Internal Wings - The future of aviation?

[Roger Long]

My son is getting an education about the real world. He got a small foam
glider for Christmas with a futuristic looking three piece foam wing.
According to the packaging, the toy company was set up to raise money for
development of this new aircraft design. Neat.

We looked it up at:

http://www.rexresearch.com/carrcoan/carrcoan.htm


The fellow behind it is flight instructor of 26 years experience and there
is a long involved explanation of how the wing works. The explanation didn
't make much sense to this author of some articles on lift

http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/Articles.htm

but, what the hell. Maybe it works but for reasons the designer doesn't
understand.

We took it out and tried it. As near as I can tell, it has about the same
aerodynamic characteristics as a diecast metal airplane model. I could
detect no sign of lift or aerodynamic effects at all. It follows a
trajectory for a short distance until drag overcomes inertia and then heads
straight down. We doubled up the rubber band sling for more speed. It went
twice a far but exhibiting about the same flight characteristics as a rock.

I looked up Robert Carr in the pilot data base. The only one in OK has only
a ground instructor's certificate. Could be he's someone else and the
Robert Carr behind the glider isn't in the database. I feel better though
not seeing any evidence that this fellow is teaching anyone to fly a real
plane.

I just wish I could figure out how they got the movies on the toy company
web site.

http://www.iwatoyco.com/

My 40 plus years of fiddling with model and real airplanes were not enough
to show me how to coax the slightest hint of aerodynamic response out of
this turkey.

The text of the full patent is included in the first site linked above. It'
s even more of a hoot than the glider. Just goes to show that you can
patent anything.

My son isn't learning anything about aerodynamics but he is learning about
hype.

--
Roger Long

[Jay Honeck]

> I just wish I could figure out how they got the movies on the toy company
> web site.
>
> http://www.iwatoyco.com/

Well, the videos certainly look genuine, and fun.

Maybe the bitterly cold air in Maine at this time of year is collapsing the
lift inside the internal wing system?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jeff Franks]

If you'll notice in the video, they never show the END of the flight. They
only show the "good" part you described, so there is no evidence that after
the highspeed portion of the flight, that they didn't fall out of the sky as
well.....

I've had similar issues with a couple of these "R/C" planes that are out
this year. Your ability to control them is wholly dependant on your level
of telekenesis.

Jeff


"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> My son is getting an education about the real world. He got a small foam
> glider for Christmas with a futuristic looking three piece foam wing.
> According to the packaging, the toy company was set up to raise money for
> development of this new aircraft design. Neat.
>
> We looked it up at:
>
> http://www.rexresearch.com/carrcoan/carrcoan.htm
>
>
> The fellow behind it is flight instructor of 26 years experience and there
> is a long involved explanation of how the wing works. The explanation
didn
> 't make much sense to this author of some articles on lift
>
> http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/Articles.htm
>
> but, what the hell. Maybe it works but for reasons the designer doesn't
> understand.
>
> We took it out and tried it. As near as I can tell, it has about the same
> aerodynamic characteristics as a diecast metal airplane model. I could
> detect no sign of lift or aerodynamic effects at all. It follows a
> trajectory for a short distance until drag overcomes inertia and then
heads
> straight down. We doubled up the rubber band sling for more speed. It
went
> twice a far but exhibiting about the same flight characteristics as a
rock.
>
> I looked up Robert Carr in the pilot data base. The only one in OK has
only
> a ground instructor's certificate. Could be he's someone else and the
> Robert Carr behind the glider isn't in the database. I feel better though
> not seeing any evidence that this fellow is teaching anyone to fly a real
> plane.
>
> I just wish I could figure out how they got the movies on the toy company
> web site.
>
> http://www.iwatoyco.com/
>
> My 40 plus years of fiddling with model and real airplanes were not enough
> to show me how to coax the slightest hint of aerodynamic response out of
> this turkey.
>
> The text of the full patent is included in the first site linked above.
It'
> s even more of a hoot than the glider. Just goes to show that you can
> patent anything.
>
> My son isn't learning anything about aerodynamics but he is learning about
> hype.
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[Dean Wilkinson]

My 4 year-old son got one of these from a friend... it does fly like
a rock. I didn't realize they were claiming it was supposed to be
aerodynamic, but it seems to be lacking the fundamentals of flight...

