Comments on: The Flying Flapjack (May, 1947) http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/ Yesterday's tomorrow, today. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:01:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Reg Skerratt http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/comment-page-1/#comment-1046782 Reg Skerratt Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:23:14 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/#comment-1046782 Paust's May 1947 article promoting a mythical supersonic Flapjack (XF5U-?) inadvertantly fueled the coming public obsession with flying saucers. Ironically, the only real saucer-shaped program was redundant on March 17th - unbeknown to Paust. FB - have you come across an article on the V-173 by Vought's Test Pilot Boone T Guyton? I think it was called, 'The Ups and Downs of the Flying Pancake', circa 1950. Paust’s May 1947 article promoting a mythical supersonic Flapjack (XF5U-?) inadvertantly fueled the coming public obsession with flying saucers. Ironically, the only real saucer-shaped program was redundant on March 17th – unbeknown to Paust.

FB – have you come across an article on the V-173 by Vought’s Test Pilot Boone T Guyton? I think it was called, ‘The Ups and Downs of the Flying Pancake’, circa 1950.

]]> By: Reg Skerratt http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/comment-page-1/#comment-1046780 Reg Skerratt Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:12:41 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/#comment-1046780 Smithsonian link hasn't been updated for years, FB. In 2003, NASM generously allowed a group of Vought retirees to transport the V-173 thru six states (!) to Dallas where the eighty-year-olds are busy restoring it to its former glory, sans return to NASM. Theres a nice walk-around at: http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle2/vought_v-173/ -and- http://www.vought.com/heritage/rest/html/rv-173.html Smithsonian link hasn’t been updated for years, FB. In 2003, NASM generously allowed a group of Vought retirees to transport the V-173 thru six states (!) to Dallas where the eighty-year-olds are busy restoring it to its former glory, sans return to NASM.
Theres a nice walk-around at:
http://www.primeportal.net/han.....ght_v-173/
-and-
http://www.vought.com/heritage.....v-173.html

]]> By: Firebrand38 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/comment-page-1/#comment-970122 Firebrand38 Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:32:38 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/#comment-970122 Sorry that's the Boeing YC-14 and McDonnell YC-15 Sorry that’s the Boeing YC-14 and McDonnell YC-15

]]> By: Firebrand38 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/comment-page-1/#comment-970116 Firebrand38 Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:30:37 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/#comment-970116 Sorry my sarcasm light is out as well. Forgive me, but my tenure on the internet has made me cynical and prepared to accept the worst. I'd love to see one of these made with current carbon fiber technology. Wouldn't need to tilt the cabin, that whole hanging off the props thing is a non starter. Not enough market for private pilots to buy them tho.. and it's impractical for hauling anything (picture a 50 passenger Flying Flapjack). As far as STOL technology and having the wing in the prop airflow, we could have pursued the McDonnel Douglas YC-14 with Upper Surface Blowing http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/amst.asp Sorry my sarcasm light is out as well. Forgive me, but my tenure on the internet has made me cynical and prepared to accept the worst.

I’d love to see one of these made with current carbon fiber technology.

Wouldn’t need to tilt the cabin, that whole hanging off the props thing is a non starter.

Not enough market for private pilots to buy them tho.. and it’s impractical for hauling anything (picture a 50 passenger Flying Flapjack).

As far as STOL technology and having the wing in the prop airflow, we could have pursued the McDonnel Douglas YC-14 with Upper Surface Blowing http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/amst.asp

]]> By: jayessell http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/comment-page-1/#comment-960499 jayessell Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:18:47 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/#comment-960499 Come on, FB38, doesn't your PC have the 'sarcastic' font? Of course 1800 is way more than twice 75! But you have to admit, that's quite a difference, as if Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor had said <b><i>More Power!</i></b> It still sounds like it would make a nice STOL. Tilt cabin instead of tilt rotors? Maybe the concept will be dusted off for the 21st Century. Come on, FB38, doesn’t your PC have the ‘sarcastic’ font?
Of course 1800 is way more than twice 75!
But you have to admit, that’s quite a difference, as if Tim “The Tool Man” Taylor had said More Power!

It still sounds like it would make a nice STOL.
Tilt cabin instead of tilt rotors?
Maybe the concept will be dusted off for the 21st Century.

]]> By: Firebrand38 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/comment-page-1/#comment-957440 Firebrand38 Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:43:19 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/#comment-957440 Actually 1800 vs 75 is 24 to 1 not "twice as much". According to the specs on the Vought Aircraft website the XF5U-1 engines were rated for 1350hp and the V-137 was rated for 80 hp so that's about right. It didn't catch on mainly because it was intended as a tail sitter. That whole tail sitter concept was invalidated by the Convair XFY-1 the Lockheed XFV-1 and the jet powered Ryan X-13. Actually 1800 vs 75 is 24 to 1 not “twice as much”.

According to the specs on the Vought Aircraft website the XF5U-1 engines were rated for 1350hp and the V-137 was rated for 80 hp so that’s about right.

It didn’t catch on mainly because it was intended as a tail sitter.

That whole tail sitter concept was invalidated by the Convair XFY-1 the Lockheed XFV-1 and the jet powered Ryan X-13.

]]> By: jayessell http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/comment-page-1/#comment-956016 jayessell Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:18:12 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/#comment-956016 If it's so great, why is it in a museum? It's like a tilt rotor without the tilting. Rev 01: Two 75 hp engines. Rev 02: Two 1800 hp engines. Why, that's nearly twice as much! (But seriously, are these numbers right?) Modern avionics would address control issues, if any. Would the community hangar be by the golf course or the baseball field? If it’s so great, why is it in a museum?

It’s like a tilt rotor without the tilting.

Rev 01: Two 75 hp engines.
Rev 02: Two 1800 hp engines.
Why, that’s nearly twice as much!
(But seriously, are these numbers right?)

Modern avionics would address control issues, if any.

Would the community hangar be by the golf course or the baseball field?

]]> By: Firebrand38 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/comment-page-1/#comment-951506 Firebrand38 Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:09:59 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/12/24/the-flying-flapjack/#comment-951506 Currently the V-173 is at the Smithsonian awaiting restoration http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/pancake.htm The Navy fell out of love with the XF5U-1 as well http://www.voughtaircraft.com/heritage/products/html/xf5u-1.html cancelling the contract before this article made it to press. Currently the V-173 is at the Smithsonian awaiting restoration http://www.nasm.si.edu/researc.....ancake.htm

The Navy fell out of love with the XF5U-1 as well http://www.voughtaircraft.com/.....f5u-1.html cancelling the contract before this article made it to press.

]]>