The Bonney Gull

J

jhefner

Charter Member
I have been out of the airplane creation field for a couple of years since the hard drives in both computers at home went belly up, and they replaced my computer at work, wiping out all of my development tools.

But, I have decided to have a go at it once again. I plan to finish up the texturing on the Ushakov LPL flying submarine so it can be released, and finish up the VC on Norman Bel Geddes' Airliner No. 4. (The Floh is about to go out for CFS2 only.) But, I wanted to start something from scratch first, to get myself back in the saddle in using gmax and other development tools.

I could have picked something conventional; and someone here has submitted a request for a particular aircraft. But, no, like a moth drawn to a flame; I found myself wanting to turn out another one of those planes that just didn't quite have the "right stuff":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Udr_1FkiI


Once again, it will be a fairly basic model (as airplane models go these days); since I can pull from the parts bin and basic flight dynamics of the of Early Fairchild Series, it is a good project for getting my feet wet again.

Variable camber wings simulated by flaps, variable sweep may be simulated by spoilers, folding wings, opening doors, VC. Let's see if it flys any better in MSFS than it did in real life. Once again, my target is FS2004; but by converting the model file, it should work in FS2002 and CFS2, and should also work as a portover in FSX as well.


I have completed the model and the flight dynamics files to a point where I could try a simulation of his take off:

http://good-times.webshots.com/video/3096933510079522983FtFXlb

Compare it to the video of the actual crash. I don't have fraps installed; so my son captured it with a video camera. (Sorry about the creaking chair.) I only reached 120 feet altitude at the end of the video, and my speed exceeded 51 knots only at the very end.

Here is the Bonney Gull compared to the Cessena 182RG. I haven't finished calculating the horizontal stab, elevator, and aleron area yet, but so far, the dimensions and weights were not that far out of the ordinary. (I used the published wingspan and length; and the wheels, pilot and prop from my Fairchild FC-2 to help size and match the dimensions to the photographs. No three views available.)



While the published literature makes a big deal about Bonney emulating a gull. But, along with the folding wings and the upholstered seats mentioned by Winchester, I noticed the rear view mirrors in the cockpit and the unusually large tailwheel, and believe that Bonney was trying to make a roadable airplane. (As opposed to a "flying car" like the Transistion Terrafugia.) I wondered why one would want to "land on a postage stamp" if you couldn't take back off; but the answer may have been because you were going to drive away, and not fly away.

I think Bonny paniced when the Gull started wobbling on the dirt runway with it's low and narrow gear, and took to the air too soon. Had he taken off on a concrete runway, he may have made it.

-James Hefner
 
Interesting newsreel footage of the actual plane crash. The plane was doing pretty well until it nosed over. Tough luck for Mr. Bonney and his design.
 
I applaud your own pioneering drive to take on this project. I've been a plane nut almost since I could walk and don't remember this one. Fortunately, anything will fly in FS.
 
Bad Design

James,
I think the horiz stab was not 'there' when he needed it. The wings were HUGE (area) in comparison and there is no way to control anything with horiz stab not being so 'punny' (area). Just plain physics. In fact I think it 'disappeared' when the speed increased, resulting in loss of control, and crash.

So you might want to make a 'New & Improved' model design and increase the tail area and push it out (backwards) more. Lots more. Yeah, we can make a brick fly in FSim. But entering the 'specs' (for a brick) into a dynamics program might not make it flyable. Which is what a lot of modelers already (try to) do, as we well know. Then they expect their 'brick' to fly 'WELL'. Fat chance. A radical model NEEDS radical flight dynamics (FDEs) and you can only get that by doing it 'manually' (ie: making custom cfg and air files) to FIT the model.

