discussion 1/7 Scale HMS Victorious R38

[Guest]

I don't see much of problem with take-off, the catapult will have the aircraft flying before it knows it. The pilot should be in control of it all times, hand overs are fraught with problems. No problem with frequencies now that 2.4 GHz synthesised r/c systems are available on the civilian/hobby market. Foam construction in model aircraft is normal, some are even 95% foam airframe. Fireballs unlikely, go electric (search U tube for r/c B52 crash) Landing aids,Eyball Mk.1. fitted to ace pilot. Biplanes, like Swordfish although slower have other undesirable traits but Gladiator probably worth trying. Out-of-sight flying is illegal in most countries, insurance companies and FAA will pounce. See debate on www.RCGroups.com in the Aerial Photography section, also there is lot of technical expertise in the RPV section. Large Scale Model Aircraft section and Electric Aircraft should be browsed too. There are a lot of people that would love to get involved in your project, might be a documentary company that could help with PR and funding. Expect to spend at least USD1000 per plane. Keep the info coming , we are all rooting for you.

 

[Guest]

Duncan, I can't find a single reference anywhere that says its illegal to fly a rc plane beyond visual range in the US (or the UK for that matter). I see a lot of references to insurance companies, DHS and the FAA not particularly liking it, but nothing prohibiting it. Then again visual range on the Chesapeake Bay is usually 14 miles so I don't think it will ever be a legal issue that I couldn't win, if need be. Electric is good, but I like the deeper resonances of a 4 stroke idled down on final approach. I will look into the Galdiator.

 

[Guest]

:thinking:Hrmm, My thoughts on pilots taking off and landing on their own are mixed due to the problem that has been mentioned previously... namely pilot location on the ship (while flying with as close to 360% visability as possible!). I dont think you can do this safely and keep a clear deck for take offs and landings...and im sure we all agree standing midships on the deck would ruin the whole effect.

The best I can think of is the cat-man forward and lso aft option with the pilots along the port en starboard beams...

With regards Duncans worry, hand overs are not soooo very aukward (I learnt to fly RC with a mate and two controls on same freq.)... but I know Flyer pride will be a major problem. I guess in a perfect world pilots doing the whole thing would be best but lets face it Duncan, On 107ft hull in 1/7th scale its going to be real hard to get the flyers around the ship while in control of a plane while four or five others are doing the same thing and not falling over each other. you might have to bite the bullet and go with flyers on a seperate boat abeam of the carrier with a full view of the flight deck with the lso calling corrections over headphones... or else risk insurance problems (what constitutes visual contact?) and have camera's for en aft the bridge and have monitor screens for use by those who cant see either the bow or stern.

perhaps having two pilots standing in elevator wells with perpex sheilds would do it with perhaps one (or a control officer) in the bridge ? Problem here is this reduces the options for the deck...

AND DEMANDS WORKING BARRIERS UNLESS YOU WANT A RC PLANE WITH PROP SPINNING HITTING YOU SQUARE BETWEEN THE MK1 EYEBALLS.

regards,

Russ

ps... Will try to sort this problem, i have a deck plan for Illustrious in my lap. Give me a While, I will figure this out. Duncan is lucky as helicopters (while right buggers to fly) are a hell of a lot simpler to control from ship, Im trying to work out how much deck you ought to leave for landing on with arrester hook and where the last barrier ought to be to permit the elevator well option... one things for sure the aft elevator well is not going to be viable.

 

[Guest]

pps... if your going for a later mod of the Vic then you ought to think Firebrands, Gannets and possible Vampires with pusher props?

 

[Guest]

When it comes to landing on the ship it is my plan that all visual referencing will be done from the cockpit of the plane while on approach, using the aircraft's remote cameras (all of which are real time). The flyer would be able to sit anywhere on board and by using a laptop with a link to the cameras on board (the plane that is) be able to land the aircraft as though they were sitting in the cockpit. With this in mind, for recovery operations I do not think it necessary that the pilot be on the aft end of the flight deck, or even able to see it. This might all sound a little risky, but its nothing that a thorough training program should not be able to take care of. Besides for safety reasons I most definitely want the deck to be clear of people. It also important to remember that the aircraft that land toward the end of the recovery cycle will not have a clear deck forward, since that area will most probably be full of planes.

And you are right about the barriers, they will need to be functional.

 

[Guest]

Perhaps wrong choice of words when I said "illegal" to fly oos however AMA (and BMFA) are quite specific on the matter. You cannot see a model aircraft well enough to fly it beyond about 500yards (except a glider straight up). Why would you want the aircraft to fly far from the ship ? Did you browse the UAV site to see the storm raging there regarding this in view of current security fears in US ? Electric power allows even more realistic sounds with real aircraft engine noises played through a speaker system, they include engine start-up whine and cough etc and are proportional, idle to full power roar in synch with throttle position. Deck handling and dispersal after landing, taxi-ing to behind crash barrier ....tricky.

 

[Guest]

I am having a hard time wraping my mind around electric power. I geuss its due to the saltwater environment, alhtough I imagine there are ways to deal with the problems that would arise from that.

The ability to go long distances from the carrier is just for amusement, its not really necessary. Remember, the plan is that the flying will be done from the cockpit, not the ship.

 

[Guest]

In carrier ops, the deck marshall gives indications to the pilot as they come in. The deck officer on yours could do the same thing via jacked headphones to the pilot elsewhere. I don't think you need radio coms, a decent multi-channel pa with headphone jacks scattered throughout would do it and cut out on any potential radio black spots. A spring loaded catch net at the end of the landing area would prevent rogue planes hitting the rest of the field... just like on the real thing.