Dean

"Roger Long" m> wrote in message >...
> My son is getting an education about the real world. He got a small foam
> glider for Christmas with a futuristic looking three piece foam wing.
> According to the packaging, the toy company was set up to raise money for
> development of this new aircraft design. Neat.
>
> We looked it up at:
>
> http://www.rexresearch.com/carrcoan/carrcoan.htm
>
>
> The fellow behind it is flight instructor of 26 years experience and there
> is a long involved explanation of how the wing works. The explanation didn
> 't make much sense to this author of some articles on lift
>
> http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/Articles.htm
>
> but, what the hell. Maybe it works but for reasons the designer doesn't
> understand.
>
> We took it out and tried it. As near as I can tell, it has about the same
> aerodynamic characteristics as a diecast metal airplane model. I could
> detect no sign of lift or aerodynamic effects at all. It follows a
> trajectory for a short distance until drag overcomes inertia and then heads
> straight down. We doubled up the rubber band sling for more speed. It went
> twice a far but exhibiting about the same flight characteristics as a rock.
>
> I looked up Robert Carr in the pilot data base. The only one in OK has only
> a ground instructor's certificate. Could be he's someone else and the
> Robert Carr behind the glider isn't in the database. I feel better though
> not seeing any evidence that this fellow is teaching anyone to fly a real
> plane.
>
> I just wish I could figure out how they got the movies on the toy company
> web site.
>
> http://www.iwatoyco.com/
>
> My 40 plus years of fiddling with model and real airplanes were not enough
> to show me how to coax the slightest hint of aerodynamic response out of
> this turkey.
>
> The text of the full patent is included in the first site linked above. It'
> s even more of a hoot than the glider. Just goes to show that you can
> patent anything.
>
> My son isn't learning anything about aerodynamics but he is learning about
> hype.

[Roger Long]

It was in the 40's yesterday. Bitter if you're from coastal Maine but a
heat wave I'm sure from the Iowa perspective:)

--
Roger Long

Jay Honeck > wrote in message
news:1drHb.668421$HS4.4752687@attbi_s01...
> > I just wish I could figure out how they got the movies on the toy
company
> > web site.
> >
> > http://www.iwatoyco.com/
>
> Well, the videos certainly look genuine, and fun.
>
> Maybe the bitterly cold air in Maine at this time of year is collapsing
the
> lift inside the internal wing system?
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Roger Long]

How about a PIREP? I've been looking at simple, out of the box RC planes.

--
Roger Long
Jeff Franks > wrote in message
...
> If you'll notice in the video, they never show the END of the flight.
They
> only show the "good" part you described, so there is no evidence that
after
> the highspeed portion of the flight, that they didn't fall out of the sky
as
> well.....
>
> I've had similar issues with a couple of these "R/C" planes that are out
> this year. Your ability to control them is wholly dependant on your level
> of telekenesis.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> "Roger Long" m> wrote
in
> message ...
> > My son is getting an education about the real world. He got a small
foam
> > glider for Christmas with a futuristic looking three piece foam wing.
> > According to the packaging, the toy company was set up to raise money
for
> > development of this new aircraft design. Neat.
> >
> > We looked it up at:
> >
> > http://www.rexresearch.com/carrcoan/carrcoan.htm
> >
> >
> > The fellow behind it is flight instructor of 26 years experience and
there
> > is a long involved explanation of how the wing works. The explanation
> didn
> > 't make much sense to this author of some articles on lift
> >
> > http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/Articles.htm
> >
> > but, what the hell. Maybe it works but for reasons the designer doesn't
> > understand.
> >
> > We took it out and tried it. As near as I can tell, it has about the
same
> > aerodynamic characteristics as a diecast metal airplane model. I could
> > detect no sign of lift or aerodynamic effects at all. It follows a
> > trajectory for a short distance until drag overcomes inertia and then
> heads
> > straight down. We doubled up the rubber band sling for more speed. It
> went
> > twice a far but exhibiting about the same flight characteristics as a
> rock.
> >
> > I looked up Robert Carr in the pilot data base. The only one in OK has
> only
> > a ground instructor's certificate. Could be he's someone else and the
> > Robert Carr behind the glider isn't in the database. I feel better
though
> > not seeing any evidence that this fellow is teaching anyone to fly a
real
> > plane.
> >
> > I just wish I could figure out how they got the movies on the toy
company
> > web site.
> >
> > http://www.iwatoyco.com/
> >
> > My 40 plus years of fiddling with model and real airplanes were not
enough
> > to show me how to coax the slightest hint of aerodynamic response out of
> > this turkey.
> >
> > The text of the full patent is included in the first site linked above.
> It'
> > s even more of a hoot than the glider. Just goes to show that you can
> > patent anything.
> >
> > My son isn't learning anything about aerodynamics but he is learning
about
> > hype.
> >
> > --
> > Roger Long
> >
> >
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"It can fly at speeds up to 100 miles per hour. In fact, because of its
unique aerodynamic design, the hand-held plane actually picks up speed once
it starts soaring."

