Space Ship One first powered flight!

wrote:

You have no idea who I am.

You are a nobody.

You have no idea what I've done.

You will not be even a footnote in the history of Aviation and
Aerospace.

You have no idea how Burt's customers feel about him.

Scaled Composites has had several repeat customers including DoD and
large aerospace companies. That speaks volumes.

You have no idea how Burt's former partners or employees feel about him either.

Wrong. I was at Scaled last summer for Burt's birthday celebration.
I met and talked to several of his current and former employees.

When was the last time a Rutan design was a huge success?

Just two days ago, silly. You are obviously confused. Scaled
Composites is not in the business of making huge commercial successes.
That is not their business model. They specialize in rapid
prototyping and they do it very well. Most of their projects are
successful. Nonetheless, even some of the projects that on the
surface seem utter failures are not in fact so. Take, for example,
the Solitaire. Some of what was learned in the fabrication of that
glider was incorporated into the overwhelmingly successful Voyager.
Your silly "failure" list remains a failure of common sense -- rooted,
I suspect, in jealousy.

wrote:

Until the previous message I've never talked about my past work, who I've worked
with or what companies I've worked for. You asked what hardware I have in the
Smithsonian. I answered. I've only rarely mentioned what I'm working on now.

The hardware I worked on that ended up there is not the stuff that I'm most
proud of.

I knew Burt before he was a homebuilder. I've build 2 airplanes from his
designs. I worked in the field for 36 years, I have a PhD and I was a visiting
professor for 12 years. I have hardware on the moon and in orbit around Mars.
I have patents that are still classified SCI even though they've run out.

I'm qualified to point out that Emperor Burt is dressed for casual Friday.

You are an anonymous nobody who is qualified for nothing. You can
argue issues anonymously if you wish -- no problem there -- but claims
of past accomplishments remain nothing but BS until you publicly cough
up your real name. As you noted earlier,

"I could tell you I have 30,000 hours and I've flown 1000 different kinds of airplanes,
that wouldn't make it true - but more importantly, it wouldn't make it false."

Correct, it makes it nothing, just as your claims in this post are
nothing. I'll take the true accomplishments of a Burt Rutan "dressed
for casual Friday" over the unsubstantiated claims of a jealous anon
usenet poster any day of the week.

And yes, folks, Burt does occasionally read these newsgroups. Burt
does Google usenet searches looking for leaks about Scaled's X-Prize
efforts. I'm sure he will find this thread amusing.

"DO" wrote in message
...

wrote:

You have no idea who I am.

You are a nobody.

You have no idea what I've done.

You will not be even a footnote in the history of Aviation and
Aerospace.

I must cavil slightly with you here. He's a footnote in the history of RAH
as the windbag who claims to live in a ritzy Southern California suburb.
But when he applied for a second mortgage on his mobile home, Wingy turned
him down. hahahaha.

Larry Smith wrote:

I must cavil slightly with you here. He's a footnote in the history of RAH
as the windbag who claims to live in a ritzy Southern California suburb.
But when he applied for a second mortgage on his mobile home, Wingy turned
him down. hahahaha.

This from the mouth of Latchless Larry.... The man who can't even buy
a set of latches or a battery.

"Gag Me With A Spoon" wrote in message
...
Larry Smith wrote:

I must cavil slightly with you here. He's a footnote in the history of
RAH
as the windbag who claims to live in a ritzy Southern California suburb.
But when he applied for a second mortgage on his mobile home, Wingy
turned
him down. hahahaha.

This from the mouth of Latchless Larry.... The man who can't even buy
a set of latches or a battery.

Got 'em both, anonymous scumbag, but you've gagged on something besides a
spoon.

In article , writes:


Until then, Blaa Blaa Blaa, is all I hear.



If you think every plane Burt designs is successful, I know about a bridge
for
sale you might want to consider.



One could by your logic argue that the Wright Brothers were unsuccessful since
the Wright Flyer also crashed and was destroyed. It is not the success of the
individual aircraft that should be measured but what is learned in the process
and can be applied to further the advances in aviation. By that measure, the
Wright Brothers were very successful and by the same measure Burt Rutan is also
very successful.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

DJFawcett26 wrote:
As an airplane it was OK. The problem was that it couldn't do it's mission
economically enough to be viable as a business, it's endurance was way too
short. It would have to orbit over a city for about 72 hours before the
business became practical. And then you get into problems with the crew. It
should have been a UAV.


Your statement is simply not correct. The aircraft had plenty of endurance. I
was involved in a competing program at the time and the ideal manned mission
was determined to be 10 hrs. Each mission would be overlapped 2 hrs. This
proved to be very, very profitable to the wireless operator. Far more
profitable than the common "tower terrestrial system". The program I was
involved in had the same problem that Rutan encountered with his client. And
that was the wireless relay equipment! Doing the relay is easier said than
done when handling thousands of transmission simultaneously while orbiting
about a single station. The complexity was immense. In reality, the Proteus
was tremendously capable of the task if the relay equipment was perfected.
Quite frankly, the telecommunication industry segment involved with airborne
wireless communication considered the Proteus the idea vehicle.


What were the problems with the wireless?
I'm curious because of some background in that area and the wireless
potential suggested for the NASA solar powered AC.

-bob

*Hey DO, "a" seems of two minds about this.
A few months ago was attacking Veeduber:*

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...hl%404 ax.com
Yes, Burt did learn from his mistakes and he learned quite quickly.
The 1976 VariEze design and plans were a great improvement over the
Quicky. At builders forums around the country, Burt listened and
patiently answered all questions. I know, I was there. The RAF monthly
newsletter kept builders informed of safety related issues. By 1980,
with the introduction of the Long-EZ, Burt had it nailed. Your
shoulder chip from your Quicky experience is obvious. Get over it.
Your mocking use of the words "great genius" is quite telling, not of
Burt but of you. Bert is a giant in aviation and you are not even a
footnote. As one who likes to present himself as the sage aviation
expert, perhaps _that_ is your biggest chip.

*So I responded back in May:*

Say "a",

Actually, if my memory serves, the Quickie came out in 1978. That is
the copywright on the quickie plans that I have. The Quickie was a
cute little single seat "x" wing with 18-22 hp Onan engine. So the
Vari-Eze design could not have been "a great improvement over the
Quicky" as you say, since it had not even been built yet.

Best Regards,

pacplyer

*Seems funny that "a", didn't know the VariEze design came before
Jewett's Quickie. Maybe he exagerates about knowing Bert (among other
things.) By the way, Bert was honored recently on a stage with Neil
Armstrong at the new Smithsonian museum as a "hero of aviation." It
was covered live on CSpan.
Congraduations Mr. Rutan, again.

pac*

wrote:
snip

3) It's archived. My posts aren't.

I think you meant to say:

"His post is archived. On my posts, I set the non-standard, but
frequently honored 'X-No-Archive' header to'Yes.' So, those archives
which choose to honor the header won't keep a copy of my message, at
least not for very long. Unless someone includes my message as
reference when they reply to it, in which case, my original message will
be archived as part of the reply, so that someone with at least a little
spin on the ball will be able to find my message despite my effort to
remain yet more anonymous. And of course, any of the archives which
ignore the non-standard header will maintain a copy of my message."

That's what you meant to say.


Ben "spinning the ball quite, nicely, and thank you for asking" Sego

"RobertR237" skrev i meddelandet
...
One could by your logic argue that the Wright Brothers were unsuccessful
since
the Wright Flyer also crashed and was destroyed. It is not the success of
the
individual aircraft that should be measured but what is learned in the
process
and can be applied to further the advances in aviation. By that measure,
the
Wright Brothers were very successful and by the same measure Burt Rutan is
also
very successful.

From the other side of the Atlantic: THANK YOU for some words of real
insight!

Owe the notorius topposter