Slashdot Mirror


11-Pound Model Plane Vs. The Atlantic, Again

Luap Nanreffeh writes "Last year, (/. Story 1, /. story 2) Maynard Hill and some retired NASA buddies tried to set a record for flying a model aeroplane across the atlantic ocean (from Newfoundland to Ireland). Their plan, using GPS, onboard controllers, and a gallon of gas, would have been the first to cross the Atlantic under FAI rules. They didn't have much luck last year, but now they're at it again. The first launch should be tonight."

301 comments

  1. direct reference to Simpson's episode DABF02 by sweeney37 · · Score: 5, Funny

    all of us from slashdot send Charles "Lucky Hammy" Hamster our support.

    good luck and godspeed, brave hamster.

    Mike

  2. Wouldn't it be better... by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    instead of giving an exact date, just waiting until weather conditions are perfect to fly it?

    --
    I have over 70 freaks, do you?
    1. Re:Wouldn't it be better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did they give an exact date? Their site says they have prepared to launch and are waiting for optimal weather conditions

    2. Re:Wouldn't it be better... by punkmac · · Score: 2, Informative

      weather in newfoundland is extremely unpredictable, thus the choice of set date i imagine.

      newfoundland also has the fame of being the birthplace of wireless communication, as the worlds first wireless transmission across the atlantic was recieved on signal hill back in 1901, so maybe that was another reason as well.

      hmm, guess my newfoundland pride is showing :)

    3. Re:Wouldn't it be better... by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where did they give an exact date?
      The first launch should be tonight.

      mmhmm?

      --
      I have over 70 freaks, do you?
    4. Re:Wouldn't it be better... by spencerogden · · Score: 1

      "should"?

    5. Re:Wouldn't it be better... by los+furtive · · Score: 4, Funny

      newfoundland also has the fame of being the birthplace of wireless communication, as the worlds first wireless transmission across the atlantic was recieved on signal hill back in 1901, so maybe that was another reason as well.

      And I'm sure that the fact that it's also about closest point between North America and Europe without getting your feet wet has absolutely nothing to do with it.

      But thanks for the trivia. Now quit your lollygaging ;-)

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    6. Re:Wouldn't it be better... by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 1

      They don't know what the weather conditions will be tomorrow, if it was me doing it I wouldn't go ahead in less than perfect conditions, what about you?

      --
      I have over 70 freaks, do you?
    7. Re:Wouldn't it be better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There is NO "perfect solution when you are talking about the weather. Doubly true when you are talking about the weather on two continents and one ocean.

    8. Re:Wouldn't it be better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now quit your lollygaging ;-)

      But that's Newfoundland's provincial pastime!

      - Yours truly, the Nova Scotian

    9. Re:Wouldn't it be better... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      I think your pride is getting the better of you :^)

      The birth of wireless communication happened, unsurprisingly, before the first trans-Atlantic transmission (which may actualyl have just been static). Try looking here for example.

      In fact, as every Northern Irish school child is (or at elast should be) taught, the first overseas transmission happened just up the road from me between Rathlin Island and Ballycastle, as this site should inform you.

    10. Re:Wouldn't it be better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they spelt whiskey wrong.. and in any case, the first tranmission was in Italy, again by Marconi.

    11. Re:Wouldn't it be better... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      The first transmission, yes, so it is the birthplace, but the first over the horizon one was in the UK, which is a little more useful. Either way, it's not Newfoundland :^)

  3. No need for GPS by Amsterdam+Vallon · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Save weight and save fuel by removing the GPS requirement.

    Once you develop the flight plan, some simple on-board sensors should take care of carrying that out.

    GPS is overrated anyway.

    --

    Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
    1. Re:No need for GPS by javiercero · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, what onboard sensors would be those, intuition and luck?

    2. Re:No need for GPS by seafortn · · Score: 0

      Onboard sensors like... an onboard compass, wind speed sensor, intertial guidance system, LORAN, a sextant (and clock)? Sounds much lighter...

    3. Re:No need for GPS by javiercero · · Score: 1

      ... than small ceramic antennae and lightweight electronics? :)

    4. Re:No need for GPS by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A ready-for-consumers GPS fits in a fricking PC card now, with a small antenna sticking out the side. You can remove the need for a bulky antenna by using a fractal antenna etched into a PC board. I imagine there are one or two chip solutions for GPS nowadays.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:No need for GPS by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Based on the first two responses to this post, you'd think people had never heard of inertial navigation. With MEMS accelerometers it ought to be pretty light, too.

    6. Re:No need for GPS by VCAGuy · · Score: 1

      Isn't LORAN run by the USCG?

      --
      Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
      A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
    7. Re:No need for GPS by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Never heard of 1/f noise?

      Trying to integrate the output of an inertial sensor twice to get position IS dead reckoning. For very short travel times, it would work fine - but for very long flights, the integrated noise from the sensor output would give you enormous accumated position and velocity errors.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    8. Re:No need for GPS by javiercero · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, we have heard of them.... except that most inertial units nowadays use GPS too, you know you goota get some sort of reference for your error and drift. Most new inertial units combine the accelerometers and gyroscopes to give you altitude, pitch and yaw, plus acceleration, plus GPS to combine that into the Kalman to get rid of dead reckoning.

      It is a tad hard thing to do when you do not have a human navigator on board to do the corrections....

    9. Re:No need for GPS by John+Carmack · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >Based on the first two responses to this post, you'd think people had never heard of inertial
      >navigation. With MEMS accelerometers it ought to be pretty light, too.

      Pure 3 axis inertial navigation with a strapdown inertial measuring requires extreme precision. MEMS inertial units aren't even in the right ballpark. Mechanical stable platform inertial systems that actually rotated inside the vehicles didn't require awesomely accurate sensors, but they are big, heavy, and not as reliable.

      It is a useful programming exercise to write a simulation of a strapdown inertial system and play with bias, noise, and nonlinearity errors (add cross axis coupling and acceleration effects for micromachined gyros for bonus points). Pick reasonable ranges and quantize to 12 bits, then integrate at 100 hz or so. You can start the simulation motionless, but in a minute it will be cruising along at 60 mph in some random direction, hundreds of feet from the start position. An hour later, it will be heading for Mars.

      The low end inertial systems that have been moderately soccessful are done by removing gravity from the equation and just doing 2D navigation, and often using other sensors, like magnetometers instead of rate gyros for heading, or odometer readings instead of double integrating accelerometers. Double integration of interrelated noisy sensors with an implicit 1G acceleration is really more demanding than it would initially seem.

      The only reason you wouldn't want to use GPS in an ocean crossing is if you are afraid a Bad Guy might be jamming the signals.

      John Carmack

    10. Re:No need for GPS by 8-balll · · Score: 1

      That's why it still works!!! The USCG used to be funded by the DOT now it has the never ending supply of money from the dept. of HD.....

      --
      such is life...
    11. Re:No need for GPS by BuilderBob · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and what do you know Mr "Carmack", I doubt you know how to program a realistic physics engine :) (please don't send the goons with the rail guns around...shotguns and rockets I can handle, but not the railguns, or the jumpy jumpy nonsense)

      Seriously though, where are you learning this stuff from, I had a quick look for intertial guidance and MEMS (not such a sensible idea in these TIA times) but I only got the encyclopaedia answers.

      BB

    12. Re:No need for GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, get back to work on Doom III.
      If its out before Half Life II, I'll mail you $20.

    13. Re:No need for GPS by savuporo · · Score: 1

      >>Seriously though, where are you learning this stuff from, I had a quick look for intertial guidance and MEMS (not such a sensible idea in these TIA times) but I only got the encyclopaedia answers.<<

      Google the archives of Armadillo Aerospace on gyros and IMU's. You'll get quite a good overview of the stuff.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    14. Re:No need for GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but seriously. Isn't id Software going to release a statement to clarify about the Doom III delay gossip which has been floating around? About that Activision financial plans and stuff.

      That would calm down a lot of nerds.

    15. Re:No need for GPS by Pemdas · · Score: 1
      It is a useful programming exercise to write a simulation of a strapdown inertial system and play with bias, noise, and nonlinearity errors (add cross axis coupling and acceleration effects for micromachined gyros for bonus points). Pick reasonable ranges and quantize to 12 bits, then integrate at 100 hz or so. You can start the simulation motionless, but in a minute it will be cruising along at 60 mph in some random direction, hundreds of feet from the start position. An hour later, it will be heading for Mars.

      Methinks your simulations may have been a bit pessimistic. I use 3-axis IMU's frequently, and find the local errors to be very reasonable. Even without basic filtering, you can see locally smooth motion for good stretches of time.

      Of course, the long term error is unbounded, making it more or less useless for a transatlantic flight. You need to incorporate other global positioning sensing techniques with bounded absolute error to do reasonable global positioning. Combining the data of these two kinds of sensors is nontrivial, but the basic methods are well documented.

      The only reason you wouldn't want to use GPS in an ocean crossing is if you are afraid a Bad Guy might be jamming the signals.

      Agreed. There's no reason I can see that they can't live with errors on the order of 10's of meters.

    16. Re:No need for GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Carmacks hidden plan:

      1. build real rocket launcher
      2. try some thing with it at valve
      3. ???
      4. Profit! ($20)

  4. Drug running by GreenCrackBaby · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, how long until drug runners send little planes from Columbia to Florida?

    This gives me too many ideas...

    --

    "The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
    1. Re:Drug running by Steffan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What makes you think that they aren't already doing this. It's not like they'd post to Slashdot if they were successful.