You had a 'Duck' model in 2009 that I made FDEs for and it flew very good. Lost my hard drive in March, so lost them. But I could re-do them. I could also do the FDEs for this model, if you want. That way you can be relieved of the pressure to 'come up' with good FDEs for it and concentrate your time/efforts on making the model.
Chuck B
Napamule
 
Everyone;

Before I go any further; I want to take a minute to thank everyone on this forum for your encouragement and overall friendliness. I have yet to bring a single project to your attention since you discovered my "Early Fairchild Series" many years ago that someone hasn't stepped forward with an offer to help improve it in one way or another. I appreciate your helpful and accepting spirit very much; and I thank you all very much for it. It is greatly appreciated.

napamule said:
James,
I think the horiz stab was not 'there' when he needed it. The wings were HUGE (area) in comparison and there is no way to control anything with horiz stab not being so 'punny' (area). Just plain physics. In fact I think it 'disappeared' when the speed increased, resulting in loss of control, and crash.

So you might want to make a 'New & Improved' model design and increase the tail area and push it out (backwards) more. Lots more. Yeah, we can make a brick fly in FSim. But entering the 'specs' (for a brick) into a dynamics program might not make it flyable. Which is what a lot of modelers already (try to) do, as we well know. Then they expect their 'brick' to fly 'WELL'. Fat chance. A radical model NEEDS radical flight dynamics (FDEs) and you can only get that by doing it 'manually' (ie: making custom cfg and air files) to FIT the model.

You had a 'Duck' model in 2009 that I made FDEs for and it flew very good. Lost my hard drive in March, so lost them. But I could re-do them. I could also do the FDEs for this model, if you want. That way you can be relieved of the pressure to 'come up' with good FDEs for it and concentrate your time/efforts on making the model.
Chuck B
Napamule
Click to expand...

Hi Chuck;

I am close to getting the beginnings of a virtual cockpit ready for it. When I do, I will zip it up and send a download link to you:



Right now, it has the kind of FDEs you are describing. I flew it last night with my son in the 182RG flying along as my "chase plane". (We had a ball; much eaiser to fly formation with slow, stable aircraft than the jets we tried before.)

When we took off; I was able to out-accelerate him in the 182RG on takeoff. In order to simulate Bonney's takeoff; I took off with the throttle nearly closed. Once it is airborne, it stalls at 40 MPH like it should, but it is the mushing, hanging-on-the-prop stall of modern aircraft, and not the sharp drop you see in the video. It cruises at 108-110, and you get the overspeed @120 MPH, as it should. It is rock stable in flight, as I would expect with a plane that has a mid-mounted wing with 15 degrees of dihedral.

I agree that nice FDEs like these should be available; no one wants to download something they can't fly. But, I am also looking for a set of FDEs that give a feel for what the actual plane would have been like to fly:

* A stiff landing gear that bounces bad on rough surfaces (without the "bucking bronco" effect of some FS aircraft until you tame them.)

* Correctly sluggish on takeoff

* Stalls at about 40 MPH, but drops it's nose violently like many planes of that period.

Then, we can see what Mr. Bonney was up against when he tried to fly the Gull, and if we can fair any better.

We have some great offerings in the MSFS world that let you be the Wright Bros. on that famous first flight, Berliot on his crossing of the English Channel, and Lindberg and the NC-4 on their transatlantic flights. We can even stage some of the air battles of the past, thanks to CFS1, CFS2, and CFS3.

But my "I wonders" tend to be along the lines of "what would it have been like to fly in a steam airplane (song optional)...."



"... and how in the world could they see anything, much less fly the Curtiss-Goupil Duck?" Next time you think your plane has bad visibility, try downloading and flying the Duck...



"... or land the T-28 Floh"



Anyway, here is my one experiment into MSFS FDEs that I could not get to work at all. You can vector the thrust all the way to 90 degrees and take off on prop thrust alone (0 square feet of wing area); but it appears once you get out of the ground effect, the tail surfaces stop working and you fall over; regardless of how fast you are going.



Anyway, Chuck; if you don't mind helping me with a more realistic set of FDEs, I would appreciate it. I'll be sending you a download link via PM shortly. Thanks again in advance.

