9 ms·

RC fighter model UAV build in Jet engine 360+mph [video]

131 points by MichaelAO 12y ago

spikels 12y ago
Wow - just realized how slow most drones are. Could something that small break the sound barrier?
- easytiger 12y ago
  I'M
- easytiger 12y ago
  I'm not sure what altitude they are at but they claim to be flying it faster than the sound barrier. Don't see anything to back that up.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > Could something that small break the sound barrier? Why not? Missiles and rockets of similar size do.
- danieldyer 12y ago
  Only if it were rocket powered. The aerodynamics simply don't scale well enough for something that small to become supersonic using any currently available small turbine engine.
  - termain 12y ago
    What part doesn't scale? The only thing I can think of that might be a problem is the boundary layer thickness through the intake/diffuser.
    - danieldyer 12y ago
      Roughly speaking, the drag is proportional to cross-sectional area, whereas engine thrust required is proportional to mass, which in turn is proportional to volume. So, you end up running into a square-cube law situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law Also, the Reynolds number will be completely different for a model aircraft compared to a full-sized aircraft, so they will behave quite differently aerodynamically. It's also worth pointing out that even the fastest full-size jet aircraft can only just break the sound barrier at sea level (the F-111 did Mach 1.2 at sea level) – going supersonic typically requires flying at a high altitude, which obviously isn't practical or legal for a radio-controlled model aircraft.
      - termain 12y ago
        >Also, the Reynolds number will be completely different for a model aircraft compared to a full-sized aircraft, so they will behave quite differently aerodynamically. For low speeds, maybe. For high speeds, you're well into the high Reynolds number turbulent regime. I've worked on R/C aircraft designs and I'm reasonably sure we got decent results with inviscid aerodynamics. At sea level, you're going to see Re in the millions. Regarding the Square-Cube law, I'm not sure it's that relevant here. It's pretty clear you could put two of those engines in a AMA sized model, so not exceeding 55 lbf. That'd give you a thrust-to-weight ratio of greater than 1.0.
        danieldyer 12y ago
        > Regarding the Square-Cube law, I'm not sure it's that relevant here. It's pretty clear you could put two of those engines in a AMA sized model, so not exceeding 55 lbf. That'd give you a thrust-to-weight ratio of greater than 1.0. Yes, a small turbine-powered RC aircraft can easily have a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than a full-sized aircraft, but it's not thrust-to-weight ratio that determines top speed; it's thrust-to-drag ratio. This is where the square-cube law comes into it. If we take a full-sized delta-winged high performance aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon, we could very roughly approximate the difference in drag between that and the model to be proportional to the difference between the square of their wingspans. I'm guessing the aircraft in the video has a wingspan of 1 m, and the Typhoon has a wingspan of 11 m, so the drag should be greater by something like a factor of 121. However, the Typhoon's engines provide a combined 180 kN of thrust, which is greater than the 160 N thrust of the Jetcat P160 by a factor of 1125. So, you can see that the thrust-to-drag ratio of a full-sized jet fighter is something like an order of magnitude larger than for a model aircraft like this, which is the main reason why model aircraft are unable to attain supersonic speeds. Of course, supersonic flight for model aircraft would pose all the same problems it poses for full-sized aircraft; onset of compressibility affecting control surface response, engine inlet geometry and so on.
        termain 12y ago
        >Yes, a small turbine-powered RC aircraft can easily have a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than a full-sized aircraft, but it's not thrust-to-weight ratio that determines top speed; it's thrust-to-drag ratio. And parasitic drag dominates, right? Ok, so yeah, I was thinking in terms of induced drag. Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it and it was a good refresher.
gchokov 12y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa-TSNeTK-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa-TSNeTK-A this one goes to 440mph .. pretty impressive toys. How do you control this thing without FPV?
- bigiain 12y ago
  Almost as fast as the ones with no engines at all... How's a 498mph glider sound? http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1609281 http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1609281 With a big hill, the right wind, and an appropriate unpowered glider, it looks like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjASRmgQWoo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjASRmgQWoo
- alan_cx 12y ago
  Possibly easier than piloting the real thing. No g-force, total vision, simple controls, and so on. With various fail-safes and controllers, its made much easier Dont get me wrong, I've tried flying normal RC planes, and Im rubbish at it, it is still hard and skillfull. But, if you spend some time on YouTube looking at what people can do with these things, you'll end up wondering if they are bending physics.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
    I taught myself to fly RC planes using RealFlight[1] RC model simulator using the same transmitter / controller I used for the RC planes configured with progressive rate controls connected via USB interface. 10 hours on the sim using a high-wing trainer with lots of dihedral[2], learned how to land in a gusty cross wind, then out in to the park with my high-wing high-dihedral trainer. Took off, flew, and landed no problems - the RealFlight trainer was nearly spot on. I then bought a model F4U Corsair, much different plane to fly, they go where you point them and don't self right or self level like a high-wing high-dihedral aircraft. More RealFlight training and then flew and landed it successfully first go to. Lots of fun! The parks I had easy access to weren't in suburbia though. 1. http://www.realflight.com/ http://www.realflight.com/ 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihedral_(aeronautics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihedral_(aeronautics)