    2. Re:Drug running by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that they don't already? Do you think that they would advertise their technologies?

    3. Re:Drug running by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 0

      selling 11 pound drugs plane!
      :/

      --
      I have over 70 freaks, do you?
    4. Re:Drug running by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thats it GreenCrackBaby. No more crack for you. We will be sending a slightly larger plane with a 'special' delivery just for you now you have gone and exposed our previously secret and ferret type cunning plan to the rest of the world.

      Best wishes

      Medellin Cartel

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    5. Re:Drug running by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      drug runners will start using little planes when it's cheaper and easier than using humans: i.e. never.

    6. Re:Drug running by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So, how long until drug runners send little planes from Columbia to Florida?

      I remember, back when cruise missiles were first being developed, thinking how a strategic cruise missile (the one with the half-ton payload and restartable turbojet engine) would make a dandy drug smuggling vehicle. Load with a thousand pounds of cocaine, fly it below radar across the Gulf of Mexico and into the door of a large barn in some remote region of the US.

      The big problem would be if SAC happened to see it coming. It would look JUST like a strategic cruise misslle coming at the US over the Gulf of Mexico. B-)

      They might have gotten away with it back then. But these days the US keeps an AWACS over the Gulf all the time - to look for drug smugglers. Two can play at plowsharing.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    7. Re:Drug running by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They already use little submarines.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    8. Re:Drug running by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you kidding? Why would they try to swallow little airplanes when little balloons are much easier?

      Sheesh! Some people.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    9. Re:Drug running by Frymaster · · Score: 2, Funny
      drug runners? what about terrorists!

      apparently hamas has already used radio-controlled model planes to carry explosives and the british, for some time, were "concerned" that the ira could used model helicopters to deliver chemical weaponry.

      source is here

      really, somebody should call tom ridge and get him to stop these people from exporting this weapons technology to a foreign power!

    10. Re:Drug running by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But these days the US keeps an AWACS over the Gulf all the time - to look for drug smugglers.

      Not even *close* to all of the time. They fly drug interdiction flights about once a week, and it's mostly trainees watching. They do catch their fair share of drug planes though. Saw one disappear into the ocean one night, that was pretty cool/sad. They fly so low that big swells can actually swallow the plane.

      --
      My user number is prime. Is yours?
    11. Re:Drug running by kzinti · · Score: 1

      drug runners? what about terrorists!

      apparently hamas has already used radio-controlled model planes to carry explosives and the british, for some time, were "concerned" that the ira could used model helicopters to deliver chemical weaponry.


      Yeah, and they don't have a five-pound limit.

    12. Re:Drug running by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      So what you're saying is that they need to be building unmanned submarines instead.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Drug running by Gherald · · Score: 4, Funny

      Which is why, by comparison, us nerds don't fare so well at clandestine activity.

    14. Re:Drug running by psavo · · Score: 1

      Slightly OT, but this makes one think about in exactly what sicrumstances one thinks of strawberry flavoured condoms..

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    15. Re:Drug running by Gherald · · Score: 1

      Cruise missles have a place in war because they are a damn fast, "fire and forget" sort of weapon.

      But they are also outrageously expensive!

      Where/How the hell is a drug cartel going to get one?

      For smuggling, price/payload ratio is absurd.

    16. Re:Drug running by Mantorp · · Score: 1

      Columbia is not Colombia.

    17. Re:Drug running by msgmonkey · · Score: 1

      They have been, security forces found a half finished one in the middle of the columbian jungle a few years back.

    18. Re:Drug running by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I can't believe what nerds we are looking up money laundering in a dictionary."

      -Peter

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    19. Re:Drug running by cjsnell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So, how long until drug runners send little planes from Columbia to Florida?

      Kind of pointless when they can send big planes. During the 1980s, Pablo Escobar's Medellin Cartel flew gutted 727s from Columbia to the States, loaded to the max with cocaine. Another one of his tricks was to send large numbers of small planes, each loaded with coke, towards the US. The DEA and Customs Service could only catch so many... You can read more about it in Mark Bowden's (author of Black Hawk Down) excellent book, Killing Pablo .

      Jimmy Buffett also discusses air smuggling in his book, A Pirate Looks at Fifty .

    20. Re:Drug running by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      1 plane, cargo, 1 kilo of coke

      auto gps/palm pilot navigation, trip time from lab to dest, 10mins

      fly 60 drops a day, thats 60kilos, 10 days = 600 killos

      Id say thats safer than using humans, and no need to pay a poor schmuck $5k to do it.

      But OTH, we know the military sends 100,000's of tonnes every year of coke

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    21. Re:Drug running by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      They are using subs, they cost only $10m from europe, nothing for billion dollar cartels, just cruise 10-20m below the surface and no AWACS can spot you, except a nuclear navy sub I suppose. But if you write on the HULL, "CIA #232" they might be dumb enough to leave you alone.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    22. Re:Drug running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing Pablo was an awesome book. I second the recommendation.

      I've also read books about some of the other major smuggling operations. Large aircraft aren't so effective since they have to land in somewhat legitimate places and fly fast and high. The little Cessna type planes are much more effective. They can fly about 500 kilos of uncut coke from Columbia to CONUS and land just about anywhere. They can fly low and slow... not attracting any attention. Plus they are comparatively so cheap they can have dozens(or more) of them flying daily. And consider the profit... wholesale price of a kilo of uncut coke is $35,000.... they could lose 9 out of every 10 flights and still make money. Sadly, historically, it's more like 9 get through for every one caught.... or less.

      And we're not even talking about using boats or air-drops yet.... it's amazing we catch any of it.

    23. Re:Drug running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Speaking of which, if there are any drug lords reading slashdot today and are in need of someone to build a nice drug-running* RC plane, call me!

      *not that it would involve drug running, of course. That's illegal!

    24. Re:Drug running by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      every line of your post is nuts

    25. Re:Drug running by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      these days the US keeps an AWACS over the Gulf all the time - to look for drug smugglers.

      Well, they have to maintain the CIA's exclusive operation

    26. Re:Drug running by FreakyDeaky · · Score: 1

      hahahaha he makes a good point

    27. Re:Drug running by anthonyrcalgary · · Score: 1

      I think it would be very difficult to stop, say, a thousand planes all launched at once. Obviously there would be issues with launching that many at once, but there would also be issues stopping enough of them to matter.

      Hm... they'd have to be automated, but microcontrollers are cheap. They could be programmed to attempt a time on target style arrival, so that only a tiny fraction could be investigated. They could also be set up to drop the payload at a predetermined spot and continue on until they ran out of gas, that would make it difficult to know where people were picking up the drugs from.

      I imagine the best way to deal with GPS would be to use it until it was jammed and then fly by dead reckoning until it became available again. A really big GPS blackout would be required to stop the planes if their drop sites were well inside the country.

      --
      When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
  5. In other news... by Valiss · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...my neighbor tried to make his toy remote control car across the street, only to be crushed by the UPS guy.

    So this is what a job market over-saturated with people with degrees and experience produces?

    Or maybe they were just tired of people laughing when they told people that they worked for NASA.

    --

    -Valiss
  6. First launch? by sailor420 · · Score: 0, Funny

    The first launch? What are they planning on doing, supergluing back together the shattered pieces they find floating in the ocean after it crashes?

    1. Re:First launch? by deep6d · · Score: 1

      It really helps to read the article before posting and looking like a fool. They have multiple planes.

    2. Re:First launch? by seafortn · · Score: 1

      RT(F)A (don't know why I even bother saying that). They have backups (3 last time, unk how many this time, but at least 1 based on the pictures page)

  7. I've got an idea! by daeley · · Score: 4, Funny

    Get in touch with the English Channel skydiver and set up a cross promotion: Skydiver Flies (and Flies Model Plane) Across Atlantic.

    Q. Which reminds me of an old joke: what do you get when you cross the Titanic and the Atlantic Ocean?

    A. About halfway.

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    1. Re:I've got an idea! by thebigmacd · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's that much more subtle if you reword it to say:

      Q. What do you get when you cross the Atlantic Ocean with the Titanic?

    2. Re:I've got an idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Which reminds me of an old joke: what do you get when you cross the Titanic and the Atlantic Ocean?

      A fucked up joke. Wah...waaaah.

    3. Re:I've got an idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alot of people died in that fuckhead

    4. Re:I've got an idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Alot of people died inside some fuckhead? Who?

  8. Little planes too limiting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They much rather the use of big planes like L1011s and 747s. These much larger aircraft have proven to be far more reliable than tiny drones. Additionally, the larger craft are capable of carrying much larger loads which is a very important feature to the highly competitive drug trade. Basically, if the transport can't handle a ton or more of product, the more respected cartels won't touch it.

    1. Re:Little planes too limiting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High risk maybe, but not "highly competative." Have you any idea of their profit margins?

    2. Re:Little planes too limiting. by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      And how exactly did you come to all of this knowledge, hmmmm....?

    3. Re:Little planes too limiting. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I know a plane load of cocaine turns into 3 plane loads of cash.

      That is very high profit.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  9. Possible Use by thePancreas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Drug Smuggling anyone? Or maybe strong encryption smuggling. Can't be radar visible if it's that small.

    --
    I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
    1. Re:Possible Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Miltary/search aircraft like a Orion or Nimrod already have radars that can detect small slow moving objects like periscopes or people in the water.

      A relatively fast moving object like these big model aircraft that have metal parts and are well above the water should not be too much problem to detect.

    2. Re:Possible Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have to say they are radar visible. I fly RC at a field near an airport. AMA has 500 foot limit - local FAA has put a 400 foot limit on the field. FAA people show up and then and nail people who are flying too high. I've heard "you pop up on radar" more than once.

  10. Why NASA's efforts failed the first time around.. by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 5, Funny

    They forgot to add in the additional weight of the coconuts.

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

  11. Helpful info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, they let you know it's a DUPE right in the title. Progress people, progress.

    1. Re:Helpful info by Gherald · · Score: 1

      If only the feature were built into slashcode

  12. This is excellent practice... by vudufixit · · Score: 3, Funny

    The engineering experience gained from this endeavor will only help humans create better autonomous craft for Earthbound and space-based uses. Glad they're doing this, and I wish them luck, although if they see any German guys with ladders in their backyard, get the ol' shotgun ready.

  13. hm by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why don't they just build a dozen of these, and launch them an hour apart. The whole advantage of small inexpensive craft is the "swarm" approach.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one cost $38,000. Who is going to par for a swarm of those to send to the bottom of the ocean?

    2. Re:hm by Migrant+Programmer · · Score: 4, Informative

      They launched 3 last year, and are launching 4 this year. It would be really stupid to launch them an hour apart -- oops, one storm just took out all of your planes at once.

    3. Re:hm by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Ever since the advent of that newfangled Doppler radar, airplanes fly around storms.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:hm by sacherjj · · Score: 1

      However, a doppler radar weighs more than 11 pounds. That wouldn't exactly work here. The better choice would be to design it so it climbs up to high alititude and takes advantage of the better weather and more efficient (if designed right) engine properties.

    5. Re:hm by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      You can fit a doppler radar on a 5kg plane??

      --

      -Bucky
    6. Re:hm by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Er...they control the planes from the ground. There is such a thing as a weather report.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:hm by rodney+dill · · Score: 0

      Iwould, isay alittle alot of thetime.

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that
      - S. Beckett
    8. Re:hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is more of a mosquito than an airplane...

      --
      AC with a sig!

    9. Re:hm by thebigmacd · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the site I learned that before the flight waypoints are uploaded to the GPS guidance system, and there is telemetry send while it is flying, but they basically said it will fly itself once in the air.

    10. Re:hm by JesseL · · Score: 1
      Er...they control the planes from the ground.

      Er...No they don't

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    11. Re:hm by joshua.robinson · · Score: 1

      actually you can send a bunch at once, program them to follow in a formation and take advantage of one anothers lift

      --
      Whats A sig anyway
  14. Spruce Moose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I set get in.... CLICK

  15. Thanks for the links by CracktownHts · · Score: 5, Funny
    (from Newfoundland to Ireland). Their plan, using GPS, onboard controllers, and a gallon of gas, would have been the first to cross the Atlantic under FAI rules. They didn't have much luck last year, but now they're at it again. The first launch should be tonight."

    You know you're reading Slashdot when "GPS" and "FAI" are assumed to require less background info than "Newfoundland".

    1. Re:Thanks for the links by xwu · · Score: 1
      (from Newfoundland to Ireland). Their plan, using GPS, onboard controllers, and a gallon of gas, would have been the first to cross the Atlantic under FAI rules. They didn't have much luck last year, but now they're at it again. The first launch should be tonight."

      You know you're reading Slashdot when "GPS" and "FAI" are assumed to require less background info than "Newfoundland".

      Actually, it's supposed to be Newfoundland and Labrador nowadays.


    2. Re:Thanks for the links by OECD · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know you're reading Slashdot when "GPS" and "FAI" are assumed to require less background info than "Newfoundland".

      Or, oddly, Ireland. Funny, "Luap Nanreffeh" doesn't sound Irish...

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    3. Re:Thanks for the links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The island itself is Newfoundland. Saying "Newfoundland and Labrador" suggests they're launching from both the rock and the mainland, and that's about as silly as most Newfie jokes I've heard recently.

  16. I can see it now. by MegaHamsterX · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the news today a nearly blind and deaf man was arrested for terrorist acts after his home built guided missile traveled the atlantic and started a fire at a shoreside housing complex, a terrorized elderly couple lost 16 cats in the fierce blaze.

  17. By all other names by jonhuang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So this is a automatous GPS-guided long-range flying vehicle? Isn't that a cruise missle?

    Admittedly, there would be some scaling up before poeple could fit a 2000lb warhead on it. But for bio/chemical WMDs, here's your cheap unstoppable delivery device.

    I wish them luck, regardless.

    1. Re:By all other names by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Well Bio agents can be pretty light and not that hard to disperse over large areas. I wouldent call it unstopable just particulary hard and nearly unstopable in large numbers (can you see a few hundred of them in a formation) To small to shoot with missles to slow to attack from a jet realy it would be the helicopters who could probably just fly over the things and send them into the sea via there prop wash (thats for planes same thing for choppers?) but if all else fails machine guns work.

      So whats next the little submarine version?

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:By all other names by UnixRevolution · · Score: 1

      here's your cheap unstoppable delivery device.

      Cheap, yes....but unstoppable? it's so stoppable it has YET to fly more than 1/4 the way through its route!

      --
      You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
    3. Re:By all other names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theres always a local (to me) in New Zealand - Bruce Simpson. He is trying to build a cruise missile for less than $5000US. He is detailing at www.interestingprojects.com

    4. Re:By all other names by oGMo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      So this is a automatous GPS-guided long-range flying vehicle? Isn't that a cruise missle?

      So, a cat is a 4-legged mammal with hair? Isn't that a woolly mammoth?

      Nope, invalid logic.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    5. Re:By all other names by gfilion · · Score: 1

      here's your cheap unstoppable delivery device.

      Dude, be serious, even the Iraqi farmer with 100 years old riffle could shoot this plane down.

      I also found this when searching for the farmer: Comical Ali on DVD. hehehe

    6. Re:By all other names by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 0

      No need to go through all that for bio or other wmd.

      A. Large payload not needed. A bio or chem payload could be as small as 5/10 lbs.
      B. Range. No need to fly all the way across the Atlantic. Launch from a ship 20-30 miles out.
      C. Targeting/Guidance. Not needed. All it has to do is be able to fly a straight line. Aim it for NYC or Washington, and let fly. If it misses a little, so what. Local population density makes that a non issue. Or London, Or Amsterdam. Any city near a coast. Let it fly over at 5000 feet for good dispersal. Put the weapons release on a timer. (X miles at Y mph = Z seconds)

      Think of a smaller, quieter Nazi V-1/V-2.

    7. Re:By all other names by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

      5/10LBS of bio or chem is not going to do anything. Jesus you've been reading the Dept. Homeland Defense propaganda again, haven't you?

      The best chemical weapon is one that has a large percentage of pb. Injected at over Mach 1.

    8. Re:By all other names by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      5/10LBS of bio or chem is not going to do anything. Jesus you've been reading the Dept. Homeland Defense propaganda again, haven't you?

      Right. And your experience with these types of weapons is what, exactly? How many people will a pound of blister or nerve agent affect in a standard western city at noontime?

      For years, all through the ColdWar, the US and the fUSSR deployed various chemical and possibly bio weapons. Some of these included small, battlefield use, artillery shells. Payload no more than a very few pounds.

      "Ken Alibek, a former top official in the Soviet germ weapons program who is now president of Advanced Biosystems, a consulting company in Manassas, Va., said that it was routinely possible to create dry anthrax that contained 100 billion spores per gram and that, with some effort, 500 billion was possible."
      "The infectious dose," Dr. Alibek said, "can be quite large."

      Seeing as an infectious dose can be as little as 10,000 spores and seeing as 5 lbs at that concentration is 11 trillion spores...you figure it out.

      Nerve agents are even worse. 70 mg. min/m3 can be fatal to all but the most resistant. 70 milligrams. How much is 5 lbs of that?

      The best chemical weapon is one that has a large percentage of pb. Injected at over Mach 1.

      Sure, one on one. For a widescale terror weapon, though...a bullet is somewhat ineffective, unless you're the target "one".

    9. Re:By all other names by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 1

      I would be very impressed if an Iraqi farmer shot down a plane (small or otherwise) somewhere between Canada and Ireland. I mean from Iraq, that would be quite impresive.

      --Zach

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
    10. Re:By all other names by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      "to slow to attack from a jet "

      I'm pretty sure that if an F-18 were to fly past one of those things, the air-wash coming off the wings would drop it into the ocean very easily. It would probably shred it in fact.

      The hard part would simply be finding it first.

    11. Re:By all other names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unstoppable? Keeping in mind a little balsa model like this requires a ton of work to put together, and is travelling at, say, 50 mph if you're lucky? You don't need a missile defense system to knock that out of the air, just a good stiff breeze.

    12. Re:By all other names by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

      Zero experience, but plenty of training on how to avoid the experience.

      The problem is that people don't just stand still and let themselves be poisoned, they move out of the danger zone, upwind etc. If you could force feed everyone their required dose it would be highly effective, but you can't most of your 5lbs is wasted.

      On the battle field soldiers have to sit still and that's why they wear the fancy clown suits. However on the battlefield there is also allies, this slight porblem means the number of uses for chemical/biological weapons is limited.

      A lone sniper is a very cheap way to instill fear and disruption. That's why most armies have sniper schools. In Vietnam how did the US stop the VietCong from using mortars? They instructed the snipers only to shoot VietCong that were carrying the tripod, pretty soon no-one wanted to carry a tripod, no tripod no mortar.

      The father and step son team on the east coast of the US were very effective at gaining media coverage. Imagine if it had been organised. Five snipers could have the US public in fits. The first one starts up in NY, he gets caught. The next one starts up in LA etc etc. How would you defend against them?

