Quite an impressive model SR71
Discussion
Been following this guy's model making for a while now: very, very impressive:
http://www.mmrca.org/lance/sledframe.html
If you go to 'current' (on the left), he seems to have been able to go out and randomly buy a manual lathe/mill - with all the toys - and immediately turn out almost CNC quality parts. How annoying!
Cheers,
http://www.mmrca.org/lance/sledframe.html
If you go to 'current' (on the left), he seems to have been able to go out and randomly buy a manual lathe/mill - with all the toys - and immediately turn out almost CNC quality parts. How annoying!
Cheers,
As impressive as those big models are, and I applaud the guys who go the lengths required to build them, I can't help but feel they're a bit of an anti-climax to fly. I've seen a number of videos now of these big models in the air, and all they seem to do is a few big circuits with maybe a couple of low(ish) flypasts.
Given how much they most cost to build, I can understand that the owners may tend to be a bit cautious when flying them, but does that remove some of the fun element? I remember flying my cheap (by comparison) Acro-Wot, and would throw it around the sky with almost reckless abandon - loops, stalls, 4 point rolls, cuban 8s, low inverted passes (a few inches off the deck low), and used to thoroughly enjoy my flying.
I can't help but feel that I would rapidly get bored with the sort of flying these big machines seem to be limited to.
Given how much they most cost to build, I can understand that the owners may tend to be a bit cautious when flying them, but does that remove some of the fun element? I remember flying my cheap (by comparison) Acro-Wot, and would throw it around the sky with almost reckless abandon - loops, stalls, 4 point rolls, cuban 8s, low inverted passes (a few inches off the deck low), and used to thoroughly enjoy my flying.
I can't help but feel that I would rapidly get bored with the sort of flying these big machines seem to be limited to.
DIW35 said:
As impressive as those big models are, and I applaud the guys who go the lengths required to build them, I can't help but feel they're a bit of an anti-climax to fly. I've seen a number of videos now of these big models in the air, and all they seem to do is a few big circuits with maybe a couple of low(ish) flypasts.
Given how much they most cost to build, I can understand that the owners may tend to be a bit cautious when flying them, but does that remove some of the fun element? I remember flying my cheap (by comparison) Acro-Wot, and would throw it around the sky with almost reckless abandon - loops, stalls, 4 point rolls, cuban 8s, low inverted passes (a few inches off the deck low), and used to thoroughly enjoy my flying.
I can't help but feel that I would rapidly get bored with the sort of flying these big machines seem to be limited to.
I agree completely. The bigger and more expensive the model, the less fun it seems to be. I've got a battered old £60 Ultrafly Extra 300S that has had more repairs than any other model I own, yet it's great to fly. I've also got a beautiful glass fibre Slingsby Kestrel scale glider which is an absolute dog to fly, and is so big and unwieldy that landing damage is almost inevitable! The other thing is that no matter how accurate a model is, because of wing loadings etc, they always seem to fly too fast and be too twitchy. There was a large scale model B-29 around that dropped a rocket powered X-1, but the whole thing looked ridiculous. It's on Youtube somewhere.Given how much they most cost to build, I can understand that the owners may tend to be a bit cautious when flying them, but does that remove some of the fun element? I remember flying my cheap (by comparison) Acro-Wot, and would throw it around the sky with almost reckless abandon - loops, stalls, 4 point rolls, cuban 8s, low inverted passes (a few inches off the deck low), and used to thoroughly enjoy my flying.
I can't help but feel that I would rapidly get bored with the sort of flying these big machines seem to be limited to.
Cheers,
dr_gn said:
DIW35 said:
As impressive as those big models are, and I applaud the guys who go the lengths required to build them, I can't help but feel they're a bit of an anti-climax to fly. I've seen a number of videos now of these big models in the air, and all they seem to do is a few big circuits with maybe a couple of low(ish) flypasts.
Given how much they most cost to build, I can understand that the owners may tend to be a bit cautious when flying them, but does that remove some of the fun element? I remember flying my cheap (by comparison) Acro-Wot, and would throw it around the sky with almost reckless abandon - loops, stalls, 4 point rolls, cuban 8s, low inverted passes (a few inches off the deck low), and used to thoroughly enjoy my flying.
I can't help but feel that I would rapidly get bored with the sort of flying these big machines seem to be limited to.
