Nice, looks just like mine.

 

$$$

Good landing. Landing something that small and touchy would have to be hard.

 

those suckers can cost $15k+

 

No doubt. One of my real planes cost me $15K. Granted, it was a 1946 Luscombe and it didn't have an electrical system so I had to hand start it using the prop just like in the old warbird movies.

 

Where's the fuel leaking from the tanks before liftoff? Must not be an exact model.. just kidding of course, that thing must be fun as hell, but I gotta think it's very hard to fly it.

 

ya, zuper. ya.

 

I have to wander about the conversation that inspired that model.
Sven: "Oleg, what do you say we build a flying scale replica of the third most aerodynamically unstable craft in the history of powered flight?"

Oleg: "How hard could it be?"


In a more real-world context though, this is actually starting to bug me just a bit.

First we hung a pair of Hellfires on the RQ-1L Predator, transforming it from a harmless reconnaissance drone into the multirole MQ-1.

Then we upgraded it to the MQ-9 Reaper, by nonupling the engine power, and increasing the armament to six hardpoints with support for Paveway laser-guided bombs, JDAM GPS-guided munitions, and AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missiles. We also gave it the ability to perform in a completely autonomous capacity, and transformed the 174'th Fighter Wing into the worlds first all-robot attack squadron. The Reaper scored its first actual kill in September 2007, against Afghanistan insurgents. It is theoretically capable of engaging in a dogfight. Try to imagine yourself being chased around by a robot with guns. Sound familiar? In an actual air war, I'm guessing that all we'd have to do is announce that the Reaper is being deployed in order to achieve air superiority.

(A stealthy version, tentatively called the Predator C, is currently in development and first flew in April of this year. In addition replacing the turboprop with a turbojet, it is equipped with a tailhook, potentially enabling carrier-based operation.)


And then along comes this SR-71 in private hands. While they appear to have used a conventional RC control system, there's really no reason that someone a bit more competent with long-range VHF couldn't do something a bit more advanced.

The smallest configuration of the American W54 tactical nuclear warhead (the "Davy Crockett" version) measures 11" by 16" and weighs only 23 kilograms. Similar devices were produced by the Soviet Union, and are probably attainable for the right price.

 

Joe scares me.

 

my father in law has a much smaller/simpler RC jet that he has just finished building (took about 3 yrs). he plans on having his first flight within the next month or so.

 

In for video of first/last flight.

 

hah, he was a real commercial pilot, so he's a very meticulous guy. he had the opportunity to fly it a couple times, but aborted flight at the last minute because he had concerns about mechanical issues. he won't pull the stick back unless all conditions are "go". that being said.....i predict at least a few successful flights before he inevitably turns it into a lawn ornament. it's a Saab Gripen in a sport paint scheme that sits about 6' in length.

 

I scare myself, sometimes.

Think of it this way. A lot of the more advanced private airplanes these days (including some single-engine models) are equipped with GPS-enabled autopilot systems just like the big boys use. These systems are available for purchase separately to retrofit older airplanes as well. No special licenses or permits are required to purchase one.

You'd have to do a little custom work to get one to take off all by itself, but once airborne it's all off-the-shelf code and hardware. Heck, for a competent programmer, it wouldn't be that hard to build the whole thing from scratch. From a software standpoint, flying a plane isn't much more complex than doing closed-loop idle control.

What's to stop somebody from installing one in a large R/C airplane, programming it to fly itself to a certain location at a certain altitude and output a contact closure when it arrives, and then launching it from a field? In military parlance, they call that a cruise missile. Wouldn't even have to be nuclear; a thermobaric (fuel-air) device detonated over a sports arena / elementary school / etc (or flown through the front door of a large public building) would work just fine. I am genuinely surprised that nobody has actually done it yet. A reasonably well-funded organization could crank out fifty of 'em, and stagger the launches to ensure simultaneous payload delivery.

(Actually, forget about domestic terrorism. This could be an effective tool for use in corporate negotiations, or as a means of making small yet irritating foreign governments go away.)


And of course, that's just us amateurs. The fact that the US Air Force currently owns machines that are capable of autonomously hunting down and destroying multiple air, surface, and land-based targets before returning, on their own, to be refueled and re-equipped... It just seems like sci-fi to me.

 

His neighbors said he was quiet and kept to himself.

 

Why do I now have this feeling that men with dark sunglasses and no sense of humor are going to be knocking on my door shortly?

 

Its pretty damn awesome, amazing in fact and I have seen a lot of replica RC planes. However... one thing I wish it had, and im positive its possible, on board still camera.

 

Joe reminded me of this..

 

No retracts? Weak sauce. I love the old dude's pants, though.

How much fun could you have flying that model over Baghdad?

My dad trained to launch those in Germany in the late 60's. The general idea was to be able to stop Russian ground forces advancing through the valleys into Europe. I suspect I'm named after it (middle name is Crockett), although his mom's maiden name was also Crockett.

 

At this point, all we really need to do is strap a .50 cal onto Big Dog, port over the Reaper AI package, and **** it off. That'll pretty much get us into John Connor territory.

 

Fixed!