  18. Website is pretty disappointing by Sanity · · Score: 2, Informative
    The website is somewhat disappointing, and for some perplexing reason they want to keep their autopilot system closed source. If they had even the slightest flair for the dramatic they would set up a page which tracks the plane's progress in real-time on a map from their satellite telementary system.

    All in all, I was much more impressed by the Balloon 1.0 project, even though an unpowered balloon isn't half as cool as a powered and automatically guided RC aircraft travelling such a huge distance unaided.

    Does anyone have any good links for other projects in a similar vein which aren't so coy about the gory technical details?

    1. Re:Website is pretty disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      autopilot.sf.net

    2. Re:Website is pretty disappointing by Migrant+Programmer · · Score: 3, Informative

      If they had even the slightest flair for the dramatic they would set up a page which tracks the plane's progress in real-time on a map from their satellite telementary system.

      If you were around last year, you would know that they do. It's just not up yet, because the plane isn't "up" yet either.

    3. Re:Website is pretty disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>and for some perplexing reason they want to keep their autopilot system closed source

      Because they don't want people to see that they're using qbasic.

    4. Re:Website is pretty disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was watching the telemetry comming in last year and I hope to catch it again this year!

  19. Or... by missing000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A potential terrorist device?

    I can see it now. Our next military campaign will be to eradicate model airplane building materials from the rest of the globe.

    1. Re:Or... by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Japanese did try something similar in World War II. They tried using paper balloons to carry incendiary bombs across the Pacific using the jet stream. Crazy idea, but a few bombs did get through.

    2. Re:Or... by Jonathan · · Score: 1

      Hey, the US government is also trying to ban Model Rockets so why not? If it's fun and geeky, congresscritters, who almost always were members of the Debate Team and not the Science Club in high school, will try to ban it under some BS "terrorism" excuse.

    3. Re:Or... by jx100 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Heh.. I read somewhere that the deaths noted in that link are the only people killed on the U.S. mainland by a Japanese attack.

    4. Re:Or... by joshua.robinson · · Score: 1

      Ya, they also flew big planes into ships, and some of them got through as well.

      --
      Whats A sig anyway
    5. Re:Or... by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 1

      I think not only did it kill a few folks during WWII but they may have killed a few since. The thing is the ballons were not targeted beyoned the "US Northwest" and probably fell over several US States and probably BC. In the time since WWII a number of them have turned up as people spread out more.

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
    6. Re:Or... by WoTG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whatever happened to that 12 ft (or so) plane they found in Iraq that was supposed to be a potential "weapon of mass destruction". You know, that little remote controlled plane that was supposed to carry biological weapons in a aerosole spray can or something... Must have saw that video a dozen times on CNN before they got bored of it.

    7. Re:Or... by boaworm · · Score: 1

      Actually, both your (US) and my (.se) military is already using model aircraft and other small unmanned devices in active duty. They are called UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and perform a variety of missions.

      They were used in the Balkan, controlled from Carriers and could circle for over a week at relatively low altitide sending back high quality images and live feeds.

      Some of them also carry a Hellfire missile (guess why ;-).

      In Gulf War II, small underwater devices equipped with a kilogram of explosives made their way through mine fields... kamikaze!

      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
    8. Re:Or... by kruczkowski · · Score: 1

      The US also used batts and tied bombs to there legs. The plan also failed, i think only one expoloded.

      --
      hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
    9. Re:Or... by TonyZahn · · Score: 1

      It's currently flying over Liberia, curtesy of a bunch of offshore marines....

      --
      - sig? who is this sig of which you speak?
    10. Re:Or... by dmforcier · · Score: 1

      They burned it.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me!
    11. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Though apparently we're too late in banning airplane glue.)

      I wondered what that smell was...

  20. The Spirit of Butts Farm? by Sialagogue · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The airplane(s) we launch this month will be called 'The Spirit of Butts Farm' - Check back later to learn why."

    Sounds to me like a blatant ploy for sponsorship dollars from RIM. . .

    --
    The only acceptable defense of scientific results is to say that they were the product of the Scientific Method.
    1. Re:The Spirit of Butts Farm? by Shriek · · Score: 0

      That's hilarious, you deserve a rimshot for that one.

    2. Re:The Spirit of Butts Farm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      St. Louis,
      Butt Farm,
      same thing.

    3. Re:The Spirit of Butts Farm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing it's something to do with this old flying pigs story.

  21. I can picture it now... by Valiss · · Score: 4, Funny

    After they make the flight and decide to sell the plane:

    "So, you boyus used to work for NASA, huh?"

    "Yep."

    "Well I dont really know if this is the kind of plane I'm looking for. You say it get's 3,000 miles per gallon?

    "About that."

    "I'm really in the market for something that gets more like 4,000 miles to the gallon. Plus it looks real used, what with all the bird crap and scratches on it. I'll give ya 50 bucks."

    "But we made a world record with this!!"

    "Yeah but the paint is chipped. 60 bucks is my final offer."

    "Fine, we'll take it. There's oour retirement!"

    --

    -Valiss
    1. Re:I can picture it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was this supposed to be a joke, or were you just trying to prove that you are a butt licker?

    2. Re:I can picture it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (pulling out a "spare" plane...)

      "So, you boyus used to work for NASA, huh?" ...

  22. Re:Exactly WTF is an... by javiercero · · Score: 1

    I guess lack of vocabulary never stopped you from opening your mouth,eh?

    aeroplane

    \A"["e]r*o*plane`\, n. [A["e]ro- + plane.] (A["e]ronautics) A light rigid plane used in a["e]rial navigation to oppose sudden upward or downward movement in the air, as in gliding machines; specif., such a plane slightly inclined and driven forward as a lifting device in some flying machines; hence, a flying machine using such a device. These machines are called monoplanes, biplanes, triplanes, or quadruplanes, according to the number of main supporting planes used in their constraction. Being heavier than air they depend for their levitation on motion imparted by one or more propellers actuated by a gasoline engine. They start from the ground by a run on small wheels or runners, and are guided by a steering apparatus consisting of horizontal and vertical movable planes. There are many varieties of form and construction, which in some cases are known by the names of their inventors.

  23. The NASA version... by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Oh, wait, 11 *pounds*? Damn, we did all our calculations for an 11 *kilo* plane!" (sound of a spash)

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    1. Re:The NASA version... by pimpinmonk · · Score: 1

      well if they did all their calculations for an 11 kilo plane that weighed 11 pounds, the only thing that would change would be the range. Level flight is level flight no matter how fat the plane, right? So no sound of a splash, unless it's in the Pacific...

    2. Re:The NASA version... by Steffan · · Score: 1

      > "Oh, wait, 11 *pounds*? Damn, we did all our
      >calculations for an 11 *kilo* plane!" (sound of a
      >spash)

      Actually, that would be to their advantage - their aircraft would be 2.2x lighter...

    3. Re:The NASA version... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut the fuck up

    4. Re:The NASA version... by burns210 · · Score: 1

      you do realize that it was Boeing that did the miscalculations, and not NASA, right? Even though NASA got blamed, it wasn't their fault, it was Boeing who caused the screwup... :)

    5. Re:The NASA version... by radiotalent · · Score: 1

      Pounds? Pounds?!? I thought they were all using Euros these days. My bad...I need to travel more I suppose.

  24. Getting better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new formatting is much better. It increases readability and is generally easier on the eyes. There is still no mention of several Troll staples such as; goatse, tubgirl, the giver, the penis bird, ascii art, lameness filter bypass, etc..

    Getting better though.

    1. Re:Getting better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I'll add those for 0.62

  25. Big deal... by zx-6e · · Score: 0, Troll

    Bah, a plane is easy. I want them to try to fly a model helicoptor across the big pond...

  26. Let the heckling begin! by YetAnotherName · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the website: "The airplane(s) we launch THIS month will be called "The Spirit of Butts Farm"

    No, I'm not making that up. Check it yourself, if it's not slashdotted already.

    1. Re:Let the heckling begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone already pointed that out and made a joke too. Please.

    2. Re:Let the heckling begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't there by the time I hit "Submit"!

      But thanks for the pointer anyway.

    3. Re:Let the heckling begin! by MrEnigma · · Score: 1

      It was named after another great aviator...Beecher Butts, an 88 year-old aviation enthusiast.

      Check out National Geographic article on it.

      --
      GeekWares - Buy and Download Today!
  27. mpg? by Squeezer · · Score: 1

    3000 miles per gallon? not bad

    --
    Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
  28. Assembly line production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Zerg strategy:

    They should be making these things cheaply on a mini-assembly line. It would lower the overall cost and time of production and greatly reduce their turnaround when one of their planes fails again.

    Odds are that one of 'em *will* get through eventually.

    1. Re:Assembly line production? by UnixRevolution · · Score: 1

      by that logic, let's just toss paper airplanes across. One of them HAS to get through eventually :P

      --
      You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
  29. Re:Why NASA's efforts failed the first time around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only african modles carry coconuts.

  30. these days? by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    These days we ignore anything larger than an eagle on radar, under the premise that any plane of war would be masked to appear much smaller.

    This plane will be shot down before it leaves US waters.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:these days? by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      You guys must be awfully short on eagles, then...

    2. Re:these days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are getting better at picking out Eagles, that is why a few years ago Clinton was finally able to move the Bald Eagle from Endangered list.
      Now they are only threatened, and with us shooting down anything that appears smaller than an eagle, I guess they really are.

