Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Toys Robotics

Build Your Own Model B-52 200

Posted by michael
from the needs-nose-art dept.
Assmasher writes "Who says the cold war is over? Wren Turbines, a UK based manufacturer of scale modeling jet engines (usually for remote control aircraft), has provided the engines for a 300lbs+ scale replica of Boeing's B-52. This isn't normal Slashdot fare; however, it is nerdy enough, crazy enough, and if you watch the videos, cool enough to warrant serious geek attention. At roughly $3k per turbine, this is a serious piece of engineering. The sound alone is amazing!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Build Your Own Model B-52

Comments Filter:
  • Freecache links (Score:5, Informative)

    by JS_RIDDLER (570254) * on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:04PM (#9282500)
    Freecache links... I tested all of these first
    B52_Test1.wmv [freecache.org]
    B52%20008.wmv [freecache.org]
    B52%20006.wmv [freecache.org]
    • Any Linux-friendly versions of the clips? My Xandros 2.0 desktop doesn't seem to like these...
      • My Mac doesn't like them either. MPlayer will play the audio, though.

        Sounds really cool.
        • Plays fine on my Mac. I've got Windows Media Player 9 for OS X.
          • by scrotch (605605) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:45PM (#9282683)
            Does it look as good as it sounds?

            I had Windows Media Player installed a while back, then decided it was a little creepy. Not anti-MS-bigot creepy, but creepy like RealPlayer. Like those programs are trying to figure out how to get into your checking account while they're playing your file and are like "play it one more time, we're almost there!" so you have to keep quiting them in the middle of clips to make sure they don't take all your money or write letters to people you barely know signed with your name...

            just another Friday night, sitting around slashdot in my tin foil hat...
        • My Windows Media Player 6 isn't too happy, for that matter.
      • Xandros is Debian-based, I believe? Then it won't have any trouble installing mplayer from

        deb http://freevo.sourceforge.net/debian unstable main

        (just add that line to /etc/apt/sources.list, type "apt-get update && apt-get install mplayer" and you're done).

        It should play those movies just fine.
    • Akmai links (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      1. Taxiing trials 1.1Mb [akamaitech.net]
      2. Takeoff 2.1Mb [akamaitech.net]
      3. Flying 3.35Mb [akamaitech.net]
    • Re:Freecache links (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FFFish (7567) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @12:25AM (#9283271) Homepage
      Is there any fucking reason Slashdot isn't hosting BitTorrent feeds of these sorts of things? I mean, goddamn, Wren's home page says right up front they'd appreciate consideration for their bandwidth.

      Pure and simple laziness and disrespect on the part of Slashdot, this is. We frigging nuke people's websites with our numbers, blindsiding both site owners and their hosts with the hammering a Slashdotting gives out.

      The very fucking least we, as a community -- and this really means Taco and company getting off their asses and coding it -- should do is be kind enough to make use of our superiour technical skills and knowhow, and automatically mirror humongous files to a BitTorrent feed.

      It should not be difficult to do:
      1. Parse new stories for URLs.
      2. Spider said URL at least one level deep. And single files weighing in at, say, 1Mb and larger being Torrented.
      3. On posting the story, replace large-file URLs with Torrent reference.

      Result: A global community that doesn't live in mortal fear of being noticed by Slashdot, and a fantastic reduction in the number of Slashdotted sites, which means all of end-users will be happier. A win-win-win situation that's both courteous and beneficial.
      • Re:Freecache links (Score:3, Informative)

        by TexasDex (709519)
        The simplest reason for this is probably copyright law. I know it's stupid if you wouldn't be able to host a file that's being hosted elsewhere, but that's the way copyright law works. Slashdot can let people post mirrors or torrents of content without any real legal liability (actually under the DMCA they might even have some then) and watch them get modded up. Unless the license that the work is under already says so, however, slashdot can't host or distribute files without the copyright owners permiss
        • Yeah Right (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          And, that would explain the billions of lawsuits filed against google.

