ArboristSite.com Sponsors


Some WTF pics.....

pdqdl

pdqdl

Old enough to know better.
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
15,470
Location
Kansas City
You make so many errors in your assumptions that it is hard to know where to begin. First off there are historical accounts of it flying, you seem to be ignorant of those. Other similar designs also flew and that is very well documented. Models of the aircraft in question have been built with modern materials and flown by radio control which proves the viability of the design concept. Many attempts were made at "flying machines" that ended in failure due only to materials limitations, today those same designs are possible, but performance from current designs renders them useless in a commercial sense. Bleecker's design was a failure for reasons other than an inability to fly.

Your biggest hang up seems to be the assumption that the engine in some way works against the fuselage and that is simply not the case. You also think the wings would spin faster if the props were farther out and that is also opposite of how it would work. In a spinning circle does the edge or the middle spin faster? Props on the end have more leverage, closer in they give more speed, even back then they understood this and factored it into aircraft design and we know this because they wrote about it. In forward flight putting the props farther out would be a much bigger liability. Do you know why?

A beach ball? Really? That takes the cake for comparing apples to oranges.

What do you think about the ability of an airplane to take off from a treadmill? Let's assume that as the airplane speeds up the treadmill can accelerate to match the airplane. Will the plane ever be able to take off?
I would really like to see one of those historical accounts of the contraption flying, or anything similar.
upload_2019-12-14_9-10-4.jpeg

The video I posted of the Bleeker showed clearly that the wings were not turning fast enough to take flight. What is not known is how hard they hit the throttle. Given that film wasn't cheap back in the day, I'm pretty sure that they were trying to get it off the ground. It didn't, and the wings were turning slowly. Your points about speed and leverage with respect to the the prop position are noted and understood; we just have differing opinions on that.

I'm sorry you didn't understand my point about the beach ball. I'd explain in greater depth, but you clearly aren't interested. The comments about torque and the video on the gyroscope also seem to have been overlooked or just didn't sink in.

I'll offer you this analysis:
"Despite Bleecker’s claim that he had finally solved the problems of vertical flight, his helicopter failed to take the world by storm, though it was certainly an interesting attempt at a solution. However, his helicopter never managed to get into the air. The ungainly aircraft did manage a few short hops inside the hangar where it was constructed, but an oil leak put an end to those tests, and that was the extent of its flight history. Testing stopped in 1929 when a driveshaft broke, and the economic realities of the Great Depression limited funding for the project. Undaunted, Bleecker continued work on his helicopter, but he was never able to eliminate problems with vibrations, and the project was eventually abandoned in 1933."

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/the-curtiss-bleecker-helicopter-1791395248

Here is an interesting note: Bleeker invented and patented his wobble plate to regulate the angle of attack of his wings. Unfortunately, his patent wasn't written carefully, and Sikorsky successfully used a similar mechanism in the first operational helicopter.
 
Hddnis

Hddnis

Addicted to ArboristSite
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
3,554
Location
PNW
I would really like to see one of those historical accounts of the contraption flying, or anything similar.
View attachment 780003

The video I posted of the Bleeker showed clearly that the wings were not turning fast enough to take flight. What is not known is how hard they hit the throttle. Given that film wasn't cheap back in the day, I'm pretty sure that they were trying to get it off the ground. It didn't, and the wings were turning slowly. Your points about speed and leverage with respect to the the prop position are noted and understood; we just have differing opinions on that.

I'm sorry you didn't understand my point about the beach ball. I'd explain in greater depth, but you clearly aren't interested. The comments about torque and the video on the gyroscope also seem to have been overlooked or just didn't sink in.

I'll offer you this analysis:
"Despite Bleecker’s claim that he had finally solved the problems of vertical flight, his helicopter failed to take the world by storm, though it was certainly an interesting attempt at a solution. However, his helicopter never managed to get into the air. The ungainly aircraft did manage a few short hops inside the hangar where it was constructed, but an oil leak put an end to those tests, and that was the extent of its flight history. Testing stopped in 1929 when a driveshaft broke, and the economic realities of the Great Depression limited funding for the project. Undaunted, Bleecker continued work on his helicopter, but he was never able to eliminate problems with vibrations, and the project was eventually abandoned in 1933."

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/the-curtiss-bleecker-helicopter-1791395248

Here is an interesting note: Bleeker invented and patented his wobble plate to regulate the angle of attack of his wings. Unfortunately, his patent wasn't written carefully, and Sikorsky successfully used a similar mechanism in the first operational helicopter.
You said "It looks to me like it needs a much bigger tail before it ever thinks about letting go of the ground. That teeny little cockpit will be spinning faster than the wing-rotors." I said you were wrong. Now you've found your own source saying it made short hops and no mention of the problem you predicted.

So, I am right, you were wrong. No amount of digging about the internet on your part is going to change that.
 
unclemoustache

unclemoustache

My 'stache is bigger than yours.
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
21,393
Age
49
Location
S. Il. near St. Louis
You said "It looks to me like it needs a much bigger tail before it ever thinks about letting go of the ground. That teeny little cockpit will be spinning faster than the wing-rotors." I said you were wrong. Now you've found your own source saying it made short hops and no mention of the problem you predicted.

So, I am right, you were wrong. No amount of digging about the internet on your part is going to change that.



Dang, Hddnis - who peed in your Wheaties??

 
derwoodii

derwoodii

Tree Freak
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
16,583
Location
Victoria Australia
Website
www.arboristsite.com
pdqdl

pdqdl

Old enough to know better.
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
15,470
Location
Kansas City
You said "It looks to me like it needs a much bigger tail before it ever thinks about letting go of the ground. That teeny little cockpit will be spinning faster than the wing-rotors." I said you were wrong. Now you've found your own source saying it made short hops and no mention of the problem you predicted.

So, I am right, you were wrong. No amount of digging about the internet on your part is going to change that.
Oh my! Life must be good for you. Most folks aren't able to resolve their problems so absolutely.

I'll try to emulate your style. You said:
"...there are historical accounts of it flying, you seem to be ignorant of those. Other similar designs also flew and that is very well documented. "​
I threw down the gauntlet, but you didn't pick it up. I must assume that I'm right and that you are wrong.

You said:
"Bleecker's design was a failure for reasons other than an inability to fly."​
Bleeker's design was a failure for no other reason than it didn't fly. If it had flown, it might have been a success. I'm right, you be wrong...again.

Say! This right/wrong thing is fun. I can see why you like it so much.
 
Top