    3. Re:these days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't wait till the gigantic UFOs invade and the government says: it's not there! it's bigger than an eagle so it can't be there!

    4. Re:these days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er - its leaving Canadian waters.
      But your right - it moves, the US will probably shoot it down anyway.

    5. Re:these days? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Who's "we"? You got an air-defense radar in your pocket there, sparky?

      If you can get a strategic bomber to have an RCS smaller than an eagle, you could make a lot of money replacing B-2's.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  31. Re:This is as interesting as rocketry by User8201 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Goddamnit, don't make the /. code start reverse DNS'ing IP's. That's the IP of goatse.cx, I learned the hard way. Icccck.

  32. Animals have rights, too by Amsterdam+Vallon · · Score: 0, Informative

    I realize you are trying to be funny, but your attitude about animal cruelty just promotes violence against non-human species like hamsters and all other animals.

    I believe that we as humans do not have the right to slaughter and test products on animals. I believe that we as humans should not have the right to own animals. Forgot about tradition and how our ancestors survived. This is 2003 -- it's time to suspend your traditional beliefs, and surrender to your innate moral centre.

    Animal cruelty is a serious issue, and should not be something that we as an advanced society joke about.

    --

    Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
    1. Re:Animals have rights, too by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe that we as humans do not have the right to own atoms of matter. We also don't have the right to own segments of our planet, and all things on that segment, since they also are made of atoms of matter.

      This doesn't mean I am going to let you take my computer, car, home, land, or any other item that the government and society say I own. And if in the future the government and society choose to say I don't own them, 'because atoms want to be free', they will have a hard time forcing their idiotic set of beliefs on me.

      You can't seem to handle the difference between what is a right, and what we as humans will do because we are humans. By the way, there is no 'innate moral centre' that precludes eating. And in my personal beliefs, all living organisms are just as deserving of kindness and compassion, not just the 'cute ones' like hamsters, dogs, cats, and bunnies. To me, you are still living in the grey area between barbarism and civility, with your pick-and-choose compassion.

  33. obligatory south park reference by asv108 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    simpsons did it!

  34. bah, simple to do. by SubtleNuance · · Score: 0, Troll

    I thought anyone with a few bucks and a few days could do that kinda thing no problem? Why would a bunch of retired NASA guys be wasting there time with this? Geeze, a self-directed, small plane capable of flying the atlantic is *sooo simple*. one could even be built to carry reasonable payload of some kind if one wished.

    1. Re:bah, simple to do. by Phoenix · · Score: 1

      Simple to do as you describe...yes

      Simple to do under the rules governing weight of the craft? Now there's the challenge.

      --
      -- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
    2. Re:bah, simple to do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You thought wrong.

      Doing it so it falls under the FAI rules is definitely non-trivial. In this case the model is defined by FAI limits of 5Kg with a span of 2M and a length of 2M, the engine is limited to 10cc (OS 60 4s).

      Matthew

    3. Re:bah, simple to do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's so simple, why hasn't it been done before?

      Just because a solution is obvious, doesn't make that solution easy to impliment. It's range is 3000 miles, well over the range of the military's unmanned drones.

      Too bad there's no (-1, Jackass) mod

    4. Re:bah, simple to do. by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Geeze, a self-directed, small plane capable of flying the atlantic is *sooo simple*. one could even be built to carry reasonable payload of some kind if one wished."

      As evidenced by the large number of these planes making this flight daily.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:bah, simple to do. by Fesh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know .sig responses are lame, but...

      ROFLMAO. YMMV. TYVM. HAND.

      Really. Brilliant.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
  35. That's Colombia, with an O by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll probably die from the excitement if an American ever gets this right.

    1. Re:That's Colombia, with an O by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C-O-L-O-M-B-I-A

      I'm from Chicago. Hurry up and die, please.

  36. Model? by useosx · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone else think this article was talking about seriously underweight fashion model consuming the Atlantic ocean?

    1. Re:Model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the part about her flying across from coast to coast didn't tip you off?

    2. Re:Model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did anyone else read X as Y? I'm clever because i can't read! Yuk Yuk Yuk.

  37. Aeroplane by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Exactly WTF is an "aeroplane"? I've heard of an "airplane" before... is this some sort of strange dialect?

    I believe it's the original form, still in common use in some English-speaking countries, of which "airplane" is an American English contraction.

    (But I'm sure somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. B-) )

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Aeroplane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. "Aeroplane" is still a common form in England.

    2. Re:Aeroplane by PaulGrimshaw · · Score: 2, Informative

      In my Oxford dictionary, it says;

      Airplane US:Aeroplane

      being from london, I would say most people say airplane and its pretty interchangeable without anyone moaning.

      Paul.

  38. Radar and small planes. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Can't be radar visible if it's that small.

    I believe that's why the Lear Fan private jet model was aborted.

    Made mostly of composites, with the biggest single piece of metal being the spindle of the Jet and the bulk of the metal being the avionics, it had such a small radar cross-section that it didn't show up on airport search radar until it was actually over the field...

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Radar and small planes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh ? why not just use a blip enhancer like the ones on f117a's ? a small box that costs $50 or so is not going to put a dent on a private jets development budget.

    2. Re:Radar and small planes. by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Glock pistols "had" that problem according to the flying FUD when they were announced. Now when the composite is still liquid they put in a bunch of metal filings, etc. or something like that to make them appear solid on xray.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    3. Re:Radar and small planes. by gooberguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Umm, no. Glocks are about 80% metal by weight, IIRC. They have always been easily seen by xrays. It's not like someone has invented composite ammunition, magazines, and barrels.

      --


      Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
    4. Re:Radar and small planes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What one man creates, another may easily taketh away. My concern then would be that, with the removal of such a simple part, we would then have a low-grade stealth jet on the private market. I imagine that would concern the more paranoid government entities.

    5. Re:Radar and small planes. by VivianC · · Score: 1

      Ok, so you have a plastic gun. Do you know where to find plastic bullets?

      BTW: I own a Glock 17 and can most certianly tell you that the barrel alone will get spotted on xray.

      --
      Viv

      Gmail invites for ip
    6. Re:Radar and small planes. by kwalker · · Score: 1

      Um, yes, American Glocks... Composits and ceramics are highly viable, but they scare the bejesus out of the BATF.

      --
      ... And so it comes to this.
    7. Re:Radar and small planes. by Igmuth · · Score: 1

      Umm... But civilian air fields don't track planes using actual radar. They use the transponders on the planes. Hence they could see a Blackbird if it had a transponder turned on...

    8. Re:Radar and small planes. by gooberguy · · Score: 1

      Um, yes, American Glocks...

      I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that Glocks in the US are different than Glocks overseas? There is no difference. All Glock pistols are made in factories overseas and imported to the US. Some Glocks need slight modifications to be allowed into the US (different sights, which are then removed after importation)

      Composits and ceramics are highly viable, but they scare the bejesus out of the BATF.

      That's true. The grip of every Glock is made from extremely durable plastic called nylon-6 or something. The inside of the barrel is treated to be almost diamond-hard, to prevent KaBooms. But the really important parts of the handguns (firing pin, safety mechanism, etc) are made from old-fashioned steel. There is no way you can get a Glock past Post 9-11 airport security, but politicians always try to create unnecessary fears of random things to garner more votes. I'm more afraid that someone will go an a sniping spree with a $60 Mosin Nagant they bought from Big 5 than that someone will hijack an airplane with a Glock that magically got through security. Anyways, if you try to hijack a plane now, everyone will do the 50 passenger pileup to stop you. There is no easy way to prevent a sniper from shooting someone.

      --


      Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
    9. Re:Radar and small planes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever heard of a transponder...?

  39. GPS overrated? by CracktownHts · · Score: 1
    So you're suggesting that they navigate by dead reckoning? How would they:

    a) Adjust for wind, which messes up distance calculations
    b) Adjust for deviations in the magnetic compass as a result of proximity to the earth's magnetic pole
    c) Figure out where the plane ended up assuming it actually gets to the other side of the pond

    Of course, maybe you just have a different notion of what constitutes a "simple instrument".

    1. Re:GPS overrated? by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Of course, maybe you just have a different notion of what constitutes a "simple instrument".

      Hmmm. Given some of the experimental bomb guidance systems of previous generations, how about a tethered homing pigeon? Light weight, and if the sucker really wants to get home, he can get out and push. :) PETA members need not reply.

    2. Re:GPS overrated? by george101 · · Score: 1
      There is something called pressure navigation which depends upon the predictability of the winds across isobars to correct for crosswinds. By plugging the at-altitude atmospheric pressure and latitude, you can calculate the drift that would result if you held a straight-line course between the two points. Correct for the drift and hold that exact heading for the entire trip.

      I've always meant to try this out some day, but have not gotten around to it yet. Of course this technique doesn't compensate for natural and man-made obstacles, especially the Temporary Flight Restrictions that follow the President around as he raises funds.

  40. Re:This is as interesting as rocketry by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'd think more geeks would be into it, especially with all the equipment you get to work with.

    But DANG would this be an expensive hobby! If you can get some financial backing or sponsorship it would be ok. But that's a lot of high quality, lightwight devices. And we all know that
    high quality + heavy = expensive. And
    high quality + small and light = super-expensive!

    And the thing that really gets me, is that once you load up your huge investment into a tiny plane, you send it out to its almost certain destruction!

    Now I'll spend money on something I'm going to improve on and keep for a long time. But dropping cash on a big project like this would be like shooting $100 bills into the ocean.

    Without a better success rate, you'd have to be a drug smuggler just to afford the little marvels.

