The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

[Peashooter]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

After 20 years of ops, I can say that the Long EZ is a great machine!

[spacegrrrl]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Yes, the EZEs were built for one reason...To create a spin-resistant general aviation aircraft (due to all the pilots being lost back then and still lost today in spin accidents). He did that quite nicely. The Rutan canards were never designed to be the fastest in their class nor the most comfortable nor the best load carriers.

So if that is what the EZs were about they were less successful than the Ercoupe. The Ercoupe was spin resistant and offered equivelant performance, comfort and capacity in all regards to other aircraft in its class. Not bad for a 60 year old design.

Michele

[spacegrrrl]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Also, Airdogge, please don't mix quotes from different sources in your posts without making it very clear that you are. I don't have any opinion in regards to harmonic balancers and it appears in your post that I have.

Michele

[spacegrrrl]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

I mean, if you want to speak of aircraft that "do one thing well and not much else" then let's speak of the F-104 (designed to go fast, but is tricky to fly, lands too fast and requires huge amounts of airspace just to turn around), the U-2 (Designed to fly at very high altitudes but is VERY tricky to fly in this enviroment, is very fragile, requires the pilot wear the equivalent of a NASA spacesuit and demands much greater respect and awareness when landing compared to other aircraft) or the SR-71 (costs a small forture to keep flying, leaks large amounts of fuel on the ground, cannot even take-off with full tanks and requires HUGE investments in maintanance and upkeep).

You're kidding right? Those three aircraft are considerered three of the most significant aircraft of the 20th century. These are all aircraft that pushed every boundary of aviation and that remain significant today years after they were designed. I'm not going to get into the details of each of those aircraft. I suggest you do your homework and learn why these are amazing aircraft. Nothing Rutan has done compares to those.

Michele

[King]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

You're kidding right? Nothing Rutan has done compares to those.

Michele

Voyager, Global Flyer and Spaceship One are not in that class. These three aircraft broke long standing records during the last 25 years. Yes, they were purpose built and did thier jobs well.

[spacegrrrl]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Voyager, Global Flyer and Spaceship One are not in that class. These three aircraft broke long standing records during the last 25 years. Yes, they were purpose built and did thier jobs well.

One off quantity and succeded in exactly one test. They did their job exactly once. And in some cases almost not. The Kelly planes were built in quantity and forefilled there mission time and time again. Just give up, there is no comparision. Also in most cases Rutan's planes broke records that were no longer interesting. Woot! Flew around the world non-stop without refueling. Where is P.T. Barnum when we need him most? Why does that matter other than it is interesting? Where is the application? Most of this is the aviation equivalent of flag pole sitting or hot dog eating contests. Great for a slow news day but in the end just a stunt.

The point is Rutan is all about show but no material advance of practical aviation. Show me where he has done anything that general or military aviation has been improved by.

Stunts, just stunts. He is the last flying circus, only with a better PR agent.

Michele

[John H]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

I had become casual friends with Rick and he told me quite a bit about the Pond, in fact he gave me Red Knight hat pin just before he got in the plane for that last flight. I still remember watching him go down and thinking to myself it was for nothing. At that point everyone knew it could never be competitive and after that Reno Rick said the Pond was going to be retired. I had watched the Pond closely every every appearance it made in Reno and saw what a train wreck the program was in the beginning.
Michele

There's a similar sad and ironic part of this situation. Until this thread I didn't know the airplane was going to be retired. In 1995 I took a Delta flight and before the flight I went up to the cockpit to talk to the crew. I asked them if they knew Rick and they did. They told me that at the time of his death he was going to lose his medical because of an issue with his health (nothing that was his fault).

John

[MRussell]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

The point is Rutan is all about show but no material advance of practical aviation. Show me where he has done anything that general or military aviation has been improved by.
Michele

Most of the things Scaled has done for the military are things you are not yet allowed to know about.

[kenf]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Michelle,

Just so that you don't feel like the Lone Ranger here, I agree with everyhting that you have said. I have gone to Reno since '76 and was there for every minute of the PR's Reno life. I knew Rick well enough to attend his funeral, and Steve well enough to get a lot of insight on the bird.

