Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Build Your Own Model B-52

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the needs-nose-art dept.

Toys 200

Assmasher writes "Who says the cold war is over? Wren Turbines, a UK based manufacturer of scale modeling jet engines (usually for remote control aircraft), has provided the engines for a 300lbs+ scale replica of Boeing's B-52. This isn't normal Slashdot fare; however, it is nerdy enough, crazy enough, and if you watch the videos, cool enough to warrant serious geek attention. At roughly $3k per turbine, this is a serious piece of engineering. The sound alone is amazing!"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Freecache links (5, Informative)

JS_RIDDLER (570254) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282500)

Freecache links... I tested all of these first
B52_Test1.wmv [freecache.org]
B52%20008.wmv [freecache.org]
B52%20006.wmv [freecache.org]

Re:Freecache links (1)

Windcatcher (566458) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282519)

Any Linux-friendly versions of the clips? My Xandros 2.0 desktop doesn't seem to like these...

Re:Freecache links (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282538)

just use Windows like the rest of the world..

Re:Freecache links (1)

scrotch (605605) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282622)

My Mac doesn't like them either. MPlayer will play the audio, though.

Sounds really cool.

Re:Freecache links (1)

ptomblin (1378) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282657)

Plays fine on my Mac. I've got Windows Media Player 9 for OS X.

Re:Freecache links (3, Funny)

scrotch (605605) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282683)

Does it look as good as it sounds?

I had Windows Media Player installed a while back, then decided it was a little creepy. Not anti-MS-bigot creepy, but creepy like RealPlayer. Like those programs are trying to figure out how to get into your checking account while they're playing your file and are like "play it one more time, we're almost there!" so you have to keep quiting them in the middle of clips to make sure they don't take all your money or write letters to people you barely know signed with your name...

just another Friday night, sitting around slashdot in my tin foil hat...

Re:Freecache links (1)

ptomblin (1378) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282710)

Does it look as good as it sounds?

It looks pretty sweet.

Re:Freecache links (1)

beerits (87148) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282670)

They play fine for me using Windows Media Player 9 on my mac

Re:Freecache links (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282728)

My Windows Media Player 6 isn't too happy, for that matter.

Re:Freecache links (0, Offtopic)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282676)

While we're on the point, why is it that whenever some terrorists are making their damnds, killing someone or generally making videos they are always in bloody windows media format!? what the fuck is their problem!?

Re:Freecache links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282554)

friggen Mozilla and it's mime-analness

Akmai links (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282559)

1. Taxiing trials 1.1Mb [akamaitech.net]
2. Takeoff 2.1Mb [akamaitech.net]
3. Flying 3.35Mb [akamaitech.net]

egads (1)

kfractal (107548) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282508)

i remember thinking ducted fans were nuts...
200,000 rpm and 500c exhaust!

fun fun

Re:egads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282843)

You aren't kidding, egads.

I look at this and I see an economical weapons delivery system.

In other words, "Everyman's cruise missle".

As someone pointed out, the package delivered doesn't have to be explosives, but could easily be "bugs".

I bet that behind closed doors, various intelligence agencies are
shitting bricks about this thing...

Just $3k per turbine? (4, Funny)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282510)

On the Eurofighter project we pay more than that for a hammer.

Re:Just $3k per turbine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282583)

Sure, but thats for a mil-spec hammer, tested in harsh environmental extremes. You have to pay for quality like that.

I wish some people would just remember Econ 201 (2)

Phelan (30485) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282983)

The reason that governments pay $1,500 for a toilet seat or a hammer is simply the costing method they use on some projects.
I.e. the overall priece is calculated and then devided by the different components needed to complete the project, so that a hammer in the end costs the same as a turbin or any other component.

Re:I wish some people would just remember Econ 201 (1)

realdpk (116490) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283017)

So that's the excuse for sloppy accounting? Yeah, great!

hammer and toilet seat: good deal (2, Informative)

r00t (33219) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283138)

It wasn't just a toilet seat. It was the whole
seat and wall assembly of an aircraft lavatory.
This was for the B1 bomber, so it was a custom
design for a cramped space. I think they got a
good deal, considering what they got.

The hammer was some sort of calibrated impact
device. There's a dial on it that you can set.
Then, when you give something a whack, you can
be sure to deliver the right amount of force.
This lets you avoid breaking parts which most
likely cost far more than the "hammer".

