top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]whatnameisavalible 4372 points4373 points  (126 children)

Holy moly I woke up to my gmail freaking out from 1000 new subscribers. I am the original creator Samm, and I was very surprised to find my video on the front page of r/videos! Thank you, /u/stesch for posting it.

[–][deleted] 453 points454 points  (51 children)

amazing stuff! In your video you say something like "then I added a gyro" - what is this? how long did it take?

Is it some kind of automatic stabilizer but then you still built steer controls that somehow weren't automatically adjusted for?

[–]whatnameisavalible 510 points511 points  (32 children)

It is a sensor that senses rotation. When the plane is rotated, it automatically applies corrective action on the appropriate control surfaces (assuming you set it up correctly). The unit also lets pilot control inputs through. This instantaneous reaction helps to smoothen things out﻿.

This is the one that I used: http://www.amazon.com/JMT-P1-gyro-Controller-Stabilizer-Airplane/dp/B00FFT7CKW

[–]lusvig 390 points391 points  (20 children)

So basically advanced SAS unit

[–]095179005 283 points284 points  (9 children)

[–]TThor 159 points160 points  (1 child)

KerbalSpaceProgram is always leaking; partly as a result of cheap Krussian-made fuel tanks

[–]ThisIsZane 99 points100 points  (13 children)

It looks like a basic gyroscope you can buy for hobby planes. It's a device that you program to know which direction is "up" and it automatically corrects the plane to balance it in flight. It basically provides stability. Some I guess wouldn't require programming but a few drones I've worked with requires a calibration of some sort.

[–]TheycallmeHollow 61 points62 points  (2 children)

I would look forward to videos of you just taking apart household items and engineering something new out of them. Basic instructions would also be a plus!

[–]liketo 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I found it a really interesting and enjoyable video - thank you for making it.

[–]_dismal_scientist 185 points186 points  (46 children)

If it draws the air from the sides, could two of them drawing air from the top create more lift?

[–]deathonater 3606 points3607 points  (141 children)

Ingenuity for using an impeller to make a model airplane fly: 8/10

Ingenuity for using a kitchen scale to measure thrust: 11/10

[–]my_fokin_percocets 659 points660 points  (96 children)

Haha yeah. Actually totally common in rc. Just did it with my quad. It weighs 450 grams, each motor produces 700 grams with my props. Thrust ratio is about 6 or 7. EDIT: was just flying and it caught on fire. So..yeahh

[–]Imtheone457 154 points155 points  (76 children)

is grams the right unit for thrust?

[–]ericwdhs 460 points461 points  (35 children)

Technically, no, but assuming a constant gravitational acceleration, mass and weight/force units are functionally identical. You'd want to make a distinction between grams and Newtons or pounds-mass and pounds-force if you were doing this for actual science/engineering work.

[–]Imtheone457 93 points94 points  (24 children)

makes sense for the hobbyist engineer, you don't have to be super precise

[–]ericwdhs 201 points202 points  (23 children)

Even in actual engineering work, we usually just estimate gravitational acceleration as 9.8 m/s2. Any variation due to locale or altitude is more than covered by any safety factors. If you're just designing for your locale and you weigh and measure the thrust using the same scale (like this guy), you're actually unintentionally factoring in the exact local gravitational acceleration and being more precise (more digits of precision) and more accurate (closer to the actual real world values) than the by the book approach. The only thing about it that's improper or less precise would be the terminology.

[–]Letstorque 71 points72 points  (14 children)

We also use 9.8 m/s2 in 99.9999% of all physics. It really only becomes necessary to use more precise values when talking about General Relativity.


Or geophysics. Some oil and mineral exploration is done by measuring the minute variations in the local gravitational field.

[–]Mk1Md1 4 points5 points  (4 children)

How does one go about measuring minute variations in a local gravitational field?

I mean, do you have to call the Enterprise or is this something the away team can handle on the ground?

[–]TommiHPunkt 10 points11 points  (15 children)

It's a force, so Newtons would probably be the correct unit.

Converting the thrust into the weight that can be lifted by it (with gravity working against it) is useful for aviation (and rocket science).

[–]AsterJ 11 points12 points  (14 children)

Gram isn't a weight either.

[–]Steve_the_Stevedore 11 points12 points  (5 children)

weight is measured in Newtons and mass is measured in grams.

