PDA

View Full Version : PF ZERO fans you've GOT to see this:



jamesdietz
05-26-2006, 09:04 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9w00A6e478

Pithy Comments: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
1.) Only $22,000 for a half scale version? Why thats less than half what you'd pay for the real thing! In my book that's a steal of a deal!
2.) Ok ,Bub...where do we find a 1/2 scale pilot that actually knows how to fly this thing?
3.) I have an idea:my 5 year old fits in the cockpit...lets let him take the first test hop!
4.) So how many .049 engines are cobbled together so that this this will fly?
5.) No ...you built it ...you swing the prop...
7.) I hear it was built in a tiny factory with midget workers...
8.) Fly? You never said it actually had to fly!
9.) Yeah thats right: the 22 rifles scaled just right to the wing mounted cannons! I knew a guy who made them full auto...the tough part was building the loading trays...
10.) So whats next-a 1/2 scale B-29? Akagi? Godzilla?

knightflyte
05-26-2006, 09:16 AM
Oh MAN!!!!!!!!!!

The humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel the pit in my stomache for thay guy.....oh.

Torque is bad ..... m'kay.

I wonder if the plane was underpowered or if it was just too heavy? It seemed like it had a hard time lifting off.

Sigh, I really feel for the guy. Beautiful plane.

(As an aside..... I'd love to see a video of these things by someone who knows how to hold a camera straight and level. You never see a quality video on these DL sites.)

berg417448
05-26-2006, 09:23 AM
I wonder if the ailerons were set up backwards...looked a bit like the ailerons went full deflection at the end as if the operator was trying to stop the roll.

Fighterduck
05-26-2006, 09:38 AM
ahaah..totally usless! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

han freak solo
05-26-2006, 10:01 AM
I don't know what to say. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LEBillfish
05-26-2006, 10:44 AM
If I've said it once I've said it 1,000 times...

"Fly as I say, not as I do"....This guy obviously has been basing what a plane should do on take-off from watching Ntrks of me in the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

TC_Stele
05-26-2006, 11:27 AM
Wow, that things huge. Pity what happens to it, but it doesn't look like a total loss.

Ballistic4N6
05-26-2006, 11:54 AM
Looks like it was underpowered for the weight and available lift. Classic wing dip for an at-stall-speed climb.

Rebel_Yell_21
05-26-2006, 12:21 PM
What a maroon....

RamsteinUSA
05-26-2006, 01:04 PM
i have a simple fix for taking the plane off without stall..

This wil be an anaolog fix:

Put some mercury switches on the plane. There wil be 2, 1 is set to about 10 degrees the other is set to 20 degrees.

These switches are just tubes filled with mercury and the mercury wil roll to the end of the tilted tubes with electrical connectors at the end of the tube. Whe the angle sof the tube reaches that angle the swtiches sens an analog on/off to the Microprocessor which sens a signal back to the RC controller. A lith/buzzer goes off on the hand held controller telling you it has reached that angle.

You cannot know the angle from sight on this plane because of the distance fromt he plane while it takes off, so you must rely on feedback form the plane so you can avoid hitting a stall with to much stick when taking off...


So, to recap, while holding the RC controller, you can balance the stick position on lift-off with one switch/light/buzzer set to 10 degrees and another set to 20 degrees...
(these setting may take some adjustemnet on what the degrees should actually be set.. you can adjust for wind/temp obstacles..
while taking off the light/buzzer wil sound letitng you know the plane has gone beyond 10 degrees attitude and that you can still add more stick... if/when the 20 degree buzzer/light goes off you know the plane wil stall so you back off a bit...

these mercury switchtes are very very simple.. they only rely on gravity and the angle of the tube. These are very very small and the electrical currenty is very very small. and orf course the mercury is conductive so it completes the electrical circuit. These are very very cheap/inexpensive. The reason to have both light and buzzer is that when there is too much noise, you can see the lights.

if he had a longer smoother runway and has great visability and a spotter to assist in controlls and communication for safety. A two way radio between the RC pilot and the spotter is needed.

note: I built palnes as a kid, these were stunt planes and combat planes.. with up to 4 foot wingspans.

Metabaron2005
05-26-2006, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
I wonder if the ailerons were set up backwards...looked a bit like the ailerons went full deflection at the end as if the operator was trying to stop the roll.

It's impossible to set both ailerons down. I suppose you meant that flaps.

The morron flying that plane just tried to make a turn lefs with insufficient speed abd stalled like a noob.

See, the left aileron is down and the right one must be up even if you can't see it because of the wing :

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v127/raid-baron/zero.jpg

slo_1_2_3
05-26-2006, 04:53 PM
It sounded like a cheap lawnmower theres a problem, the guy who made/flew it has to much time and money to waste which he obviously shouldda used some of to learn how to fly and well I think if your gonna blow money on rc stuff which is cool get something that you can replace when you fly like that.I had a r/c plane once and wind took it down but some ducttape and it was fine but I think guys gonna need a lot of ducttape.
O well better him than me either way.