-James Hefner
 
Experimental City

James,
Woa mama! Those are some 'bricks' you got there. But bring them on. I am up for the challenge. All you have to do is make me a readme with what characteristics you want to get and that would help a lot. If you leave it up to me I just might make them VTOL and/or 'hoverable' (hehe). But 'lumbering' and '40 kt stall' handling is do able. Just got to think outside the box. Send me the link. We'll go from there.

In case you didn't know. I am retired and have time to spare. As my 'entertainment' I have been doing FDEs every day (since FS98) it is the past 7 years that I do FDE 24/7 (almost-more like 12/7). I fly mostly to check out results and tweak while flying on AP (even my 'brick' has AP) and can reload C-182 then reload the ac I am working on for that 'instant' output of input ('easy' trial & error). CUL8R.
Chuck B
Napamule
 
Those are some really bizarre airplanes you've got there. On the Gull, you almost expect the wings to flap.

That's one thing I really like about flightsim is that it can be a history lesson. Thanks for taking on these interesting wonders of aviation. We will all learn something as a result.
 
napamule said:
James,
Woa mama! Those are some 'bricks' you got there. But bring them on. I am up for the challenge. All you have to do is make me a readme with what characteristics you want to get and that would help a lot. If you leave it up to me I just might make them VTOL and/or 'hoverable' (hehe). But 'lumbering' and '40 kt stall' handling is do able. Just got to think outside the box. Send me the link. We'll go from there.

In case you didn't know. I am retired and have time to spare. As my 'entertainment' I have been doing FDEs every day (since FS98) it is the past 7 years that I do FDE 24/7 (almost-more like 12/7). I fly mostly to check out results and tweak while flying on AP (even my 'brick' has AP) and can reload C-182 then reload the ac I am working on for that 'instant' output of input ('easy' trial & error). CUL8R.
Chuck B
Napamule
Click to expand...

Hi Chuck;

Roger Law did a great job taming the steam airplanes, and I like his finished FDEs. They are still tricky to fly, but I think that fits their rough primitive nature; anything that is that 1800s should not fly like a Piper Cub. :jump:

Peperez here has done a great job taming the Floh for CFS2. It has just the right feel. You have already played with the Duck, here are your medals of valour. :medals:

You are more than welcomed to see if you can get the Lippish Aerodyne to work; I was trying not to "cheat" and model it with any wings at all, nor as a helicopter. I don't know if that is possible without resorting to helicopter mode, or writing a .dll or a hook to FSUIPC that digs deeper into the MSFS engine. I'll send it your way as well; the model is still crude because I didn't go far with it when I couldn't get the FDEs to work. It would make another nice "alternate history" model for CFS2 with weapons pylons on each side and a VC; the only Aerodyne actually built had neither:

http://www.rexresearch.com/lippisch/lippisch.htm

Since you mentioned VTOL, and as long as I am pulling all my creations out of the hanger for a breath of fresh air; there is one more. This is the Gyrodyne QH-50; I modeled both the QH-50C with torpedoes, and the QH-50D with a truncated tail and Gatling Gun instead of torpedoes for use along the Ho Chi Minh trail in Vietnam:



As usual, I made it for FS2004 and FS2002, and with working weapons for CFS2. I found another QH-50C online, so I pushed mine into the back of the hanger once again. But, I will be more than happy to let you and "Team FLOH" take a look at it, and upload up it here. It has no VC because it was a RPV; the most accurate way to fly it is from the "tower view" of an aircraft carrier, or from the 2-D cockpit of the QH-50D.

Here is the family picture that inspired it:



My older son, who is even older now, can tell you it is a devil to hit, and the Gatling Gun can do major damage as I modeled it. The torpedo I originally used in CFS2 wase too big, as it came from the Swordfish; but I did eventually create my own, and I think it survived the disk crash:



There are some other creations on the drawing board right now; but others have already stepped forward to help with them. Just need to get back to the hanger floor and back to work on the models; which I will do now that I comfortable with gmax again.