mattivc 12y ago
I have been toying with the idea of trying to create a small Pulsejet[1] engine and stick it on a UAV frame. It's a very simple design and shouldn't be to hard to make with, i think. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsejet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsejet
- willyt 12y ago
  You should see this stuff. http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/ http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/ Pretty crazy. He got some attention in the news a few years ago with his DIY cruise missile project.
- bigiain 12y ago
  Apparently these work OK: http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__37414__Hobbyking_Pulse_Jet_Gasoline_Engine_34_Red_Head_34_.html http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__37414__Hobbyking_Puls...
- matheweis 12y ago
  Here's the pilot from the op flying a pulsejet ... sounds like a lawnmower: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJLWMZHlD90 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJLWMZHlD90
konstruktor 12y ago
That's a turbine powered RC plane, and, technically, an unmanned aerial vehicle, but it doesn't seem to fly autonomously.
- danieldyer 12y ago
  Exactly. It's just a radio-controlled model aircraft, which have been around for a long time. Also, it's worth pointing out that it's not a model of a fighter jet, and that this video seems to be a repost of one that's been up for five years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTHWBSluUjU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTHWBSluUjU
ajross 12y ago
This appears to be the engine in question: http://www.jetcatusa.com/p160.html http://www.jetcatusa.com/p160.html Executive summary appears to be: 36 lbs of thrust with a (dry?) weight of 3.1 lbs and a fuel consumption of about a pound per minute. Sounds shockingly good, so I have to wonder if the compressor is basically an ablative heat shield and this is good for only a few runs. That said: doing this stunt in what looks like a suburban park strikes me as shockingly irresponsible. This thing can easily kill someone, wreck a vehicle or puncture a roof if control is lost...
- chrisan 12y ago
  > That said: doing this stunt in what looks like a suburban park strikes me as shockingly irresponsible. This thing can easily kill someone, wreck a vehicle or puncture a roof if control is lost... I'd be more concerned with drunk or texting drivers than a R/C jet engine killing me.
  - ealexhudson 12y ago
    On a probability basis, sure, bad driving is much more likely to kill you. That doesn't mean that jet RC flying like that isn't shockingly irresponsible.
    - chrisan 12y ago
      You assume this person is shockingly irresponsible. Do you have proof? What's on the other side of those trees? I assume that one does not simply dive into the RC world with a jet turbine. Instead this individual has probably had a lot of practice with slower planes, does not want to injury anyone, and is not doing this in Central Park NY
      - ealexhudson 12y ago
        Interesting that you think the burden of proof should be on me that flying a couple litres of kerosene around the sky at 370mph is not obviously unsafe. I have no doubt the pilot is experienced, and that the area in general is clear.
kator 12y ago
Does it worry anyone that he looses this thing in the clouds on a regular basis? Seems irresponsible to fly it on a day where you can't keep it in view. With this much speed it's basically a flying remote controlled rocket/projectile that would kill someone instantly if it hit them. I wonder how this thing handles loosing contact with the controller? It's no wonder the FCC in US is getting less and less RC friendly, besides the typical "home land security" drama stuff like this in a public park could be a real problem from noise pollution to safety of other people in the area. All this said, must be quite a rush to play with something like that, I would love to fly it in an open field deep in the desert with a clear open sky.
- kator 12y ago
  I also noticed in the video that they had hearing protection but it was on the ground next to the fire extinguisher. Reading the very nice detailed instruction manual[1]: To the avoid hearing damage, always use hearing protection when you are near a running turbine engine! Along with a couple warnings: A flying model with a turbine can reach higher flight speeds than ducted fan-powered models, because the turbine’s thrust degrades less with higher flight speeds. With attainable flight speeds of over 250 MPH, you can quickly run out if flying room. There is also a danger of developing control surface flutter or mechanical overload, causing the model to fail in flight. That said with a list price of $4,195.00 just for the engine I have to imagine it'll be a while before we see 100's of these in the air at random parks. [1] http://www.jetcatusa.com/PDFFiles/Instruction%20manual%20V6.0J2.pdf http://www.jetcatusa.com/PDFFiles/Instruction%20manual%20V6....
- pjc50 12y ago
  'lose' has only one 'o'.
- baddox 12y ago
  If you saw a video of someone flying a full scale aircraft without incident, would you assume by default that they are being irresponsible? I don't think most people would say "that seems irresponsible since it's basically a huge flying missile that could kill dozens of people if it crashed," even if the full scale aircraft was flying in very low visibility conditions.
fpvracing 12y ago
Anyone into this kind of thing may like to check out FPV racing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8510680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8510680 Not quite as fast, but just as much fun!
scotthtaylor 12y ago
Amazing, would love to see this advance to have a camera capable of relaying a camera feed to an Oculus Rift.
spyder 12y ago
Another one with 4 jet engine and onboard camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeL3LhrmeME http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeL3LhrmeME
Aardwolf 12y ago
How do you control that? It goes so fast a fraction of a second mistake could be fatal, and you can't see it half the time.
- frik 12y ago
