What if

GROUP BUILDS => The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB => Topic started by: NARSES2 on February 24, 2019, 06:15:39 am

Title: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on February 24, 2019, 06:15:39 am
This is the place for your general chat
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: McColm on February 24, 2019, 06:23:26 am
I've always wanted to build a tilt-winged C-130 and now is my chance to do it  :banghead:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: tigercat on February 24, 2019, 08:57:48 am
Would CAM tech work for a WW2 ZELL .

I suspect  it might be too bulky ?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on February 24, 2019, 11:41:16 am
OK, what's 'CAM Tech' then?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on February 24, 2019, 12:41:34 pm
Guessing that CAM = Catapult Armed Merchantman

Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: tigercat on February 24, 2019, 03:34:33 pm
Yup that's the one .
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: strobez on February 24, 2019, 06:25:53 pm
OOoh... this looks like it might be the perfect spot to try the Fanjet from the Macross anime that I've been thinking about for a couple of years....  Is that unconventional enough?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: The Wooksta! on February 24, 2019, 06:31:56 pm
You're all thinking too small and too conventional.

Either the Revell Hannebau or the larger Squadron one.  Or there's the Pegasus)?) TR-3B
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: strobez on February 24, 2019, 06:45:50 pm
Wait... I changed my mind.  Do we have to know HOW it flies? Or can we just say it does and leave it at that?  If so I'm going to build the Dr. Lao's flying jar machine thingy from the ancient anime TV show Future Boy Conan.  It's been on my list of Miyazaki/Studio Ghibli related builds for a while, and since I started moving forward on my Ohm build, I uncovered some of the supplies I had amassed in anticipation of the build.  Seems like a good place to try it out.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on February 24, 2019, 09:49:07 pm
Kinda related question: does it have to fly by credible aeronautical principles, or can it be completely fantastical?

The reason I aks is that the term 'flying machine' makes me think of things like this:

(https://images.ecosia.org/yIZklrUZL3Mj0T8wv42DhlWsaEQ=/0x390/smart/http%3A%2F%2Fthegraphicsfairy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2Fflying-machine-Image-Graphics-Fairy.jpg)

(https://images.ecosia.org/MKnATIL9MIUyLzwe8l3xl3THDo8=/0x390/smart/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.makeitcrafty.com%2Fimages%2Fdetailed%2F0%2Fsteampunk-flying-machine.jpg)

(http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Chanute/library/photos/Prog_Fig3.gif)

(https://www.sciencephoto.com/image/111483/800wm)
(those arn't hot air ballons BTW - they're copper spheres with a vacuum inside them...)

(https://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Fliegende_Wandersmann_1659-315x528.jpg)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on February 25, 2019, 12:16:52 am
Wearing my Moderator's Hat, and before consultation with my esteemed colleague Mr. NARSES2, I'd say ALL of those idea are admissible.

So go for it, you lot!
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on February 25, 2019, 12:26:04 am
OK, what's 'CAM Tech' then?

Collapsed Anti Matter.  A material commonly used as a Spacecraft weapon in Iain M Banks' Culture universe.   :mellow:


For this GB my main build will be a Fairey Rotodyne 2.0.  As side builds I may dabble with one or all of the following; an autogiro, an ornithopter (with working "flap" - that will take a bit of thought), a racing ekranoplan, a flying car and something silly involving bits and pieces from the parts boxes.

(https://www.sciencephoto.com/image/111483/800wm)
(those aren't hot air balloons BTW - they're copper spheres with a vacuum inside them...)

Vacuum dirigibles are another Sci Fi staple.  In one concept lift is generated by vacuum "filled" buckyball spheres.

This may be one GB where Eric has as many entries as Dizz...
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: loupgarou on February 25, 2019, 12:32:22 am
Beg your pardon, but the rules gave me some doubt.
At the beginning, the basic idea was "vertical take off", but now I see: "unusual or unconventional at the time it was conceived. ..., Helicopters and other rotary types"
But TODAY helicopters are NOT unconventional. So a modern day what-if helicopter is allowed or not? Or only pioneer helicopters (let say till late forties)?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on February 25, 2019, 04:07:06 am
Beg your pardon, but the rules gave me some doubt.
At the beginning, the basic idea was "vertical take off", but now I see: "unusual or unconventional at the time it was conceived. ..., Helicopters and other rotary types"
But TODAY helicopters are NOT unconventional. So a modern day what-if helicopter is allowed or not? Or only pioneer helicopters (let say till late forties)?

I'm NOT a moderator, but I think this clause may clarify things:

Quote
If you have an idea for something that gets off the ground (or tries to) by methods other than the vehicles forward motion causing air to travel over an aerofoil surface then it’s probably included.

So anything that isn't a fixed wing being pushed forward through the air is probably okay.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on February 25, 2019, 04:11:42 am
Ladies and gentlemen, Albert Robida:

(https://mondrian.mashable.com/wp-content%252Fuploads%252F2014%252F10%252FOpera-1.jpg%252Foriginal.jpg?signature=9pYxPPaVAO0Fkm8nQx1syJbrepQ=&source=http%3A%2F%2Fa.amz.mshcdn.com)
From here: https://mashable.com/2014/10/01/albert-robida-opera/?europe=true

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Robida
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on February 25, 2019, 04:40:17 am

But TODAY helicopters are NOT unconventional. So a modern day what-if helicopter is allowed or not?


Yes.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on February 25, 2019, 05:12:50 am

Vacuum dirigibles are another Sci Fi staple.  In one concept lift is generated by vacuum "filled" buckyball spheres.


I seem to recall one old picture of a craft that was lifted up by bottles of dew, the idea being that since dew rises in the morning, it can presumably take you with it...
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Dizzyfugu on February 25, 2019, 06:01:23 am
I'll also take the opportunity to tackle two projects: one is from my personal series "Things to make and do with a Hawker Hawk" (well, series is a little exagerrated, since, from my many ideas, only one has seen the light so far!), and the other one will be a Soviet tiltrotor attack thing. Muahaha!

Another option might be a "Duey" attack helicopter from the Dougram anime series - there's one somewhere in the stash...

