
Gigantic R/C Jet Turbine Powered SR-71 Blackbird - electic
https://throt-l.com/aircraft/gigantic-rc-jet-turbine-powered-sr-71-blackbird-showing-off-its-ultra-fast-flying-skills/
======
kenrikm
This is where the real fun is in RC these days:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsxyV-
kgfio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsxyV-kgfio)

Miniquads FTW.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Hot damn, it's Endor.

------
davidw
> Nobody wants to be the pilot of a jet moving at Mach 3.2 when the windshield
> gives out and leaves you exposed to what must be an instant death

In case there is someone on the internet who has _not_ seen the story:

[http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/weaver_sr71_bailout.htm...](http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/weaver_sr71_bailout.html)

~~~
rs232
Was expecting the usual story about air traffic control, an F16 and ground
speeds, or the one with the flyover way too close to the tower, but this one
was new to me. Thanks!

------
nerdy
Wow that landing was really incredible!

This link starts with the approach (5m:52s in):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1lYG...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1lYGUROZ_Pg#t=352)

I wonder what it would feel like scaled up to a regular plane.

------
jameskilton
That's one fantastic model of my favorite plane.

Have to make one correction though. The article implies an attack aircraft.
The SR-71 is a spy plane and never carried any weapons.

~~~
jonah
Well, there was the YF-12. (Though the model in question is not this two-seat
variant which saw testing as an interceptor though was never fielded.)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12)

~~~
z303
The model in the video look more like an A-12 (earlier CIA version of the
SR-71) to me. They flew with bare metal and black leading edges and were
single seat.

The YF-12A looked different, the chines didn't extend all the way to the nose
and had a ventral fin

~~~
jonah
Yup, A-12 as the title of the Youtube video states.

------
NickNameNick
Those engines cost more than us$8k each, I hate to think what all the other
equipment on board costs. I'd be surprised if the all-up cost for that model
was less than ~$25k

I get nervous enough flying my ~us$800 helicopter.

~~~
bradleyland
There's only one engine in there. The red glow you see in the mock engine
nozzles is produced by LED light rings; which is a really great idea, btw.
That really adds to the authenticity. None the less, the actual thrust comes
out of the fixed nozzle you see at the center. I'd pin the cost at
significantly less than $25k.

EDIT: I just checked, and the cost of a JetCat (a popular R/C turbine vendor)
has dropped significantly since I was in to the hobby. Their largest turbine
(>50 lbs of thrust) comes in at around $5,500.

[http://www.sitewavesstores5.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD...](http://www.sitewavesstores5.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=JetCat&Product_Code=P200-SX&Category_Code=TURB)

~~~
dlgeek
Really? The article claims 2 engines:

> Powered by twin AMT Olympus RC Jet Turbine Engines

~~~
jonah
Well, the article is full of other issues too. If you look at the grass behind
the plane at the beginning of the video you'll see only one streak of the
exhaust, so I'm inclined to believe the GP.

------
aserr
Direct link to video:
[https://youtu.be/1lYGUROZ_Pg](https://youtu.be/1lYGUROZ_Pg)

------
mschuster91
Heh, just a question - could one use e.g. eight of these jet turbines and
create something like a fucking-heavy-load octocopter, or is the reaction time
of jet turbines too high for this application?

I mean, a single AMT Nike has 800N/80kg of thrust (-11kg for the turbine
weight), so eight of these should provide roughly half a ton of load capacity?

~~~
LeifCarrotson
No, but not because of the reaction time. Unfortunately jet engines are much
less efficient at low speeds like this. They work best when accelerating a
large volume of air a little bit, and that means they work poorly in the hover
configuration required for an octocopter. Wiki link for the math:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propulsive_efficiency#Jet_engin...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propulsive_efficiency#Jet_engines)

Larger, slower props are required for maximum efficiency in a hover. The
pressure above the prop is never more than one atmosphere, so "suction" is
limited unlike when the airplane is flying at a high speed and air is
continually forced into the inlet nozzles.

The 800N thrust of those engines is measured at cruising speed, when the only
opposing force is drag and the intake and exhaust velocities are very similar.
It produces much less thrust starting from zero velocity on the runway, when
the opposing force is the inertia of the aircraft.

Jet airplanes, RC electric ducted fans, and jet ski watercraft have similar
thrust-vs-velocity response, and are better for their intended purpose as a
result - but that doesn't help for octocopters. However, tugboats use a ducted
fan for the opposite effect. I am investigating the use of accelerating-
configuration ducted fans or "Kort Nozzles" for octocopters.

And yes, the insane reaction time of miniature brushless electric motors is
largely what allows these craft to function; you would want variable-pitch
props or vectored thrust to make a turbine or internal-combustion craft work
well, but that's not the reason they aren't used.

------
lotharbot
I thought the tail number 06940 looked familiar.

It's the tail number from the M-21 blackbird at The Museum of Flight in
Seattle:
[http://museumofflight.org/aircraft/lockheed-m-21-blackbird](http://museumofflight.org/aircraft/lockheed-m-21-blackbird)
(I worked there for several years.) See also
[http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/m-21.php](http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/m-21.php)

------
Animats
That's a great model. It has proper nosewheel steering, and can throttle back
to taxi speed. They taxi it out to the runway and take off properly. When they
land, they taxi back to the parking area. That's much closer to normal
aircraft operations than most model aircraft.

That video is from 2012. By now, it would probably have an autopilot and
camera.

~~~
ekianjo
> That video is from 2012. By now, it would probably have an autopilot and
> camera.

That makes the landing even more impressive :)

------
ChuckMcM
My Dad is constantly sending me these sorts of videos. The POV ones where you
can get camera footage from the plane itself are really amazing. I guess it is
cheaper than owning/flying your own plane :-) But I am always impressed at the
time and passion these modelers bring to the fly offs.

~~~
ghrifter
Do you have some links to some of these videos? I'm interested :)

~~~
sjtrny
IMO it's more fun watching mini-quads than fixed-wing FPV videos especially
from the very best pilots like Charpu, BorisB, Final Glide, Blackout etc.

The scream on FinalGlides 6S quad [4] gives me chills.

Crashes are always fun too, like when rianrex split his quad in half [6].

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyRGpKtz-M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyRGpKtz-M)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNObwimthF0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNObwimthF0)

[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5a9TLb1Yl0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5a9TLb1Yl0)

[4]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxU4GdlTHDg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxU4GdlTHDg)

[5]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4DeK7zuLSw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4DeK7zuLSw)

[6]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=OKT4cx7UKsk#t=171](https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=OKT4cx7UKsk#t=171)

[7] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avmc-
vQRB4U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avmc-vQRB4U)

~~~
zaroth
Add some small arms to something like that and it would be an urban terror. I
assume the sole challenge is the ammo would be too heavy, but clearly looking
at the future of warfare...

~~~
ChuckMcM
Presumably you've seen
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYz_D89BLUg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYz_D89BLUg)

The AA12 is an automatic shotgun

~~~
zaroth
Seems to be some debate as to if this is real:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU)

------
ryanmarsh
Wow, the pilot sticks the landing. That has to be difficult. The model appears
to be moving much faster than a typical R/C plane. If you add the pilot's
viewing angle... it must take a lot of practice.

------
smegel
That think looks scarily similar to the Sukhoi T-50 at certain angles.

------
AYBABTME
I'm reading the article and am interested in the topic. However the abnormal
scrolling is driving me nuts. Please stop doing that.

