Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Build Your Own Model B-52

Posted by michael on from the needs-nose-art dept.

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

200 comments

  1. Freecache links by JS_RIDDLER · · Score: 5, Informative

    Freecache links... I tested all of these first
    B52_Test1.wmv
    B52%20008.wmv
    B52%20006.wmv

    --
    _JS
    1. Re:Freecache links by Windcatcher · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Freecache links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      friggen Mozilla and it's mime-analness

    3. Re:Freecache links by scrotch · · Score: 1

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

      Sounds really cool.

    4. Re:Freecache links by ptomblin · · Score: 1

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

      --
      The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    5. Re:Freecache links by beerits · · Score: 1

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

    6. Re:Freecache links by t_allardyce · · Score: 0, Offtopic

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

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    7. Re:Freecache links by scrotch · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does it look as good as it sounds?

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

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

    8. Re:Freecache links by ptomblin · · Score: 1

      Does it look as good as it sounds?

      It looks pretty sweet.

      --
      The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    9. Re:Freecache links by Carnildo · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    10. Re:Freecache links by FFFish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is there any fucking reason Slashdot isn't hosting BitTorrent feeds of these sorts of things? I mean, goddamn, Wren's home page says right up front they'd appreciate consideration for their bandwidth.

      Pure and simple laziness and disrespect on the part of Slashdot, this is. We frigging nuke people's websites with our numbers, blindsiding both site owners and their hosts with the hammering a Slashdotting gives out.

      The very fucking least we, as a community -- and this really means Taco and company getting off their asses and coding it -- should do is be kind enough to make use of our superiour technical skills and knowhow, and automatically mirror humongous files to a BitTorrent feed.

      It should not be difficult to do:
      1. Parse new stories for URLs.
      2. Spider said URL at least one level deep. And single files weighing in at, say, 1Mb and larger being Torrented.
      3. On posting the story, replace large-file URLs with Torrent reference.

      Result: A global community that doesn't live in mortal fear of being noticed by Slashdot, and a fantastic reduction in the number of Slashdotted sites, which means all of end-users will be happier. A win-win-win situation that's both courteous and beneficial.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    11. Re:Freecache links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if we do that, we would have to get rid of the +1 Funny mod because there would be no more /. effect jokes. Lets just keep things the way they are.

    12. Re:Freecache links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cool, but considering how realistic this thing looks, and sounds, I wonder if anyone's going to mistake it for a low flying real aircraft. Without any frame of reference in the sky, it would look like a very low flying full sized aircraft. Someone might flip out, and scramble fighters thinking it was another attack.

      Anyone care for a red balloon?

    13. Re:Freecache links by TexasDex · · Score: 3, Informative
      The simplest reason for this is probably copyright law. I know it's stupid if you wouldn't be able to host a file that's being hosted elsewhere, but that's the way copyright law works. Slashdot can let people post mirrors or torrents of content without any real legal liability (actually under the DMCA they might even have some then) and watch them get modded up. Unless the license that the work is under already says so, however, slashdot can't host or distribute files without the copyright owners permission.

      Stupid? Yes. Unnecessary restriction? Of course. But these are lawyers we're talking about. OSDN probably has lawyers too, you know. And I'm sure they spend enough time keeping us out of copyright trouble.

      --
      The Cheese Stands Alone.
    14. Re:Freecache links by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      Cool, but considering how realistic this thing looks, and sounds, I wonder if anyone's going to mistake it for a low flying real aircraft. Without any frame of reference in the sky, it would look like a very low flying full sized aircraft. Someone might flip out, and scramble fighters thinking it was another attack.

      • "Why are the missiles knocking planes out of the sky by just rotating toward them before launch?"
      • "Flight leader, you just flew behind it, fly lower!"
      • "No, he looks smaller than your little fighter, fly higher!"
      • "That wasn't a missile, one cannon round made it vanish! Maybe it's a smoke screen, see if he's hugging the ground now...although at 50 feet, he was already doing well at that."
      • "Shoot that refueling plane, that will eventually stop the B-52!"
      • "Flight leader, did you drop a lawn dart with a cowboy riding it?"
    15. Re:Freecache links by vigilology · · Score: 1

      If people want to avoid a slashdotting, shouldn't they be making torrents themselves?

    16. Re:Freecache links by cybergibbons · · Score: 1

      Nice, but freecache state that they do not cache files smaller than 5MB. These are just using the original server.

    17. Re:Freecache links by zmooc · · Score: 1

      Xandros is Debian-based, I believe? Then it won't have any trouble installing mplayer from

      deb http://freevo.sourceforge.net/debian unstable main

      (just add that line to /etc/apt/sources.list, type "apt-get update && apt-get install mplayer" and you're done).

      It should play those movies just fine.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    18. Re:Freecache links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if they are submitting the sites to /. themselves......

