Be careful out their guys! Sometime, planes can explode

[Elbee]

Hoomi, Copy that. LB

[rifleman_btx]

Yes indeed

[Tate]

So a couple things stick out in my mind here.

First, he says the plane has crashed multiple times. I wonder how many blade strikes that prop had gone through before exploding.

Second, that is NOT the spinner that comes stock on the Spitfire. That's the spinner from the silver P-38. The Spitty has a faded yellow spinner with a 4-blade prop.

So I think one of two things happened. Either one or more prop strikes stressed a blade and/or the hub, or the spinner/blades couldn't handle the power of the stock Spitty motor. Definitely not a "plane issue" as stated in the video.

I think the PSA here is "What not to do at the flying field."

Good eye, that is the spinner for the P-38. Unfortunately I didn't have a spare spitfire spinner laying around but this one fit perfectly .

There had been no propstrikes since installing that spinner/prop combo so I doubt that was the issue and I did thoroughly check the motor mount, propshaft, and control surfaces before attempting takeoff.

For some background on this we got the Old Crow mustang at the same time as the spitfire. On the second or third flight, without warning, there was a loud breaking sound like a collision and the Old Crow dropped out of the sky. We gathered up the pieces and all the damage appeared to have originated in the nose. To this day we don't know what might have caused it; though after seeing these small cylindrical weights explode out of the spitfire we have a strong candidate. I'm almost tempted to get replacement foam and cut it open to see if they were part of the original model or if they had been added after market by the guy I bought the plane from.

[Wanderlust]

This guy seems to have gone dark after spamming the forum with his YouTube videos. I also noticed that with only 22 posts, he's got a full "like" bar. How does that happen? Can you "like" yourself enough times to fill that bar up? Or do you just get your buddy pilot and the camera man to come on here and hit "like" a bunch of times? :Silly: Nevertheless, this "YouTuber" should NOT be doing RC reviews.

Hey folks, I just became aware of this thread and thought I would jump on and share some thoughts. First and foremost, I am Jared from that video series. Wyatt who is also known as megagamer here was the original poster of this thread and is in some of our videos. Wyatt has done a poor job of following up and I totally agree that it looks like he is spamming the forum, this is not our intention I can assure you. I found these threads just today after doing some research and receiving some criticism also on our YouTube channel.

We produce this content 100% for fun, 100% funded out of our pockets, 100% non-sponsored. We have no affiliate links and our YouTube channel is non-monetizing. We share all of our content, designs, cad files for free and ask nothing in return. We dont even nag in our videos to "like and subscribe"

I realize its easy to troll people on the web and to hide behind a vail of anonymity, however I don’t want our intentions behind misread and I don’t want to piss people off because of the neglect of one of our team members. I am sorry and we will kick Wyatt in the ass a bit so this doesn’t happen again.

[rifleman_btx]

Nah just send him here ive been in a real mood to kick someone in the ass! LolLOL:Silly:

[boomer108]

Nah just send him here ive been in a real mood to kick someone in the ass! LolLOL:Silly:

Give him a kick for me to.LOL

[Tate]

Most likely, he's spamming forums like this to boost his YouTube viewing stats. To achieve a status where you can actually get paid for your videos on YouTube, you must reach a certain number of viewers.

Most of us here, I think, post our videos just so that they're easier to share with friends that will enjoy watching them, rather than hoping for a large audience. We don't spam our links all over the place.

The best way, of course, to increase viewership, is to make videos that people WANT to see, and your reputation spreads by folks sharing your videos, rather than by you spamming the link everywhere.

Aside from "what they're thinking", it appears this poster has inundated this forum with threads that include YouTube videos in them. Sometimes, starting 2 and even 3 threads on the same topic. It's almost like he's spamming this site in hopes of getting more views on his YouTube channel. He has NEVER, as yet, replied or posted again in any of these threads or engaged anyone in a discussion or conversation. I, for one, will not be clicking on any of his video links again or any of his threads. He's has an ulterior motive. Just not sure what that might be.

Actually none of the Angry Zeppelin videos are sponsored, affiliated or monetized. They're just here to share the hobby.
So relax and keep flying.

[OV10]

Actually none of the Angry Zeppelin videos are sponsored, affiliated or monetized. They're just here to share the hobby.
So relax and keep flying.

Maybe folks here wouldn't become a little unhinged if the video content was more responsible............;)

[boomer108]

Maybe folks here wouldn't become a little unhinged if the video content was more responsible............;)

Exactly CB!

[Hoomi]

. I am sorry and we will kick Wyatt in the ass a bit so this doesn’t happen again.

Naw, just show him that video of the electrical guy, and let him know we have the technology to do that kind of stuff to him.

