Lockheed and Boeing may have seen my design

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
This is my BTL-4 Design and you can see where the date falls, it's at 22 Oct, 2008

forums.x-plane.org...

What's so special in the design is it improves upon the pure flying wing concept. We all know flying wings combine efficiency and robustness not found in conventional aircraft design. My design would have also improved efficiency further by the ability to use other airfoils (pure flying wings are limited to airfoil designs that put more emphasis in stability at the cost of reduced efficiency) and to improve agility/STOL performance which pure flying wings lacked. Pure flying wings could not equip flaps, devices which help to dramatically shorten take-off and landing runs.

The layout I came up with is the result of maximizing fuel efficiency up to high subsonic speeds. Both the front the rear wing generates lift in most conditions so keeping parasitic drag to a minimum. The rear wing is raised to keep it away from front wing downwash to improve lift coefficients. Simulator tests have demonstrated significantly higher Lift over Drag ratio (measure of efficiency of aircraft design) than a pure flying and approached that of high performance gliders!

A year after the unveiling of my BTL-4. Boeing was the first to wind tunnel test their design for USAF's 'Speed Agile' STOL cargo craft program in late 2009. For emphasis, this was done 1 year after I disclosed my design publicly! Here are their designs including Lockheed's:

www.aviationweek.com... 9a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:4ed2785f-832c-4f7f-8a7b-1d820cb2b07a

If the link above doesn't work, try googling 'Speed Agile'. The link with 'aviationweek' should be the same article and it will show the dates.

defenceforumindia.com...

The only key differences are:

- Stealth features which my BTL-4 lacked. It is not a high priority in my design and not considered. If I pursued stealth then it is most logical to use a V-Tail, and put jagged edges on the engine nacelle's and other parts of the aircraft. It would look exactly like Boeing's concept.

- Lockheed's 'below wing' engine placement. I would not have chosen it due to increased chance of foreign matter ingestion. STOL's are presumably expected to operate from unpaved surface. 'Over wing' placement also enables harnessing of 'Coanda Effect' for improving STOL performance further.

Multiview pics of my 'BTL-4' design. It received a Copyright on 2008. Discuss!

edit on 22-1-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


I would simply say that your design is a logical evolution of the Flying Wing concept into a cargo aircraft. The Flying Wing is a natural choice for payload-centric, high-lift coefficient designs.

Both Lockheed and Boeing's designs reflect a logical blending of the C-130 mission platform into a flying-wing design utilizing their respective "design ruts" (why Lockheed would use intakes on the side of the fuselage is beyond rational thinking).

I'm not sure you could claim this as much more than coincidence.

That said - I wouldn't doubt that programs like X-plane and their developmental communities are frequented by design engineers from major aircraft manufacturers (some likely as "scouts" looking for good designs or talented individuals; others simply as a hobby that pertains to their profession, and the hobby likely inspires the profession from time to time).

But, I would certainly say that a flying-wing cargo aircraft makes logical sense; and that is the crux of the similarity between your design and the Lockheed/Boeing designs.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
That said - I wouldn't doubt that programs like X-plane and their developmental communities are frequented by design engineers from major aircraft manufacturers (some likely as "scouts" looking for good designs or talented individuals; others simply as a hobby that pertains to their profession, and the hobby likely inspires the profession from time to time).


We actually had a member in X-Plane whose dad was one of the Engineers on the Boeing X-48 BWB concept.

He was an active member when the BTL-4 was made public.

But it's also interesting to note that between Boeing and Lockheed's designs were superficially similar as well and employing the same 'tandem-flying wing hybrid' more or less. Were they able to copy off each other??


If the case was they actually seen and evaluated the BTL-4 themselves, wish I had gotten something at least. Here I am barely managing at minimum wage, living in my tent, and while these guys live and breath McDonalds!
edit on 22-1-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Well then, the simplest question the i can think of is. What are going to do about it? That was indeed a serious question



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ShamilAbdullah
 


Well, this is as far as it could get, I suppose. Just let the world know I came up with the idea first!


But if I had a sizeable bank account, I would have certainly built it (in a smaller scale) for record-breaking attempts such distance-speed records. Shatter those that were currently held by Scaled Composites.

I think the design would also make it suitable as testbed for electric or 'breakthrough' propulsion systems due to its very high aerodynamic efficiency and large internal volume. It took relatively small amount of power to keep it up and flying even up to high altitudes.

Most of my other ideas are just dang! someone has already invented it!
edit on 22-1-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Lol. Well its good to see that you have humor with this. I got an idea. Go sell your idea to the russians or china
just dont sell it to my people
.. silly muslim



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Either sue them or go to them with the proof you had the same design before them and ask for a job.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


This. My cousin is a mechanical engineer for Boeing and given the conversations we've had regarding her job I highly doubt that she's ripping off your designs. If you have a legitimate patent claim, then follow-through with it legally.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


Aerodynamics and mechanical engineering are entities distinct from each other. A mechanical engineer generally doesn't need to care or worry about the object's shape if it's a well thought up design with no ridiculously thin sections that would be too flimsy once built.

So I doubt she's involved in anything about my designs.

There's no patent, just X-Plane.org copyright that was automatically given upon upload. I never thought of doing that on something I thought up within a day which are usually, cardboard pieces stuck together with white glue!

