Quantcast

Flying Pancake aircraft for bush operations

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,514
Location
Fresno, California
That tandemwing was not a failed project. It flew good. The Delanne designs were known for their very good climb rate.
Maurice Delanne (Duo-Mono) - Nest of Dragons
View attachment 99144 View attachment 99145
Special page about the airplane you think is a failure: Lysander Delanne - Nest of Dragons
I’m pretty sure he was referring to the Vought V-173 when he said “failed experiment”. For the record, the V-173 was an experiment that was intended to lead to bigger and better, but I wouldn’t call it ‘failed’.
 

SuperSpinach

Active Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
33
Location
France
Hello,

I remember it not going too far into production so I called it "failed" but perhaps it's a good concept just not really needed at the time.

I'm gonna follow this thread to see if anyone can find reason to use this airplane. Would be cool if someone actually studied it and made a new design to see what we could come up with (and if it's worth it).
 
Last edited:

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,773
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
That tandemwing was not a failed project. It flew good. The Delanne designs were known for their very good climb rate.
AFAIK, climb rate is a function of power in excess of what is required for level flight. What is it about the tandem wing configuration, verses any other configuration, that produces a very good climb rate?


BJC
 

nestofdragons

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
364
Location
Near Antwerp, Belgium
AFAIK, climb rate is a function of power in excess of what is required for level flight. What is it about the tandem wing configuration, verses any other configuration, that produces a very good climb rate?
BJC
Now you ask a question i want to know myself. I hope to add that info to my website. I read about the climb rate in articles about the WW2 experiences. People were surprized by its climbing rate. The reason for that is unclear to me.
 

YMO

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Messages
7
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.
Thank you for sharing. Both this version of the Lysander and the French fighter Arsenal-Delanne VB 10 were flight tested (Most of the flight testing of the VB 10 was done by the German) during the war. I would hesitate to say proven in wartime. Both aircraft remained prototypes. This being said your suggestion is interesting
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
596
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.
To whom were you talking ?
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,631
Location
Memphis, TN
Choppers auto rotate and the Osprey almost can but how they rate it it’s not. 3 ft shy on blades for transport needs.

The models I have flown like this are vector thrust to land. They don’t glide at all. They flitter. Now climbing flat spins are entertaining for a little while and the vector thrust is fun too, but they are not graceful confidence inspiring like a regular handling airplane. They react like they are tail heavy all the time except controllable.

Having done a bunch of practice autorotations in helicopters, they are petty much non event unless there is a tree or fence or rock in the way. Never had to do a real one luckily because I’m sure it would involve a tree or fence or rock. Power off ARUP is going to be planted like a tree.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,514
Location
Fresno, California
I read about the climb rate in articles about the WW2 experiences. People were surprized by its climbing rate. The reason for that is unclear to me.
Some people confuse climb angle with climb rate. Given the large wing area and light loading, it probably climbs steeply at a slow airspeed.
 

plncraze

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,902
Darrol Stinton said the report on the Delanne Lysander said it was an improvement on the original.
When it comes to low aspect ratio watch the span loading. I bet the Australian UFO was built really light.
 

Doggzilla

Banned
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,352
Location
Everywhere USA
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?
Theoretical discussion is one of the main purposes of this forum.

Is it really that difficult to just behave like an adult and not constantly bicker with people? Everything was fine here until you decided to start slinging mud for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
 

Doggzilla

Banned
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,352
Location
Everywhere USA
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.
Thank you.
 

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
1,933
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
AFAIK, climb rate is a function of power in excess of what is required for level flight. What is it about the tandem wing configuration, verses any other configuration, that produces a very good climb rate?


BJC
My guess would be that tandems climb with the fuselage at a lower AOA, so your lift and thrust vectors stay closer to their most efficient angle rather than having the wing lift trying to pull you back and the prop trying to pull you up.
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,901
Location
Mojave, Ca
Theoretical discussion is one of the main purposes of this forum...
Theoretical discussion that leads to applied concepts is one of the appeals of this forum. Throwing BS against the wall just to kill time, OTOH, is just mental masturbation.

I'm interested to hear about the experiments in the flying pancake concept, but if this is just killing time, I'll steer clear. Thanks for clarifying that this thread has no technical merit whatsoever.
 

PagoBay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
173
Location
US Territory of Guam
I find this a very interesting discussion. Thanks for posting.

Here is an excellent video that discusses in great detail the V-152 Flying Pancake and its restoration to original condition. Covers the history, engine choice, control surfaces and connections, fuselage structure, startup and cooling systems, flight and landing performance all in just a few minutes. A truly fascinating aircraft. The solutions implemented for various problems identified during design and test flight are well covered. The V-153 is an example of fine engineering problem solving that brought the prototype into flying form.

There is a brief mention of the XF5U successor aircraft that while intended as a high speed aircraft unfortunately never flew. With the end of World War II in August 1945, the Navy reviewed its aircraft development and procurement efforts, with the XF5U an obvious target for cancellation. Beyond financial shortfalls in naval aviation, the Navy was sponsoring several fighter and attack aircraft with turboprop and turbojet engines. Thus, the future role of a piston-engine combat aircraft was highly questionable.The Navy canceled the program on 17 March 1947, issuing orders to scrap the two (XF5U) aircraft, an action that was taken in 1948. The (XF5U) flying pancake never flew. (The V-173 flying prototype was transferred to the Smithsonian Institution and on to the National Air and Space Museum.)

 
Last edited:

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,773
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
The V-153 is an example of fine engineering work that brought the prototype into final form.
They flew it, but other that that, what are the specific engineering accomplishments?
There is a brief mention of the XF5U successor aircraft that was a true speed demon.
Please provide a citation for that claim. Thank you.

Wrt WiKi; some entries are edited by true believers or fanatics. The entries for the V-173 and XF5U certainly seem to qualify.

Examples: “Zimmerman's theory of a near-vertical takeoff- and landing-capable fighter had been proven” without any actual data.

It must have been well engineered, since “causing the aircraft to flip over onto its back. Remarkably, the airframe proved so strong that neither the plane nor the pilot sustained any significant damage”

And in the category of theory verses reality, “The XF5U design was promising: specifications given at the time promised great maneuverability and speeds up to 550 mph (885 km/h).”

But wait, “ Taxi trials at Vought's Connecticut factory culminated in short "hops" that were not true flights.”

And then this entry, apparently attesting to the fine engineering accomplishments, “The only completed XF5U-1 proved to be so structurally solid that it had to be destroyed with a wrecking ball.”

WiKi provides a forum for sharing information, but true believers citing other true believers doesn’t make a fact.

I would love to see some factual flight data on the V-173, but haven’t found any to support the WiKi claims. Any references will be appreciated.


BJC
 
Top