He had to say war. (-1, Offtopic)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282513)

Lets all just have a nice slashdot discussion without bringing any current or future wars into the mix, ok?

B-52's (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282515)

The chicks in the B-52's used to look hot, though I'm not sure if I would have called them models, except perhaps for "Coke Party", the late 1970's niche glamour magazine.

And today they are pretty much just models for the "before" picture.

Beats the hell.. (4, Funny)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282526)

...out of that flying model Starship Enterprise that we had a few days ago. Mind you, the phasers and torpedoes would probably make mincemeat out of this thing!

right up until (1)

astro-g (548659) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282883)

the b52 turned the hill you were flying the enterprise from into a widely spread pile of rubble

Re:Beats the hell.. (1)

roseblood (631824) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283167)

but the enterprise could use shields! [slashdot.org]

The B52 is just wierd (4, Interesting)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282531)

If you look at it you can see it ha a bycicle undercarriage (forward and back wheel sets instead of nosewheel+main gear). It also has wings with an unusually high attack angle with respect to the main fuse.

This leads to some crazy descent angle where the arcraft seems to be flying directly AT THE GROUND until it flares at the last second to place the wheel sets parallel to the runway to touchdown.

It's perfectly safe but damn, that's a wierd feeling when you are riding in one.

Re:The B52 is just wierd (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282628)

IANAP, but isn't that how all planes are supposed to land?

Re:The B52 is just wierd (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282692)

I think he was saying the approach is much steeper than normal. IIRC from my MS Flight Sim days (one thing you can't knock MS for is having just about the best civilian simulator available to consumers), most approaches come in on a glideslope of 12-14 degrees, which really isn't all that steep. (But maybe those numbers are takeoff... in any case, most planes have a very shallow approach angle.)

Re:The B52 is just wierd (1)

voidptr (609) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283264)

Try X-Plane [x-plane.com] instead. The scenery isn't great (Terrain elevation is accurate but there's no real building detail) but the flight model blows MSFS out of the sky. And it ships with a B-52 model.

Re:The B52 is just wierd (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282639)

Another thing that's weird about the B-52 is the way it deals with the crosswind. It doesn't use flaps to stay parallel with the runway. It turns into the wind and rotates the wheels to be parallel with the runway. It's just a massive plane.

Re:The B52 is just wierd (3, Informative)

hayesjaj (267076) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282750)

I think you're referring to alerons and rudder...flaps increase the lifting surface (for some types of flaps) and slow the aircraft down.

Re:The B52 is just wierd (1)

Beatlebum (213957) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282788)

Score:4, Interesting ??

Pray tell us how it would use flaps to stay parallel to the runway? Word to the wise: if you're going to spout off, try getting your facts straight.

Re:The B52 is just wierd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9283201)

Hey man, that feature is secret, and now you've just told all the commies.

What? It's not 1966 anymore?

Re:The B52 is just wierd (5, Interesting)

hkb (777908) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282730)

It also has wings with an unusually high attack angle with respect to the main fuse.

This was a later model modification to help the B-52's stability with low level flight at its new role as a low-altitude bomber. Formerly, the B-52 was a high altitude bomber and had a much less steep attack angle.

You should see the B-52 crab control at work. You haven't lived until you've seen a B-52 land in a blizzard with its nose pointed well to the right of the runway, even though it's still going down the runway's path.

I saw one almost spin out of control on landing once, too. That is a freaky sight.

Any other former bomb/nav in the house?

Re:The B52 is just wierd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9283156)

Loring?

Re:The B52 is just wierd (1)

UniverseIsADoughnut (170909) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282976)

few years ago their was some commanders or some shit that got drunk and took off in a b-52 and nose dived it right into the ground. Think this was out near Seatle. There is film of it, absolutely amazing seeing something like that crash.

The B-52 may be a bit goofy, but very effective, and definitly not something you want to have above you if your not on good terms with the US.

Re:The B52 is just wierd (1)

Thomas A. Anderson (114614) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283043)

I've seen the video but the explanation I heard is they were practicing for an air show and stalled the plane (this was on the discovery wings channel a while back).

Re:The B52 is just wierd (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283107)

B-52 is also one of the longest lived aircraft platforms with examples still in active service. I think C-135 being pretty close behind. The airframes simply can't be beat in terms of overall performance for the cost, the best they can do to improve on it is periodically upgrade cockpit and control systems.

