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

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"

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.

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

Bob K.

"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

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?

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.

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

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.

"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

"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 befo 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