Aircraft 'inspired' by Burt Rutan designs?

FutureSpaceTourist

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
10 March 2010
Messages
589
Reaction score
25
Didn't know where to post this, but thought at least Stéphane would be interested ;D

A Moscow-based company has apparently announced a 'new flying car' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/moscow-aviation-firm-unve_n_604611.html.

Except of course, that I expect Burt Rutan wouldn't call it new and it's a small aircraft, not a car ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Nm6Ycl6Tk

Still it proves once again how much the Russians like Burt Rutan designs ...

Update:
Blast! Sorry, this should probably be in Aerospace - I was reading the flying car thread and confused myself :(
 
Thanks for sharing! To me the Rutan influence is not obvious. This cute little aircraft recalls much earlier designs such as the so-called "Safety Planes" of the late 1930s, of which the Stearman-Hammond Y-1S is the most well known... The Stinson (Convair) 106 Skycoach also comes to mind.
 
Looks more Bede than Rutan.

1565311.jpg


Rutan BTW is not as original as his fanboys like to claim, as he did not create the canard, tandem-wing, asymmetrical, slip-plane or twin tail layouts. The vast majority of his designs are variations on pre-existing themes, interesting variations but not earth-shatteringly original.
 
Besides 'feathering', I don't have the aerospace knowledge to know what features Burt has originated. But FWIW I don't think orginality comes only from inventing something new. Whilst I don't know that Burt invented any composite fabrication techniques, his application of those techniques counts as original in my book. As another example, having a carrier aircraft and spaceship with common cabins and (most) controls seems original to me, but isn't a new component or means of controlling an aircraft.

So I do think Burt is original (which is obviously not the same as saying everything he's done is original). To be fair though, I'd probably say he's even more prolific :)
 
Being a Rutan appreciator (please don't fanboy me!) to the extent that I devoted two years of my time researching his work and doing a comprehensive website on his work, I do agree that many of his designs build on previous experience... BUT:

1°) Pick any patent at random and you'll find that even a patented invention has to list a series of earlier patents that were involved in the creative process.
2°) We all use the same veggies and meat to cook, and have done so for thousands of years... yet there are still new kids on the block that come every now and then and totally redefine how we eat and what can be done.
3°) There are only 11 notes in music. If we said we've heard it all because no new notes can be invented, it would be a sad world... The combination of existing elements, however limited in numbers, makes for an infinity of possibilities.

In the same way, I'd say it's not so much the fact that Rutan did or didn't invent stuff... it's about how he picked the right ingredients to come up with new concepts and how he successfully marketed them. And it's not so much about revolutionizing aviation.... in the end there will always be a fuselage, wings or lifting surface, and control surfaces to change roll, pitch and yaw. Check out Aerofiles some time and consider how many aircraft were devised in just North America, and how many really stand out as superior designs in the end. The engineers that created the Northrop B-2, the Boeing 707, the Lockheed F-104 or the Piper Cub, to name but a few, did not invent ANYTHING! Yet they managed to combine and refine existing features and incorporate them together into sound, desirable and efficient machines.

Now if you asked me what Rutan DID revolutionize, I'd say it like this:
1°) from a technological point of view, he contributed in making composite building accessible;
2°) from a marketing point of view, he developed a niche that didn't exist before: the homebuilt canard;
3°) from a historical/sociological point of view, he cristalized all the dreams of the newer generations and recaptured the spirit of invention of the early pioneers, making the public look up to the skies with the same expectation that made crowds cheer over Lindbergh, Earhart and many others;
4°) from an industrial point of view, he provided many companies with an economical, independent workshop and engineering team to pursue programs that would not/could not be developed inhouse without months of unnecessary additional paperwork and millions more dollars;
5°) finally, he has proved to the public and the industry that one can set up a space program for 20 times less than the NASA price tag and carry it through!

On a side note, the Bede BD-5 pictured above was the last Bede design that Burt Rutan actually worked on before setting up his own Rutan Aircraft Factory... and although he did not design it, he most certainly input quite a bit of his ideas into it.
 
BD-5 wise while I'm thinking of it:

I recall see an illustration of a proposed modification that had "joined-wings" that was supposed to be an acrobatic competition bird.

Unfortunately I can't recall when or where I saw it. I don't suppose anyone else ever heard of the idea?

Randy
 
FutureSpaceTourist,

as best as I can tell, the 'feathering' feature of Rutan's SpaceShip designs isn't original either, but goes back to a Convair lenticular Apollo reentry design currently being discussed over on the space side of this board. So either he was inspired by it, or he reinvented it due to not doing thorough research first... ;)

Martin
 
martinbayer said:
as best as I can tell, the 'feathering' feature of Rutan's SpaceShip designs isn't original either, but goes back to a Convair lenticular Apollo reentry design currently being discussed over on the space side of this board.

Fascinating, many thanks for the pointer. I must remember that first to build/use and first to invent are not the same thing :)

Having said that, Burt's first feathering design - as depicted in SpaceShipOne: An Illustrated History - did look rather different, so I'm guessing more re-invention than inspiration?
 
Hard to say without asking the man himself (and even then you might not get a straight answer). So we'll probably never know...

Martin
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom