Quantcast

Flying Pancake aircraft for bush operations

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
614
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.
Oh no it doesn’t work like that I can pretty much guarantee it will be onto a rock between lots of trees and fences.....

Usually on a morning where are you missed your coffee.
 
Last edited:

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,176
Location
US
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.
"Almost identical performance"... How many Cessna 172s would have been sold if it had the V-173s useful load of about 500 lbs?
These small GA-sized LAR aircraft can have utility if their wing loading is kept very low. That's how they can achieve noteworthy TO/landing speeds despite an inefficient (draggy) wing planforn. So, build them light and don't put much in them. Maybe the V-173 could have been made into some sort of useful observation/laison/air ambulance niche aircraft, but it was never going to be the basis for an effective fighter or attack aircraft as some breathless write-ups suggest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BJC

Doggzilla

Banned
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,352
Location
Everywhere USA
"Almost identical performance"... How many Cessna 172s would have been sold if it had the V-173s useful load of about 500 lbs?
These small GA-sized LAR aircraft can have utility if their wing loading is kept very low. That's how they can achieve noteworthy TO/landing speeds despite an inefficient (draggy) wing planforn. So, build them light and don't put much in them. Maybe the V-173 could have been made into some sort of useful observation/laison/air ambulance niche aircraft, but it was never going to be the basis for an effective fighter or attack aircraft as some breathless write-ups suggest.
Did you post this in the wrong thread or something?

Not only is the useful load within 50lbs of the Cessna, it was developed into a successful naval fighter prototype which performed extremely well.
 

Doggzilla

Banned
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,352
Location
Everywhere USA
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.
You mean like the hissy fits you keep throwing which do nothing but harass other members and provide absolutely no technical purposes? Like that?
 

Kyle Boatright

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
1,044
Location
Marietta, GA
Not only is the useful load within 50lbs of the Cessna, it was developed into a successful naval fighter prototype which performed extremely well.
The V-173 was no more of a fighter prototype than the frisbee in my closet (which is also round and flies, but that doesn't make it a fighter prototype). It was a shape. A proof of concept shape. The XF5U was a prototype.

Is there any primary data available that shows the V-173's performance? Not what some guy reading a story in Popular Mechanics copied into Wiki. A USAAC report? A NACA report? Something from Chance Vought?
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,792
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Did you post this in the wrong thread or something?

Not only is the useful load within 50lbs of the Cessna, it was developed into a successful naval fighter prototype which performed extremely well.
If the “successful naval fighter prototype” you are referring to is the XF5U, it never flew. See post #38. If that doesn’t work for you, see The Pancake that Didn’t Fly

BJC
 

FritzW

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,896
Location
Las Cruces, NM
, but if this is just killing time, I'll steer clear.
That would be great, thanks.

it was developed into a successful naval fighter prototype
I read that as "it was developed into a successful naval fighter prototype" not that it was a fighter prototype.

>>>>>>
When did it become a bad thing to talk about ideas on the HBA?

I think the idea of a low AR STOL airplane would make an interesting conversation. Why all the push-back?
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,769
Location
Port Townsend WA
Low AR is not the same as "pancake". The V-173 was an attempt at VTOL. It failed at that probably because of weight. For a non-VTOL the optimal AR may be around 3. Even Barnaby is leaning to AR:2, I think.
An airplane designer (Bill Fike) built an AR:3 20 foot span cantilever Cub in Alaska.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,792
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
I read that as "it was developed into a successful naval fighter prototype" not that it was a fighter prototype
Dogg asserted that the V 173 was developed into the XF5U, which he further described as a “successful
naval fighter prototype which performed extremely well.”

I contend that a prototype that never flew can not be accurately described as a “successful naval fighter prototype which performed extremely well.”

I’m through.


BJC
 

Kyle Boatright

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
1,044
Location
Marietta, GA
I read that as "it was developed into a successful naval fighter prototype" not that it was a fighter prototype.

>>>>>>
When did it become a bad thing to talk about ideas on the HBA?

I think the idea of a low AR STOL airplane would make an interesting conversation. Why all the push-back?
1) It wasn't developed into a successful prototype. The prototype was constructed, but never flown.

2) Ideas are great. But I struggle with fantastic claims around things that never happened. The V-173 got off the ground and flew. It apparently demonstrated good short field performance, but you'd expect that with almost any shape that had a wing loading of ~ 5 lb/SF.

3) The push back is that the concept was tried and abandoned for a reason. If you want STOL performance, there are easier ways to get there and to have more performance in other aspects of flight. Why do something weird and complex (two buried engines, running through gearboxes, turning huge props) to underperform something essentially conventional like a C-182 with an STC'd canard?

4) If someone wants to build one, great. I'd love to see it. But justifying it by making inflated claims about the success of Vought's efforts is.... silly.
 

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
1,936
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
Now, because the trailing edge doesn't always have to be round, there's this.

The straight center section is being blown by the prop, while the swept tips are out in the open to develop vortex lift. I was too lazy to draw the wheels. The engine has to be in the leading edge rather than in front of the cockpit to make it easier to pitch the fuselage up. Junkers flap of course because you need to maintain full pitch authority during high AOA vortex lift STOL operations.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
614
Now, because the trailing edge doesn't always have to be round, there's this.

The straight center section is being blown by the prop, while the swept tips are out in the open to develop vortex lift. I was too lazy to draw the wheels. The engine has to be in the leading edge rather than in front of the cockpit to make it easier to pitch the fuselage up. Junkers flap of course because you need to maintain full pitch authority during high AOA vortex lift STOL operations.
If the propeller was significantly above the way wouldn’t it develop greater lift on takeoff?
Think Custer channel wing.
 

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
1,936
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
If the propeller was significantly above the way wouldn’t it develop greater lift on takeoff?
Think Custer channel wing.
IIRC the channel wing was basically using the propwash to create vortex lift. Here we have the wing being blown, which gets you much the same effect, plus the vortex from the outer panels.

As I understand it, the props on the pancake rotated outward so the propwash totally countered the tip vortexes.
So you could say that it's STOL was from being a blown wing rather than a vortex generating one. I think they could just as easily made the thing square and gotten the same performance.
 
Last edited:
Top