Kickstart the Bugatti "Blue Dream"

[spacesailor]

Winsor68

 

I disagree with that statement.

 

American's have always said, We'll make a brick fly with enough horse power!.

 

Lack of it at the prop stopped this beautiful aircraft achieving every one's dream.

 

If the original former's (pattern) are still there, money & enthusiasm will make the "Bugattie Blue Dream " No,.2 fly again.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[winsor68]

It was a cartoon aircraft. Bugatti just wanted something pretty. Why would anyone want to even see it flying when it is obvious it is going to have terrible flying qualities? It crashed upside down after never attaining speed or stability in flight for goodness sakes and was so impractical it was never going to be a "flyer".

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

It was a cartoon aircraft. Bugatti just wanted something pretty. Why would anyone want to even see it flying when it is obvious it is going to have terrible flying qualities? It crashed upside down after never attaining speed or stability in flight for goodness sakes and was so impractical it was never going to be a "flyer".

That's a rather cynical outlook winsor.

 

There have been numerous models built and flown which demonstrate that whilst it's clearly not for a low-hours pilot, it flies very well and based on the power-to-weight ratio it's exceptionally efficient and therefore very fast.

 

The only real issue has to do with the main gear being too far aft in the original and true-scale models, making the take-off and landings prone to nosing-over. In that regard Scotty had taken a little 'licence' and moved it forward just enough to get away with it with careful handling.

 

Anyway, I know that I, and a number of other forumites here, are very proud to have been sponsors of the Blue Dream project and if you consider it to have been a 'cartoon aircraft', well we all have different perspectives on things I guess.

 

From 4:40 ...

 

 

 

[spacesailor]

Winsor68

 

"down after never attaining speed or stability in flight"

 

Which of your aircraft can fly when half your motor stops achieving full power after lift-off.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[winsor68]

You can wish it was so as much as you like...it isn't going to change the fact that this thing was a flop. Did you even read the accident report? It wasn't engine failure that caused this or any other crash. It was pilot error because the aircraft was way beyond his abilities due to instability.

 

 

[winsor68]

And note... the only almost scale RC Bugatti was extremely unstable in flight and crash landed.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Must read it again.

 

I read somewhere, it lost a clutch. engine rec's increasing, yet prop slowing.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

You can wish it was so as much as you like...it isn't going to change the fact that this thing was a flop. Did you even read the accident report? It wasn't engine failure that caused this or any other crash. It was pilot error because the aircraft was way beyond his abilities due to instability.

winsor, you're way out of line!

 

I spent many happy times on the phone with Scotty and exchanged dozens of emails, and was also in regular contact with other workers and suppliers to the project, so I can reasonably well claim to know what was going on. I was also working with Scotty to bring the aircraft on a tour to Australia once initial flight testing was completed and negotiations with a major Australian international airline for sponsorship to achieve that had been progressing well.

 

Please provide a link to ANY legitimate report, let alone THE accident report which suggests that there was an instability problem. There is NO SUCH THING as far as I am aware - so I would be very intrigued to learn where you came across that idea.

 

Having said that, the design was never intended to be anything more than neutrally stable - it was intended to be a racing plane, after all. In those days (late 1930s) racing planes weren't only designed for straight-line speed tests in two directions (like the earlier Gee Bee, for example), they also had to race around closed circuits like pylon racers, so positive pitch stability was not a design consideration, otherwise their turning radius would be too wide and therefore they'd lose time in the turns. The 100P was assessed to be not only capable, but intended, for sustained 9G turning efficiently i.e without excessively losing speed - and you won't achieve that with a Sunday driver's super-stable Cessna type I'm afraid. If that offends your sensibilities of what's flyable or not, well that's your problem.

 

Louis de Monge was a specialist designer of that era of manoeuvrable aircraft - he designed it by the way, not Bugatti, so your earlier comment about Bugatti wanting something 'pretty' is another nonsense.

 

Let alone that, I guess you're also not aware that Scotty was a career USAF pilot with full test-pilot training and considerable experience actually in command as a test-pilot?

 

So far, you're right in just one thing, it wasn't engine failure that caused the crash, it was a clutch failure.

 

Why don't you read the real accident report? I provided a link to it above.

 

And - as far as another of your nonsense comments "And note... the only almost scale RC Bugatti was extremely unstable in flight and crash landed." - is concerned, I say - RUBBISH!

 

Get your facts right please.

 

I posted two videos above which show as close to scale models as can be achieved given the limited surviving drawings and reverse engineering (one was directly sponsored by HobbyKing who wouldn't be involved in any situation that might lead them into disrepute), and they are just two of dozens that you can find if you spend five minutes googling instead of sniping at people who are out there doing things.