  A good eye sight is several times better than the resolution of the video camera. You need a fast reaction time and good 3d orientation sense. You can train that with simulators & video games.
  - bigiain 12y ago
    And, of course, a string of previous versions of this sort of rc plane. Without anything except that footage, I can say with 100% certainty that this is not the first rc plane that pilot has flown. I'd be quite surprised if his list of planes before this one didn't approach or exceed 100... (I'm nowhere near ready to fly something like that, and I could list 30 or 40 models I've built and flown).
jokoon 12y ago
that's old I still wonder what are the best tech available to have a camera/screen on this thing, with what latency.
- bigiain 12y ago
  So far as I can tell _nobody_ flies FPV (first person view) with anything except regular analog video cameras and radios. I'm guessing that's at least partly for cost reasons, but mainly because you don't even need to ask the "what latency" question. Even though iPads/cellphones/OcculusRift have much better and higher resolution screens than most of the inexpensive hobby FPV gear around, the lag as you digitise/compress/decode real time video streams is both too long and too variable. Remember John Carmak's rant about being able to get packets to London quicker than he can get them onto his screen? Imagine trying to control a ~400mph toy plane when you aren't sure if you've got 15 or 200ms of latency at any time? That'd represent "seeing where you are" something between ~10 and 200 feet behind where the plane is right now.
  - stephenitis 12y ago
    Thanks for referencing the John Carmak "rant". I missed this. anyone else interested. http://superuser.com/questions/419070/transatlantic-ping-faster-than-sending-a-pixel-to-the-screen http://superuser.com/questions/419070/transatlantic-ping-fas...
  - jokoon 12y ago
    aren't there uncompressed low latency solutions ?
owenversteeg 12y ago
The engine is http://www.jetcatusa.com/p160.html http://www.jetcatusa.com/p160.html. Only costs $4200, which is not too far out there in comparison to quad/hexa/octo setups.
rdlecler1 12y ago
Super cool, and I can't imagine how you could fly this. This is going to scare the hell out of the FAA and Homeland Security. I expect the FBI will start paying the turbine company a visit.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  These have been around for many years. The FAA already regulates them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-controlled_aircraft#Jets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-controlled_aircraft#Jets > In the U.S.A. the FAA heavily regulates flying of such aircraft to only approved AMA Academy of Model Aeronautics sites, in where certified turbine pilots may fly. Also, the AMA requires model aviation enthusiasts who wish to operate miniature gas turbine powered RC model aircraft, to be certified in the operation of the type of gas turbine engine, and all aspects of safety in operating such a turbine-powered model aircraft, that they need to know in flying their model.
matheweis 12y ago
This is an old video; the original is from over five years ago: http://youtu.be/dTHWBSluUjU http://youtu.be/dTHWBSluUjU http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/9133201-fast-rc-jet.html http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/9133201-fast-rc-... Either it's a rip off or somehow "Jukin Media" got the rights to it... It never ceases to amaze me when old stuff goes viral like this. Maybe it's the keywords stuffed in the title, 'cause UAVs are a pretty hot topic these days, but this thing is not a UAV.
- yehat 12y ago
  Exactly my thoughts. This video is in my favorites for quite some time and was also surprised how it become "new stuff" without reference to the original upload or other resource. It is still cool of course, but not UAV,just RC jet ;)
- thisjepisje 12y ago
  How is this not an unmanned aerial vehicle?
  - phil21 12y ago
    Because UAV has certain connotations in normal parlance. It's like saying that strange plane you haven't seen before is a UFO. A technically accurate but useless description if you want people to understand what you mean.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
Interesting discussion, clearly the size and speed crosses the 'scary' threshold. I wouldn't worry too much about that however as the risk is small, people invest a lot of time and effort into building models and that investment means that it is very very painful for them if they crash them. In many ways the modeller has more invested in the outcome than onlookers or the folks in the area. That said, its an amazing to me this guy can keep his head 'in the plane' which is to say at that speed can fly the plane to its orientation rather than his own. When I've flown model planes there are always times where I'm turning the wrong way because I've mixed up the front back / left right controls given a particular plane attitude and direction. (and yes crashed a couple which made me feel horrible and so I stick to vehicles :-) Next up I hope someone can build a FPOV version so they can fly it from the "cockpit". That would also make for a great video.
- nojvek 12y ago
  Lag and latency would be an issue
- baddox 12y ago
  > That said, its an amazing to me this guy can keep his head 'in the plane' which is to say at that speed can fly the plane to its orientation rather than his own. If you think the orientation skills in this video are impressive, you should check out the professional 3D RC helicopter pilots! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuDptulCpK0#t=37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuDptulCpK0#t=37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptMrBFAO-A#t=28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptMrBFAO-A#t=28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDxaJTjCFhE#t=16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDxaJTjCFhE#t=16
  - jgable 12y ago
    You got that right. I tried RC heli flying for a little bit. Spent several hours flying in the sim and several more flying the real thing, and could never comfortably do a nose-in hover. Very humbling. These professional RC hell pilots are incredible.
jpeg_hero 12y ago
we need more women in the uav industry. good careers to be had here.