I don't know why all these guys feel compelled to defend Rutan to such an extent. To mention his name in the same breath as Kelly Johnson (or Ed Heinemann, Glenn Martin, or a host of others) is a joke. But, you know, that really doesn't matter because the point is that THIS ONE DESIGN of his was tragically flawed and it cost us a friend, a great race pilot, a strong supporter of air racing, and a potentially dramatic step forward for the whole sport. Anyone who says that Rutan didn't let his ego and Bob Pond's money stand in the way of good judgement will need to figure out a reason why from somewhere in the course of the first year, right up until today, he and his entire organization has acted as if the PR never existed. We should be so lucky!

You are right on, Michelle, I couldn't agree more.

On a slightly different tangent, I discovered that a friend of a friend of mine knows a guy named Rich Shelby. My friend says that Shelby worked for Electromotive and was very much involved with the PR motors. Before I try to chase this down any further, can anyone confirm his involvement?

[spacegrrrl]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Thanks for the support. The Rutan worship around here confuses me as well.

Michele

[speeddemon]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Thanks for the support. The Rutan worship around here confuses me as well.

Michele

As for me.....well, I'm just plain confused.

[Unregistered]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Not to compare them, but every aircraft mentioned designed by Rutan or Johnson had it's share of problems, some of them had brutal aerodynamic issues. The P-38, T-33, SR, and the U-2 (to name a few that made it to production) all were way ahead of their time, and introduced new technology. Some "great" aircraft such as the f-86, F-100, F-105, P-51, DC-10, B-747, C-5, etc. all had problems in development, some their whole operational lives. All brought ideas that had never been tried. None of them were perfect, all of them "purpose built", and all made compromises. And Lockheed, like Douglas and Northrop and all the the others had their share of failures, ideas that did'nt work out and aircraft that did'nt have a market.
Most large manufacturer's aircraft spend many hours, dollars and airframes in development. Most of Rutans did not benefit from that ability and n the case of the Pond, Spaceship one and the Voyager, it shows.

My point being that I can't fault Rutan for his far out ideas. They are no more ridiculous, impractical or faulted than any others in aviation history.
And tho I might not place Rutan with the Johnson's, Douglas' and Northrop's, I certainly wouldnt place him as less.

**ADMIN NOTE** this one has no signature but is really good so goes into the pile!

[spacegrrrl]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

I think the point I'd make in regards to Rutan is he ALWAYS chooses a non-conventional platform for his designs when to date there has been no indication that these choices made for better aircraft. In some cases (the Pond for example) it is clear that the non-conventional choices hurt the aircraft's chances of success.

If he was a chef and cooked like he designs aircraft I expect everything he cooked would always include some bizzare ingredient.

"Burt's Mohave Grill"
Where everything's made with grasshoppers!
Be sure to try the grasshopper soup!
Todays fish special: Petrale Sole with a crunchy fried grasshopper crumble crust poached in a grasshopper sauce reduction! Includes a dish of homemade grasshopper sorbet!
Today's happy hour drink special "Chopin Vodka Martini or Maker's Manhattan with live grasshopper garnish"!
Remember! Your meal is free if we forget to include grasshoppers in every dish!

Different yes, better..... hmmmmm not always.....

I swear I'll try and make this the last "general" post about Rutan, although I reserve the right to respond to specific points...

Michele

[AirDOGGe]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

Also, Airdogge, please don't mix quotes from different sources in your posts without making it very clear that you are. I don't have any opinion in regards to harmonic balancers and it appears in your post that I have.

Michele

Good point. I'll include author names from here on.

.

[Peashooter]

Re: The Pond Racer.....Rutan's Watergate

[QUOTE=Some "great" aircraft such as the f-86, F-100, F-105, P-51, DC-10, B-747, C-5, etc. all had problems in development. [/QUOTE]

And Burt had NO hand in the SB2C Helldiver!