4 ms·

I'm sorry to have to be negative on this. I look at a bunch of this stuff that is DOD/Armed Forces funded and all I have seen for decades are nothing less than

I'm sorry to have to be negative on this. I look at a bunch of this stuff that is DOD/Armed Forces funded and all I have seen for decades are nothing less than what I would call scams. Total waste of taxpayer money. And this isn't universities only, it's companies that win stupid-as-fuck "research" grants and produce crap in return. There are a few companies out there playing with what are nothing more than ridiculously expensive toy RC planes (< 6 ft wingspan) that almost anyone could build out of parts available in the open market. This MIT thing is nothing less than an overgrown model airplane. It uses what looks like a stock 4 stroke model airplane engine with a stock model airplane propeller. It probably uses stock model airplane servos, electronics and 2.4 GHz TX/RX. Oh, wait, advanced materials. Nope. I have been designing and building RC airplanes as a hobby for three decades. I was vacuum-bagging large (12 foot wingspan) glider wings from fiberglass, carbon fiber and also Kevlar twenty years ago. I still have and use my vacuum bagging setup to build planes today. I have also made custom carbon fiber propellers by CNC machining aluminum molds and stuffing them with epoxy impregnated carbon fiber rovings. So, this is what I would call "advanced hobby" stuff. Special airfoils? Nah. Any serious RC glider pilot who has built planes knows what airfoils to use. Not a secret. These guys didn't do anything special on that front. Oh, but it can be taken apart and stuffed into a box for FedEx shipping. Guess what, so can any large scale RC glider. Nothing new there. Make the wing in six foot sections and you are golden. Yeah but... Yeah but nothing. Here's a guy flying an OFF THE SHELF 6 meter wingspan RC glider. What do you think the wings are made from? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3xxjqpIRNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3xxjqpIRNg That's nearly 20 feet. The MIT "drone" has a 24 foot wingspan. Here's another guy flying a 6.5 m, 21 ft motorized glider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_U_e_EEduo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_U_e_EEduo Replace the electric motor with an internal combustion engine and a fuel tank and bingo. Again, off the shelf. And here are a BUNCH of guys with huge gliders, powered and not, including one that has a 51 FOOT wingspan. And, look, no truck for launch, they use another large scale RC airplane to tow it up to altitude. Here's a list of a bunch of large scale RC sailplanes you can buy off the shelf today. https://www.scalesoaring.com/scale-sailplanes https://www.scalesoaring.com/scale-sailplanes Here's an 8 to 8.8 meter (~26 to 27 ft) DG 1000 S you can buy and build for about $5,000 Euro: https://www.paritech.de/content/modelle/dg1000.php https://www.paritech.de/content/modelle/dg1000.php Shame on MIT for being a part of a scam. It's embarrassing.

goldenkey 9y ago
Most field engineering at universities has always been below the curve in terms of hobbyist and industry level tech. Im not sure I would call anything a scam eccept for the media coverage of what should be unnotable.
The_Double 9y ago
Calm down, this was just a fun practical experience course for students, that is being oversold by the news article: From the original press-release: >Hansman and Hoburg worked with MIT students to design a long-duration UAV as part of a Beaver Works capstone project — typically a two- or three-semester course that allows MIT students to design a vehicle that meets certain mission specifications, and to build and test their design. Obviously a bunch of undergrads aren't going to design a revolutionary new airplane.
- rebootthesystem 9y ago
  You missed my point. No problem with any of this except their use of tax money to fund it. If they need a capstone project they can pay for it themselves. Don't create a bullshit grant for something that will not be delivered. I mean, a five minute napkin calculation would quickly reveal the solar-whatever idea was nonsense. They still took the money and built exactly what the Air Force did not ask for. That's wrong in more ways than one.

goldenkey 9y ago

Most field engineering at universities has always been below the curve in terms of hobbyist and industry level tech. Im not sure I would call anything a scam eccept for the media coverage of what should be unnotable.

The_Double 9y ago

Calm down, this was just a fun practical experience course for students, that is being oversold by the news article: From the original press-release: >Hansman and Hoburg worked with MIT students to design a long-duration UAV as part of a Beaver Works capstone project — typically a two- or three-semester course that allows MIT students to design a vehicle that meets certain mission specifications, and to build and test their design. Obviously a bunch of undergrads aren't going to design a revolutionary new airplane.

rebootthesystem 9y ago
You missed my point. No problem with any of this except their use of tax money to fund it. If they need a capstone project they can pay for it themselves. Don't create a bullshit grant for something that will not be delivered. I mean, a five minute napkin calculation would quickly reveal the solar-whatever idea was nonsense. They still took the money and built exactly what the Air Force did not ask for. That's wrong in more ways than one.