I agree completely. The bigger and more expensive the model, the less fun it seems to be. I've got a battered old £60 Ultrafly Extra 300S that has had more repairs than any other model I own, yet it's great to fly. I've also got a beautiful glass fibre Slingsby Kestrel scale glider which is an absolute dog to fly, and is so big and unwieldy that landing damage is almost inevitable! The other thing is that no matter how accurate a model is, because of wing loadings etc, they always seem to fly too fast and be too twitchy. There was a large scale model B-29 around that dropped a rocket powered X-1, but the whole thing looked ridiculous. It's on Youtube somewhere.Given how much they most cost to build, I can understand that the owners may tend to be a bit cautious when flying them, but does that remove some of the fun element? I remember flying my cheap (by comparison) Acro-Wot, and would throw it around the sky with almost reckless abandon - loops, stalls, 4 point rolls, cuban 8s, low inverted passes (a few inches off the deck low), and used to thoroughly enjoy my flying.
I can't help but feel that I would rapidly get bored with the sort of flying these big machines seem to be limited to.
Cheers,
I did once own a 7ft scale Yak with a supercharged 120 up the front. Great fun, but as has been said actually limited in the ability to 'chuck it about'. I got rid of it a couple of months after buying it!
Bernie-the-bolt said:
dr_gn said:
DIW35 said:
As impressive as those big models are, and I applaud the guys who go the lengths required to build them, I can't help but feel they're a bit of an anti-climax to fly. I've seen a number of videos now of these big models in the air, and all they seem to do is a few big circuits with maybe a couple of low(ish) flypasts.
Given how much they most cost to build, I can understand that the owners may tend to be a bit cautious when flying them, but does that remove some of the fun element? I remember flying my cheap (by comparison) Acro-Wot, and would throw it around the sky with almost reckless abandon - loops, stalls, 4 point rolls, cuban 8s, low inverted passes (a few inches off the deck low), and used to thoroughly enjoy my flying.
I can't help but feel that I would rapidly get bored with the sort of flying these big machines seem to be limited to.
I agree completely. The bigger and more expensive the model, the less fun it seems to be. I've got a battered old £60 Ultrafly Extra 300S that has had more repairs than any other model I own, yet it's great to fly. I've also got a beautiful glass fibre Slingsby Kestrel scale glider which is an absolute dog to fly, and is so big and unwieldy that landing damage is almost inevitable! The other thing is that no matter how accurate a model is, because of wing loadings etc, they always seem to fly too fast and be too twitchy. There was a large scale model B-29 around that dropped a rocket powered X-1, but the whole thing looked ridiculous. It's on Youtube somewhere.Given how much they most cost to build, I can understand that the owners may tend to be a bit cautious when flying them, but does that remove some of the fun element? I remember flying my cheap (by comparison) Acro-Wot, and would throw it around the sky with almost reckless abandon - loops, stalls, 4 point rolls, cuban 8s, low inverted passes (a few inches off the deck low), and used to thoroughly enjoy my flying.
I can't help but feel that I would rapidly get bored with the sort of flying these big machines seem to be limited to.
Cheers,
I did once own a 7ft scale Yak with a supercharged 120 up the front. Great fun, but as has been said actually limited in the ability to 'chuck it about'. I got rid of it a couple of months after buying it!
dr_gn said:
Bernie-the-bolt said:
dr_gn said:
DIW35 said:
As impressive as those big models are, and I applaud the guys who go the lengths required to build them, I can't help but feel they're a bit of an anti-climax to fly. I've seen a number of videos now of these big models in the air, and all they seem to do is a few big circuits with maybe a couple of low(ish) flypasts.
Given how much they most cost to build, I can understand that the owners may tend to be a bit cautious when flying them, but does that remove some of the fun element? I remember flying my cheap (by comparison) Acro-Wot, and would throw it around the sky with almost reckless abandon - loops, stalls, 4 point rolls, cuban 8s, low inverted passes (a few inches off the deck low), and used to thoroughly enjoy my flying.
I can't help but feel that I would rapidly get bored with the sort of flying these big machines seem to be limited to.
I agree completely. The bigger and more expensive the model, the less fun it seems to be. I've got a battered old £60 Ultrafly Extra 300S that has had more repairs than any other model I own, yet it's great to fly. I've also got a beautiful glass fibre Slingsby Kestrel scale glider which is an absolute dog to fly, and is so big and unwieldy that landing damage is almost inevitable! The other thing is that no matter how accurate a model is, because of wing loadings etc, they always seem to fly too fast and be too twitchy. There was a large scale model B-29 around that dropped a rocket powered X-1, but the whole thing looked ridiculous. It's on Youtube somewhere.Given how much they most cost to build, I can understand that the owners may tend to be a bit cautious when flying them, but does that remove some of the fun element? I remember flying my cheap (by comparison) Acro-Wot, and would throw it around the sky with almost reckless abandon - loops, stalls, 4 point rolls, cuban 8s, low inverted passes (a few inches off the deck low), and used to thoroughly enjoy my flying.
I can't help but feel that I would rapidly get bored with the sort of flying these big machines seem to be limited to.
Cheers,
I did once own a 7ft scale Yak with a supercharged 120 up the front. Great fun, but as has been said actually limited in the ability to 'chuck it about'. I got rid of it a couple of months after buying it!
I also had a wots wot which was a pre-production model, this was illustrated by the fact that the top wing lifted in flight and sat back down at a jaunty angle. It spun in - however my foss was kind enough to thank me for test flying his protitypes by sending me new wings and a revised fixing method for the top wing. That one had an irvine 60 and a pipe- it was great!.
The one model which i love but rearley fly is a goldberg ultimate with a saito 180 in the front of it. Its loony, and requires a full structural check after every session so rarley gets used.
hman said:
dr_gn said:
Bernie-the-bolt said:
dr_gn said:
DIW35 said:
As impressive as those big models are, and I applaud the guys who go the lengths required to build them, I can't help but feel they're a bit of an anti-climax to fly. I've seen a number of videos now of these big models in the air, and all they seem to do is a few big circuits with maybe a couple of low(ish) flypasts.
Given how much they most cost to build, I can understand that the owners may tend to be a bit cautious when flying them, but does that remove some of the fun element? I remember flying my cheap (by comparison) Acro-Wot, and would throw it around the sky with almost reckless abandon - loops, stalls, 4 point rolls, cuban 8s, low inverted passes (a few inches off the deck low), and used to thoroughly enjoy my flying.
I can't help but feel that I would rapidly get bored with the sort of flying these big machines seem to be limited to.
I agree completely. The bigger and more expensive the model, the less fun it seems to be. I've got a battered old £60 Ultrafly Extra 300S that has had more repairs than any other model I own, yet it's great to fly. I've also got a beautiful glass fibre Slingsby Kestrel scale glider which is an absolute dog to fly, and is so big and unwieldy that landing damage is almost inevitable! The other thing is that no matter how accurate a model is, because of wing loadings etc, they always seem to fly too fast and be too twitchy. There was a large scale model B-29 around that dropped a rocket powered X-1, but the whole thing looked ridiculous. It's on Youtube somewhere.Given how much they most cost to build, I can understand that the owners may tend to be a bit cautious when flying them, but does that remove some of the fun element? I remember flying my cheap (by comparison) Acro-Wot, and would throw it around the sky with almost reckless abandon - loops, stalls, 4 point rolls, cuban 8s, low inverted passes (a few inches off the deck low), and used to thoroughly enjoy my flying.
I can't help but feel that I would rapidly get bored with the sort of flying these big machines seem to be limited to.
Cheers,
I did once own a 7ft scale Yak with a supercharged 120 up the front. Great fun, but as has been said actually limited in the ability to 'chuck it about'. I got rid of it a couple of months after buying it!
I also had a wots wot which was a pre-production model, this was illustrated by the fact that the top wing lifted in flight and sat back down at a jaunty angle. It spun in - however my foss was kind enough to thank me for test flying his protitypes by sending me new wings and a revised fixing method for the top wing. That one had an irvine 60 and a pipe- it was great!.
The one model which i love but rearley fly is a goldberg ultimate with a saito 180 in the front of it. Its loony, and requires a full structural check after every session so rarley gets used.
I used to fly for SLEC and a couple of other manufacturers at model shows in the 90's and we always had vastly overpowered models. However when asked questions by keen potential purchasers we'd still claim they were running on the the recommended engine even though they tended to have a slightly better power to weight ratio than the space shuttle
Makes prop hanging a whole lot easier on a larger model as well
Have to agree competely with the large scale stuff.
Impressive, yes, without doubt, but that's about all.
I have got about 15 planes, and the most fun I have is with my kyosho minium edge- throw it in the sky, off you go.
Small and light enough to fly anywhere.
Next up is a home made aerobatic job from epp foam.
More hot glue on it than epp now but it keeps on going
Impressive, yes, without doubt, but that's about all.
I have got about 15 planes, and the most fun I have is with my kyosho minium edge- throw it in the sky, off you go.
Small and light enough to fly anywhere.
Next up is a home made aerobatic job from epp foam.
More hot glue on it than epp now but it keeps on going
Emsman said:
Have to agree competely with the large scale stuff.
Impressive, yes, without doubt, but that's about all.
I have got about 15 planes, and the most fun I have is with my kyosho minium edge- throw it in the sky, off you go.
Small and light enough to fly anywhere.
Next up is a home made aerobatic job from epp foam.