Re:The B52 is just wierd (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283208)

He wasn't drunk and he didn't nose dive it.

http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/crmdevel/resource s/ paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm

"On the 24th of June 1994, Czar 52, a B-52H assigned to the 325th Bomb Squadron, 92d Bomb Wing, Fairchild Air Force Base, WA, launched at approximate 1358 hours Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), to practice maneuvers for an upcoming airshow. The aircrew had the planned and briefed a profile, through the Wing Commander level, that grossly exceeded aircraft and regulatory limitations. Upon preparing to land at the end of the practice airshow profile, the crew was required to execute a "go-around" or missed approach because of another aircraft on the runway. At mid-field, Czar 52 began a tight 360 degree left turn around the control tower at only 250 feet altitude above ground level (AGL). Approximately three quarters of the way through the turn, the aircraft banked past 90 degrees, stalled, clipped a power line with the left wing and crashed. Impact occurred at approximately 1416 hours PDT. There were no survivors out of a crew of four field grade officers.

Killed in the crash were Lt Col Arthur "Bud" Holland, the Chief of the 92d Bomb Wing Standardization and Evaluation branch. Lt Col Holland, an instructor pilot, was designated as the aircraft commander and was undoubtedly flying the aircraft at the time of the accident. 4 The copilot was Lt Col Mark McGeehan, also an instructor pilot and the 325th Bomb Squadron (BMS) Commander. There is a great deal of evidence that suggests considerable animosity existed between the two pilots who were at the controls of Czar 52..

This was a result of Lt Col McGeehan's unsuccessful efforts to have Bud Holland "grounded" for what he perceived as numerous and flagrant violations of air discipline while flying with 325th BMS aircrews. Colonel Robert Wolff was the Vice Wing Commander and was added to the flying schedule as a safety observer by Col Brooks, the Wing Commander, on the morning of the mishap. This was to be Col Wolff's "fini flight," an Air Force tradition where an aviator is hosed down following his last flight in an aircraft. Upon landing, Col Wolff was to be met on the flightline by his wife and friends for a champagne toast to a successful flying career. The radar navigator position was filled by Lt Col Ken Huston, the 325th BMS Operations Officer."

We'll meet again... (4, Funny)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282540)

Does it come with a little figurine of Slim Pickens sitting on a nuclear bomb that drops out the bottom?

"How many times have I told you boys that I don't want no horsin' around on the airplane?"

Re:We'll meet again... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282561)

"Yeeeeee-haaawwwww......##@*^%$*NO CARRIER

(Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like ...funny?)

Re:We'll meet again... (4, Funny)

Grog6 (85859) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282577)

That was actually my first thought;" How do we scale the 100Megaton blockbusters from Dr.Strangelove?"

Hell, at that size, maybe they'd only be ~1Megaton, but WTF?

five or six of these, with scaled weapons, would that give enough plausible deniability?

"It appears the nuclear attack on (insert favorite islamic target here) was the work of a rogue group of RC modelers....

Re:We'll meet again... (2, Informative)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282600)

Actually, I couldn't find any info on the scale, but, let's say its 1/100 full size, the bombs would have 1/1000000 the volume (1/100 the width, heighth, length) so we must conclude that such a weapon would not be a practical deterrent for reasons which, at this moment, must appear all to obvious.

Re:We'll meet again... (1)

Thadddius_Brinks (655453) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282648)

it's 1/8 scale so the bombs could still do some damage........

Re:We'll meet again... (1)

ronsonal (783620) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282656)

To go along with the incredible shrinking physics analogy, that would still be a 100-ton bomb. Still not something I'd want to land on my front porch.

Re:We'll meet again... (4, Informative)

Burdell (228580) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282703)

The wingspan looks like about 6 feet to me, which would make it about 1/30 scale. IIRC, the bombs in Dr. Strangelove were supposed to be about 20 megatons. If you could scale the bomb the same way, you would still have a bomb with the force equivalent to about 740 tons of TNT. That's still a lot of deterrent to most things if delivered accurately; for example, the Oklahoma City bombing was equivalent to about 1.5 tons of TNT and the 9/11 World Trade Towers attack (both planes) equivalent to about 900 tons.

