Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

Found this contraption on ebay, and can hardly believe the story is true. What would be the advantage, or thinking behind using glow engines to lower flaps on the space shuttle. Evidently it is supercharged, which would probably be needed at the high altitudes. I wonder if any of this actually carried over onto the actual shuttle. Seems like a failure ready to happen. [X(]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/EXTREMELY-RA...item5898c32c80

Can you think of any other weird uses of model engines?


Rod S

MJD

My Feedback: (1)

A fine example of overcomplexity and gross expenditure to solve a problem that could be dealt with by other means!

I tried to find the car engine powered cordless screwdriver from Tool Time on the 'net with no luck. (I think it was a driver.. been a while).

controlliner

I call BS. anyone can put NASA stickers on a "machinist project". Why would NASA release such an item? they would have destroyed it rather than let someone have it that easy. It has a walbro carb which probably will not work well with glow fuel. It doesn't have a starting system. how would you turn it over? It would be like trying to push start a car in first gear with the clutch engaged. The RGB would be geared down quite a bit.

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

well it sold for 4495.00

TFF

Weird uses? Some WW2 emergency raft ditching equipment had a kite to fly an emergency radio antenna high up so the signal could be heard farther away. For calm days they had a provision, use an ignition model engine mounted to the kite to "blow" it up in the air. Not very successful.

SeamusG

Not really - apparently, several potential buyers offered 4495 but both were declined. Em, think that the "offers" were from friends of the seller to bait the trap?

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

one reason I dont do ZEbay anymore...to many scams

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

I don't know if it's an actual NASA item or not, but it seems well machined. Why in the world use glow engines? Too unreliable, especially vibrating at Mach one or two. A couple good outrunners and lipos would do the job.

earlwb

NASA probably did have that engine built to fly a drone at high altitudes for some project they had going on. The supercharger is the key to it as you would need a supercharger to help feed the engine air at higher altitudes.  The supercharger is also difficult to machine as it has to be very tight on the tolerances and rotors inside too.  Using glow plugs is not a problem as they can simply use a onboard glow ignitor system to ensure the glow plugs stay heated up as needed.  Glow plugs wouldn't have the RFI noise emitted off of them like spark plugs and ignition systems would have and thus they would have a more clean radio signal for sending commands and having the drone return data too.
The trick is that NASA wouldn't just build one engine for a project, but they would have several made. So there ought to me more of them out there too.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

I saw a Jett 030 where only 4 were made for a research project.

bogbeagle

Lipos ... if available back then... could they handle the low pressure and temperature?

Anyway, that lump looks genuine, to me.





Isn't Nitromethane a sort of "chemical oxygen" ? (is that tautologous?)

That could be handy for an engine in a low-pressure environment.

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

A drone would make more sense than something to do with flaps. But, 20cc to fly a drone? With $20 "toy" engines (1970's)? For the effort they put into this, they could have machined their own engine. I agree running on glow could have some advantages with receiving a clearer signal from a drone, and four engines may keep vibration down. They did have small chainsaw type engines back then which would be easier to modify, and could be run on glow.

ARUP

I can see it now... after the shuttle lands a fella comes out with a bottle of spray cleaner and paper towels (the $50,000 dollar ones) then cleans the castor oil 'goo' off! lol
This reminds me of the story of the high dollar ink pens developed to function in zero gravity. The Russians used pencils... Don't get me wrong for I'm really 'into' this kind of stuff but sometimes you wonder what those nerds are thinking!

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

thats why they are called nerds....always thinking about something

Kmot

My Feedback: (24)

I have followed this seller on eBay for years. He has had some of the most amazing collectible engines for sale. I am always stunned by his collection he has sold off over the years. If it's from ToysTopHobby I totally believe it.

Sport_Pilot

IMO its the supercharger that tells me it is a scam. Just doesn't work with a two stroke engine.

Sport_Pilot

Pencils writing can be erased and smeared. NASA wanted to review all notes and writing and did not want them to erase it!

Justaddwata

My Feedback: (3)

Chances of this being incorporated into the shuttle as a backup system are somewhere between zero and none. Can only imagine it an april fools joke (maybe at NASA since the listing on e-bay is not April).

Does not take an rocket scientist to see this is about as useless an option as any for any system on any space vehicle. Any other flight control system you know of in space (or aviation) using an internal combustion motor over say, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, or cable?

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

There's definately a supercharger on that thing, and I have seen superchargers sold for 2-stroke model engines. In this case it would be needed to bring pressure up to normal ground levels. And there is too much expensive engineering in it to be a scam.

Johnny_Zero

My Feedback: (44)

Don't really care if it is fake. It is too cool not to like it.

1QwkSport2.5r

Just because they sell superchargers for 2-stroke model engines (Namely the RB Innovations unit for RC Cars) doesn't mean they actually work. It might work on a 4-stroke, but probably not likely to work on a 2-stroke this small.

The NASA engine does look cool, but I too doubt it was really made to be used on any space vehicle or anything beyond a model airplane.

jrlingrel

With the budget that NASA has, Ican't see them using something as unreliable as a glow engine on a multi million dollar space shuttle, And, Idon't think the shuttle had flaps, only elevons and a split rudder that also acted as a speed brake when it split. Correct me if Iam wrong.

John

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

Engine did not sell according to Ebay records.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

Fancy scientists! We wrote aircraft logbook entries in pencil in the Army. Then again, I always was suspicious of that.

Did the shuttle have flaps?

earlwb

NASA has built hundreds if not thousands of radio controlled model aircraft over the years. It is much cheaper to flight test a model than a real plane with a pilot inside. NASA also crashed a lot of radio controlled planes too.