BJC
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.....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.
"Almost identical performance"... How many Cessna 172s would have been sold if it had the V-173s useful load of about 500 lbs?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.
Did you post this in the wrong thread or something?"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.
You mean like the hissy fits you keep throwing which do nothing but harass other members and provide absolutely no technical purposes? Like that?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.
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.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 FlyDid 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.
That would be great, thanks., but if this is just killing time, I'll steer clear.
I read that as "it was developed into a successful naval fighter prototype" not that it was a fighter prototype.it was developed into a successful naval fighter prototype
Dogg asserted that the V 173 was developed into the XF5U, which he further described as a “successfulI read that as "it was developed into a successful naval fighter prototype" not that it was a fighter prototype
1) It wasn't developed into a successful prototype. The prototype was constructed, but never flown.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?
Thanks. Made some edits. Hope they suffice.They flew it, but other that that, what are the specific engineering accomplishments?
Please provide a citation for that claim. Thank you.
BJC
If the propeller was significantly above the way wouldn’t it develop greater lift on takeoff?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.
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.If the propeller was significantly above the way wouldn’t it develop greater lift on takeoff?
Think Custer channel wing.