Re:We'll meet again... (2, Interesting)

scrotch (605605) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282734)

There's another pic here with people:
http://www.wren-turbines.com/B52003WEB.jpg [wren-turbines.com]
you can get a better (bigger) estimate of its size from this one.

Space Cowboys? (2, Interesting)

tsadi (576706) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282950)

what's Donald Sutherland doing there? (leftmost guy)

Re:We'll meet again... (1)

cgadd (65348) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282787)

Guess again. That runway is about 20 feet wide, giving the plane a wingspan around 15 feet.

Here are two photos from the now-slashdotted site that give an idea of the actual size:
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/buff1.jpg
http:/ /www.csd.net/~cgadd/buff2.jpg
(may my ISP forgive me....)

I've got little $50.00 RC airplanes with 6 foot wingspans. I'll never look at them the same again.

Re:We'll meet again... (2, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282827)

Wingspan is 23 feet, which brings it to 1/8th scale.

And nukes don't scale the same way. There is a minimum amount of fissile material needed.

With some tweaking, and maybe the next size up in engine, you could probably squeeze a 50-100lb payload in this. Which convientely encompasses the old W54 warhead.

Re:We'll meet again... (1)

Burdell (228580) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282873)

I knew you couldn't scale explosives the same way, it was just a fun (if morbid) thought exercise. I didn't see the wingspan or the pics with something to give it a good scale. At 1/8, if you _could_ scale a bomb the same, you'd end up with 40 kiloton bomb.

Re:We'll meet again... (1)

Thomas A. Anderson (114614) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283057)

No way the wingspan is 23 feet (and no way is it 6 feet like another poster thought).

Looking at the video of it taking off, it taxies near some folks. My guess is the wingspan is 12 feet or so.

Richard Bach's Ferrets (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282544)

Sounds like something one of Richard Bach's ferrets could fly. See, for example, his books, _Air_Ferrets_Aloft_. A very good read. =)
--
SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER

Mercatur Challenge (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282545)

I challenge you folks to find me a camgirl hotter than Mercatur.

Just look at her: gorgeous face, curvy physique, plus she swallows...

www.mercatur.net

Re:Mercatur Challenge (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282638)

Identify yourself

This is great, but (0, Redundant)

Long Long John (732516) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282551)

This is great, but where can I get a model nuke and a model Slim Pickens to complete my B-52?

A full scale fighter would be cool... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282566)

...with miniture machine guns, tiny rockets, etc. Go assault your neighbor's dog!

Mine doesn't look right (4, Funny)

The I Shing (700142) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282570)

I followed the instructions and my B-52 model looks like Fred Schneider. I was hoping for Kate Pierson. Dang.

At first glance... (1)

clemens (188721) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282573)

...I think the title was "MIX your own B-52 [wired.com] ."

I must be drunk already.

3k (3000) for a turbine... (1)

saroth2 (718286) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282579)

... is pretty darn cheap. We paid 66% of that (2,000) several years ago for a digital camera.

Re:3k (3000) for a turbine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282647)

it cost half more than...

66%, nerd

ya know, nerd culture has become like them fuckin goths, they assume theyre life is crap and live with it, somehow wanting to call attention

Now all they need is a couple of model H bombs... (3, Funny)

Kunt (755109) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282580)

Real, working bombs of course, big enough to wipe out a village or a McDonald's restaurant. :)

Re:Now all they need is a couple of model H bombs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282597)

*fishes around in my junk drawer* Here ya go. I hope 20 megatons is enough.

Re:Now all they need is a couple of model H bombs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282959)

hopefully it'll take out hillary's village....

Imagine a country in which nearly all children between the ages of three and five attend preschool in sparkling classrooms, with teachers recruited and trained as child care professionals. Imagine a country that conceives of child care as a program to 'welcome' children into the larger community and 'awaken' their potential for learning and growing.
-Hillary Rodham Clinton,It Takes a Village

i think... (1)

makeyourself (704660) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282586)

...i've just wet my pants.

Almost done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282590)

Now it just needs to be able to drop water balloons!