-James Hefner

(P.S. I should mention that I made tons of models when I was kid. But, they all got broken over the years. So now, I make them on the computer. They can't get broken, they won't get lost if you share them with others, and people won't make fun of you like they would if you flew plastic models around the house, making airplane noises. :) )
 
More Bricks

James,
You said:
'You have already played with the Duck, here are your medals of valour.' (Well, I'm not worthy - as I crashed the Duck (several times-your FDEs were lousy (hehe)).

Just kidding. I am up for making FDEs for those 'gadgets' that fly. I fly helicopters and like to mess with UFO's. I make videos (I know-borrrreeing). Here are 2 you might like:

UFO in FS9 Take 1, YouTube. Feb 2011. by 'Napamule'.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-nRclstJ1I .

Rotodyne in FSX, YouTube, Feb 2010. by 'Napamule'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBNaNHTwdlc .

Last night I installed, and tweaked the Curtiss 'Duck' and now it flys without stalling until you go under 35 kts, or your vertical speed exceeds 600 fpm. Added wheels so it can go on land. Will not stall on turns (can use lots of rudder instead of banking!). Does not tip over on nose anymore. Bla, bla, bla. Took me an hour. Did not cheat either. Just tweaked your versions of cfg and air (to 'suit'). Piece of cake.

I have 'heard' of Roger Law (Lawdog?) and Peperez but not familiar with any of their work. Will research the 'QH-50c' and look for the FLOH on net. That 'Lip****s' guy sure was a 'wacko', but I like his designs. As show pieces. I wouldn't want to fly any of them. I am a 'Test' pilot, not a 'Dummy' pilot (hehe).

So will wait for any files you want to entrust to me. I don't do immoral things, so your model is safe with me. Too old for any stupidity. I live a clean, sober life, and am not into petty soap opera crapola. Life is too short. And I sleep good at night. Standing by.
Chuck B
Napamule
And YES, the UFO took off BACKWARDS (ha). Shame is that I lost those FDEs in March HDrive crash and I don't remember the 'recipe' so don't know if I can make another one simular, '..Again.'.
 
(Note to moderators -- if you want, you can move this to the FS2002-FS2004 forum.)

Here is the latest W.I.P. shot, seen among contempory aircraft of it's time. It is beginning to look like a plane now. When I added the valve gear to the engine, you could then hear the sounds of the valves tapping inside the VC -- a very nice touch, Microsoft.



To simulate it's stiff landing gear, I first annimated it,then set the static compession of the main gears to 0.250 feet, and the tail gear to 0.200 feet. I also set the damping ratio to just 0.500 for the tail wheel, and gave the main gears slightly different and also low values of 6.8 and 6.3.

Sure enough, the resulting gear settings would get to shaking you and down; sometimes violently enough in full realism mode to trigger a prop strike and crash. In other words, just about right. :isadizzy:

I dialed it back to a damping ratio of 0.730 on one gear, and 0.770 on the other, and saved the results in my "safe" configuration folder. But, my research triggered the question in my mind: did the Bonney Gull had a prop strike during takeoff, which then impacted it's acceleration on climbout?

To check this theory out, I took a snapshot of the Gull just as the prop was about to strike the ground (notice the rocks and dirt flying), and compared it's height and orientation to the Bonney Gull at about 1:46 in the original video:



In the movie clip, it's gear looks full extended, and the fuselage more level; so I don't think the propeller hit the ground. But, it was close.

I found the following video of the Spirit of St. Louis taking off. Not a whole lot more gracefull than the Bonney Gull; makes you appreciate today's smooth runways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZEdF1pPLEo

Chuck, thank you for offering to help with the airfiles. But, someone has "bailed me out" on nearly every project to date. I want to "tough this one out;" besides, I won't understand what is going on if I am not tweaking things myself.

I am also not sure about the tail being masked by the wing, causing it to become ineffective and leading to a crash. I have measured and inputted the actual moment arm and stablizer and elevator area, to no detriment. And, I have found other aircraft with a rather small looking tail at the same elevation as the wing; including the following:

* Nearly all twin boom aircraft such as the P-38 Lightning
* Fiat G.50
* De Havilland Mosquito
* Mitsubishi G3M
* Mitsubishi Ki-21

So far, the Bonney Gull is a sweet flier, aside from bouncing on the ground. It has been easy to land, compared to the Fairchilds and Floh with their engines and wings in your face. I won't even go into the Goupil-Duck....