    19. Re:Freecache links by anothy · · Score: 1

      Okay, i used to be a big supporter of the "slashdot should offer torrents" stuff as well, but your outrage got me reconsidering. thanks for that.

      so here's my question: why all the anger directed at slashdot? is the submitter unaware of the slashdot effect? we all know that the editors don't read every article in depth (heck, it seems they don't read some at all!) so i figure the submitter has a better idea of the page's request for consideration of their bandwidth than the editors. if someone's going to be responsible for it, i'd suggest the submitter, not the editor.

      also: bandwidth isn't free, even for someone like slashdot. they host, what two dozen stories a day (total guess). a high-rate submitter gets, what one a month? is it unreasonable for the submitter to say "oh, and here's a torrent i set up" in the story?

      and since "it should not be difficult to do", we can assume you'll write the tools to do it, right? let us know where we can pick those up from. thanks.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    20. Re:Freecache links by wattersa · · Score: 1

      Though your answer is probably correct on the copyright stuff, surely any site would prefer to have someone mirror their content than slashdot it...

    21. Re:Freecache links by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      What do you bet that the radar return on this tiny model is a teensy bit less than that of a real BUFF?

      A B-52 has the radar cross-section of a freaking baseball stadium. This model will in all likelihood never exceed flight level 1 in its lifetime, and probably would be classified as a bird (noise) by any radar control station.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    22. Re:Freecache links by Hognoxious · · Score: 0
      But if we do that, we would have to get rid of the +1 Funny mod because there would be no more /. effect jokes.
      Huh - no more +1 Funny without the /. effect? Like there aren't any other kind of jokes - 123 ... Profit!!!, Soviet Russia, Beowulf cluster.
      Hmmmm, on second thought, maybe you're right.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:Freecache links by Hognoxious · · Score: 0
      and since "it should not be difficult to do", we can assume you'll write the tools to do it, right? let us know where we can pick those up from. thanks.
      Here? You're welcome.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. egads by kfractal · · Score: 1

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

    fun fun

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

      You aren't kidding, egads.

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

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

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

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

    2. Re:egads by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, the motivation for developing these engines was largely noise. There's an older class of jet models that use ducted fans, with a one-cylinder glowplug engine of around 0.7 to 1 cubic inch running a fan of 6 or 7 inches. In order to get reasonable thrust, these things have to run tuned pipes and wind up to absurd speeds. At the same time, urban sprawl has put pressure on flying sites to reduce noise; the prop-driven models are running very effective mufflers now, but the ducted fans can't be muffled and their noise is so offensive that they've been banned from a lot of sites.

      The result was a new generation of genuine turbojets, using turbines adapted from automotive turbochargers. They sell for about $3000 a pop, and these guys are using EIGHT of them...the turbojets are remarkably quiet, because most of their noise is well above hearing range.

      rj

    3. Re:egads by sandman935 · · Score: 1

      I bet not.

      http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/mald.h tm

      http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-160.htm l

      --

      Defecation occurs.
  3. Just $3k per turbine? by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:Just $3k per turbine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:Just $3k per turbine? by ProKras · · Score: 1

      Just curious, what exactly do you need to hammer on a $100 million aircraft? I wouldnt let you get near my PIII-450 with a hammer.

    3. Re:Just $3k per turbine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the new ones just snap together.

    4. Re:Just $3k per turbine? by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, is there something unusual about the type of engine they used on this thing? Maybe I'm just not very familliar with the sound jet engines make, but if you listen close to the clip of the plane in air, the pitch(frequency) of the engine noise seems to decrease when its flying toward the viewer and increase when flying away. The reverse of what you'd expect for the doppler shift of a moving sound source!! Weird. Why is this?

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    5. Re:Just $3k per turbine? by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Latest stealth technologies. Reverse doppler so viewers don't know if it's coming or going. Apparent tiny size so it is dismissed as not a bomber. Details made visible worldwide through Slashdot so everyone thinks the weapon system does not really exist. The smallest miniature cowboys to fly the thing.

      Seriously, the sound might be different due to listening to the inside of the engine or the side of it. Or listening to the intake is low pitched, but the exhaust may be high pitched due to the smaller turbines being in the rear..so as it approaches you hear more of the high pitch which is coming from behind. Or the microphones are just overloaded and we have no idea what it sounds like. Or these tiny engines don't produce the same sound as those that can eat a car, and you're expecting a similarity.

    6. Re:Just $3k per turbine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eurofighter is costed in Euros.

  4. B-52's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    The chicks in the B-52's used to look hot, though I'm not sure if I would have called them models, except perhaps for "Coke Party", the late 1970's niche glamour magazine.

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

  5. Beats the hell.. by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Beats the hell.. by roseblood · · Score: 1

      but the enterprise could use shields!