131 points by MichaelAO 12y ago

spikels 12y ago

Wow - just realized how slow most drones are. Could something that small break the sound barrier?

easytiger 12y ago
I'M
easytiger 12y ago
I'm not sure what altitude they are at but they claim to be flying it faster than the sound barrier. Don't see anything to back that up.
ceejayoz 12y ago
> Could something that small break the sound barrier? Why not? Missiles and rockets of similar size do.
danieldyer 12y ago
Only if it were rocket powered. The aerodynamics simply don't scale well enough for something that small to become supersonic using any currently available small turbine engine.
- termain 12y ago
  What part doesn't scale? The only thing I can think of that might be a problem is the boundary layer thickness through the intake/diffuser.
  - danieldyer 12y ago
    Roughly speaking, the drag is proportional to cross-sectional area, whereas engine thrust required is proportional to mass, which in turn is proportional to volume. So, you end up running into a square-cube law situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law Also, the Reynolds number will be completely different for a model aircraft compared to a full-sized aircraft, so they will behave quite differently aerodynamically. It's also worth pointing out that even the fastest full-size jet aircraft can only just break the sound barrier at sea level (the F-111 did Mach 1.2 at sea level) – going supersonic typically requires flying at a high altitude, which obviously isn't practical or legal for a radio-controlled model aircraft.
    - termain 12y ago
      >Also, the Reynolds number will be completely different for a model aircraft compared to a full-sized aircraft, so they will behave quite differently aerodynamically. For low speeds, maybe. For high speeds, you're well into the high Reynolds number turbulent regime. I've worked on R/C aircraft designs and I'm reasonably sure we got decent results with inviscid aerodynamics. At sea level, you're going to see Re in the millions. Regarding the Square-Cube law, I'm not sure it's that relevant here. It's pretty clear you could put two of those engines in a AMA sized model, so not exceeding 55 lbf. That'd give you a thrust-to-weight ratio of greater than 1.0.
      - danieldyer 12y ago
        > Regarding the Square-Cube law, I'm not sure it's that relevant here. It's pretty clear you could put two of those engines in a AMA sized model, so not exceeding 55 lbf. That'd give you a thrust-to-weight ratio of greater than 1.0. Yes, a small turbine-powered RC aircraft can easily have a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than a full-sized aircraft, but it's not thrust-to-weight ratio that determines top speed; it's thrust-to-drag ratio. This is where the square-cube law comes into it. If we take a full-sized delta-winged high performance aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon, we could very roughly approximate the difference in drag between that and the model to be proportional to the difference between the square of their wingspans. I'm guessing the aircraft in the video has a wingspan of 1 m, and the Typhoon has a wingspan of 11 m, so the drag should be greater by something like a factor of 121. However, the Typhoon's engines provide a combined 180 kN of thrust, which is greater than the 160 N thrust of the Jetcat P160 by a factor of 1125. So, you can see that the thrust-to-drag ratio of a full-sized jet fighter is something like an order of magnitude larger than for a model aircraft like this, which is the main reason why model aircraft are unable to attain supersonic speeds. Of course, supersonic flight for model aircraft would pose all the same problems it poses for full-sized aircraft; onset of compressibility affecting control surface response, engine inlet geometry and so on.
        termain 12y ago
        >Yes, a small turbine-powered RC aircraft can easily have a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than a full-sized aircraft, but it's not thrust-to-weight ratio that determines top speed; it's thrust-to-drag ratio. And parasitic drag dominates, right? Ok, so yeah, I was thinking in terms of induced drag. Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it and it was a good refresher.

