Rutan's Legacy
pac plyer
fear betting the company on a single design. Just because he does not
sell finished products to the general public does not diminish his
place in aviation history. Envy and disbelief of his unconventional
solutions ("he hangs booms anywhere he wants to" someone recently
complained.) and anger over his brash confidence (he doesn't even use
windtunnels first) are natural reactions by lesser minds. I watched
him work a crowd at Oshgosh in 77' like nothing I have seen since. He
openly blasted the light aircraft manufacturers on a PA system just a
few tents away from their displays. I'm glad to hear he is still a
rebel at heart. Now his villian is the constant interferance of the
US Government. Maybe not getting too close to Corporate and
governmental control has preserved his soul and prevented his mind
from being polluted by lesser beings. Burt was clearly pleased with
himself on stage at Wittman Field that year. His x-wife, however, he
revealed to us, was not so impressed.
"My wife at the time presented me with a clear choice about the
airplane apparatus scattered all through the house. "Either the
airplanes go, or I go!" she said. Looking back," Burt said as he
paused for effect;"It was quite easy to remember: THE AIRPLANES
STAYED!"
Godspeed Mr Rutan, you've earned it.
David O
mtu...@direcway.com (pac plyer) wrote:
Hear hear! Among the many fine moments at Oshkosh this year will be
the pleasure of listening to Burt Rutan discuss his upcoming X-Prize
attempt.
David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
DJFawcett26
>fear betting the company on a single design
Just out of curiosity, what design did he bet his company on?
pac plyer
> >fear betting the company on a single design
>
mtu...@direcway.com (pacplyer)answers:
DJ, you may already know all of this but here goes...
I see parrallels between the homebuilt movement and commercial
markets. The 707 was rolled out in the wake of the ill-fated
square-window Comet. It took real courage, and all the Boeing company
assets to introduce a two-fold increase in recip performance in an
unproven transonic platform. Rutan's Vari-Viggen, in a
micro-environment was much the same. Although not a raging sucess, it
set the stage for the canard machine with safety-poxy that would not
quite double the performance of the Cont O-200 (vrs my O-200 L-150
that chugs along at about half the speed of Long EZ. This soon made
that engine difficult to find at a reasonable price) I remember Burt
being emphatic that you had to "keep it white" because some builders
painted their EZ's black and the resin system he was using would come
apart on a hot day. Then Burt discovered that some EZ's had terrible
builder inacuracies in the craftmanship department. Some wings had
different angles of incidence on each side of the fuselage. Burt was
not amused! Even though he was just selling plans, he knew his
reputation was riding on the EZ safety record. Years later, the
Voyager started developement. His major competition in the big
airframe race died in the process of flight test. The crash of the
yellow "Big Bird" in great measure lead to the demise of the Quickie
Aircraft Co. I own the last prototype the company built nicknamed the
"Super Quickie". It however, was never produced as a kit largely due
to a previous Quickie (incompetent) homebuilder lawsuit (widow won.)
So in essence, I suspect that most of Burt's high-profile projects he
introduces "bet the company" on the design he alone finalizes. White
Knight and Space One remind me a lot of Voyager. I held my breath the
whole time they were gone. Pacific Ocean turbulence was a concern in
our 20 year old 747's at Tigers/Fdx (up to 750K-820K on climbout.) But
I bet it was a real "cliff-hanger" in that flimsy Voyager.
pacplyer
"It takes a special kind of man to volunteer for a suicide mission,
especially one that's on T.V." - Yeager character: The Right Stuff
Veeduber
>djfaw...@aol.com (DJFawcett26) wrote in message:
>> Just out of curiosity, what design did he bet his company on?
>
>
>mtu...@direcway.com (pacplyer)answers:
>
>set the stage for the canard machine with safety-poxy that would not
>quite double the performance of the Cont O-200 (vrs my O-200 L-150
>that chugs along at about half the speed of Long EZ. This soon made
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear MTurner,
Your recollections are not inaccurate and they support your postion but they
are not quite complete.
The airplane Burt offered after the Vari-Viggen was powered by a 68hp VW engine
that didn't exit and used a control system that didn't work very well at all
(ie, canard only for pitch & roll). (Don't remember? See Peter Garrisons
article in 'Air Progress,' fall of '75). It was supposed to be inexpensive
and easy to build. But the building instructions left a GREAT deal to be
desired when it came to producing a properly trammeled wing. These points (and
many others) were raised, publicly, at builder's forums at Mohave and were
answered with little more than snears from the great genius. Not only were
these things non-issues, wasting the forums time, they merely showed how little
we builders knew about engines, airframes and composite construction...
according to the great genius. (The composite techniques were only new to Burt,
who picked up most of them from a neighboring glider shop; flagging the spar
caps [for example] had been a standard method for graduated lay-ups for about
twenty years by the time Burt used it on N7EZ.)
