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" om 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" om 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