[–]adrianwarp 24 points25 points  (6 children)

Thrust ratio is about 6 or 7

jesus man

[–]my_fokin_percocets 18 points19 points  (2 children)

Yeah we fly hard haha.. Just went flying and it caught on fire. Like, with flames. Gunna need to order some new parts :p

[–]Troggie42 11 points12 points  (0 children)


[–]MrSafety 28 points29 points  (18 children)

A propless RC plane may be less efficient, but it seems safer if it accidentally hit someone.

[–]sirgallium 39 points40 points  (14 children)

Also if he directed the air output on top instead of on the bottom, he could be blowing air directly across the wings therefore giving more lift at all times, which would probably be very useful at low speeds. That could be a very interesting advantage of the blower design.

[–]NotTerrorist 20 points21 points  (3 children)

Or add a little controller to adjust the angle of thrust and enjoy hover mode.

[–][deleted] 3180 points3181 points  (388 children)

He Gots engineering skills like its natural.. "So I got this impeller and i wonder if i can make a plane out of it...ok so i built this fully functional plane that works perfectly but now im bored. i just found this piece of metal...ok so i just built this flux capacitor..."

[–]therock21 1014 points1015 points  (293 children)

People that do RC stuff can just do this kind of thing. The real advantage that people have nowadays with this stuff is brushless motors and lipo batteries.

[–]Liquid_Schwartz 1280 points1281 points  (179 children)

I remember an example of this! There was a video a while back in which a dad put a brushless motor in his daughters power wheel jeep. It was awesome.

[–]PhantomGhost 611 points612 points  (53 children)

It is really hard to tell who's having more fun, the dad or the kids.

[–]shadowman3001 766 points767 points  (25 children)

Definitely the dad.

[–]DeezWalnuts 463 points464 points  (24 children)

In case anyone still had doubt about who's having more fun; Kids pointing backwards in fear "daddy, there's a car coming!" Dad while in complete hysteria "that's alright kids, you're fine! hahahaha"

[–]laxjunkie46 134 points135 points  (0 children)

I think you're using "fear" a bit strongly there.

[–]Lowkeypeepee 24 points25 points  (19 children)

Would it be possible to run the motor to original gas pedal ?


I don't see why not.

[–]freshmas 10 points11 points  (5 children)

Would that give proportional control? I think those pedals are binary switches.

[–]Lowkeypeepee 17 points18 points  (0 children)

You're right it would just be on or off full blast lol.

[–]Etobocoke 234 points235 points  (22 children)

why men have kids. Allows up to still play with toys but not look weird. Also kids are so easily persuaded to do stupid stuff with us.

[–]NeuralAgent 88 points89 points  (15 children)

While our wife's watch with the look of fear on their faces.....

"Don't worry love, I lived through this when I was a wee lad."

[–]crimd 80 points81 points  (8 children)

So wonderfully British. The music!

[–]My_Name_Isnt_Steve 36 points37 points  (7 children)

The music is just one of the defaults that youtube lets people use it's all over the place

[–]Pandanym 19 points20 points  (6 children)

I believe it's from incompetech.com and it's royalty free.

[–]MiaowaraShiro 59 points60 points  (10 children)

For what those power wheels things cost, I would expect more than 1 wheel drive...

[–]Banana4scales 103 points104 points  (1 child)

That is one pretty cool dad.

[–]pyramidcameljoe 40 points41 points  (17 children)

what's the advantage of a brushless motor?

[–]mikoul 66 points67 points  (4 children)

Look here it is very well explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCEiOnuODac

[–]ZippyDan 28 points29 points  (0 children)

I would like to add this video from the same channel, which explains a traditional DC brushed motor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtPHANEfQo

That way you can compare how the two different motors work.

[–]BriGuy550 32 points33 points  (1 child)

More power and more efficient. Combined with Lipo batteries they've revolutionized the RC industry.

[–]Waffle_qwaffle 28 points29 points  (2 children)

Until Momcorp recalls the jeep for a factory reset.

[–]UndeadVette 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I was really wondering what mom's opinion of all this was.

[–]herbertJblunt 51 points52 points  (13 children)

BRB, buying a mini car and some parts.

[–]bergie321 76 points77 points  (7 children)

Don't forget to pick up a kid.

[–]Margamel 43 points44 points  (5 children)

Nah, do that after you've made the getaway car.

[–]nspectre 37 points38 points  (4 children)

Just drive it into a park and let it sit. Eventually someone will sit in it and


+1 kid

[–]KnuteViking 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I imagine that this is how Teslas are made.

