|
Idiot or Not ?
Some "theoratical" people came to me and challenged to build an aircraft measuring a maximum of 2 ft by 4 ft and 1 ft high, capable of carrying a 6 lb payload as well. I say this is a waste of time and money and I am out of the challenge but they say it is a small deal and are trying to organize a contest for it.
What do you think ? Can you make a plane in a dimension of 2 ft by 4 ft ? |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
A flying-wing type can fit those dimensions quite easily
|
RE: Idiot or Not ?
I don't know about the paylod or how well it can fly, but I don't see a reason if is impossible. Would like to see it work though.
-Steve |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
Nah ...... I never said said its Impossible !
I just said its very stupid .... do you agree or not ? I've only seen the X series aircrafts with such ratios and never a sail plane or a normal plane ... |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
With a 6 lb load and a 5 lb plane you are still only 20oz/ft^2 wing loading.
Make it a biplane and cut that in half - now youre talking glider material! |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
ORIGINAL: dieFluggeister With a 6 lb load and a 5 lb plane you are still only 20oz/ft^2 wing loading. Make it a biplane and cut that in half - now youre talking glider material! What engine would you use ? Where do you place the engine and stab ? What do you think is the chord length of the bipe ? What prop would use ? Can you fit both the wings with landing gear in 1ft High box ? |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
ORIGINAL: uby ORIGINAL: dieFluggeister With a 6 lb load and a 5 lb plane you are still only 20oz/ft^2 wing loading. Make it a biplane and cut that in half - now youre talking glider material! What engine would you use ? Where do you place the engine and stab ? What do you think is the chord length of the bipe ? What prop would use ? Can you fit both the wings with landing gear in 1ft High box ? Who said anything about landing gear? A hand or catapult lauch is feasible, as is a dolly. |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
My flying Indy car fits those dimensions and uses an OS 46FX. If you put on more engine it might carry that extra weight.
|
RE: Idiot or Not ?
This is another post from one of those problem areas around the world.
What purpose could this easily transportable plane with that large payload have? |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
ORIGINAL: Tall Paul This is another post from one of those problem areas around the world. What purpose could this easily transportable plane with that large payload have? Ya know, I wondered about that -- you put my thoughts into words. I hope that it isn't so, but ----- [&:] There was another post on RCU a few days ago from someone in Pakistan wanting to know how to modify an Xmtr to work up to 8km. [:o] |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
ORIGINAL: britbrat ORIGINAL: Tall Paul This is another post from one of those problem areas around the world. What purpose could this easily transportable plane with that large payload have? Ya know, I wondered about that -- you put my thoughts into words. I hope that it isn't so, but ----- [&:] There was another post on RCU a few days ago from someone in Pakistan wanting to know how to modify an Xmtr to work up to 8km. [:o] ???? Possible USES: Camera Platform??? Weather Observation??? Home brew Predator??? Poor Man's Cruise Missile??? Obviously, I read far to many Clancy Novels.... |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
Well Landing gear is necessary !
This is just one of the many things about the contest from AIAA (american institute of aeronautics and astronautics) ..... Like for eg. they specify the following settings for fail safe : 0 Throttle Full Up Elev. Full Right Rudder. Full Right or Left Aileron ........ I found this even more Idiotic.... |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
the following settings for fail safe : 0 Throttle Full Up Elev. Full Right Rudder. Full Right or Left Aileron ........ I found this even more Idiotic.... |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
ORIGINAL: HighPlains You are correct, the fail safe should have both the rudder and aileron to the same direction. This would cause the airplane to drop out of the sky without covering much distance. Much safer as long as you fly over an empty space. The best and most common fail safe to use is low throttle (upto 15 %). Slight up elev and slight right rudder .... so that the plane keeps on going around in circles and does not fall with a spin, As most of the time the planes are in level flight position. Secondly ....... I think its Very Idiotic , this is a total waste of time and equipment. Why would anyone build such a thing ? Its not impossible to make but its very stupid to attempt for it. I have seen lots of planes and concept aircrafts but I hardly remember one with such dimensions. Has any serious flyer or aviator gone for such a thing ? I have read the profiles of these champs here (team RCU)..... all of them went for good aircrafts instead of wasting their time. People should try to benefit aviation from their research , not waste their time. |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
If I could be bothered I would build a tandem biplane with canard pitch control and vertical surfaces joining the wings.