The first thing you have to ask is why it does not accelerate forever. The
answer is that it stops accelerating when it hits the ground.

"The coanda directs the airflow downward from its trailing edge,
turbocharging the internal wing and separating the airflow from the
underside of the duct top. This arrangement of airfoils reduces drag,
enhances lift and thrust output."

Most of the rest of the explanation sounds like gobbledygook, too --
something like what Acrocfi might have posted.

[Dan Luke]

"Roger Long" wrote:
> How about a PIREP? I've been looking at simple, out of the box RC
planes.

Beware: learning to control an RC airplane is generally reckoned to be
more difficult than learning to control a full scale airplane. Things
happen *much* faster and the direction sense of the ailerons is reversed
when the airplane turns towards you - coping with this requires a fair
amount of practice.

Not for nothing do RC clubs have instructors for newbies. If you really
want to fly models, get in touch with your local club.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Andrew Gideon]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Roger Long" wrote:
>> How about a PIREP? I've been looking at simple, out of the box RC
> planes.
>
> Beware: learning to control an RC airplane is generally reckoned to be
> more difficult than learning to control a full scale airplane. Things
> happen *much* faster and the direction sense of the ailerons is reversed
> when the airplane turns towards you - coping with this requires a fair
> amount of practice.

When I was working my way through my PPL and a collection of CFIs, I always
told them of my experiences with RC aircraft: never a successful landing
(unless you count the stall onto a tree branch). Of course, I explained
all this on climb-out.

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:20:45 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>Beware: learning to control an RC airplane is generally reckoned to be
>more difficult than learning to control a full scale airplane. Things
>happen *much* faster and the direction sense of the ailerons is reversed
>when the airplane turns towards you - coping with this requires a fair
>amount of practice.

What I found difficult was discerning the direction of the aircraft
from a distance when I flew a 12' wingspan model sailplane along the
cliffs of Palos Verdies, CA. Fortunately this ship wasn't so fast
that I required instruction to learn to control it.

[Roger Long]

I'm thinking about the real simple ones with just throttle and rudder. I
want something I can fly with the kids in the schoolyard across the street.
The RC is mostly to keep the plane off the school roof and out of the trees.
There are some neat looking ones for less than a $100. It looks like you
just fly them till the battery runs down and then they glide back to the
grass.
--
Roger Long

[James M. Knox]

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in
:

> If you'll notice in the video, they never show the END of the flight.
> They only show the "good" part you described, so there is no evidence
> that after the highspeed portion of the flight, that they didn't fall
> out of the sky as well.....

And an awful lot of camera cuts. I suspect even some of the short segments
of what looked like a 100 foot or so flight is really several flights put
together. [Sort of like the old Bell film for the jet pack.]

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[James M. Knox]

(Dean Wilkinson) wrote in
m:

> My 4 year-old son got one of these from a friend... it does fly like
> a rock. I didn't realize they were claiming it was supposed to be
> aerodynamic, but it seems to be lacking the fundamentals of flight...