[–]Stormkiko 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I was hoping he had done this to his kids' powerwheels.

[–]Omikron 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That's not a power wheel, it's just a go cart with a powerwheel cover.

[–]RotorHeadz 5 points6 points  (4 children)

I wanna live on a play street. That would get rid of those idiots speeding down my street. I live across the street from an elementary school...you'd think that would be enough to slow everyone down.

[–]DetroitRedd 4 points5 points  (3 children)

ELI5 brushless motors?

[–]Andrewbot 38 points39 points  (5 children)

Not only brushless motors and LiPos, but CHEAP brushless motors and LiPos.

I build one-pound Battlebots for competitions here in the US (Video here in testing), and in the early/mid 2000's a brushless motor, brushless ESC, and a good lithium battery would run about $175-$225 or so all together. Today by ordering from China I can get all these for about $50, including shipping.

In 2009 many builders of the 220/250 pound roobots moved from NiCad/NiMh to A123/LiFe batteries, and by simply switching the cells you could either remove 2/3 of your battery packs, or have 3x the amperage for the same weight. Weapon spin-up times increased, overall power increased, it was great! Some builders are starting to enter into brushless motors for drive and for spinning weapons, but the speed controllers are the hurdle we're having to overcome right now.

[–]MidEastBeast 15 points16 points  (8 children)

Yeah, if it's been their hobby for a long time, they don't have to be an engineer to do these sorts of things. They just now naturally know what they can MAYBE do with the random parts.

[–]shadowman3001 27 points28 points  (7 children)

I feel like that's....kinda of a big part of the definition of engineer.

[–]gibson_ 34 points35 points  (57 children)

Yeah. With today's tech you could basically make a flying potato.

[–]clickcookplay 150 points151 points  (3 children)

[–]i_dont_69_animals 30 points31 points  (1 child)

Where's the album frank

[–]Launchers 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Chill he said it'll come out in July, it's only the 184th day of July it'll come soon.

[–]Guitarmine 29 points30 points  (10 children)

Here's a flying stuffed cat. Really...


[–]Hans_Gilmore 13 points14 points  (2 children)


[–]OralOperator 33 points34 points  (32 children)

I could definitely make a potato fly. No doubt in my mind. I build quadcopters and race them. I guess it really just depends on your definition of a "flying potato". Does it have to play a functional role in the design? Or can it just sit on top or something?

EDIT: Here is the kind of stuff I do with quadcopters (drones to the layman).

EDIT: can I just strap some French fries to my quadcopter and do some acrobatics? I'm on my way to fly anyways and I'm already at sonic with some fries.

[–]xTeraa 25 points26 points  (7 children)

Maybe a Mr Quadcopter head where all the part can just stick into any potato

[–]OralOperator 7 points8 points  (6 children)

I could do that. It would just be the center of the frame. I could carve out a spot for the flight controller, mount the ESCs and motors on some sticks. I just don't know if a potato could stand up to the thrust of the powerful motors it would require to lift a heavy potato.

[–]SirFloIII 4 points5 points  (2 children)

its the power supply i suppose

[–]xenokilla 5 points6 points  (13 children)

brushless motors

what did they use before and how does not having brushes make a huge difference?

[–]ZippyDan 10 points11 points  (10 children)

They used brushed motors.

Brushless motors basically have higher torque, higher efficiency, less wear and tear, less friction, less heat. All of those things are related. In a brushed motor, there is actual physical contact on the brushes with every revolution.

The only real advantage brushed motors have is that they are simpler to build and easier to maintain and therefore cheaper, but brushless motors can also be completely sealed to nearly eliminate the need for maintenance.

TL;DR Basically, brushless motors can go faster or move more weight with less energy.

Link to visual explanations of different motor types: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3z50rz/this_is_not_a_propeller/cyjihii

[–]mothzilla 109 points110 points  (5 children)

"oh now I'll just add this gyro... ok done"

[–]moonshoeslol 24 points25 points  (1 child)

It's like watching a cooking show.

[–]isrly_eder 16 points17 points  (0 children)

draw the rest of the fucking owl.

[–]Lampmonster1 46 points47 points  (13 children)

Yeah, call dibs on this dude for my apocalypse survival team.