    --

    Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
  41. Wild horses and other stories by Doctor+Hu · · Score: 1
    Looked at the first /. story reference, clicked on its Washington Post link. Story starts "At the moment, they have no navigation data and the horses are closing in again." Humor aside, story was dated end of April 2001, so kudos to the WP for keeping cost-free content online for so long.

    Luck to the project - a bit like long-distance amateur radio contacts with just a few mW of transmitted power, just pushing the limits of what can be done.

  42. Guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    What you forget to mention is that 98% of all animals used in food consumption and product testing have been tried and convicted in a court of law of capital crimes. 8 out of every 10 murders in this country are committed by cows, sheep, bunnies, rats, chickens and their ilk.

    Eating/testing is the safest way of dealing with these menaces to society.

    1. Re:Guilty by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      Ironically, when cows, sheep, and chickens are removed, average longevity decreases.

      Hmmm. There must be something wrong with your theory. We can only pray that a strong constitution prevents you from forcing your experiment, unethically, on all the rest of us.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  43. Speaking of the devil... by sunn · · Score: 1

    What is FAI (Football Association of Ireland?) and what rules do they have governing this?

    1. Re:Speaking of the devil... by Gherald · · Score: 1

      What is FAI (Football Association of Ireland?) and what rules do they have governing this?

      No contact!

      (Anyone else been forced to watch Airbud 3? Didn't think so..)

  44. Re:Exactly WTF is an... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....or your low scores in the SAT verbal?

  45. Re:This is as interesting as rocketry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at these people in the picture. They're old! They probably figure they're going to die soon and have money to burn.

  46. And at the finish line.... by SoVi3t · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some poor Irish guy is gonna be standing on the beach all alone, get nailed in the head with a model plane, and get REALLY confused.

    --
    Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
    1. Re:And at the finish line.... by MoronGames · · Score: 1

      REALLY confused, huh? Irish people are already confused enough. I can't wait to see a REALLY confused Irish guy!

      --
      hey!
    2. Re:And at the finish line.... by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 1

      it's quite easy really...just hide the Guiness.

      --
      Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
  47. shoot it down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    these nerds need to be taught a lesson

  48. Chinese already thought of this... by SunPin · · Score: 1

    That's how they are getting to the moon.

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
  49. TERRORISTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just look at this picture. The brown guy on the far left is obviously a TERRORIST. They are probably testing this as a method of biochemical weapon delivery. ARREST THEM NOW.

  50. Wrong again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crapflooding is a legitimate type of trolling. If you don't get it, maybe it's because you aren't smart enough or cynical enough.

  51. Re:Why NASA's efforts failed the first time around by jmoriarty · · Score: 4, Funny

    They forgot to add in the additional weight of the coconuts.

    The problem wasn't that they forgot. The problem was that one engineer used Metric Coconuts and another engineer used British Standard Coconuts.

  52. Re:Why NASA's efforts failed the first time around by sacherjj · · Score: 1

    [Whistle] Foul on the play. Trying to combine two obscure, geek references.

  53. Economies of Scale by Ichijo · · Score: 1
    This one cost $38,000. Who is going to par for a swarm of those to send to the bottom of the ocean?
    Maybe they could negotiate a volume discount?
    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:Economies of Scale by Gherald · · Score: 1

      Like, say, $37000 apiece? ...

  54. Haven't you ever met an Irishman? by bad_fx · · Score: 1

    ..They're already REALLY confused...

    Seamus and Murphy were walking in the woods when they came across a sign saying, "Tree Fellers wanted". So Murphy said, "Ye know, it's a damn shame Paddy isn't here. We could have gotten that job."

    PS: I'm sorry.

  55. Re:Exactly WTF is an... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ah, yes, the "Editing headlines" part of the SAT Verbal. Let me explain this for those not in the USA.

    It consists of being given some source material which uses a correctly spelled word, and then writing a summary of the material replacing all instances of that word with the variant British spelling.

    I don't think I did very well at that part of the SAT. Heck, I don't even remember it.

  56. Math dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they built it for 11 kg and it only instead weighs 11 lb, then that means it'll climb higher and go faster and farther on even less fuel. 1 kg = ~2.2 lb dumbass.

    1. Re:Math dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your lack of intelligence is only exceeded by your lack of knowledge of NASA history.

  57. US-centric - nonmetric again.. by debio · · Score: 1

    11 lb, 1 Gallon of "gas" - I wish that the ./ editors would make at least some attempt at acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of the world uses metric units. For "news for nerds" site, you'd hope that if nothing else, they'd make an attempt at least at being scientific (even the US uses metric units in all science).

    • 11 lb = 4.99 kg
    • 1 Gallon = 3.785 l
    • gas (gasoline) = petrol

    And some people in Europe complain about US arrogance. Arrogance? What arrogance?

    1. Re:US-centric - nonmetric again.. by simetra · · Score: 1

      The "overwhelming majority" of the world aren't doing this, Americans are.

      --

      "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    2. Re:US-centric - nonmetric again.. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      You're bitching about a US-centric, US-run, US-owned site not catering to your specific whims, and all the while calling the US arrogant?

      Sometimes no snide comment seems adequate...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    3. Re:US-centric - nonmetric again.. by agrippa_cash · · Score: 1

      I have to guess that the overwhelming majority of ./ readers are from the U.S. so I don't see anything arrogant in using native measurements. OTOH Mountain-Dew comes in two liter bottles so most of us should have a point of reference. I have nothing against the metric system, it is easy to learn, eminently logical, and provides no compelling reason to switch once you've learned the odd Imperial system that we take for granted. I looked on the site and couldn't find where they specify the amount of fuel stored. There is a good chance that these people themselves use the word gallon. There is no real arrogance here, just a little endian/big endian type disagreement. That said, you sir, are nothing but a dirty little endian.

    4. Re:US-centric - nonmetric again.. by FeatherBoa · · Score: 1

      1 Gallon = 3.785 l

      Well, if gas = petrol, then you meant to say, of course,

      1 Imperial Gallon = 4.546092 Litres

    5. Re:US-centric - nonmetric again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey - you guys work 5-10 fewer hours a week. Why don't you use your extra time to convert into sissy units.

    6. Re:US-centric - nonmetric again.. by Cap'n+Canuck · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's because it's part of a contest that was set up by a while ago, when gallons were the "common" means of measuring fuel. Note that the Commonwealth countries switched over in the seventies (or so) to metric, so the contest might predate that.

  58. Links to other projects by jetmarc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a company that sells all equipment necessary to autonomously fly a model plane. Obviously you can define several GPS coordinates, and the plane will go pass them all.

    http://www.micropilot.com/

    Here's an open-source effort to autonomously fly a helicopter. Heli's are more difficult to manouver than planes.

    http://autopilot.sourceforge.net/

    1. Re:Links to other projects by MrEnigma · · Score: 1

      GPS and flight path isn't really the challenge in this matter.

      It seems that keeping under the 11lb weight, and also allowing for enough fuel for a 3,000 mile flight. Now that is tricky.

      --
      GeekWares - Buy and Download Today!
  59. He's already confused.... by simetra · · Score: 2, Funny

    if he's standing on the beach instead of sitting in a bar.

    Thanks, I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitress.

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  60. Re:This is as interesting as rocketry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without a better success rate, you'd have to be a drug smuggler just to afford the little marvels.

    No problem. I've had lots of practice playing GTA3: Vice City (I'll let you decide if I mean with flying the little planes, or being a drug smuggler).

  61. They're cheating by AssTard · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows you have to fly from the USA to France to "cross the Atlantic". This Newfoundland to Ireland is horse-crap.

    --

    Asses are for crapping, not screwing.
  62. Yes, it can be used as a terrorist device by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

    From the FAQ:

    Q. Can this be loaded with five pounds of weight in the nose?

    Yes, it can be, but why would one want to do that and launch it across the ocean?

    --
    "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    1. Re:Yes, it can be used as a terrorist device by Helter · · Score: 1

      So can a boxcutter, want to ban those too?

  63. Testing by DerangedYeti · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did they fire frozen chickens at it to make sure it would survive a bird hit?

    1. Re:Testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just pieces of foam, so far. Smashed right through it! That could be a problem if the fuel tank separates...or there are some random pieces of styrofoam flying around really fast...or if it hits a space shuttle ;)

  64. Re:Exactly WTF is an... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No it is about you assuming that using an appropiate spelling for a word was somehow a typo or editorial error. Most people know that an airplate and an aeroplane are the same, most people with a minimum verbal variety that is. Hence maybe, just maybe the editors were trusting the "education level" of most readers of the story, and never thought twice about it since it made perfect sense. Then again, they should also have considered those who got a low SAT verbal score, hence representing those whit a reduced vocabulary. cheers.

  65. Cruise Missiles are cheap! by multipartmixed · · Score: 0

    Don't you slashdot?

    Some crackpot in New Zealand is building a cruise missile from COTS part for $3000 US!

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    1. Re:Cruise Missiles are cheap! by kcelery · · Score: 1

      For $3000 a shot, it won't take you from Columbia to Florida.

  66. They need to hook up with this guy by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    A DIY Cruise MIssile
    "Watch me build one for under $5000."

  67. Butts Farm by csoto · · Score: 0

    Huhuhuhuhuhuhuh. Dammit, Beavis!

    http://tam.plannet21.com/Projstar.htm

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  68. What are the FAI rules? by sexylicious · · Score: 1

    I was reading some of their documents, and I did not find a specific definition of the rules for this type of aircraft.

    There was a UAV which crossed the Atlantic years ago. It was designed and built by a collaborative effort betwen the Insitu Group, and the University of Washington's AA department (my alma matter).


