PDA

View Full Version : This would be cool to recreate in scale.


Dan_Trials
07-27-2008, 10:23 AM
YouTube - Chinook

Can your truck handle it?

truckerbuddy2
07-27-2008, 11:00 AM
If you did it exactly to realistic scale, not tv scale, you would destroy your rig. There is no way that any stock production pickup could withstand that, the tires didnt even buldge, now ask yourself the last time you loaded up a truck, did the tires buldge? The answer will be yes. But thats just the tires, lets not forget that the leafs would be destroyed, and im not so sure the bed would be ready for another trip. lol.

But heck, its an iteresting concept. If anyone does try it with thier truck, please video... :):chug:

Dan_Trials
07-27-2008, 12:02 PM
i fink it iz ok cos dey uzed wind reezistont paint it slows it down az it fals so wen it gets to the truck it don hit it hard and lyk brake it lol

Wayne S
07-27-2008, 12:48 PM
If you did it exactly to realistic scale, not tv scale, you would destroy your rig. There is no way that any stock production pickup could withstand that, the tires didnt even buldge, now ask yourself the last time you loaded up a truck, did the tires buldge? The answer will be yes. But thats just the tires, lets not forget that the leafs would be destroyed, and im not so sure the bed would be ready for another trip. lol.

But heck, its an iteresting concept. If anyone does try it with thier truck, please video... :):chug:

Here is the behind the Scenes for the commercial.

YouTube - Chinook- Behind the Scenes

I wander how much force the suspension takes just from say a 2ft jump weighing about 5,000Lbs.

Im sure when they do things, The actual force is what the vehicle is rated for
in the first place. Just the way they do things putting it in another perspective looks crazy.

chaman
07-27-2008, 01:33 PM
Well apparently...thats real. Impressive...

sloppy
07-27-2008, 02:10 PM
If you did it exactly to realistic scale, not tv scale, you would destroy your rig. There is no way that any stock production pickup could withstand that, the tires didnt even buldge, now ask yourself the last time you loaded up a truck, did the tires buldge? The answer will be yes. But thats just the tires, lets not forget that the leafs would be destroyed, and im not so sure the bed would be ready for another trip. lol.

But heck, its an iteresting concept. If anyone does try it with thier truck, please video... :):chug: maybe they used nitrogen in the tires it would keep em solid if they were overfilled

Well apparently...thats real. Impressive...
that is a lot of weight to dump in a bed pretty impressive. if you have ever had anyone dump something in the bed of your truck with any kinda loader that would make it more impressive

hawnmt
07-27-2008, 02:20 PM
I know this is off topic but that is not a CH-47 Chinook, it's a CH-46 Sea Knight. You'd figure with all the money and "experts" involved with this that they'd at least get that right.

Wayne S
07-27-2008, 03:49 PM
I know this is off topic but that is not a CH-47 Chinook, it's a CH-46 Sea Knight. You'd figure with all the money and "experts" involved with this that they'd at least get that right.

Chinook is the script name.

If you want to get Technical about the Helicopter, this is the FAA info on the actual A/C used in the commercial. It is not a Sea Knight:)

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=192ch

Dan_Trials
07-27-2008, 04:03 PM
Here is the behind the Scenes for the commercial.

YouTube - Chinook- Behind the Scenes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlVXdzTMkIc)

I wander how much force the suspension takes just from say a 2ft jump weighing about 5,000Lbs.

Im sure when they do things, The actual force is what the vehicle is rated for
in the first place. Just the way they do things putting it in another perspective looks crazy.

Nice one Wayne! It's always interesting to see these things, thanks for putting that video up!

I know this is off topic but that is not a CH-47 Chinook, it's a CH-46 Sea Knight. You'd figure with all the money and "experts" involved with this that they'd at least get that right.

Very true, but it would seem they don't even expect people to know what a Chinook helicopter is despite the fact they have been around since Vietnam! Anyway, it looks as though some people have other things to start arguments about!

Dan_Trials
07-27-2008, 04:13 PM
Chinook is the script name.

If you want to get Technical about the Helicopter, this is the FAA info on the actual A/C used in the commercial. It is not a Sea Knight:)

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=192ch

I have had a little look around and the features that I picked up on are not unique to the Sea Knight.

Not sure what the FAA info shows though :thinking:

BADMUTHATrUCKER
07-27-2008, 05:11 PM
Maybe that was actual weight being dropped, but no one has questioned (apart from what's in the tires) what's been done to the truck for the stunt?.

Wayne S
07-27-2008, 05:53 PM
I have had a little look around and the features that I picked up on are not unique to the Sea Knight.

Not sure what the FAA info shows though :thinking:

Shows all the info on the Aircraft used in the commercial. It's like looking up a license plate number on a car and going through the DMV and pulling up the Information on the vehicle the plate belongs to.