          Not.
      • Okay, i used to be a big supporter of the "slashdot should offer torrents" stuff as well, but your outrage got me reconsidering. thanks for that.

        so here's my question: why all the anger directed at slashdot? is the submitter unaware of the slashdot effect? we all know that the editors don't read every article in depth (heck, it seems they don't read some at all!) so i figure the submitter has a better idea of the page's request for consideration of their bandwidth than the editors. if someone's going to be
    • Nice, but freecache state that they do not cache files smaller than 5MB. These are just using the original server.
  • by Realistic_Dragon (655151) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:05PM (#9282510) Homepage
    On the Eurofighter project we pay more than that for a hammer.
    • The reason that governments pay $1,500 for a toilet seat or a hammer is simply the costing method they use on some projects.
      I.e. the overall priece is calculated and then devided by the different components needed to complete the project, so that a hammer in the end costs the same as a turbin or any other component.
      • So that's the excuse for sloppy accounting? Yeah, great!
      • It wasn't just a toilet seat. It was the whole
        seat and wall assembly of an aircraft lavatory.
        This was for the B1 bomber, so it was a custom
        design for a cramped space. I think they got a
        good deal, considering what they got.

        The hammer was some sort of calibrated impact
        device. There's a dial on it that you can set.
        Then, when you give something a whack, you can
        be sure to deliver the right amount of force.
        This lets you avoid breaking parts which most
        likely cost far more than the "hammer".
    • Incidentally, is there something unusual about the type of engine they used on this thing? Maybe I'm just not very familliar with the sound jet engines make, but if you listen close to the clip of the plane in air, the pitch(frequency) of the engine noise seems to decrease when its flying toward the viewer and increase when flying away. The reverse of what you'd expect for the doppler shift of a moving sound source!! Weird. Why is this?
      • by SEWilco (27983)
        Latest stealth technologies. Reverse doppler so viewers don't know if it's coming or going. Apparent tiny size so it is dismissed as not a bomber. Details made visible worldwide through Slashdot so everyone thinks the weapon system does not really exist. The smallest miniature cowboys to fly the thing.

        Seriously, the sound might be different due to listening to the inside of the engine or the side of it. Or listening to the intake is low pitched, but the exhaust may be high pitched due to the smaller

  • B-52's (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The chicks in the B-52's used to look hot, though I'm not sure if I would have called them models, except perhaps for "Coke Party", the late 1970's niche glamour magazine.

    And today they are pretty much just models for the "before" picture.

  • by fiannaFailMan (702447) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:08PM (#9282526) Journal
    ...out of that flying model Starship Enterprise that we had a few days ago. Mind you, the phasers and torpedoes would probably make mincemeat out of this thing!
  • by Realistic_Dragon (655151) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:09PM (#9282531) Homepage
    If you look at it you can see it ha a bycicle undercarriage (forward and back wheel sets instead of nosewheel+main gear). It also has wings with an unusually high attack angle with respect to the main fuse.

    This leads to some crazy descent angle where the arcraft seems to be flying directly AT THE GROUND until it flares at the last second to place the wheel sets parallel to the runway to touchdown.

    It's perfectly safe but damn, that's a wierd feeling when you are riding in one.
    • IANAP, but isn't that how all planes are supposed to land?
      • I think he was saying the approach is much steeper than normal. IIRC from my MS Flight Sim days (one thing you can't knock MS for is having just about the best civilian simulator available to consumers), most approaches come in on a glideslope of 12-14 degrees, which really isn't all that steep. (But maybe those numbers are takeoff... in any case, most planes have a very shallow approach angle.)
        • Try X-Plane [x-plane.com] instead. The scenery isn't great (Terrain elevation is accurate but there's no real building detail) but the flight model blows MSFS out of the sky. And it ships with a B-52 model.
          • X-Plane is a great rival to MSFS, and a better training tool for pilots and for people who are truely nutty about the realism. However, I'd stick to MSFS for the better scenery as its flight model is still pretty darn good and I wouldn't notice the difference. Also, I haven't really used any flight sim for a couple years, and when I was playing with them a lot X-Plane wasn't really a rival. But like I said, if I were looking for a real training solution, it'd be X-Plane.
        • most approaches come in on a glideslope of 12-14 degrees

