Bugatti Model 100 Flying Replica

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
993
Location
Europe
Last edited:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,634
Location
Memphis, TN
I think all of that has been covered, In this and other threads. Stop dragging up old threads for questions that you can search and answer. We don’t need to updated on what you have learned.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
993
Location
Europe
I think all of that has been covered, In this and other threads. Stop dragging up old threads for questions that you can search and answer. We don’t need to updated on what you have learned.

Question remains...why wasn't he flying the aeroplane ? Keeping it under the 70 kts was a mistake.

Engines on the replica propably didn't even produce 1/5 of the original on one engine.

http://www.bugattiaircraft.com/plane.htm


https://silodrome.com/bugatti-100p/
I counted from that that the props were 175 cm long in the original...roughly.
 
Last edited:

fluxflyer

New Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
1
Location
Lincoln, California, USA
In reference to the Bugatti P 100 maiden flight and crash, if you watch the video, you'll see the photo helicopter fly directly over the upwind climb out
from right to left . It is my deduction that the down wash from the helicopter's
rotors blew the Bugatti out of control. The helicopter had not considered the danger of over flying the departing aircraft and should not have ever gotten close to the Bugatti P 100.
 

radfordc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,348
In reference to the Bugatti P 100 maiden flight and crash, if you watch the video, you'll see the photo helicopter fly directly over the upwind climb out
from right to left . It is my deduction that the down wash from the helicopter's
rotors blew the Bugatti out of control. The helicopter had not considered the danger of over flying the departing aircraft and should not have ever gotten close to the Bugatti P 100.
What a bunch of bull hockey.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
993
Location
Europe
In reference to the Bugatti P 100 maiden flight and crash, if you watch the video, you'll see the photo helicopter fly directly over the upwind climb out
from right to left . It is my deduction that the down wash from the helicopter's
rotors blew the Bugatti out of control. The helicopter had not considered the danger of over flying the departing aircraft and should not have ever gotten close to the Bugatti P 100.

We never saw the footage from the helicopter. That would possibly clear out this assumption.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,318
Location
Fresno, California
If the shot of the helicopter was through a telephoto lens, then it would be nearly impossible to say exactly where or how far it was. That fact that the crew and witnesses cited drivetrain problems pretty much pins down the actual cause, which would correlate well with the findings... failure to maintain control (due to lack of speed) can definitely be the result of a compromised drive train.

Helicopter and planes mix in the pattern all of the time without issue.
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I've never been a fan of clutches on aircraft drive systems. Heavier, more complex and more things to go wrong. This very complicated drivetrain required a lot more ground testing than it had but even that might not have uncovered what occurred during this flight.

Scotty possibly became task saturated trying to sort out clutch and engine rpm issues at low altitude with speed decaying. With his years of work and attachment into the project, it likely would have been a difficult decision to put the thing down in a field and damage it. Unfortunately physics doesn't give you a second chance once speed decays to the stall. Only option then is to put the nose down and pick your best spot to set it down on.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
993
Location
Europe
I've never been a fan of clutches on aircraft drive systems. Heavier, more complex and more things to go wrong. This very complicated drivetrain required a lot more ground testing than it had but even that might not have uncovered what occurred during this flight.

Scotty possibly became task saturated trying to sort out clutch and engine rpm issues at low altitude with speed decaying. With his years of work and attachment into the project, it likely would have been a difficult decision to put the thing down in a field and damage it. Unfortunately physics doesn't give you a second chance once speed decays to the stall. Only option then is to put the nose down and pick your best spot to set it down on.

Yes but he had 13 500 ft of runway. He should have committed to land it right on the second when he realized that everything is not working right.
 
Last edited:

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,318
Location
Fresno, California
Yes but he 13 500 ft of runway. He should have committed to land it right on the second when he realized that everything is not working right.
It takes determination, certainty and confidence to drop the nose when you are low and behind the power curve. When you’re already hanging low and slow, you have to defeat the mindset that lowering your nose will drop you out of the sky, which could happen if you don’t do it properly. It’s still better than the stall-spin alternative.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
993
Location
Europe
In retrospect, from an arm chair, straight ahead off airport landing was called for at first sign of front engine drive failure. It was known before takeoff that if front engine power failed, the rear engine would not sustain flight because its drive would fail above 5750rpm. So at first sign of front drive failure, shut down, switch off, clench teeth and land straight ahead must have been in the procedure list. I doubt many of us would have had the discipline, skill and willingness to undertake the high levels of risk required to fly under the circumstances and then commit at first sign of trouble to a straight ahead belly landing.

Yes that is exactly he should have done.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
993
Location
Europe
I've never been a fan of clutches on aircraft drive systems. Heavier, more complex and more things to go wrong. This very complicated drivetrain required a lot more ground testing than it had but even that might not have uncovered what occurred during this flight.

Scotty possibly became task saturated trying to sort out clutch and engine rpm issues at low altitude with speed decaying. With his years of work and attachment into the project, it likely would have been a difficult decision to put the thing down in a field and damage it. Unfortunately physics doesn't give you a second chance once speed decays to the stall. Only option then is to put the nose down and pick your best spot to set it down on.

Yes test pilot and a builder in a task this demanding should have been two different persons.
 

radfordc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,348
Question remains...why wasn't he flying the aeroplane ? Keeping it under the 70 kts was a mistake.
Some might say that you have just delivered a "blinding flash of the obvious". Do you expect to arrive at an answer to your question?
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
993
Location
Europe
I think all of that has been covered, In this and other threads. Stop dragging up old threads for questions that you can search and answer. We don’t need to updated on what you have learned.

Okay. I just tought this case needed some attention and it would be very helpful in testing new aeroplanes amongst the builders. I have always considered aviation safety as a very serious matter.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
993
Location
Europe
Some might say that you have just delivered a "blinding flash of the obvious". Do you expect to arrive at an answer to your question?
Maybe the pilot was overloaded doing something else than piloting the plane..or lift was interrupted by something else. Nothing can bring Scottie back. Maybe something can be learned from this ?

I personally would not have allowed 3 external Go-Pros in the aeroplane that sleek with so underpowered engines.

I will be ( possibly ) banned after this comment...but I am a seriously interested of safety...so please excuse me leaving again !

I will be starting my doctorate studies this week...in fluid dynamics and I try to solve the peak output of a H-Darreius wind turbine ( with articulating blades ). I might make an ultralite AC of my own design after that. You may hear from me in the future.

Take care !
 
Last edited:

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
993
Location
Europe
Last edited:
Top