gchokov 12y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa-TSNeTK-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa-TSNeTK-A this one goes to 440mph .. pretty impressive toys. How do you control this thing without FPV?

bigiain 12y ago
Almost as fast as the ones with no engines at all... How's a 498mph glider sound? http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1609281 http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1609281 With a big hill, the right wind, and an appropriate unpowered glider, it looks like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjASRmgQWoo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjASRmgQWoo
alan_cx 12y ago
Possibly easier than piloting the real thing. No g-force, total vision, simple controls, and so on. With various fail-safes and controllers, its made much easier Dont get me wrong, I've tried flying normal RC planes, and Im rubbish at it, it is still hard and skillfull. But, if you spend some time on YouTube looking at what people can do with these things, you'll end up wondering if they are bending physics.
- TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
  I taught myself to fly RC planes using RealFlight[1] RC model simulator using the same transmitter / controller I used for the RC planes configured with progressive rate controls connected via USB interface. 10 hours on the sim using a high-wing trainer with lots of dihedral[2], learned how to land in a gusty cross wind, then out in to the park with my high-wing high-dihedral trainer. Took off, flew, and landed no problems - the RealFlight trainer was nearly spot on. I then bought a model F4U Corsair, much different plane to fly, they go where you point them and don't self right or self level like a high-wing high-dihedral aircraft. More RealFlight training and then flew and landed it successfully first go to. Lots of fun! The parks I had easy access to weren't in suburbia though. 1. http://www.realflight.com/ http://www.realflight.com/ 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihedral_(aeronautics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihedral_(aeronautics)

mattivc 12y ago

I have been toying with the idea of trying to create a small Pulsejet[1] engine and stick it on a UAV frame. It's a very simple design and shouldn't be to hard to make with, i think. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsejet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsejet

willyt 12y ago
You should see this stuff. http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/ http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/ Pretty crazy. He got some attention in the news a few years ago with his DIY cruise missile project.
bigiain 12y ago
Apparently these work OK: http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__37414__Hobbyking_Pulse_Jet_Gasoline_Engine_34_Red_Head_34_.html http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__37414__Hobbyking_Puls...
matheweis 12y ago
Here's the pilot from the op flying a pulsejet ... sounds like a lawnmower: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJLWMZHlD90 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJLWMZHlD90

konstruktor 12y ago

That's a turbine powered RC plane, and, technically, an unmanned aerial vehicle, but it doesn't seem to fly autonomously.

danieldyer 12y ago
Exactly. It's just a radio-controlled model aircraft, which have been around for a long time. Also, it's worth pointing out that it's not a model of a fighter jet, and that this video seems to be a repost of one that's been up for five years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTHWBSluUjU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTHWBSluUjU

ajross 12y ago

This appears to be the engine in question: http://www.jetcatusa.com/p160.html http://www.jetcatusa.com/p160.html Executive summary appears to be: 36 lbs of thrust with a (dry?) weight of 3.1 lbs and a fuel consumption of about a pound per minute. Sounds shockingly good, so I have to wonder if the compressor is basically an ablative heat shield and this is good for only a few runs. That said: doing this stunt in what looks like a suburban park strikes me as shockingly irresponsible. This thing can easily kill someone, wreck a vehicle or puncture a roof if control is lost...