I suggest the views of a designer's legacy depends largely upon who does the
viewing and where they're standing at the time. Everyone makes mistakes and
it's obvious Burt learned from his. But not as quickly in some areas as
others. Aeronautically he was obviously a smart, well educated kid, which is
probably why Bede hired him to begin with. But offering a design to the
general public with the expectation they could fabricate it successfully called
for skills Burt did not have.
I'm sure some will see that last point as nit-picking but the 'Experimental,
Amateur-Built' licensing category is meant to foster education. Buying a set
of plans carries the implied assurance the builder may have a reasonable
expectation of completing it successfully. This is what lead to all those
workshops. And all those questions Burt didn't like to deal with.
The point here is that you really can't separate the two. The troublesome
questions come with the territory whenever you offer a design -- however
sophisticated -- to the general public.
For some, the legacy is embodied entirely within the design. The fact it had
to undergo a lengthy debugging process at the expense of its builders is
conveniently forgotten.
-R.S.Hoover
-R.S.Hoover
Ida Covey
BJC
"DJFawcett26" <djfaw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030524215325...@mb-m22.aol.com...
Jim Weir
wife to go along with the airplane enthusiasm. Gordon looked him square in the
eye and said, "That's how my firs wife felt, too."
Jim
mtu...@direcway.com (pac plyer)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
->
->"My wife at the time presented me with a clear choice about the
->airplane apparatus scattered all through the house. "Either the
->airplanes go, or I go!" she said. Looking back," Burt said as he
->paused for effect;"It was quite easy to remember: THE AIRPLANES
->STAYED!"
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com j...@rst-engr.com
Sean Trost
all the best
sean
"Ida Covey" <ICO...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Ye4Aa.82771$5M.62...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
a
(Veeduber) wrote:
>I suggest the views of a designer's legacy depends largely upon who does the
>viewing and where they're standing at the time. Everyone makes mistakes and
>it's obvious Burt learned from his.
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.
DJFawcett26
That wasn't his company, that was Beachcraft.
Veeduber
>shoulder chip from your Quicky experience is obvious.
------------------------------------
Dear Coward,
I'm surprised it was so obvious, seeing as I have I've no 'Quicky' experience
of any kind.
But what should be obvious to all is that honorable men do not hide behind
anonymous names.
-R.S.Hoover
Whatever
>On Sun, 25 May 2003 15:57:46 GMT, "Sean Trost" <sean...@nc.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>:thoght that was beechcraft ?
>
>Burt lost too. Remember, Beech bought Scaled in 85.
How did Burt loose out if he sold the company to
Beechcfraft? It sounds to me like he had cash while Beech
owned a dead end project.
pac plyer
> 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.
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
Daniel
> ... Burt did learn from his mistakes and he learned quite quickly.
> ...By 1980,
> with the introduction of the Long-EZ, Burt had it nailed.
Hmmm!? He drew up the VV in what, 1961? And took 29 years to "learn
quite quickly"? Gimme a break.
> ... "great genius" is quite telling,
> ... Bert is a giant in aviation
OK, everybody got that? No more calling Rutan a "great genius"!
Henceforth and hereafter, he shall be referred to by all persons as
the "giant in aviation"!
Face it "a", Rutan made some meaningful contributions, but he f***ed
up a lot too.
Veeduber
Here's a simple exercise for the builder.
Place a carpenter's level on a flat and level surface. Insure the bubble is
perfectly centered between the lines.
Using a small stick or shim, raise one end of the level and slide the shim down
until the bubble is bisected by the mark on the high end. Do this as
accurately as possible, taking parallax into account.
Measure the angle formed by the level relative to the surface. (One way to do
this is to measure the height of the rise and use trig but a simple gravity
level will also serve.)
Do this three or four times, recording your results.
Now do the same thing using a level from another manufacturer.
A couple of things should be immediately obvious. The first is that your
results will vary even when using the same level. This reflects the human
factor or 'observation error', the same sort of thing you run into when using a
bubble sextant in navigation. If you have normal vision and eliminate any
error due to parallax your carpenter-level error of observation will probably
be about one degree, plus or minus.
The second thing you will notice is that there is a wide variation between
levels of different makes, even when they are the same length. This reflects
the fact the bubble is responding to the curve of the glass tube, the curvature
of which varies from one manufacturer to another. A level from one maker may
give you an angle of three degrees when you split the bubble, while one from
another maker may give you five. Or more(!) Plus any error of observation.
So what's the purpose of the exercise?
If you've told builders to set the incidence of their wings to 'half a bubble',
they will end up with angles as flat as three degrees or as steep as
fifteen(!), depending on which brand of level they happen to use. Even worse,
you may expect a variation from one wing to the other of as much as two
degrees.
