Burt Rutan

I watched a very interesting interview with aircraft designer, Burt
Rutan on CBC-TV a few days ago. He claimed that the large aircraft
manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
past thus holding back aircraft design technology.
Any comments on this?

"Ed Majden" wrote:

I watched a very interesting interview with aircraft designer, Burt
Rutan on CBC-TV a few days ago. He claimed that the large aircraft
manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
past thus holding back aircraft design technology.
Any comments on this?

There's a tendency of most of us to live in the past. We were all
tougher than our predecessors and no one since has had the challenges
that we faced. Balderdash!

Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
he knows there is going to be a merge.

The way we control the air now is light-years beyond what was done
with the -104. Sure, it was fast, climbed incredibly, was a thrill to
fly---but the point is that the whole purpose is to "rove the alotted
area, find the enemy and kill him. Anything else is rubbish."

The Baron said it and it has only become more true over the years. If
you rove the alotted area in supercruise, the area is larger. If you
do it with stealth, you are infinitely more survivable. If you have
the benefit of data fusion and passive sensors, you don't need the Mk
1/Mod 0 eyeball. If you've got launch and leave, long range weapons,
you don't have to get all sweaty.

I found an interesting statistic the other day in researching a
presentation to a group about my book. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, one
fixed wing US aircraft was lost for 18,190 fixed wing sorties flown.
JUST ONE!! For Desert Storm, we lost 37 fixed wing aircraft on 116,000
sorties for a rate of one loss per 3135 sorties. During Rolling
Thunder, the F-105 was losing one aircraft per 65 sorties during 1966.

If that leads you to the conclusion that Burt Rutan is packed with an
inordinate quantity of bovine excrement, it would be a reasonable
deduction.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"Ed Majden" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus"
Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
he knows there is going to be a merge.

In part, I agree but aren't you making an un-fair comparison? Modern
electronics give these new aircraft their superior capability. Don't forget
that the F-104 was designed with 1950's technology. It's just like
comparing TV sets. The old tube designs packed up ever few months where the
new solid state types seem to last forever. I think that Rutan was trying
to point out that airframe wise, there isn't that much of an improvement
with today's designs. He thinks that modern fighters should be much faster
and higher performers than they are. The stealth fighter would be
impossible to fly without the on board flight control computers that control
them. The 104 radar was pretty Mickey Mouse as compared to modern FCS
radars. If fitted with an up-dated system it would still be a high
performer, at least as good as an F-16 I would think. I would hope that
modern aircraft would be more reliable. Any of you pilot types fly both
types?

Well, haven't you made my argument for me? Rutan was indicated as
saying (I didn't see the show, but someone else provided the start of
this thread) that there hasn't been much progress in military aircraft
since the days of the 104.

Here's the quote:

He claimed that the large aircraft
manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
past thus holding back aircraft design technology.

Well, I think we've done a darn good job with regard to thrust/weight,
specific fuel consumption, lift/drag, sustainability of G, agility,
reliability, sensors, weapons, integration, security of comm,
survivability, ECM, defensive systems, etc. etc.

Either the aircraft industry has been remarkably progressive, or they
haven't. Can't have it both ways.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

Ed Rasimus wrote:
"Ed Majden" wrote:

In part, I agree but aren't you making an un-fair comparison? Modern
electronics give these new aircraft their superior capability. Don't forget
that the F-104 was designed with 1950's technology. It's just like
comparing TV sets. The old tube designs packed up ever few months where the
new solid state types seem to last forever. I think that Rutan was trying
to point out that airframe wise, there isn't that much of an improvement
with today's designs. He thinks that modern fighters should be much faster
and higher performers than they are. The stealth fighter would be
impossible to fly without the on board flight control computers that control
them. The 104 radar was pretty Mickey Mouse as compared to modern FCS
radars. If fitted with an up-dated system it would still be a high
performer, at least as good as an F-16 I would think. I would hope that
modern aircraft would be more reliable. Any of you pilot types fly both
types?

Well, haven't you made my argument for me? Rutan was indicated as
saying (I didn't see the show, but someone else provided the start of
this thread) that there hasn't been much progress in military aircraft
since the days of the 104.

Here's the quote:

He claimed that the large aircraft
manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
past thus holding back aircraft design technology.

Well, I think we've done a darn good job with regard to thrust/weight,
specific fuel consumption, lift/drag, sustainability of G, agility,
reliability, sensors, weapons, integration, security of comm,
survivability, ECM, defensive systems, etc. etc.

Either the aircraft industry has been remarkably progressive, or they
haven't. Can't have it both ways.

I agree with your original assessment (e.g: Rutan is full of bovine
excretement). We've all heard about Rutan's Voyager that
circumnavigated the globe unrefueled back in 1986, however,
the record for the world's longest flight in history (64 days, 22
hours, 19 minutes w/o touching the ground) belongs to two men
flying the venerable old Cessna 172 back in the 1950's...

"To refuel, men in a stake truck would drive a desert road at about
80 mph and, with the plane flying overhead about the same speed,
attach a gas line to a rope thrown from the Cessna. The gas would
then be pumped, a procedure that took only a few minutes. Those on
the ground also would resupply the pilots with food and clothing."