 

[Guest]

I would keep the communications simple if at all possible, a straight forward PA/speaker system would work if all flyers were aboard and would have the added advantage of allowing everyone to know what was going on at all times.

Being hard-wired it should prove foolproof. radio comms would only be required should the flyers be elsewhere.

J.

 

[Guest]

A few days ago a fellow on rcgroups.com posted this link

, I think the differences between the two sizes of planes is quite obvious. One of the many characteristics I think important in a plane (at least for my purposes) is in flight stability. The "Big Iron" Sea Fury, at 50lbs, doesn't get buffeted around nearly as much as a smaller plane, which is an important trait to consider when selecting a plane to land onboard a ship.Therefore, I have decided to investigate increasing the scale to 1/5 and using a modular approach to building the ship.

 

[Guest]

If you keep increasing the scale you wont have to worry about where the guys with the R/C gear go on the ship as they'll be able to climb into the aircraft cockpits and fly off without needing radio control!

 

[Guest]

Perhaps wrong choice of words when I said "illegal" to fly oos however AMA (and BMFA) are quite specific on the matter. You cannot see a model aircraft well enough to fly it beyond about 500yards (except a glider straight up). Why would you want the aircraft to fly far from the ship ?

I am a little reluctant to admit this in public, with all the concerns over planes being used as weapons. But I thought it might be good fun to be able to fuel up a deck strike of scale model Corsairs or Barracudas, complete with dummy ordnance, and send them off to find Battleship Tirpitz. With remote TV on board the planes, a pilot could easily navigate the plane a few miles from the ship, simulate their attacks on a suitable target and then return to the carrier. Off course it wouldn't be as simple as that, but in general thats the idea.

As I said, I realize that some parties might find this train of thought a trifle worrisome, but I think if everything is kept aboveboard and the proper people in uniform are apprised, there shouldn't be any difficulties.

 

[Guest]

There are ALL sorts of problems! Start with the concept of 'restricted airspace' and work from there. You will have the security services climbing all over you! Any r/c aircraft that can carry and deliver dummy ordinance could carry the real thing. I REALY think you should give this aspect a little more thought.

 

[Guest]

Not a new weapons concept. Teslar offered some R/C boats to the US Navy at the dawn of radio as torpedoes and for airborne flying bomb, check the "Kettering Bug"(1917) at the USAF Museum in Dayton. All very sinister but is there not film company or TV network that could help with clearances, they seem to re-live wars ancient and modern, even future, without the troubles we are being paranoid about.

 

[Guest]

The dummy ordnance would be just for show, I don't think it feasable to include a mechanism for releasing any dumb bombs with this size plane. Besides I do not think anyone would have a clear view of what effect they would have on a target, so it doesn't seem to be much point in being able to release anything from the planes. Besides it seems I recall there being a law against dropping objects from a plane (I could be wrong).

With respect to restrictions on flying. The area I am looking at is very thinly populated, mostly some low islands with a few wrecks along the shore. There are no airfields close enough to worry about and no government installations nearby.

I have given some thought to those security services that have been mentioned. In the US we have the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary. This organization acts as a civilian reserve to the regular Coast Guard. They work very closely with the active duty Coast Guard and perform many of the same missions, ranging anywhere from Search and Rescue to vessel inspection. They also have an active port security role and often act as OPFOR for Regular and Reserve Coast Guard units. The organization is not much trouble to join, and once you become a member you may have your boat inspected and listed as a official "Facility" of the Coast Guard. I think having this vessel become an active part of "Team Coast Guard" might be a nice Idea, good public relations if you will.

Hmmm.. sounds like USS Robin all over again.

 

[Guest]

Hmmm you could have it commissioned into the USS Atlantic fleet (auxillary reserve). I think you are going to have problems but you won't know until you try...

 

[Guest]

Project Update, HMS Victorious

Been a few months since my last post, I imagine that quite a few may have gotten the impression from my absense that I sobered up, realized the extent to which I had gone mad, then quietly sailed off over the horizon. I did in fact sail over the horizon, but have now returned to give an update.

Unfortunately (my wife disagrees) due to financial constraints (terrible commercial blue crab season, and a worse oyster season), construction of the ship's hull has been delayed until this coming fall (sounds more and more like an MOD program) possibly longer. I have also decided to construct the ship in composite/GRP, which will increase the costs for the hull by approximately 30% or more. Maintenance costs however will decrease dramatically at least over the mid life of the hull. I have also definately decided to use a modular construction approach for the hull, this will divide my costs over the building process to more manageable stages.

In the interim I will be concentrating on building a few mockups of the carrier's main components, such as the ship's island and sections of the flight deck, as well as getting some working planes in the air to test out ideas (or at least on the deck). I won't be able to use stock rc planes, the only r/c F4U Corsair I have found in GRP is not to scale, nor is it structurally strong enough to be servicable. I am therefore faced with the task of scratch building molds for F4U airframes not to mention the other types I would like to carry. As for flying control, Instead of using LCD displays I am going to experiment with high resolution video goggles with an integrated head tracker to control the plane's onboard camera.

I am taking the rest of February as well as March and April off, so hopefully I will be able to get a few things done this time.

 

[Guest]

Hello Albion, try The Greenwich Maritime Museum in London I would be surprised if they dont have any info, they may be able to point you in the right direction if not, regards, Aquarama.:thinking: