Burt Rutan just announced new designs! Oshkosh 2024
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- AirFlo is so excited to share with you this documentary video that Burt Rutan announced his new aircraft designs today in Oshkosh Airventure 2024. You will also find out who are Burt Rutan’s heroes! #osh24
Thumbnail picture by Robin Liberatore
While being there in person would be ideal, this is enormously better than not hearing Bert at all. Thank you. Ignore the complaints that it is not perfect. Let them wait until perfection is released.
Bert hangs out with Ernie, he doesn’t design airplanes.
I’m sorry, I realize the sound quality could be better. At this time I record and edit most all of my videos on my phone, with a limited budget. I love what I do, I make these videos to share my passion for aviation. At the big airshows I try to turn the videos around as quickly as I can, because I know that people who aren’t able to attend are really looking forward to see the coverage. Thank you for watching, I will do my best to provide quality content.❤
The critical thing is that you provided this to us. Thank you.
We who are unable to attend greatly appreciate your effort. Burt Rutan is a national treasure, and so was his Brother. These long format talks are important to preserve. Thank You!
Thanks
Flo, you did us a great service by recording BR’s talk since we couldn’t be there. You did just fine…I’m hoping you get the Starship lecture as well!
Does the EAA professionally record these to publish later? If not, they should.
This would be nice to hear, unfortunate the sound is so poor.
Agreed, shame because he’s the best aircraft designer in the world.
Thank you, Flo for posting this. It was really wonderful.
I was there and couldn’t get close enough to even hear him. This is great! Thanks
It was an honor to chip in $5 for fuel on the around the world flight of the Voyager aircraft he designed and his brother Dick flew back in the 80's.
AGAIN with the lies on BEVs not helping with emissions!
FACTS Mr Rutan: On a full cycle, well to wheels analysis including recycling the battery at 97% efficiency (no need for mining in a mature BEV economy) a Model Y need be driven only 11000 miles to fully recoup its carbon debt in Europe, in the UK, 13000 miles (ICCT). By 2030, when the US grid is expected to get two thirds of its power from carbon-free sources, a BEV built with recycled materials could break even on emissions in a matter of months.
Yeah, you know more than Ratan. Cool.
Total lifecycle cost of any product has an extremely strong corrolation with total energy consumption. Total energy is directly related to carbon due to the economics of large scale commodities. No amount of subsidy white-washing will change that, the only path is for the real cost of no-carbon energy to drop below carbon energy at the point of consumption with equal convenience formats; gas, solid, liquid, electricity, including special handling.
The correct comparison must also be made; equal payload, speed, distance, and durability. (Apples to apples comparisons seem to be a foreign concept to the green grifters sucking up tax money.)
@@waynerussell6401 You have to realize, Burt Rutan is 80. And most of his design trade off studied were from the 90' and early 2000s. When he speaks of battery and wind energy, rewind ten years and this was all true. It is no longer true, well, not to this extent. But 10 years is a month to someone with a life such as this. Things change more every decade now than ever is history.
@@EllipsisAircraft We all have our use-by-date. Biden in Politics, Ancient Nobel laureates Goodenough on the limitations of LiIon that make the Model S impossible!; and John Clauser on climate change are leading examples of this.
The issue is so critical that no repeated error filled public declarations of superior knowledge can go unchallenged.
His quoting of 100k miles to recover CO2 use for a BEV is not 10 years old. It is twice as worse as the rubbish, discredited claims the likes of the recent press and Mr Bean (Guardian 3 Jun 2023) spouted to support their ad paying Oily friends from the Volvo 'paper' and Aston Martin's exposed report from one of their executives pretending to be a scientific study group operating out of his front room!
Carbon Brief published a fact check as early as 2019, which shows that a Nissan Leaf pays back the emissions from battery production after less than two years of driving - and emits three times less CO2 in its lifetime than the average new ICE car.
@@EllipsisAircraft We all have our use-by-date. Biden in Politics, Ancient Nobel laureates Goodenough on the limitations of LiIon that make the Model S impossible!; and John Clauser on climate change are leading examples of this. The issue is so critical that no repeated error filled public declarations of superior knowledge can go unchallenged. His quoting of 100k miles to recover CO2 use for a BEV is not 10 years old. It is twice as worse as the rubbish, discredited claims the likes of the recent press and Mr Bean spouted to support their ad paying Oily friends from the Volvo 'paper' and Aston Martin's exposed report from one of their executives pretending to be a scientific study group operating out of his front room! Carbon Brief published a fact check as early as 2019, which shows that a Nissan Leaf pays back the emissions from battery production after less than two years of driving - and emits three times less CO2 in its lifetime than the average new ICE car.
