8 ms·

Create an Inexpensive Flying Wing / Drone (2019)

137 points by ghgr 4y ago

FastEatSlow 4y ago
I've been looking for instructions for a drone this simple and cheap for a while now, guess I have a project to do now.
- fit2rule 4y ago
- danboarder 4y ago
  This uses the same control surfaces as a v-tail RC airplane ;-) . I built one like this, fairly simple controls using an aileron mix (as elevons) to combine the traditional aileron, elevator, and rudder controls. Note that you can find a lot of RC projects like this online under keywords like "RC flying wing plans".
robomartin 4y ago
People in the model airplane world have been building precisely these kinds of planes for probably at least two decades. In that sense, nothing new. That said, good to see the idea reaching a different audience. If you want to save some weight you can buy small diameter carbon fiber rods for the pushrods (rather than using steel). You can also stiffen the wing by using a carbon fiber spar (either epoxy or cyanoacrylate to the bottom surface. If you know what you are doing you can even lighten it by cutting holes in the wings (think: punching out a bunch of circles) and then use packing tape to cover top and bottom surfaces. That said, a light plane isn't always better. Some of my best-flying RC planes are not what anyone would characterize as light. For example, an electric-powered glider that weighs eight pounds (3.6 kg), can go straight up like a rocket, glide (power off) at over 120 mph and thermal with the birds with great agility and control. The problem with very light RC planes is that they can be very difficult to fly in windy conditions, this is particularly true of inexperienced pilots. Here are some examples (no affiliation): https://www.wmparkflyers.com/EPP-Foam-Airplanes https://www.wmparkflyers.com/EPP-Foam-Airplanes
- kayodelycaon 4y ago
  My grandfather built model planes out of balsa wood kits for at least two decades. Some of them had wingspans of 5 feet. :)
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    It has become so, so much easier now.
- nine_k 4y ago
  The point here appears to be very inexpensive and requiring very little skill to build. Basically only the electric equipment and the aileron hooks are not made from common cheap household items or flat TV packaging trash. Certainly you can improve this design in many ways, while making it lighter, sturdier, and higher-performing at the same time. It would take quite a bit of skill, more tools, and a variety of more interesting materials.
  - bri3d 4y ago
    "Flite Test" have been designing ridiculously cheap, low-skill DIY flying things for many years now - at the same level of "turning trash to an RC plane." Definitely worth checking out if you're interested in the space.
    - ansible 4y ago
      Agreed about Flite Test. They have kits using water resistant foam board that will perform and look better. Also this delta wing has options like being able to purchase the motor kit needed: https://store.flitetest.com/ft-spear-wing-wr-1041mm/ https://store.flitetest.com/ft-spear-wing-wr-1041mm/ It is a good way to get started.
  - paulmd 4y ago
    Sure, that's why people have been doing this design for 20 years. Homebuilding included ;) I agree with the grandparent, it's of course interesting and it's a different audience, a lot of the "drone" crowd nowadays is purely quadrocopters, but like, this was pretty standard stuff back 15 years or so ago, for the electric parkflyer crowd. But much like every piece of software nowadays is an "app"... every model airplane is a "drone" now, and drone people aren't really familiar with the variety of aircraft that are possible because of the dominance of the quadrocopter. Like yeah, welcome to what the rest of the hobby has been doing while the drone community has farted around with quads for 15 years ;)
melenaos 4y ago
I have an RC plane that is without remote control. How can i bind the random remote control I have with the plane?
- cryptonector 4y ago
  Look at the docs for the radio on the plane and then acquire a remote control that is compatible with that radio. Or, if you don't even have a radio, buy a remote control and radio, read the manuals, install the radio (and battery), connect the servos, check that it works.
- cheschire 4y ago
  There's a lot of details missing from your question I think. I tried doing some brief research for you because the question sounds interesting, but without knowing information that would narrow down the quality of the remote or the plane, it's too difficult to guess what your next steps are.
- hnuser123456 4y ago
