Old video of Burt Rutan and Mike Melvill demoing composite strength.

[Jim Logajan]

While searching for videos demonstrating composite construction on Youtube,
I came across this rather dated video of Burt Rutan and Mike Melvill
demonstrating the advantages of composites over aluminum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUt0YnNF3o

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> While searching for videos demonstrating composite construction on Youtube,
> I came across this rather dated video of Burt Rutan and Mike Melvill
> demonstrating the advantages of composites over aluminum:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUt0YnNF3o

Very interesting.
But no information given about the weight differences.

[[email protected]]

Pseudo-science. A floor-mat isn't an airplane's wing and anyone who
tries to sell you the one by comparing it to the other is simply
preying upon your ignorance.

In the final analysis most of the claims made for the Varieze -- VW-
powered, easy to build, inexpensive, simple control system -- proved
false.

-R.S.Hoover

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
cavelamb himself > wrote:

> Jim Logajan wrote:
> > While searching for videos demonstrating composite construction on Youtube,
> > I came across this rather dated video of Burt Rutan and Mike Melvill
> > demonstrating the advantages of composites over aluminum:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUt0YnNF3o
>
> Very interesting.
> But no information given about the weight differences.

Actually, he mentioned at least twice that both were the same weight.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
cavelamb himself > wrote:

> Jim Logajan wrote:
> > While searching for videos demonstrating composite construction on Youtube,
> > I came across this rather dated video of Burt Rutan and Mike Melvill
> > demonstrating the advantages of composites over aluminum:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUt0YnNF3o
>
> Very interesting.
> But no information given about the weight differences.

You mean other than stating multiple times that the two parts shown were
exactly the same weight?

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Alan Baker wrote:

> In article >,
> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>
>
>>Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>>While searching for videos demonstrating composite construction on Youtube,
>>>I came across this rather dated video of Burt Rutan and Mike Melvill
>>>demonstrating the advantages of composites over aluminum:
>>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUt0YnNF3o
>>
>>Very interesting.
>>But no information given about the weight differences.
>
>
> Actually, he mentioned at least twice that both were the same weight.
>

I'll go back and watch it again, but I didn't hear that.

And yes, I really am pretty deaf.

Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

[Tim Blite]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 23:15:23 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> While searching for videos demonstrating composite construction on Youtube,
> I came across this rather dated video of Burt Rutan and Mike Melvill
> demonstrating the advantages of composites over aluminum:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUt0YnNF3o

What a crock of ****, thx for the laffs.
--
http://www.tronguy.net
(Yeppers, that's me!!)

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "vee" == veeduber > writes:

vee> Pseudo-science. A floor-mat isn't an airplane's wing and
vee> anyone who tries to sell you the one by comparing it to the
vee> other is simply preying upon your ignorance.

vee> In the final analysis most of the claims made for the Varieze
vee> -- VW- powered, easy to build, inexpensive, simple control
vee> system -- proved false.

Say it again, brudda! Rutan is aviation's premier snake-oil salesman.
--
I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the
West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the
world, in the field of advertising, and have mastered the techniques
with exceptional proficiency. Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours
are crude and obvious. I think that the fundamental difference between
our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to
believe yours and we tend to disbelieve ours.
~ A U.S. based Soviet correspondent

[RST Engineering]

Heifer dust. Daddy taught me that the best sense an engineer can have is to
recognize a dead horse, take it out, and bury it with the least possible
ceremony.

Rutan discovered early on, before anybody bought the farm with his poor
advice, that the VW was NOT reliable enough to power the airplane properly.
He immediately changed his plans to incorporate a "real" airplane engine.
As I understand it, there are EZs flying with every imaginable powerplant,
from Continentals to Mazdas and Suzukis.

As to "easy to build", that is a loosey-goosey term. However, until Rutan
came along, airplane construction for most folks was measured in decades.
He measured in years. Get a full blown factory up and running to provide
"kits" with "fast build" options like Van and you now measure in months.
That wasn't Rutan's gig. He sold plans, that if followed, produced a pretty
damned good airplane. And, unlike some in the business, never took a nickel
from anybody for vaporware.

As to "simple control system", again that is something that can't be
measured. What is simple to one is complex to another.

But Grizzly, Defiant, Voyager, Space I ... marks of a snake oil salesman?
Fry, you suck. Oh, and Fry, how many designs have YOU made that have flown?
And put on the market? And endured years and years of answering the same
stupid questions over and over? And year after year filled the tent at
Oshkosh with overflow crowds? Hmmm?

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle




"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...

>
> vee> In the final analysis most of the claims made for the Varieze
> vee> -- VW- powered, easy to build, inexpensive, simple control
> vee> system -- proved false.
>
> Say it again, brudda! Rutan is aviation's premier snake-oil salesman.