(https://static.myfigurecollection.net/pics/encyclopedia/21285.jpg?rev=1307269108)


And/or: I might tackle a "Maverick"/"Bushman" or "Roundfacer" airborne combo from the same series, I have both kits (vintage originals, though) in store, too:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51GJdGq2HkL.jpg)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on February 25, 2019, 07:57:15 am
Wearing my Moderator's Hat, and before consultation with my esteemed colleague Mr. NARSES2, I'd say ALL of those idea are admissible.

So go for it, you lot!

And so would I


But TODAY helicopters are NOT unconventional. So a modern day what-if helicopter is allowed or not?


Yes.

I did think about this when I was trying to draw up the rules and given that in the origional suggestion for inclusion in the GB Poll they were mentioned, then yes they are included. As Weaver mentions they get included via my

"If you have an idea for something that gets off the ground (or tries to) by methods other than the vehicles forward motion causing air to travel over an aerofoil surface then it’s probably included" clause.

Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: loupgarou on February 25, 2019, 08:39:42 am
Wearing my Moderator's Hat, and before consultation with my esteemed colleague Mr. NARSES2, I'd say ALL of those idea are admissible.

So go for it, you lot!

And so would I


But TODAY helicopters are NOT unconventional. So a modern day what-if helicopter is allowed or not?


Yes.

I did think about this when I was trying to draw up the rules and given that in the origional suggestion for inclusion in the GB Poll they were mentioned, then yes they are included. As Weaver mentions they get included via my

"If you have an idea for something that gets off the ground (or tries to) by methods other than the vehicles forward motion causing air to travel over an aerofoil surface then it’s probably included" clause.

Thanks.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on February 25, 2019, 10:55:33 am
Please remember that my watchwords of 'Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings' does NOT apply for this GB, as none of the entries should have any wings!
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: JayBee on February 25, 2019, 11:32:16 am
Ah but Kit surely, rotor blades, propellor blades, and turbine blades are nothing more than small wings.  :wacko:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Nick on February 25, 2019, 11:39:47 am
How about those flying Jeeps of the 1940s and 50s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafner_Rotabuggy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_VZ-8_Airgeep

The Flying Bedstead springs to mind (not that I'm likely to even consider it!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Thrust_Measuring_Rig
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on February 25, 2019, 12:17:20 pm

Ah but Kit surely, rotor blades, propellor blades, and turbine blades are nothing more than small wings.  :wacko:


Most of them are already 'long' Jim.............  ;D
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: kerick on February 25, 2019, 01:17:48 pm
How about those flying Jeeps of the 1940s and 50s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafner_Rotabuggy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_VZ-8_Airgeep

The Flying Bedstead springs to mind (not that I'm likely to even consider it!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Thrust_Measuring_Rig

Then there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle

Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on February 25, 2019, 04:43:26 pm
Please remember that my watchwords of 'Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings' does NOT apply for this GB, as none of the entries should have any wings!

Ah, so compound helicopters are out then?  :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: <stir, stir stir....>
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on February 25, 2019, 04:45:14 pm
Please remember that my watchwords of 'Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings' does NOT apply for this GB, as none of the entries should have any wings!

Ah, so compound helicopters are out then?  :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: <stir, stir stir....>


Only if they have VERY short wings!

[I never thought I'd ever write something like that!  :o]
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on February 25, 2019, 11:43:46 pm
Rotodynes, Ekranoplans and Ornithoptors all have wings and all three were included in the original definition of the GB upon which we voted.
Ekranoplans also fly (in a limited sense) due to forward motion causing airflow over their wings to generate lift.
All three are most definitely unconventional.

Vanships were practically invented for this GB.  As were the flying battleships they operate from.

Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on February 26, 2019, 12:07:23 am
    THE DAILY STUN
    KITNAPPED
  • Kit Spackman kidnapped
  • Replaced by impostor
  • Police do nothing

In SENSATIONAL news that is ROCKING the world of model-making, sources tell your soaraway Daily Stun reporter that Mr. Kit Spaceman has been KIDNAPPED and replaced by an IMPOSTOR. "He'd never say a thing like that!" insisted Mr. Harold Smith (38) of Stokeport, "who is this person and what have they done with the real Kit?" Strokeport Police have so far refused to give a comment to the media despite a number of requests.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on February 26, 2019, 12:48:01 am

Rotodynes, Ekranoplans and Ornithoptors all have wings and all three were included in the original definition of the GB upon which we voted.
Ekranoplans also fly (in a limited sense) due to forward motion causing airflow over their wings to generate lift.
All three are most definitely unconventional.


And they all have short wings (apart from Rotocranes, that is......)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on February 26, 2019, 01:22:32 am
Rotodynes have wings, but the primary means of generating lift is not by the forward motion of the vehicle through the air.

Ekranoplans have wings, but their dependence upon ground effect to augment the lift of their wings makes them unconventional.

Ornithopters have wings, but the primary means of generating lift is not by the forward motion of the vehicle through the air.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on February 26, 2019, 01:35:30 am
My point is that we shouldn't limit this by trying to define it.
Treat the rules as vague guidelines and let anything be entered should the mods deem it unconventional.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on February 26, 2019, 02:16:08 am
My point is that we shouldn't limit this by trying to define it.
Treat the rules as vague guidelines and let anything be entered should the mods deem it unconventional.

Well indeed. My previous post was intended to demonstrate how the rules are written in such a way as to make all the intended forms, and many others beside, permissable.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: ericr on February 26, 2019, 03:29:07 am
Ladies and gentlemen, Albert Robida:



what an excellent source !
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on February 26, 2019, 08:00:36 am
My point is that we shouldn't limit this by trying to define it.
Treat the rules as vague guidelines and let anything be entered should the mods deem it unconventional.

That's certainly my interpretation. Basically me and Kit will consider every proposal on an individual basis.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on February 26, 2019, 10:40:56 am
Someone once said 'Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of Whiffers' and that certainly holds true for this GB.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on February 26, 2019, 11:35:31 am
Iowa State Lippisch collection, scroll down for aerodynes:
http://cdm16001.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/search/collection/p15031coll11/display/200/order/date/ad/asc
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: ericr on February 26, 2019, 11:36:51 am
Someone once said 'Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of Whiffers' and that certainly holds true for this GB.