[–]xxkoloblicinxx 12 points13 points  (1 child)

My best friend through high school did this sort of shit all the time. He'd get some idea in his head and I'd get dragged along for the ride I'd help troubleshoot but for the most part he would just find a way to make the craziest projects work.

Good times though.

[–][deleted] 43 points44 points  (28 children)

I like how he "just put a gyro on it". I know what a gyro is but I guess I don't understand how simply attaching to the plane would help.

[–]quintussp 50 points51 points  (17 children)

That's pretty straight forward...the gyro, when turned on, doesn't want to change direction, so when you attach it to the middle of the plane, neither does the plane. That means that you need more force to make it change direction. That means that the wind doesn't affect it as much.

Edit: Cunningham's Law states "the best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer." So at least I have that going for me.

[–]my_fokin_percocets 53 points54 points  (12 children)

No, not at all. this is a solid state gyro. It intercepts the servo commands and changes them so that the plane continues to fly straight.

[–]Helix1337 25 points26 points  (1 child)

Next thing you know he's soldering GPU's.

[–]photonrain 434 points435 points  (191 children)

Interesting. Using this type of arrangement there would be no torque roll which might be an advantage on planes with narrow wingspans.

[–]steakbbq 402 points403 points  (146 children)

The design is inherently unstable unwieldy due to gyroscopic precession. The gyroscopic precession makes it so when you roll left/right the nose will want to raise/lower yaw.



[–]OscarPistachios 80 points81 points  (26 children)

Why is everyone on reddit an engineer?

[–]GregTheMad 160 points161 points  (5 children)

Wait, you're not an engineer?! How did you get past the entry test?! MODS! We got an intruder!

[–]partysnatcher 22 points23 points  (18 children)

reddit was originally a forum for engineering types, mostly programmers. I dont remember the original scope but its probably the most overrepresented profession here

[–]InfiniteBlink 14 points15 points  (2 children)

I'd also say that "engineers" regardless of discipline have the same base mentality. How does that work? What if I...? Let me see if this...". Break shit, fix shit.

I'm not an engineer by training but a hobbyist that's dabbled in various fields and its alwaya the same process for me. I learn as a encounter problems, moved forward, hit wall, research, call for help, move forward, hit wall, etc.

[–]JorgeGT 9 points10 points  (1 child)


~ Scott Adams

[–]photonrain 40 points41 points  (41 children)

Wouldn't this be equally true of a propeller driven plane with your description moved about 90 degrees?

[–]steakbbq 82 points83 points  (33 children)

Yes of course, except the orientation of the rotating axis is different in a propeller.

I'm really not an aeronautical engineer, everything I have learned is from smarter every day/kerbal space program as far as aeronautical engineering. Lets think about it.

The orientation of a propeller is different then the blower in the video.

So Instead of roll/pitch roll/yaw being intertwined its yaw/pitch.


Here is a link I found It seems that its only a problem at lower speeds and pilots can actually compensate for it.

Maybe the reason the guy thought it was unstable was simply because he was not used to pitch/roll being linked together in that way. Maybe he just thought it was unstable when really he just wasn't used to it.

EDIT: From that link Most airplanes are designed so the turning tendencies are not apparent during cruise flight. Many manufacturers "cant" the airplane engine slightly so that the thrust line of the propeller points slightly to the right. This counteracts much of the left-turning tendency of the airplane during various conditions of fight. Other manufacturers increase the angle of incidence of the left wing slightly, which increases the angle of attack and the lift on this wing. The increased lift counteracts left-turning tendency in cruising flight. The increase in lift will increase drag on the left wing and to compensate for this, the vertical stabilizer is offset slightly to the left.

It looks like they engineer the instability out

EDIT AGAIN: So I think that is talking about countering the left turning tendacy produced by torque I dont know haha.

[–]Sound_Speed 23 points24 points  (15 children)

Pilots are trained to deal with these gyroscopic issues. When you apply throttle (especially on take off) you also apply rudder to counteract yaw.

On single engine airplanes, increasing throttle lifts your nose which is good because applying throttle usually is because you want to climb. If you cut the throttle, the nose drops, this is also good because it if your nose raised it would further decrease your airspeed and increase the risk of a wing stall.

On airplane with pusher props, especially something like the Lake Amphibian, a flying 'boat' that has a pusher prop above the cockpit, the opposite forces occur.

Ie: cutting throttle raises the nose and applying throttle lowers the nose - pilots trained in those type of aircraft practice counteracting those forces.

