4 ms·
Erm, I don't know if I trust Cringely when it comes to this sort of thing. He sold a reality show to PBS, "Plane Crazy (1998)"[1] with the promise he could desi
by neilk 10y ago
Erm, I don't know if I trust Cringely when it comes to this sort of thing. He sold a reality show to PBS, "Plane Crazy (1998)"[1] with the promise he could design and build a small plane in 30 days that was unlike any other that had ever been built.[2]
His engineer just flat out refused to produce any plans for this design. He tried to make something like his plane happen anyway, going without sleep for weeks, and had a meltdown on camera. The show eventually had to be about him giving up on his cherished design and building a throwback to biplanes, with a family of artisans who are experienced in building them.
I had the feeling that Cringely was trying to channel Steve Jobs and it didn't work out. (Note: Jobs drives other people to do impossible missions without sleep, not himself, and doesn't display his work until it's ready, giving the appearance of effortless superiority).
Anyway as for this wind farm idea, the evidence of his friend's alternative propeller design is interesting. But let's also note that that this friend chose not to pursue wind farms, maybe for a reason.
[1] http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/1998/pulpit_19980724_000578.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/1998/pulpit_19980724_0005...
[2] EDIT: I am not an aviation person, and my memory of this is poor, but from Googling I see apparently he wanted to make it out of unusual materials, have foldable wings, and put the engine behind the pilot. I have a memory of his design requiring the pilot to straddle the drive train to a front-mounted propeller. I don't know how problematic that is, but I remember it as being presented as a major problem.
EDIT 2: To be honest I feel a bit bad now about this being a top-voted comment, as Cringely learned a lesson on camera that many startup people learn behind closed doors – confidence is great, but trying to innovate in too many directions at once will kill you. Maybe that means that he is more cautious now, so perhaps he's really sure this thing will work. On the other hand, it was the first thing I thought of, that maybe he doesn't have a great track record with aviation iconoclasm.
- rhaps0dy 10y ago> His engineer just flat out refused to produce any plans for this design Do you know why? I'm thinking maybe it's because it was dangerous for the pilot?
- neilk 10y agoSorry, I'm relying on my memory of a show I saw like 20 years ago. I know nothing special about aviation. But I just found a contemporary thread about it here from other homebuilt aviation enthusiasts. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.homebuilt/0uMOHlci8DQ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.homebui...
- haroldp 10y agoThe P-39 was a successful WWII fighter plane with a mid-engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_Airacobra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_Airacobra
- stcredzero 10y agoRussian pilots loved it. British and American pilots, not so much.
- haroldp 10y agoYeah, that is true. Mainly because the deletion of its supercharger for production, but also relevant to the topic here, pilots didn't love having that drive shaft between their feet. Still a functional design though, with certain advantages.
- stcredzero 10y agoWho the hell was responsible for all the supercharger deletions? If this was done by a bureaucrat, then this is a prime example of tremendous damage done by bureaucrats to their own side in wartime. P-38. P-39. I'm sure there are other craft that were effectively nerfed.
- haroldp 10y agoI don't think that history is well understood, and there are a lot of urban legends around it, I think. It may have been a political/bureaucratic thing. It may be that Bell needed to stop fiddling around with design and start manufacturing airplanes before they went bankrupt. It may be that we wanted a second-tier fighter to give to some of our less friendly allies, that we could beat if we had to. It may be that Bell just couldn't get it to work right. Another story that I have heard is that they were fearful of losing the supercharger hi-tech to enemy hands. I don't know which, or to what degree any of those stories are true. The juiced up v2, the P-63 King Cobra had a proper supercharger system. It was more capable at high altitude - though the USAAF felt that the P-51 was better. After the war, the remaining few P-63s (and P-39s that could be retrofitted with better engines) dominated air racing. Flying very fast at low altitude and turning on a dime (that mid-engine) generally out flew the P-51s. But since most of them were sent to the Soviets and elsewhere, and our own leftovers were simply scrapped or used for gunnery drones, there are very few left. I have never seen one in person.
- stcredzero 10y agoI had the feeling that Cringely was trying to channel Steve Jobs and it didn't work out. Tries to channel Steve Jobs and it doesn't work out. This is something like common Silicon Valley misstep #2.