[BobR]

What weight differences? Repeatedly throughout the clip the fact that
both airfoils were the same weight was repeated. The weight
difference in completed aircraft has been shown to be very minor even
when the composite aircraft was entirely constructed using hand
layups. Kits with premolded parts are often equal or lighter in
weight than comparable metal aircraft.

cavelamb himself wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
> > While searching for videos demonstrating composite construction on Youtube,
> > I came across this rather dated video of Burt Rutan and Mike Melvill
> > demonstrating the advantages of composites over aluminum:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUt0YnNF3o
>
> Very interesting.
> But no information given about the weight differences.

[wright1902glider]

> cavelamb himself wrote:
> > Jim Logajan wrote:
> > > While searching for videos demonstrating composite construction on Youtube,
> > > I came across this rather dated video of Burt Rutan and Mike Melvill
> > > demonstrating the advantages of composites over aluminum:

That video was marketing, not an engineering analysis. Its the kind of
thing that you see at trade shows and on infomercials because it looks
cool and illustrates the claimed advantages of one thing over another.
Politicians use exactly the same marketing techniques in thier
campaign ads. Why? Two reasons. First, to give an exacting accurate
account of anything, be it an engineering analysis of alum vs. 'glass
or the voting records of the donkeys vs. the elephants, you need time
to cover all of the points. Second, most people get bored with minutia
and don't want to suffer through hours of something that sounds like a
doctorial thesis just to find out that this stuff is sometimes better
than that stuff and vice versa. They want at most a 5 minute
explination. 1 minute is better. 28 seconds is ideal.

Fact is that we've all debated the merits of various materials in this
group and determined that just about everything in use has some merit
and some disadvantages. And we've also all determined that until some
genus produces mass-quantities of cheap Idealtoniumunobtanium, there
will be no perfect material for constructing a flying machine. What we
all do with what we have, what we choose to buy, and what we can do
without is the stated puropse of this group. Go forth and experiment.

Harry Frey
Wright Brothers Enterprises
"worst design-type on RAH"

[Beryl[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> While searching for videos demonstrating composite construction on Youtube,
> I came across this rather dated video of Burt Rutan and Mike Melvill
> demonstrating the advantages of composites over aluminum:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUt0YnNF3o

My "non-metallic structures" instructor, a composites guy retired from
Douglas Aircraft, showed that video at A&P school. He told us that the
demo was bogus.

[Bob Kuykendall]

They seem to have demonstrated that aluminum is stiffer than
fiberglass per unit mass. Alert the press.

Bob K.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "RST" == RST Engineering > writes:

RST> But Grizzly, Defiant, Voyager, Space I ... marks of a snake
RST> oil salesman? Fry, you suck. Oh, and Fry, how many designs
RST> have YOU made that have flown? And put on the market? And
RST> endured years and years of answering the same stupid
RST> questions over and over? And year after year filled the tent
RST> at Oshkosh with overflow crowds? Hmmm?

Popularity is now your measure of goodness? That sure isn't
engineering. I've seen a steady stream of popular and useless techs
and engineers.

Rutan is good--great--at highly experimental, bleeding edge, one-off
designs. He sucks at designing anything even partway extending
mainstream, usable designs. Just what the hell has ever happened
later in the mainstream with his pioneering work? Not much.

Space I? Damn near had disasters on one or two of the flights as I
recall. And his tilting tail "innovation" is a dead end: will never
work for orbital.

He sucks at attitude. His constant dissing of anything from NASA
disrespects the genuine accomplishments of many thousands of
engineers, techs, etc.

He also sucks at being careful, killing workers with his casual
treatment of very dangerous fuels.

I haven't designed anything that flies because guess what, Jimbo, I
don't do aeronautics. I do water resources, and in that field, I've
done a number of pioneering innovations that are still being used.
And I can damn well tell blowhard talkers from doers.

Go suck yourself, boy.
--
The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.
~ George Orwell

[Jerry Springer]

Bob Fry wrote:
I do water resources, and in that field, I've
> done a number of pioneering innovations that are still being used.


Any place I can read about them?

[Peter Dohm]

Usenet is almost a microcosm of the world at large; and in all of usenet,
you have successfully brought my kill-file count up to the fingers of one
hand.

[RST Engineering]

>
> Popularity is now your measure of goodness? That sure isn't
> engineering. I've seen a steady stream of popular and useless techs
> and engineers.

No. Engineering is making what you want from what you've got. It takes a
special breed of cat to do that time after time after time successfully.


>
> Rutan is good--great--at highly experimental, bleeding edge, one-off
> designs. He sucks at designing anything even partway extending
> mainstream, usable designs. Just what the hell has ever happened
> later in the mainstream with his pioneering work? Not much.

Like most brilliant folks, having done it once proved the point. It remains
for the plodders to replicate it for the mass market. I love R&D; I detest
production. I only do it because that puts the beans on the table. He
found another way to get the beans.


