The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion

[Mossie]

Grown up version of the Rovers from The Prisoner?

[jcf]

Self erecting VATOL FW 860, perhaps something similar for a tail-sitting Flapjack.

[Scotaidh]

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 ...

[PR19_Kit]

Within the (extremely wide.... ) terms of reference of this GB I'm sure a Channel Wing would be allowable, but I'll consult with my fellow mod.

[zenrat]

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.

[NARSES2]

Within the (extremely wide.... ) 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 

[jcf]

Don't forget this work around for yer conventional flying machines. 

[jcf]

I added some Gloster VTOL stuff to my old Gloster topicc:
http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,16717.msg841160.html#msg841160

A teaser:

[PR19_Kit]

An EIGHTEEN engined Meteor? 

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? 

[jcf]

Some Boulton-Paul VTOL stuff.

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

Teaser.

[jcf]

An EIGHTEEN engined Meteor? 

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? 

Tethered flights only, the tether being a fuel hose. 

[PR19_Kit]

And that B-P airliner has THIRTY EIGHT engines! 

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

That's nearly one engine per passenger!

[Weaver]

And that B-P airliner has THIRTY EIGHT engines! 

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

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.

[PR19_Kit]

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.

[Tophe]

Years ago, I decided that the Boulton-Paul P.141, with its code like the Bv-141, must be asymmetric: