stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Air Ministry . on April 22, 2018, 10:33:12 PM
-
2:40:44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq-YP9-l4NM
After searching through ' one or two ' Windy Tapes , finally tripped over this . :P
Wondering why Paul hasnt now converted it to ELECTRIC .
o.k. try 2:57:45 . H^^
-
That's pretty good stuff. Loved that Corsair! And Paul with the B-17? Who else could try to compete with a 4 engine B-17?? Great stuff.
Gary
-
Paul Needs to be awarded the " Congressional Model of Honor" !! Way to go!! #^
-
That was really great to finally see!
Looks like it turned a nice corner as well.
-
The "cameraman" needs to invest in a tripod.
-
Yeah who would have the balls to do something like that...
From what I saw it looked similar.. very stable to fly that type of stunter.
-
Yeah who would have the balls to do something like that...
There was some guy who built and flew a big Avro Lancaster stunter once too. S?P
-
I was at the 2001 Nat's when Paul flew it that year. The video really doesn't do it justice. It was a real sight to behold and a true work of art in engineering. On one flight, he lost a muffler or something that caused one of the engines to quit. You could hear all of your favorite "Memphis Belle" lines coming out of the pits :P I think he flew it to 5th at the WCs around the same timeframe. Wish I could have been there to see all of the jaws hit the floor!
I also remember it being in excess of 100oz, so you could imagine the amount of pull. Only a limited number of flights where possible before fatigue set in, and any kind of strong wind lowered that number.
Sure would like to see it fly again!
-
I think were fortunate Windy recorded all this stuff for posterity , tripod or not .
Hunting Through finds patternmasters etc , for Brett . VD~
He apparently had a big influance at the time at N.Y. with the Cardinal , Strega etc .
Lead & they follow ? .
Anyway I think in general we're better for it , the experiance itis & has provided to neumerous builders / flyers / modelors , Vorld Vide .
-
Heres the Original Memphis Belle film , Sean . First crew to finish a tour of opperations in the 8th A. F .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZO6UtAfxEM
The Pommy Version . Lancater . Take Offs at 35:00 odd .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFyYZquh9hM
-
He apparently had a big influance at the time at N.Y. with the Cardinal , Strega etc .
Lead & they follow ? .
Anyway I think in general we're better for it , the experiance itis & has provided to neumerous builders / flyers / modelors , Vorld Vide .
I think so, too. I told him as much several times. Never has there been a more enthusiastic supporter and promoter of stunt than Windy Urtnowski, and I give he and some of his followers full credit for that.
But they couldn't just let it go at that. I draw the line when they start claiming credit for things that had nothing to do with them and were vastly more successful and influential. Virtually nothing flying in competition today is in any way influenced by anything technical or design-wise that Windy did, and only peripherally by what Big Jim did. It led essentially nowhere, but they tried something interesting, and they certainly didn't know that it would lead nowhere when they started. I have done plenty of experiments that led nowhere and were ultimately not successful, there's no shame in that, and we all ultimately learned something. So again, full credit for the effort. That's not an insult, it just doesn't support the narrative.
Anything else I had to say on the topic, particularly with the non-technical aspects of the situation, I have shared with Windy himself in private and as far as I am concerned, we understand each other perfectly well and won't belabor it here.
Brett
-
When it comes to "innovating" or showing up with something new, only history can be relied upon for an unbiased assessment. No one should claim anything new or earthshaking until at least ten years have elapsed.
-
Flight at the 2000 Worlds in France. At 1:31:25.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZztngCrnuE
-
Flight at the 2000 Worlds in France. At 1:31:25.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZztngCrnuE
Noteworthy is the four-flip start and the good-looking pit crew.
-
Thanks for that Kieth . Us antipodians have been deprived of this for far to long .
(http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww274/ratfink12/Aviation/untitled-92.jpg)
It flys surpriseingly well . No sign of mushing or veering off / beeing toey . It does look like He has to Hold On , though . S?P
A lot of conventional planes arnt as well flown / fly as well .
Whens the KIT coming out . :( Remember the exotic B36 etc etc kit ads in the magazines in the 60s , before R C took over .
-
This is the first time Ive actually seen pauls flight.
The 4 flips to start was incredible to see.
The release of the cables was great.
The shutdown of the engines was clean.
The flight was nice. The way it turned and slowed during the turn was very similar. The speed always interested me.. very slow during the manouvers made it somewhat easy to fly..
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MahBepFbuU
-
Yo! This is some good stuff! Hey guys, please don't get upset but what were some of the specifics about the plane? Wingspan, weight, engine sizes, prop sizes, I'm assuming he was using 60' lines, right? It looked neat the way it was disassembled? Is there any detailed information on how he did that?