The title of the next installment - "Hot days at the drag strip...."

-James
 
Cnt Pts

James,
You have been 'bailed out'? Good. So if you can't get the cnt pts set where it won't bounce on landing you could let me try fixing that. Or not. I'm not interested in another 'brick' (hehe) for FS9-I got plenty of those. But I DO like to fix cnt pts (bouncing). Perhaps a little bounce isn't out of spec for this model? Good luck with your project.
Chuck B
Napamule
Edit: Well, at least you should watch my video of the Duck 2. It's 2:34 in length. Not long enough to cover it doing 'other' tricks. I like this model, including the fabulous vc. Had a lot of fun flying it. You have a good eye for designs (this one anyway (hehe)). Just kidding.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i-XWi1rCls . I added 'Cartoon' music, just for kicks.
 
Experimental Models

James,
I am pretty sure you are familiar with Kevin Espeseth and his models. They are futuristic and experimental. And difficult to make FDEs for, but every once in a while I will take one of them and make FDEs. Never did make contact to ask if I can upload them, but I plan to. I took his Electric Helicopter ('When Pigs Fly') and made FDEs for it last night. What I am discussing (and related to thread?) is the making FDEs to fit the model (your model?). It's not just showing off. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeRPAyJufd4 . Hope I can help you in the future, but it's up to you. I'm available. Cheers.
Chuck B
Napamule
 
Hot days at the drag strip....

I do appreciate the offer of help; but part of what I am trying to do is determine what may have happened on his fatal takeoff. That is hard to do when someone else is tweaking the FDEs.

It doesn't look like he had a prop strike on takeoff, so the question remains is was he developing full power. To determine this, the power and thrust characteristics of my FS model need to be close to correct.

I picked three aircraft with similiar engines and (except for one) similiar weights from the same timeframe. The ones I picked were:

* Jim Douglass' Curtiss Robin
* My Fairchild FC-2 "Razorback"
* The Spirit of Saint Louis (Ryan NYC).

I placed them at one end of my grass strip, opened the throttle wide open, and timed how long it took them to reach the other end of the strip. (I'll pay for the broken fence at the end of the runway....) I did this twice for each plane.

The results were:

* Bonney Gull - 21 seconds
* Curtiss Robin - 23-25 seconds
* Fairchild FC-2 - 25 seconds
* Ryan NYC - 41 seconds.

The Robin is closest to the Bonney in terms of weight and horsepower. The FC-2 is heavier, and was considered underpowered with the Wright engine. The NYC is loaded with close to it's empty weight with fuel (roughly 5,000 pounds gross), so it is no surprise. that it was sluggish.

So, I added a thrust scaler of 0.80 to the Bonney Gull. Next step was to take it up again, and see what it's max and cruise speeds are now; if the thrust is too low, it won't reach it's proper speed.

Last time my son and I tried to fly together, one of the computers kept dropping it's network connection. He is out of town, so after I switching wireless sticks around, I played both the role of "test pilot" and "chase plane", and flew a test flight to New Orleans.



The Gull is so stable, I just had to point the "test plane' in the direction I wanted it to go, and try to fly formation with it with the "chase plane".

It cruises in the neighborhood of 102-108 MPH IAS. Max speed at level flight is about 120 MPH. Overspeed warning is at 130 MPH, should still stall at about 40 MPH.



Landings are easy, I put it down on the shorter runway at Lakefront with runway to spare. It was bouncy, but fine; it now taxies much better as well.

With the correct measurements for the stab and elevator, it does stall with a little more authority now, rather than mushing. Time to try the takeoff again.