  You need to find the type of RC receiver on the plane, and the protocols it speaks, and the type of radio/transmitter you have, and the protocols it speaks. A common controller/radio/transmitter brand is FrSky with the ACCST protocol (apparently now ACCESS), Flysky with AFHDS2A, and Spektrum with DSMX. Each of these brands and protocols has their own binding procedure described in the transmitter and receiver manuals. Since this article is about inexpensive, the least expensive, well-known brand I listed here is Flysky. Frsky is more about open source and modularity, and Spektrum is the most American but not cheap or open. Radiolink appears to be another large brand but I don't know as much about them. Generally, all of these are about sending a PWM signal, with the pulse width being 1.0 ms - 2.0 ms, where 1.5 ms is the "center" position, at an update rate of 50 hz, to represent the controller stick positions, with 4 channels, two for each axis of two sticks, and perhaps additional channels for communicating more data from a fancier controller to a fancier receiver for things like flaps, landing gear, flight modes, etc.
  - saidinesh5 4y ago
melony 4y ago
Enough of these drones, who else here remember "model planes"?
- nine_k 4y ago
  It's only a drone if it can demonstrate stable flight by itself. Sadly, the remote control chapter is not (yet) there, and the self-flying drone capabilities are only briefly mentioned in the intro. I suppose that for a real self-flying capability, a model plane would need at least a 3-axis accelerometer, a speed sensor, a height sensor (or at least a ground proximity sensor), and a controller to make sense of all of the data. That part is going to be a bit less cheap and trivial.
  - bri3d 4y ago
    They're quite cheap and "trivial," honestly - iNav, ArduPilot, and PX4 are all strong in this space, and controllers start in the $50-$60 range (look at Matek hardware). Of course, for some definition of "trivial," but we do live in an age where a fairly accurate MEMS gyro/accelerometer, a barometer, and a fast STM32 microcontroller can all be had at a low price, and the control algorithms are mostly tried-and-true PID / feedforward PID attached to some form of input filtering. One can definitely build a fully autonomous flying wing for under $200, especially if the foam is self-cut. There are also a wealth of cheap foam pre-molded models available these days. We're really in a golden age for DIY flying models right now, pending regulatory crackdowns in most countries.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      I wonder if pitot tube input is a thing, yet, for inertial-platform controllers. Most you can buy were designed for quadcopters. It is astonishing to me how you can run fantastically good Free Software control software on them all, interchangeably.
      - bri3d 4y ago
        Yes, pitot tubes have been supported for a long time by all of the "mainstream" flight control software (PX4, Ardupilot, iNav although in iNav it doesn't do much besides provide an on screen display readout). Both analog and digital (I2C) pressure transducers are generally supported by direct interface to either an ADC pin or the I2C bus, which is exposed on most boards, even those designed for quadcopters. Many Ardupilot and PX4 boards are starting to come with CAN ports as well for UAVCAN peripherals.
saidinesh5 4y ago
Obligatory link whenever people are interested in flying wings: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hTYuj7hzKeI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hTYuj7hzKeI (building an rc flying wing with a pizza box) . It's actually a really cool DIY channel imo. In general, I think these flying rc toys (especially the fpv side) are a great hobby to get into for the Hacker News crowd. Almost all of the software is open source. Hardware is mostly open too. Lots of things to learn and tweak and tinker.
Gys 4y ago
This reminds me of a kickstarter project for motorizing a folded paper plane: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/393053146/powerup-40-smartphone-controlled-paper-airplane https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/393053146/powerup-40-sm... Still available: https://www.poweruptoys.com/products/powerup-4-0 https://www.poweruptoys.com/products/powerup-4-0
tguvot 4y ago
somewhat relevant, saw it today. Create an inexpensive bomber copter from scrap metal: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fb6A-NxWQAMjTC7?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fb6A-NxWQAMjTC7?format=jpg&name=...
- btbuildem 4y ago
  Looks a bit more complex than "scrap metal" -- it might be rough-looking, but it's a quadcopter drone with payload management, and some pretty large motors.
teamonkey 4y ago
The wings are two sandwiched pieces of foam with only the slightest bit of trimming on the leading edge. Certainly not anything like the smooth upper surface I’d assume was necessary for a wing to be aerodynamic. I guess it doesn’t matter too much for a plane this size, but would a smoother wing surface actually perform better? I’m also fascinated by the variety of shapes of RC planes, compared to your traditional passenger aircraft. Is there a good primer on model plane design?
- easygenes 4y ago