          12 to 14 would be a dive, not a glideslope. Landing approach descent slope is typically around 2 or 3. A steep approach, eg Berlin Tempelhof, would be 5.
          • Err, why did slashdot strip the degree symbols ("") from my post? Why is slashdotting stripping non-ASCII from posts?
          • Okay, I thought that seemed a bit high. Is takeoff 12-14?
            • Depends on the aeroplane. In particular it would depend on what the optimum angle of attack is for an optimum speed to give maximum lift and a reasonable take off distance, which depends very much on the design of the aeroplane. The B-52 for example apparently had it's wings at a high of angle of incidence so as to reduce the rotation angle needed for take-off as the B-52 was restricted in how far it could rotate. (See also other posts on how seemingly a steep an angle the B-52 approached landing at.).

              12 o
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:34PM (#9282639)
      Another thing that's weird about the B-52 is the way it deals with the crosswind. It doesn't use flaps to stay parallel with the runway. It turns into the wind and rotates the wheels to be parallel with the runway. It's just a massive plane.
      • I think you're referring to alerons and rudder...flaps increase the lifting surface (for some types of flaps) and slow the aircraft down.
        • I think you're referring to alerons and rudder...flaps increase the lifting surface (for some types of flaps) and slow the aircraft down.

          Except the B-52 doesn't have ailerons - it uses the spoilers on the tops of the wings to drop one wing or the other when needed (for coordinated turns, etc.) The original poster's comment concerning how they crab the B-52 into crosswinds during landing is right on though - it's weird as hell watching one land with the fuselage noticeably not parallel to the runway unt
      • WTF? are you telling me that if there's a wind blowing from the east and the plane wants to land on a North-South runway, that it aligns its wheels north-south and points its nose east, thereby landing sideways on the runway?!

        Cuz that's sure what it sounds like you're saying...
        • Yup. You got it.

          Though, it's not 90 degree angle, but something more like 15 degrees.

          It is _creepy_ to watch. Like bending fingers way over backwards creepy. It just looks like something is wrong.

          The only real world comparison I can think of is the motocross or rally races where cars or bikes catch air a lot, the driver aligns the front wheels with the direction of the car on landing to avoid rolling over or losing control.

      • It's a technique known as "crabbing". You can do this with any aircraft to land in a stiff crosswind, but it really helps to have the wheels turned. Otherwise you've got to be johnny-on-the-spot with releasing the rudder when you make touchdown. I almost put a C-152 in the ditch by not releasing the rudder on time...
      • This is how just about all (that I can think of anyway) aeroplanes deal with crosswinds, including the big jet passenger planes. I dont know of any aeroplanes which rotate wheel axles to deal with crosswinds, I'd doubt the B-52 does either.

        Also, flaps are for increasing lift, to allow for a lower stall speed and hence allow for lower landing speeds, not for staying parallel to runway.
    • by hkb (777908) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:55PM (#9282730)
      It also has wings with an unusually high attack angle with respect to the main fuse.

      This was a later model modification to help the B-52's stability with low level flight at its new role as a low-altitude bomber. Formerly, the B-52 was a high altitude bomber and had a much less steep attack angle.

      You should see the B-52 crab control at work. You haven't lived until you've seen a B-52 land in a blizzard with its nose pointed well to the right of the runway, even though it's still going down the runway's path.

      I saw one almost spin out of control on landing once, too. That is a freaky sight.

