Greatest Model ever

This is a great tragedy. They were not satisfied with flying it but
flew it again and crashed it with only ashes remaining.

http://www.rcsoaring.com/media/B52-Full-Flight.wmv

Jobst Brandt

In article ,
wrote:

This is a great tragedy. They were not satisfied with flying it but
flew it again and crashed it with only ashes remaining.

http://www.rcsoaring.com/media/B52-Full-Flight.wmv

That's a pretty astounding model. I think I found video of one of the
two crashes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxp4qYC9ZtU

First crash? I gather high winds were the likely culprit.

Also, Popular Science did an article on Mike Selby, another guy who
dabbles in high-end RC models:

http://www.popsci.com/taxonomy/term/42929/all

I don't think I'd call it a "great tragedy," though. At the end of the
day, it was the loss of a very cool toy. There will be others.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Sep 1, 1:54*am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:


I don't think I'd call it a "great tragedy," though. At the end of the
day, it was the loss of a very cool toy. There will be others.


that's putting it into a correct perspective.

On Sep 1, 12:54*am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
This is a great tragedy. *They were not satisfied with flying it but
flew it again and crashed it with only ashes remaining.

http://www.rcsoaring.com/media/B52-Full-Flight.wmv

That's a pretty astounding model. I think I found video of one of the
two crashes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxp4qYC9ZtU

First crash? I gather high winds were the likely culprit.

Also, Popular Science did an article on Mike Selby, another guy who
dabbles in high-end RC models:

http://www.popsci.com/taxonomy/term/42929/all

I don't think I'd call it a "great tragedy," though. At the end of the
day, it was the loss of a very cool toy. There will be others.

--
Ryan Cousineau /
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Thought I saw a tiny little toy missile. Maybe Vietnamese or Iraqi. Do
these come with toy napalm?

In article
,
" wrote:

On Sep 1, 12:54*am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
This is a great tragedy. *They were not satisfied with flying it but
flew it again and crashed it with only ashes remaining.

http://www.rcsoaring.com/media/B52-Full-Flight.wmv

That's a pretty astounding model. I think I found video of one of the
two crashes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxp4qYC9ZtU

First crash? I gather high winds were the likely culprit.

Also, Popular Science did an article on Mike Selby, another guy who
dabbles in high-end RC models:

http://www.popsci.com/taxonomy/term/42929/all

I don't think I'd call it a "great tragedy," though. At the end of the
day, it was the loss of a very cool toy. There will be others.

Thought I saw a tiny little toy missile. Maybe Vietnamese or Iraqi. Do
these come with toy napalm?

"B-52 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!"

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

wrote in message ...
| This is a great tragedy. They were not satisfied with flying it but
| flew it again and crashed it with only ashes remaining.
|
| http://www.rcsoaring.com/media/B52-Full-Flight.wmv
|
| Jobst Brandt

Two things I noticed watching that video for the umpteenth-time.

#1: Am I correct that the landing gear never retracted? Not a big deal, and would probably have added weight and complexity.

#2: How in the world do you fly that thing? Or, more precisely, land it? It's got to take a very different kind of thinking to put yourself in the cockpit of that plane, not being able to get an actual perspective from the pilot's seat. My guess is that most professional remote aircraft are flown with instrumentation that puts you "there" (in the pilot's seat). I've always admired the ability of R/C folk to do that, but with this particular plane, and it's relatively high speeds, even more so.

#3: For the many thousands of man-hours put into that craft, it seems like they could have done a better job with the video. I'm sure you could have tapped into a local college for some real camera talent; who wouldn't have wanted to be part of something like that?

#4: What's this got to do with rec.bicycles.tech? I was expecting a mis-placed podium-girl link, given the title. But I wasn't disappointed. Not at all. :)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

This is a great tragedy. They were not satisfied with flying it but
flew it again and crashed it with only ashes remaining.

http://www.rcsoaring.com/media/B52-Full-Flight.wmv


Two things I noticed watching that video for the umpteenth-time.

1: Am I correct that the landing gear never retracted? Not a big
deal, and would probably have added weight and complexity.