chrisan 12y ago
> That said: doing this stunt in what looks like a suburban park strikes me as shockingly irresponsible. This thing can easily kill someone, wreck a vehicle or puncture a roof if control is lost... I'd be more concerned with drunk or texting drivers than a R/C jet engine killing me.
- ealexhudson 12y ago
  On a probability basis, sure, bad driving is much more likely to kill you. That doesn't mean that jet RC flying like that isn't shockingly irresponsible.
  - chrisan 12y ago
    You assume this person is shockingly irresponsible. Do you have proof? What's on the other side of those trees? I assume that one does not simply dive into the RC world with a jet turbine. Instead this individual has probably had a lot of practice with slower planes, does not want to injury anyone, and is not doing this in Central Park NY
    - ealexhudson 12y ago
      Interesting that you think the burden of proof should be on me that flying a couple litres of kerosene around the sky at 370mph is not obviously unsafe. I have no doubt the pilot is experienced, and that the area in general is clear.

kator 12y ago

Does it worry anyone that he looses this thing in the clouds on a regular basis? Seems irresponsible to fly it on a day where you can't keep it in view. With this much speed it's basically a flying remote controlled rocket/projectile that would kill someone instantly if it hit them. I wonder how this thing handles loosing contact with the controller? It's no wonder the FCC in US is getting less and less RC friendly, besides the typical "home land security" drama stuff like this in a public park could be a real problem from noise pollution to safety of other people in the area. All this said, must be quite a rush to play with something like that, I would love to fly it in an open field deep in the desert with a clear open sky.

kator 12y ago
I also noticed in the video that they had hearing protection but it was on the ground next to the fire extinguisher. Reading the very nice detailed instruction manual[1]: To the avoid hearing damage, always use hearing protection when you are near a running turbine engine! Along with a couple warnings: A flying model with a turbine can reach higher flight speeds than ducted fan-powered models, because the turbine’s thrust degrades less with higher flight speeds. With attainable flight speeds of over 250 MPH, you can quickly run out if flying room. There is also a danger of developing control surface flutter or mechanical overload, causing the model to fail in flight. That said with a list price of $4,195.00 just for the engine I have to imagine it'll be a while before we see 100's of these in the air at random parks. [1] http://www.jetcatusa.com/PDFFiles/Instruction%20manual%20V6.0J2.pdf http://www.jetcatusa.com/PDFFiles/Instruction%20manual%20V6....
pjc50 12y ago
'lose' has only one 'o'.
baddox 12y ago
If you saw a video of someone flying a full scale aircraft without incident, would you assume by default that they are being irresponsible? I don't think most people would say "that seems irresponsible since it's basically a huge flying missile that could kill dozens of people if it crashed," even if the full scale aircraft was flying in very low visibility conditions.

fpvracing 12y ago

Anyone into this kind of thing may like to check out FPV racing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8510680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8510680 Not quite as fast, but just as much fun!

scotthtaylor 12y ago

Amazing, would love to see this advance to have a camera capable of relaying a camera feed to an Oculus Rift.

spyder 12y ago

Another one with 4 jet engine and onboard camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeL3LhrmeME http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeL3LhrmeME

Aardwolf 12y ago

How do you control that? It goes so fast a fraction of a second mistake could be fatal, and you can't see it half the time.

frik 12y ago
A good eye sight is several times better than the resolution of the video camera. You need a fast reaction time and good 3d orientation sense. You can train that with simulators & video games.
- bigiain 12y ago
  And, of course, a string of previous versions of this sort of rc plane. Without anything except that footage, I can say with 100% certainty that this is not the first rc plane that pilot has flown. I'd be quite surprised if his list of planes before this one didn't approach or exceed 100... (I'm nowhere near ready to fly something like that, and I could list 30 or 40 models I've built and flown).

jokoon 12y ago

that's old I still wonder what are the best tech available to have a camera/screen on this thing, with what latency.

