Check this out! Apparently 4 lawn mower engines are used. And don’t miss the little X-1!
HOLY [XX][censored][8-] That is FREAKIN’ AWESOME!!! Not to mention HUGE!!!
I want one too but where the heck do you keep a monster like that? Thanks for the link Mucker [tup]
That was incredible! My jaw dropped. I can’t even imagine the time and $$$ in that set-up.
Seen it before, but still a treat nonetheless.
I’m pretty sure that’s a real rocket in the X-1… good stuff.
Do any of you guys fly R/C planes when you’re away from the bench?
I’ve not yet, but the more I see vids like this, the more I’m interested in giving it a go.
Mucker I used to fly RC but all the usual things got in the way (time and money). I’ve considered getting a small electric one that I can fly in the large park accross the street from us but I can’t see going to all the expense and hassle of a gas one again anytime soon. It was fun for about the first year but unless you have the time and money to build new aircraft all the time (as your skills progress) you kind of get to a plateau where the fun factor drops off.
Thanks, Dave. I guess it would be wise to consider if I want to go all out (like I usually do) or not. I appreciate your info, becuase a smaller electric one would definately be fun and affordable. Primarily it’s something my boys would enjoy with me at the local parks, so I could bypass the expenses of the high end gas-propelled units.
Thanks for the advice.
I have been very active in the RC aircraft building and flying for almost 40 years. It is a little expensive to start with because you have to buy engine, plane, radio and accessories all at once. Currently that would probably be in the $400 to $500 range. Another disadvantage is that you MUST have an instructor pilot to teach you how to fly. Help with building your first A/C is also strongly recommended. Once you get going in the hobby, it costs about 50 cents per hour or less including building and flying. That is a pretty cheap hobby. Crashes DO happen occasionally, but the engine and radio usually survive for another plane. There is a HUGE sense of self satisfaction when you finish building a plane and see it fly for the first time.
That B-29, X-1 combo is something that ONLY a very experienced modeler should attempt. Flying scale models, especially that large, is a LOT harder than it looks. He probably has 3 or 4 thousand $$$ tied up in that thing and several hundred hours of labor.
Darwin, O.F. [alien]
I have been doing RC stuff since the mid 70’s. My interests have moved around, and I’ve done a fair amount with giant scale, 8 to 9 foot spans. It used to be that weight of radios and engines drove the size up, but with all the new technology in batteries and motors, electric flight in small airplanes has become a lot more fun. Radios are getting so small I don’t even worry about their weight. The neat thing about electric is that since there is no fuel to damage the finish (the nitromethane in the fuel requires a very durable paint) and vibration is also far less, there is a lot of crossover of techniques from “static modelling”.
However, when you mess about with something like that B-29, the crossover needs to be from full scale building and flying technique to models. It takes a lot of planning and skill to keep it safe.
Mind-boggling! Thanks for sharing the link.
On a somewhat smaller scale, there’s the 1/144 B-29A from Minicraft. It shouldn’t be that much of a problem to modify it into an RB-29 or RB-50. I don’t know which dropped the X-1 — anyway, external differences aren’t much between the -29 and the -50.
But has anyone made a 1/144 X-1 kit?
WOW!!! That was too cool!!! Thanks for posting the link! What do they use, chainsaw engines on that thing??? [:O]
Brian [C):-)]
I’m pretty sure that it was a B-29 that dropped the X-1. And I have no idea if they make an X-1 in 1/144. I found a cheap one from a company called X-planes, but not sure of a kit.
As for the the B-29 verses the B-50, the differences are quite large. The tail on the B-50 was enlarged greatly from the B-29. A slightly different canopy with less framing was used on the B-50, and (the biggie), new engines were installed that, compared to the original B-29 ones, added two more banks of cylinders.
http://www.pr.afrl.af.mil/prepare/b-29.jpg
http://people.smu.edu/dbenson/b50.jpg
Sorry if I’m being picky. I sort of have a faciniation with these two bombers… I hope you understand.
Yes, I read the plane is powered by 4 chain-saw engines! Amazing.
Yes, I read the plane is powered by 4 chain-saw engines! Amazing.
I started flying RC last year, and I’m totally hooked. Little plastic planes are
my winter hobby, big RC planes are my summer hobby. In some ways, RC is
alot like bulding plastic models. In other ways, it’s completely different.
I would definitely say that it’s more thrilling. Just imagine how worried you’d
be about throwing one of your finished 1:48 masterpeices off of your roof.
Then imagine how delighted you’d be when it flew terrifically and landed safely.
That will give you a good idea of how exciting the hobby can be.
This year, I got my first RC warbird in the air. It looks simply AWESOME on
70MPh flybys. Makes me grin uncontrollably every time. I’ve since added
USAAF insignias to this plane.
That just rocks the house man. That was just too damn cool. Thanks for sharing. I am left almost speechless.
Hi, Lucien —
True, there are some outward differences between the B-29 and the B-50, but it’s not a hopeless task to modify a B-29 kit into a B-50.
Here’s how the two compare in dimensions (from Wikipedia):
B-29:
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m)
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m)
Height: 27 ft 9 in (8.5 m)
Wing area: 1,736 ft² (161.3 m²)B-50:
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m)
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m)
Height: 32 ft 8 in (10.0 m)
Wing area: 1736 ft² (161.3 m²)
You need a taller vertical fin which wouldn’t be that hard (the five-foot taller fin scales to about 3/8 inch). The longer and differently shaped nacelles (air-scoop below, etc.) at 1/144 can be done by taking the front of one B-29 nacelle, shimming it, adding the air-scoop, etc., with epoxy putty, then casting copies in resin.
But my point is moot: it looks like “Glamorous Glennis,” at least, was carried aboard a B-29:
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/021002-O-9999G-005.jpg
Makes me wonder what’s next. Will we have rocket powered Space Shuttles, piggy-backed on a Stratofortress, that can climb into the stratosphere and land via their own guidance system? Hmmm. Will it take 56 people in a … never-mind.
Very cool video!
Oh, I never said it would be IMPOSSIBLE- they are pretty much the same aircraft. I’m just sayin’ it wouldn’t be a totally shake-and-bake conversion you could knock out in a few hours. There’s a fair bit of work that would be needed to put into it.
Of course, I’m a guy whose mind is stuck on 1/72. Something half that size (1/144) would be considerably eaisier to deal with.
That being said, I would LOVE to make the B-29/X-1 composite for myself. In 1/72, of course. [;)]
At the aviation museum here in town they have the R/C planes that were used in the now defunct Aviation Expo. They are a 1/5 B-17G, 1/5 B-24J, 1/5 C-47, and a 1/5 B-29. The B-29 is painted as the Enola Gay and has a wingspan of about 30 feet. The Expo used to be held annually and they used RC planes, boats and tanks to re-enact the battle of Iwo Jima. Even had a huge 1/5 USS Hornet. We still have the plans, tanks, boats, and train. The boats and tanks had drivers in them. Real cool.