Sod CH 5 and the "flying School" see CH4 "Scrap heap Chellenge" 22/12/02

[nonradio]

US, British, and French teams build some aircraft...

[poetpilot]

Isn't there some saying the Yanks use about these countries....

...something like

The Yanks built great looking aeroplanes...
The French build aeroplanes with great flying qualities...
The English build ugly aeroplanes...

There, that ought to get a thread going....;)

[Lowtimer]

Aeroplanes seem to have national characteristics. The ones I associate with the following nationalities (N.B. none of these stop me loving them!) are:
British
- Inadequate fin area, often later admitted by use of add-on fillets, dorsals, ventrals, anti-spin strakes etc.
- Engine goes proper way round
- Free castoring tailwheels with no lock
- Brakes applied by hand
- Cockpits full of sharp edges and awkward catches
- Need to open the cowlings as part of pre-start ritual
- Light weight, nice controls
- Slightly less power than would be comfortable
- Poor range
- Nice curves
- Fragile
- No keys required
- Stick right hand, throttle left

American
- Can't see out
- Toe brakes
- Engine goes wrong way
- Blunt noses
- Flying surfaces drawn with a ruler
- Wide cockpits
- Heavy controls
- Electrics for things that should be manual
- Hard to break
- Won't do the speed it says in the brochure
- Keys used to get in / start
- Bladder-busting endurance
- Yoke left hand, throttle right

Russian
- Same peculiar driving position as any 1960s / 70s Italian car - arms outstretched, knees up round ears
- Incomprehensible metric instruments
- Mag switches work the wrong way
- Obsession with compressed air
- Massive power, yet little speed
- Some things magnificently over-engineered and built like a lare scale Swiss watch, others apparently made out of left-over chicken-shed roof and nailed on at random.

[FNG]

That all seems very correct, but you forgot to mention the national characteristics of French aircraft:

(1) ils sont merveilleux
(2) er....ca, c'est ca


not biased at all, honest

[Genghis the Engineer]

I know most of the British team in that (a few years ago I helped C4 put the UK Scrapheap glider thing together). One has told me that the British won, another has told me that they came last - I think this is all part of their disinformation plan so we watch it when it's on telly.

I have seen pictures of the British entry, a high dihedral biplane with a monowheel and roll control via the rudder. Billy does occasionally design a pretty aeroplane, but this was only really about halfway there.

I believe that all three of the entries survived and are now in the EAA's museum at Oshkosh.

G

[Thumpango]

This Sunday 5:15 CH4 Scrapheap Mega Challenge: Reach for the Skies.

"A special edition to mark the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' first powed flight. Teams from Britain, the US and France are challenged to build an aeroplane from the 1900s and fly it for half a mile over the Mojave desert in California"- should be good!

No report of any accident so they must have made it ok!

[Who has control?]

Excuse me poetpilot, but I must take exception to your statement that the english build ugly aeroplanes.

(Swallowed the bait, hook line & sinker)

The prize for uglyist must surely go to some of the 1930s french bombers. If the definition of a camel is 'a horse designed by a committee', then these aircraft must have been designed by the mother & father of all committees!!
:)

And my own aircraft was french once.

(DH88 - most beautiful aircraft ever)

[knobbygb]

bttt. This is on TODAY, just in case anybody had forgotten - like I had until my mum just rang to remind me!

[Genghis the Engineer]

And very good it was too.

Some interesting informed comment about it on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/microlights/messages

G

[nosewheelfirst]

We Won! :D

Rule Britannia and all that...

[Whirlybird]

I missed it. :( :( :( :( :(

Did anyone record it by any chance? Can I borrow the video. Please!

[EastMids]

And rather excellent entertainment it was too - especially when the British aeroplane soared aloft after the US and the French attempts didn't even manage to get off the ground at the first outing :cool:

Sadly Whirlybird I didn't record it, but now I wished that I had so that I could watch it again! :rolleyes:

Andy

[smithgd]

Just us Brits to make it harder for our selves! Building 4 wings instead of 2 :)

But great to see them ALL flying after just 20(ish) hours, as an engineer and a pilot is was awesome!

[t'aint natural]

It should not pass unremarked that the American and French machines would not have got into the air at all were it not for the assistance of the British team.
The British fixed the American engine and the French prop. So you see, we can be sporting, and still wipe the floor with them.

[FlyingForFun]

Congrats to all the teams on a superb effort and a great show! :) But especially to the Brits for winning! :D

I have to admit that I thought the French were the most likely to fly. Right from the start, they seemed to know what they were doing, and concentrate on building a high-quality aircraft, whereas the Brits not only made too many mistakes, but also left them uncorrected (oops, we've cut the wing spar too short - never mind, we'll shorten the wing span; or, oops, our ribs are too long - never mind, we'll lengthen the chord). The American cannard pusher 'plane seemed a little too unconventional - 100 years ago, designers spent lots of time experimenting, and there must be a reason why this type of design isn't seen very much any more. My main concern with the French design was the lack of ailerons... but they had a huge rudder, and if the aim is just to fly in a straight line from the start line to the finish line, ailerons probably aren't all that important!

