Register here

Author Topic: MBB and Bolkow Patents  (Read 10012 times)

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 21875
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 02:54:22 pm by hesham »

STINGRAY

  • Guest
Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2007, 05:00:20 pm »
To me, they look like German versions of the "Harrier".
« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 02:07:26 pm by overscan »

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1201
Re: MBB and Bolbow Patents
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2007, 10:34:30 pm »
The first looks like an early approximation of the VJ-101C and the second as one for the VJ-101D.

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2430
Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2007, 01:03:54 am »
But esp. the last one is very interesting ! Never seen this one before ... Thanks for posting !

Deino
« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 02:07:44 pm by overscan »
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline smurf

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 544
Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2007, 10:28:51 am »
Why do you believe that a drawing in a patent implies an actual project of that configuration?
« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 02:07:58 pm by overscan »

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7890
Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2007, 12:02:04 pm »
Often such industrial patents aren't just pure ideas. It's just a way,
to safe already made developments from being captured and copied
by competitors.
Of course, not every single development leads to a project, or even
some kind of hardware, but the starting point often is something like
a conceptual study, before the patent, I think.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 02:08:24 pm by overscan »
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline smurf

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 544
Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2007, 01:56:54 am »
J, I think the key word in your post is "often"
The point I want to make is that patents may be taken out to safeguard lines of development, and a diagram included to show how that would work.  But there is no guarantee that such development was ever pursued into hardware, nor even that there was any intention to pursue it into hardware.  The object of the patent would then be to prevent others pursuing it into hardware, with no return for the inventor.
There is a good example in Hesham's posts on Burnelli patents.  The patent for a jet Burnelli (especially a fighter-bomber - see claim 1) needs some independent evidence before it can be said that there was a Burnelli project for a jet fighter-bomber.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 02:08:37 pm by overscan »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 21875
Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2007, 10:05:51 am »
Hi,

I agree with you my dears Jemiba and smurf,but at least
we take info about them,such as this;


http://www.google.com/patents?id=6zJvAAAAEBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=Germany+VTOL+airplane#PPP1,M1
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 02:54:08 pm by hesham »

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7890
Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2007, 11:03:27 am »
Our discussion is just reflecting the problem, we are often facing here :
What's a "project", what's a "concept", a "design study", or maybe just
an artist's impression, based on unfinished thoughts of an aviation engineer ?
To my opinion, a project means, that there's really the intention to cut metal
and bring it into this shape. A concept is a much earlier stage, when several
desgins are considered against each other, but probably not a single one of
them would represent completely the final choice. And I think, at this point,
key characteristics are secured via a patent. Quite a lot, if not most types,
we are talking about here, probably fall into this category.
No, I don't think, we should rename this forum into "Secret design study forum" ...  ;D
« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 02:09:14 pm by overscan »
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Online PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10751
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MBB and Bolbow Patents
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2007, 12:47:37 pm »
My opinion is, a patent registered by Lockheed, or whatever, it can be of interest, providing you understand that it may not correspond to an actual project. A patent registered by Mr Wacky Inventor isn't a "project" in any meaningful sense.

A drawing made by Roy Braybrook while in the Hawker PD section can be of interest even if it wasn't studied in great detail, but a drawing I did myself isn't.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7042
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2007, 03:47:10 pm »
A patent registered by Mr Wacky Inventor isn't a "project" in any meaningful sense.

Agreed. That's why I didn't just mine the patent office and dump things into APR... too much of it was Just Some Guy with an idea... often a *really* *bad* idea.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 02:09:51 pm by overscan »
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2007, 03:12:01 am »
Returning to Jemiba's distinction between project, concept and design, patented or not, having perused in the archives of a couple of aerospace firm (SIAI and Macchi), I think that the divides aren't so clear cut. In particular, the intention of cutting metal cannot be taken as an indication of "depth" or "advancement" in the work undertaken on an prospected airplane. I just give an example: in 1952-53 SIAI did a really detailed project of a twin boom transport aircraft with two Bristol Centaurus. They designed all the subsystems, the internal arrangement, the cockpit and instrumentation, the maintenance provisions, etc. Since the company was in really dire straits back then, the amount of resources plunged in the project was enormous. Nevertheless, the project ended in nothing, because the company hadn't the resources to start construction (and SIAI knew it very well from the start) and the Italian Air Force was swimming in surplus C-119s (a well known fact too, BTW). So, there wasn't any intention to cut metal. But if the Air Force would have provided money... I think that, apart from some cases, in the last 60 years, no "project", no matter how detailed,  could be described so if someone else than the company hadn't put the money...   ;)
« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 02:10:06 pm by overscan »

Offline smurf

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 544
Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2007, 04:35:14 am »
I seem to have started something!
I have no wish to see the patents excluded (the Burnelli ones seem to have started a bit of a search to relate the patents to ideas actually pursued.  that might result in the patent drawings being the "best approximation" available.
I simply wanted to make the point that some patents are "defensive" and do not relate to projects/concepts/designs/whatever you call them which are actually being pursued.  Their drawings may simply be adaptations of others, to illustrate a particular point.  For example. the Burnelli patent for a front gun mounting http://www.google.com/patents?id=RaxEAAAAEBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=burnelli+aircraft#PPP1,M1
might use any Burnelli airframe to illustrate its point, rather than a specific one which was actually intended to have front guns.  (I don't know which, though I suspect a real intention to design and fit such a mounting)
I would not reject any type of drawing etc in this field so long as it is clearly stated what it is and where it comes from.
Hesham's patent posts do both. I find them interesting and useful.  Posted as links, as they are, leaves others free to pursue them or not, without taking too much space.  Whether the same would be true for all patents, I doubt.  There are some "real strange cookies" out there! 
« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 02:10:37 pm by overscan »

Online PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10751
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2007, 01:56:07 pm »
Renamed topic
« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 02:10:52 pm by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 21875
Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2007, 10:04:51 am »
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 02:56:02 pm by hesham »