 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Mossie on February 26, 2019, 11:56:17 am
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/Mossie105/General/StardustPirateAirship.jpg)

Airships.  Captain Shakespeare's ride from Stardust.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Mossie on February 26, 2019, 12:03:40 pm
Iowa State Lippisch collection, scroll down for aerodynes:
http://cdm16001.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/search/collection/p15031coll11/display/200/order/date/ad/asc

I lifted this from the Unicraft site many years ago:

(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/Mossie105/Models/LippischRescueAerodyneDiorama.jpg)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on February 27, 2019, 02:10:46 am
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cb/97/3d/cb973d07e71ebeaae0bbc56094071d1d.jpg)
(https://bigmemes.funnyjunk.com/pictures/Dd+airships_b26403_6232870.jpg)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/intermediary/f/33c0c17e-99f9-44f5-9558-bb2daad91f21/d8nq986-00de257b-14cc-42eb-8982-83d85d14d745.png/v1/fill/w_1192,h_670,q_70,strp/pirate_airship_psd_2_by_kdessing_d8nq986-pre.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a5/60/bf/a560bfeac85aeebb4bfd1d77f21669a9.jpg)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Nick on February 27, 2019, 10:58:45 am
Why did I get a Bond stunt in mind when I first read the title?!  ;D

"You're not thinking of...?"
"I sure am boy!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzCIbhLUUA0
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on February 28, 2019, 01:57:56 am
 :thumbsup:

They'd just CGI that these days.  Which is a shame.

Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on February 28, 2019, 02:05:01 am
:thumbsup:

They'd just CGI that these days.  Which is a shame.

Or they'd do it 'for real' but with the car on a big, strong track and then CGI the track out. That's how they do a lot of 'flying people' scene these days: the actor look like they're flying and gets to interact credibly with their surroundings, but they're on an inch-thick cable that's never going to break, rather than the thin, fragile 'invisible' flying lines that were used in the 'good' old days.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on February 28, 2019, 02:21:31 am
Anyone got the Airfix 1/24 Little Nelly kit?  That'd make a good build for this GB - if suitably whiffed of course.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on March 01, 2019, 06:14:37 am
And so we are off Gentlemen. Enjoy yourselves  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Nick on March 01, 2019, 11:43:49 am
Another idea for us to consider - the Kaman K-16 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaman_K-16B)

Basically a Grumman Goose with a tilt-wing, it was intended to allow for VTOL operations from water. I suppose if you'd landed in a narrow inlet you could get straight up out of it.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on March 02, 2019, 01:44:24 am
I've been thinking about WIG (Wing in Ground Effect) Racers.
Single seat Ekranoplans (land or water based or amphibians) racing on an oval,  closed course, cross country or street circuit (Venice?).
They would be fitted with an altitude sensitive cutout which would shut off the engine should they stray too high.
Preliminary doodles are of a Spitfire fuselage with stubby super broad chord wings with severe anhedral.  Semi retractable undercarriage housed in wingtip spats.

Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Rheged on March 03, 2019, 07:56:25 am
Readers of Jules Verne will already be aware of his book   ROBUR THE CONQUEROR, and the aeronef flown by the eponymous hero/villain; the Albatross (for story and pix, see the link below)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robur_the_Conqueror

 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robur_the_Conqueror) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=robur+the+conqueror+albatross&tbm=isch&source=hp&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRsIXNqebgAhVDRBUIHYQgDiUQsAR6BAgEEAE&biw=1366&bih=628 (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=robur+the+conqueror+albatross&tbm=isch&source=hp&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRsIXNqebgAhVDRBUIHYQgDiUQsAR6BAgEEAE&biw=1366&bih=628)

I assume that this aeronautical device would qualify if anyone wishes to have a go at it.

You could also use LIFTWOOD  http://www.heliograph.com/trmgs/trmgs3/liftwood.shtml (http://www.heliograph.com/trmgs/trmgs3/liftwood.shtml) As outlined in the Transactions of the Royal  Martian Geographical Society.  Their home page http://www.heliograph.com/trmgs/trmgs1/ (http://www.heliograph.com/trmgs/trmgs1/) is worth a few minutes of your time too.  Picture link below:
 http://www.heliograph.com/trmgs/trmgs1/TRMGS1coverbig.html  (http://www.heliograph.com/trmgs/trmgs1/TRMGS1coverbig.html)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on March 03, 2019, 08:52:30 am
Master Of The World: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilQNFn_Lpnc

This is Hollywood's 1961 take on Robur The Conqueror.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: kitnut617 on March 03, 2019, 12:31:27 pm
Here's something I found over on the Secret Projects Forum that would fit right in with this GB, looks very interesting ---

http://www.openminds.tv/unacknowledged-aviation-super-stol/2634

(http://village.photos/images/user/8f3973c9-3f0e-4b54-80e2-017121c0bf9f/c666a302-d1da-4851-b328-8c08692458e8.jpg)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: tigercat on March 04, 2019, 12:16:41 am
Where can I find a 1:72 scale magic feather
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on March 04, 2019, 01:12:05 am
Where can I find a 1:72 scale magic feather

Don't know about 1/72nd scale but jewellery craft shops often have a big selection of charm bracelet charms with all sorts of cool things in there, including feathers.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Mossie on March 04, 2019, 01:08:12 pm
Cut off a single barb from a feather, they're mini feathers themselves.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: McColm on March 04, 2019, 01:32:16 pm
If I can find pair large of enough rotor blades then I can convert my 1/72 Martin Marina jet powered amphibious flying boat into an autogiro version. I can use the stack from a Airfix Rotodyne.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 04, 2019, 01:38:43 pm
The 'dyne has VERY narrow chord rotor blades, goodness knows how they lifted that honking great thing, but they did. You might want to think on something with larger blades.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on March 05, 2019, 02:04:48 am
1/48 CH-53?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: McColm on March 05, 2019, 03:05:15 am
1/48 CH-53?
The largest pair are off a 1/72 Mil-26 .
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Caveman on March 05, 2019, 07:17:56 am
Would something like this be applicable for this GB?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/LiftingBodies.jpg/450px-LiftingBodies.jpg)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 05, 2019, 10:03:20 am

Would something like this be applicable for this GB?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/LiftingBodies.jpg/450px-LiftingBodies.jpg)


Absolutely!  ;D

The lifting bodies are almost the perfect example of what the GB's all about.  :thumbsup:

Now that you mention it I have kits of all of those three in The Loft, thanks to JayBee's munificence some months/years ago.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 05, 2019, 07:03:48 pm
A note about autogiros, the original ones only got in the air because of
forward motion causing air to travel over an aerofoil surface,
in this case the blade aerofoil of the rotary wing. This also why they
retained fixed wings.
 ;D

The next step was the direct-control type that added a rotor spin-up
drive to get the rotor moving while sitting still, but it still required
forward motion to get off the ground, the new rotor designs also
allowed the elimination of fixed wings. The Bensen and Wallis
"gyro-copters" are of this type, they still require forward motion to
take off.