Seeing the British entry soar over the dessert at 200', after the US attempt didn't get off the ground, and a very cautious "flight" by the French, was fantastic! And although it was extremely close between the British and the French, I think the right team won in the end - but then I would say that, wouldn't I!

A great day for aviation, and for British eccentricity!

FFF
--------------

[knobbygb]

Whirly, I have it on video - email your address and I'll send it after christmas. If anyone else wants to see it I'm happy for the tape to be passed around before I get it back. The Red Baron programme is also on the tape.

Is anyone else a bit suspicious about any additional 'extra time' that must have been given? After all, last thing in the build they were fitting wings and bolting engines on, but by the next morning, fuel systems, throttles and all the other controls were in place!

All in all, very inspiring - is 50hrs total time too early to start thinking about building a kit a/c? ;)

[Evo]

and a very cautious "flight" by the French


I'd be bl**dy cautious too if I was flying something with no ailerons... :eek: :)

Good program - only real gripe was with the presenters :rolleyes: and that the 'scrapheap' was a bit forced (oh look, here's a propellor!). I guess they need to follow the series theme, but building an aeroplane in 20 hours is impressive enough :)

[rotorboater]

Well done the Brits!

I wonder if the Spitfire had a few design things like making the wings a bit shorter or wider! (very British way of designing!)

All the aircraft were pretty impresive but the British entry was superb, it seemed to handle so well I thought the pilot might have done a victory roll.

It would be nice to see more things like this on the TV.

As a footnote, the FAA managed to give the machines a certificate to fly there and then, do you think there is any chance the CAA could maybe increase the speed they could respond with a C of A, mine took 4 weeks for the paperwork to come back.

[pulse1]

Reading about the delays to the Nimrod upgrade because all of the wings are different, it looks like they used to build them like that at Hawker Siddeley.

[Dusty_B]

knobbygb, Whirly:

Please put me on the distribution list!

[tomahawk1673]

Could I also be put in the last, thanks! :)

[QDMQDMQDM]

The British design was the only one to fly in anything other than a straight line. It was most impressive. Interestingly, it had what looked like very extreme dihedral, which brings with it its own problems, except I can't remember what they are!

QDM

[QNH 1013]

Knobbygb, Please can my name be added to the list for viewing the video? (Was visiting the parents-in-law on the south coast and unable to view, having forgotten to set the VCR at home!)
I'll email you my address.

QNH 1013

[nosewheelfirst]

I was a bit concerned with the Brits Monowheel. Especially with such flimsey wings. It could have gone all pearshape. I liked the french guys suspension, would not hold up to many of my landings tho :D

[FlyingForFun]

And what's wrong with a mono-wheel? ;)

FFF
--------------

[Genghis the Engineer]

Flimsey!!!!!

If you've ever looked at the stress analysis on a wire braced biplane, you'll know that structure was probably good for more g than the average Cessna.

G

[nonradio]

Enjoyed it very much (and secretly chuffed at who won) but two points: The British design, as the judge said, was really rather contemporary in design and not as 'in the spirit of the early 1900s' as the other two machines, and it makes me angry and sad that this competition, such as it was, could NOT legally have taken place in the UK:( :mad:

ps M. Bleriot flew the Channel in July not Jan 1909

[QDMQDMQDM]

The British design, as the judge said, was really rather contemporary in design and not as 'in the spirit of the early 1900s'

Looked to me like a pretty good mix of a Cody biplane, a Demoiselle and with that Antoinette tail! Not much contemporary about it.
QDM

[Dan Winterland]

Some thoughts from before the things actually flew:

The French aerofoil section was a bit extreme - it was apparent from the start that the battle for their design was going to be power vs drag. Power won - just!

The Yanks design had a far too forward C of G - you could tell just by looking at it.

The Brits had the only viable design IMHO - the structure looked strong and stable, and the contol surfaces were large and authoritative.

Proof of the old addage that an aircraft that looks right flys right.


What an excellent programme - best TV of 2002!

[Genghis the Engineer]

It could, with proper planning and support, have happened in the UK with top-cover from either BMAA or PFA. The previous glider one did didn't it (I should know, I helped put it together). Maybe it wouldn't happen in a few days, but I suspect strongly that the American one didn't either - it was just edited that way.

I don't think there was anything in the British design that didn't exist in 1910 except for a reliable 2-stroke engine, and that was common to the competition. I believe that the difference is that Bill Brooks, the British team leader is an aircraft design genius on the level of Glauert or de-Havilland, and the other teams hadn't got somebody of that calibre on-side, the Americans trusted to unreliable rules of thumb, and the French simply tried to recreate a Bleriot design that (as anybody who has watched the Sunday displays at Duxford knows) didn't work very well first time around.

I hasten to add that America and France has people of his calibre - if you'd had teams from the US led by, say, Chris Heintz, and from France led by, say, Marcel Columban then I think you'd have had a much more open competition. Whether that would have been so good for TV or the collective British ego, who knows.