      --
      There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
  6. The B52 is just wierd by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

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

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:The B52 is just wierd by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    3. Re:The B52 is just wierd by EvanED · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:The B52 is just wierd by hkb · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

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

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

      Any other former bomb/nav in the house?

      --
      /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
    5. Re:The B52 is just wierd by hayesjaj · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      The world is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.
    6. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Beatlebum · · Score: 1

      Score:4, Interesting ??

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

    7. Re:The B52 is just wierd by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 1

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

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

    8. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
    9. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

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

    10. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loring?

    11. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      What? It's not 1966 anymore?

    12. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

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

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

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

    13. Re:The B52 is just wierd by voidptr · · Score: 1

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

      --
      This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
    14. Re:The B52 is just wierd by EvanED · · Score: 1

      X-Plane is a great rival to MSFS, and a better training tool for pilots and for people who are truely nutty about the realism. However, I'd stick to MSFS for the better scenery as its flight model is still pretty darn good and I wouldn't notice the difference. Also, I haven't really used any flight sim for a couple years, and when I was playing with them a lot X-Plane wasn't really a rival. But like I said, if I were looking for a real training solution, it'd be X-Plane.

    15. Re:The B52 is just wierd by lommer · · Score: 1

      WTF? are you telling me that if there's a wind blowing from the east and the plane wants to land on a North-South runway, that it aligns its wheels north-south and points its nose east, thereby landing sideways on the runway?!

      Cuz that's sure what it sounds like you're saying...

    16. Re:The B52 is just wierd by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

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

      Except the B-52 doesn't have ailerons - it uses the spoilers on the tops of the wings to drop one wing or the other when needed (for coordinated turns, etc.) The original poster's comment concerning how they crab the B-52 into crosswinds during landing is right on though - it's weird as hell watching one land with the fuselage noticeably not parallel to the runway until well after it's on the ground.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    17. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      It's a technique known as "crabbing". You can do this with any aircraft to land in a stiff crosswind, but it really helps to have the wheels turned. Otherwise you've got to be johnny-on-the-spot with releasing the rudder when you make touchdown. I almost put a C-152 in the ditch by not releasing the rudder on time...

      --

      I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

    18. Re:The B52 is just wierd by lommer · · Score: 1

      OK, I just did some googling and realized that I am an idiot. Please ignore this post.

    19. Re:The B52 is just wierd by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      The B-52 undercarriage was quite an innovation at the time, and was kept a secret for a while. It allowed the plane to land in pretty strong crosswinds.

      An interesting page on the development of the B-52:

      http://www.vectorsite.net/avb52_1.html

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    20. Re:The B52 is just wierd by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 1

      Ok, I wasn't completely sure, for some reason them being drunk was stuck in my mind. either way, the plane when boom.

    21. Re:The B52 is just wierd by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Yup. You got it.

      Though, it's not 90 degree angle, but something more like 15 degrees.

      It is _creepy_ to watch. Like bending fingers way over backwards creepy. It just looks like something is wrong.

      The only real world comparison I can think of is the motocross or rally races where cars or bikes catch air a lot, the driver aligns the front wheels with the direction of the car on landing to avoid rolling over or losing control.

    22. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      This is how just about all (that I can think of anyway) aeroplanes deal with crosswinds, including the big jet passenger planes. I dont know of any aeroplanes which rotate wheel axles to deal with crosswinds, I'd doubt the B-52 does either.

      Also, flaps are for increasing lift, to allow for a lower stall speed and hence allow for lower landing speeds, not for staying parallel to runway.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    23. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I dont know of any aeroplanes which rotate wheel axles to deal with crosswinds, I'd doubt the B-52 does either.


      Well, then, I guess you'd be wrong. It rotates its axles. I guess that your vast knowledge of "aeroplanes" is rather limited.

    24. Re:The B52 is just wierd by member57 · · Score: 1

      The wheels actually adjust to stay inline with the runway, the oddest thing you heve ever seen. The B-52 will look like it's landing somewhat sideways but the wheels will be straight with runway. I know because I was stationed at Carswell AFB, Texas in the early 90's, saw MANY land and takeoff.

      --
      If Kerry was the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
      The UN - The largest "political" cause of death.
    25. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually he's talking about the deck angle (the angle of the fuselage relative to the ground. Because of the high up angle of the wings relative to the fuselage (necessary so that the fuselage is pointing straight into the airstream at cruise), on approach the angle of the fuselage relative to the ground with flaps extended is noticably nose-down (almost 6-7 degrees). Most aircraft on approach have an almost flat or slightly nose up (or in the case of delta-wing aircraft very nose-up) attitude on approach.