      Any other former bomb/nav in the house?
      • by Secrity (742221)
        Ever had a taxying B-52 appear out of nowhere right behind your Step Van? Was the modification that you speak of the one that stiffened the wings? Back in my day, a fully fueled and loaded B-52 whould have it's outrigger wheels touching the ground; the wingtips would be just a couple feet off the ground. An empty B-52's wingtips would WAY off the ground (over 10 feet). Watching a B-52 take off was wierd too, it took off nose down.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Not I, but my father was a B52 pilot and wing commander of a bombardment wing in the late 70s.

        I grew up on bomber air force bases and became an aeronautical engineer. I've seen lots of cross wind B52 landings and it always looks odd. The takeoffs are strange too since you dont see the lift coming until the plane just gets pulled into the air as the low pressure sucks it upwards. That is hard to explain to most people.

        Dad got me up one morning at 4:30 and we drove in the staff car onto the flightline to
      • by Salgak1 (20136)
        Former EW here. And of course, some of the insane ways they have to land it. I was pulling "foxtrot" duty one day (Supervisor of Flying: effectively, you OWN the airfield) with some heavy crosswinds, 45 knots or so. . . We had a plane come in about 100 YARDS to the one side of the runway when it broke the cloud deck, about 400 feet off the ground. Needless to say, I called the abort, and had him go around for another landing. . . . Incidentally, looking at the tail number of the B-52 model. . . I reali
    • few years ago their was some commanders or some shit that got drunk and took off in a b-52 and nose dived it right into the ground. Think this was out near Seatle. There is film of it, absolutely amazing seeing something like that crash.

      The B-52 may be a bit goofy, but very effective, and definitly not something you want to have above you if your not on good terms with the US.
      • I've seen the video but the explanation I heard is they were practicing for an air show and stalled the plane (this was on the discovery wings channel a while back).
      • B-52 is also one of the longest lived aircraft platforms with examples still in active service. I think C-135 being pretty close behind. The airframes simply can't be beat in terms of overall performance for the cost, the best they can do to improve on it is periodically upgrade cockpit and control systems.
      • by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @12:04AM (#9283208)
        He wasn't drunk and he didn't nose dive it.

        http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/crmdevel/resource s/ paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm

        "On the 24th of June 1994, Czar 52, a B-52H assigned to the 325th Bomb Squadron, 92d Bomb Wing, Fairchild Air Force Base, WA, launched at approximate 1358 hours Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), to practice maneuvers for an upcoming airshow. The aircrew had the planned and briefed a profile, through the Wing Commander level, that grossly exceeded aircraft and regulatory limitations. Upon preparing to land at the end of the practice airshow profile, the crew was required to execute a "go-around" or missed approach because of another aircraft on the runway. At mid-field, Czar 52 began a tight 360 degree left turn around the control tower at only 250 feet altitude above ground level (AGL). Approximately three quarters of the way through the turn, the aircraft banked past 90 degrees, stalled, clipped a power line with the left wing and crashed. Impact occurred at approximately 1416 hours PDT. There were no survivors out of a crew of four field grade officers.

        Killed in the crash were Lt Col Arthur "Bud" Holland, the Chief of the 92d Bomb Wing Standardization and Evaluation branch. Lt Col Holland, an instructor pilot, was designated as the aircraft commander and was undoubtedly flying the aircraft at the time of the accident. 4 The copilot was Lt Col Mark McGeehan, also an instructor pilot and the 325th Bomb Squadron (BMS) Commander. There is a great deal of evidence that suggests considerable animosity existed between the two pilots who were at the controls of Czar 52..

        This was a result of Lt Col McGeehan's unsuccessful efforts to have Bud Holland "grounded" for what he perceived as numerous and flagrant violations of air discipline while flying with 325th BMS aircrews. Colonel Robert Wolff was the Vice Wing Commander and was added to the flying schedule as a safety observer by Col Brooks, the Wing Commander, on the morning of the mishap. This was to be Col Wolff's "fini flight," an Air Force tradition where an aviator is hosed down following his last flight in an aircraft. Upon landing, Col Wolff was to be met on the flightline by his wife and friends for a champagne toast to a successful flying career. The radar navigator position was filled by Lt Col Ken Huston, the 325th BMS Operations Officer."
  • by k4_pacific (736911) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `cificap_4k'> on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:12PM (#9282540) Homepage Journal
    Does it come with a little figurine of Slim Pickens sitting on a nuclear bomb that drops out the bottom?