I like the section on "natural dynamic propulsion." True, the accelerated
air out the back "could be" considered a bit of thrust... if it weren't for
the force required to accelerate that air. This comes from the increased
pressure ahead of the duct inlet... or what is otherwise simply known as
DRAG!

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Jeff Franks]

The 2 that I have had experience with (this past Saturday) were horrible.
I've had R/C planes for years and have flown them with *some* success (I
tought myself to fly....not recommended).

One of these was an "Air Hog" brand (I can't remember the other brand, but
both had similar results). The Air Hog (which is electric, not air powered
like their original planes) has a "rudder" control and two buttons...THRUST
and LAND. THRUST puts the 2 electric motors at full power for
takeoff/climbing. LAND will cut the motors back to an idle. with neither
button pushed they run at a mid-range "flight" setting. The directional
control is not with a rudder, but with the two motors running variable
speeds. This works....like crap.

We had maybe a 2 mph wind and it easily overcame the planes ability to turn.
I was able to crab it into the wind some to keep it in the same 5 acres as
me, but that was about it. To say that I was "flying" it is a stretch. I
was simply trying to keep it out of the trees.

Several times, the plane just simply wouldn't respond to anything I was
telling it. They both run on 27 or 43 MHz (I think), so maybe I was in
competition with someone's baby monitor or some other kids r/c car. dunno.

At anyrate, both planes reacted similarly. I guess it makes sense that I
spent $250 for my first R/C setup. You get what you pay for....

Jeff

YMMV :)


"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> How about a PIREP? I've been looking at simple, out of the box RC planes.
>
> --
> Roger Long
> Jeff Franks > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you'll notice in the video, they never show the END of the flight.
> They
> > only show the "good" part you described, so there is no evidence that
> after
> > the highspeed portion of the flight, that they didn't fall out of the
sky
> as
> > well.....
> >
> > I've had similar issues with a couple of these "R/C" planes that are out
> > this year. Your ability to control them is wholly dependant on your
level
> > of telekenesis.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > "Roger Long" m> wrote
> in
> > message ...
> > > My son is getting an education about the real world. He got a small
> foam
> > > glider for Christmas with a futuristic looking three piece foam wing.
> > > According to the packaging, the toy company was set up to raise money
> for
> > > development of this new aircraft design. Neat.
> > >
> > > We looked it up at:
> > >
> > > http://www.rexresearch.com/carrcoan/carrcoan.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > The fellow behind it is flight instructor of 26 years experience and
> there
> > > is a long involved explanation of how the wing works. The
explanation
> > didn
> > > 't make much sense to this author of some articles on lift
> > >
> > > http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/Articles.htm
> > >
> > > but, what the hell. Maybe it works but for reasons the designer
doesn't
> > > understand.
> > >
> > > We took it out and tried it. As near as I can tell, it has about the
> same
> > > aerodynamic characteristics as a diecast metal airplane model. I
could
> > > detect no sign of lift or aerodynamic effects at all. It follows a
> > > trajectory for a short distance until drag overcomes inertia and then
> > heads
> > > straight down. We doubled up the rubber band sling for more speed.
It
> > went
> > > twice a far but exhibiting about the same flight characteristics as a
> > rock.
> > >
> > > I looked up Robert Carr in the pilot data base. The only one in OK
has
> > only
> > > a ground instructor's certificate. Could be he's someone else and the
> > > Robert Carr behind the glider isn't in the database. I feel better
> though
> > > not seeing any evidence that this fellow is teaching anyone to fly a
> real
> > > plane.
> > >
> > > I just wish I could figure out how they got the movies on the toy
> company
> > > web site.
> > >
> > > http://www.iwatoyco.com/
> > >
> > > My 40 plus years of fiddling with model and real airplanes were not
> enough
> > > to show me how to coax the slightest hint of aerodynamic response out
of
> > > this turkey.
> > >
> > > The text of the full patent is included in the first site linked
above.
> > It'
> > > s even more of a hoot than the glider. Just goes to show that you can
> > > patent anything.
> > >
> > > My son isn't learning anything about aerodynamics but he is learning
> about
> > > hype.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Roger Long
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Roger Long" wrote:
> I'm thinking about the real simple ones with just throttle and rudder.