RSS-Martin
05-26-2006, 05:04 PM
Looks really like someone has too much money to sink! That engine sounded very weak. Oh well should have trained on something less expensive! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WB_Outlaw
05-26-2006, 05:36 PM
A 250cc engine has WAY more than enough power for an aircraft that size. If anything, the power-weight ratio is probably pretty high on this aircraft. The take off roll was smooth and straight as well as the lift off. The torque was under control the whole time. The departure from straight and level is fairly abrupt and there was no change in power. To me it does not appear to stall and there is no problem visually determining the angle of attack. That aircraft is 10 times bigger than many R/C aircraft.

From my R/C experience (which is admittedly limited), I feel that the pilot lifted the aircraft off too soon, but not necessarily just over stall speed. This is fairly common b/c driving R/C airplanes is much more difficult than flying them. Also, a high power-weight ratio aircraft WANTS to take off quickly. The departure from straight and level was fairly abrupt which leads me to believe a crosswind rolled the aircraft over and it just got away from the pilot. This looks like a first flight and he may have been stupid enough to look away to respond to some of the congratulations. I can't tell for sure the direction of the aileron deflection but with so many people watching the taxi-tests, I would be suprised if reversed ailerons was the problem.

My old man has lots of R/C flight time with 10'+ wingspan aircraft. I'll show it to him when he's in town in a couple of weeks and see what he thinks.

--Outlaw.

berg417448
05-26-2006, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Metabaron2005:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
I wonder if the ailerons were set up backwards...looked a bit like the ailerons went full deflection at the end as if the operator was trying to stop the roll.

It's impossible to set both ailerons down. I suppose you meant that flaps.

The morron flying that plane just tried to make a turn lefs with insufficient speed abd stalled like a noob.

See, the left aileron is down and the right one must be up even if you can't see it because of the wing :

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v127/raid-baron/zero.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No..I meant aileron ...I've watched the video several times and the right one really looks like it is down to me...which is exactly the opposite of what you would want. Hard to tell for sure though.Vague enough that I could be wrong.

Metabaron2005
05-26-2006, 05:59 PM
Sorry I confused right and left.
The right aileron is down, that's what made the plane stall on the left side.

berg417448
05-26-2006, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Metabaron2005:
Sorry I confused right and left.
The right aileron is down, that's what made the plane stall on the left side.

That's why I thought maybe the controls were reversed...can't think why the operator would input the controls to make the plane roll to the left if the plane was already rolling to the left.
Still hard to make everything out though.

d9720267
05-26-2006, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
That's why I thought maybe the controls were reversed...can't think why the operator would input the controls to make the plane roll to the left if the plane was already rolling to the left.
Still hard to make everything out though.
Guess he didn't do his preflight checks ...

Although it also looked very underpowered to me. I think it stalled.

Nimits
05-26-2006, 07:01 PM
Just think of all the real flying he could have done for $22,000. . .

Or better yet, think of the sim pit he could have built for $22,000 . . .

Zeus-cat
05-26-2006, 08:23 PM
I build model rockets. A big part of the challenge and fun, is building it and getting it to work. This guy spent thousands of hours building this thing. He got enormous satisfaction from that. He also got it to takeoff. Granted the flight didn't last long, but the damage didn't look all that bad. A few hundred hours and he'll get it back in the air again.

RamsteinUSA
05-26-2006, 09:28 PM
It sounde dlike a Rotax engine. That has pleanty of power. The Rotax's are very popular in motorized Hang Gliders and 4 wheel ATV Racers, in the desert. They haul *** and are very dependable. Don't let the 2 stroke sound fool you. It is a high output kick *** engine. It sure would be the right one to use. They also use them in helicopters.

They do use quite a bit of gas, so the flight would be short... but long enough for fun..

BfHeFwMe
05-26-2006, 09:45 PM
Obviously the carrier version with folding wings. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

LEBillfish
05-26-2006, 10:18 PM
Made a 1/24th scale flying model of the Graf Zepplin.....Worked my butt off on it and really had state of the art motors and such....Sadly, I discovered lead sheeting is not quite the same as aluminum......and why does hydrogen burn like that....my poor hair! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Ok, that was a lie.....and not a very good one..

slo_1_2_3
05-26-2006, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
I build model rockets. A big part of the challenge and fun, is building it and getting it to work. This guy spent thousands of hours building this thing. He got enormous satisfaction from that. He also got it to takeoff. Granted the flight didn't last long, but the damage didn't look all that bad. A few hundred hours and he'll get it back in the air again.
I tried to make a plane I made fly once and it did for all of ten feet until it smashed into the ground and got all screwed up and I didnt get this satisfaction your speaking of , I however go some po-ed out of it

stansdds
05-27-2006, 05:26 AM
Digital camcorder, $350
1/2 size R/C Zero, $22,000
Understanding flight physics, priceless.

ckur
05-28-2006, 04:55 AM
Well if you want to build a 1/2 scale Zero, then why not build one that you can actually fly yourself?

