Can you make a flying 2 liter pop bottle. i've been making some drawings of how i would do it and i think it can be done. give me your thought

It's been done.

If the Guppy can fly then anything is possible. I wonder if a better question is WHY?!?!?!

A little more info would help. Is this supposed to be a powered body only or will you be using wings and tail surfaces. It's hard to say yes or no when the question is so vague.

It would have a wing with alriens and a tail with elv. Why just to do because im bored. Does any one have pics of any flying bottles. Srry about my spelling.[&o]

I can make a rock fly.... just need a more powerful engine



Maybe try coroplast for wings and tail.....

electric or gas??


Can't remember who, but someone here has a plane that uses pop bottles for landing gear!

How about using three quart oil bottles, each as a snow ski?

I made one fly....
Add in several packets of chemical from MRE (meal, ready to eat) heater, add water, reinstall cap, sit back and wait.....
BOOM! (actually totally harmless) The things we do while deployed.... kinda makes you wonder. LOL!

Seriously, if you attach two or three end-to-end and add suitable wings, tail feathers, GWS fans, etc, it might kinda resemble an airliner of some sort....

kool thanks guys

A 2 litre plastic pop bottle would be a convenient starting point for a compressed air powered Gee Bee Flying Milk Bottle.

see, you can make anything fly with a powerful enough engine. look at the f-4 phantom. it's aerodynamic properties aren't much better than my kitchen toaster but with a big enough engine, look at what it can do.

Spaceclam - oh so not true!!!!! You are buying into an Old Wives Tale.

The F-4 is actually quite nice from an aero standpoint. Remember that it could pull g's and turn with the best of the designs at that time, could do very high Mach (~2 or so) and also land on an aircraft carrier at very low speeds.

Oh yeah, it could do carrier operations with missiles and bombs (all except landing where no one in his right mind lands with live stores on the airplane).

You can't do those things without some fairly good aerodynamics.

You can make a one design airplane that flies fast with power only but just try to slow it down for a carrier landing.

Any number of modern designs have better power to weight ratios than the Phantom but we don't lay the same Old Wives Tale on them!

You don't build 5000+ airplanes that don't fly well. Didn't it also fly Wild Weasel missions, where you need speed and manouverability? Didn't the issral air force re-engine the plane. Are they still flying, a design from the 50's?

obviously the toaster was an exaggeration obviously, however technically it was an unstable, relatively heavy design. also, i dont really consider any non-aerobatic plane to be particularly maneuverable.

The F-4 was not technically unstable – rather it was nicely stable in the flight envelope it was designed to fly in - going to very stable in the supersonic part of the flight envelope. There are a few places where it is unstable but they are not in the design flight envelope. The F-4 was designed before the time of good Stability Augmentation Systems. The F-4 does have a Control Augmentation System but that is just to keep the stick forces down when in high speed very stable flight. It does nothing for stability.

The F-4 was not relatively heavy unless compared to a P-51 – it held over 14 time to climb and speed records and was successful in combat situations against airplanes of the time. There were design engineers, stress engineers and weights engineers that worked together to make each part only as heavy as needed to do the job. Because the engines were large and required a certain amount of fuel to do the missions required and since the airplane had to carry certain external stores, the airframe had to be designed to carry and hold those weights. But it was not heavier than needed to do the job. That it was heavier than a P-51 – sure. But the heaviness is not excessive to do the job with the materials and construction methods that were available.

The F-4 is considered an aerobatic plane by a lot of pilots that it shot out of the sky – it will pull over 8 gs in parts of the flight envelope. That will gray out most pilots just as quickly as a little Edge machine will. I have a photo of an inverted Blue Angel with the gear out in a demo - pretty good aerobatics. It rolls and loops. It was designed to be maneuverable within design limits that were predetermined by the armed forces paying the bills. That it can’t do a negative 8 gs or good snap maneuvers doesn’t make it bad - it was simply not designed to do that.

Do yourself a favor; before you shoot a shot across the forum’s bow could I suggest a few things. Try to be accurate - exaggerations don’t serve any purpose. Don’t perpetuate old wives tales.

My wife is now over sixty and resents the constant references to "Old Wives' Tales .
Do not pis er off - she will beat the crap out of you .

i am not trying to argue, but i just personally dont consider it to be aerobatic. while it can pull 8 gs, that is at such a high speed that for instance the radius of a loop would be very high, even at 8 gs. i guess as a 3d pilot i am more prone to consider it to be a heavy non aerobatic plane than someone who has flown them and is comparing them to earlier non aerobatic designs.
By the way, i have flown in f-18 sims and they are extremely heavy. in a 4 g vertical pull, the velocity vector can lag as much as 25 degres below the nose, depepnding on how much fuel you have in your tank.

I think that the "clam" needs a little reality check. No one connected to the real world would deny that an F-4 was aerobatic, or an F-18, or any other front-line fighter in living memory. That is what they do to earn their bread. I've flown fighters & they can literally pull your socks off, & pitch & roll so damned fast that you can barely keep up (& sometimes can't). 8 G's will drag your eyeballs out through your ***** and leave hemorhoids big enough to choke "Jaws". Fighters are indeed aerobatic -- all of them. Applying modeller's terms of reference to them is more than a bit out of place.

Ahh...Another brave man and his proud simulator...

OK guys, I think Clam has taken enough of a beating. Let's get back to the pop bottles OK?

I'll second that (as entertaining as that was! [sm=lol.gif] ) What other ideas for pop bottles? What would be a good method of joining several together end-to-end? Any progress rckid? Come up with anything flyable yet?

i dont agree but i will not argue.

Ok Bruce, I'll be good!

I would think a small brushless, lipoly power popbottle winged machine would be interesting. Think of a lite-stick with popbottles on either side where the present wing is located. Then add two more outside of those and about 1 inch higher (kinda fake polyhedral). There would be enough area to fly and also have some roll control from rudder.

Dick are you the Dick Hansen that wrote the engine review in RCM?? I was very impressed actually, It must be fun working with fine machinery like that.

Actually there is hope your wife will just beat you up and in your confusion you'll accidently send all of your airplanes and motors to me at the following address.............

Not going to work I guess. Oh well.

or you could melt the pop bottle down and re-form it in the shape you desire...

i havent got around to make a power flight pop bottle but i have made a free flight bottle. i bought a huge 54'' fire bird wing and made a slot in the bottle and stuck the wing in there. it worked ok.

Ive built quite a few 'water rockets', which are essentially a 2 liter bottle with fins. Fill partially with water, add 80+/- psi, and release. They are surprisingly powerful and with a little design they can approach 300'. I believe the record is over 1000' which incidentally was not made with a pop bottle but a florescent light tube cover. Any web search will yield results... here's a great site.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...ocketIndex.htm

More on the RC realm, here's a guy that built one as a glider. Power up, glide down.
http://www.charlesriverrc.org/media/...terrocket2.htm