The airforce fact sheet (5, Informative)

ignatus (669972) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282607)

hwo want's the gory details? The airforce fact sheet [af.mil]

All we need now (1)

Zrech (578331) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282620)

All we need now is a to scale model of a suse fighter and a scale air to air missile to blow it up.... =) lol

Intresting... (2, Interesting)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282632)

Well, if these things can lift a 300lb model of a b52, why can't a couple more carry a 1000+ pound personal aircraft. You could probably have a fully functional (but probably extreemly dangerous) delta-wing aircraft for the price of a luxury car.

I can even see "jetbelt" type devices being made out of such a thing, which would be sweet.

Well... (4, Interesting)

ptomblin (1378) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282690)

Somebody already made a Cri-Cri (world's smallest plane) powered by two of these engines/a.. It scares the hell out me just thinking of it. [amtjets.com]

I'll stick with my PA32R-300, thanks.

Re:Well... (1)

scrotch (605605) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282759)

That is a crazy sight. I think that thing is smaller than this B52 model.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282854)

Wow.

Hi Paul! (1)

Nick Driver (238034) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283006)

Far out, another fellow r.a.p.'er here on Slashdot. Dylan reads and posts here a lot too (as "Alioth"). I fly a Piper too (PA28).

Re:Well... (1)

halo8 (445515) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283064)

FUCKING EH!!!
that is amazing

Re:Intresting... (1)

Segway Ninja (777415) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282695)

The exhaust is a little too hot for a jetbelt... you know, about, 590 Degrees Celsius (That's 1094 F) too hot to be comfortable.

Also, I don't think the model is travelling all that fast. It would be interesting to know how fast it actually is...

Re:Intresting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282791)

590 degrees C jet exhaust, eh? Doesn't sound any more unpleasant than having my Dell laptop [theregister.co.uk] with its downwards pointing fan [theregister.co.uk] on my lap. Sign me up for my jetbelt now!

Just remember..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282705)

that the reason we arn't all flying around in jet packs is the wind. Shure flying around anywhere would be a blast untill due to a gust of wind you are slammed into tree or building.

Re:Intresting... (2, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282716)

. . .why can't a couple more carry a 1000+ pound personal aircraft.

Because "a couple more" would only provide 24 lbs of additional thrust.

KFG

Re:Intresting... (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282770)

8 of these things can lift a 300lb model. You'll need over 24 for a 1000lb craft. Why not just use a couple of larger turbines instead? Probably cheaper, more effecient, powerfull and reliable.

Looked into this... (2, Informative)

Goonie (8651) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282853)

I wondered exactly the same thing on my blog recently, and found the Cri-Cri, as well as the BD-5J [benambra.org] , which uses a slightly larger turbojet to make a one-person kitplane that can fly up to 500 km/h!

The problem with them is that while the power-to-weight ratio (and thus max speed and altitude) is great, the fuel consumption is terrible, and to get reasonable fuel consumption and range you need to fly such high altitudes you need a pressurised cabin, further adding to the cost and complexity.

Expensive Hobbies (3, Interesting)

MikeDawg (721537) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282637)

Damn, expensive hobbies can be scary. Just imagine the price of running that thing. How would you feel if you crashed and burned that poor B-52? I bet they have their best damn RC pilot at the helm when they fly that beast.

I wish they had a video of the landing, I'd like to see that.

Re:Expensive Hobbies (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282672)

"How would you feel if you crashed and burned that poor B-52?"

I'd say "It was worth it! Just look at the fire ball!"

Re:Expensive Hobbies (4, Funny)

morcheeba (260908) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282871)

They actually haven't landed it yet. They noticed a problem with the the gear, so they've been in-air refueling with this kc-135A stratotanker [kgwings.com] until they figured out a way to deal with it. The current plan is to shut down the M52 and land it on a flatbed tractor tailer (remember it's 23' wide, so it is 4 lanes wide!!)

(please, don't reply if you think I'm serious with this comment, because someone will point out that they are completely different scales and will start worrying that that won't work)

Re:Expensive Hobbies (1)

weiyuent (257436) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283258)

How would you feel if you crashed and burned that poor B-52? I bet they have their best damn RC pilot at the helm when they fly that beast.

I would guess that a model like that would be easier to fly than most smaller ones, precisely because its heft lends it stability (especially in windy conditions). Plus you wouldn't be hotdogging the B-52 the way you would with acrobatic models. So while the consequences of a crash are much greater, the likelihood of it occurring is lower.

And with eight turbines (which are much more reliable, once running, than piston engines) going, the likelihood of catastrophic power loss is almost nil.

