This is a great Instructables video on the details of building up the powerpack and harness for a Paramotor. It comes from an Instructables account named Sky-Monkey, and in looking at his bio, I've got more in common than just an animal-in-the-air name... he's also plagued by almost too many interests to handle! One thing is sure, he's done an excellent job of putting together a 5 minute video and some step by step info showing the work that goes into building most everything except for the engine, prop and the parachute canopy.
Back in the day I made 110 skydives, and I was raised in a skydiving environment, so the idea of flying a parachute with an engine on your back has always interested me. However, I've never had the opportunity to pursue it like I probably should. This video gives me all the more reason to put Powered Para Gliding on my list! Oh, wait a minute... I see something shiny - I'll be right back : )
Instructables 'Sky-Monkey' and his excellent homebuilt Paramotor
It took just 40 minutes for Dovan to provide the correct answer... it's one of the very unique and extremely cool airplanes to come out of Sweden: the Saab 35 Draken. This pic had several leaning toward the McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) F-18, but as the pic below shows, it certainly isn't! Great job Dovan for getting it right... I hope you'll be able to collect your bacon sandwich at OSH12 : )
(click pic to enlarge) The very unique double-delta-winged Saab 35 Draken from Sweden
* * * * * * *
It's Saturday night... and if you've got nothing better to do, maybe you'll wanna give it a go trying to ID this cropped down image in another Name The Plane game. All you gotta do is ID both MAKE and MODEL, and the first person to get it right wins a bacon sandwhich prize at OSH12. So, if you've got sharp aircraft ID skills, be the first one to ID both MAKE and MODEL of this aircraft to snag the NTP bragging rights.
Your answers must go in the 'comments' area in this post, and as always, please don't use the shotgun approach to answers - only put up truly educated guesses that you've arrived at via really thinking it thru.
And I'm not sure if I mentioned this already, but to win, you have to give me both the MAKE and MODEL! Have fun fellow avgeeks : )
This little RC flying machine is getting some big attention here lately... the video above has had over 1,300,000 views in just over 2 weeks. It is pretty impressive how it mixes such stable vertical flying with a rapid transition to a more normal horizontal flight.
The smallish and very well rounded UAV was developed by the Research Department at Japan's Ministry of Defense. On one hand, it's not really much different than the impressive Dark Deltoid posted back in February (video), but the addition of gyros coupled to the servos gives some added position stability, and the round shape does give it a rather unique option to roll along the ground. Not sure I'd say it was bargain for the claimed $1,400 to build, but I'll admit that I've never seen any flying machine blow the top off a spherical storage box and then launch vertically out of it : )
I did a moment of research and found that it was demonstrated a while back as seen in the video below that was uploaded almost exactly a year ago. Maybe, just maybe, we'll see a $60 version of this roundy show up just in time for Christmas... if so, you can count me in!
Thelma, a recently restored & converted straight tail Cessna 150 by Taildragger Aviation
You might remember that quite a while back I posted an old Cessna 150 ad from 1966, the first year for the swept tail. This brought the 150 fully into the 'modern' era with the Land-O-Matic tricycle gear, the Omni-Vision rear window and now the new Flight/Sweep swept tail. The only problem for me was that all the things that made Cessna airplanes great thru the 40's and 50's was pretty much gone. In my opinion, the 1966 Cessna 150 had no heart. No soul.
Then I posted a story about how the nice people at Taildragger Aviation took an old straight tail 150 and restored it while also converting it to a taildragger. Check out that post: This Is What The 1966 Cessna 150 Should Have Looked Like! And now they've done it again. The pic above is another old straight tail that's been restored and converted... and wow, does it ever look great. I still think this is how the 150 shoulda looked thru the 1960's.
This restoration also comes with the video below to show the work and the finished product in 4-1/2 minutes. The best part? Watching that perfect landing on a beautiful grass runaway at the very end of the video. Wow. That my friends, is flying!
Me in 1982 and the weight-shift Quicksilver ultralight that was fun, fun, fun to fly!
