Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fly With the Brooklyn Aerodrome (Video)

Posted by Roblimo on from the it's-not-a-drone-it's-just-a-model-plane dept.

A bit of housing insulation material, a battery, a motor and propellor, a radio receiver and transmitter, and servos to control the motor and a pair of ailerons, and you're ready to fly the Brooklyn Aerodrome way. This isn't a tiny radio-controlled paper airplane, but a big bruiser with a 1:1 power to weight ratio (which means it can climb like a bat out of hell) and enough guts to fly in reasonably windy conditions while carrying a camera -- except we'd better not mention cameras, since Brooklyn Aerodrome creations, whether kits or plans, are obviously intended tohelp you build model airplanes, not drones. Timothy ran into project proponent Breck Baldwin at a maker faire near Atlanta, surrounded by a squadron of junior pilots who may someday become astronauts on the Moon - Mars run -- or at least delivery drone controllers for Amazon. (Alternate Video Link)

11 of 22 comments (clear)

  1. Dizzybird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you want something a little more aerodynamic, check out the Dizzybird. It's designed as a glider with an actual aerodynamic profile, but you can add a motor as well and enjoy it as a motor glider, or race it like a rocket (60mph no problem) if you prefer. There's even a video of a Dizzybird with an actual rocket.

  2. Re:It's a by Gliscameria · · Score: 2

    Thanks. I watched the one video and it looked like it was basically a glider with a fan. It's still pretty cool, but when you overhype it like that you really ruin the fun.

    --
    X
  3. 1:1 power to weight ratio by Snufu · · Score: 1

    One milliwat : one kilotonne? How can it get off the ground?

    1. Re:1:1 power to weight ratio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For aircraft it's common to measure power as thrust (SI: N) rather than as rate of doing work (SI: W=J/s=Nm/s). Weight is of course thrust due to gravity. So the ratio makes complete sense once you get over the odd definition of power. The 1:1 power:weight ratio then implies that if you hold the thing pointing straight up at full throttle and release it, it will hover. It's almost a helicopter. It doesn't need aerodynamic lift from the wings; it throws back enough air from the prop to keep it up. This isn't particularly odd for a model aircraft, especially a very light one.

    2. Re:1:1 power to weight ratio by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      ... It's almost a helicopter. It doesn't need aerodynamic lift from the wings; it throws back enough air from the prop to keep it up. This isn't particularly odd for a model aircraft, especially a very light one.

      There was an old saying among the R/C model airplane flyers:
      If you put a "60" on a Brick, it would fly.

      "60" being a standard 0.60 Inch^3 Glo engine using Methanol and Nitro-methane fuel. Small but with an appalling amount of power, and capable of cutting fingers of the unwary. (For those of you who have never seen a real R/C engine. And get off my lawn!) 8-)

  4. Re:It's a by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    piece of crap with propellor

    That's the interesting part.

    This is what engineering is about: meeting a need cost effectively. The point of a toy RC airplane is to have fun. Traditionally it was expensive fun that didn't last very very long before you crashed. Having fun for longer with less $$ outlay == better engineering.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Shrug... by koan · · Score: 1

    Anyone into RC has seen this stuff for quite while now, built from everything this kid uses to Dollartree foam.
    Nothing new.
    https://www.youtube.com/result...

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Shrug... by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Except those things mostly have real airfoils, and don't need such a high TWR to plow through the air like the flat plate in the article.

  6. Re:It's a by SETY · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up. This thing is great!

  7. Re:Howdy by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

    I am on Slashdot! Holy crap! I am so excited!

    Nice to see that even Apu reads /.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  8. yep, crashing traditional RC is expensive, and com by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Indeed, this approach is interesting to me because I had to get out of RC planes due to the cost of crashing, especially while I was first learning to fly. Anything that allows one to recover from a crash with just a few dollars and a few minutes is a win.

    This approach reminds me of a popular design that is also inexpensive, but this new design has two advantages. First, it positions the motor and prop in the center, where it is protected from damage. Second, they mount the electrical components on a subassembly board, allowing the entire assembly to be moved to a new body as one unit, thereby saving time.