I'm not saying you can't learn to fly such a model without help; it's
possible. But in a no-aileron plane you use the rudder to pick up a low
wing, and the sense of that will still be backwards when it's coming at
you. Good luck.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm thinking about the real simple ones with just throttle and rudder. I
> want something I can fly with the kids in the schoolyard across the
street.

Maybe the electric ones will do this satisfactorily, but I doubt it. Before
taking up flying "for real" I flew a "rudder-only" gas-powered model, and
discovered that -- just like a "real" airplane -- having rudder as your only
control for turning is extremely inadequate.

I will also "second" the notion that flying one is more difficult than the
real thing. Having the controls reversed on you every two minutes (as the
plane would fly toward you) was extremely difficult to master.

Many crashes -- and several stitches -- later, I decided to do something
safer, like flying INSIDE the planes. ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Johnson]

Bought my son a Firebird XL RC plane a couple of years ago.
While it does fly, and you can control it (after a fashion),
it is in general a disappointment. You control climb or
descent with throttle, and turn with the ruddervators (which
are non-differential). The control inputs to accomplish the
desired results bear little resemblance to what pilots of
real airplanes are accustomed to. About the only good things
I can say about it are that it is relatively cheap and and
able to withstand repeated crashes.

I would recommend that anyone looking for a satisfactory RC
model look elsewhere. I think that the additional cost to get
a model with full controls is money well spent.

A good place to start looking is www.hobby-lobby.com

David Johnson

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
C J Campbell > wrote:
>"It can fly at speeds up to 100 miles per hour. In fact, because of its
>unique aerodynamic design, the hand-held plane actually picks up speed once
>it starts soaring."
>
>The first thing you have to ask is why it does not accelerate forever. The
>answer is that it stops accelerating when it hits the ground.
>
>"The coanda directs the airflow downward from its trailing edge,
>turbocharging the internal wing and separating the airflow from the
>underside of the duct top. This arrangement of airfoils reduces drag,
>enhances lift and thrust output."
>
>Most of the rest of the explanation sounds like gobbledygook, too --
>something like what Acrocfi might have posted.
>
Actually, it comes across to me as a thinly veiled perpetual motion
machine...

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Jeff Franks]

> Actually, it comes across to me as a thinly veiled perpetual motion
> machine...
>

Yea....I was wondering about :

>"This arrangement of airfoils reduces drag,
> enhances lift and thrust output."

This is a glider...there is no thrust once it leaves your hand.....

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Jeff Franks > wrote:
>
>> Actually, it comes across to me as a thinly veiled perpetual motion
>> machine...
>>
>
>Yea....I was wondering about :
>
>>"This arrangement of airfoils reduces drag,
>> enhances lift and thrust output."
>
>This is a glider...there is no thrust once it leaves your hand.....
>
....and I gave the patent claims a cursory overlook...

The bogon flux is strong in this one, grasshopper...

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[David CL Francis]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 at 17:52:56 in message
>, Dan Luke >
wrote:

>I'm not saying you can't learn to fly such a model without help; it's
>possible. But in a no-aileron plane you use the rudder to pick up a low
>wing, and the sense of that will still be backwards when it's coming at
>you. Good luck.

My first RC model was elevator, throttle, and rudder. It few fine and
was not that difficult. Flying inverted towards you is _very_ hard
though, since the rudder only produces a good turn because of dihedral!

You are right of course the coming towards you problem exists anyway. It
is just practice and a mental axis transference.

Mine would spin and do flick rolls though - well the two go together of
course.
--
David CL Francis

[Dan Luke]

"David CL Francis" wrote:
> My first RC model was elevator, throttle, and rudder.

> Mine would spin and do flick rolls though -

Although I was heavily into giant scale WWII models, I had a ton of fun
with a little rudder/alevator model with a Cox .049 engine - no throttle
or landing gear. It was pretty zippy though; definitely not a trainer.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM