They don’t get much bigger than this! Check out this huge, 13.5-foot-span Airbus at a European airshow. The 92.5-pound RC model uses four Hacker motors producting 6000 watts and has two radio systems with 18 total servos. Build time was 6 years. Watch the entire video and you’ll see an in-flight view of the parachute release, and the landing is incredible with those tiny wheels! Source: http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blog/2012/02/09/giant-electric-airbus-a400m-with-parachutists
Yowzzzzzaaaa, We also like's em BIG! Great Video for sure _________________________ This one apparently (I believe) had a very sorry ending as it had crashed. Sorry don't have the specs at the moment as I need some time to look em up again I do remember she was Turbine powered but I'll leave to you(s) to do the MATH as to how many Ouch! Certainly expensive according to my count!?! _________________________ Nevertheless I DO love the BIG aircraft _________________________ I had almost dropped the cash to buy this one but for better or worse I decided not to Nevertheless here's my LARGE favorite from the retail shops, ARF model ---> [size=1.25em]Cessna 310 Wingspan: 81 in Wing Area: 914 sq in[/size] Radio: 6-Ch min, or 8, 9-Ch for retracts Weight: 17 to 20 lbs Length: 66 in Engine 2C: two - .46 to .51 cu in http://www.greathobbies.com/productinfo/?prod_id=TOPA0910
That B52(?) is huge. I think I saw that or one similar somewhere, maybe YouTube? It has either 8 or 4 turbines if he doubled-up engines in the pods. I like that Cessna also. Definitely not a beginner plane.
Yes it's a B52 and I believe you are right, I don't think he doubled up on the turbines Well beginner or NOT that's never stopped me before but the size "again" is why I ultimately decided NOT to BUY the Cessna 310. Personally I've never been one to buy into this "beginner verse expert" concept. But this is only what works for me and I would never recommend others should follow in my foot steps ... In short ALL the ground work is just too BIG to handle myself! The "flying" is the easy part, yeah
Sorry BUd but I was editing as your were posting ... Yes certainly even ONE Turbine is BIG money for this pilot, hehe. Ultimately for the BIG aircraft I have to enjoy vicariously
Browsing for something completely unrelated I stumbled upon the crash video of the B-52 ---> [youtube]YAWwe474YHk[/youtube]
What was he saying about it lifting the rear wheels first on takeoff and flying with a nose down attitude? Is that how the real ones fly? Sounds odd to me. I did like the scale smoke upon crash.
I can't say as what he's talking about, maybe because of the B52's unique landing gear config ... Looking at the take-off pics on Google Image the real thing looks almost dead level during take-off and landing ... !?! Haven't look at any video of the real B52 because my Video is broked, I maybe lucky if the video has 240p for me but otherwise I don't have the bandwidth
Yes. The wings have so much lift designed into them for long endurance flights and shorter take-offs, that they actually lift the plane off the ground at lower speeds (tail first because that's where most of the lift is)
[size=1.5em]B-52 Take-Off Roll:[/size] [size=1.2em]Author - Captain in USAF, EWO on B-52 Crew, with 55 combat missions in SEA, 1500 hours of 8-engine jet time [/size][size=1em]PS: Interesting reading! QUOTE: In pre-flight, the crew has calculated, using the ambient temperature, dewpoint and gross weight of the airplane, which is approximately two hundred tons, how fast the airplane should accelerate and, based upon that information, how many seconds will be required to get to what is called "unstick” speed, or the speed at which the airplane can get off the ground. The formula for all of these calculations is critical, because if the airplane did not accelerate as fast as it should, the end of the runway would be reached before “unstick” speed would be reached, and hence would crash[/size]