I guess it would look like a boxkite. But I can't be bothered. I have a list as long as my arm of scale models I want to finish/start so I wouldn't waste time and money proving a point to the narrow minded who say it can't be done. Canard control would prevent the "fail safe" stalling the model. |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
ORIGINAL: ijlkmnop ORIGINAL: HighPlains You are correct, the fail safe should have both the rudder and aileron to the same direction. This would cause the airplane to drop out of the sky without covering much distance. Much safer as long as you fly over an empty space. The best and most common fail safe to use is low throttle (upto 15 %). Slight up elev and slight right rudder .... so that the plane keeps on going around in circles and does not fall with a spin, As most of the time the planes are in level flight position. Secondly ....... I think its Very Idiotic , this is a total waste of time and equipment. Why would anyone build such a thing ? Its not impossible to make but its very stupid to attempt for it. I have seen lots of planes and concept aircrafts but I hardly remember one with such dimensions. Has any serious flyer or aviator gone for such a thing ? I have read the profiles of these champs here (team RCU)..... all of them went for good aircrafts instead of wasting their time. People should try to benefit aviation from their research , not waste their time. Now that AIAA has been mentioned, there is a legitimate purpose. AIAA and SAE sponsor university level competitions for designing, buildling and flying airplanes to meet the criteria for the contest. The events are quite popular in the technical universities, with competitors from all over the world coming to the US for the finals, and some nations spinning off their own series, as in Brazil. It's as close as a student can get to the real world they'll be graduating into, with the experience of designing, building, explaining the design, and proving it by flying it, instead of the usual academic method of talking the subject to death. The AIAA site .. http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/aiaadbf/ . the SAE site is: http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign/west/ The AIAA Fail-safe rule: o Radio fail-safe check. All aircraft radios must have a fail-safe mode that is automatically selected during loss of transmit signal. The fail-safe will be demonstrated on the ground by switching off the transmit radio. During fail safe the aircraft receiver must select: Throttle closed Full up elevator Full right rudder Full right (or left) aileron Full Flaps down (if so equipped) The radio Fail Safe provisions will be strictly enforced. |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
2x4 -- yeh - easy - 2ft span multi wing - 4 ft long for stability
what's the big deal? would I bother ?-No - just as a swag 0if there is no all up weight or speed or power confines - I would use a one cubic inch IC and stack as many wings as needed at 3-1 aspect ratio and a 2412 airfoil (simple n easy ) basically something that looked like a crude Fokker tripe should be no worse flying than some scale stuf I have seen |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
You know the old saying, "just because your paranoid, doesn't mean their not out to get ya."
I have to agree, this sounds like a way to deliver a crude form of device. |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
Usman,
I am very familiar with the AIAA Cessna/ONR Design, Build, Fly Contest. I am the pilot for Oklahoma State University. We have won 1st and 2nd the past 2 years. We were able to complete the tasks easily by just using pug in wings. One of our teams didn't even have to remove the landing gear. You can see the pictures at this link. http://www.terrabreak.org/hangar/ok-state/ Our planes weighed under 7 pounds with batteries and had no problems flying with the 3 pound payloads on each wing tip. From a pilot stand point it took a little getting used to the roll inertia but was controlable. No planes were lost at the contest because of the wing tip payloads. Check out these pictures if you want to see how big of a plane will fit in the described box with some creativity. http://www.terrabreak.org/hangar/usma/2005.shtml The failsafe setup is purely for the purpose of crashing the plane. They want the plane to crash if you lose the radio. It is just the opinion of the contest officials that this is the safest way to go. We never fly over people so it would only cost and airplane. I had to dump one of our planes a few years ago because it was heading toward the spectators. Safety is the first priority. This is a great contest and everyone involved has a great time. The contest is in its 10th year so they have a pretty good grasp of how to make up the tasks. They change every year to prevent showing up with the same plane every year. Dan |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
Also this years rules require the plane to fit in the same box but you have to fly with payloads of up to 8 lbs. It is really a great contest for engineering students.
Dan |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
For the 4 years my club hosted the SAE event, it was the most fun any of us had with model airplanes.. and we weren't flying in the event, just making it happen!
