Internal Wings - The future of aviation?

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"

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

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

"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
-----------------------------------------------

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" 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.

(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
-----------------------------------------------

"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.

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/

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.....

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/