>
> Space I? Damn near had disasters on one or two of the flights as I
> recall. And his tilting tail "innovation" is a dead end: will never
> work for orbital.

And your credentials for making this statement are? Your degree in
aeroengineering is from where?

>
> He sucks at attitude. His constant dissing of anything from NASA
> disrespects the genuine accomplishments of many thousands of
> engineers, techs, etc.

Ever work for NASA, sonny? NASA has a lot of interpretations of their
acronym, not a lot of them positive. I got my chops for my first five years
out of school working for them under contract. Apollo 13 and the meter-foot
Mars plow isn't but the tip of the iceberg; it is all you have been allowed
to see.

>
> He also sucks at being careful, killing workers with his casual
> treatment of very dangerous fuels.

You miserable *******. You miserable lousy *******. It was just a usenet
discussion up until now. I hope your mother has recovered from the disease
she got when the soldiers invaded your country.

>
> I haven't designed anything that flies because guess what, Jimbo, I
> don't do aeronautics. I do water resources, and in that field, I've
> done a number of pioneering innovations that are still being used.
> And I can damn well tell blowhard talkers from doers.

Me too. I think we all know who the blowhard is in this discussion. Unless
you'd care to lead us to the place where your "pioneering innovations" have
been discussed in "****house News".

Jim

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> >
> > Popularity is now your measure of goodness? That sure isn't
> > engineering. I've seen a steady stream of popular and useless techs
> > and engineers.
>
> No. Engineering is making what you want from what you've got. It takes a
> special breed of cat to do that time after time after time successfully.
>
> > Rutan is good--great--at highly experimental, bleeding edge, one-off
> > designs. He sucks at designing anything even partway extending
> > mainstream, usable designs. Just what the hell has ever happened
> > later in the mainstream with his pioneering work? Not much.
>
> Like most brilliant folks, having done it once proved the point. It remains
> for the plodders to replicate it for the mass market. I love R&D; I detest
> production. I only do it because that puts the beans on the table. He
> found another way to get the beans.
>
> > Space I? Damn near had disasters on one or two of the flights as I
> > recall.

And the roll problem was diagnosed, treated and fixed, right?

Isn't this the way aeronautical development has been done over the last
century or so? I don't recall everyone else having always fixed all
potential problems before bending metal throughout history.

> > And his tilting tail "innovation" is a dead end: will never
> > work for orbital.
>
> And your credentials for making this statement are? Your degree in
> aeroengineering is from where?

Looking at Rutan's designs over the years, he appears to be very much
focused on highly-specific engineering solutions for a given project.

Subsequent projects may or may not use the same approach.

SS1/2's shuttlecock solution is a very elegant solution for suborbital
return. I don't see any reason why he'd want to use it for some future
orbital craft; which is to say I don't see it as a problem.

> > He sucks at attitude. His constant dissing of anything from NASA
> > disrespects the genuine accomplishments of many thousands of
> > engineers, techs, etc.

I haven't heard every single comment of his about NASA, but what I have
heard was clearly, to me, aimed largely at the post-Apollo bureaucracy
(and related Congressional issues).

The which has had serious problems with followthrough on major projects
over the past 30 years, though not all of them *totally* NASA's fault.

> Ever work for NASA, sonny? NASA has a lot of interpretations of their
> acronym, not a lot of them positive. I got my chops for my first five years
> out of school working for them under contract. Apollo 13 and the meter-foot
> Mars plow isn't but the tip of the iceberg; it is all you have been allowed
> to see.
>
> > He also sucks at being careful, killing workers with his casual
> > treatment of very dangerous fuels.
>
> You miserable *******. You miserable lousy *******. It was just a usenet
> discussion up until now. I hope your mother has recovered from the disease
> she got when the soldiers invaded your country.

This is the point at which Bob provides proof that Rutan sneaked into
the facility in the dead of night and sabotaged equipment to kill his
own employees and friends, right?

Criminal conspiracies being so much more likely than a tragic accident,
and all.