      BTW a normal glideslope on approach is between 2.5 - 4 degrees. The glideslope is the overall path the aircraft flies relative to the ground. 12-14 degrees is extreme STOL territory. You'd be replacing a normal aircraft on every use if you flew it into the ground at 12 degrees, assuming you survived. A little Trig will tell you that at 130 knots you'd be screaming toward the ground at 12-14 degrees. You'd be travelling so fast through the vertical dimension you would blow right through ground-effect with no chance to flare.

      IIRC Carrier landings are done at 3 1/2 degrees. They're so violent simply because there is no flare, the aircraft is flown into the deck at glideslope.

    26. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Informative

      most approaches come in on a glideslope of 12-14 degrees

      12 to 14 would be a dive, not a glideslope. Landing approach descent slope is typically around 2 or 3. A steep approach, eg Berlin Tempelhof, would be 5.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    27. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Err, why did slashdot strip the degree symbols ("") from my post? Why is slashdotting stripping non-ASCII from posts?

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    28. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      All of of the wheels are "steered", not just the nose wheels? Wow, that is a neat trick in that case.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    29. Re:The B52 is just wierd by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Okay, I thought that seemed a bit high. Is takeoff 12-14?

    30. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Secrity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ever had a taxying B-52 appear out of nowhere right behind your Step Van? Was the modification that you speak of the one that stiffened the wings? Back in my day, a fully fueled and loaded B-52 whould have it's outrigger wheels touching the ground; the wingtips would be just a couple feet off the ground. An empty B-52's wingtips would WAY off the ground (over 10 feet). Watching a B-52 take off was wierd too, it took off nose down.

    31. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Depends on the aeroplane. In particular it would depend on what the optimum angle of attack is for an optimum speed to give maximum lift and a reasonable take off distance, which depends very much on the design of the aeroplane. The B-52 for example apparently had it's wings at a high of angle of incidence so as to reduce the rotation angle needed for take-off as the B-52 was restricted in how far it could rotate. (See also other posts on how seemingly a steep an angle the B-52 approached landing at.).

      12 or 14 /sounds/ like a reasonable typical figure, but I dont know really (and anyway, it depends..).

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    32. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not I, but my father was a B52 pilot and wing commander of a bombardment wing in the late 70s.

      I grew up on bomber air force bases and became an aeronautical engineer. I've seen lots of cross wind B52 landings and it always looks odd. The takeoffs are strange too since you dont see the lift coming until the plane just gets pulled into the air as the low pressure sucks it upwards. That is hard to explain to most people.

      Dad got me up one morning at 4:30 and we drove in the staff car onto the flightline to watch a plane takeoff that wasn't supposed to be on our base. He sais, "this is important, I can't tell you anything more." About 24 hours later the attempted Iranian hostage rescue failed. I'd never put that together before. Dad died in 1991. I still wear his B-58 Hustler tie tack. Now that was a PLANE!
      http://www.mindspring.com/~mach22/inflight .htm

    33. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another interesting fact: The Air Force is planning on keeping the current B-52s running (with minor upgrades to systems) until at least around 2020 or 2040. I can't remember which date, but either way that's a damn long time for a plane to be in service.

    34. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Salgak1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Former EW here. And of course, some of the insane ways they have to land it. I was pulling "foxtrot" duty one day (Supervisor of Flying: effectively, you OWN the airfield) with some heavy crosswinds, 45 knots or so. . . We had a plane come in about 100 YARDS to the one side of the runway when it broke the cloud deck, about 400 feet off the ground. Needless to say, I called the abort, and had him go around for another landing. . . . Incidentally, looking at the tail number of the B-52 model. . . I realise that I've had 100+ hours in the bird that Wren build a model of. . .

    35. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Eradicator2k3 · · Score: 1

      I worked bomb/nav at Barksdale for three years ('87-'90) before I got fed up with the SAC-mentality and cross-trained. I might have hated the job enough to get the hell out of it, but I still love those old buffs. I always thought it was kind of strange that things were "dumbed down" for us. Our AFSC changed from 321X0 to 456X0, as if the notion of having an AFSC with non-consecutive numbers would cause utter confusion. Hell, we even had entirely too many people running around whose last names were derivatives of their first names. i.e. "Dave Davis".

      --
      Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
    36. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just imagine a beowulf cluster of these....

    37. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Lobo_Louie · · Score: 0
      I liked the B58 bomber too (although I never saw one fly).

      I used to ride my bike to school past a static display of a B58 at Chanute AFB. The bomber awe-struck me, and I alway swore I'd be a pilot. I never learned to fly, but I did become an Avionics Engineer for the leading micro-jet company. That B58 probably inspired my career.

    38. Re:The B52 is just wierd by EinarH · · Score: 1
      The video can be found here.

      Flying over a hill with a B52 with only 30 feet clearance is some crazy stuff indeed.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    39. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Performaman · · Score: 0

      Do ya think that you could make JATO for the model?

      --

      I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
    40. Re:The B52 is just wierd by DaChesserCat · · Score: 1

      Agreed on the "weird" aspect. Spent a few months at Nellis, and got to see Buffs coming and going as part of some or another combat competition they had going at the time.

      You're right about the "nose down" takeoff. My whole training group had their jaws on the ramp when we saw that; we're used to F-16's taking off with a 40 degree or better nose-up. It picked up speed, rolled out, then the tail lifted up, then the whole thing rose from the runway. Talk about counter-intuitive. Additionally, the main one I remember taxied and took off with the outriggers up, but there were NLT four KC-135's following it. From what I understood, it took off with a fairly low fuel load, then took on a full fuel load in the air.

      The wingspan on the crazy thing was sufficiently wide, and the wash from the turbojets sufficiently strong, that they had to send some street-cleaning equipment out there to clean the rocks and dust from the runway before we could put any fighers out there.

      --
      ... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
    41. Re:The B52 is just wierd by DaChesserCat · · Score: 1

      During the original Gulf War (during the reign of Bush I), Military Intel was debriefing some captured Iraqi prisoners. One of them was some-or-another commander. They asked him which of our weapons he feared most. The people questioning him were expecting him to mention one of our smart bombs, Tomahawks, or something shiny and new. His response was "the B-52." The interrogators were perplexed; "but, your position was never hit by B-52's." "No," he replied, "but I saw one that was."

      IIRC, this was the plane which invented the term "carpet bombing." Personally, I don't think I'd want to be sitting in my trench and watching a wall of fire and high explosive rolling across the desert in my direction. The Buffs could do that like no plane.

      --
      ... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
    42. Re:The B52 is just wierd by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      FYI, the term "carpet bombing" has no military meaning. It's a loaded term used by journalists.

      The anecdote you cite is an urban legend, IIRC.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    43. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Captain+Ed · · Score: 0

      The normal technique for crosswind landings involves lowering the upwing wing by use of aileron, lining up with the runway centerline, then using opposite rudder while leveling the wing during the flare/touchdown. The huge span of the B-52, and the engines mounted on pods beneath the wings makes it impossible to do this because an outboard engine would touch down first. The problem is solved by rotating the landing gear to match the crab angle on final approach, touching down with wings level, but cocked off from the runway centerline. Looks weird as Hell, but it works. My brother flew them for years, now he's a retired LCOL.

    44. Re:The B52 is just wierd by Secrity · · Score: 1

      When I saw fully loaded BUFFs they were on SAC alert pads or taxying; fully fueled and fully armed (with nukes). I think that I also saw them in that condition during SAC alerts. We didn't have streat cleaning equipment, FOD (crap on the taxiways and runways) was picked up by hand, by an elbow to elbow line of Airmen. There was so much crap INSIDE BUFFs (fluids, hardware, bits of safety wire and other stuff) that there was a juke about turning the planes over and shaking them to get the junk out. BUFFS were also the loudest aircraft I have ever heard, an F4 with afterburner didn't hold a candle to a BUFF. The most annoying noise around BUFFs was the MD-5 power cart. MD-5's were piston engine driven generators and put out so much low frequency noise that earplugs and earmuffs did almost nothing to lessen the noise.

    45. Re:The B52 is just wierd by DaChesserCat · · Score: 1
      The anecdote you cite is an urban legend, IIRC.

      Possibly so. It was in my training manual when I went through Basic, though, so I'm assuming there's some truth to it.
      --
      ... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
  7. We'll meet again... by k4_pacific · · Score: 4, Funny

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

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

    --
    Unknown host pong.
    1. Re:We'll meet again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

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

    2. Re:We'll meet again... by Grog6 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

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

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

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

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    3. Re:We'll meet again... by k4_pacific · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    4. Re:We'll meet again... by Thadddius_Brinks · · Score: 1

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

    5. Re:We'll meet again... by ronsonal · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Your Mom
    6. Re:We'll meet again... by Burdell · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    7. Re:We'll meet again... by scrotch · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    8. Re:We'll meet again... by cgadd · · Score: 1

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

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

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

    9. Re:We'll meet again... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

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

    10. Re:We'll meet again... by Burdell · · Score: 1

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

    11. Re:We'll meet again... by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
    12. Re:We'll meet again... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Informative

      I saw it earlier this afternoon, before the server melted down, and they listed the wingspan as 23'.
      Here's a static pic with people. Wingspan is quite a bit longer than 2x human height (6').

    13. Re:We'll meet again... by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected - that's a great pic I hadn't seen - and yeah, it's a lot bigger than 2x human height.

      Thanks for the info!

      Now I *really* want one of the planes!

      --
      Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
    14. Re:We'll meet again... by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      Actually you *can* scale explosives, you can't (as the grandparent pointed out) scale the fission materials. If you don't have at least the "critical mass" (which is created by firing to sub-critical mass lumps together using conventional explosives) then you get a phfut rather than a bang.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    15. Re:We'll meet again... by Basehart · · Score: 1

      Why the hell are they all crowded over behind the right wing?