    I'm just wondering if there are additional restrictions under FAI rules for the vehicle.

    1. Re:What are the FAI rules? by chooze · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the web site's FAQ:

      What are the FAI rules for an aeromodel?

      To qualify as an aeromodel under the rules for F3A, the plane must not exceed 5 kg (11 pounds), including fuel. The engine displacement may not exceed 10 cubic centimeters (0.61 cubic inches). There are also limits on the wing area and wing loading.

    2. Re:What are the FAI rules? by sexylicious · · Score: 1

      Doh!
      Thanks!

  69. The Federation Aeronautique Internationale. by dtmos · · Score: 1

    The relevant FAI is the Federation Aeronautique Internationale. The aeromodelling page is here; world records are available here.

    1. Re:The Federation Aeronautique Internationale. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [F]lying [A]cross to [I]reland

  70. Cool, now we can... by dark-br · · Score: 0

    ...lay our own trans-alantic cable.

  71. Probably sort of slow . . . by mr_luc · · Score: 1

    This thing is probably just a tad slower than a cruise missile. In fact, several tads.

    I mean, this is just a friggin' airplane. You scale it up to carry a 2000lb warhead, and you're gonna start needing a much larger and sturdier body, wings, fuel tank, and engine . . .

    'Scaling' this would still just be giving you a vehicle with the capability of a personal airplane. It's going to be pretty slow, very expensive (given that even gutless airplanes generally cost around $500k), and it will show up on radar unless you make it even more expensive -- meaning that the army would have plenty of time to shoot it down if they were so inclined.

    It still has potential, but the longer the range, the more speed becomes an issue (can be targetted, blown up). I don't see it being very practical or widely applicable -- it might undercut cruise missiles on cost, but it would be so very ineffective militarily that I don't see this being all that important. I see it being more applicable to things like unmanned air cargo planes.

  72. Re:Exactly WTF is an... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aerobatics
    Aeronautic
    Aerospace
    Aerodrome
    Aero bat
    Aerotow
    etc...

    I guess 'aero' is just too hard to say.
    Ahh to hell with that we'll just make up our own words, screw everyone else there just god damn foreigners anyway...

  73. Re:UK-centric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I demand that this "petrol" you speak of be referred to as "benzin" as it is in the proper German you insensitive clod.

    Please mod parent down to troll... sigh

  74. Coke for sale - Cheap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We've just received another kilo of coke by model airplane from the Bahamas, so come on down to 1234 Main St, Miami, and tell them Ernie Ochoa sent you.

    If you'd like to know more about our airplane technology, check for our web pages on medellin.gov.co and drones.af.pentagon.mil. For more information on cocaine, check out Consumer Reports.

    Cheers, Ernie

  75. Gee, I want a Model airplane! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just stand up in the way with a butterfly net, catch one, toss the drugs back in the ocean, and keep the little airplane! Imagine when I show up on Saturday morning at the local model airplane store, and want some paint and nazi decals to dress up my "find".

  76. Re:Exactly WTF is an... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Or perfectly acceptable English English.

    We don't mind using ae together in words. It's just the Americans who seem to have an aversion to it. Maybe it makes them harder to spell or something :)

  77. Economics of smuggler airplanes by billstewart · · Score: 1
    A metric ton of coke is a million grams. Back in 1990, if you can believe Bush Administration propaganda, the retail street price for coke was about $30-40/gram. That's $30-40 million of coke per airplane, or $10 million if the Feds' price was too high for this stage in the food chain. If the airplane costs $500K, it's small change. The wholesale price was less than 10% of that, and the airplane is still small change. If one airplane out of 5 gets through, you win. If one in 10 gets through, you still break even. If you use pilotless airplanes, the person who collects them in Florida can take the coke, refill them with gas, and send them home via some relay point.

    Piloted airplanes had a much higher than 10% success rate, especially since they could fly 10 feet over the water which is below radar altitude, and there were enough guys willing to risk a couple years in jail in order to make a couple million dollars that the cartels could simply do auctions on cocaine delivered to Florida or South Carolina, and could write off the airplanes after they got to the US.

    It was an amazing, amazing economic time, with far more leverage than the high-tech business ever had, simply because the stupid US drug laws created market conditions with a 1000% profit margin, unlimited-demand unsaturated market, ready supply (suppliers were also making a few thousand percent profit margin), small quantity of material to move, and a one-shot deal could get you all the disco and babes you wanted to retire on as long as you weren't stupid enough to sample the merchandise or greedy enough to try to rip off your business partners. (And if you didn't think you'd made enough on one trip, it was still pretty safe and undetectable to make a second one, at which point you've made as much extra money as you'd have gotten by ripping off your partners, and nobody goes after you with a chainsaw.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Economics of smuggler airplanes by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      Bill Stewart
      Brainwash Soda. Interesting, Caffeinated. [idiom.com]

      Well, Mr. Stewart, I also have tried the soft drinks that page mentions. I didn't like the taste. It is sort of like those energy drinks, the ones with guarano and taurine and stuff. The flavor isn't too bad, but the aftertaste upsets my stomach.

      But anyway, they have great artwork on the bottles don't they? I have several bottles on a shelf at home, that we brought back with us when we went on vacation a few years ago. Imagine trying to explain to airport security that you are carrying a dozen bottles of strange beverages on board the plane, but you are not planning on drinking them. And they are not alcoholic. I just didn't trust them in the cargo hold. I have the Black Lemonade, which my stepson liked. And Brainwash, and the one with a female-Elvis looking skeleton or something (haven't looked at them in a while). And at least one more (haven't counted them in a while either). So, thanks for the link. It's good to know that weird stuff like this isn't lost for all time.

  78. Why not try overland across continent first? by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Sure, it's definitely cool to cross the Atlantic - you've basically got one shot, win or lose. But I'd think they'd first try to get it across North America on land, so if something goes wrong they can get some information out of it rather than just knowing roughly where it sank in the ocean.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Why not try overland across continent first? by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

      The neat thing about doing this over the ocean is the minimal liability. There just isn't much to crash into out there. 11 lbs may not seem like much but it will put a hell of a dent in your car (or your roof.. or your dog, etc.) You hit the ocean you lose your plane. You hit a house you lose your plane and gain a lawsuit.

      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
    2. Re:Why not try overland across continent first? by devnullify · · Score: 1

      They mentioned that it can send telemetry as well. Perhaps, if it's bouyant enough, it's simpler to recover from the ocean..and perhaps the water damages it less than hitting the windshield of your car on the freeway.

  79. It's been done already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in 1998.

    http://www.aerosonde.com/drawarticle/4

  80. Is it RFC 1149 Compatible? by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Hey, it sounds faster than avian carriers, though perhaps less reliable....

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  81. 11-Pound Model Plane Vs. The Atlantic, Again by ReciprocityProject · · Score: 2, Funny
    11-Pound Model Plane: Behold, Atlantic, I will cover you with my excelent gas mileage and whirly propeller.

    Atlantic: You dare challenge me again, little 11-Pound Model Plane? Your whirly propeller is no match for my spinning hurricanes of doom.

    11-Pound Model Plane: My light weight allows me to cross great distances! You shall not stop me!

    Atlantic: WTF? I'm the freaking Atlantic Ocean. Come here you little punk ass 11-Pound Model - wha?

    Gecko: Excuse me. Did you know you can save 15% or more on your car insurance by switching to Geiko?

    Atlantic: Impressive, green one!

    1. Re:11-Pound Model Plane Vs. The Atlantic, Again by Lester67 · · Score: 1

      Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
      Operator: We get signal.
      11-Pound Model Plane: What !
      Operator: Main screen turn on.
      11-Pound Model Plane: It's You !!
      Atlantic: How are you gentlemen!!
      Atlantic: All your base are belong to us.
      Atlantic: You are on the way to destruction.
      11-Pound Model Plane: What you say !!
      Atlantic: You have no chance to survive make your time. HA HA HA HA ....

  82. Re:mpg? / actually 1000 mpg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their tam 3 made it 479 miles which they called 1/4 of the way there. So it is actually getting around 1000 miles per gallon.

    alzali

  83. This is not an endurance aircraft! by KRL · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And that's exactly what they need to make this flight.

    Now I don't mean to be a Negative Nancy, but I do know a thing or two about aircraft design. If they want this thing to go very far on very little fuel, they will need a very high aspect ratio wing. They have a standard model wing on it!

    They need something that looks like a U-2 spyplane.

    1. Re:This is not an endurance aircraft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you know that much about aircraft design, you probably know that, due to very low Reynolds numbers on model planes, they need wings with much larger coords compared to full scale planes. Larger coord => lower aspect ratio.

      So this plane is precisely built as it should be.

      BTW, this is the reason that scale models usually fly quite different compared to the full scale version.

      (For those of you who don't know; the Reynolds number is a constant that can be used to describe the scaling effects of a wing section. It is a constant x airspeed x wing coord. This guy would be correct if this was a full scale aircraft, but it isn't.)

      (My other hobby is to design, build and crash model planes)

    2. Re:This is not an endurance aircraft! by devnullify · · Score: 1

      RTFA: the FAI puts a (I believe) 2 meter wingspan and length limit on this class of aircraft.

    3. Re:This is not an endurance aircraft! by KRL · · Score: 1

      "...due to very low Reynolds numbers on model planes, they need wings with much larger coords compared to full scale planes."

      That is not true. A larger chord (not coord), simply raises the local reynolds number, but either a High AR or Low AR wing will be operating in the laminar regime (under about Re=200,000). A higher aspect ratio wing will be more efficent and will have reduced drag regardless if it is a model or a full-size aircraft.