More hot glue on it than epp now but it keeps on going
I feel the same, I have a scabby home designed job of 60 inch span & a 46 which I hack around, it has a baby brother with a 12 on it & that is not bad but it is a pig to hand launch or ROG.Impressive, yes, without doubt, but that's about all.
I have got about 15 planes, and the most fun I have is with my kyosho minium edge- throw it in the sky, off you go.
Small and light enough to fly anywhere.
Next up is a home made aerobatic job from epp foam.
More hot glue on it than epp now but it keeps on going
About 10 years ago, I read about a fellow in the states who made a gargantuan Saturn V, to scale (I think he had plans - Eric, we will have to disagree on this one!!)
Anyways, the tower was also a scale replica including a system of arms that, as the rocket was due to launch, would swing back as with the real thing.
Having built it, and when it was time to launch it, he decided that he could not do it and donated it to a musuem.
It was truely staggering - I will see if the article is on the net somewhere
Anyways, the tower was also a scale replica including a system of arms that, as the rocket was due to launch, would swing back as with the real thing.
Having built it, and when it was time to launch it, he decided that he could not do it and donated it to a musuem.
It was truely staggering - I will see if the article is on the net somewhere
I was having a Google around - initially to find that scale Saturn V - and I came across this bloke's site. He actually collects real NASA space hardware! http://www.spaceaholic.com
Proper hardware too. Rocket motors, spare hydrogen fill valves, on-board Saturn control computers, instrument panels and even a parachute flown on a lunar mission. It seems NASA and their contractors just don't care about their old gear, and a huge amount just gets chucked! For heavens sake, he even seems to own several of the cameras flown on the original Hubble mission, along with a development unit for the corrective optics. It is possible he could be making it all up, but it looks genuine to me.
There are quite a few links from there too, which are well worth investigating (I fear we could lose Eric for some considerable time here).
Proper hardware too. Rocket motors, spare hydrogen fill valves, on-board Saturn control computers, instrument panels and even a parachute flown on a lunar mission. It seems NASA and their contractors just don't care about their old gear, and a huge amount just gets chucked! For heavens sake, he even seems to own several of the cameras flown on the original Hubble mission, along with a development unit for the corrective optics. It is possible he could be making it all up, but it looks genuine to me.
There are quite a few links from there too, which are well worth investigating (I fear we could lose Eric for some considerable time here).
XB70 said:
About 10 years ago, I read about a fellow in the states who made a gargantuan Saturn V, to scale (I think he had plans - Eric, we will have to disagree on this one!!)
Anyways, the tower was also a scale replica including a system of arms that, as the rocket was due to launch, would swing back as with the real thing.
Having built it, and when it was time to launch it, he decided that he could not do it and donated it to a musuem.
It was truely staggering - I will see if the article is on the net somewhere
This is a very good site for anyone modelling a Saturn V : Anyways, the tower was also a scale replica including a system of arms that, as the rocket was due to launch, would swing back as with the real thing.
Having built it, and when it was time to launch it, he decided that he could not do it and donated it to a musuem.
It was truely staggering - I will see if the article is on the net somewhere
http://ricksternbach.com/SatV/Saturn_V_Clinic.html
Follow the links for just about any detail you'd ever need.
Cheers,
XB70 said:
About 10 years ago, I read about a fellow in the states who made a gargantuan Saturn V, to scale (I think he had plans - Eric, we will have to disagree on this one!!)
Anyways, the tower was also a scale replica including a system of arms that, as the rocket was due to launch, would swing back as with the real thing.
Having built it, and when it was time to launch it, he decided that he could not do it and donated it to a musuem.
It was truely staggering - I will see if the article is on the net somewhere
It's relatively easy to make a scale replica Saturn V without access to drawings for the originals. NASA themselves built a 1:1 scale dummy test vehicle (the V500F/Static Test Article or STA) when they conducted pad tests and vibration tests in 1965/66.Anyways, the tower was also a scale replica including a system of arms that, as the rocket was due to launch, would swing back as with the real thing.
Having built it, and when it was time to launch it, he decided that he could not do it and donated it to a musuem.
It was truely staggering - I will see if the article is on the net somewhere
This dummy Saturn V can always be identified by the fact that it had a black horizontal band painted above the black vertical stripes on the 1st Stage. None of the real Saturn V's had this.
Zad said:
I was having a Google around - initially to find that scale Saturn V - and I came across this bloke's site. He actually collects real NASA space hardware! http://www.spaceaholic.com
That's quite a collection, and it's all so beautifully made (unsurprisingly). Thanks for the link.Gassing Station | Scale Models | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff