B-50(?) + X1

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

OK, everyone's seen a million RC model videos, but this one's pretty cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1gW4IdiOVA&feature=related

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
m...
> OK, everyone's seen a million RC model videos, but this one's pretty cool:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1gW4IdiOVA&feature=related
>

B-29 wasn't it?

Very cool.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:19:59 -0500, "Dan Luke" > wrote in
>:

>OK, everyone's seen a million RC model videos, but this one's pretty cool:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1gW4IdiOVA&feature=related

It's a B-29. A historically accurate pairing:

http://members.tripod.com/derekhorne/yeagerx1.html

There have been a couple versions of that model built
by Mac Hodges.

One of them lost control and went through the windshield of a
rental car at an RC airshow. I can't find an internet
reference to the event.

The aerobatic maneuvers of the models of the X-1 and the B-29
are, of course, outside the general operating limits of the
prototypes. :o)

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote:

> It's a B-29. A historically accurate pairing:
>
> http://members.tripod.com/derekhorne/yeagerx1.html
>

Roger that.


>
> The aerobatic maneuvers of the models of the X-1 and the B-29
> are, of course, outside the general operating limits of the
> prototypes. :o)

Yep. Used to be one of my pet peeves back in my scale RC competition days.

But that B-29 in a flat spin is a mind blower. I thought he wasn't going to
recover.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:37:03 -0500, "Dan Luke" > wrote in
>:

>> The aerobatic maneuvers of the models of the X-1 and the B-29
>> are, of course, outside the general operating limits of the
>> prototypes. :o)

>Yep. Used to be one of my pet peeves back in my scale RC competition days.

I've only read about scale RC competition. I haven't
competed myself. But I did get the idea that the catalogue
of maneuvers chosen for flight judging were supposed to be
limited to the abilities of the prototype.

>But that B-29 in a flat spin is a mind blower. I thought he wasn't going to
>recover.

Great showmanship--and great camera work to catch the
ejection of the "pilots."

Of course, a B-29 would have more than 2 souls on board,
especially for an X-1 flight. Just another deviation from
the 1:1 world. :o)

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
>
> Great showmanship--and great camera work to catch the
> ejection of the "pilots."
>
> Of course, a B-29 would have more than 2 souls on board,
> especially for an X-1 flight. Just another deviation from
> the 1:1 world. :o)
>

The ejection seats alone are a deviation.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Martin X. Moleski, wrote:
>>> The aerobatic maneuvers of the models of the X-1 and the B-29
>>> are, of course, outside the general operating limits of the
>>> prototypes. :o)
>
>>Yep. Used to be one of my pet peeves back in my scale RC competition
>>days.
>
> I've only read about scale RC competition. I haven't
> competed myself. But I did get the idea that the catalogue
> of maneuvers chosen for flight judging were supposed to be
> limited to the abilities of the prototype.
>

Yep.

In serious contests such as the U. S. Scale Masters, a contestant's score is
a combination of his static (documented accuracy, detail and
workmanship)score plus the best of three flying scores. A contestant who
spun a B-29 model in this setting would get a very poor score, indeed.

http://www.scalemasters.org/f/2008CompGuide1708Final.pdf

http://www.ussma-midwest.org/photos/thumbnails.php?album=15


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
m:

>
> "Martin X. Moleski, wrote:
>>>> The aerobatic maneuvers of the models of the X-1 and the B-29
>>>> are, of course, outside the general operating limits of the
>>>> prototypes. :o)
>>
>>>Yep. Used to be one of my pet peeves back in my scale RC competition
>>>days.
>>
>> I've only read about scale RC competition. I haven't
>> competed myself. But I did get the idea that the catalogue
>> of maneuvers chosen for flight judging were supposed to be
>> limited to the abilities of the prototype.
>>
>
> Yep.
>
> In serious contests such as the U. S. Scale Masters, a contestant's
> score is a combination of his static (documented accuracy, detail and
> workmanship)score plus the best of three flying scores. A contestant
> who spun a B-29 model in this setting would get a very poor score,
> indeed.
>
> http://www.scalemasters.org/f/2008CompGuide1708Final.pdf
>
> http://www.ussma-midwest.org/photos/thumbnails.php?album=15
>
>

Don't know why, they would have spun test the original!

Bertie

[romeomike]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>
>>
>
> Don't know why, they would have spun test the original!
>
> Bertie

For sure? Have all commercial airliners been spun tested?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

romeomike > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Don't know why, they would have spun test the original!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> For sure? Have all commercial airliners been spun tested?
>

Well, it's not a commercial airliner, but back then they were. I've been in
a DC 3 in a spin. I wasn't flying, just observing but during a training
flight they lost it during a VMC demo and it did almost a turn. Recovery
was pretty much normal.



Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>> A contestant
>> who spun a B-29 model in this setting would get a very poor score,
>> indeed.

>
> Don't know why, they would have spun test the original!

No ****?

Never thought about that.

Doubt if the SM judges would go for it, anyway. Especially that many turns
and flat, too.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
m:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>> A contestant
>>> who spun a B-29 model in this setting would get a very poor score,
>>> indeed.
>
>>
>> Don't know why, they would have spun test the original!
>
> No ****?
>
> Never thought about that.
>
> Doubt if the SM judges would go for it, anyway. Especially that many
> turns and flat, too.
>

Well, if one of the prototypes went flat!

But yeah, they spun tested everything back then. It could either spin and
recover or not be spinnable at all. I can't see why the B 29 woulnd't have
spun and recovered fairly well. Nothing aerodynamically funky about it.
All light aircraft had to be certified for spins or unspinnable up to the
mid fifties. Some airplanes slipped throught the net, though and are
placarded against today. The PA 23, for instance.


