ORIGINAL: U pwned who

jester, i hate to be rude, but, can you not read? what does AEROSPACE engineer mean to you, who the h*** do you think designs airplanes? monkeys? and by decent i mean i could takeoff, NOT crash, and do a soft enough landing to keep it in one peice, until one day, the wind caught it,(i was like 8 i wasnt thinking about the wind) and it flew into a tree too high to retrieve it.

bigmig: when i mean dont want to fix it but i would like to know if you could add more control surfaces, i was going to redesign it, into a much more effective design, i do all kinds of engineering/design things like this, did i think it would make it easier to fly? probably not, i jjust wanted to say ive done it, then get someone who's experienced nearbye to try it out. if it didnt work, well at least i tried. by repairing it, its still the same not user-friendly design. and the rudder only interceptor, its not rudder only, i was just giving examples of the things the person would add. it acheives thrust vectoring through movable plates on the back of the engine that direct thrust instead of a moving thrust nozzle. it would make more sense if you gave the design a look, here is a pretty good picture showing the craft, [img][/img]

scar: id have to give the thing another look to know more about what your talking about but thanks for the suggestion.

rgburrill: thanks, ill give that a look.

and guys, you can stop like telling me the original idea of building the interceptor was an unrealistic idea. building it for me, would be perfectly realistic and relatively a simple project, now flying the beast would be unrealistic, i wouldnt have tried to either cause of how much work i would have put into it. i would have someone with experience behind the remote.
<br type=''_moz'' />