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!"

53 of 200 comments (clear)

  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 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...

    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  2. 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 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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 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.

    2. 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 */
    3. 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.
    4. 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."

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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

    8. 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. . .

  6. 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 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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').

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

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

  8. 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.
  9. 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. :)

  10. 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.
  11. 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 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

  12. 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
  13. Nice video, but .... by Honkytonkwomen · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  14. 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?

  15. 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!
  16. 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.

  17. 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,
  18. looks like fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  19. 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.

  20. 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?)
  21. 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?)
  22. Space Cowboys? by tsadi · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  23. 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!"
  24. 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".

  25. 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.

  26. 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

  27. 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
  28. Yeah Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    Not.

  29. 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