The final addition was the rotor spin-up with pitch control that allowed
for the introduction of "jump take-off", the only type of autogiro that
doesn't require forward motion to leave the ground.

Cheers.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 05, 2019, 07:51:22 pm
I've been thinking about WIG (Wing in Ground Effect) Racers.
Single seat Ekranoplans (land or water based or amphibians) racing on an oval,  closed course, cross country or street circuit (Venice?).
They would be fitted with an altitude sensitive cutout which would shut off the engine should they stray too high.
Preliminary doodles are of a Spitfire fuselage with stubby super broad chord wings with severe anhedral.  Semi retractable undercarriage housed in wingtip spats.

Land ekranoplans are pretty much a non-starter, the water-borne ones have a long
take-off run, even with the under-wing blowing. You'd need some strong wheels and a
very long starting lane to try to use the same principle on land, a big oval out
in a desert somewhere would probably also be the only doable type of course.
A street circuit is completely out, and cross-country questionable as one of the big failings
with the ekranoplan type WIG, is that it does very poorly out of ground effect and can't
handle rapid changes in wave height, the latter being why the KM crashed, so flying over
up and down terrain is a recipe for disaster. Also as you can't bank the wing in a turn,
you'll need a ginormous fin and rudder to give enough control authority.

The truth is they're a crap answer to a question no one asked.  :wacko:

That said there have been skirted WIGs suggested, these would have a retractable
hovercraft type skirt for use when right down on the deck, land or water.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4151893A/en?oq=4151893

Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: loupgarou on March 06, 2019, 12:06:39 am
A note about autogiros, the original ones only got in the air because of
forward motion causing air to travel over an aerofoil surface,
in this case the blade aerofoil of the rotary wing. This also why they
retained fixed wings.
 ;D

The next step was the direct-control type that added a rotor spin-up
drive to get the rotor moving while sitting still, but it still required
forward motion to get off the ground, the new rotor designs also
allowed the elimination of fixed wings. The Bensen and Wallis
"gyro-copters" are of this type, they still require forward motion to
take off.

The final addition was the rotor spin-up with pitch control that allowed
for the introduction of "jump take-off", the only type of autogiro that
doesn't require forward motion to leave the ground.

Cheers.

So, a question for the mods, after these clarifications:
Are "classic" autogiros allowed here or excluded?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on March 06, 2019, 01:39:09 am
Autogiros are certainly unconventional enough in my book.

I've been thinking about WIG (Wing in Ground Effect) Racers.
Single seat Ekranoplans (land or water based or amphibians) racing on an oval,  closed course, cross country or street circuit (Venice?).
They would be fitted with an altitude sensitive cutout which would shut off the engine should they stray too high.
Preliminary doodles are of a Spitfire fuselage with stubby super broad chord wings with severe anhedral.  Semi retractable undercarriage housed in wingtip spats.

Land ekranoplans are pretty much a non-starter... yadda yadda yadda...

Yeah, but nah.  I reject all your logical arguments in favour of my imagination.
 :mellow:
Take for example the Melbourne Ekranoplan Grand Prix.
The racing ekranoplans take off on a very long straight stretch of the Monash Freeway on the outskirts of town which in later laps doubles as a high speed straight.  They exit down a slip road which leads into the street section of the race that takes them twisting and turning between the highrise buildings of the CBD to docklands at which point they take to the water.  Heading downstream they pass beneath the Westgate Bridge before heading out into Port Phillip Bay.  Following a straight run to The Heads they then turn left and hug the coast up The Peninsula passing Sorrento, Portsea, Rye, Rosebud, McRae, Blairgowrie and Dromana before heading inland along the Southern slopes of Mount Martha at Safety Beach.  They then follow a complicated cross country route North rejoining the Monash at Packenham before heading West back towards town for the completion of the lap.
All the racers would start at once (rather than do timed laps) with the first past the post the winner.
When banking in a turn it would not be unusual for the wingtip pods to come into contact with the ground/water which is why the main wheels do not fully retract and are usually mounted at an angle to the vertical.  They all obviously have huge rudders (thanks for the tip, I hadn't thought of that design cue :thumbsup:)
Part of the skill of handling a racing ekranoplan is anticipating changes in the profile of the surface by climbing to maximum height so as to cope with the change without crashing (but not too high or the altitude limiter will cut the engine).

Think of it like the Pod Race in Phantom Menace with Ekranoplans instead of pods.

A rummage in my Wings and Fuselages parts box has resulted in some inner sections of Lancaster wing and a number of possible fuselages including a Spitfire, a Mystere IV and a Viggen...

 :wacko:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 06, 2019, 02:14:04 am

So, a question for the mods, after these clarifications:
Are "classic" autogiros allowed here or excluded?


I'll check with my fellow mod, but I'm inclined to go for it.

This is a VERY generously modded GB after all, and a few mere physical facts shouldn't get in the way of some creative modelling.  ;D
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on March 06, 2019, 06:08:42 am

So, a question for the mods, after these clarifications:
Are "classic" autogiros allowed here or excluded?

Me and Kit have conversed and the answer is......Yes they are included  :thumbsup:

It is almost impossible to write a set of rules for this build when it comes to what is or what is not allowed. Anything written would immediately draw a response of "ah but in the case of the .....". So I'm basically going to work on the basis of "if it looks odd, or unusual or manages to do what it does by slightly unusual means" then it stands a good chance of being o.k.

At the end of the day we just want people to take part and enjoy themselves. Also there will undoubtedly be GB's in the next season which have quite strict frameworks quite naturally.

Chris
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: loupgarou on March 06, 2019, 09:53:09 am

So, a question for the mods, after these clarifications:
Are "classic" autogiros allowed here or excluded?

Me and Kit have conversed and the answer is......Yes they are included  :thumbsup:

It is almost impossible to write a set of rules for this build when it comes to what is or what is not allowed. Anything written would immediately draw a response of "ah but in the case of the .....". So I'm basically going to work on the basis of "if it looks odd, or unusual or manages to do what it does by slightly unusual means" then it stands a good chance of being o.k.