G

[QDMQDMQDM]

Why do you think he chose to use so much dihedral, Genghis?

QDM

[Genghis the Engineer]

Probably to allow use of the rudder as steering control if the ailerons failed to mechanise properly (similarly to Weedhopper and all the Mignet designs).

http://www.weedhopperusa.com/weedho1.gif

I have a couple of hours in one of these, manages quite happily without an aileron circuit at-all.

G

[Whirlybird]

knobby etc al,

I've been in Prague since Dec 23rd, and this is the first time I've made it to an Internet cafe (no, not because I've been drunk the whole of Christmas, honest.:D ). Anyway, I'm due home tomorrow, and I'll send you my address etc knobby; can't really do it now; this is costing me a fortune and I'm flying out of here tonight.

Nice to get back on PPRuNe though. :)


Whirly-in-Prague

[Dan Winterland]

Ghengis - you've flown that? Respect dude. You're a brave man! :cool:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not that particular one, but yes.

It was actually quite pleasant to fly, in a rather slow and sedate manner. Did pretty much everything at about 35 mph, and the Vne of 45 or so felt extremely fast and uncomfortable.

Because the stick drove the rudder, and then the dihedral gave you roll control, the stick became a bank-angle control rather than a roll rate control, which needed a bit of mental adjustment, also tended to make rapid lateral stick inputs unconfortable as it wallowed around somewhat - almost like flying an airliner you treated it as if there was a lot of inertia there.

The other two main deficiencies were that the engine was right in front of your field of view, and that the nosewheel steering worked like a flexwings - that is opposite to the stick(rudder) control, which I found hard to co-ordinate.

So I finished flight testing it, the first example to fly in the UK for almost ten years, handed it over to the owner with a 30+minute briefing on how to fly it, and the following day he landed long, hit a light fitting off the end of runway, and broke it.

Oh well,

G

[Skylark4]

Genghis.
How often has that happened to you? Handing over a serviceable aircraft and having the owner wreck it in short order I mean.

Mike W

[Genghis the Engineer]

3 or 4 times I suppose, it tends to make one fairly religious about safety briefings, interim operating limits, checkouts, that sort of thing.

I can only think of one occasion where any written or unwritten rule was not actually broken, which was a chap who left the aircraft out in the sun all day on about the hottest day of the year, and suffered a vapour lock and EFATO. All the rest, some part of either regulations or common sense (such as going around when you run out of runway, but to be fair, I did that myself once) has been broken.

It emphases part of the job of a test pilot in civil aviation, which isn't recognised enough. He (or she) must not only fly the aeroplane safely and accurately report what it did, but not release the aircraft until it's totally sorted, and not least ensure the operator has enough data in the way of briefings, written notes, and appropriate threats of GBH that they'll operate safely until they've got enough real experience on type of their own.

But, no system is foolproof, because fools are so jolly ingenious.

G

[nonradio]

Genghis: I don't think it could happen over here because we have the PFA (don't know enough about the BMAA) new design rules insisting on Section S/ JAR VLA etc etc etc so at least two of those machines could NOT have flown here!! Many succesful machines from around the globe are not acceptable here ( see the last PFA mag! ). The rules for gliders are that there are no rules! There is no requirement for a Cof A or permit or anything to fly these aircraft! Unless you fly from a BGA site in which case a BGA Cof A is required....
Anyway, I'm still thankful for PFA and BMAA dispensations, but mighty jealous of the US situation!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Largely I think the differences between PFA and BMAA involve MTOW and management style, the rulebooks are similar.

At the end of the day, S, VLA, 22 and 23 are just lists of safety requirements. I think if a sufficiently able Engineer was involved in the teams and a route was agreed with whichever association's Chief Engineer to ensure that enough compliance was shown before flight testing, you could do it. No doubt it would be a bit slower and involve more paperwork, but I don't think that it would be impossible.

That said, I can certainly sympathise with RDF Television's decision to do things in California under US rules which are much more written around "if you can only kill yourself, you are your own problem". However, I should think they'll have had their own Engineers checking the designs, just because of liability.

I read Francis Donaldson's article in the last PFA mag, and have flown a few of the aeroplanes he mentioned myself; I pretty much agree with everything he says. It should be borne in mind that both associations have routinely allowed such aircraft to fly under test conditions - but issues like longstab, etc. have often needed sorting before approval. This isn't blocking foreign imports, so much as saying they must be sorted before we let them lose on the general flying public - an approach I sympathise a lot with but it must be said relies enormously upon the competence of people trying to import, build or fly these things.

So, should we instead of worrying about the difference in regulations, be worrying about the lack of really able technical people this side of the pond?

G

[gijoe]

So does anyone know when 'Flying School' is on ?

With thanks, G.

[nonradio]

It's a very British attitude to suppose that (1) the great unwashed are, through ignorance, foolishly intent on killing themselves because they are unable to gauge risk (2) need an elite to tell them what is good for them and to protect them from themselves.
The US homebuilt scene is a tad bigger and innovative than the British - which has more regulation?