Flying Pancake aircraft for bush operations

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,324
Location
Everywhere USA
Was just looking at the Vought `V-173 flying pancake and saw that it had almost identical performance to a Cessna 172 despite having far better takeoff and landing characteristics. In fact, it has extreme STOL capabilities.

It also has extremely good forward and downward angle of view, and HUGE internal volume.

It seems to me that this layout would make an outstanding cargo or utility aircraft. And may be a good candidate for the new generation of hybrid engines, as volume and engine placement are not a restriction.

 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,774
Location
Mojave, Ca
I look forward to your build thread and the final flight test report.

It will be interesting to see how the actual performance compares to your documented mission requirements.
 

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
1,879
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
I like low-aspect planes as much as the next guy, but for a bush plane you might want one of these.

Proven in wartime. Just replace the machine gun turret with a loading hatch.
 

SuperSpinach

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
23
Location
France
Hello,

Wasn't that plane a failed experiment ?
Seems like a lot of trouble to get average performance tbh. Cessna aren't exactly efficient but why would you want two engines when a plane with just one can get the same performance ?

It also seem like a lot of trouble for not much added benefits but then again I'm not an enginneer.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,324
Location
Everywhere USA
Hello,

Wasn't that plane a failed experiment ?
Seems like a lot of trouble to get average performance tbh. Cessna aren't exactly efficient but why would you want two engines when a plane with just one can get the same performance ?

It also seem like a lot of trouble for not much added benefits but then again I'm not an enginneer.
Cessnas are actually faster than most Bush planes, and this has far better takeoff performance and visibility. Most Bush planes have horrible visibility and so crashes are very common.

Oh, and no, it wasn’t failed. The Navy actually built a much larger aircraft that tested well, but they decided to concentrate on jet aircraft instead..
 
Last edited:

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,752
Location
YMM
Didn't Howard Hughes flip one on a beach? :)

I think a modern Arup might suit the purpose. The twin just brings in unneeded complexity. You might also want to revisit that Australian UFO round wing - has fairly good STOL properties for the HP.
 

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
1,879
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
Didn't Howard Hughes flip one on a beach? :)

I think a modern Arup might suit the purpose. The twin just brings in unneeded complexity. You might also want to revisit that Australian UFO round wing - has fairly good STOL properties for the HP.
I think it was Lindberg who flipped it to avoid some beachgoers. Plane was fine though. That configuration is crazy solid.
As for something arup-ish, I already had one in stock.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,324
Location
Everywhere USA
Didn't Howard Hughes flip one on a beach? :)

I think a modern Arup might suit the purpose. The twin just brings in unneeded complexity. You might also want to revisit that Australian UFO round wing - has fairly good STOL properties for the HP.
It has to be twin. The propwash counters the tip vortexes.

A single engine would almost completely lose the STOL ability. Not to mention far worse visibility.
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,752
Location
YMM
It has to be twin. The propwash counters the tip vortexes.

A single engine would almost completely lose the STOL ability. Not to mention far worse visibility.
The Arups disprove that belief, yes you can enhance it more by controlling tip vortex. Like I said in another thread - this is what I've been playing with on the lazy bee lately.

But down below AR of 2.27 you still get a big boost in Cl with or without vortex control. Yes you can boost that more with a variety of methods to control tip vortex.

It doesn't force you into the high AOA regime, it's not a big sweep delta you can still generate non vortex lift
 

Kyle Boatright

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
930
Location
Marietta, GA
Oh, and no, it wasn’t failed. The Navy actually built a much larger aircraft that tested well, but they decided to concentrate on jet aircraft instead.
Chance Vought built the prototype for the XF5U, but it never flew and was cancelled after the war. My opinion is that it was a dead-end concept, given the twin engine issues and the fact that helicopters do short field work better and conventional airplanes can operate out of short fields and carry more, faster.
 
Last edited:

rotax618

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
864
Location
Evans Head Australia
The aircraft was shelved because it was intended to be a carrier based fighter just when pure jets were shown to be far more capable to perform that mission. The story would have been different if the mission design was as a troop transport - it took decades to design and produce the Osprey when a Zimmerman type could have produced almost the same flight envelope with a much higher cruise speed with far less complexity.
David Rowe's UFOs have pretty good STOL performance with a 12' dia. and 48HP, a similar aircraft with a 14' dia and say a Rotax Rick 670 of 90HP or 912S would have pretty spectacular STOL performance.
The Arups had STOL performance with pretty modest power.
 
Last edited:

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,774
Location
Mojave, Ca
After seeing the deranged hounding in some of the other threads, I will politely decline.
So can we expect yet another thread with nothing more than meaningless discussion about concepts that will never be validated?

Perhaps this one belongs in Hangar Flying?
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,048
Location
Memphis, TN
The problem is they fly terrible power off. If the engine is not running, you are crashing. Another is quality of flying experience. Not harmonious. Wanting a Ferrari and you get a semi with bad wheel bearings. At least that’s the way the RC ones fly.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
437
Look at how the cabin is buried deep within a relatively thin wing a loading ramp would either have to load from underneath or open up a huge portion of the depth of the wing
 
Last edited:

rotax618

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
864
Location
Evans Head Australia
There is pretty solid documented evidence that these type of aircraft fly and fly well.
Most of the threads are started by dreamers and ”what if people” who genuinely want to toss around ideas, some good - some bad, if you don’t wish to contribute anything meaningful it is best to troll somewhere else.
 
Top