Yes he is, cute lil' aviators!
The steam engine is too! I love how those sound.
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
The pilot is rather cute:

http://videosift.com/video/Radio-Controlled-Steam-Trike

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^geo321:
I think DiCaprio has a talent for picking good movies to act in. This should be good.

Ever since Aviator, I have been a Caprio fan


I love that movie.

Airplanes, girls, money, moviemaking, insanity; it has everything.

>> ^geo321:

I think DiCaprio has a talent for picking good movies to act in. This should be good.


Ever since Aviator, I have been a Caprio fan

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...
While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?

Which do you think is going to be more common...terrorist hijackings, or script kiddies exploiting security holes in the software?


huh?

>> ^marbles:

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...
While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?


Which do you think is going to be more common...terrorist hijackings, or script kiddies exploiting security holes in the software?

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917

One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”

See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...

While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?

>> ^blankfist:
And he added blinks to the Ewoks which I don't mind, honestly...


THAT is an improvement. Don't look so much like Minime Gizzlies with aviator sunglasses now...

Yeah---I love it.

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
Love that they also have an aviator glasses douche that doesn't talk. Great parody!

Love that they also have an aviator glasses douche that doesn't talk. Great parody!

Ha! They look like even bigger douche-bags when they stand around a pool in aviators!

I don't care what anyone says. The stuff where they combine a bunch of shitty food sucks, but the "TurBaconEpic Thanksgiving" was pure art.

(love the description btw)

Shuttle flights died because it cost too much to pay thousands of people to send 80's technologies into space, for little obvious benefit (arguably).

There are now capitalist reasons to send people into near-earth orbit and beyond.
The future of space aviation will be written by private industry and government backing, not government alone... and I am excited.

The IRIAF Il-76MD "Simorgh" jet was destroyed in an accident near Tehran, killing all seven crew members. The "Simogorh" is an Il-76 jet modified with a radar dome on top of the fuselage for airborne early warning and control (AEW&C). It has been reported that the crew reported an engine fire. While maneuvering for an emergency landing at Tehran-Mehrabad Airport (THR) runway 29L the radar dome detached, striking the tail fin. Control was lost and the airplane crashed.

crash report: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20090922-0

Yes of course... because science should only be done if it caters to everyone on the planet.

Great point

edit: and besides, you have no way to really know how much this can or will influence the rest of the aviation industry.

>> ^jimnms:

I like Stephen Fry, but I'm sorry, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I knew as a kid that I wanted to to be a pilot. It took a while but I eventually managed to go to college, get a degree in aviation and my licenses to fly. My flying career was cut short by a car accident, but those few years were the best times of my life. Now I don't know what I want to do. I live this "dynamic" life that he calls a reward, but I call it a goddamn miserable curse.


"if you live what some might call the dynamic life but what I will call the artistic life, if each day you are unsure of who you are and what you know, you will never become anything, and that is your reward."

I think Wilde is talking about the dynamic self discovery and personal growth of a life of artistic pursuits, vs the more structured and predictable development within a more rigid profession. The quote does NOT mention not having passion or not knowing what you want to do.

Wow, way to totally miss the point.
>> ^jimnms:

I like Stephen Fry, but I'm sorry, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I knew as a kid that I wanted to to be a pilot. It took a while but I eventually managed to go to college, get a degree in aviation and my licenses to fly. My flying career was cut short by a car accident, but those few years were the best times of my life. Now I don't know what I want to do. I live this "dynamic" life that he calls a reward, but I call it a goddamn miserable curse.