Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rocket-Powered 21-Foot Long X-Wing Actually Flies

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the fly-me-to-the-moon dept.

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that some crazy California enthusiasts have built a 21-foot long model of an X-Wing. While this might be impressive in its own right, this model actually flies. Powered by four solid-fuel rocket engines the group has high hopes for their launch next week. Let's hope the built-in R2 unit makes it out ok.

8 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. Except that by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Interesting

    X-wings aren't aerodynamical (i.e. not enough lift) - they're meant for zero atmosphere - in which case they wouldn't need wings.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Except that by sootman · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah, everyone knows they should have used some JATOs and an Impala.

      (No, that's not a link to the joke--it's a link to the (very long, very good) story behind the joke. It's absolutely true... maybe. Regardless, it's a great read. If it's fake, it was written by someone good... always reminded me a bit of how Stephen King writes when he's not writing horror. Anyone know for sure?)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    2. Re:Except that by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You could chalk that up to having sufficient thrust to overcoming the need for wings, but even if the wings weren't actually aerodynamic, they would still be affected by aerodynamic forces.

      The X-Wing doesn't fly in atmospheres whilst in the X configuration, as any rookie starpilot straight out of training knows. To fly in an atmosphere, the X-Wing must first close it's wings, creating two wings out of the usual four and allowing atmospheric flight.

      Unlike Earth aircraft, which only have a curved upper surface, X-Wings have curved surfaces both above and below the wing when in the closed position, allowing for extended inverted flight.

      Such are the wonders of the subtle distortion in the laws of physics when one travels to a galaxy far, far away.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
  2. Model? It's a CRUISE MISSILE! by StCredZero · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This isn't a model. It's a freaking cruise missile! The builders aren't even sure the wings won't fall off in flight! The thing is going to use THREE man-sized parachutes to recover. Put survey-grade relative GPS and an autopilot on this thing, and you have a real cruise missile. (You can get millimeters accuracy out of GPS by using a base station as a reference and getting a delta. But the DOD wants to know about it before you do it!)

  3. Strap enough propellant on! by codepunk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hey if you strap enough propellant on a pig it will fly. Nice work but the word "flies" is a real stretch
    of the imagination.

    --


    Got Code?
  4. Re:this will end badly. by fmobus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    well, you could have some sort of release mechanism holding the plane, so that it just releases the plane when all four rockets have ignited. For example, have someone with a trigger mechanism observe the ignition and release the plane as soon as all rockets are on.

    Of course, you'd have to build a structure strong enough to support the force of multiple rockets, but that's beyond me. And you'd still have to consider one rocket ending sooner than others. Nothing is perfect.

  5. Re:this will end badly. by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would expect there to be an even greater likelihood of one motor burning out before the others...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  6. Re:Does it fly? by 2short · · Score: 2, Interesting


    The builders of this have not called it an "aircraft". It is a rocket. I see little reason to doubt that it will get off the ground in some fashion, as building it obviously required quite a bit more technical sophistication than the simple thrust to weight comparison need to ensure liftoff. One of the builders quite straightforwardly rates structural failure during flight "likely".

    Don't worry about being mean by suggesting that this is some overly geeky guys presenting their geeky thing as more than it is. You don't come across as mean making such a suggestion, just foolish. This is some extremely geeky guys, utterly reveling in the awesome geekery of this wicked cool thing they built.