Jim Carter
-
Thanks Matt for the video. I remember watching a practice flight at the NATS. Seemed like every time he flew everybody stopped what they were doing to watch it. D>K
-
Crikey. Found another one . 1:52 Here . 2010 U S Nats .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1sbyM8jXzg&list=PLVQFACQN4Q4jgHNVPE5Z4H6xnx8oMj_Uh
and 52:00 od below . :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv9h5IvtqHw
-
Yo! This is some good stuff! Hey guys, please don't get upset but what were some of the specifics about the plane? Wingspan, weight, engine sizes, prop sizes, I'm assuming he was using 60' lines, right? \
NO! Absolutely max length, probably.018x 66' or so. You wouldn't want to run it on 60' lines, it could have pulled 90' lines (and if so, would have been an absolutely exceptional competitive airplane, as it was, squeezed into 70', it was still very very good). It flew much better than the similarly-sized super-gigantic ST60 models.
I think I am the only person aside from Paul to fly the second airplane (Ted flew the first one), aside from astronomical forces in all aspects, it was far better than most stunt planes. It was one of the few airplanes where it seemed like the pull test was about right.
15FPs, on a central bladder with 4 independent regulators, probably APC 9-4's or something very similar. This was probably the downside of the arrangement, I saw Paul and Howard spend literally all day on it at Golden State, trying to get all the bugs out of the system. When I flew it, the far outboard engine continued running at greatly reduced RPM long after the others had stopped, and I had to whip it heavily to keep it aloft, which was the sort of problem they had been trying to resolve. I have a picture of one of the engine nacelles that I can post later, but it used about half a roll of Prather fuel line to hook it all up.
It was a remarkable project in all respects, and the model you are looking at is the *second* B-17, after the first one had crashed due to untimely engine flame-outs (4 separate tanks on that one, I think he told me 3 engines quit in an overhead 8, or something like that).
Brett
-
NO! Absolutely max length, probably.018x 6' or so. You wouldn't want to run it on 60' lines, it could have pulled 90' lines (and if so, would have been an absolutely exceptional competitive airplane, as it was, squeezed into 70', it was still very very good). It flew much better than the similarly-sized super-gigantic ST60 models.
I think I am the only person aside from Paul to fly the second airplane (Ted flew the first one), aside from astronomical forces in all aspects, it was far better than most stunt planes. It was one of the few airplanes where it seemed like the pull test was about right.
15FPs, on a central bladder with 4 independent regulators, probably APC 9-4's or something very similar. This was probably the downside of the arrangement, I saw Paul and Howard spend literally all day on it at Golden State, trying to get all the bugs out of the system. When I flew it, the far outboard engine continued running at greatly reduced RPM long after the others had stopped, and I had to whip it heavily to keep it aloft, which was the sort of problem they had been trying to resolve. I have a picture of one of the engine nacelles that I can post later, but it used about half a roll of Prather fuel line to hook it all up.
It was a remarkable project in all respects, and the model you are looking at is the *second* B-17, after the first one had crashed due to untimely engine flame-outs (4 separate tanks on that one, I think he told me 3 engines quit in an overhead 8, or something like that).
Brett
Thanks Brett! A bladder, eh? Regulators?? That's an interesting concept. I can see using 70' for sure the pull must have been interestingly strong. Given the current rules and technology, couldn't the engines be throttle controlled? Are there any photos and or drawings showing the very intriguing construction / assembly / disassembly techniques available anywhere to aid a possible future builder tackling a similar project?
Jim Carter
-
As the only other person to actually build and compete with such a plane, I wouldnt recommend it...
The PULL from 110oz consistent is great at first but the novelty of needing 3 people and having the entire field stop and watch isnt much fun either.
Plus dedicated trailer.. and using ALOT of fuel and patience.
I wish I had flight video but only have the startup. This was one area personally I take my hat off to Paul and the B17 to HANDSTART a machine like this in competition!! True GOAT status from me..
I tried and couldnt come close to 1st flips..
For those who didnt see it..
https://youtu.be/WArkNi1WPvs
-
:) Thanks PJ! You bring up a good point. Yet it is an intriguing project but at the same time, I'd like to investigate as many options as realistically possible. Technology and the creativeness of the myriad scale builders causes me to believe in the old saying attributed to the USN Seebee's on their 1944 Bouganville Navy Yard camp sign ’The Difficult We Do Now; The Impossible Takes a Little Longer’!! Also, while I still have my health and somewhat limited skills, I think I would like to build and add another WWII bomber to my squadron / collection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho2I8HcwyBE
Jim
-
(http://slis.org/_Media/2000_lina_3_med.png)
Page 8 here . http://slis.org/_Media/2000_lina_3.pdf And the ' exploded ' views . Page 13 .