[–]skoy 13 points14 points  (11 children)

The effects of gyroscopic precession are actually quite small in full-sized aircraft. This makes sense once you realize the magnitude of the precession depends on the mass of the rotating body, and props on aircraft are quite light. The yawing tendencies you're mentioning are almost entirely caused by a combination of other factors: prop wash acting on the vertical stabilizer, torque, and P-factor. (Incidentally, the link between throttle and nose position is also caused by a different factor.)

Gyroscopic precession actually did significantly complicate the act of flying early WWI aircraft, which commonly used rotary engines. In a rotary engine the crankshaft remains fixed to the aircraft, and the entire engine is actually what spins. That's quite a bit of rotating mass to compensate for...

You could also of course quite easily build an RC-aircraft in which gyroscopic precession is a significant factor. How often that is actually the case I couldn't say.

[–]ModdingCrash 21 points22 points  (40 children)

What if 2 identical but mirrored engines were used so the rotating force would be equal but opposite? Would it work then?

Edit: I thought we were talking about an engine similar as the one shown in the video.

[–]steakbbq 14 points15 points  (36 children)

Yea, some planes work like that, also some helicopters.

[–]Gnonthgol 40 points41 points  (19 children)

You would get just as much torque pitch as single engine propeller airplanes gets torque roll. In fact the asymmetric layout will induce pitch and yaw that needs to be compensated for. The best way to get rid of torque roll is to have dual propellers in opposite rotations. Some rc helicopters and airplanes have this configuration.

[–]photonrain 25 points26 points  (8 children)

As an RC pilot I would much rather deal with torque roll than pitch changes.

[–]steakbbq 13 points14 points  (3 children)

Torque roll doesn't tend to put you into the ground or a stall as fast.

[–]gastro_gnome 18 points19 points  (2 children)

I prefer a pork roll any day.

[–]Drunkenaviator 20 points21 points  (2 children)

As a real pilot, me too.

[–]lowrads 9 points10 points  (17 children)

But it creates lower air pressure under one wing than the other.

Best case scenario is that he reroutes the intake to the top of the aircraft.

[–]bluevillain 14 points15 points  (12 children)

Why not reroute it to the front so that the negative pressure would aid in the thrust?

(Seriously, I don't know why this would be a bad thing?

[–]steakbbq 29 points30 points  (5 children)

You just invented a ramjet. Kidding, but its the same principle.

[–]bluevillain 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Well lookey there. I'm off to the patent office. Wish me luck.

[–]NDLPT 8 points9 points  (5 children)

Are you talking about the inlet? You cannot have the intake aid in thrust, even if it is placed in the front. The air entering will result in an drag increase. All engines/propellers deal with this.

Source: Aerospace Engineer

[–]Level1Roshan 274 points275 points  (5 children)

"So just last night I made a plane". Yeah last night I had a wank and then didn't shower. Just thought about all of the things I need to do today... none of which I have done...

[–]AnAverageWhiteGuy 25 points26 points  (2 children)

May I suggest starting with a wank and no shower? I mean how can you focus if you don't...

[–]danubian1 6 points7 points  (1 child)

And don't forget to floss

[–]TheJoePilato 49 points50 points  (3 children)

Post this over in /r/HVAC--most of us, at one point or another, have wanted to chuck a blower (though typically a bit larger) off a roof to see if it can fly.

[–]Gunitsreject 44 points45 points  (7 children)

Where the fuck do you live? Beautiful farmland right off the beautiful beach, fuck you. No but seriously though I'm envious as fuck.

[–]MjrJWPowell 130 points131 points  (15 children)

Correct, it is an impeller

[–]rover321 30 points31 points  (1 child)

Normaly called a outpeller. .. interesting flying hair dryingmajigs

[–]PastafarianT 403 points404 points  (42 children)

I'm always jealous of people like this. What is rocket science to me, is child's play to them. I work in a field where there are a ton of folks like this, that engineer stuff just for fun. I could't engineer a potato, if it grew out of my dick.

[–]fsm_vs_cthulhu 149 points150 points  (6 children)

That sounds painful...

[–]Sexploiter 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Only if you are not doing your urethra stretching exercises. You are doing your exercises, right?

[–]Rustysporkman 71 points72 points  (3 children)

They all started with the same knowledge as you. Try, fail, try, fail, try, succeed. That's how engineers are made. Don't count yourself out.