-James
 
James,
Did you see in the video where he was sitting in cockpit and YANKING the stick from stop-to-stop? That did not look right to me. So perhaps something broke or let go and he had no control. Have you considered that? I know it didn't have a 'black box' (hehe). But, did they do an inquiry? I doubt it. It got broken up pretty bad, too. My impression is that he had a castatrophic failure (mechanical or hydraulic). Maybe it was NOT dynamics. Right? Right. Nice flying pics, by the way.
Chuck B
Napamule
 
napamule said:
James,
Did you see in the video where he was sitting in cockpit and YANKING the stick from stop-to-stop? That did not look right to me. So perhaps something broke or let go and he had no control. Have you considered that? I know it didn't have a 'black box' (hehe). But, did they do an inquiry? I doubt it. It got broken up pretty bad, too. My impression is that he had a castatrophic failure (mechanical or hydraulic). Maybe it was NOT dynamics. Right? Right. Nice flying pics, by the way.
Chuck B
Napamule
Click to expand...

Chuck;

You are reading my mind. I need to recreate his takeoff again, but I think he should have been up to about 60 MPH ten seconds into his flight, when the crash occurred.

You would think that should have been high enough above stall speed that when he raised the nose, it shouldn't have stalled like that.

I found a slightly clearer version of the video online; I still can't see anything breaking lose or flapping around. It also doesn't look like he "hit the wrong lever" and activated the "speed brake" feature (rotating the wings to kill lift and increase drag), or swept the tips back. Changing the camber in what amounted to raising or lowering the flaps may have hurt or helped; but you can't see it in the video.

The other thing I tried was raising the weight by about 500 pounds in case the finished plane was overweight. But, it took off like a lead sled; it at least bounced and rose smoothly off the ground in the video, which is what it is doing now in the simulator.

No, Bonney was no Knute Rockne and a planeload of folks in a Fokker. Instead, he was probably thought to be a crazy old man, and the remains sadly carted away. I did find a picture of someone picking through the wreckage next to a hanger; but I doubt there was a formal investigation.

-James
 
Been slowly working on the Bonney Gull. One of the features Bonney incorporated was the ability to rotate the wings upward on touchdown to kill lift and increase drag, the equivalent of today's speed brake. When some articles postulate that the crash was caused by Bonney "pulling the wrong lever", I assume they meant the lever that activated the speed brake. But, the wings rotating would have been obvious in the video.



The Booney Gull was based at Roosevelt Field; where Lindberg took off on his famous flight a year earlier. William Shea made three sceneries for Roosevelt Field; this one is Roosevelt Field - May 20, 1927. I put together an airport file so that I could place period aircraft around the field and easily position the Bonney Gull.



A picture of the Bonney Gull from the 1000aircraftphotos.com website:



And the Gull at the same spot in Shea's scenery:



Changed out the video card on one of my two design/FS computers to kill the shimmering, and back to work on the Gull.

-James
 
James,
Well glad to see you are getting there. Video card, eh? That's one thing I don' like is having to spend a week on repairs. But you do what you got to do.

One thing you have at your disposal is 'Super Flaps'. Did you know that? You can make the flaps give you as much drag as a spoiler. The beauty of it is that the flaps can also have lots of lift, along with that drag. Boggles the mind? This is very possible and 'works' in simulator (dynamics?). I spend a lot of time experimenting with spoilers and 'super flaps' for use with race cars (vehicles).

There is a lack of understanding (by FDE tweakers) concerning pitch trim, flaps, and spoiler use in sims. The range of lift/drag that can be achieved is tremendous. But it's a drag for tweakers to do as it takes some trial & error to get the overall effect dynamically 'balanced'. In other words, if you dial in 1 notch of flaps for drag to slow down, you don't want (need) adverse pitch (nose down). Tweakers neglect this area. The set the drag, and neglect the pitch effect, where you can't land it without wrestleing with elevator and pitch trim all the way in. What you have to do is not in the SDK. You have to figure it out by yourself. So how is it handling now (ie: what' in YOUR wallet (Bonney?)) (hehe).
Chuck B
Napamule
 
Hey James, In previously viewing the video I didn't realize Bonney had wing rotation like that on his plane. But on such large surfaces such as an entire wing it probably takes very little rotation to increase or decrease lift significantly while at speed.
I know the video at the beginning of the thread is not very clear but after paying particular attention to look for wing rotation, it does look like he is monkeying with the wing rotation however minutely as he appears to be testing or feeling it out which is a natural tendancy for many engineers or designers to test things.

