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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

QDM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

With thanks, G.