    "How many times have I told you boys that I don't want no horsin' around on the airplane?"
    • by Anonymous Coward
      "Yeeeeee-haaawwwww......##@*^%$*NO CARRIER

      (Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like ...funny?)
    • by Grog6 (85859) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:20PM (#9282577)
      That was actually my first thought;" How do we scale the 100Megaton blockbusters from Dr.Strangelove?"

      Hell, at that size, maybe they'd only be ~1Megaton, but WTF?

      five or six of these, with scaled weapons, would that give enough plausible deniability?

      "It appears the nuclear attack on (insert favorite islamic target here) was the work of a rogue group of RC modelers....

      • Actually, I couldn't find any info on the scale, but, let's say its 1/100 full size, the bombs would have 1/1000000 the volume (1/100 the width, heighth, length) so we must conclude that such a weapon would not be a practical deterrent for reasons which, at this moment, must appear all to obvious.
        • by Burdell (228580) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:50PM (#9282703)
          The wingspan looks like about 6 feet to me, which would make it about 1/30 scale. IIRC, the bombs in Dr. Strangelove were supposed to be about 20 megatons. If you could scale the bomb the same way, you would still have a bomb with the force equivalent to about 740 tons of TNT. That's still a lot of deterrent to most things if delivered accurately; for example, the Oklahoma City bombing was equivalent to about 1.5 tons of TNT and the 9/11 World Trade Towers attack (both planes) equivalent to about 900 tons.
          • by scrotch (605605)
            There's another pic here with people:
            http://www.wren-turbines.com/B52003WEB.jpg [wren-turbines.com]
            you can get a better (bigger) estimate of its size from this one.
            • Space Cowboys? (Score:2, Interesting)

              by tsadi (576706)
              what's Donald Sutherland doing there? (leftmost guy)
            • Why the hell are they all crowded over behind the right wing?

              There's plenty of room on the other side, unless maybe it was really cold and they're standing close together to keep warm.

              Or perhaps the photographer has a nasty habit of skinning people alive unless they're in groups of two or more!
          • Wingspan is 23 feet, which brings it to 1/8th scale.

            And nukes don't scale the same way. There is a minimum amount of fissile material needed.

            With some tweaking, and maybe the next size up in engine, you could probably squeeze a 50-100lb payload in this. Which convientely encompasses the old W54 warhead.
            • I knew you couldn't scale explosives the same way, it was just a fun (if morbid) thought exercise. I didn't see the wingspan or the pics with something to give it a good scale. At 1/8, if you _could_ scale a bomb the same, you'd end up with 40 kiloton bomb.
              • Actually you *can* scale explosives, you can't (as the grandparent pointed out) scale the fission materials. If you don't have at least the "critical mass" (which is created by firing to sub-critical mass lumps together using conventional explosives) then you get a phfut rather than a bang.

            • No way the wingspan is 23 feet (and no way is it 6 feet like another poster thought).

              Looking at the video of it taking off, it taxies near some folks. My guess is the wingspan is 12 feet or so.
  • by The I Shing (700142) * on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:19PM (#9282570) Journal
    I followed the instructions and my B-52 model looks like Fred Schneider. I was hoping for Kate Pierson. Dang.
  • by Kunt (755109) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:21PM (#9282580)
    Real, working bombs of course, big enough to wipe out a village or a McDonald's restaurant. :)
  • by ignatus (669972) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:26PM (#9282607)
    hwo want's the gory details? The airforce fact sheet [af.mil]
  • Intresting... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by autopr0n (534291) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:33PM (#9282632) Homepage Journal
    Well, if these things can lift a 300lb model of a b52, why can't a couple more carry a 1000+ pound personal aircraft. You could probably have a fully functional (but probably extreemly dangerous) delta-wing aircraft for the price of a luxury car.