The 80's were a really good decade for me and flying. I was just 19 when 1980 came along, and I had been having fun in the 90 hp Clipped Wing Cub we had. Then the Cub was traded for the homebuilt Breezy that we picked up in Tennessee and brought back to Indiana in November of 81. (it's the Breezy I flew to OSH in 82, the rather adventurous subject of podcast #4)
1981 and 82 also gave me the high smiles-per-gallon opportunity to fly several different ultralights on a regular basis... and the weight-shift Eipper Quicksilver powered by a little single cylinder 15 hp Yamaha go-kart engine was my fave by far. It was underpowered, slow, and didn't give you much of a feeling of being in control in winds over 12 mph, but when the winds were light to calm, it was the most awesome way to fly! Stall speed in my skinny days was about 18 mph and you could slow cruise around the neighborhood at 22 mph and just enjoy the ride. That's me at age 21 in the pic above with the red Dee Cee painter's pants and 1979 Oshkosh t-shirt. I'm hardcore all the way : )
The weight-shift aspect of the Quicksilver was one of the things I liked best about it. Most people know about the later Quicksilver MX models that had either rudder and elevator control with a fixed pilot's seat, or the added 3-axis benefit of spoilers or ailerons, but the weight-shift versions are where it all began. And these weight-shift ultralights did have a rudder that was connected to the harness you sat in. That way, when you moved left and right, you had both your weight and the rudder working to make the turns. I think it worked really well overall.
There's no doubt the weight-shift wasn't for everyone... in fact, 'real airplane' pilots seemed to have the most difficulty with the process. Some of it came from the fact that this was just really different than anything they had been used to. But the other factor that was pretty unusual was that, technically, you pushed forward on the downtubes to go up, and you pulled back on them to go down. This was because you were using the downtubes to move your body fore and aft, and it just happened that the direction you moved the downtube in relation to your body was opposite of how we move a stick in a traditional 3-axis airplane. In actual practice tho, I found it was more of an issue to talk about than one that really created any real problem. All you had to do was think about where you wanted your body to be - move forward to go down and back to go up... keep your mind off what your arms are doing. I think it worked great, and this was some of the best flying I've ever had the chance to do!
The two videos below aren't of me but they give you a good idea of what it was like to fly these little weight-shift ultralights. The first one shows the 15 hp engine (single cylinder mounted above the wing), and the second is probably a 30 hp 2-cylinder Cuyuna, and it's mounted below the wing. Maybe some day I'll find an old Quicksilver that needs some love and rebuild me an antique ultralight!
The mid and late 80's also gave me the chance to build up a couple hundred hours flying skydivers in a beautiful 1957 Cessna 182... to get some time in a Polish Wilga (that I flew to OSH in 88)... and I also completed a restoration of a Citabria and got to play with that for a while. Yep, the 80's were really good to me : )
I'm fascinated by 'unusual' thinking, especially as it relates to aircraft design. Last January when I had an AirPigz meetup at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force (Air Force Museum) in Dayton, Ohio, I made the extra effort to take the behind-the-scenes tour in the museum's restoration facilities (note: it's free, space is limited, reservations are required, and they only run on Fridays.) Wow, what an amazing experience it was. I'm just now geting around to sharing some of what I saw there... and one aircraft that really caught my eye was the Douglas YB-43 Jetmaster seen here.
The first thing that made me realize I wanted to know more about this thing was seeing the unusual twin canopies incorporated into the design. It looked sorta bug-like while also having a very cool sci-fi kind of feel. Pretty sweet when you realize that this airplane was our first ever jet powered bomber concept to fly, and that first flight took place in May 1946, less than a year after World War II had ended. You've probably never heard of the airplane because as it turned out, it wasn't a great success design wise, and it never went into production. However, it's just full of interesting stories. For example, it's actually an outgrowth of the XB-42 Mixmaster, a similar airframe that was powered by two Allison V-12 engines and driving rear mounted counter-rotating props! The Air Force Museum also has that aircraft awaiting restoration. In fact it's sitting right next to the Jetmaster... you can see one of the main gear tires in these pix. Hopefully I'll have an in depth post on this amazing concept before long.