  Yeah, a proper airfoil would absolutely perform better, and people use hot wire cutters on foam like this to produce airfoils [1][2], but that's more of an advanced craft and not necessary for getting something which flies well. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIxyyTnT-hM 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIRzQO4F8ck
- robotresearcher 4y ago
  The power to weight ratio on these machines is very high indeed. They can accelerate straight up. In horizontal flight you can get plenty of lift from angle of attack without careful wing shaping. You might get more efficiency with better shaping, but these things are already so outrageously flyable that the demand on the pilot is the limiting factor.
- zackbloom 4y ago
  Even a flat piece of foam will generate lift [1]. The only requirement per se is that the trailing edge of the wing is somewhat sharp. A more optimized shape would allow the plane to fly at a lower angle of attack and would reduce drag, but drag isn’t exactly your problem if your thrust to weight ratio is 2:1. 1- https://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#fig-barn20 https://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#fig-barn20
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Normally the foam core board is cunningly bent over to form a pretty darned good airfoil.
cebert 4y ago
I wonder you were to start such a project and desired a video stream, how feasible it would be.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Very, very, very. You can't sell a house anymore without a fly around video.
bamboozled 4y ago
This thing looks like it would get obliterated by event the slightest amount of wind.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Amazingly, not. These things are very sturdy.
paulmd 4y ago
the return of the Zagi flying wing! https://radiocontrol.fandom.com/wiki/Zagi https://radiocontrol.fandom.com/wiki/Zagi there's a huge variety of kits available from a variety of manufacturers. They're also super easy to make with just a hot-wire cutter and there's lots of derivative designs. https://flightpoint.co/rc-flying-wing-plans-free-download/ https://flightpoint.co/rc-flying-wing-plans-free-download/ Generally speaking it's one of the easiest to build, and most durable designs. Those "kits" aren't even grandpa building a plane from plans and balsa wood, they're wing sections that you cover with shrink-film and attach some hinged elevons and a motor to.
- mastry 4y ago
  SweepWings has some great build videos (and kits, for those interested). Not affiliated - just a fan. https://sweepwings.com/collections/frontpage/products/flinch-fpv-wing https://sweepwings.com/collections/frontpage/products/flinch...
dtgriscom 4y ago
It's a bummer that the only ESC/motor they recommend has been discontinued. Choosing the right ESC/motor/prop has always been the most daunting step for me when considering parts for a plane.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  ESCs have improved absolutely phenomenally over the last 10 years. You can hardly go wrong anymore.
unicornporn 4y ago
So, I'd you don't want to build one yourself... What is good ready-to-fly option?
- saidinesh5 4y ago
  A good plug n play model is Zohd dart? https://www.getfpv.com/zohd-dart-250g-570mm-epp-fpv-wing-pnp-version.html https://www.getfpv.com/zohd-dart-250g-570mm-epp-fpv-wing-pnp... There are even more "ready to fly" kits but in this hobby, you typically want to buy a good transmitter separately. That way you can reuse it across all your models, especially when you crash and get a new one etc.. A good radio is maybe Radiomaster tx12 mk2 Elrs version and Matek makes decent elrs pwm receivers. I mostly fly fpv quadcopters and don't need too many sliders and knobs on my radios. Hence the TX12. Someone else may have a stronger opinion about Radiomaster Tx12 vs. Radiomaster Tx16s for fixed wings.
Animats 4y ago
At the expensive end, model flying wing aircraft now have very impressive performance.[1] Over 400 MPH. That one has a jet engine which costs several thousand dollars and has enough power to accelerate straight up. There's some suspicion that the triangular aircraft seen buzzing U.S. Navy ships off the California coast are drones like these. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPGDAZyQ44k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPGDAZyQ44k
- mschuster91 4y ago
  The most powerful engine I'm aware of is the JetCat P100 Pro - over 1 kN of thrust or enough power to lift off 111kg off the ground [1]. Madness. But it will cost you more than a car. [1] https://rcmodelturbines.com/de/jetcat/27-jetcat-p1000-pro.html https://rcmodelturbines.com/de/jetcat/27-jetcat-p1000-pro.ht...
  - Animats 4y ago
    That's a fundamental problem with jet engines. They can be made smaller, but they don't get proportionally cheaper. Many people have tried. But human-rated jet engines don't seem to get cheaper below 6-passenger bizjet size. This is why light aircraft are still mostly powered by reciprocating engines. NASA and Williams tried to crack that problem in the 1990s, without success.

137 points by ghgr 4y ago

FastEatSlow 4y ago

I've been looking for instructions for a drone this simple and cheap for a while now, guess I have a project to do now.

fit2rule 4y ago
danboarder 4y ago
This uses the same control surfaces as a v-tail RC airplane ;-) . I built one like this, fairly simple controls using an aileron mix (as elevons) to combine the traditional aileron, elevator, and rudder controls. Note that you can find a lot of RC projects like this online under keywords like "RC flying wing plans".

robomartin 4y ago

People in the model airplane world have been building precisely these kinds of planes for probably at least two decades. In that sense, nothing new. That said, good to see the idea reaching a different audience. If you want to save some weight you can buy small diameter carbon fiber rods for the pushrods (rather than using steel). You can also stiffen the wing by using a carbon fiber spar (either epoxy or cyanoacrylate to the bottom surface. If you know what you are doing you can even lighten it by cutting holes in the wings (think: punching out a bunch of circles) and then use packing tape to cover top and bottom surfaces. That said, a light plane isn't always better. Some of my best-flying RC planes are not what anyone would characterize as light. For example, an electric-powered glider that weighs eight pounds (3.6 kg), can go straight up like a rocket, glide (power off) at over 120 mph and thermal with the birds with great agility and control. The problem with very light RC planes is that they can be very difficult to fly in windy conditions, this is particularly true of inexperienced pilots. Here are some examples (no affiliation): https://www.wmparkflyers.com/EPP-Foam-Airplanes https://www.wmparkflyers.com/EPP-Foam-Airplanes

kayodelycaon 4y ago
My grandfather built model planes out of balsa wood kits for at least two decades. Some of them had wingspans of 5 feet. :)
- ncmncm 4y ago
  It has become so, so much easier now.
nine_k 4y ago
The point here appears to be very inexpensive and requiring very little skill to build. Basically only the electric equipment and the aileron hooks are not made from common cheap household items or flat TV packaging trash. Certainly you can improve this design in many ways, while making it lighter, sturdier, and higher-performing at the same time. It would take quite a bit of skill, more tools, and a variety of more interesting materials.
- bri3d 4y ago
  "Flite Test" have been designing ridiculously cheap, low-skill DIY flying things for many years now - at the same level of "turning trash to an RC plane." Definitely worth checking out if you're interested in the space.
  - ansible 4y ago
    Agreed about Flite Test. They have kits using water resistant foam board that will perform and look better. Also this delta wing has options like being able to purchase the motor kit needed: https://store.flitetest.com/ft-spear-wing-wr-1041mm/ https://store.flitetest.com/ft-spear-wing-wr-1041mm/ It is a good way to get started.
- paulmd 4y ago
  Sure, that's why people have been doing this design for 20 years. Homebuilding included ;) I agree with the grandparent, it's of course interesting and it's a different audience, a lot of the "drone" crowd nowadays is purely quadrocopters, but like, this was pretty standard stuff back 15 years or so ago, for the electric parkflyer crowd. But much like every piece of software nowadays is an "app"... every model airplane is a "drone" now, and drone people aren't really familiar with the variety of aircraft that are possible because of the dominance of the quadrocopter. Like yeah, welcome to what the rest of the hobby has been doing while the drone community has farted around with quads for 15 years ;)

melenaos 4y ago

I have an RC plane that is without remote control. How can i bind the random remote control I have with the plane?

cryptonector 4y ago
Look at the docs for the radio on the plane and then acquire a remote control that is compatible with that radio. Or, if you don't even have a radio, buy a remote control and radio, read the manuals, install the radio (and battery), connect the servos, check that it works.
cheschire 4y ago
There's a lot of details missing from your question I think. I tried doing some brief research for you because the question sounds interesting, but without knowing information that would narrow down the quality of the remote or the plane, it's too difficult to guess what your next steps are.
hnuser123456 4y ago
You need to find the type of RC receiver on the plane, and the protocols it speaks, and the type of radio/transmitter you have, and the protocols it speaks. A common controller/radio/transmitter brand is FrSky with the ACCST protocol (apparently now ACCESS), Flysky with AFHDS2A, and Spektrum with DSMX. Each of these brands and protocols has their own binding procedure described in the transmitter and receiver manuals. Since this article is about inexpensive, the least expensive, well-known brand I listed here is Flysky. Frsky is more about open source and modularity, and Spektrum is the most American but not cheap or open. Radiolink appears to be another large brand but I don't know as much about them. Generally, all of these are about sending a PWM signal, with the pulse width being 1.0 ms - 2.0 ms, where 1.5 ms is the "center" position, at an update rate of 50 hz, to represent the controller stick positions, with 4 channels, two for each axis of two sticks, and perhaps additional channels for communicating more data from a fancier controller to a fancier receiver for things like flaps, landing gear, flight modes, etc.
- saidinesh5 4y ago