    I can even see "jetbelt" type devices being made out of such a thing, which would be sweet.
  • Expensive Hobbies (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MikeDawg (721537) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:34PM (#9282637) Homepage Journal
    Damn, expensive hobbies can be scary. Just imagine the price of running that thing. How would you feel if you crashed and burned that poor B-52? I bet they have their best damn RC pilot at the helm when they fly that beast.

    I wish they had a video of the landing, I'd like to see that.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      "How would you feel if you crashed and burned that poor B-52?"

      I'd say "It was worth it! Just look at the fire ball!"
    • by morcheeba (260908) * on Friday May 28, 2004 @10:33PM (#9282871) Journal
      They actually haven't landed it yet. They noticed a problem with the the gear, so they've been in-air refueling with this kc-135A stratotanker [kgwings.com] until they figured out a way to deal with it. The current plan is to shut down the M52 and land it on a flatbed tractor tailer (remember it's 23' wide, so it is 4 lanes wide!!)

      (please, don't reply if you think I'm serious with this comment, because someone will point out that they are completely different scales and will start worrying that that won't work)
    • How would you feel if you crashed and burned that poor B-52? I bet they have their best damn RC pilot at the helm when they fly that beast.

      I would guess that a model like that would be easier to fly than most smaller ones, precisely because its heft lends it stability (especially in windy conditions). Plus you wouldn't be hotdogging the B-52 the way you would with acrobatic models. So while the consequences of a crash are much greater, the likelihood of it occurring is lower.

      And with eight turbines (wh
      • But with the little ones, there's such a high power to weight ratio that you can get yourself out of a lot of bad situations. With this beast (BUFF, actually), you have to fly perfectly all the time.
  • by Honkytonkwomen (718287) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:35PM (#9282644)
    ....what I really want to know is if it has the range to get here [mapquest.com]?
  • by victor_the_cleaner (723411) on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:40PM (#9282664)
    So when can we expect them to build the KC-135 tanker and re-fuel in the air?
    • They'd need to... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Goonie (8651) * <robert DOT merkel AT benambra DOT org> on Friday May 28, 2004 @10:39PM (#9282896) Homepage
      While I haven't seen the specs on this model, if they're anything like most minijets they'll chew fuel at an astounding rate of knots. While I can't find the stats for the Wren, the smallest model made by this company [usamt.com] uses 250 grams (9 ounces) of fuel per minute at full throttle. Even assuming the Wren uses half the fuel, with 8 engines that's 1kg of fuel per minute. That's 1.6 *litres* of fuel per minute, or, if you like, about 140 seconds of flying time for every US gallon of fuel, if I've done my sums right.

      This is why small GA aircraft use propellers, by the way.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, 2004 @09:48PM (#9282697)
    www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.htm
    the W54 warhead should fit nicely in the bomb bay, although at 51lbs might be a little heavy.

    The W54 warhead used on the Davy Crockett bazooka weighed just 51 pounds and was the smallest and lightest fission bomb (implosion type) ever deployed by the United States, with a variable explosive yield of 0.01 kilotons (equivalent to 10 tons of TNT, or two to four times as powerful as the ammonium nitrate bomb which destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995), or 0.02 kilotons-1 kiloton. A 58.6 pound variant?the B54?was used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM), a nuclear land mine deployed in Europe, South Korea, Guam, and the United States from 1964-1989.
  • Mirror (Score:4, Informative)

    by giminy (94188) on Friday May 28, 2004 @10:11PM (#9282794) Homepage Journal
    I put up a mirror of the videos as well.

    http://www.readingfordummies.com/Permanent/mirrors /b52/ [readingfordummies.com].
    • FYI- I'm on a mac. The only one that worked was the mpg. The wma files came up in WMP with the sound (which was impressive) but no visuals. RS
  • by Anonymous Coward
    This thing has awesome practical joke potential if flown at low altitudes. Mwahahahahaaaaa....
  • by IllogicalStudent (561279) <jsmythe79NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Friday May 28, 2004 @10:18PM (#9282815)

    Amateurs... B-52s are simple to make; and cheap!

