Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by cheapracer, Nov 18, 2019.
I fixed that for you.
The only Cessna that I have flown with a STOL kit was the C-150 and C-172's. I would never put a STOL kit on either one. Couple old friends of mine put the kits on their C-172's and wish they hadn't. In a crosswind the wing will want to keep flying when you run out of aileron. I'll take the stock wing.
MU-2 was designed to be the fastest turboprop business airplane. Pilots transitioning from slower airplanes were too-often overwhelmed by the extra speed. MU-2 needed to be flown precisely "on the numbers" like jets.
Has anyone considered Lamm ailerons?
They are basically full-span flaps, but the outer portions are double layer. Full-span hinges extend along the bottom skin, but upper skin hinges were only installed outboard ... where you expect to see ailerons. When you want to roll, the outboard top skin lifts separately, like a combination of differential ailerons and spoilers.
Lamm Senior was a fully-qualified aeronautical engineer. He modified a Lancair (?) to prove his point. The confusing part was that he installed a completely new wing with smaller span and area. It would have been much easier to compare if he had built his new wing the same size as stock Lancair wings and only modified the trailing edge.
Much better Google hits with 'Lam Ailerons' ...
Looks pretty simple to implement.
I think the Lam guy is ready to protect his patent if you don’t buy in. People either love or hate the MU2. I have met a lot who love them.
Not a chance in hell, there's loads of public documentation decades before the Patent was even registered in 2014.
They probably have IPR on specific control systems, or something else unique like ability to use ailerons as speed brakes, but no way on the main crux of it.
Even then it would be pretty thin with all the other common control systems such as split flaps ect.
I've seen a split aileron paper somewhere, perhaps 1930's. I even considered them.
If you build one example for yourself for education & experimentation, there is no foul. That was one of the goals of offering a patent in exchange for full disclosure. People could build & compete on the ideas, possibly to get around the patent, and it was good for society.
Now if you start selling parts or plans, possibly. Subject to the other issues & prior art mentioned by cheapracer.
No idea where this comes from, I've seen it a few times over the years.
You can not build a patented item, period. It's protected, and only the owner can give permission, and yes, that includes building one just for yourself. Your safety margin is only the cost of the IPR holder coming after a single person usually ain't worth the effort.
What's the point of IPR if everybody can just build their own "for themselves".
Right, but the patent owner must enforce it himself. Not sure that happens much with an individual making one.
From patent office:
"The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO."
Note in the home building world and actually others, when did round or flat spring gear became popular other than Cessna? Right when Steve Wittman’s patent had ended. When the Tailwind knockoff Cougar came out, the gear was changed enough to try and go around it.
A good friend, RIP, became very wealthy as an 18 year old graduate engineer, from his first invention. https://www.westmarine.com/bilge-pumps/rule-industries He went on to have several others, and to own some things patented by others, such as the Phillips screw. He employed six people whose sole jobs were to monitor for unauthorized use of his patents. He said that he kept several lawyers busy protecting his patent rights.
My guess is the lawyers only went after other manufacturers, not single non-commercial individuals. I doubt Wittman ever sued anyone, probably not even Nesmith who was selling plans.
"Right, but the patent owner must enforce it himself."
BBerson is spot on. A patent is a hunting license - you have to look for your "game." And you have to defend against all comers, or it will become invalid.*
American patents are only enforced in America; but that tends to be where the biggest market for things aeronautical.
And (before I depart the soapbox) in my opinion, Orv and Wilbur spent so much time defending their patents that they were out-innovated over time.
*"...if you do not defend your patent, you lose the right to do so." ISBN-13: 978-0615632001, Copyright(C)2011. Page 46.
The Wright Brothers too.
WTO countries respect a 12 month International agreement that gives you time to patent in your own country, then apply in others, otherwise the moment your patent became public, other people in other countries would get it patented themselves immediately.
There's also some International recognition of once you have a patent in 4 or 5 Countries, then it's considered an entire World encompassing patent. Not 100% sure of the details there.
There's a good case to be made that the aggressive American patent system is why the centre of aircraft development moved to Europe in the early 20th century.
Separate names with a comma.