fighter performance against the wishes of the WWII bomber generals who were running the US Airforce. These generals wanted everything in the USAF to deliver tactical atomic weapons and were not interested in fighter aircraft, resulting in the (Navy-designed) F4 which had no cannon, only poorly performing rockets. And high altitude F-105s doing "Iron bombs to mud" delivery missions at low altitudes against men pushing bicycles. This book includes great stories about US vs USSR fighter aircraft comparisons originated by Boyd in which he DOCUMENTED rather alarming deficiencies, as suggested by Wouter. (One can Google up this story of John Boyd- or visit his official museum display at U.S. Marine Corps. headquarters).

Keith,

as long as we are discussing fighter planes. Which US fighter do you think is a better interceptor and air superiority fighter?

Norway is to buy new fighters soon, to replace or aging F-16s. What we need is an interceptor which is fast and has long legs. It is down to the SAAB JAS, Eurofighter and the Joint strike fighter. Personally, I think the MIG-29 or SU-27 would be better alternatives.

Out of operational US fighter types, the F-22 Raptor.

As far as what would make the best interceptor for Norway - the true answer for that comes down to more than just the outright performance of the plane, and have largely to do with the other requirements for supporting and operating the fleet. Maintenance schedules, spare parts deals, runway and facility requirements, repair capabilities, and export approval all factor in. Or it requires a nice smooth long runway to take off with ordinance and the requirements state less than that (highways, unimproved or damaged airstrips, forward deployment areas). The best peforming airplane isn't always the best choice.

For those reasons I'd say either the JAS, Eurofighter, or JSF (now F-35 Lightning II?) as you mentioned are probably better choices for the role. Which one is chosen will likely be a result of politics and support deals.

Is the F-22 in active duty? How many have been delivered?

The logistics and support are of course what makes an airforce able to fly missions. Not to knock the JSF (F-35?), but I see it more suitable in an air to ground role then as an interceptor. It's too slow to intercept and force currently operational russian planes away from our borders. Especially so for our arctic terretories.

They're trying to get your vodka, aren't they? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Norwegian vodka? Aquavit yes, but vodka? You are not thinking about Absolut, which is from Sweden (SAAB JAS and other cool military equipment like the CV90)

Yup, F-22 is in active service. Not sure how many or where they are deployed. Doubt they will see battle anywhere any time soon unless they are truly needed. Not sure of status of any export allowances.

Which version of the JSF/F-35 is being considered? If the STOVL version is used a more forward deployment could reduce the need for outright speed in an intercept. Also, for any aircraft type, the time to get in the air is crucial unless you have patrols always up. Another consideration though is whether the plane is for intercept only, or multi-role. If multi-role then you have to choose your compromises. Also, tradeoffs in speed versus range may be important, with the internal storage the JSF may have an edge there - speed may actually be comparable with a weapons load, and range may be better.

It was a jab at the Russians ... "they'll do anything for Vodka"

...nevermind...

Which may or may not be better than folks who will do anything for a quarter...

But back to the unhijacked portion of the thread - I want one of these. The commute to work would be so much more fun! Although I might be close to the no-fly zone, in which casae the conversations about intercept fighters would suddenly become important...

[hijack] We have production equipment there and are hopefully selling them a filling machine this year. They have a very nice (government owned) facility [/hijack]

<****.