The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

[DPK2]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Michele,

Very interesting reading.
After reading through all these posts I to have to agree with you. Rutan has had sucesses and done some things well, but he seems to be very one-track-minded in his designs. He seems to be only interested in unconventional designs. You can't compare Rutan with the likes of Kelly Johnson. All aircraft will have teething problems in the beginning but most designers learn from their mistakes and adapt and change their ideas. Sure the P-38 had some probems with compressibility and intersection drag but the U2, F104, and SR71 didn't. They were all platforms designed for a specific mission but differed greatly in their layout.

I think Rutan should be remembered for his composite construction ideas. He surely deserves credit for using and refining the use of composites.

I have never been up in a EZ but the people who fly them seem to love them. Peas! I do always look twice when one is taking off and rolls and rolls and rolls some more down the runway before lifting the nose and slowly climbing out. I do admit that when one flys overhead and is on step, they move out very well.

As a teenager I remember seeing the drawing of the Pond on the cover of PMech. or PSci. and thinking - wow what a cool looking plane. I really rooted for it and hoped it would do well. I never really understood until much later what all the problems were and why it never lived up to the hype.

Spaceship One did do its job well aside from some control issues and did it relatively cheaply. However there is NO comparison between it and NASAs shuttle. The shuttle is an orbital vehicle. Spaceship one is not and could never go into orbit. A better comparison would be to compare Spaceship one to the X-15 they both did about the same mission.

David

[Leo]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

And Burt had NO hand in the SB2C Helldiver!

Or the Brewster Buffalo...
Or ANY of the exerimenals of the 40's and 50's.
Heck, they all have their quirks. Johnson liked pusing the edge of whatever direction he was headed, Northrop just could'nt get the flying wing out of his head.
And I would agree that Rutan seems to like anything with a strange shape, but then, he leaves the more mundane designs to the Cessna's and Pipers. SOMEONE has got to do what he does!
By the way the book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich is a great history of Lockheed an Johnson in later years. Also shows what it takes to get a design off the ground.

[Apteryx]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

I think Rutan should be remembered for his composite construction ideas. He surely deserves credit for using and refining the use of composites David

...and that he's a designer that put's his epoxy were his mouth is, there are a lot of great 'paper' airplanes out there.
Michele, salute for sticking to your guns, it's not easy.

Now, let's put this thread to rest

[Leo]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

I'll second that.
It's refreshing to see someone stick to and back their opinion.

[jarrodeu]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

By the way the book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich is a great history of Lockheed an Johnson in later years. Also shows what it takes to get a design off the ground.

I too agree that it is a great book. I am reading it now for the third time.

Jarrod

[Peashooter]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

I do always look twice when one is taking off and rolls and rolls and rolls some more down the runway before lifting the nose and slowly climbing out. I do admit that when one flys overhead and is on step, they move out very well.

That's a sign of an aggressively pitched cruise prop on an EZ, or any AC. Same deal with the F1 and Sport Bipe racers -- long takeoff rolls because there's no "low gear" with a fixed pitch prop. It's like taking off on your mountain bike in top gear -- once you get rolling, you can make efficient use of the horsepower. Once the engine unwinds and gets into the top of its torque band, then things get fun.

There aren't many EZs with climb props -- that's like a road racing bike with a single speed coaster brake sprocket on the back wheel; lots of flailing and little locomotion.

A hot day with two people and mid-fuel loads in an EZ gets your attention on takeoff, but any airplane with a fixed cruise prop will face the same slow acceleration. You just stay on longer runways (3,500+) and avoid steep climb gradients (trees!). Thus the published figures for most AC for takeoff distance over a 50 foot obstacle.

[First time Juke]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Or the Brewster Buffalo...

Don't say this to finnish veteran pilots. FAF had a 33 / 1 killratio over enemy aircrafts during the Winter War 1939-1940 when flying Brewster Buffaloes.
It is understandable why Brewsters had little success in the Pacific. Battlehardened japanese aviators flying advanced Zeros certainly weren't the same level of adversary as the bloodthirsty commies flying I-16s and I-153s.

--------------------------------

...there are a lot of great 'paper' airplanes out there.

Generally the " funding makes these birds fly ". Howard Hughes was a multimillionaire and had time to experiment with aeroplanes. That is why there has been very few experimental unlimiteds after PR, Miss Ashley II and Tsunami. Car engines are cheaper...maybe that is the way to go ?

Now, let's put this thread to rest

Yeah why not.

[First time Juke]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Ooops !