-R.S.Hoover
Unknown
wrote:
If you read the early newsletters and such he says that the composite
VariEz came about by accident. They were trying to make a quick cheap
mockup of a METAL design to drag to an airshow using some boat glass
and resin. Thats when he started with the moldless construction
everyone is familiar with.
You can paint it any color you want as long as its white....
Q
Larry Smith
"Veeduber" <veed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030526005832...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Excellent, R. S. The lesson is to always use the same level so that at least
your inaccuracies are consistent. When I bought a spirit level I went
through about 3 or 4 before I paid the clerk because the 1st 3 or 4 wouldn't
agree when you flipped them over. Now I use a smart level and calibrate it
religiously. But I always keep my spirit level standing by at the shrine
with the smart level.
As always you have provided thoroughly readable and entertaining
information, unlike most of the gabby yahoos who hang out here and have
never built anything and couldn't stack 3 tiddlywinks.
RobertR237
(Veeduber) writes:
>
>If you've told builders to set the incidence of their wings to 'half a
>bubble',
>they will end up with angles as flat as three degrees or as steep as
>fifteen(!), depending on which brand of level they happen to use. Even
>worse,
>you may expect a variation from one wing to the other of as much as two
>degrees.
>
>-R.S.Hoover
>
>
Not to mention that you could easily end up with different angles for each wing
which can make for a BAD Day. This can occur for a multitude of reasons but
the two most frequent would be differences incurred between one side of the
level and the other and reading error.
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)
Ernest Christley
> Excellent, R. S. The lesson is to always use the same level so that at least
> your inaccuracies are consistent. When I bought a spirit level I went
> through about 3 or 4 before I paid the clerk because the 1st 3 or 4 wouldn't
> agree when you flipped them over. Now I use a smart level and calibrate it
> religiously. But I always keep my spirit level standing by at the shrine
> with the smart level.
>
How do you calibrate it? What is the best way to check a level?
--
----Because I can----
http://home.nc.rr.com/deltabuilder
------------------------
a
Daniel wrote:
>> ... Burt did learn from his mistakes and he learned quite quickly.
>> ...By 1980,
>> with the introduction of the Long-EZ, Burt had it nailed.
>
>Hmmm!? He drew up the VV in what, 1961? And took 29 years to "learn
>quite quickly"? Gimme a break.
And this nugget of BS from someone who thinks that 80 minus 61 equals
29! In point of fact, Rutan first started selling plans to the
VeriViggen in 1974. Six years later, he introduced the Long EZ. Rutan
started a revolution in homebuilt aircraft and did so with a
remarkably good safety record. Of course there are always fools such
as "Vedubber" who not only misinterpret wing leveling instructions,
but can't figure out how to correctly use a bubble level.
>> ... mocking use of the words "great genius" is quite telling,
>OK, everybody got that? No more calling Rutan a "great genius"!
>Henceforth and hereafter, he shall be referred to by all persons as
>the "giant in aviation"!
Those who use words like "great genius" in a mocking way, as
"Vedubber" did, do so through jealousy.
>Face it "a", Rutan made some meaningful contributions, but he f***ed
>up a lot too.
Most great achievers f*** up a lot, to use your word. Their mistakes
are, in large, there for all to see. What I see in usenet posts from
those who disparage great achievers like Rutan is jealousy and sour
grapes. Lesser people feel elevated if they can point out the mistakes
of those of true accomplishment. Such bashing is invariably done by
those of little true achievement who have no public history for others
to bash, and never will.
Jim Weir
"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man
stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred
by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short
again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and
spends himself in a worthy cause.
Who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at
the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place
shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor
defeat."
(Theodore Roosevelt)
a <a...@a.com>
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
Such bashing is invariably done by
->those of little true achievement who have no public history for others
->to bash, and never will.
->
Daniel
> ... someone who thinks that 80 minus 61 equals 29!
OK, I may be all thumbs, but I can spell "typo". The point is that
while Rutan has made a big contribution to homebuilding, that does not
place him above reproach. That kind of blind worship is just plain
dangerous. Wanna see some folks who have made far bigger
contributions to man's quest to soar above the earth? Go look up the
incredibly smart, absolutely ingenious folks who designed & operated
Challenger & Columbia.
> ...What I see in usenet posts from
> those who disparage great achievers like Rutan is jealousy and sour
> grapes.
And what I see in posts of unadulterated adoration for such "great
achievers" (I thought we were switching to "giant of aviation"?) is
vicarious wannabe's that are afraid or unable to take the
responsibility to accomplish anything truly worthwhile on their own
merit.
Now I'm done with your troll, you may return to the Church of Burt &
continue your worship.
Daniel