[–]veriix 14 points15 points  (1 child)

If it makes you feel any better, most people can't engineer things that grow out of their dick.

[–]AskJ33ves 80 points81 points  (4 children)

That was pretty cool.

[–]minotaurohomunculus 72 points73 points  (14 children)

That plane flies for about 10,000% longer than I thought it would. If I was flying it, it be up about 3 seconds before it went "VVRRRRRP!" right into a tree or building or the water.


the bonus to this design is that if you do crash it, there aren't any broken propellers to replace!

[–]brolix 43 points44 points  (3 children)

You and I apparently have different flying styles.

[–]frostymoose 16 points17 points  (2 children)

Which part of the plane do you prefer to crash with?

[–]Vespizzari 25 points26 points  (3 children)

Cool project man. You're flying in front of my shop. (Calfee) We also fly racing drones out back there. Small world.

[–]MrClimatize 27 points28 points  (18 children)

That's super awesome! Where does he live? That beach looks gorgeous.


Looks to be Watsonville California, north of Monterey.

[–]torokunai 7 points8 points  (1 child)

~15 minutes south of Santa Cruz, CA

and yes, this is the most beautiful corner of the world; there's a lot more coastline like it as you go through N California and Oregon, but a mediterranean climate with this much coastal forest is really special.

[–]AlexJSee 11 points12 points  (10 children)

Sunset Beach in CA

[–]CRU-60 25 points26 points  (7 children)

Oh no that is not Sunset Beach. I live in Orange County and can tell you with 100% certainty that is nowhere near Sunset Beach. There isn't that much undeveloped coastal land anywhere in Orange County (minus the protected areas). Sunset Beach is next to Huntington Beach. He must live somewhere in central-coastal California like Santa Cruz.

[–]imcmurtr 28 points29 points  (3 children)

He meant Sunset state beach. Between Monterey and Santa Cruz.

[–]AlexJSee 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Whoops! I meant I meant Sunset State Beach!

[–]L0wkeyy 22 points23 points  (23 children)

I wish i could do random cool shit like this


You can

[–]Pistol_Pete_94 75 points76 points  (0 children)

/r/getmotivated new moderator

[–]Antrikshy 10 points11 points  (1 child)

"You don't know me." - L0wkeyy, probably.

[–]BeBenNova 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That sunset is fucking beautiful

[–]jeffp12 9 points10 points  (3 children)

I'd like to see the engine mounted upside down, with the exhaust coming out on the top side rather than the bottom. On the bottom it's going to create a low pressure zone and create downforce. Pushing the exhaust over the top of the plane would create added lift, as in the case of the An-72.


Every time someone posts a video of an RC plane, I think of this great video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zSHYpM1JDKE

[–]hirdayesh5987 5 points6 points  (3 children)

What camera did he have on that plane?

[–]Hubbadubya 97 points98 points  (27 children)

This guy deserves to go to the White House.

[–]thelawtalkingguy 271 points272 points  (17 children)

Incorrect; he actually designed and built something.

[–]PeenuttButler 150 points151 points  (11 children)

And he's white

[–]Equa1 9 points10 points  (0 children)

White you said? Throw him to the dogs.

[–]Antrikshy 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Oh well.

[–]fupos 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Also not a minority

[–]CommonsCarnival 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A little motor hidden in a wall suffering the life of a faceless peasant laboring away discharging heat . . . until it's 'Cinderella' moment when it was found like a diamond in the rough and fulfilled it's true potential soaring in the skies along the beach. This should be a children's book!

[–]deHavillandDash8Q400 24 points25 points  (6 children)

Oh boy. Pilot here. In before everyone becomes armchair aviation experts. This will be the next trigger discipline.


[–]Hellspark08 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"He better not be flying within 5 miles of an airport without permission!!"

[–]MacStylee 22 points23 points  (12 children)

What a great guy.

I wonder if you're losing forward thrust compared to a prop due to the fact that a prop takes the air in front of it and shoves it out behind it, as opposed to this design where the air is being pulled from the side.

Ie, do props gain forward thrust from creating a vacuum in front of them as well as creating a high pressure area behind them (unlike this one who creates a vacuum to the side).

Anyway, this guy is outstanding. It's nice to know that these sort of people are out there :)

[–]NDLPT 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Props/jet engines do not create thrust from this 'vacuum'. There really is no drop in pressure in the intake. This air moving creates drag. The thrust is created by the difference in air velocity from the inlet to the exit.