      There's plenty of room on the other side, unless maybe it was really cold and they're standing close together to keep warm.

      Or perhaps the photographer has a nasty habit of skinning people alive unless they're in groups of two or more!

    16. Re:We'll meet again... by gounthar · · Score: 1

      This, Mister, would be assuming that the power of a Bomb is proportional to its volume.
      This is a blunt assumption!

      --

      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent - Salvor Hardin

    17. Re:We'll meet again... by lukestuts · · Score: 1

      ...the 9/11 World Trade Towers attack (both planes) equivalent to about 900 tons.

      Are you honestly trying to tell me someone tried to equate the energy of two massive planes hitting a couple of deformable steel structures at uncertain speeds to a definite mass of TNT? Or is that how much TNT you'd need to bring both the towers down?

      Someone's doing some crank yanking.

  8. Richard Bach's Ferrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

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

  9. This is great, but by Long+Long+John · · Score: 0, Redundant

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

  10. Akmai links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    1. Taxiing trials 1.1Mb
    2. Takeoff 2.1Mb
    3. Flying 3.35Mb

  11. A full scale fighter would be cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  12. Mine doesn't look right by The+I+Shing · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    1. Re:Mine doesn't look right by irokitt · · Score: 1

      Hell, half the reason for making this thing would be the nose art. Natalie Portman anyone? Call it the "Hot Grits Express"

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  13. At first glance... by clemens · · Score: 1

    ...I think the title was "MIX your own B-52."

    I must be drunk already.

    --
    This is the funniest signature I could ever think of.
  14. 3k (3000) for a turbine... by saroth2 · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:3k (3000) for a turbine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it cost half more than...

      66%, nerd

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

  15. Now all they need is a couple of model H bombs... by Kunt · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  16. i think... by makeyourself · · Score: 1

    ...i've just wet my pants.

  17. Almost done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  18. Re:Now all they need is a couple of model H bombs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  19. The airforce fact sheet by ignatus · · Score: 5, Informative

    hwo want's the gory details? The airforce fact sheet

    --
    - Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
  20. All we need now by Zrech · · Score: 0

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

  21. Intresting... by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

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

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Intresting... by Segway+Ninja · · Score: 1

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

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

    2. Re:Intresting... by kfg · · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

      KFG

    3. Re:Intresting... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:Intresting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  22. Expensive Hobbies by MikeDawg · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

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

    --

    YOU'RE WINNER !
    Another lame blog

    1. Re:Expensive Hobbies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

    2. Re:Expensive Hobbies by morcheeba · · Score: 4, Funny

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

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

      --
      HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
    3. Re:Expensive Hobbies by weiyuent · · Score: 1

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

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

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

    4. Re:Expensive Hobbies by and+by · · Score: 1

      But with the little ones, there's such a high power to weight ratio that you can get yourself out of a lot of bad situations. With this beast (BUFF, actually), you have to fly perfectly all the time.

  23. Nice video, but .... by Honkytonkwomen · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Nice video, but .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf is up with that city's street names?

    2. Re:Nice video, but .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf is up with that city's street names?

      Really. I'm counting it as another piece of evidence that SCO is spawned from the depths of some Lovecraftian nightmare world.

  24. in-flight refueling? by victor_the_cleaner · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  25. Well... by ptomblin · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

    --
    The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    1. Re:Well... by scrotch · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow.

    3. Re:Well... by halo8 · · Score: 1

      FUCKING EH!!!
      that is amazing

      --
      The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
  26. Scaled Nuke for my B-52 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

    1. Re:Scaled Nuke for my B-52 by edgedmurasame · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
    2. Re:Scaled Nuke for my B-52 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, wrong, wrong.

      Here's the yield:

      "The M388 Projectile could carry either conventional explosives or a variable-yield W-54 atomic fission warhead - operator selectable explosive yield from 10 to 250 tons TNT.

      Minimum detonation range was an astounding 1000 feet - I can hardly imagine this regardless of the low atomic yield setting - see my table below"

      Source: http://www.guntruck.com/DavyCrockett.html

      Not that big of a blast, especially at .01k. But the radiation is a killer. Read on further in the article for the part about the nuclear landmine.

      As an aside, I remember my dad telling me about working with these things in the Army. His quote:

      "The only thing worse would be nuclear hand grenades". He didn't care for them.

      John

    3. Re:Scaled Nuke for my B-52 by edgedmurasame · · Score: 1

      Ok, I was wrong(was calculating on pure scale), but still not a small blast. As for the hand grenades, the safe distance radius would certainly exceed the throwing distance of any human.