With regards to military A/C, you've said it a million times already
in your outstanding contributions to RAM. Each one of your posts
is chock full of information and you've clearly explained why each
successive generation of fighter and attack aircraft has been a vast
improvement over the previous generation. Rutan is full of bovine
excretement, indeed!

-Mike Marron

(Bill Kapaun) wrote:

Since we rarely introduce new aircraft types in this era, the
manufacturers can't gamble as much on an innovative design. There may not
be another contract up for bid for quite a few more years if they fail.
Compare the # of models/year when the F-80-to F-106 were introduced/tested.
The "pie" just doesn't have as many "slices" any more.
In the 50's, IF a manufacturer didn't win a contract, there were several
more up for the bidding.

Using a pair of twin-turbo V-6 automotive engines and his trademark
composite design, Burt Rutan attempted to beat the speed record for
prop-driven aircraft with his unlimited Pond racer. It burned up at
Reno, and last I heard the old Grumman F6F Bearcat still holds the
speed record.

So much for Rutan not having anything good to say about the JSF or
the F-22...

-Mike Marron

Burt has built some innovative designs, but how many of them have been sold?
Not counting the plans for the Varieze, Burt's track record is pretty
abysmal. When was the last time you saw a Beech Starship? How about the
Rutan Grizzly, or the Ares T-33 conversion? I hate to say this because the
man is really a genius, but he has no idea how to build a really useful,
economically sound and commercially successful airplane.

--
Jim Atkins
Twentynine Palms CA USA

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx

Snipped

I found an interesting statistic the other day in researching a
presentation to a group about my book. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, one
fixed wing US aircraft was lost for 18,190 fixed wing sorties flown.
JUST ONE!! For Desert Storm, we lost 37 fixed wing aircraft on 116,000
sorties for a rate of one loss per 3135 sorties. During Rolling
Thunder, the F-105 was losing one aircraft per 65 sorties during 1966.

Snipped

Ed, We lose more airplanes than that in a bad week at Red Flag. Comparing
the DS II rates to DS I or VietNam is apples to oranges. They hardly shot
back. Even in DS I the air defense wasn't as robust as around Hanoi,
because we were allowed to kill it.

All your statistics show is that a decent program of SEAD works to prevent
losses. Says nothing about the capabilities of the F-15E, F-16C, or the
A-10. It does say a lot about the AGM-88 and smart weaponry over the last
12 years of SEAD in Iraq.

--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)

"Bill Kapaun" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ed Majden"
wrote:



Since we rarely introduce new aircraft types in this era, the
manufacturers can't gamble as much on an innovative design. There may not
be another contract up for bid for quite a few more years if they fail.
Compare the # of models/year when the F-80-to F-106 were
introduced/tested.
The "pie" just doesn't have as many "slices" any more.
In the 50's, IF a manufacturer didn't win a contract, there were several
more up for the bidding.

Compare also the number of those aircraft that killed pilots
in testing and squadron service cause they had some bad
problems that werent worked out until the later variants
came along. This is no longer acceptable and is one of the
reasons it takes longer to develop aircraft today IMHO.

Keith

There's a tendency of most of us to live in the past. We were all
tougher than our predecessors and no one since has had the challenges
that we faced.

I was recently told the same thing about the education system in
China--by a graduate student who is all of 23 years old!

My father of course told me the same. Evidently the world has been in
a free-fall for a very long time.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

I found an interesting statistic the other day in researching a
presentation to a group about my book. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, one
fixed wing US aircraft was lost for 18,190 fixed wing sorties flown.
JUST ONE!! For Desert Storm, we lost 37 fixed wing aircraft on 116,000
sorties for a rate of one loss per 3135 sorties. During Rolling
Thunder, the F-105 was losing one aircraft per 65 sorties during 1966.

Good point. It also reflects several major factors effecting loss rates:
ROE, tactics and enemy capabilities. The Vietnamese capability was far
greater (largely because of ROE), and the tactics employed (essentially WW2
mentality "here we come, try and stop us") were ill-conceived. Another
factor, technological superiority, was rarely employed to maximum advantage.

In DS1 we used technology (Stealth, cruise missiles, anti-radiation,
intelligence gathering, etc.) wisely and negated much of the air defense
capability in the first missions of the war. ROE didn't prevent bombing the
airfields or attacking defensive positions as it did in Vietnam. Our
tactics better emphasized measures to insure survivability. DS2 was more
and better of the same (with virtually no air defense network to worry
about).

I suspect the venerable Thud (suitably armed with a modern weapons system
.... I bet there was room in that vast airframe for a retrofit) could have
performed admirably as a strike aircraft in the latest war. Put an F-18
system in there and ... hmmm. Similar (more?) range, similar (more?) load,
faster ingress, faster egress. Well, there'd be a down side too.
Maintainability, maneuverability (less a factor than you might think),
survivability (not sure of the relative issues there, but if we haven't
learned anything in 40 years ...).

R / John