Bertie

[romeomike]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> romeomike > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Don't know why, they would have spun test the original!
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> For sure? Have all commercial airliners been spun tested?
>>
>
> Well, it's not a commercial airliner, but back then they were. I've been in
> a DC 3 in a spin. I wasn't flying, just observing but during a training
> flight they lost it during a VMC demo and it did almost a turn. Recovery
> was pretty much normal.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah, for the record, I know a B-29 wasn't a commercial airliner, but
you saying that they spun them made me wonder if other "large" multi-
engine planes, like airliners are spin tested. I don't know for sure,
but I would assume not.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

romeomike > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> romeomike > wrote in :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Don't know why, they would have spun test the original!
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> For sure? Have all commercial airliners been spun tested?
>>>
>>
>> Well, it's not a commercial airliner, but back then they were. I've
>> been in a DC 3 in a spin. I wasn't flying, just observing but during
>> a training flight they lost it during a VMC demo and it did almost a
>> turn. Recovery was pretty much normal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah, for the record, I know a B-29 wasn't a commercial airliner, but
> you saying that they spun them made me wonder if other "large" multi-
> engine planes, like airliners are spin tested. I don't know for sure,
> but I would assume not.
>

Like DC6's and Connies and such? Oh yes, they definitely were. It was a
requirement of the period. The old ATC system was the same regardless of
the aircraft size and was in effect until the late forties. I believe
the last aircraft to be certified under that system was the Fokker F-27.
There has to be some sort of spin testing even now. I've done full stals
in jets after deep maintenance, so they had to have had some exploration
of spin entry tendencies, but the old airplanes were spun, regardless of
size, if they could be spun. I think the only US certified airplanes
exempt were the Ercoupe, the General Skyfarer and the Gwynn Aircar, all
because they couldn't be spun.
I know someone who works at Boeing,or rather did, and I've often
wondered how deeply they went into it with the current crop of
airliners. I'll ask him next time i talk to him.


Bertie



Bertie

[romeomike]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>
>
> Like DC6's and Connies and such? Oh yes, they definitely were. It was a
> requirement of the period. The old ATC system was the same regardless of
> the aircraft size and was in effect until the late forties. I believe
> the last aircraft to be certified under that system was the Fokker F-27.
> There has to be some sort of spin testing even now. I've done full stals
> in jets after deep maintenance, so they had to have had some exploration
> of spin entry tendencies, but the old airplanes were spun, regardless of
> size, if they could be spun. I think the only US certified airplanes
> exempt were the Ercoupe, the General Skyfarer and the Gwynn Aircar, all
> because they couldn't be spun.
> I know someone who works at Boeing,or rather did, and I've often
> wondered how deeply they went into it with the current crop of
> airliners. I'll ask him next time i talk to him.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Interesting. Now I'm wondering if the spin testing involved fully
developed spins or incipient spin entry.

[john smith]

In article >, romeomike >
wrote:

> Yeah, for the record, I know a B-29 wasn't a commercial airliner, but
> you saying that they spun them made me wonder if other "large" multi-
> engine planes, like airliners are spin tested. I don't know for sure,
> but I would assume not.

Do you count the Boeing Stratocruiser/C-97?

Isn't it basically a B-29 with "fattened" fuselage.

[romeomike]

John Smith wrote:

>
> Do you count the Boeing Stratocruiser/C-97?
>

Yeah, I hadn't thought of that one. I think there were other variants
also, such as one used to haul stuff for space vehicles.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

romeomike > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Like DC6's and Connies and such? Oh yes, they definitely were. It was
>> a requirement of the period. The old ATC system was the same
>> regardless of the aircraft size and was in effect until the late
>> forties. I believe the last aircraft to be certified under that
>> system was the Fokker F-27. There has to be some sort of spin testing
>> even now. I've done full stals in jets after deep maintenance, so
>> they had to have had some exploration of spin entry tendencies, but
>> the old airplanes were spun, regardless of size, if they could be
>> spun. I think the only US certified airplanes exempt were the
>> Ercoupe, the General Skyfarer and the Gwynn Aircar, all because they
>> couldn't be spun. I know someone who works at Boeing,or rather did,
>> and I've often wondered how deeply they went into it with the current
>> crop of airliners. I'll ask him next time i talk to him.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Interesting. Now I'm wondering if the spin testing involved fully
> developed spins or incipient spin entry.
>

I have the standard for the 1927-1949 Type Certificate lying around
somewhere. Going off memory but it calls for 6 turns both directions
with recovery achieved within one turn, or something similar. If the
airplane was unspinnable then this wasn't required. Looking through my
library for the requirements led me to another airplane eventually
certified without spin certification, the Alexander Bullet. The airplane
had huge difficulties with spins in it's earliest incarnation with four
of them crashing in spin testing. It was eventually drastically
reconfigured and was pronounced unspinnable and safe.
An airplane was an airplane back then and the cirteria was the same for
them all, large or small. On large multi engine airplanes, there was no
single engine performance requirement, for instance. Engine out
performance was more of a commercial selling point than a minimum
requirement, even in airliners.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

romeomike > wrote in :

> John Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you count the Boeing Stratocruiser/C-97?
>>
>
> Yeah, I hadn't thought of that one. I think there were other variants
> also, such as one used to haul stuff for space vehicles.
>
>
>

Somehow I think they didn't bother spin testing guppies!

Bertie