In the name of historical correctness I have to continue this thread a bit. The Brewsters in FAF service saw action in the Continuation War and Winter War was fought with english Gloster Gladiators and dutch Fokker D XXIs and few italian Fiat G-50s by the finns.

Killratio seems to be 26/1 today !

http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/faf/brewster.html

[DPK2]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Peas,

Thanks for the answer to the long take off roll. That is what I had thought was the cause. I guess the solution would be to use a constant speed prop but that adds cost and complexity. As a kid I do remember seeing lots of EZs being built or in partial stages of construction. Now that I think back I guess the EZ was one of the first homebuilts that a normal individual could build.

David

[MRussell]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

I too agree that it is a great book. I am reading it now for the third time.

Jarrod

I've read it once (I got to meet Ben when I was in 7th grade... my mom took me out of an English exam to go meet him), and I also recommend "More Than My Share of it All", Kelly's autobiography, which I'm finishing for the 2nd time. The book was written in the very early 1980s, and in it, Kelly makes some predictions about the year 2000. It's amazing (or not, actually) how spot-on he was for several of the predictions, specifically with regard to UAVs and other weapons systems. Overall an inspiring and easy read.

[Blue Foam]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Interesting controversy here, I have to admit I wanted to wait until a little of the emotion died down before posting.

IMHO, I can't ever see putting Kelly and Burt in the same catagory. BTW, Kelly joined Lockheed (originally Loughead) in 1933 and had immediate and critical design influence on the Model 10 including the twin verticals and removing the popular and aesthetic "smooting" wing fillets that caused a 20% drag penalty at high alpha. Placing a vertical directly behind each engine made the aircraft much safer as well as reducing required tail size (and drag) and was a classic example of REAL innovation that other designers copied for years with great success. Burt even used it on his Boomerang. To this day, placing twin verticals in this fashion on a twin prop aircraft is superior for pitch and yaw stability and drag. Fashion dictates the single vertical in most GA twins. An interesting trade study at Lockheed showed the C-130 and Electra (P-3) would have been better with twin tails hanging in the prop wash of the inboard engines, but the single tail had better ground clearance.

To date, lifting canards (as opposed to control canards), forward sweep, assymetric twins, and all other odd configuration ideas that Burt has had have not made their way onto successful commercial or military aircraft. This is not for lack of study. Anyone outside the design community would be absolutely amazed at what is studied within the walls of Boeing, Airbus, LM, NG, etc. The things I have seen from these supposed conservative companies out-Burt Burt. They never see the open skies because the designs we all get to see are better.

The lifting canard has been used by Cozy and others who wanted kit versions of the feature popularized (but not invented) by Burt. However, commerical applications are lacking simply because it is not superior in range*payload/empty weight vs. a conventional design. Given the same restrictions of CG and stall speed (or minimum speed) a conventional design can also not fall off or spin and still end up faster and better than a lifting-canard. In my own experience, the Piper Cherokee and C-172 at forward CG also don't fall off or nose down in the stall, they simply mush through. Where's the advantage?

The Long-eze and Vari-eze do not meet FAR part 23 standards, so comparing them to aircraft that do (experimental or not) is not valid. To get the wonderous performance, Burt simply upped the wing loading beyond what would be legal in the cert world. The RV's may be a little slower, but have better range*payload/empty weight and stall slow enough to be legal if they were certificated. There's also a lot more of them flying than there are canards. Good reasons for that.

There have been records set with some of Burt's designs, Kelly's also. The difference is that Kelly's aircraft competed with other aircraft from other major manufacturers playing by the same rules and were superior in many cases. The "one-off" types like the A-12/SR-71 and U-2/TR-2 competed for contracts with other companies and won. Burt choses to compete with no one and never worries about the design making money, which BTW, none of his designs ever have. We should all have such luxury.

On the Pond, look beyond the details of intersection drag, configuration, engine choice, etc. Although these are valid points, they miss the global issue of the design simply being inadequate to the task. In terms of HP/weight and HP/wetted area the Pond did EXACTLY what every Mustang, Sea Fury, and Bearcat have done within a few percent. Somehow, this gets lost in the discussion, but the ratios showed that the aircraft should do 360 to 380 mph lap with 600 HP per side and ~450 with 1000 per side. Given the rise in speeds at Reno in the years before the design was flown, Burt simply did not reach far enough to be a winner. And, there was no margin for improvements in future years. Sandberg has to be credited here because he took a fixed engine point knowing that he could keep up with other Mustang engine developments and had the advantage of a smaller and lighter aircraft. Anyone wishing to design-to-win should follow this more global lesson. Configuration is second.