At the end of the day we just want people to take part and enjoy themselves. Also there will undoubtedly be GB's in the next season which have quite strict frameworks quite naturally.

Chris

Thanks for your kind words, most esteemed moderators. :bow:
I'll try to complete a build this time.  :rolleyes: ;D
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 06, 2019, 01:39:14 pm
Fred, regarding your concept, you’d probably need either a single large fin and rudder
mounted at roughly the center of the vehicle, or two separate mounted fwd and aft.
A single assembly mounted at the tail ala an aircraft wouldn’t give enough control authority,
or act quickly enough to turn your racer.
Ships and aircraft generally have lots of room to turn so it’s not as much of an issue, also
it wasn’t unusual in the age of the high-power single step hydro to have the rudder mounted
forward of amidships, for a faster reactiontime in turns. Gar Wood’s Miss America X, had
a single rudder fwd, Segrave’s Miss England II had two rudders, one at the stern and one fwd.

Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: kerick on March 06, 2019, 08:42:53 pm
I was watching some hydroplane drag racing a couple of days ago. As they just went in a straight line that would solve a lot of the control problems if applied to the WIG concept.

(http://justsaynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/IMG_2462-copy.jpg)

Some had small rudders and some had none at all.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on March 07, 2019, 01:39:11 am
Fred, regarding your concept, you’d probably need either a single large fin and rudder
mounted at roughly the center of the vehicle, or two separate mounted fwd and aft.
A single assembly mounted at the tail ala an aircraft wouldn’t give enough control authority,
or act quickly enough to turn your racer.
Ships and aircraft generally have lots of room to turn so it’s not as much of an issue, also
it wasn’t unusual in the age of the high-power single step hydro to have the rudder mounted
forward of amidships, for a faster reactiontime in turns. Gar Wood’s Miss America X, had
a single rudder fwd, Segrave’s Miss England II had two rudders, one at the stern and one fwd.



Thanks for the input Jon.  If I build this it'll be heavily biased towards the "looks right - is right" PoV rather than being feasible technically.
I've done some sketches and a P-47 with a huge rearward rudder and stubby wings looks good to me.
Mind you, a Viggen wth a fin & rudder at each end, hmmmm...
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 07, 2019, 05:37:19 am

A single assembly mounted at the tail ala an aircraft wouldn’t give enough control authority,
or act quickly enough to turn your racer.
Ships and aircraft generally have lots of room to turn so it’s not as much of an issue, also
it wasn’t unusual in the age of the high-power single step hydro to have the rudder mounted
forward of amidships, for a faster reactiontime in turns. Gar Wood’s Miss America X, had
a single rudder fwd, Segrave’s Miss England II had two rudders, one at the stern and one fwd.


My fave powerboat of al time, Sony Levi's Delta 28, was woefully unstable as well as being well overpowered and was prone to swap ends while running at speeds of 65 knots or more. I saw it do just that once and it was frightening, goodness knows how the crew survived.  :o

Levi 'updated' it with a MONSTER fin on the stern in an attempt to solve the problem, and it had absolutely no effect whatsoever! That was back in the 60s however so there's more knowledge about such things these days.

Levi solved the problem eventually by radically lengthening the waterline with a 'ram bow', and I've been building an R/C model of Delta 28 in that configuration for at least the last 10 yrs............  :banghead:

(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/6761/RcKRij.jpg)

With fin.


(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/2014/ZE4pdm.jpg)

With ram bow.

Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 07, 2019, 11:21:45 am
 Thanks for sharing that Kit. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: McColm on March 08, 2019, 01:50:24 am
I won't be submitting my Heliplane kitbash in this group build as it's too near completion.
Whereas the Martin Marina just needs a shorter rotor blade to avoid hitting the twin tail fins,  I've used three for the Heliplane which come from the 1/72 Mil-26 Halo kit. Just need to find the other two.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: wacek85 on March 09, 2019, 06:57:57 am
Jet-Prop An-2 named LALA-1

(http://agrolotnictwo.muzeumlotnictwa.pl/photo/34/34_04_bg.jpg)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on March 10, 2019, 03:31:09 am
Ornithopters.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BowQlOCIYAAcUi1.jpg)
(http://pages.erau.edu/~andrewsa/sci_fi_projects_fall_2015/Project_2/Bailey_Logan/Project2LJB/Ornithopter.jpg)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/intermediary/f/a9755b04-7225-464f-a4cc-41c03cdf8617/d36rl91-86c0bc5d-e2a4-4313-88f9-467839ea9dfb.jpg/v1/fill/w_900,h_526,q_70,strp/dune_ornithopter_by_ilya_b_d36rl91-fullview.jpg)
(http://img08.deviantart.net/759b/i/2006/024/9/4/fremen_ornithopter_by_rubendevela.jpg)
(https://img.scryfall.com/cards/large/en/m11/211.jpg?1517813031)

Has anyone here tried making fabric covereded wings by laying PVA soaked tissue over a framework?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: loupgarou on March 10, 2019, 03:48:11 am

Has anyone here tried making fabric covereded wings by laying PVA soaked tissue over a framework?

Some ancient Renwal kits used this system. But NOT with soaked tissue. Like in flying models of old, one glue the tissue to the frames, THEN use an approprite product (the name escapes me at the moment) to stretch the tissue. I'd say it would be better to spray, not brush the "product", given the fragility of the tissue.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on March 10, 2019, 04:06:03 am

Has anyone here tried making fabric covereded wings by laying PVA soaked tissue over a framework?

Some ancient Renwal kits used this system. But NOT with soaked tissue. Like in flying models of old, one glue the tissue to the frames, THEN use an approprite product (the name escapes me at the moment) to stretch the tissue. I'd say it would be better to spray, not brush the "product", given the fragility of the tissue.

Thanks loupy.
I know from experience in using this to make tonneau covers on model cars that as the PVA dries it shrinks tightening the tissue.
And thinking about it this is the technique I used to build a rubber band powered balsa framed Tiger Moth when young.  Albeit in a larger scale and using dope to shrink the tissue.
I'm thinking of building 1/72 ornithopter wings using a framework of styrene ribs and spars with a curved perimeter formed from wire.
I'd be wary about putting diluted PVA through my airbrush lest it gum it up.  However, I think I have some old household cleaner trigger spray bottles somewhere which should mist it on adequately.
Experimentation is required.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 10, 2019, 05:05:12 am

Has anyone here tried making fabric covereded wings by laying PVA soaked tissue over a framework?