      --
      "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  27. Just remember..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  28. No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

      - Army of the 12 Monkeys

  29. Just the thing to fly over North Korea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More fun then throwing peanuts in a biker bar!

    1. Re:Just the thing to fly over North Korea... by RemoteRabbit · · Score: 1

      Has anyone noticed any big orders of these from the rogue states.

  30. Mirror by giminy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I put up a mirror of the videos as well.

    http://www.readingfordummies.com/Permanent/mirrors /b52/.

    --
    The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    1. Re:Mirror by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

      FYI- I'm on a mac. The only one that worked was the mpg. The wma files came up in WMP with the sound (which was impressive) but no visuals. RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    2. Re:Mirror by giminy · · Score: 1

      I'm on a mac, too, and the links work just fine :).

      What version of Windows Media Player do you have? 9.0 works well on my ibook...

      --
      The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
  31. looks like fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  32. B-52s are a cinch to make! by IllogicalStudent · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

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

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

    --
    But Maaa! Everyone else has a .sig !
    1. Re:B-52s are a cinch to make! by RoyalCheese · · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

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

      Don't forget, you have to set fire to it before you drink it! (That's why its called a B52 - its go to down in flames! Yum and very warming!

    2. Re:B-52s are a cinch to make! by tindur · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think the Bailey's will burn. But if you layer Kahlúa, Bailey's and Grand Marnier in that order the Grand Marnier will burn.

    3. Re:B-52s are a cinch to make! by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

      nope the real B52 is
      Kahlua
      Baileys
      Grand Marnier

      in that order.

      http://cocktails.about.com/library/recipes/blb52 .h tm

      --
      Wanted : A Signature.
  33. Looked into this... by Goonie · · Score: 2, Informative
    I wondered exactly the same thing on my blog recently, and found the Cri-Cri, as well as the BD-5J, which uses a slightly larger turbojet to make a one-person kitplane that can fly up to 500 km/h!

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

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  34. right up until by astro-g · · Score: 1

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

  35. They'd need to... by Goonie · · Score: 4, Interesting
    While I haven't seen the specs on this model, if they're anything like most minijets they'll chew fuel at an astounding rate of knots. While I can't find the stats for the Wren, the smallest model made by this company uses 250 grams (9 ounces) of fuel per minute at full throttle. Even assuming the Wren uses half the fuel, with 8 engines that's 1kg of fuel per minute. That's 1.6 *litres* of fuel per minute, or, if you like, about 140 seconds of flying time for every US gallon of fuel, if I've done my sums right.

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

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  36. Space Cowboys? by tsadi · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  37. Re:Now all they need is a couple of model H bombs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

  38. I wish some people would just remember Econ 201 by Phelan · · Score: 2

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

    --
    "Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
    1. Re:I wish some people would just remember Econ 201 by realdpk · · Score: 1

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

  39. Not to be an ass or anything... by SiliconJesus101 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    But it seems like a lot of Slashdot stories these days are pretty much direct rips from boingboing.net. A lot of the stuff I see here seems to have been lifted from there a day or two after it was posted over there.

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

    --

    "The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
    -Thucydides

    1. Re:Not to be an ass or anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:Not to be an ass or anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  40. Hi Paul! by Nick+Driver · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Hi Paul! by mduell · · Score: 1

      /me flies PA28R-200

  41. hammer and toilet seat: good deal by r00t · · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

  42. Landing? by ZorMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  43. BUFF: B-52 Nickname by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1

    Big Ugly Fat F***er

    Long may she fly into the next two decades!

    1. Re:BUFF: B-52 Nickname by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's OK, you can say Fucker on /.

    2. Re:BUFF: B-52 Nickname by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or is it Flyer?

  44. Yawn... by phillymjs · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wake me when it can drop a scale-model atomic bomb. Bonus points if the bomb it drops is functional.
    Double bonus points if the bomb it drops is being ridden by a scale-model Slim Pickens that emits a digitized rebel yell on the way down. :-)

    Seriously though, that is really friggin' cool.

    ~Philly

  45. D'oh! by phillymjs · · Score: 1

    /me waits for the inevitable "Redundant" mod.

    ~Philly

  46. Wow! The Stratofortress is kewls! by OmegaBlac · · Score: 0

    But does it run Linux?

  47. Keep that schtuff on the downlow... by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

    Shhhhh

    Keep that stuff quiet. Bush might get Blair to send in the Real Bombers....

  48. Re: Damn bugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, if a fly, or bee gets sucked into the intakes, would that be enough to bring it down?

  49. Re:Word to the wise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if you're going to admonish someone to get his facts straight before spouting off, first try to verify that his facts aren't straight.

    Stupid penis.