Most people'd make thewingcomeoff atleast .
-
Most people'd make thewingcomeoff atleast .
Wow! Thanks Matt! Google translate was pretty much able to help with the translation. You're all right!! ;D
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDgNi30spA
-
Good find, thanks Matt.
I'm glad I failed to pay attention and notice the time stamp you posted, clear as day, because as a result I saw lots of great video. That was a fun 2 hours I burned up.
I like the control line pilot by the train tracks flying perfect 5 second laps. There's a yellow car parked at that field, maybe that was Z's with about 9 more planes in it, Lol. I vaguely think I recall Windy saying that was Bob, from one of my distant past viewings of another movie.
Rusty
-
A few specs here:
4 OS 15 FP's.
Custom centuries to clear the cowl.
Central bladder feeding the 4 engines.
Pressure regulators on each engine due to the change in fuel pressure to each due to tank location and fuel head from the lateral acceleration.
Each engine had a cam operated fuel cutoff switch. This allowed priming and running out of the prime when the bladder was loaded. Extremely critical to 4 flip starts.
The outboard engine had a fuel pressure cutoff switch. As Brett pointed out, it would run long without it due the the fuel pressure regulator sensing enough head pressure it would stay functioning even after engines 1-3 had quit. The switch was devised to block the flow if the pressure dropped to 5 psi. This valve became very sensitive to any dirt, or the "time of the day" and would not function. Many variants were tried, but none panned out. This was the "best" solution at the time.
The starting procedure was complicated, but totally necessary as FAI rules back then required the pilot to hand start it and there was still starting points for takeoff in one minute. At the World Champs, I flew 7 flights and used 30 flips to get it going and never missed starting points. Key was Howard's glow power system. After we discussed how it was going to work, he built a starting box with on-off switches, voltage meters with 4 complete individual power connections to ignite the glo plugs.
The procedure was to load the bladder and remove any air in the lines. Then all four battery cables were attached to the motors with small alligator clips. Of course, all four by fuel switches were closed. Engine one was then primed and started. It would run the fuel out. I would repeat this until I was satisfied it was warn and clear of fuel. Then I would spray a mist of fuel in the venturing and check for a bump. Once there was a bump, that engines battery was turned off so it would not burn the prime out. This process was repeated until all 4 were ready. Then power was returned to engine one, and signal given, flipped and it fired and as soon as it was running well the fuel switch was opened and it continued to run. Then power on to two, and the process repeated until all four were running. Once I gave Howard the nod he would simply pull the power supply back disconnecting all the power cables. Then takeoff. The timing of EVERYTHING in the process was critical. Getting JUST the right amount of prime, waiting that split second to open the pressurized fuel to each engine was quite critical. Too soon and it could flood the motor, too late and it wouldn't catch. Thiscall took some practice.
But there's more to the story. What had to happen before that was it had to be test run and the needles set. That took time. From the time I hit the field with it it would take one hour before it was ready to fly. Assemble the plane, which took more than a few minutes, test run each engine separately then all together made for a lot of effort for just one flight.
The aircraft:
It weighed 105 ounces. It is just amazing how fast the power system weight adds up when there are four engines. That included lead in the nose to balance it.
It spanned 76 inches and had about 900 square inches.
The fuse was molded shells, and split just forward of the wing. This allowed it to get in a "reasonable" size box for transport. The wing was removable and split in the middle. The tail assemblies were all built up, open bay structure to minimize weight as it was so far aft.
The cowls were removable and FANTASTIC works of art from the shop of Howard. They are carbon fiber, and weighed around 3 or 4 grams each before paint. The mounting method for the motors is another LONG story which I won't repeat here.
Flying: as Brett mentioned, the line tension was significant and always there. It got to the point that I could only fly it three times a day otherwise my shoulder would be in too much pain to fly again soon. It was fairly well balanced between corners and rounds, but still had significant "stick force", probably due to its significant size flaps. I had to fly it faster than I really wanted as the weight required more lift to function and the only way to get that was with more speed.
It was painted as the 909, which was the B-17 with the most missions in Europe in WWII. It survived the war, but was damaged badly in the US doing flights for shows. It was rebuilt using a different "hulk", but still called the 909. It is with the Collings foundation and still flies each year. I got a picture of it and my model together a number of years ago while it was in Seattle.
I wonder if I could still fly it now. I was lifting weights seriously when I was flying it, but not as serious with the weights now, and nearly 20 years older. It might just hurt too much.