Nice video, but .... (5, Funny)

Honkytonkwomen (718287) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282644)

....what I really want to know is if it has the range to get here [mapquest.com] ?

Re:Nice video, but .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282661)

Wtf is up with that city's street names?

No idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282719)

but I doubt that this thin would have the payload to
do much more that dent a car.

Re:No idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282804)

"I doubt that this thin would have the payload to
do much more that dent a car."

Obviously you have forgotten about the concoctions our friends
at Vector play with...

http://www.vector.nsc.ru/index-e.htm

- Army of the 12 Monkeys

in-flight refueling? (4, Funny)

victor_the_cleaner (723411) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282664)

So when can we expect them to build the KC-135 tanker and re-fuel in the air?

They'd need to... (4, Interesting)

Goonie (8651) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282896)

While I haven't seen the specs on this model, if they're anything like most minijets they'll chew fuel at an astounding rate of knots. While I can't find the stats for the Wren, the smallest model made by this company [usamt.com] uses 250 grams (9 ounces) of fuel per minute at full throttle. Even assuming the Wren uses half the fuel, with 8 engines that's 1kg of fuel per minute. That's 1.6 *litres* of fuel per minute, or, if you like, about 140 seconds of flying time for every US gallon of fuel, if I've done my sums right.

This is why small GA aircraft use propellers, by the way.

Scaled Nuke for my B-52 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282697)

www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.htm
the W54 warhead should fit nicely in the bomb bay, although at 51lbs might be a little heavy.

The W54 warhead used on the Davy Crockett bazooka weighed just 51 pounds and was the smallest and lightest fission bomb (implosion type) ever deployed by the United States, with a variable explosive yield of 0.01 kilotons (equivalent to 10 tons of TNT, or two to four times as powerful as the ammonium nitrate bomb which destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995), or 0.02 kilotons-1 kiloton. A 58.6 pound variant?the B54?was used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM), a nuclear land mine deployed in Europe, South Korea, Guam, and the United States from 1964-1989.

Re:Scaled Nuke for my B-52 (1)

edgedmurasame (633861) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283199)

But you'd have a nice little blast zone of around 320.08m/528ft to stay out of if you decided to deploy it if it's 1:300 scale, with the presumption of a 30mi blast zone of a normal nuke. That's not even counting fallout of 1:300 scale of the world dispersion of the average nuke that you just crazily detonated. Sure, it's not the warhead you're talking about, but a true to scale nuke made for that model would not be something I'd want to have if I wanted to keep my "Terrorist Quotient" down.

Just the thing to fly over North Korea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282732)

More fun then throwing peanuts in a biker bar!

looks like fun (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9282807)

This thing has awesome practical joke potential if flown at low altitudes. Mwahahahahaaaaa....

B-52s are a cinch to make! (5, Informative)

IllogicalStudent (561279) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282815)

Amateurs... B-52s are simple to make; and cheap!

  • 1/3 shot Kahlua
  • 1/3 shot Amaretto
  • 1/3 shot Bailey's irish cream

Layer the Kahlua, Amaretto, and Irish Cream into a shot glass in that order. After drinking, notice the Vapor Trails.

I mean, really, aren't they teaching ANYTHING in schools nowadays?

Not to be an ass or anything... (0, Offtopic)

SiliconJesus101 (622291) | more than 10 years ago | (#9282992)

But it seems like a lot of Slashdot stories these days are pretty much direct rips from boingboing.net. A lot of the stuff I see here seems to have been lifted from there a day or two after it was posted over there.

Not a troll or flame or anything, just an observation.

Re:Not to be an ass or anything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9283134)

well fuq man, i dont read boing boing so does it really matter?

Re:Not to be an ass or anything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9283160)

Sure, because if you did read boingboing you would see the web sites in the articles here long before they got slashdotted.

Landing? (5, Funny)

ZorMonkey (653731) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283190)

No videos of it landing? Oh dear, they mustve crashed it! Wait, no videos of it crashing? Even worse! Oh dear, they mustve crashed it into the cameraman! Hopefully next time they'll have 2 cameramen.

BUFF: B-52 Nickname (1)

Dark Coder (66759) | more than 10 years ago | (#9283230)

Big Ugly Fat F***er

Long may she fly into the next two decades!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?