Burt has a successful business, I wish him well. He is the world leader in convincing billionaires to part with millions for one-off projects that have never and will never make money. Everyone in the professional aerospace community wishes they could do the same. But our designs have to make money, not just spend it.

[MRussell]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Sandberg has to be credited here because he took a fixed engine point knowing that he could keep up with other Mustang engine developments and had the advantage of a smaller and lighter aircraft.

Wasn't it really Boland?

Burt has a successful business, I wish him well. He is the world leader in convincing billionaires to part with millions for one-off projects that have never and will never make money. Everyone in the professional aerospace community wishes they could do the same. But our designs have to make money, not just spend it.

No offense, but I think that's a cheap shot. If you're not a designer with a big-name company financing your ideas, you must seek out your own financing, which he's done. But that doesn't disqualify him in any way from being measured as an engineer.
Granted, Kelly was profit- and savings-focused from before the word go. Perhaps he really is/was in a class all by himself (stating the obvious, I know), but is it really fair for the jury to render a negative verdict on Burt so early? He has alot of good years left in him. Seems hasty to me.

[First time Juke]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Placing a vertical directly behind each engine made the aircraft much safer as well as reducing required tail size (and drag) and was a classic example of REAL innovation that other designers copied for years with great success.

Even at the risk of being labelled a moroon; how does this make a plane safer ? Was " Connie " the safest when it had three verticals ( like Pond Racer ) ?

[Blue Foam]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

No offense, but I think that's a cheap shot. If you're not a designer with a big-name company financing your ideas, you must seek out your own financing, which he's done. But that doesn't disqualify him in any way from being measured as an engineer.
Granted, Kelly was profit- and savings-focused from before the word go. Perhaps he really is/was in a class all by himself (stating the obvious, I know), but is it really fair for the jury to render a negative verdict on Burt so early? He has alot of good years left in him. Seems hasty to me.

No offense taken, your response is polite well reasoned. I apologize for not staying at the same level all of the time.

Yes, Burt does have to seek out financing and this does sometimes compromise engineering objectivity. It did in my case on at least two projects. However, Burt has designed and constructed over 30 prototype aircraft in the last 30 years. This in itself is an amazing accomplishment (I am NOT being patronizing or facecious). 30 years is more than enough to determine if this designer has really made "innovative" contributions to the art of design or is mearly "creative" in the manner of implementing many different, but not innovative ideas.

For semantic purposes, I define creativity as doing something different that others; innovation is defined as doing something better.

With more than 30 prototypes, no successful production aircraft (the Starship was inferior in every way), and no "creative" features incorporated in anyone else's certificated production or military aircraft, we have to conclude that at this point in history Burt is not worth a footnote other than for the 2 record aircraft, Voyager and Global Flyer. Space Ship 1 didn't set any FAI records and suffered structural and control failures while missing its performance spec by nearly 20%.

Oooo, but wait. Voyager had a range spec of over 32,000 miles and landed with less than 2000 miles of fuel left after a 25,000 mile trip. That's nearly a 20% range*payload shortfall. So was Venture, so was Starship, ATTR, Ares, etc.

No one that I have ever known in this industry has had as many chances over as many years as Rutan to get it right. In the judgement of the professional aerospace industry, Burt never has made a successful product. It's sad, but my statement stands, and I am NOT being sarcastic in my admiration of his ability to attract investment without accountability.

As to the use of dual verticals specifically enveloped in the prop wash of twin props, yes, they are superior in every aerodynamic aspect to a central tail. The Pond would have been a better design with larger twin tails and no central tail. The Continental also. Anyone who questions this should perform a trade study. In this industry, the professionals live and die by honest trade studies.

[Blue Foam]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

As to the use of dual verticals specifically enveloped in the prop wash of twin props, yes, they are superior in every aerodynamic aspect to a central tail. The Pond would have been a better design with larger twin tails and no central tail. The Continental also. Anyone who questions this should perform a trade study. In this industry, the professionals live and die by honest trade studies.

Juke, to answer your question directly, the placement of the verticals directly in the prop wash of the twin engines provides for better controllability in engine-out situations. The live engine provides energized flow over the respective vertical tail, reducing the required tail size for engine-out controllability.

A larger central tail with the same wetted area as a properly designed twin tail configuration will not have equivalent controllability in engine-out flight. Engine-out flight during approach and go-around is the limiting factor for tail sizing of most twin engine (and multi-engine) aircraft.