http://www.nulantek.biz/WAR-Zero.aspx

http://warreplica.homestead.com/zero.html

reverendkrv1972
05-28-2006, 09:28 AM
certainly looks like he missed the ailerons movement being reversed to me...as mentioned already he has full deflection,in the direction of the initial roll.If the ailerons are reversed,you input roll against the way its going,worsening the problem.(when i first started R/C I did it with elevator reversed)

also he has got a crosswind,which may have started the initial roll to port.

that engine is more than powerfull enough for that model,I was impressed how he took off,it's quite hard to not fly scale models too fast http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RamsteinUSA
05-28-2006, 02:32 PM
Like I previoussly stated, since he is not in the cockpit, it is to difficult to tell the angle on takeoff, and needs a visual clue of the angle on takeoff.... I gave a suggestion for that.. that way he will not stall it on takeoff.

It is possible my solution is avaibalbe as an 'off-the-shelf' purchasble item, alreay packaged to go. If not it would be easy to make.


That would tell him the attitude angle of the plane with a light and/or sound warning if under or over the needed angle.

hkg36sd
05-28-2006, 07:25 PM
The feeling of dread in your gut as that left wingtip dipped...damned.

tigertalon
05-28-2006, 08:06 PM
I think the constructors obviously miscalculated engine power:

1/2 scale should have (1/2)^3=1/8 engine, that's still around 120 hp. Sounded more like 1,2 hp to me.

EiZ0N
05-28-2006, 08:13 PM
120 hp? Surely not?

Chuck994
05-28-2006, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by EiZ0N:
120 hp? Surely not?

Must mean 12hp.

120hp will overpower a lot of four place GA aircraft.

402Cdn.Valkyrie
05-29-2006, 02:55 AM
The only info you get is some basic, they are at the side of the video!

Lenght: 4.8m
Width: 6m
Weight: 150kg
Engine: 250cc

To me it sounds/looks like its a bit heavy, might not be a to small engine. He may just had put a Prop with to little Pitch on!

And of cause there are always the factor of human failure! And if he crashed this pretty plane because he frakked up the Ailorens. Then i dont feel sorry for him... only the plane!

tigertalon
05-29-2006, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by EiZ0N:
120 hp? Surely not?

Hm, I have no clue about building RC models, my calc based purely on simplified physics:

If you build 1/2 model, it's mass will be roughly 1/8 of the original, so you'd need 1/8th of roughly 1000hp, which is 120hp http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif.

DuxCorvan
05-29-2006, 08:30 AM
HAA HAA!!!
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/kwik-e-simpsons/wallpapers/nelson-800x600.gif

d9720267
05-29-2006, 11:51 AM
The simplest of preflight checks will tell you if the ailerons are wired up the right way round. After spending $22,000, I doubt very much if he would have forgotten to do this, even if it was only at the assembly stage.

The engine may well be powerful, but is it powerful enough for such a large model?

WB_Outlaw
05-30-2006, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
If you build 1/2 model, it's mass will be roughly 1/8 of the original, so you'd need 1/8th of roughly 1000hp, which is 120hp http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif.

Not if you build the model out of fiberglass and styrofoam. My old man is building a 1/3 scale Piper Cub that is going to weigh less than 25 pounds without the engine.


Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
Like I previoussly stated, since he is not in the cockpit, it is to difficult to tell the angle on takeoff, and needs a visual clue of the angle on takeoff.... I gave a suggestion for that.. that way he will not stall it on takeoff.


It is NOT difficult to visually determine angle of attack. I've flown R/C models that are 16 inches nose to tail, practically microscopic compared to that Zero. I've watched thousands of flights in all types of R/C models from tiny little gliders to 12' wingspan multi-engined behemoths and they were all flown via the Mk. I Eyeball with no problems.


Originally posted by reverendkrv1972:
certainly looks like he missed the ailerons movement being reversed to me...as mentioned already he has full deflection,in the direction of the initial roll.If the ailerons are reversed,you input roll against the way its going,worsening the problem.(when i first started R/C I did it with elevator reversed)


While it looks like the aileron is fully deflected into the roll, the poor quality of the video plus the paint scheme makes it difficult to say for sure. Like I said before, I find it difficult to believe that with that many people watching and that much on the line, he would have botched that.

Of course, the radios can hold multiple "programs" and if he used the same radio for some of his other aircraft, he might have accidentally loaded the wrong program which had the ailerons reversed. There is no way to tell if he took a break between the taxi tests and the flight but if there was it's quite possible.

There is also the possibility that someone else turned on a radio on the same frequency. My dad lost his big I-15 that way. Everyone was screaming for everyone on the flight line to turn off their radios but the guy was oblivious. The aircraft was practically powdered on impact. Most R/C fields have a "paddle" for each frequency that you must have clipped to your antenna before you are allowed to turn your radio on. If your frequency paddle is not on the board, then your radio doesn't come on.

A high powered CB radio can also cause problems. I've heard tell of truckers with 1000 watt amps on their CBs. It doesn't matter what frequency you're on when that jacka$$ drives by 250 yards away and keys his mic.

--Outlaw.