  50. Please learn how to make links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please learn how to make links.
    <a href="http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/buff1.jpg">Pic 1</a><a href="http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/buff2.jpg">Pic 1</a>
    yields: Pic 1 Pic 1
  51. Please learn how to make links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please learn how to make links.
    <a href="http://www.vector.nsc.ru/index-e.htm">biolog ical warfare</a>
    yields: biological warfare
  52. It's slashdot material? by kruczkowski · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hmm - stores like this is the only reason I go to slashdot - not for the RIAA and MS bashing.

    --
    hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
  53. Yeah Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And, that would explain the billions of lawsuits filed against google.

    Not.

  54. Almost realistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The video could have fooled me if there was black smoke pouring out everywhere. B-52s leave a lot smoke behind them.

    I wonder if they'll rig a chute for short runway landings.

  55. (-9, Bombbait) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorists are obviously using Windows tools because they are idiots who are trying to scare idiots.

    1. Re:(-9, Bombbait) by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Yes indeed but what scares me most was the whole series of debate over the nicholous berg video because they said the sound was out of sync... obviously its going to be out of sync!

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  56. Jef Raskin thought this too.. by Cybertect · · Score: 1

    Jef Raskin - desinger of the Macintosh interface and keen RC modeller - published an article, Next time it can be worse about model aircraft being used as an instrument of terrrorism.

  57. Yoink. by slittle · · Score: 1

    I'm suprised that thing flies... what with the pilot's SOLID BRASS FUCKING BALLS and all.

    --
    Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
    1. Re:Yoink. by compwizrd · · Score: 1

      and even more scary, he's flown it on only one engine, at 160kph.

  58. Another big one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    For those of you interested in stuff like that, have a look at this page:

    http://www.michel-concorde.com/

    His Jumbo Jet weighs in at 60kg with a wing span of 4,5m, powered by (only ;)) 4 turbines with 80N of thrust each.

  59. ALCM models would be cool by henryhbk · · Score: 1
    How about adding a model ALCM on the wing pylons. Shouldn't be hard to rig a remote firing mechanism, which would look pretty realistic coming off the plan in flight.

    The weight of 2.6Oz (73g) wouldn't be a big drain on the plane. A small amount of fireproofing to the blast area would help as well.

    Another nice variation would be to modify this to look like the EB52 in the Dale Brown novels

    1. Re:ALCM models would be cool by Red+Snertz · · Score: 1

      ALCMs launch from a rotary rack in the bomb bay. What they need is a pair of Hound Dog missiles so they can have a '10 engine BUFF.'

      --
      Some feel thinking is a pleasure. Others feel it's a chore. Most, having never tried it, have no feel for it at all.
    2. Re:ALCM models would be cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also have/had a big rack for each wing that can carry 6 more ALCMs, but those might have been "outlawed" by one of the SALT treaties and thus abandoned.

  60. This looks oddly familiar... by lga · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to work in a rapid prototyping center at Evesham College and in 96 - 97 we helped a guy build prototypes for miniature turbines. I used a Stratasys FDM machine to produce the first plastic models of these turbines and then in wax to cast the first prototypes. When I looked at the wren turbines website just now those turbine wheels look extremely like what we produced...
    Unfortunately I can't remember the designers name (and it was just one guy doing this as a hobby) and I haven't been in contact since 1997.

    Those were fun days though. I remember one day the guy brought in a turbine from a full size helicopter that he had got from somewhere (I never asked!) and we fired it up in a warehouse with four of use holding it down, just for fun! The miniture turbine was cool stuff though, we had to start it by firing propane through the front to spin it, and watch it flame when it was lit. Then the normal fuel was pumped in to make it go. I used to raise the temperature of the place by several degrees in about 2 minutes.

    Happy days...

    --
    A latent existence
    1. Re:This looks oddly familiar... by lga · · Score: 1

      For some reason the links aren't showing up in my posts - I linked to www.evesham.ac.uk and www.stratasys.com

      --
      A latent existence
  61. Re:Word to the wise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Nitwit, flaps are used to generate lift, try ailerons.

  62. X-15 would be cooler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it would!

  63. Re:Mercatur Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here ya go

  64. A funny B-52 joke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For whatever reason, one day a B-52 was flying around, and a couple of US Navy F-14's flew up to "escort" it for awhile.

    The F-14 pilots were, of course, eager to show off their fancy planes to the stodgy Air Force pilots.

    "Hey, Bravo-5-2, check this out!"

    One of the F-14 pilots did some cool acrobatic manouver of some merit around the B-52.

    "Foxtrot-1-4-alpha, that was pretty impressive. Now, I have a trick for you!"

    After some delay of the continuing boring straight-and-level flight, the F-14 pilots got impatient.

    "Hey, Bravo-5-2, I thought you had a cool trick to show us!"

    to which the B-52 pilot responded...

    "Yes, Foxtrot-1-4-alpha, I shut down 2 engines 10 minutes ago. Pretty cool trick, huh?"