Not a big deal, I got more stuff in life to worry about than this.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Personally, I see similarities in the 'BTL 4' with both the Focke Wulf Ta 183 and the Handley Page Victor, nice concept though



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Wouldn't you tend to opt for the old B-2 design for a flying wing? How can you talk about a "flying wing" when your concept has a regular tail similar to virtually all aircraft today except the B-2? Your design looks more like one of those ungainly carbon fiber craft intended to haul a civilian rocket to space, except it is flat and fat. STOL capabilities depend upon two strong factors, power in relation to weight, not necessarily design.

Anyway, good luck in trying to sue them.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun How can you talk about a "flying wing" when your concept has a regular tail similar to virtually all aircraft today except the B-2?


Its uniqueness is hidden in plain sight.

Virtually all horizontal stabilizers in today's aircraft do not, I repeat, do not help the main wing in producing lift. It is sadly a 'devolution' in modern aircraft as 'lifting horizontal stabilizers' were invented as far back in WW2 era in quite a few examples.

The use of a lifting horizontal stabilizer would significantly increase the aircraft's 'wetted aspect ratio' which is a measure of the design's aerodynamic efficiency. The BTL-4 would have slightly less of this WAR vs B-2 but the ability to select normal airfoils (not limited to flying wing airfoils only) made it surpass efficiency of B-2's design.

Mating this idea with a flying wing has not been done before, I suppose.



Originally posted by waynos
Personally, I see similarities in the 'BTL 4' with both the Focke Wulf Ta 183 and the Handley Page Victor, nice concept though


Ta-183 yes! The sharply swept vertical stabilizer was of great help in reducing transonic drag. Shaped like a Victor which is a lovely plane!
edit on 22-1-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
You'd have a difficult time making a case. The problem is that there are only so many solutions to airplanes' given flight characteristics and they can easily be independently rendered. For example, although we read that the Wright Brothers flew the first airplane, there is a case to be made that a guy in New Zealand beat them to it. The idea of an airfoil is central to flight. If that is true, does that mean the Wright Brothers "stole" the idea of an airfoil from the guy in New Zealand? No, because you absolutely solve the problem of airfoils before you can fly.

I invented the e-book. Really. My design for an e-book was published in a national magazine years before Kindle or Nook or even Rocket Book (an earlier design.) I called it "Microsoft Book" and detailed the essential design elements that are in the Kindle today. I can prove the date of publication and all that and the issue was copyrighted. I even composed a picture of the book rendered in Autocad, the design software, labeled the buttons on the side, etc.

So did I really "invent" the ebook? Did Amazon "steal my design? Of course not. The design of an e-book is a natural evolution of what must happen if you're going to do that sort of thing. It may give me some bragging rights if anyone will pay attention to me, but other than that, if I were to present my case in court, I's surely lose.

So do you get bragging rights? Sure. Good job! But did Boeing "copy" your design? Really, really doubtful.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
It was all done 70 years ago,most new designs are evolution of whats already been designed
.I actually invented the word 'Noob' but where are my royalties?
www.luft46.com...

edit on 22-1-2012 by 12voltz because: of the falling birds



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
For most aircraft with separate horizontal stabilisers the function of them is to counter the aircraft's pitching moment. Whether this requires positive or negative lift is a function of the weigh distribution around the aircraft as a whole.

To claim that your design is unique because "most" aircraft do not count positive lift from the horizontal stabiliser is self evidently contradictory - some do - so you do not have a unique actor there at all.

Sorry.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


That's true. But I've mated it to a flying wing which makes it one of a kind.

I haven't found in literature yet that it has been done before. I could only blame the designers. Pure flying wing designers tend to be purists!

It would make them really mad if you stick something to their flying wing!


And no, this is not about suing anyone. Although the idea seems to be there, it's different enough that would make an effort just a waste of time, money, and creativity.
edit on 22-1-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Your flying wing doesn't look like a flying wing at all - for starters it has a tailplane!!

All it really is is a forward set wing with a lifting body fuselage - something which is a long established principle if not one often seen in practice - a la www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 22-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I have to agree with you this time
Haven't seen Burnelli's designs before but I have to say, the BTL-4 is just a polished version of Burnelli's using modern aerodynamics.

Felt bad that I haven't invented anything yet, well back to the drawing board!

I'm currently spending a little of my free time in improving the basic Coanda effect, to try to make it more efficient. For now it's just a vacuum cleaner and a cardboard! Nothing good will come out of it for now.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
For some strange reason, sometimes when you design an Airplane
posters will get mad at you. It's weird, I know.

I'm no authority, other than admiring mil aircraft designs
for the last 35 years, but I'll say, to me, there's a
resemblance with yours & both the Boeing and Lockheed's
heavy load STOL versions.

The tail sections are different, obviously,
but the blended wing fuselage and down to
what reminds me a bit of the ol' B1 swept wing ,
skinny wing, does look like your design.

Very cool design btw. Congratulations no matter
how it ended up.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 


That's a good one, thanks! That was actually the last aircraft design I made.

I actually did invent one thing - the first crash-survivable 3D capable RC helicopter. They were actually several innovations which I designed, mostly dealing with energy absorption and were lighter in weight than the original parts they replaced! Best of all, they were DIY and can be printed on a cardboard and cut out. Only the main blades were a bit more complicated for it needed a stiff graphite core for the tip speeds reached 300 kph or more.

It dramatically reduced the cost of the hobby and made it quite sustainable even when I lost my job at that time.


Now it's just me trying to master flying full-size helicopter in X-Plane. R-22, Hughes 500, BO-105 and waiting for a proper Mil Mi-28
Pardon my enthusiasm, I'm just obsessed with this stuff, it's a tragedy my job is not anything related, else, I never have to work!
edit on 23-1-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join