bigiain 12y ago
So far as I can tell _nobody_ flies FPV (first person view) with anything except regular analog video cameras and radios. I'm guessing that's at least partly for cost reasons, but mainly because you don't even need to ask the "what latency" question. Even though iPads/cellphones/OcculusRift have much better and higher resolution screens than most of the inexpensive hobby FPV gear around, the lag as you digitise/compress/decode real time video streams is both too long and too variable. Remember John Carmak's rant about being able to get packets to London quicker than he can get them onto his screen? Imagine trying to control a ~400mph toy plane when you aren't sure if you've got 15 or 200ms of latency at any time? That'd represent "seeing where you are" something between ~10 and 200 feet behind where the plane is right now.
- stephenitis 12y ago
  Thanks for referencing the John Carmak "rant". I missed this. anyone else interested. http://superuser.com/questions/419070/transatlantic-ping-faster-than-sending-a-pixel-to-the-screen http://superuser.com/questions/419070/transatlantic-ping-fas...
- jokoon 12y ago
  aren't there uncompressed low latency solutions ?

owenversteeg 12y ago

The engine is http://www.jetcatusa.com/p160.html http://www.jetcatusa.com/p160.html. Only costs $4200, which is not too far out there in comparison to quad/hexa/octo setups.

rdlecler1 12y ago

Super cool, and I can't imagine how you could fly this. This is going to scare the hell out of the FAA and Homeland Security. I expect the FBI will start paying the turbine company a visit.

ceejayoz 12y ago
These have been around for many years. The FAA already regulates them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-controlled_aircraft#Jets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-controlled_aircraft#Jets > In the U.S.A. the FAA heavily regulates flying of such aircraft to only approved AMA Academy of Model Aeronautics sites, in where certified turbine pilots may fly. Also, the AMA requires model aviation enthusiasts who wish to operate miniature gas turbine powered RC model aircraft, to be certified in the operation of the type of gas turbine engine, and all aspects of safety in operating such a turbine-powered model aircraft, that they need to know in flying their model.

matheweis 12y ago

This is an old video; the original is from over five years ago: http://youtu.be/dTHWBSluUjU http://youtu.be/dTHWBSluUjU http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/9133201-fast-rc-jet.html http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/9133201-fast-rc-... Either it's a rip off or somehow "Jukin Media" got the rights to it... It never ceases to amaze me when old stuff goes viral like this. Maybe it's the keywords stuffed in the title, 'cause UAVs are a pretty hot topic these days, but this thing is not a UAV.

yehat 12y ago
Exactly my thoughts. This video is in my favorites for quite some time and was also surprised how it become "new stuff" without reference to the original upload or other resource. It is still cool of course, but not UAV,just RC jet ;)
thisjepisje 12y ago
How is this not an unmanned aerial vehicle?
- phil21 12y ago
  Because UAV has certain connotations in normal parlance. It's like saying that strange plane you haven't seen before is a UFO. A technically accurate but useless description if you want people to understand what you mean.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

Interesting discussion, clearly the size and speed crosses the 'scary' threshold. I wouldn't worry too much about that however as the risk is small, people invest a lot of time and effort into building models and that investment means that it is very very painful for them if they crash them. In many ways the modeller has more invested in the outcome than onlookers or the folks in the area. That said, its an amazing to me this guy can keep his head 'in the plane' which is to say at that speed can fly the plane to its orientation rather than his own. When I've flown model planes there are always times where I'm turning the wrong way because I've mixed up the front back / left right controls given a particular plane attitude and direction. (and yes crashed a couple which made me feel horrible and so I stick to vehicles :-) Next up I hope someone can build a FPOV version so they can fly it from the "cockpit". That would also make for a great video.

nojvek 12y ago
Lag and latency would be an issue
baddox 12y ago
> That said, its an amazing to me this guy can keep his head 'in the plane' which is to say at that speed can fly the plane to its orientation rather than his own. If you think the orientation skills in this video are impressive, you should check out the professional 3D RC helicopter pilots! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuDptulCpK0#t=37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuDptulCpK0#t=37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptMrBFAO-A#t=28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptMrBFAO-A#t=28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDxaJTjCFhE#t=16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDxaJTjCFhE#t=16
- jgable 12y ago
  You got that right. I tried RC heli flying for a little bit. Spent several hours flying in the sim and several more flying the real thing, and could never comfortably do a nose-in hover. Very humbling. These professional RC hell pilots are incredible.

jpeg_hero 12y ago

we need more women in the uav industry. good careers to be had here.