melony 4y ago

Enough of these drones, who else here remember "model planes"?

nine_k 4y ago
It's only a drone if it can demonstrate stable flight by itself. Sadly, the remote control chapter is not (yet) there, and the self-flying drone capabilities are only briefly mentioned in the intro. I suppose that for a real self-flying capability, a model plane would need at least a 3-axis accelerometer, a speed sensor, a height sensor (or at least a ground proximity sensor), and a controller to make sense of all of the data. That part is going to be a bit less cheap and trivial.
- bri3d 4y ago
  They're quite cheap and "trivial," honestly - iNav, ArduPilot, and PX4 are all strong in this space, and controllers start in the $50-$60 range (look at Matek hardware). Of course, for some definition of "trivial," but we do live in an age where a fairly accurate MEMS gyro/accelerometer, a barometer, and a fast STM32 microcontroller can all be had at a low price, and the control algorithms are mostly tried-and-true PID / feedforward PID attached to some form of input filtering. One can definitely build a fully autonomous flying wing for under $200, especially if the foam is self-cut. There are also a wealth of cheap foam pre-molded models available these days. We're really in a golden age for DIY flying models right now, pending regulatory crackdowns in most countries.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    I wonder if pitot tube input is a thing, yet, for inertial-platform controllers. Most you can buy were designed for quadcopters. It is astonishing to me how you can run fantastically good Free Software control software on them all, interchangeably.
    - bri3d 4y ago
      Yes, pitot tubes have been supported for a long time by all of the "mainstream" flight control software (PX4, Ardupilot, iNav although in iNav it doesn't do much besides provide an on screen display readout). Both analog and digital (I2C) pressure transducers are generally supported by direct interface to either an ADC pin or the I2C bus, which is exposed on most boards, even those designed for quadcopters. Many Ardupilot and PX4 boards are starting to come with CAN ports as well for UAVCAN peripherals.

saidinesh5 4y ago

Obligatory link whenever people are interested in flying wings: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hTYuj7hzKeI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hTYuj7hzKeI (building an rc flying wing with a pizza box) . It's actually a really cool DIY channel imo. In general, I think these flying rc toys (especially the fpv side) are a great hobby to get into for the Hacker News crowd. Almost all of the software is open source. Hardware is mostly open too. Lots of things to learn and tweak and tinker.

Gys 4y ago

This reminds me of a kickstarter project for motorizing a folded paper plane: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/393053146/powerup-40-smartphone-controlled-paper-airplane https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/393053146/powerup-40-sm... Still available: https://www.poweruptoys.com/products/powerup-4-0 https://www.poweruptoys.com/products/powerup-4-0

tguvot 4y ago

somewhat relevant, saw it today. Create an inexpensive bomber copter from scrap metal: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fb6A-NxWQAMjTC7?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fb6A-NxWQAMjTC7?format=jpg&name=...

btbuildem 4y ago
Looks a bit more complex than "scrap metal" -- it might be rough-looking, but it's a quadcopter drone with payload management, and some pretty large motors.

teamonkey 4y ago

The wings are two sandwiched pieces of foam with only the slightest bit of trimming on the leading edge. Certainly not anything like the smooth upper surface I’d assume was necessary for a wing to be aerodynamic. I guess it doesn’t matter too much for a plane this size, but would a smoother wing surface actually perform better? I’m also fascinated by the variety of shapes of RC planes, compared to your traditional passenger aircraft. Is there a good primer on model plane design?