I don't think that is correct and if you saw the video of the crash
one might deduce it was caused by the same failure that crashed the
real plane, with crew, when a pilot violated rules and made a steeply
banked turn at an air show. This overloads the wings that bend upward
in a large curve so much so that the huge control surfaces can no
longer be steered, being bound up. In the video you can see the plane
in a steep turn and that it continues in that path into the ground.

http://www.rcsoaring.com/media/B52-Crash.wmv
http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/CRM-D...e/darkblue.htm

2: How in the world do you fly that thing? Or, more precisely, land
it? It's got to take a very different kind of thinking to put
yourself in the cockpit of that plane, not being able to get an
actual perspective from the pilot's seat. My guess is that most
professional remote aircraft are flown with instrumentation that
puts you "there" (in the pilot's seat). I've always admired the
ability of R/C folk to do that, but with this particular plane,
and it's relatively high speeds, even more so.

I find it a fantastic effort to build as well as fly it. You'd know
that you don't need "seat of the pants" in the pilot's place to fly
models if you have watched radio controlled model fliers.

3: For the many thousands of man-hours put into that craft, it seems
like they could have done a better job with the video. I'm sure
you could have tapped into a local college for some real camera
talent; who wouldn't have wanted to be part of something like
that?

I assume they didn't believe that this was its LAST flight and
casually made the video thinking of the many hours they anticipated
flying it.

4: What's this got to do with rec.bicycles.tech? I was expecting a
mis-placed podium-girl link, given the title. But I wasn't
disappointed. Not at all. :)

There isn't anything else happening on wreck.bike at the moment other
than a spate of ad hominems. I thought this might ad some reality.

Jobst Brandt

In article ,
wrote:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

[B-52 model crashed]

http://www.rcsoaring.com/media/B52-Full-Flight.wmv

1: Am I correct that the landing gear never retracted? Not a big
deal, and would probably have added weight and complexity.

I don't think that is correct and if you saw the video of the crash
one might deduce it was caused by the same failure that crashed the
real plane, with crew, when a pilot violated rules and made a steeply
banked turn at an air show. This overloads the wings that bend upward
in a large curve so much so that the huge control surfaces can no
longer be steered, being bound up. In the video you can see the plane
in a steep turn and that it continues in that path into the ground.

http://www.rcsoaring.com/media/B52-Crash.wmv
http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/CRM-D...e/darkblue.htm

There isn't anything else happening on wreck.bike at the moment other
than a spate of ad hominems. I thought this might ad some reality.

I don't know what's worse: that you think posting about a model B-52
that crashed might add "reality" to this group, or that I agree with you.

BTW, the real B-52 crash you are referring to is extensively covered at
Wikipedia, and is worth reading not only for a fascinating postmortem (I
know, I'm a bit ghoulish) but for the not-just-for-aviators lessons
gleaned from the crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fa...ase_B-52_crash

This article, in particular, looked at the gross failures of leadership
and management that made the circumstances of the crash possible:

http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/p...e/darkblue.htm

Super-short version: the pilot in command (Lt. Col. Bud Holland) was
widely regarded as an aviator of great skill and terrible judgment, and
despite several gross violations of flying protocol (exceeding flight
envelope rules like bank angles, and flying below minimum altitudes), he
was not properly disciplined.

Jobst is right: it appears that this RC model crash was eerily similar
to the crash of Czar 52.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

wrote:
This is a great tragedy. They were not satisfied with flying it but
flew it again and crashed it with only ashes remaining.

http://www.rcsoaring.com/media/B52-Full-Flight.wmv

Jobst Brandt

Awesome model! Pity it got pranged, but someone, somewhere, is
thinking, you know that Antonov 225, I'm sure we could make it fly you know.

wrote:
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

This is a great tragedy. They were not satisfied with flying it but
flew it again and crashed it with only ashes remaining.

http://www.rcsoaring.com/media/B52-Full-Flight.wmv


Two things I noticed watching that video for the umpteenth-time.

1: Am I correct that the landing gear never retracted? Not a big
deal, and would probably have added weight and complexity.

I don't think that is correct and if you saw the video of the crash
one might deduce it was caused by the same failure that crashed the
real plane, with crew, when a pilot violated rules and made a steeply
banked turn at an air show. This overloads the wings that bend upward
in a large curve so much so that the huge control surfaces can no
longer be steered, being bound up. In the video you can see the plane
in a steep turn and that it continues in that path into the ground.