    • 1/3 shot Kahlua
    • 1/3 shot Amaretto
    • 1/3 shot Bailey's irish cream

    Layer the Kahlua, Amaretto, and Irish Cream into a shot glass in that order. After drinking, notice the Vapor Trails.

    I mean, really, aren't they teaching ANYTHING in schools nowadays?

    • Amateurs... B-52s are simple to make; and cheap!

      1/3 shot Kahlua
      1/3 shot Amaretto
      1/3 shot Bailey's irish cream

      Layer the Kahlua, Amaretto, and Irish Cream into a shot glass in that order. After drinking, notice the Vapor Trails.


      Don't forget, you have to set fire to it before you drink it! (That's why its called a B52 - its go to down in flames! Yum and very warming!
    • nope the real B52 is
      Kahlua
      Baileys
      Grand Marnier

      in that order.

      http://cocktails.about.com/library/recipes/blb52 .h tm
  • Landing? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ZorMonkey (653731) on Friday May 28, 2004 @11:57PM (#9283190)
    No videos of it landing? Oh dear, they mustve crashed it! Wait, no videos of it crashing? Even worse! Oh dear, they mustve crashed it into the cameraman! Hopefully next time they'll have 2 cameramen.
  • Big Ugly Fat F***er

    Long may she fly into the next two decades!
  • Yawn... (Score:3, Funny)

    by phillymjs (234426) <slashdotNO@SPAMstango.org> on Saturday May 29, 2004 @12:46AM (#9283319) Homepage Journal
    Wake me when it can drop a scale-model atomic bomb. Bonus points if the bomb it drops is functional.
    Double bonus points if the bomb it drops is being ridden by a scale-model Slim Pickens that emits a digitized rebel yell on the way down. :-)

    Seriously though, that is really friggin' cool.

    ~Philly
  • Shhhhh

    Keep that stuff quiet. Bush might get Blair to send in the Real Bombers.... [foxnews.com]
  • by kruczkowski (160872) on Saturday May 29, 2004 @03:38AM (#9283876) Homepage
    Hmm - stores like this is the only reason I go to slashdot - not for the RIAA and MS bashing.
  • How about adding a model ALCM [ninfinger.org] on the wing pylons. Shouldn't be hard to rig a remote firing mechanism, which would look pretty realistic coming off the plan in flight.

    The weight of 2.6Oz (73g) wouldn't be a big drain on the plane. A small amount of fireproofing to the blast area would help as well.

    Another nice variation would be to modify this to look like the EB52 in the Dale Brown novels

  • by lga (172042) * on Saturday May 29, 2004 @09:04AM (#9284516) Homepage Journal
    I used to work in a rapid prototyping center at Evesham College and in 96 - 97 we helped a guy build prototypes for miniature turbines. I used a Stratasys FDM machine to produce the first plastic models of these turbines and then in wax to cast the first prototypes. When I looked at the wren turbines website just now those turbine wheels look extremely like what we produced...
    Unfortunately I can't remember the designers name (and it was just one guy doing this as a hobby) and I haven't been in contact since 1997.

    Those were fun days though. I remember one day the guy brought in a turbine from a full size helicopter that he had got from somewhere (I never asked!) and we fired it up in a warehouse with four of use holding it down, just for fun! The miniture turbine was cool stuff though, we had to start it by firing propane through the front to spin it, and watch it flame when it was lit. Then the normal fuel was pumped in to make it go. I used to raise the temperature of the place by several degrees in about 2 minutes.

    Happy days...

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...