In the case of aircraft, the DMV is the FAA and the Aircraft plate number is on the side of the aircraft N192CH.

Wayne S
07-27-2008, 06:01 PM
Maybe that was actual weight being dropped, but no one has questioned (apart from what's in the tires) what's been done to the truck for the stunt?.

Can,t really touch the truck or they would have to say so. Every other Truck company would sue Ford big time.

hawnmt
07-27-2008, 06:39 PM
Chinook is the script name.

If you want to get Technical about the Helicopter, this is the FAA info on the actual A/C used in the commercial. It is not a Sea Knight:)

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=192ch

Technically your right but BOEING built the BV-107 as a civilian version of the CH-46. The Kawasaki version is actually an exact copy of the CH-46 it built for the JSDF.

No1_sonuk
07-27-2008, 07:09 PM
That's not "As hardcore as you can get". Maybe he should have added "without damaging it" after that line.

Top Gear did FAR worse to a Toyota pickup and in drove away. Putting it on top of a building that was explosively demolished broke the chassis, but it still drove afterwards.

Check http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrk6vsb77xk
For the first of several attempts to kill the Toyota. And they didn't use a new one either....

And "30,000 pounds of FORCE" doesn't meant they dropped a 30,000 pounds weight on it from that height, just that the force of the impact was equivalent to 30,000 pounds.

The text at the bottom said "1630 lbs payload". I assume that's the rated load capacity, but I'd not be surprised if the box was around that weight.

truckerbuddy2
07-27-2008, 07:38 PM
well, i guess i stand corrected. i still find it alittle off tho. i think mabe if i seen it in person it would settle my curiosity...

CadMan
07-28-2008, 07:30 AM
Looks like it was about what, 40ft off the ground when they dropped it? Which is 12m, which means it took 1.5ish seconds to drop, with a=9.8m/s/s is like 15m/s when it hits... so does anyone remember enough high school physics to figure out how much the weight was? Because they very carefully didn't mention it in the clip...

.. Because I got curious, I got out my high school physics book.

If we assume that the suspension and tires compressed a total of about 8 inches (which is about what it looked like to me, correct me if I'm blind), then the box they dropped had to go from 15m/s (about 33mph I think) in a distance of 8 inches. Which from classical mechanics (go go physics book):

final velocity squared = initial velocity squared + 2 x acceleration x distance.
ie. 0 = 225 + 2 x a x 0.2 (8 inch = about 0.2m)

Since the thing is slowing down, accel is -ve, so 225 = 0.4a, so a = 562.5m/s/s, or about 57G.

If Force = Mass x Acceleration, and Force, in Newtons, is 30,000/2.2*9.8 = 133,636N then

mass = force/accel = 133636/562.5
then mass = 237kg, or 520ish pounds.

The biggest variable is the total compression distance.. The difference in mass between 8 inches and 5 inches is pretty big.. Like 320 vs 520 pounds.

Wow... too.. much... thinking...

Wayne S
07-28-2008, 10:20 AM
CadMan since you took the time to use numbers. I worked out the fall was 50ft to the floor of the bed give or take a foot or 2.

I could try searching and find out what the actual hight and weight of the box was.
So in 1/10th scale that would put the hight at 5ft from the floor of the bed. That would be do-able even with out scale weight, I would think anyway.

Dan_Trials
07-28-2008, 06:46 PM
I soooo want a 1/10 scale Chinook!

Mrfish55
07-28-2008, 07:25 PM
I soooo want a 1/10 scale Chinook!

Twister Skylift, not sure if Tower has it but you can get it from Great Hobbies for about $250.00

No1_sonuk
07-29-2008, 06:46 AM
CadMan since you took the time to use numbers. I worked out the fall was 50ft to the floor of the bed give or take a foot or 2.

I could try searching and find out what the actual hight and weight of the box was.
If it fell further than CadMan estimated for his calculations, the velocity at impact should have been higher (air resistance not withstanding), so the box would have to be lighter to create the same force.

Dan_Trials
07-29-2008, 07:26 AM
Twister Skylift, not sure if Tower has it but you can get it from Great Hobbies for about $250.00

That's not 1:10 scale though. Well doesn't look it compared to the controller. I have heard the bodies are quite fragile though, but maybe some reinforcing could be done. I am a bit concerned over the quality of the components used though, I don't want to end up with a pile of plastic after 5 flights.

Wayne S
07-29-2008, 12:53 PM
If it fell further than CadMan estimated for his calculations, the velocity at impact should have been higher (air resistance not withstanding), so the box would have to be lighter to create the same force.