@Air Flo thanks for the video. In a year in which Rutan comes to Oshkosh and we all know it could be his last, I can't understand how this is the only video available on the Internet with his talk....
Burt Rutan is dreaming big!
Breaths aerodynamics
Drag in heavier than air aircraft flows to minimum in his designs!
Un diseñador sin sentido lógico o funcional en la industria aeronautica.
???? Pointless post. Sorry to be a poop, but truly no idea what he is saying!
Sorry to see him looking so frail
Thank you for posting this!
On my wish list is the concept of having a conversation with Burt Rutan to ponder the feasibility of designing a scaled T38 with a single JT15D-4B engine (2,500 lbs of thrust, used in the Citation II). The military version has been produced years ago (but still in use) in the SIAI Marchetti SF211. The Marchetti performs well but I truly believe this match in a scaled T38 would perform much better and be aesthetically viable in the market. This would have to be heavy in the composite spectrum which would support a healthy pressurization system.
Burt Rutan is retired.
And that concept design falls outside the scope of easy to build, safe to fly, and efficient. Which he built his career on.
@@EllipsisAircraft The ARES doesn't fall within the scope of this concept. Likely you are under age 40 which means you can't relate to critical thinking and conceptual ideas. Burt could do this in his sleep, while all you can do is fart.
I think that is the BD-10 essentially.
@@BorgeltInstruments Same concept ... different guy. Burt finishes everything he starts. Had Bede listened to Burt, the BD-10 would be flying instead of sitting in a hangar. I have an affinity for the T38 style more so than the ARES or BD-10.
@@richardgreen7811 the T-38 has the smallest, lowest aspect ratio wing that can still lift off with a 10,000' runway roll, and two afterburners lit. An F-104 has a more efficient wing.
An airplane that takes military level, dedicated training with only the top applicants. And still ends up knocking them off permanently every year or so, is not a viable product in the market. And is the opposite of everything Burt Rutan has ever designed. Every thing he speaks about is range, high aspect ratio, gentle stalls, no departure spins. Range. Efficiency. More range... Oh, and easy. Easy to fly. He named his planes EZ.
Who can send me the plans for that baby Starship ?
Thank you so much for posting this!
My pleasure!😇
Oh great to see Bert again at Oshkosh last time I saw him I was with my dad. It’s now past and he was saying that he wanted to do fly by wire and that aluminum and no place in airplanes you could hear a pin drop when he said he had no place in Airport that was in the 90s.
That was not. He had no place in airplanes that was aluminum had no place in airplanes.
I think he said "Aluminum has no place in airplanes" and he is right, to some degree. Aluminum is susceptible to corrosion and fatigue. Rivets which hold it together, serve to concentrate the loads.
Composites allow great freedom for the designer, to make aerodynamic shapes that are also structurally efficient. And also far safer in an accident. But they have problems themselves, if the designer is not very familiar with their limitations.
@@EllipsisAircraftthere are probably 10 aluminum airplanes at Oshkosh for every composite airplane
Thanks for filming.
You bet
Burt is incapable of illogical thought. I love his EV analysis.
Long live
Burt Titan
We fliers love You
I really want tgat 4 seat starship to come to life
is it a kit somewhat like the VAN's Aircraft Corporation sells? I know they are a multi-national world-wide builder of kits and fast-track air vessels
Ehhh, I was absolutely certain that Burt Rutan died years back and his brother recently. Strange.
He has done some interesting designs over the years but at times made them strange just for the sake of it like 2 or 3 hulls. I prefer actual merit to a design. The simple truth is that a conventional small light teardrop shaped pressurized plane with two small turbofan engines at the back is better than any of his GA designs. By quite a margin.
Two fuselages are required for an extreme high aspect ratio, heavily laden aircraft. Span-loading the fuel mass is a prerequisite to circumnavigating the world without refueling. The Vari-EZ and Long-EZ with O-200/O-235 are extremely long ranged and fuel efficient, something like 1,600 miles on 53 gallons. I don't see any Lancairs or Glassairs attaining this. Boomerang CRUISED at 260ktas/300mph with coast to coast fuel range.
