thanks GIZ,

the BWB should be named after Burnelli Blended Wing.

REALLY.

[www.aircrash.org]

No, no, no.
If we're going by largest EVER R/C plane, Gordon Nichols' 1/8 B52 model has this beat by two feet.

[www.stukastudios.se]

That, and apparently his was only $60K, which I'm sure is a helluva lot less than this.

drop an E in there and the name would be a bit more interesting.

Wait...the B-29 was 30' wingspan.
This is listed as 21', but "easily beats" the B-29? Must've been a typo.
Either way, I'd take an 8-turbine, 21' B52 over a 30' B-29 any day.

They actually edited out the comm between the pilot and tower. Most of the jaw jacking was one guy reading straight from a manual and the pilot responding from his checklist.

I think the chase plane makes all of the calls from checkpoint, to pattern, to final, and he then squirts off to the side while the SkyRay touches down.

There's a whole lot of chit-chat that was cut out.

Oh... Yes, I'll take 3 full sized versions please. Thanks.

NASA always sounds like they're in some dire need of humor.

You are right. Damnation. I got my data wrong. Correcting.

Ditto on the pilot-tower comms. It's funny, I yawed left the other day and now my auto insurance is raping me.

haha - yeah it does sound like someone letting out a death rattle near the end. I believe it to be the woman in the chase aircraft shooting the video. (sounds like her)

P.S. Thanks Jesus for your interest in stuff that flies, as I doubt we'd see as many posts, like this, as we have.

@shenanigans61: Ah, you tricked me! The B52 crashed. It doesn't count! :-)

I don't think the B-29 is 30 feet, though. Must be a typo on the other article, because I can't find any confirmation on that and it definitely looks smaller than this one.

@Jesus Diaz: Oh, it has to be flying?! Crap.
:P

From what I've read of the B-29, it is also 21'.
So...they're the same size. I guess you could say "largest flying RC plane".
The B-29 drops a functional X-1 though... :P

Only NASA would need a countdown to 'launch' a remote control airplane.

So these "Rocket Scientists" couldn't figure out how to install retractable landing gear. Model F-14's have retractable landing gear. BTW, it does look sweet in the still shots though. (at least the ones that don't show the landing gear)

Yaw Right, yeah I feel fine.

not the largest RC plane. ok so maybe this one didnt survive, but it has a wingspan of 146 feet...

+ Watch video

@gizmodohomepage:

I'm sure like ALL large R/C planes and all real test planes as well, all initial test are done GEAR DOWN to prevent issues with sticky retracts or problems getting the gear down while testing the flying functionality of the airframe.

I'm 100% sure this airframe has retracts on it. I'm also sure that once the first round of flight testing is over (or maybe even sooner) they will be doing operational flight tests with the gear up.

@shenanigans61: Maybe its longer???
Well thats cool it had a pretty smooth flight.
I wonder what those two javelin type fixtures in front of the airplane???

@Jesus Diaz: Haha. Nice editing, Jesus :P

@gizmodohomepage:
I don't actually see any gear doors which surprises me, but I'm sure they intentionally did that.
If this model does not have retracts on it I'm sure that's on purpose as well. I can't see investing the money this project must have cost only to produce a flying model without a clean flying profile.
If it doesn't have retracts I'm sure the final model will if it goes into production.

@N@tedog: Wouldn't you if you were flying an RC plane that could easily crash, and kill several people all at once should the unthinkable happen? Besides, you have to consider that they are coordinating the observers, both on the ground and in the air so everyone is on their mark when the thing takes off. Clearly this is no ordinary park flyer that you just toss in the air and off you go.

I saw this article, and it reminded me of a privately funded BWB project: [www.wingco.com]

As to the retract issue: I've seen some other "#1 prototype" aircraft, and they wouldn't bother with retractable gear.

At this point, they're testing several things: the feasibility of the design, the stability of the plane, the CoG, and probably things like the size & effectiveness of the control surfaces. Not only does retracting the landing gear not help any of these things, but it may hinder it - if the retracts failed and the gear was stuck up, you'd damage a valuable prototype. :)

"Elecro-Nuclear Carbeuration seems okay..."

Awesome looking craft.
Looks like a good run!
(I thing that was an engineer relaxing at the end. ;) )

@amehrich: Didn't it say the largest RC model? Taking a real plane (which clearly is not a model) and making it an RC plane is very cool, and yes has been done before, many times. I can't say for certain that this is the absolute largest RC model, but the article at least did say that it was the largest model...not the largest RC plane. There's a difference.

Spruce Goose FTW

@amehrich: I said model airplane. There are a lot of larger RC planes, like the ones they use for targeting practice. Or some drones.

Very cool but I doubt they would make a full scale model. Think about how much an airplane banks on a turn today. Now imagine you are in this thing and your seat is 30 feet further out on the wing! Thats not going to be a comfortable flight for any non thrill seeking passenger.

