• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

MBB and Bolkow Patents

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,251
Reaction score
5
Re: MBB and Bolbow Patents

The first looks like an early approximation of the VJ-101C and the second as one for the VJ-101D.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,488
Reaction score
55
But esp. the last one is very interesting ! Never seen this one before ... Thanks for posting !

Deino
 

smurf

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
Why do you believe that a drawing in a patent implies an actual project of that configuration?
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,994
Reaction score
150
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.
 

smurf

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
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.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,994
Reaction score
150
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
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,380
Reaction score
630
Re: MBB and Bolbow Patents

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.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,325
Reaction score
190
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
overscan said:
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.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
18
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... ;)
 

smurf

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
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!
 

moin1900

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
458
Reaction score
2
Triebflügel from Bölkow
Patent Nr / Veröffentlichungsnummer: DE1884174
Title: Triebflügelflugzeug
Inventor: Bölkow-Entwicklungen
Year: 03.03.1961
The patent shows two concepts for Triebflügel aircrafts.

https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=einsteiger
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,769
Reaction score
816
moin1900 said:
Triebflügel from Bölkow
Patent Nr / Veröffentlichungsnummer: DE1884174
Title: Triebflügelflugzeug
Inventor: Bölkow-Entwicklungen
Year: 03.03.1961
The patent shows two concepts for Triebflügel aircrafts.

https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=einsteiger
Thank you my dear Moin1900,

and please can you give us a direct link ?.
 

moin1900

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
458
Reaction score
2
Triebflügelflugzeug
https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/PatSchrifteneinsicht?docId=DE1884174U
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,769
Reaction score
816
moin1900 said:
Triebflügelflugzeug
https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/PatSchrifteneinsicht?docId=DE1884174U
Oh my God.
 

Attachments

moin1900

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
458
Reaction score
2
Patent Nr / Veröffentlichungsnummer: DE1703143A1
Title: Schallbombe
Inventor: Oskar Bschorr / MBB
Year: 28.04.1968
The patent shows four different sonic bomb.
Direct link
https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=pdf&docid=DE000001703143A
 

Attachments

moin1900

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
458
Reaction score
2
Patent Nr: DE1116537
Title: Hubschrauber, insbesondere Lasthubschrauber
Inventor: Bölkow-Entwicklungen
Year: 18.08.1959
The patent shows a interesting concept for a flying crane.
Direct link
https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/PatSchrifteneinsicht?docId=DE1116537B
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,769
Reaction score
816
moin1900 said:
Patent Nr: DE1116537
Title: Hubschrauber, insbesondere Lasthubschrauber
Inventor: Bölkow-Entwicklungen
Year: 18.08.1959
The patent shows a interesting concept for a flying crane.
Direct link
https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/PatSchrifteneinsicht?docId=DE1116537B
Nice find my dear Moin.
 

Attachments

Top