Some ancient Renwal kits used this system. But NOT with soaked tissue. Like in flying models of old, one glue the tissue to the frames, THEN use an approprite product (the name escapes me at the moment) to stretch the tissue. I'd say it would be better to spray, not brush the "product", given the fragility of the tissue.


Those were their Aeroskin kits, all 1/72 IIRC and from WWI as well.

They looked SUPERB when built, but weren't easy, I built all of them for my mate's model shop window, but I left off the rigging. That was a step too far for me!The Bristol F2b was my fave, and one of the German ones with the lozenge camo too.

I have a vague recollection that someone else took the range over, but I can't recall who or what came of them eventually.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: loupgarou on March 10, 2019, 07:15:31 am
There was also the "Flying machines" series:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RENWALS-KITTY-HAWK-BLERIOT-1-72-SCALE-boxed-intact/142921677126?hash=item2146cbb946:g:swIAAOSwyKJbh97o
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on March 10, 2019, 07:30:56 am
I remember the Renwall "Flying Machines" series and even had a couple of them. I've no real memory of skinning them, which probably means I gave up ???  :-X
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 10, 2019, 08:15:10 am
I'm amazed that one's going so cheap! There's another of them for auction that's only reached £9.99 so far and 0 bids!

I found this too, an original Aeroskin kit, and I can remember building that one. I was amazed how well the pre-printed stripes around the rear fuselage lined up when I applied the 'skin'.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Renwal-1-72-Albatros-D-V-Lt-Ludwig-Hanstein-German-WWI-Rare-Aeroskin-Kit/162535014427?epid=926337886&hash=item25d7d7801b:g:X3kAAOSwlndZLeQd (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Renwal-1-72-Albatros-D-V-Lt-Ludwig-Hanstein-German-WWI-Rare-Aeroskin-Kit/162535014427?epid=926337886&hash=item25d7d7801b:g:X3kAAOSwlndZLeQd)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on March 10, 2019, 03:48:55 pm
I once made wings for a white metal dragon out of clingflim set in shape with clear varnish and then painted with translucent inks. It worked fine, but the model never got finished because my mother managed to break it and once broken, there was no repairing them.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: loupgarou on March 10, 2019, 04:05:17 pm

Has anyone here tried making fabric covereded wings by laying PVA soaked tissue over a framework?

Some ancient Renwal kits used this system. But NOT with soaked tissue. Like in flying models of old, one glue the tissue to the frames, THEN use an approprite product (the name escapes me at the moment) to stretch the tissue. I'd say it would be better to spray, not brush the "product", given the fragility of the tissue.

Thanks loupy.
I know from experience in using this to make tonneau covers on model cars that as the PVA dries it shrinks tightening the tissue.
And thinking about it this is the technique I used to build a rubber band powered balsa framed Tiger Moth when young.  Albeit in a larger scale and using dope to shrink the tissue.
I'm thinking of building 1/72 ornithopter wings using a framework of styrene ribs and spars with a curved perimeter formed from wire.
I'd be wary about putting diluted PVA through my airbrush lest it gum it up.  However, I think I have some old household cleaner trigger spray bottles somewhere which should mist it on adequately.
Experimentation is required.

YES, that's the english name I didn't remember. Of course, I wouldn't dream of using PVA in an airbrush, I was thinking of using dope. Spraying it because in 1/72 it would be necessary to use VERY thin tissue, so very fragile. Brushing could destroy it. In another hobby of mine, book restoration, we use to repair tears, a VERY light japanese paper, called veil (don't know the correct english technical name) and I would use this in small scale models.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 10, 2019, 10:10:06 pm
The inspiration thread from the VTOL/Helicopter GB back in 2011:
http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,32392.0.html

There are some dead links in my posts in the thread, I'll be going back
and replacing them with working links.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 10, 2019, 10:13:46 pm
V/STOL Concepts and Developed Aircraft. Volume 1. A Historical Report (1940-1986)
458 pages of Unconventional goodness, lots of info on "jetpacks" etc.
 :thumbsup:

http://contrails.iit.edu/reports/9396
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on March 12, 2019, 07:43:29 am
I've got one idea in my brain for this GB, a Flying Pancake in FAA colours, but I'm going to be on the lookout for a couple of other bits and pieces at the Southern show on Saturday as there are a few more ideas buzzing around in my head dependent on obtaining the plastic. We shall see
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Tophe on March 12, 2019, 09:51:50 am
Would CAM tech work for a WW2 ZELL .
I suspect  it might be too bulky ?
I would be happy to draw a Zell Lightning P-38, but what is it? Google did not help me understanding what means "Zell type" in the rules, while I seem the only one not understanding. Has someone a link to show?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: loupgarou on March 12, 2019, 12:52:05 pm
Would CAM tech work for a WW2 ZELL .
I suspect  it might be too bulky ?
I would be happy to draw a Zell Lightning P-38, but what is it? Google did not help me understanding what means "Zell type" in the rules, while I seem the only one not understanding. Has someone a link to show?

I think is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-length_launch
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Tophe on March 12, 2019, 12:55:27 pm
Thanks a lot! A Zell P-38 will come soon now it is very possible. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Nick on March 17, 2019, 11:42:35 am
Serious question for the mods as I've just got a potential kit:

Would you accept an X-15 as being unconventional?
Alternative markings are likely, ZELL launching is a possibility.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 18, 2019, 06:42:36 am
I reckon that'd be OK, after all the wings are only JUST there, and most of the 'lift' comes from that MONSTER rocket engine.

I'll confer with Chris and come back.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on March 18, 2019, 07:38:57 am
Kit has conferred and we are ok with that Nick.

I'll be honest I'm having some real problems with what's in and what's out in this GB. What's out is not to difficult, but what's in ........  :unsure: :unsure: whence the leniency.

I'm not even certain about my entry  :unsure: It's the Vought XF5U-1 "Flying Pancake", however after reading that it was theoretically capable of both V/STOL and of hovering I think it's ok ?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 18, 2019, 08:35:02 am
STOL, yes. VTOL, maybe. Hover, nope.

The proposed VS-341 turbo-prop powered version would have theoretically had the
power for a vertical take-off, however hover would still have been out of the question.

(https://oldmachinepress.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/xf5u-jet-engine-v-341.jpg)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 18, 2019, 09:06:32 am

......however hover would still have been out of the question.


Not even if it was pointing vertically upwards at full throttle?  ;D
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: JayBee on March 18, 2019, 10:28:03 am
Gentlemen, please, What If?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Tophe on March 18, 2019, 10:42:33 am
Gentlemen, please, What If?
I agree, thanks JayBee :thumbsup: ;D
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 18, 2019, 12:40:13 pm
Gentlemen, please, What If?

How about don't define 'What If?' for other people, please.

Thanks
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 18, 2019, 12:41:04 pm

......however hover would still have been out of the question.


Not even if it was pointing vertically upwards at full throttle?  ;D

It could be an amusing tail-sitter.  ;D

Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: JayBee on March 18, 2019, 01:34:31 pm
Gentlemen, please, What If?

How about don't define 'What If?' for other people, please.

Thanks
Jon,
Do you realy mean that we have to define what is not "What If" so that others who do not understand can then understand what is?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 18, 2019, 03:35:36 pm
Gentlemen, please, What If?

How about don't define 'What If?' for other people, please.

Thanks
Jon,
Do you realy mean that we have to define what is not "What If" so that others who do not understand can then understand what is?

What I'm saying is that you can't define it for me.
If I, or anyone else, likes to discuss things within the
realm of technical reality, rather than anything goes
hand-wavium, who are you to discount that view?
Which is what your post does.
 :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 18, 2019, 04:13:47 pm
Other opinions are, of course, available..................
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on March 19, 2019, 07:01:14 am
STOL, yes. VTOL, maybe. Hover, nope.


Must admit I did wonder. Perhaps it could vaguely dangle, or they thought it might be able to vaguely dangle on a good day ?  ;)

Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: kitnut617 on March 19, 2019, 08:35:33 am
STOL, yes. VTOL, maybe. Hover, nope.


Must admit I did wonder. Perhaps it could vaguely dangle, or they thought it might be able to vaguely dangle on a good day ?  ;)

I've read that when testing the V-173 it would ""appear"" to hover over the flight deck, but in reality the ship was moving at full steam and into a wind at the same time. The combined speed was the same as the minimum speed the V-173 needed to stay airborne.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on March 20, 2019, 07:06:43 am

I've read that when testing the V-173 it would ""appear"" to hover over the flight deck, but in reality the ship was moving at full steam and into a wind at the same time. The combined speed was the same as the minimum speed the V-173 needed to stay airborne.

Wouldn't that mean that in practice it was hovering ?

Rather like a Swordfish story my dad told of the days when he was on a merchant carrier doing convoy duty. Apparently one came in to land during rather rough weather and into a force x gale. The deck/gun crew were ordered to run out and help it land by grabbing anything they could and hauling it down  :rolleyes: Same ship the observer of said Swordfish once told the story in the mess of the aircraft being overtaken by a seagull whilst flying into one rather strong headwind.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on March 21, 2019, 03:20:30 am
It all depends on one's frame of reference I suppose.

Dave's journey into the world of Flettner wings (in his build thread elsewhere) reminded me of Magnus effect spherical airships.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/38109.0/1179795.jpg)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/38109.0/1179796.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/91/9e/4c/919e4c661edb7067605a55968ff3c88d.jpg)
Spinning the sphere backwards while the airship moves forwards generates lift.  Varying the speed varies the amount of lift.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Mossie on March 21, 2019, 04:51:37 am
Grown up version of the Rovers from The Prisoner?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 21, 2019, 12:35:23 pm
Self erecting VATOL FW 860, perhaps something similar for a tail-sitting Flapjack.

(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-FhM7HNM/0/7d97bfe2/O/FW_SE_VATOL_01.png)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-FbrjH59/0/20108a13/O/FW_SE_VATOL_02.png)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-tcjwCxV/0/914d0463/O/FW_SE_VATOL_03.png)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-8TWgn7g/0/ae92fda4/O/FW_SE_VATOL_04.png)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Scotaidh on March 23, 2019, 06:52:15 am
I've looked, and I don't see anyone making one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer_Channel_Wing 

Would these would be allowed?  The wing-shape is anything but conventional, even though it uses conventional means to generate lift ...
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 24, 2019, 02:52:05 am
Within the (extremely wide.... :o) terms of reference of this GB I'm sure a Channel Wing would be allowable, but I'll consult with my fellow mod.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on March 24, 2019, 03:26:34 am
I've looked, and I don't see anyone making one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer_Channel_Wing 

Would these would be allowed?  The wing-shape is anything but conventional, even though it uses conventional means to generate lift ...

Its a nice idea but I wouldn't know where to even begin building u shapes with an aerofoil section.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on March 24, 2019, 07:35:55 am
Within the (extremely wide.... :o) terms of reference of this GB I'm sure a Channel Wing would be allowable, but I'll consult with my fellow mod.

Which Kit has done and we have agreed it's a goer  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on April 11, 2019, 01:40:26 pm
Don't forget this work around for yer conventional flying machines.  :wacko: :thumbsup:

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-3DPMrJr/0/2d801e49/O/P17D_01.png)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-mRsGKFf/0/cb5768aa/O/PD34_01.png)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on April 11, 2019, 01:59:39 pm
I added some Gloster VTOL stuff to my old Gloster topicc:
http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,16717.msg841160.html#msg841160

A teaser:
(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-LJxNGpH/0/7ec3e703/O/GLOSTER_P504_01.png)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-SzF7Ffn/0/9336134b/O/GLOSTER_P532_01.png)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on April 11, 2019, 02:03:44 pm
An EIGHTEEN engined Meteor?  :o :o :o

The mind not only boggles, it almost explodes at the very idea! Can you imagine the fuel system?! And how long would it fly for, 2 minutes?  :o
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on April 11, 2019, 02:23:19 pm
Some Boulton-Paul VTOL stuff.

http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,46435.0.html

Teaser.
(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-w7tZDFG/0/734c358f/O/BP_P141_01.png)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on April 11, 2019, 02:24:24 pm
An EIGHTEEN engined Meteor?  :o :o :o

The mind not only boggles, it almost explodes at the very idea! Can you imagine the fuel system?! And how long would it fly for, 2 minutes?  :o

 ;D ;D

Tethered flights only, the tether being a fuel hose.  ;D :wacko:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on April 11, 2019, 02:49:55 pm
And that B-P airliner has THIRTY EIGHT engines!  :o

I'm not sure the designers were thinking straight back then............. :banghead:

That's nearly one engine per passenger!
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on April 11, 2019, 04:34:08 pm
And that B-P airliner has THIRTY EIGHT engines!  :o

I'm not sure the designers were thinking straight back then............. :banghead:

That's nearly one engine per passenger!