 

 

[winsor68]

Scotty is a dead ex USAF test pilot. Fact. He pushed way beyond what was safe and didn't know when to call it a day probably because he had an audience to impress. That is the truth.

 

 

[winsor68]

Comment deleted (keep it clean fellas....Mod)

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

deleted...Mod

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

It was a cartoon aircraft. Bugatti just wanted something pretty. Why would anyone want to even see it flying when it is obvious it is going to have terrible flying qualities? It crashed upside down after never attaining speed or stability in flight for goodness sakes and was so impractical it was never going to be a "flyer".

Its "terrible flying qualities" might be obvious to you Win, but how could we know if it never actually flew?

 

Lots of historic aircraft turned out to be unsafe; good enough reason to not build replicas of them.

 

The Blue Dream was different: it never got into the air because of Hitlar's invasion. Scotty put an enormous effort into giving it that chance.

 

The result was a tragedy. We should learn from the report...and honour a fellow pilot for having a go.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Nevertheless, it was an extremely complicated design from an era when prototypes frequently took out test pilots.

 

I loved the precision of his project, but it reminded me of the Howard Hughes contra-rotating prop aircraft he force landing into a Holywood Rooftop - brilliant speed but so many things spinning at once that any bearing cold take out the whole show.

 

 

[Riley]

deleted...Mod

 

 

[winsor68]

I could never in good conscience have put money in to this build to encourage the project to go ahead. It is all very sad that it got to this in my opinion.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

For those with an interest, Le Reve Bleu team have now published their Bugatti 100P Crash Investigation which collates the information from all sources, including the ATSB final report.

 

Bugatti 100P Crash Investigation

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I loved the precision of his project, but it reminded me of the Howard Hughes contra-rotating prop aircraft he force landing into a Holywood Rooftop - brilliant speed but so many things spinning at once that any bearing cold take out the whole show.

OK, you've got me again turbo. I've been trying to recall this one but I only know of the Hughes H-1 racer that he did crash and I think he maybe clipped a building before putting it down in a ... was it a beetroot paddock?

 

Anyway, that one wasn't contra-rotating or anything particularly complex about the mechanicals, just a sleek airframe and big horses. Planform does have some loose similarities to the Bugatti.

 

Were you referring to a different one?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

Heah we go..........Hughes XF-11 - Wikipedia

 

6000 horsepower....720 km/hr........8000 km range

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Heah we go..........Hughes XF-11 - Wikipedia6000 horsepower....720 km/hr........8000 km range

Thanks. Yup, remember it now. Strange though, whilst the incident report refers to the right rear prop reversing pitch, many of the pictures of the XF-11 show it with only one prop per engine. Perhaps those pics are mis-titled and the tested XR-11 didn't use the twin axial props?

 

 

[Litespeed]

I will thrown in my 2 cents worth-

 

It was a great project and some very talented people were involved including the pilot. As a highly specialised aircraft- yes it would be difficult to fly. Hence a proper test pilot, just like anything that fast running props it would not treat fools lightly. But the pilot was no fool and mechanical failure sealed his fate- Not his ego.

 

It is very unfortunate but a calculated risk was taken, any test flying a new machine carries risk. Sadly Scott did not survive- I do not blame the pilot anymore than I would blame Gravity. It is a tragedy for all involved especially his family. His legacy should be applauded for having a go in as safe a way as was possible. If not for the clutch failure we would probably all be singing his praises.

 

History is full of great pilots whose demise was not pilot error but the machine itself failing in a critical way. Test flying is dangerous and the safety we all enjoy today was built on the blood, sweat and tragically bodies of brave test pilots.

 

May they all rest in peace and get the respect deserved, whilst we reap the rewards of their efforts.

 

As a side note: it was not a cartoon aircraft just a very special machine for a specific purpose.

 

Cartoon aircraft are the stupid "worlds smallest aircraft" competitors like below.

 

 

I also include the Gee Bee - never happy unless it was on its nose.

 

 

Compared to the above the Bugatti was relatively a sensible design, just a real hot one.

 

Litespeed.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks. Yup, remember it now. Strange though, whilst the incident report refers to the right rear prop reversing pitch, many of the pictures of the XF-11 show it with only one prop per engine. Perhaps those pics are mis-titled and the tested XR-11 didn't use the twin axial props?

He was a perfectionist and totally focused on money. It's quite possible he was going to hit two markets; the now market for WWII aircraft, and the future, where several different designers tried contra rotating props. These were hit and run aircraft which could fight, photograph, bomb or designate targets, and there was a natural demand for getaway speed. The contra rotating props in this case achieved 388 knots, but then it was all over when the jet age started. He was too much of a purist to bolt a couple of jet engines on.