I'm sure the AIAA event is just as satisfying to the workers. http://www.angelfire.com/indie/aerostuff/sae2000n1.htm |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
Paul,
I have the best job because I don't have to design, build, rebuild, rebuild, rebuild, repair, or write a report. I get to fly the planes and get a free trip to boot. I liken it to a chess match with demolition derby thrown in. Dan |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
ORIGINAL: why_fly_high Paul, I have the best job because I don't have to design, build, rebuild, rebuild, rebuild, repair, or write a report. I get to fly the planes and get a free trip to boot. I liken it to a chess match with demolition derby thrown in. Dan Oh yeah! :) The teams that come to the event thinking "how hard could it be?".. zero flight experience.. And then do the most amusing crunches! I've seen a couple planes collapse taking off! |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
Some "theoratical" people came to me and challenged to build an aircraft measuring a maximum of 2 ft by 4 ft and 1 ft high, capable of carrying a 6 lb payload as well. I say this is a waste of time and money and I am out of the challenge but they say it is a small deal and are trying to organize a contest for it. This year's contest is the fourth year requiring that all contest aircraft fit inside a 4' x 2' x 1' box. The aircraft can certainly be larger than those dimensions -- it simply must disassemble to fit in the box. Each year the competition specifies new rules and missions. The mission you are asking about -- carrying two 3 lb payloads at the wingtips, was one of the missions from last year. [link=http://www.terrabreak.org/hangar/ok-state/images/ok-state.2005_1.photo2.med.jpg]There[/link] [link=http://www.terrabreak.org/hangar/wsu/images/wsu.2005.photo3.med.jpg]were[/link] [link=http://www.terrabreak.org/hangar/ucsd/images/ucsd.2005.photo3.med.jpg]several[/link] [link=http://www.terrabreak.org/hangar/usu/images/usu.2005.photo5.med.jpg]teams[/link] [link=http://www.terrabreak.org/hangar/usc/images/usc.2005.photo5.med.jpg]competing[/link] which had no problems creating an aircraft to these specifications. I just said its very stupid .... do you agree or not ? Oops, you meant is the contest stupid. No, it's not. The DBF competition is a valuable experience for all teams involved. It is a great way for engineering students to take a design process from start to finish. What engine would you use ? Where do you place the engine and stab ? What do you think is the chord length of the bipe ? What prop would use ? Can you fit both the wings with landing gear in 1ft High box ? Place the engine or engines wherever you determine is the best place for your design. . .at the nose, pusher at the rear, dual engines on the wings, whatever floats your boat! What prop? Depends on what kind of ground clearance you have, how quickly different props will drain your batteries, if you need something to cut through strong winds, or something low power. . .there is no one answer! These are the kinds of questions that are supposed to be analyzed by the students participating in the competition. Yes, you can fit the wings and landing gear in a 1 ft high box. You may design for retractable gear, or short gear, or gear that attaches once removed from the box. . . Regarding the wings, most teams design wings which detach from the fuselage, however last year [link=http://www.terrabreak.org/hangar/ms-state/images/ms-state.2005.photo1.med.jpg]MS State[/link] designed a tri-plane with three 4' wings. These sorts of questions you're asking are not insurmountable obstacles -- they are simply problems that require intelligent engineering to achieve a workable solution. That's what the contest is all about, and that's what most engineering is all about. |
RE: Idiot or Not ?
ORIGINAL: Tall Paul Now that AIAA has been mentioned, there is a legitimate purpose. AIAA and SAE sponsor university level competitions for designing, buildling and flying airplanes to meet the criteria for the contest. The events are quite popular in the technical universities, with competitors from all over the world coming to the US for the finals, and some nations spinning off their own series, as in Brazil. It's as close as a student can get to the real world they'll be graduating into, with the experience of designing, building, explaining the design, and proving it by flying it, instead of the usual academic method of talking the subject to death. The AIAA site .. http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/aiaadbf/ . the SAE site is: http://students.sae.org/competitions/aerodesign/west/ The AIAA Fail-safe rule: o Radio fail-safe check. All aircraft radios must have a fail-safe mode that is automatically selected during loss of transmit signal. The fail-safe will be demonstrated on the ground by switching off the transmit radio. During fail safe the aircraft receiver must select: Throttle closed Full up elevator Full right rudder Full right (or left) aileron Full Flaps down (if so equipped) The radio Fail Safe provisions will be strictly enforced. LOL ....... This is indeed funny and Idiotic ! I thought fail safe was made to save planes .... the new use has come just into my knowledge. In my 25 years of aviation experience, I have not seen anything measuring 1' by 2' by 4'. Whatever the AIAA might be, it looks like they need some serious professional help. I read the rules and guidelines, and would like to give adivce to the AIAA on about 14 things that should be corrected. Look , I am not against the AIAA or the contest but I would like to ask , If you ask Chip to go for a plane measuring 1' by 2' by 4' will he go for it ? Never. Because he is a serious aviator nad has no time for this nor does nay serious avitator has. I would like to say that I encourage all contests but we should be utilizing our energy, time and money for a positive and practical outcome. If you see the NASA contest , its about making an aircraft that can carry people to space, making a space liner like an air liner, now thats something to go for. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:55 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.