For all we know the fall could of been the same from 10ft to 50ft. Air would have to be taking into account. Not only because it was dropped in air but the helicopter was betting air into submission to keep in the air.

I would think the actual altitude of the Helicopter was for stability.
Maybe we should get allot of people to right into MythBusters and have them redo the scene.

CadMan
07-30-2008, 05:18 AM
The wash from the rotors would have just pushed it down a little faster. Can't see a 300-600lb box, dropped on an edge, suffering too much from air resistance, given velocity of 35 ish mph... But I agree with the Mythbusters thing :)

Dan_Trials
07-30-2008, 12:29 PM
I was thinking more of recreating the 'cool factor', you know, with a Chinook and everything.

Wayne S
07-30-2008, 04:59 PM
The wash from the rotors would have just pushed it down a little faster. Can't see a 300-600lb box, dropped on an edge, suffering too much from air resistance, given velocity of 35 ish mph... But I agree with the Mythbusters thing :)

I`m not sure what the rotor wash would do as in creating downward thrust with a tandem helicopter. From what I know of right now is the mandates are set around 60knots wind speed from 0 to 6ft above the ground wile in a hover. That is wind speed in the horizontal not the vertical. Now my thinking is that is either
decelerated or constant wind speed.

In the vertical I have no clue at this time what is going on with a Tandem I can really only speculate. Even with R/C Helis, different rotor types have their own pro`s and con`s. I have a Coax that sometimes is a pain to fly, specially indoors near cone shaped lamp shades. The air around the lamp shade sucks the heli in closer you get to it.

So some people do not get a misunderstanding here. Helicopters for the most part do not work like a house fan. The Blades are just like an airplane wing, they are air foils. The blades on a helicopter like the one in the commercial do not create thrust like a Planes prop does by using throttle to increase thrust.

The engine Rpm is kept constant thats what the throttle is for. You change the angle of the blades to control flight.

Wayne S
07-30-2008, 05:41 PM
I was thinking more of recreating the 'cool factor', you know, with a Chinook and everything.

I could use my Coax it might have enough power to keep a hover with added wait. Now it would be pretty hard to do with out crashing.

With something like fishing string going through the box and the truck to make sure the box falls into the bed. I`m pretty sure it would be hard to control, well for me anyway.

A 1/10th scale Chinook would be cool to have I must say. Hirobo Chinook might be close in scale but is not cheap.

Dan_Trials
07-30-2008, 06:32 PM
I could use my Coax it might have enough power to keep a hover with added wait. Now it would be pretty hard to do with out crashing.

With something like fishing string going through the box and the truck to make sure the box falls into the bed. I`m pretty sure it would be hard to control, well for me anyway.

A 1/10th scale Chinook would be cool to have I must say. Hirobo Chinook might be close in scale but is not cheap.

Yeah, 1650 isn't cheap, but man is that a nice model! I like how they have the stability control built in so you don't have the 2 sets of 2 rotors. Makes it look so much better. It's a little far up the ladder for me though, I am still on the simulator! Very tempted by the Twister though, I can see me getting one of those at some point.

Wayne S
07-31-2008, 12:13 PM
Yeah, 1650 isn't cheap, but man is that a nice model! I like how they have the stability control built in so you don't have the 2 sets of 2 rotors. Makes it look so much better. It's a little far up the ladder for me though, I am still on the simulator! Very tempted by the Twister though, I can see me getting one of those at some point.

If you don't already have a little heli, The Esky lama 3 is what I would get. Lamas are more stable and have a better layout then Blades. I'm pretty sure the Twister is the same as a Blade.

This is my Blade CX.
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii206/WayneS2003/heli/heli.jpg

Dan_Trials
07-31-2008, 12:47 PM
Nice heli! Lama looks nice, but the Apache is sooooo much nicer!

DODweb
07-31-2008, 06:23 PM
A 1:10 Chinook would be a beast... 1,54 meter long fuselage, and total length of 3 meters with rotors turning.

As for the commercial, the choise of words make it sound more impresive. If the dropped crate was 30'000 pounds, or 15 ish tonnes, it would flatten the pickup (not to mention the fact that a CH-46 would never get a 15ton box off the ground. Even a Chinook would be 2000 pounds over its imit). But what would a commercial be good for if they didnt make their product sound cooler than anything else?

I think they called the heli a chinook for the same reson. "Everyone" knows what a chinook is, right? Its that cool big 2-rotor heli!

Now as for the real topic, seeing this come together in scale would be cool =)


Oh and by the way, the CH-47 by Hirobo is around 1:15 scale, so ca. tamiya tractor truck size.

Dan_Trials
07-31-2008, 07:24 PM
There is no way I could get the Hirobo one, as awesome as it is. Thanks for the info DODweb :nice: