Quantcast

Simplicate & Add Lightness

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,800
Location
Europe
Specifically what are you referring to with the phrase "but later developements did reveal some new ways to comprehend flight more theoretically correct."
Otto's approach was teorethically marketed by him ( Vogel Flug etc ), but Wrights were able to see mistakes in it. He wasn't able to control the kite in a way that commercial flying became possible. Also Lilienthal's way to make wings etc were pretty primitive. I see it as a phase that had to be done...to show that man can fly....also Wrights did study his example very thoroughly but invented for instance wind tunnel to measure lift etc.

Birds are still very very much ahead in several aspects of flight...they are very clever too....I recently saw a crow that bombed a glass vase into the asphalt to be able to get the candle grease out from it.....grabbed it from a local cemetery.
 
Last edited:

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,800
Location
Europe
Why we need simplification ?

I think to be able to manufacture planes at a low cost with great efficiency.

In my opinion this has not happened in orderly fashion. There are no affordable planes that can offer practical flight with decent performance.

Do you get my point ?

transformation.jpg
 

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
3,632
There are no affordable planes that can offer practical flight with decent performance.

Do you get my point ?
No, I don't. The very fact that airplanes exist indicates that they are affordable to someone. Therefore what I'm hearing is that you'd like them to be more affordable, which is something discussed here ad nauseum. Is that a fair reading?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BJC

mquinn

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
9
Location
Charlotte, NC
When I restored the Jodel I machined a twin shutoff valve for the brake system. It worked, but I had to get into the airplane, stomp the brakes and pull the control cable to close the valve. A pain to do that, since I had to climb out again to hand-prop it. I took it out after a few years and used a heavy vernier PTO control cable to pull the top of a lever ahead of the firewall that had a length of the same music wire attached to its lower end. The wire went through the firewall and pulled 1/16" cables that pulled the heel brake levers forward. I could reach into the cockpit, pull the big knob, then twist it a few times to the left to use the vernier action to really snug the brakes on good.
Just like a tripacer... ;-)
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,800
Location
Europe
No, I don't. The very fact that airplanes exist indicates that they are affordable to someone. Therefore what I'm hearing is that you'd like them to be more affordable, which is something discussed here ad nauseum. Is that a fair reading?
I want them to be more efficient ....at somewhat reasonable price...is there something wrong with that really ? I understand that someone wants the best money can buy at any cost.
 
Last edited:

Twodeaddogs

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,044
Location
Dunlavin, County Wicklow,Ireland
there is no happy medium between price and performance, unless you buy a Jodel. All others have thick,chunky wing aerofoils that are beating the air into submission whereas a Jodel parts the sky with French elan.
 

120mm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
46
The Wright's were concerned with control. Not so much for stability. They figured stability was up to the pilot, same as a bicycle.
Control IS stability.

They rejected radical dihedral as a stability producing design feature, because it was only initially stable.

In moving air, the inherent initial stability of dihedral becomes unstable.

Which is the genius of their design.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,712
Location
Canada
Dear Speedboat 100,
Can you name any other failed prototypes that taught us lessons?

For example, Boulton-Paul Defiant and Blackburn Roc taught us the folly of installing gun turrets on single-engined fighters. They suffered nasty losses in their few encounters with Messerschmitts.
The only useful turreted-fighters were the handful of Fairey Battles that Fairchild of Canada converted for the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan ... to train gunners.
Later in the war, Germany built Schrage-Music interceptors with fixed guns firing upwards.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,984
Location
Fort Walton Beach, Florida, USA
Point of order...Defiant proved to be pretty effective as a daylight bomber destroyer and night fighter, it’s Achilles heel was engaging single-engine fighters in daylight. I have often wondered if adding, say, a pair of forward-firing 20mm cannon and adopting different tactics would have helped the Defiant hold its own.
 

Twodeaddogs

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,044
Location
Dunlavin, County Wicklow,Ireland
When the Defiant was flown with the turret,armour and hydraulics removed, prior to fitting it with target towing gear, pilots took it up for "dogfights" with early Hurricanes and Spitfires and found that it could hold it's own, as, in that stripped out configuration, it had a much lower wing loading and gave the fighters a surprise. A proposed P94 version had four forward firing machine guns and looked like a single seat Sturmovik. It would probably have made a very good equivalent of the Dauntless.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,800
Location
Europe
Dear Speedboat 100,
Can you name any other failed prototypes that taught us lessons?

For example, Boulton-Paul Defiant and Blackburn Roc taught us the folly of installing gun turrets on single-engined fighters. They suffered nasty losses in their few encounters with Messerschmitts.
The only useful turreted-fighters were the handful of Fairey Battles that Fairchild of Canada converted for the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan ... to train gunners.
Later in the war, Germany built Schrage-Music interceptors with fixed guns firing upwards.
I think wartime produced plethora of strange planes.

I recall Brewster XA-32 was not a success ? But definitely this at right hands at the right time would have been also a "winner".

 

Attachments

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,984
Location
Fort Walton Beach, Florida, USA
Brewster Buffalo is also a great case study in turning a good design into a dog through weight gain as well as soldiering on with early 1930s technology with little development potential in the accelerated development environment of a protracted war.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,800
Location
Europe
Brewster Buffalo is also a great case study in turning a good design into a dog through weight gain as well as soldiering on with early 1930s technology with little development potential in the accelerated development environment of a protracted war.
XA-32 and XA-41 would have been a huge asset if FAF had them in summer 1944 to avail. Each had 4 x 37 mm cannon.


XA-31 was little more modest: Vultee A-31 Vengeance - Wikipedia

Vultee_XA-41.jpg
 
Last edited:

WonderousMountain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,140
Location
Clatsop, Or
That Gull had quite the RoC,
shame it Porpoised into stall.

I do not agree, lithenial was a
Great, like no pioneer before.

Gulls are great for soaring, but
Poor for Aerobatic flight, I take
the Turkey Vulture as example.
It is both, thermalling or pursuit.
 
Top