In the video focus on the inboard trailing edge, next to the fuselage and it appears to moving ever so slightly up and down and in unison with the aircraft's porpoising movement. Keep in mind that such a large surface such as an entire wing doesn't need to move much to get a reaction at speed.

Suppose something caused the rotation mechanism to hang up in the rotated forward position. Keep in mind he also has his hands more full with an extra new control, more so than a normal type plane, which could possibly add confusion and prevent correction in time by using the elevator and also while he has very lttle altitude or time on his side before hitting the ground.

Additional supposition: With the controls for that wing tocause so much degreed movement that shows in one of your last pictures of your model, if the same in the real plane, at speed would most likely made the control very sensitive that minute stick movement would quickly change wing incedence for cruise speed. Also there is the posibility Bonney's attention was looking down in the cockpit and not concentrated on the path of the plane being that it could have been extremely too sensitive, maybe looking down at the mechanism movement. Just some thoughts.

If he was testing the wing rotation in that film, he should have done it while skimming closer to the runway which would have limited his danger of a hard impact with the ground. Although it appeared he was intending to make climb out to go fly around. If he was testing the wing rotation he should have done it skimming just a few feet above the runway or take it way up where he would have altitude for corrective action. I would have chosen skimming the runway to try it myself rather than way up at high altitude until it had gainfully proven itself as well as the entire aircraft design.

But it does appear he was testing the the wing control, + & - in the film. At speed it doesn't take much for a reaction with such large wing area. Imagine if a tool, loose hardware got jammed in the mechanism or even a weld tit. It was new fabrication.

Very nice job on the model! Interesting story too.

Take a look at this Flying Flea which has similar action to Bonney's plane. Notice it takes very little movement of the wing to get reaction for such a large wing surface at speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itMDL-JIFfs
 
Phantomx1;

I think you may be onto something there.

Chuck;

The Bonney Gull was also said to have variable camber; I was going to model that as flaps, as you describe. Like slats, no way of knowing if I am modeling it's effect on lift and drag correctly, but I will try at least.

Not sure why, but the tips of the wings could also be swept back 20 degrees. (If you look closely while he is testing the controls prior to takeoff, you can see it.) That was the reason for the turning down of the trailing edge inside of the alerons - to provide clearance when the tips were swept back. I know others have modeled variable sweep wings; just have to figure out how. Variable dihedral was also suggested; but none of the photographs hint at such a feature.

I have been studying the post crash photographs for further clues on how it all was supposed to work. In the one below (larger version here), you can see how the wing was hinged in the middle for a flap-like effect. The wing also seems to be tilted up relative to the position of the landing gear; but of course after such a hard impact, nothing may any longer be in the position it was in prior to the crash.

View attachment 46267

Like you said, Phantomx1, he may have been toying ever gently with some of these features when he lost control of it. Roosevelt Field, even in 1928, was a cramped airport to be doing tests like this. It was actually two fields in one; seperated by an 18 foot deep gulley. (The other half was called Curtiss Field, which is why it is called that in the link above.) That also gives a clue what direction he took off from; since he disappears from sight over the rim of the gulley prior to the crash on the airfield on the other side. So we can better reenact his takeoff roll and crash.

Glad you are all enjoying my work so far. I can enjoy the Bonney Gull more now on that particular computer now that it is not flashing like a disco ball. :) Back to work on the various wing mechanisms.

-James
 
Interesting project James! I've read a story about this in Aeroplane a few months ago but I never thought I would see an Fs model.

Slightly OT, but I remember a gigantic flying wing and a flying submarine too? What happened to those projects?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top