Would You Fly In A Radio Controlled Airplane?

"Chris Clarke" (shiftsandgiggles) 03/19/2014 at 13:58 • Filed to: planelopnik

3

15

This 1/3 scale B-17 replica has a 34 ft wingspan and sports four 60 hp engines for a total of 240 hp. Here's the catch... its not R/C!

Jack Bally has spent approximately 20,000 hours dedicated to building this 1,800 pound, one-of-a-kind, homebuilt aircraft, and plans to strap himself in and go flying. The scratch built aluminum airframe features retractable landing gear and is powered by four Hirth 3002 4-cylinder 2-stroke air cooled engines. A homebuilt mold and vacuum system was designed to craft the plexiglass nosecone and strutural testing estimates the design will be good for 6 positive and negative g 's.

Originally planned as a scaled B-24 Liberator but was switched to a B-17 Flying Fortress because it had the potential to make a more accurate replica. With only a set of 1/9 scale model airplane plans, big dreams, and a whole lot of ingenuity, Bally has created on insane awesome airplane.

Would y0u have the cohones to fly in this thing?

Photos courtesy of !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

For Sweden > Chris Clarke 03/19/2014 at 14:00

5

Given that around 20% of first flights of experimental aircraft end in a fatal accident, no.

Chris Clarke > For Sweden 03/19/2014 at 14:09

0

Good answer.

McMike > Chris Clarke 03/19/2014 at 14:39

1

These guys should get together.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > Chris Clarke 03/19/2014 at 14:47

1

My mind is blown. When I see things like this all I can think of is how awesome the internet is for allowing me to see them.

Chris Clarke > McMike 03/19/2014 at 14:49

0

They could have a mini re-enactment.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > For Sweden 03/19/2014 at 14:50

0

Is that percentage the same for experimental aircraft with 4 props? At least there is some redundancy there, lol!

Blind Willy > Chris Clarke 03/19/2014 at 15:00

0

If he'd have made the B-24 I would.

Blind Willy > For Sweden 03/19/2014 at 15:01

0

That means you'd have an 80% success rate :)

Chris Clarke > FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 03/19/2014 at 15:21

1

I agree, but I hope to see this in person someday as well.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > Chris Clarke 03/19/2014 at 15:45

0

That and fly in a real one are on my B-17 bucket list.

Chris Clarke > FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 03/19/2014 at 15:47

0

I've looked into flights too. There's one that tours, but $450 isn't a drop in the bucket.

http://www.b17.org/

jetpilotyeah > Chris Clarke 03/19/2014 at 22:38

0

This guy has upped his odds of having an engine failure by 4 times. And im not so sure it would do so well in maintaining control or altitude in an asymmetric flight situation. Some people just cant wait to die.

Vettedrmr > For Sweden 03/23/2014 at 05:01

0

Sorry, that's a fail. 20% of all experimental aircraft accidents occur on the first flight, and only a subset of those are fatal. Experimental aircraft accident rates are close to the same as the rest of general aviation.

Vettedrmr > For Sweden 03/23/2014 at 05:09

0

Um, no. 20% of experimental aircraft accidents happen during the flight test period, usually around 40 hours in duration. Data I looked at didn't identify fatal/non-fatal accidents.

For Sweden > Vettedrmr 03/23/2014 at 11:22

0

HAHAHAHAHA no.