The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion

[PR19_Kit]

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.

[NARSES2]

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 ........  whence the leniency.

I'm not even certain about my entry  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 ?

[jcf]

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.

[PR19_Kit]

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

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

[JayBee]

Gentlemen, please, What If?

[Tophe]

Gentlemen, please, What If?

I agree, thanks JayBee

[jcf]

Gentlemen, please, What If?

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

Thanks

[jcf]

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

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

It could be an amusing tail-sitter. 

[JayBee]

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?

[jcf]

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.

[PR19_Kit]

Other opinions are, of course, available..................

[NARSES2]

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 ? 

[kitnut617]

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.

[NARSES2]

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  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.

[zenrat]

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.



Spinning the sphere backwards while the airship moves forwards generates lift.  Varying the speed varies the amount of lift.