Looking at the crash video I believe that the pilot misjudged his
airspeed after turning downwind, and pulled too hard trying to turn and
stay within range. In so doing he stalled/spun the aircraft, a
condition exacerbated by the swept wing planform of the B-52 and its
very high aspect ratio. A swept wing wants to stall the wingtips first,
causing rolling moments that lead to a spin; long wings generate large
speed differentials during turns which tend to make the airplane roll
into the turn, requiring opposite aileron to counter. The opposite
aileron generates more lift on the inboard wing, but also makes it stall
sooner and drop rather than lift that wing.

Before anyone starts the 'downwind turn' argument let me point out that
while an aircraft does not care about wind speed and direction
(neglecting gusts) as far as aerodynamics goes, wind speed and direction
are of critical importance when flying with reference to the ground.

RC flying is done by a pilot on the ground and so the pilot must take
into account the wind at all times.

The crash video shows the windsock briefly; it is standing nearly
straight out, which indicates 12 or so knots. This is corroborated by
the blowing tarp seen in the foreground and by the short takeoff roll of
the airplane when compared to the test flight video. After takeoff the
pilot turns downwind and is moving at a good speed over the ground, but
perhaps not at such a good speed in the air. To keep the airplane in
sight and at a 'comfortable' apparent speed the pilot may have slowed
down too much. In so doing it would be necessary to pull back on the
stick and increase the angle of attack.

The next turn, from downwind to upwind, would require a steep bank to
keep the airplane from drifting with the wind. Any increase in bank
angle requires an increase in angle of attack to maintain altitude and
the pilot had already used that up. He may have also tried to help the
turn with rudder, (to increase turn rate without banking) which can also
precipitate stalling one wing and leading to a spin. You can see the
plane roll left into the turn and the left wing drop abruptly,
indicating that the wing tip had stalled.

The test flight video shows bank angles at least as great as the crash,
so I doubt wing flex contributed. I was impressed that they did seem to
allow for some wing flex.


http://www.rcsoaring.com/media/B52-Crash.wmv
http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/CRM-D...e/darkblue.htm

2: How in the world do you fly that thing? Or, more precisely, land
it? It's got to take a very different kind of thinking to put
yourself in the cockpit of that plane, not being able to get an
actual perspective from the pilot's seat. My guess is that most
professional remote aircraft are flown with instrumentation that
puts you "there" (in the pilot's seat). I've always admired the
ability of R/C folk to do that, but with this particular plane,
and it's relatively high speeds, even more so.

I find it a fantastic effort to build as well as fly it. You'd know
that you don't need "seat of the pants" in the pilot's place to fly
models if you have watched radio controlled model fliers.


You don't need 'seat of the pants'; you need 'feel of the thumb.' Angle
of attack is controlled almost solely by elevator stick position. Pull
back far enough and the plane will stall, in any attitude and any
airspeed. In level flight at a given power setting stick position
determines airspeed. Feel of the thumb matters. (We'll leave models
with greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratios out of this.)

All that said, it becomes second nature to fly a model surprisingly quickly.


4: What's this got to do with rec.bicycles.tech? I was expecting a
mis-placed podium-girl link, given the title. But I wasn't
disappointed. Not at all. :)

There isn't anything else happening on wreck.bike at the moment other
than a spate of ad hominems. I thought this might ad some reality.

Jobst Brandt


The B-52 is one of the few aircraft in the world with bicycle landing
gear. =)

For those unfamiliar, the B-52 has two sets of main landing gear, one
fore and one aft, rather than the more conventional nosewheel and two
sets under the wings seen on airliners. Two small 'pogo' wheels at the
wingtips keep it from tipping on one wing. (I noticed in the flight
test that one of them was missing after it landed.) Even more
interesting, the B-52 can turn both sets of main gear so that it can
take off and land with the wheels running down the centerline of the
runway, and the fuselage cocked into the wind so as not to drag a wing
in a crosswind.

The real B-52 is also slated to remain in service until 2040, an 85 year
operational history. One could say, that much like the bicycle, they
got the B-52 pretty much right.

-Lawrence