easygenes 4y ago
Yeah, a proper airfoil would absolutely perform better, and people use hot wire cutters on foam like this to produce airfoils [1][2], but that's more of an advanced craft and not necessary for getting something which flies well. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIxyyTnT-hM 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIRzQO4F8ck
robotresearcher 4y ago
The power to weight ratio on these machines is very high indeed. They can accelerate straight up. In horizontal flight you can get plenty of lift from angle of attack without careful wing shaping. You might get more efficiency with better shaping, but these things are already so outrageously flyable that the demand on the pilot is the limiting factor.
zackbloom 4y ago
Even a flat piece of foam will generate lift [1]. The only requirement per se is that the trailing edge of the wing is somewhat sharp. A more optimized shape would allow the plane to fly at a lower angle of attack and would reduce drag, but drag isn’t exactly your problem if your thrust to weight ratio is 2:1. 1- https://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#fig-barn20 https://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#fig-barn20
ncmncm 4y ago
Normally the foam core board is cunningly bent over to form a pretty darned good airfoil.

cebert 4y ago

I wonder you were to start such a project and desired a video stream, how feasible it would be.

ncmncm 4y ago
Very, very, very. You can't sell a house anymore without a fly around video.

bamboozled 4y ago

This thing looks like it would get obliterated by event the slightest amount of wind.

ncmncm 4y ago
Amazingly, not. These things are very sturdy.

paulmd 4y ago

the return of the Zagi flying wing! https://radiocontrol.fandom.com/wiki/Zagi https://radiocontrol.fandom.com/wiki/Zagi there's a huge variety of kits available from a variety of manufacturers. They're also super easy to make with just a hot-wire cutter and there's lots of derivative designs. https://flightpoint.co/rc-flying-wing-plans-free-download/ https://flightpoint.co/rc-flying-wing-plans-free-download/ Generally speaking it's one of the easiest to build, and most durable designs. Those "kits" aren't even grandpa building a plane from plans and balsa wood, they're wing sections that you cover with shrink-film and attach some hinged elevons and a motor to.

mastry 4y ago
SweepWings has some great build videos (and kits, for those interested). Not affiliated - just a fan. https://sweepwings.com/collections/frontpage/products/flinch-fpv-wing https://sweepwings.com/collections/frontpage/products/flinch...

dtgriscom 4y ago

It's a bummer that the only ESC/motor they recommend has been discontinued. Choosing the right ESC/motor/prop has always been the most daunting step for me when considering parts for a plane.

ncmncm 4y ago
ESCs have improved absolutely phenomenally over the last 10 years. You can hardly go wrong anymore.

unicornporn 4y ago

So, I'd you don't want to build one yourself... What is good ready-to-fly option?

saidinesh5 4y ago
A good plug n play model is Zohd dart? https://www.getfpv.com/zohd-dart-250g-570mm-epp-fpv-wing-pnp-version.html https://www.getfpv.com/zohd-dart-250g-570mm-epp-fpv-wing-pnp... There are even more "ready to fly" kits but in this hobby, you typically want to buy a good transmitter separately. That way you can reuse it across all your models, especially when you crash and get a new one etc.. A good radio is maybe Radiomaster tx12 mk2 Elrs version and Matek makes decent elrs pwm receivers. I mostly fly fpv quadcopters and don't need too many sliders and knobs on my radios. Hence the TX12. Someone else may have a stronger opinion about Radiomaster Tx12 vs. Radiomaster Tx16s for fixed wings.

Animats 4y ago

At the expensive end, model flying wing aircraft now have very impressive performance.[1] Over 400 MPH. That one has a jet engine which costs several thousand dollars and has enough power to accelerate straight up. There's some suspicion that the triangular aircraft seen buzzing U.S. Navy ships off the California coast are drones like these. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPGDAZyQ44k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPGDAZyQ44k

mschuster91 4y ago
The most powerful engine I'm aware of is the JetCat P100 Pro - over 1 kN of thrust or enough power to lift off 111kg off the ground [1]. Madness. But it will cost you more than a car. [1] https://rcmodelturbines.com/de/jetcat/27-jetcat-p1000-pro.html https://rcmodelturbines.com/de/jetcat/27-jetcat-p1000-pro.ht...
- Animats 4y ago
  That's a fundamental problem with jet engines. They can be made smaller, but they don't get proportionally cheaper. Many people have tried. But human-rated jet engines don't seem to get cheaper below 6-passenger bizjet size. This is why light aircraft are still mostly powered by reciprocating engines. NASA and Williams tried to crack that problem in the 1990s, without success.