@@EllipsisAircraft Risen bests the tandem seating EZs with side by side seating. Much simpler shape, superior plane. The Boomerang is a good example of a Rutan quirky design. Lancair IVP can match it for speed and it has long range because it carries an enormous amount of fuel, over 1000 lbs. 626liters or 165gallon.
Piston twins are generally awful but if it had to be a piston twin then nose and rear engined would be better innovation. Double hull is just for the sake of it and he did it a lot.
Take the single hull of the Boomerang and put two small turbofan jets on the back, that would have been a revolution. Truly. It should carry less fuel and be lighter but close enough.
@@DanFrederiksen Rutan Defiant was the push me pull you design. He didn't like the resonance and noise of that configuration.
I don't think you understand structures. The boomerang has an aspect ratio nearly double the other aircraft mentioned. So that its high cruise speed is also close to its best range speed, so you don't have to slow down to get the range. In order to accomplish that, you either need very heavy spar caps and shear webs. Or you have to span-load the fuel and passengers. Reducing bending moment of the wing, and also splitting the torsional forces into three segments, shared by two fuselages. The configuration of boomerang is literally the reason it could carry so much fuel. Also, boomerang had no flaps, and 40lb wing loading. Show me another design that can carry 1,000lbs of fuel on 100ft wing area at 300mph, over-mountains, at night, without flaps, in near total safety.
Also, what small turbofan do you envision is powering these aircraft?
There is literally none on the market for the application you insist on. Rutan himself was an advocate of small, 70lb turbofans developing 700lbf thrust. He even designed a jet for them for Williams, the makers of small jets. The jet he designed is literally a single boomerang fuselage, on a forward swept boomerang wjng. Exactly as you describe. He literally did exactly what you are lamenting about, and saying he should have. See "sport aviation" Aug 1997.
@@EllipsisAircraft now you have a problem. If he did exactly as I said it becomes very difficult for you to argue that I'm wrong :) with your misplaced faith in Rutan.
And it's not quite what I propose but not completely wrong. It weighed 1 ton. What I propose would be 1/3 of that. And please spare me objection, I assure you that's quite possible. And you are right that no such engine is in production. Guess what should be done about that. I'll give you 3 guesses :)
What you and rutan hadn't considered is that a 100kg thrust turbofan would be basketball size and weigh around 15kg and be only modestly removed for the engineering constraints on a car turbo charger. That retails for 300$. The smaller they get the more effortless for the material strength and the cost can be quite trivial unlike the million dollars PWC wants each for a PW610f, the smallest turbofan in production with 900lbs of thrust. Jet engines are far too respected when it's a much simpler engine than a piston engine. It's an angry space heater.
@@DanFrederiksen okay.
Go make this engine you speak of.
There is something called Reynolds number, and it demands that small jets cannot ever achieve the TSFC required to actually go anywhere at all. Because their blades are too small to get into the efficient 1-3 million RN range.
Your entire wish is that a retired 80 year old designer build an airplane for an engine that has never existed and cannot ever exist whole providing any meaningful performance or range. Small jets burn 150% more weight in fuel than they develop thrust. Even at 10:1 glide ratio, how are you going to achieve any range with a 20-30% fuel fraction? With a TSFC of 1.5? You cant attain 0.4~0.5 like an airliner, because that requires an engine 10 feet in diameter with supercritical airfoils on the bypass fan blades themselves, which are operating in the RN range of 6-9 million. Burts (failed) design was for Williams International, who's founder believed he could attain very good TSFC with an experimental micro jet engine design. He failed at that and nearly bankrupted his company. In the process, he is the one who discovered it to be impossible to attain due to the reasons above.
Look at every other micro-jet. They all suck. There is no engine to power them that does not burn 100% of the fuel in under an hour.
Please if you see his presentation tomorrow, try to obtain better audio, your 2 previous videos is really hard to listen what he's saying. thanks
As with all the videos air flo does, sound quality and video are poor.
I wish I could have to be there to hear him in person.
While being there in person would be ideal, this is enormously better than not hearing Bert at all. Thank you. Ignore the complaints that it is not perfect.
Instead of complaining, maybe offer to send a studio-quality microphone.