@shenanigans61: Damn! Brought a tear to my eye. For those in the know, are there controllers that have instrumentation on them so that the RC pilot can see flight data like airspeed, altitude, attitude, heading, etc? If not, that would probably avoid crashes like that of the B52 in the video shenanigans61 referred to.

@apeguero:
Actually having been around large quarter scale and bigger R/C planes my entire life, both the B-29 and B-52 were using multiple 2 stick transmitters (multiple people controlling the planes) where 1 person is usually in charge of things like flaps, gear, trim, accessories, and sometimes even throttles, while the other person is left to concentrate on flying the model.
The crash of that 21 ft B-52 had nothing to do with the pilot or co-pilot not having situational awareness. or being aware of airspeed, altitude or heading.

As I understood it was a malfunction of servo(s) on one of the flying surfaces that sent the plane into an unrecoverable downward attitude; and in a model that big, once an attitude like that is reached there is NO recovery; either it will go straight into the ground like the B-52 did or even if you recover in time, with a model of that size it would tear itself apart before it could pull out of the dive.

Unfortunately its the nature of armature R/C model building. I have seen many, many a large model go into the ground. This was especially true at events like the Byron Originals "striking back" show that used to take place in Iowa every year. Although it was a "staged" event and always spectacular, there were always sooooo many very large models in the air at any one time (Zeros, corsairs, B-25s, a B-29 ect....ect) that mid-airs and radio problems happened all too often:

+ Watch video

I'll take wheels DOWN always to hel aid in the landing in case something goes wrong, so you don't blow your financial roof off in one bad move, maybe just a precautionary measure "just in case" don't want any sticky landing gear mechanics!!

Great Video, quite impressive, now who is getting IN the first one once made for flight?

Not Me!! ;-)
Faslane

@Out2gtcha: Where'd you read the cause of crash?
From what I had heard, it fell victim to the very same flight characteristic that the real ones had; and led to the one that crashed practicing for an air show a few years ago.

The B-52's (will now be referred to as BUFF) wing is very big and flexible, and during wind tunnel tests, they found that ailerons had almost zero effect on bank angle. All they did was twist the wing! So the solution was to only have opposing spoilers on each wing to affect bank. They are more effective, but due to obvious reasons, they still aren't exceptionally effective.
If the BUFF gets too deep into a bank turn, it can begin nosing in and losing altitude very quickly. Due to the BUFF's new attitude in this position, the opposing spoilers become even less effective, and if the plane is low enough, it will more than likely keep it's knife-edge nose-down attitude and crash.

That is exactly what I see in the video.

@shenanigans61: plus flying too close to the ground with a side slip prone craft. Many accidents related to doing stuff way to close to have room for manouver

Yeah...the pilot really dumb-thumbed the real B-52 in. I read he was a big hotshot and would do stupid stuff a lot. He got WAY too far into that turn.

I think they will deal with the bank-angle issue by using yaw to turn the plane rather than relying so much on banking the wings.

I believe the plane landed on a sunbathing Invisible Man. Hence the "dying" sounds.

@Out2gtcha: Thanks for the great video. I remember either seeing this or something similar quite some time ago on a TV show somewhere. It's amazing how they can have such a nice exhibition.

@shenanigans61: Makes a lot of sense. Although I always thought that BUFF stood for Big Fuc***g Ugly Fella :)

Just to throw in a bit of credit for the B-29. That one is owned and operated by Mac Hodges of Hodges Hobbies in Andersonville, GA. They have a full R/C flying field right next to the hobby shop and have many events all year.

www.hodgeshobbies.com

@fsusmithc2: do they special shows in Japan - I guess not.

@shenanigans61:
I heard the cause of the crash through some of the 1/4 scale model association out of the UK. However, you may be right, as I have seen that vid of a real B-52H crashing at Fairchild AFB in 1994; due to the same loss of lift due to wing foil you mentioned.

[www.google.com]
@apeguero:

Yeah I loved that show as a kid. My dad took me to Ida Grove IA for the Byron show almost every year. It was awesome to see in person.

20-15-10-5.... ???? Probably the dissapointed cry of the X-48A.

@apeguero: Well...yeah, or Big Ugly Fat F***** :)
Oh, military jargon. Where would I be without you?

Hey they used REAL B-24s and wired them up for radio control near the end of WWII. Doesn't that count?

$9,394,129,601,360 for that?

Plane's...Train's...Video games...what it's all about

you know whats sad, these things will never become passenger crafts because.........there wouldn't be enough windows ,seriously thats why...stupid cluster phobic people....
hmmm....what if you make the roof out of glass????

@deathbychichi: Were the B-24s models? No? So it doesn't count as the largest RC model. Pay attention.