      "So this plane is precisely built as it should be."

      I said that the plane needed a higher aspect ratio wing. Reynolds number will go down, but not by that much. In either case, it will be in the laminar regime.

      "BTW, this is the reason that scale models usually fly quite different compared to the full scale version."

      No kidding?! It's because full size aircraft take advantage of different aerodynamic characteristics -> mostly laminar flow (models) versus mostly turbulent flow (full-size aircraft).

    4. Re:This is not an endurance aircraft! by KRL · · Score: 1

      RMFA (read my ******* answer). Having a high aspect ratio wing does not mean that they need to go to a larger span (though that would be nice).

      You can get a High AR wing by simply reducing the chord length of the wing. This will increase the wing loading and increase the stall speed.

  84. Re:mpg? oops 2000 mpg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oops 2000 mpg i mean.

    alzali

  85. Re:Exactly WTF is an... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So a 747, which does not have propellers actuated by a gasoline engine, is not an airplane, then?

  86. Easily solved! by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    Just change the spec to 400 miles range

  87. Maynard Hill is still around?? by calidoscope · · Score: 1
    I remember reading about his endurance records in the July and August 1965 issues of Model Airplane News. He didn't look like he was fresh out of college at that time.

    Nice to see him keep up with his passions.

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  88. Offtopic, I know by dasboy · · Score: 1

    But DAMN that (tam.plannet21.com) has got to be the UGLIEST web site I know of. Check it out. I hope this means that they spent all of their effort on the plane ;^)

  89. Re:Why NASA's efforts failed the first time around by Geldon · · Score: 1

    Maybe if two planes held the coconut bewteen them on a string....

  90. Source? by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 1

    More info about this, please?

  91. Re:Drug running & COLOMBIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Colombia is the name of the country, not Columbia.

  92. The project reminds me.. by SpiritedAway · · Score: 1

    The project reminds me of this project. (Building a home made cruise missile)

    But Imagine the possibilities what terrorists could do if they get hold of the plans to this "model plane".

  93. Already done? by jdfekete · · Score: 1

    It seems that somebody already successfully sent a model plane across the atlantic
    and ,
    although I don't know what "under FAI rules" means.

    So now, terrorists can target most places in the world pretty safely. I wonder if this scenario has been taken into account by the Pentagon and what they can do about it.

  94. A hyperlink for Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can't find a hyperlink for Ireland, there's not much chance for the plane:
    http://www.ireland.travel.ie/home/

  95. Re:attn: timothy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hIghLiGhT mE mAgIc EyEs ImAge HigHLiGhT mE MaGiC eY

    OF . .|;x:|W3OZ#B]x?g%+:. O0
    O1 . . .;|qWdqu#OO#mgxj]|:. _O0
    O` ... : -N#b|u+3###0OO000Hh;.. d00
    0 :: . !*4mej#000OO0000k;. . '?#
    0. :; "!+|NOOOOO0O0{; . : O
    01 |< +`|OO<4#*- .,||. | jO
    01 |; 01 |OP ?~- ,:--- |+ j#
    O00 c.. . .?1 j@9 #` dO
    O00.1.. _a_. ~ - a_. ^. 0O
    O000T: .*#Wga_. . :OA Q _ |OO
    0OO01.. .+NO#WNO#e:: ..4Ok :a_*! #0O
    0000<. .:J#OXXN#p` :|##f - _O00
    OO00; .|4#GqW4T :yOOT .|y. jOOO
    O0O0) . .:+3mW00^ _mWmR) ,:~|... ._aaWOO0
    0OOOi ..:jOO#< .?#O00) =;:|x: . "0#O0OO
    OOOO1. ...:N#@ |yydO0000) .::.|. . O0O00O0O
    0000k; ..:%#k .-?!!4O0O0q_, ::,- j0O00OO00
    O0OOWi ..--:0k;. 4O#@^?NA . : jOOOOOOO0O
    0O00O1 .. |*9xn,.. a.~~ . . _00O00OO00O
    00O0F+ .:!+|C= |O#OA :: jOO#OO0O0O0
    OOOO1 .|-:- . 4@WO0 . .000O0000OOO
    0OO0l ____#-!!N ?#O0O00O0000
    00P' . -- "La*9 .0OOOO0OOO0O
    0 - ` !0OOO00OOOO
    O i ga. !9#00000
    0 . "*##s . . !4
    O !9X#OOV'? 4
    0 -- 3

    HiGhlIgHt mE MaGiC eYeS ImAge hIgHLiGHt mE MaGic Ey

    blah blah blah! blah de blah blah!

  96. 11-Pound Model Plane Vs. The Atlantic, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too late! Unless the "under FAI rules" is supposed to make a difference, it's been done already. See: www.aerosonde.com.au

  97. ObDumb explanation... by RMH101 · · Score: 1
    ...a bit anal, (hey, this IS slashdot!, but the reason they go "One, Two...T-T-T-Two" is because it's a phrase that tests low frequencies and high frequencies so you can check the PA. The "Wuu-hun" bit sweeps the lows, and the "TCH-OOO" bit has a lot of sibilance to test the tweeters.

  98. Unless.. by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    ...they were so coked off their heads they wanted you to know how great they were...

  99. Not submarines, sharks by savuporo · · Score: 1

    Yes, they need to teach some of the robosharks to do the pickup.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/outdoors/nature/2003/ro boshark.shtml

    No AWACS, no sonars, nothing will pay attention. Except Baywatch perhaps.

    --
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
  100. uhh by hangingonwords · · Score: 1

    their web site totally sucks and it only has two freakin' pictures! what the! damn you aol easy builder, DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!!

    --
    fact: microsoft > linux
  101. Wet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the joke goes:
    Q: What do you get when you cross the Atlantic with the Titanic?
    A: Wet

  102. ", Again..." by gykh · · Score: 1

    It's that what we are doing now - marking dupes with "again" ?

  103. GNC by deblau · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Let's start with navigation. They may be ex-NASA, but unless they applied for and received GPS PPS capability, they're navigating with SPS only, which is only +/- 100m with 95% confidence. Normal flight rules allow human pilots to use GPS for lat/lon determination only and not altitude, especially not for precision approaches. 50m +/- 100m isn't what you want to see on your altimeter. Normally, GPS should be backed up by something like LORAN, which has accuracy of 100ft, but even that isn't reliable over much of the North Atlantic due to poor coverage. The best system involves the use of GPS/LORAN-C in combination with some sort of inertial navigation system (INS). But you have to remember that gyroscopes precess, and that magnetic headings can be off by as much as 45 degrees in the North Atlantic due to magnetic deviation.

    Realize that even as reliable as GPS is, satellites can give false information. There's a system to counteract this problem, called RAIM, but it requires 4 birds to be visible to detect a problem, and 5 to remove the faulty signal from nav calculations, assuming you have a redundant, GPS-compatible, digital barometric altimeter on board. Otherwise, you need 6 birds visible.

    Guidance seems to be relatively straightforward: figure out where you are (with 95% confidence), and aim toward your next waypoint. Here's a quick overview of what that entails:

    1. Determine lat/lon for you and the waypoint
    2. Determine true (ground) course
    3. Determine magnetic course after correcting for the aforementioned deviation
    4. Determine magnetic heading after correcting for wind
    5. Determine compass heading after correcting for onboard instrument magnetic interference
    6. Issue commands to the flight control system to head that way
    The wind correction is non-trivial. Last I checked, winds in the flight route were generally sustained at around 15 knots, and varied by a full 180 degrees relative to the course. This plane flies at about 40 knots. Grabbing a calculator and doing some trig, wind correction could be as much as arctan(15/40) = 20 degrees. Onboard interference is typically up to 10 degrees in GA aircraft. Here's a concrete example: if you want to fly due east (090) in the North Atlantic with a 45 degree deviation and winds from the south at 15 knots, with onboard interference of +10 degrees, you'd have to fly a compass heading of 165! That's almost due south.

    That leaves flight controls. You need to maintain proper attitude, keeping in mind that there's gonna be turbulence. In order for any magnetic navigation system to properly realigned (remember gyroscopic precession?), you need to be flying straight and level, which requires extensive compensation for unsteady flight dynamics. It's not as simple as saying "pitch up" when your speed gets too high or your altitude is too low. What if you get inverted? It can happen. Even human pilots don't do so well flying instruments only -- see the NTSB findings in the JFK junior crash. Maintaining stability and control over dynamical systems is a hard problem, which is why many colleges offer entire majors in CDS.

    Disclaimer: I am a Space Shuttle enthusiast and a student pilot (hopefully, that will change in two weeks). I know that NASA have the expertise to overcome these problems, and I'm willing to give these engineers the benefit of the doubt. I wish them good weather and no system malfunctions.

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
  104. Re:Or... No, no, no by Rick.C · · Score: 1
    I can see it now. Our next military campaign will be to eradicate model airplane building materials from the rest of the globe.

    Model airplanes don't kill people - hamsters kill people!

    --
    You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
    "Math in a song is good."-Linford
  105. What ? But those model planes suck ! by o'reor · · Score: 1
    C'mon, you would'nt even be able to put a 10 lb payload on them. And they wouldn't be moving much faster than 70 mph.

    This project is much more interesting. $5000, that's the price of a third-hand car. How many of these puppies can an Al-Qaeda-like organisation build ?

    --
    In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
  106. Re:Exactly WTF is an... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but it might be an Aeroplane.

  107. The eagle has landed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0