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
m...
> >
>> Popularity is now your measure of goodness? That sure isn't
>> engineering. I've seen a steady stream of popular and useless techs
>> and engineers.
>
> No. Engineering is making what you want from what you've got. It takes a
> special breed of cat to do that time after time after time successfully.
>
>
>>
>> Rutan is good--great--at highly experimental, bleeding edge, one-off
>> designs. He sucks at designing anything even partway extending
>> mainstream, usable designs. Just what the hell has ever happened
>> later in the mainstream with his pioneering work? Not much.
>
> Like most brilliant folks, having done it once proved the point. It
> remains for the plodders to replicate it for the mass market. I love R&D;
> I detest production. I only do it because that puts the beans on the
> table. He found another way to get the beans.
>
>
>>
>> Space I? Damn near had disasters on one or two of the flights as I
>> recall. And his tilting tail "innovation" is a dead end: will never
>> work for orbital.
>
> And your credentials for making this statement are? Your degree in
> aeroengineering is from where?
>
>>
>> He sucks at attitude. His constant dissing of anything from NASA
>> disrespects the genuine accomplishments of many thousands of
>> engineers, techs, etc.
>
> Ever work for NASA, sonny? NASA has a lot of interpretations of their
> acronym, not a lot of them positive. I got my chops for my first five
> years out of school working for them under contract. Apollo 13 and the
> meter-foot Mars plow isn't but the tip of the iceberg; it is all you have
> been allowed to see.
>
>>
>> He also sucks at being careful, killing workers with his casual
>> treatment of very dangerous fuels.
>
> You miserable *******. You miserable lousy *******. It was just a usenet
> discussion up until now. I hope your mother has recovered from the
> disease she got when the soldiers invaded your country.
>
>>
>> I haven't designed anything that flies because guess what, Jimbo, I
>> don't do aeronautics. I do water resources, and in that field, I've
>> done a number of pioneering innovations that are still being used.
>> And I can damn well tell blowhard talkers from doers.
>
> Me too. I think we all know who the blowhard is in this discussion.
> Unless you'd care to lead us to the place where your "pioneering
> innovations" have been discussed in "****house News".
>
> Jim
Jim I think that you have removed any possibility of ambigous
interpretations of your point of view. But should you find it necessary,
you could always resort to stronger language.
I also have a problem with people setting on the sidelines, and someone not
involved in design, construction and testing of aviation related systems is
in my mind just setting on the sidelines, being a "Critic Observer". We
have a saying of either "Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the Way".
"Critic Observers" are not welcome or given much attention.
Yeah. R&D is much more fun than the grinding out involved in production.
In the experimental helicopter field I've seen some prettey crude examples.
However, they weren't just setting around criticizing someone else's work.
They cut the wood, metal, modified the auto engine and became a lot smarter
as a result of their effort. Those people, regardless of the quality of
their product, are creating and are a positive force.

Stu Fields

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "RST" == RST Engineering > writes:
Well Jimbo, I can see that pointing out some flaws in your blind hero
worship has certainly touched a nerve with you. And your responses
are so considered, logical, and emperical.

Of course you haven't revealed anything in your post that we didn't
know before: you are a clever techie with a shallow intellect, redneck
manners, and, like other rednecks, damn proud of bein' ignorant.

As to the requests for the water resources stuff. They involved
application of artificial neural networks, coarse grain parallization,
improvements to user interfaces, statistically correct calibration of
numerical models, etc. Rather beyond the understanding of the
requestors here.
--
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word
itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words
- "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery,
and that's why so is mankind.
- Jack Handey

[Jerry Springer]

Bob Fry wrote:

>
> As to the requests for the water resources stuff. They involved
> application of artificial neural networks, coarse grain parallization,
> improvements to user interfaces, statistically correct calibration of
> numerical models, etc. Rather beyond the understanding of the
> requestors here.

Wow, we are all so dumb and you are so smart.

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> "RST" == RST Engineering > writes:
> Well Jimbo, I can see that pointing out some flaws in your blind hero
> worship has certainly touched a nerve with you. And your responses
> are so considered, logical, and emperical.
>
> Of course you haven't revealed anything in your post that we didn't
> know before: you are a clever techie with a shallow intellect, redneck
> manners, and, like other rednecks, damn proud of bein' ignorant.
>
> As to the requests for the water resources stuff. They involved
> application of artificial neural networks, coarse grain parallization,
> improvements to user interfaces, statistically correct calibration of
> numerical models, etc. Rather beyond the understanding of the
> requestors here.

Bit of an ego here? I did post grad work at Berkely in Information and
Communication theory. Neural networks aren't exactly beyond everyone's
understanding but yours. They've been around the signal processing world
for years.
Stu Fields

> --
> Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word
> itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words
> - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery,
> and that's why so is mankind.
> - Jack Handey

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

There seem to be different focal points involved here.

There are the homebuilders. They are building airplanes and come here
to commiserate and occasionally brag a bit.
They share their experiences - good or bad.


There are the net heads. They don't build airplanes. They probably
think they could (if they wanted to) but find it more interesting to
watch and criticize those poor schmucks actually building stuff.
They share their opinions - good or bad - wanted or not.
It's all about being on the net!

Then there are the egotists. Dunno if they are building anything or not
- and don't care. They are always right - even if they don't know what
they are talking about. And even worse if they do.
They don't share anything.
It's all about them.


You know, you may be the smartest guy in the world.

But it means nothing if you can't cut a straight line, weld a pretty
bead, drive rivets without smiling :), or wire up a light.

Or at least try.

The rest of ya'll are just a bunch of pathetic pud knockers.


Sincerely,

Richard