(click pic for hi-res) The YB-43 Jetmaster (named Versatile II) awaiting restoration
When jet engine technology proved it was the way of the future, Douglas was given the opportunity to redesign the Mixmaster with two General Electric J35 turbojets. Even tho the Jetmaster did get built and was flown with these jet engines, a variety of complications kept the two test aircraft (one XB-43 and one YB-43) from being being truly successful. This was however, our first jet powered bomber concept to fly. It also served as a testbed for the follow on engine from GE, the J47, of which 36,500 were eventually built and used in aircraft like the B-47 and the F-86.
The YB-43, the only surviving Jetmaster, was given to the Smithsonian Institution in 1954, but it remained in storage until late last year when it was moved the the Air Force Museum. In fact, it would seem that it was a relatively recent addition to the massive collection in the restoration facilities when I saw it in January of 2011. As with many of the projects at the museum, it may be a while before the resources are in place to restore the aircraft. But I sure hope they can get to it... this is an aircraft with an interesting story to tell.
(click pic for hi-res) The unusual prototype XB-43 Jetmaster just after takeoff
Oh sure, at first glance this 16-motor (electric) multicopter aircraft from the German company e-volo is pretty cool looking with an actual human pilot onboard, but I have to say I think we are at an important crossroads with the future of flying machine design, and I think we're taking the wrong road. I could be wrong here, but the idea of using 100% thrust-vectoring to achieve flight is very high risk... in fact I'd say it's just too risky. And it's not just the thrust-vectoring element that concerns me, more on that in a minute.
Don't misunderstand, I think there's a lot of promise with what's been done here, I just don't think human beings with souls should be onboard. (Feel free to draw your own conclusions about whether humans without souls should be flying one of these!) The positive here is that we see a large-scale and very practical multicopter with a significant payload capacity, which means that the UAV applications for these kind of machines continues to widen. However, having just said that, the same risks that make this too risky in my mind for humans on board mostly still apply to having lots of these things flying unmanned overhead. So I guess I'm conflicted about the real practicality of the direction we're headed. And if I'm concerned about all this, can you imagine what the fine folks at the FAA are thinking?!
The primary things that really concern me are the reliance on electrical systems and computer control to keep us alive when we're off the ground... well, that and the lack of a wing of some sort that can still provide lift when all power has been lost. Now there's no doubt that aircraft like the General Dynamics F-16 ushered in a whole new era of electric and computer control back in the mid 1970's, and they've been very successful. But, much the same way that the Boeing 787 now relies very heavily on computer control, these kinds of aircraft have billions in research behind them, millions in production costs, and a vast amount of system redundancy.
Small general aviation flying machines don't have that luxury. And while I understand how reliable the transmitters, receivers and servos are with modern RC aircraft, the truth is that these systems do sometimes fail. And when you add the wild, ongoing dream (pushed by Popular Mechanics and Popular Science) that someday the average guy is gonna have some sort of flying machine, I turn and run the other way. Have you been paying attention to how ignorant, dumb and/or stupid the average guy is these days? I don't mean this to be a put down to the average guy on the street, but I sincerely hope we don't ever try to get these people into the pilot's seat of a flying machine. Maybe you weren't around in the 80's when ultralights began attracting massive numbers of non-pilots. I was, and I remember a lot of people died because they had very little idea what they were doing, but they had affordable and relatively easy access to a flying machine.
And then you've got that lack-of-a-wing issue. I'm a fan of BRS systems, and I'm glad that we have them available, but when you have an aircraft that HAS to go the route of a BRS when all power is lost, I think you've traveled down the wrong road. This is where I hit a hurdle with the Martin Jetpack as well. Would I fly one if given the opportunity? I think so. But that doesn't change my thought that I hope they don't become popular. I just think there's too much at risk overall.
There's no doubt that I don't have all the answers here, but I'm a really strong believer in making inexepensive aircraft as low tech as possible when it comes to the systems that simply have to work to keep you alive. You just can't beat the reliability of cables and pushrods to drive the control surfaces or other critical systems. I'll admit that I've dreamed many times about what simple fly-by-wire systems would do for making a homebuilt aircraft much easier to build, and for adding some slick programmability, but I keep coming back to the unacceptable risk of failure.
