Holly Molly, I just came across this. I guess he didn't like the A2A model.
http://theballybomber.com/
http://theballybomber.com/
A Personal Sized B-17
- Thread starter dvj
- Start date
Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
Hmmmm......
I hope he isn't about to embark upon something truly dangerous! Those who have been inside or have seen a real B-17 remark just how small the bomber truly is! I mean, I have seen a P-38 and a B-17 and the P-38 shocked me how huge it is. The B-17 shocked me how small it is!
A one-third scale would give you a fuselage of such narrow width that I wonder if there's enough shoulder room for even one pilot to fit in the cockpit! Further, to preserve the appearance, he is installing four low horsepower engines and that only exacerbates the acute problem with multi-engine aircraft. If you lose an engine, you are not merely losing a proportional percentage of thrust. Due to the way the asymmetric thrust is provided, you are losing a much greater percentage of total thrust due to the increase in parasitic drag created by the degree of yaw that must be endured due to the asymmetric thrust provided by the surviving engines.
That means, it isn't merely a case of having sufficient thrust on the remaining three engines, but also the issues of potential loss of surface area of the rudder, which he also is scaling down to one-third of the actual aircraft. What effect will that have on his ability to control the aircraft's yaw due to loss of an outboard engine (the worst possible situation due to the increased distance of that engine on the opposite wing from the aircraft's center of gravity).
If he has not achieved a reduction in asymmetric thrust equal to the reduction in surface area and rudder effectiveness, then he runs serious risk of having an aircraft that cannot be safely controlled in the event of single engine failure. That leads to the yaw exceeding controlled flight limits, which is another way of saying the plane goes into a flat spin, which is likely to be lethal. That risk level is increased further when one remembers why a co-pilot is normally assigned to a four engine aircraft! Managing just two engines on a piston twin is demanding enough. To double that management demand again to four engines is a heck of a lot of situational awareness for a single pilot to maintain! Yes, I know the RAF had to do this in World War II with their bombers, but their navigators were also effectively co-pilots in terms of assisting the pilot with flying the airplane and managing the engines.
Ken
I hope he isn't about to embark upon something truly dangerous! Those who have been inside or have seen a real B-17 remark just how small the bomber truly is! I mean, I have seen a P-38 and a B-17 and the P-38 shocked me how huge it is. The B-17 shocked me how small it is!
A one-third scale would give you a fuselage of such narrow width that I wonder if there's enough shoulder room for even one pilot to fit in the cockpit! Further, to preserve the appearance, he is installing four low horsepower engines and that only exacerbates the acute problem with multi-engine aircraft. If you lose an engine, you are not merely losing a proportional percentage of thrust. Due to the way the asymmetric thrust is provided, you are losing a much greater percentage of total thrust due to the increase in parasitic drag created by the degree of yaw that must be endured due to the asymmetric thrust provided by the surviving engines.
That means, it isn't merely a case of having sufficient thrust on the remaining three engines, but also the issues of potential loss of surface area of the rudder, which he also is scaling down to one-third of the actual aircraft. What effect will that have on his ability to control the aircraft's yaw due to loss of an outboard engine (the worst possible situation due to the increased distance of that engine on the opposite wing from the aircraft's center of gravity).
If he has not achieved a reduction in asymmetric thrust equal to the reduction in surface area and rudder effectiveness, then he runs serious risk of having an aircraft that cannot be safely controlled in the event of single engine failure. That leads to the yaw exceeding controlled flight limits, which is another way of saying the plane goes into a flat spin, which is likely to be lethal. That risk level is increased further when one remembers why a co-pilot is normally assigned to a four engine aircraft! Managing just two engines on a piston twin is demanding enough. To double that management demand again to four engines is a heck of a lot of situational awareness for a single pilot to maintain! Yes, I know the RAF had to do this in World War II with their bombers, but their navigators were also effectively co-pilots in terms of assisting the pilot with flying the airplane and managing the engines.
Ken
Last edited:
Howellerman
Charter Member
Not sure if it is the same guy, but there was a YouTube of an Austrian guy that actually flew a B-17 model. He was using Rotax motors (Austria - duh), and one of them did indeed quit but he landed safely. One risky "experimental aircraft"!!!
I was struck that a bunch of Austrians (not Germans, but close enough) would be so enamored of an aircraft that pounded the piss out of them in WWII.
I was struck that a bunch of Austrians (not Germans, but close enough) would be so enamored of an aircraft that pounded the piss out of them in WWII.
Chuck_Jodry-VJPL
Charter Member
Thats quite a project , one is impressed at the time involved to bring it to this point , if it never flew this fellow couldnt be more proud of his work , if it kills him i think he would die a happy man anyway with his last thoughts for those who met their fates in the real deal.
The world needs more people like this guy , we collectively have lost that " Popular Mechanics " thing we had going on before the advent of the television age .
The world needs more people like this guy , we collectively have lost that " Popular Mechanics " thing we had going on before the advent of the television age .
Ian Warren
Charter Member
Now that's truly impressive !
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input jscode="leoInternalChangeDone()" onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input jscode="leoInternalChangeDone()" onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Ian Warren
Charter Member
Ken , no sooner i posted i heard a rumble and the Southern Air DC-3 (Christchurch New Zealand) come over head at maybe 1000ft .. your smack on the nose .. put four engines on a Dak squeeze the fuselage add a lot off lump and bumps and put some prickles with them and then you have a B17 , prity much the same size .
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input jscode="leoInternalChangeDone()" onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">