[Tate]

Maybe folks here wouldn't become a little unhinged if the video content was more responsible............;)

Oh I agree. We couldn't have been more surprised when that spitfire exploded. It's the whole reason we posted the video is as a cautionary tale. We've done hundreds of discus launches and flown and repaired dozens of planes. Never have we seen those little metal cylinders before or had a plane come apart like that. Not something we would have even thought to look for.

[crxmanpat]

So as I stated earlier in the thread, that was not the stock spinner and prop blades for the Spitfire (they're from the P-38). And it was stated that this plane had "crashed several times." I'm willing to bet that one or more of those crashes had a prop strike, which then weakened the spinner back plate and/or a prop blade or blades. The real cautionary tale here is to check all components of a plane after a crash, not just anything that might have been noticed as damaged. The way the original post reads, and video suggests, is that there's an issue with the plane itself.

[Tate]

So as I stated earlier in the thread, that was not the stock spinner and prop blades for the Spitfire (they're from the P-38). And it was stated that this plane had "crashed several times." I'm willing to bet that one or more of those crashes had a prop strike, which then weakened the spinner back plate and/or a prop blade or blades. The real cautionary tale here is to check all components of a plane after a crash, not just anything that might have been noticed as damaged. The way the original post reads, and video suggests, is that there's an issue with the plane itself.

A legitimate concern. You are absolutely right about the prop strike, in fact the last crash destroyed the spinner and left me not trusting any of the prop blades, even though they looked fine on the surface. I had just replaced the prop and spinner that morning. I didn't have a spare spitfire spinner available but the p-38 spinner fit nicely. I gave the model a thorough check for damage as well.

Now I know for a fact that the metal cylinders did not come from the prop or spinner which is why I suspect they may have been embedded in the foam at the factory.

I realize that statement sounds like I'm blaming the manufacturer, which is not my intention. I'm sure that, if they were from the factory, they started an important purpose. The goal is more to call people's attention to objects like those to hopefully prevent someone from getting hurt. I know I, for one, would have never thought to check to make sure there were no loose weights in the nose if I didn't install them.

[crxmanpat]

I don't have the Spitfire, but Freewing has been known to embed lead in the nose of some of their planes. For example, the F-15 has lead in the nose cone.

Also, the Spitfire stock prop is a 16x10x4 and runs on a 5055 motor. The P-38 props are 12x7x3 running on a 3748 motor. Probably was not a good idea to use the P-38 prop for the Spitfire as that motor is way overpowered for the P-38 prop and hub.

[Tate]

I don't have the Spitfire, but Freewing has been known to embed lead in the nose of some of their planes. For example, the F-15 has lead in the nose cone.

Now that is good information.Saves me from having to cut up my new fuselage just to check. Thank you.

[OV10]

My last commentary on this obviously poor choice of judgement by the OP for posting this video labeled as a PSA.
Please stop justifying your actions with remarks to individuals who have pointed out the clearly wrong actions committed.
The safety issues in question are.........
1 The prop was not the appropriate replacement for the broken stock configuration. Major safety risk.
2 Because you "think" you have experience disc launching an airframe of this size doesn't make it a safe practice for promoting it on a video as a PSA. This just sends a totally wrong message to newbie pilots.
One of the owners of MotionRC even took a moment of his valuable time to make comment on this. Please reread his commentary on post #16 and safely move on.

Regards,

[JamesonC]

My last commentary on this obviously poor choice of judgement by the OP for posting this video labeled as a PSA.
Please stop justifying your actions with remarks to individuals who have pointed out the clearly wrong actions committed.
The safety issues in question are.........
1 The prop was not the appropriate replacement for the broken stock configuration. Major safety risk.
2 Because you "think" you have experience disc launching an airframe of this size doesn't make it a safe practice for promoting it on a video as a PSA. This just sends a totally wrong message to newbie pilots.
One of the owners of MotionRC even took a moment of his valuable time to make comment on this. Please reread his commentary on post #16 and safely move on.

Regards,

Agreed! PSAs are great when the info is true but in this case, it is doing more harm than good! Lead embedded in foam is not uncommon to get to a certain COG. I cannot understand why the OP continues to think it had anything to do with the failure! The prop/motor/mount (or combination of those) failure exploded the front of the fuse where the lead was embedded and they got slung out just like all the foam. They just obviously carry more energy and momentum than foam so the slung further. There is ZERO signs of anything product related or PSA worthy besides labeling the whole video "Things not to do with a RC Plane!"

[xviper]

I don't consider the videos from this group to be "PSAs". They are more like "bloopers", performances not unlike those TV shows where videos are sent in hoping to get on air and get people to watch. You know, "Fail Army", "Science of Stupid", Americas Funniest Home Videos", etc. In some of those vids, people get really close to doing severe damage to themselves and others. I don't click on their videos anymore because they are not for good information. I don't even read their other threads anymore. Even that Slavic fellow is better viewing. His vids are at least entertaining AND informative.