Don't think it does actually. It's not clear for the P.141, but that whole series of proposals used air-driven lift fans in addition to vectored-thrust cruise engines, so many of those 'engines' in the drawing are just fans. The real engines are in the pods under the wings - not sure what's going on with the tip pods though.

The funny thing about safety in the hover is that the safest options are at the extremes: either one engine or lots and lots. If a single engine fails, then at least the aircraft falls 'flat' with no pitch or roll moments, and properly designed undercarriage gets a chance to reduce the impact forces to survivable levels. If you have lots and lots of engines on the other hand, then the failure of one is such a small proportion of the total thrust that the craft only (at most) sinks slowly and any pitch/roll moment created is well within the capabiltiy of the RCS to correct. The dangerous configurations are that that have a small number of (but more than one) unlinked lift engines: in that case the loss of thrust is a significant proportion of the total, and the pitch/roll asymmetry is likely to be outside what the RCS can handle.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on April 11, 2019, 05:27:37 pm
And you really do need lots and LOTS to get over the failure likelihood problem. With many engines the MTBF (Mean time between failures) issue comes to the fore as it's more likely that one will fail, the greater number there are.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Tophe on April 11, 2019, 07:39:30 pm
Years ago, I decided that the Boulton-Paul P.141, with its code like the Bv-141, must be asymmetric:
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/BoultonPAul%20P141z.jpg)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on April 27, 2019, 02:07:55 am
Right just over the month to go lads
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on April 29, 2019, 05:57:40 am
I'd better get a wriggle on.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on May 22, 2019, 06:36:41 am
With only just over a week to go I note none of you guys has asked for an extension?  :o

Are you feeling ill or are just so far ahead of your build programmes that you're all wholly confident of finishing by next Friday?
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: jalles on May 22, 2019, 02:16:25 pm
With only just over a week to go I note none of you guys has asked for an extension?  :o

Are you feeling ill or are just so far ahead of your build programmes that you're all wholly confident of finishing by next Friday?


There is absolutely no way I'll be done next Friday  :banghead:  There's only about a 50% chance I'll be done if there's a two week extension.

So, about that two week extension...
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on May 22, 2019, 04:56:03 pm

So, about that two week extension...


Is that an official request?  ;D
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: jalles on May 22, 2019, 05:13:56 pm

So, about that two week extension...


Is that an official request?  ;D

Okay, official request, could we please have a two week extension?  ;D
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: TomZ on May 22, 2019, 11:32:07 pm
Okay, official request, could we please have a two week extension?  ;D

Seconded. My Emirates KM-300 still needs some paint and decals  :lol:

TomZ
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on May 23, 2019, 02:26:49 am
OK, the mods will moderate and hand down our judgement in due time.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on May 23, 2019, 03:02:42 am
The mods have met in plenary session (which is pretty good considering we're 12000 miles apart!  :o) and have decided, much against our better judgement, that there will be a 2 week extension.

Thus the GB will end at midnight, local time wherever you are, on Friday June 14th.

In case that's confusing it means you can carry on building until 2359 hrs on the 14th, but have to stop within the next 60 seconds.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: NARSES2 on June 01, 2019, 02:16:10 am
Just under a couple of weeks to go lads
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: zenrat on June 01, 2019, 03:18:37 am
Yep.  Flying Dinghy will be done in time.  Not sure about the 'dyne.  Paint is still causing issues.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: kitnut617 on June 13, 2019, 03:06:39 pm
For all those who weren't able to complete there builds in the GB, I sympathize  ---- I wasn't able to even start what I was going to build ---  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 13, 2019, 03:18:38 pm
Just over 24 hrs to go for those on the UK, less than that for those east of us, and more for those to the west obviously.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 14, 2019, 10:39:51 am
Less than 5.5 hrs to go for GMT time zone builders. You guys in Oz are already past the time limit I'm afraid.
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: rickshaw on June 14, 2019, 06:17:07 pm
Less than 5.5 hrs to go for GMT time zone builders. You guys in Oz are already past the time limit I'm afraid.

Aw, geee and I was just going to start my entry, Kit.  Any chance of an extension?   :banghead:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 15, 2019, 02:38:39 am
It's all done and dusted now Brian, even for those who live in Adelaide, sorry.  ;D
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: rickshaw on June 15, 2019, 07:33:52 am
It's all done and dusted now Brian, even for those who live in Adelaide, sorry.  ;D

Damn!  And I had a real cracker ready to go!   :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 15, 2019, 08:59:08 am
You could still build it, and it might even be nominated for a Whiffie, you never know.  ;)
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: rickshaw on June 15, 2019, 06:21:37 pm
You could still build it, and it might even be nominated for a Whiffie, you never know.  ;)

Nope, no, now you've destroyed my mojo.  You beast!  :banghead:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: McColm on July 05, 2019, 07:07:42 pm
Due to a few started builds before this Group Build was nominated,  I'm ruling myself out  of this project but here are a few ideas for your Whiffers; adding the engines from a  B-52 to the  Trident airliner- the 5 engined version.  A  triple engined Avro Shackleton  or twin turboprops/ turbofaned  engines.  The Boeing  SST airliner  with the engines from an Airfix 1/144 BAC Concorde.  :banghead:
Title: Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
Post by: Weaver on July 05, 2019, 08:10:09 pm
Due to a few started builds before this Group Build was nominated,  I'm ruling myself out  of this project but here are a few ideas for your Whiffers; adding the engines from a  B-52 to the  Trident airliner- the 5 engined version.  A  triple engined Avro Shackleton  or twin turboprops/ turbofaned  engines.  The Boeing  SST airliner  with the engines from an Airfix 1/144 BAC Concorde.  :banghead:

If you meant to post this on the Engines More Or Less GB thread, then you've put it on the wrong one - sorry.