And flying without a wing, (fixed, rotary, inflated or whatever else) with 100% reliance on thrust-vectoring seems like a recipe for disaster to me. The public perception of aircraft safety is a really big issue going forward. I hope we're very careful about which road we take into the future.
The 1950's era Avro Vulcan strategic bomber from the U.K. is one of the most interesting aircraft ever built. The rapid move into the brave new world of the jet age in the years right after WWII brought some very courageous thinking... tailless aircraft like the Vulcan and the U.S. Vought F7U Cutlass fighter (see CoolPix) proved you don't need a horizontal tail to fly big or fast, tho the Vulcan ultimately wound up a far greater success than the Cutlass. In fact, the Vulcan served from 1956 until its retirement in 1984. I remember seeing them flown at large airshows here in America in the 70's. They were always a stunning sight in the air!
Take a few minutes and check out the amazing 360 panoramic view of a Vulcan cockpit by clicking the pic above. It feels more like a spaceship to me when I scan around. And that stoke (combination 'stick and 'yoke') adds even more to the freaky cool spaceship feel. What a fantastic opportunity to poke around inside a Vulcan bomber cockpit!
Video screenshot of the LOT Airlines 767 landing gear up in Warsaw, Poland on 11-1-11
Here are two different videos of the LOT Airlineswheels up Boeing 767 landing in Warsaw Poland yesterday 11-1-11. Fortunately it was about as uneventful as a wheels up landing with an approximately 250,000 pound airplane can get. The video above gives a fabulous view of the approach and touchdown, and it gives a couple of great visual clues as to why this was such a successful emergency landing.
For one, it appears that the wind was either very light and/or nearly right down the runway. This would surely help in keeping all the energy of the airplane headed in a nice straight line down the runway. Secondly, if you watch the elevator and the rate of sink leading up to the touchdown, you'll see that the pilot had the situation very well under control. You don't see a lot of elevator movement, and the rate of sink is very low... this would indicate a very calm and collected pilot who had the approach pretty much nailed. There's just a little flare to further reduce the rate of sink and then the aft end of the fuselage makes gentle contact with the runway. I believe these two factors, along with what appears to be excellent preparation in advance of the landing, kept the airframe damage to a minimum and greatly reduced the risks of loss of control (and most likely serious damage) after touchdown.
In an era when we sometimes struggle to feel like people are as professional as they need to be, and all too often we see a string of errors leading to catastrophes, it sure is great to see such an excellent example of handling a difficult situation under pressure. Bravo to this LOT crew for their outstanding performance!
Super simple electric RC autogyro - screenshot from the video below
I admit that I've never been the biggest fan of gyrocopters, but old-time autogyros (or autogiro's) like the 1930's Pitcairn make me tingle as much as any flying machine I've ever seen... so it's no surprise that I really enjoyed seeing this scratch built autogyro from Gary Jones, the man behind ultra cool RC aircraft like the 5.4 pound, 10 foot wingspan C-47and the VTOL Dark Deltoid.
Not only does this simple little rotary wing flyer with the tractor mounted electric motor fly great, but as usual, Gary's video is very well done too. His secret on the video is a camera mounted on a baseball cap. That way, all he has to do is keep his head pointed at the aircraft to give us a smooth track thru the air. This works much better than trying to have someone who doesn't know where the airplane is headed running the cam. And, these very light weight models also make it safe to fly them very close by so that they fill the frame. It's these great views of slow flying machines that really capture the magic of flight. And listen closely when the autogyro gets really close the the camera... you can hear that awesome 'whirlybirds' rotor sound! I love this stuff!
If you watch the way Gary flies, you'll also see a pure love for the simple art of steering a flying machine thru an ocean of air. So, if flying is just a job to you, or a means to move you or some stuff from point A to point B, I encourage you to watch a video like this closely and see what it really means to Love To Fly : )
Here's the simple HatCam that makes these sweet videos possible
Monday, November 14, 2011 at 06:48PM 
Instructables 'Sky-Monkey' and his excellent homebuilt Paramotor
