Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Box-Art] Re: Dayton-Wright Racer, was;Free Download Alert 27APR09

Expand Messages
  • C. Bibbee
    Joe;    I don t know much beyond what s in the Wikipedia entries on the Dayton-Wright Racer (which is how they have it listed) and the three XPS-1 pursuit
    Message 1 of 3 , May 1 4:04 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Joe;
       
       I don't know much beyond what's in the Wikipedia entries on the Dayton-Wright Racer (which is how they have it listed) and the three XPS-1 pursuit prototypes that the Signal Corps bought in 1921 that were based on the Racer's design. The Racer was designed by Milton C. Baumann, and built by Dayton-Wright (which was the outfit Kettering ran that later became the GM Research Division after it was moved to Detroit). The landing gear on the Racer was hand-cranked to save weight. And weight was what pretty much doomed the XPS-1s, as the additional weight of tactical equipment (guns, etc.) would have added mass to what was already a power-critical airframe (due to the relatively low-powered engines of the day). As it turned out, their performance was not enough better than the biplane fighters of the day to be worth the effort.
       
       The strain that the pilot underwent cranking the gear up and down was apparently what induced "Boss Kett" to start thinking about power-operated retracts. Sort of the same way that he'd begun thinking about electric starting for cars before WW 1 after his then-boss (Ransome E. Olds, IIRC) was horrified when a "kickback" on a car's starter crank shattered the jaw of a friend of his, who died of infection a few days later. (I've dealt with crank-starting antiques, notably a tractor my father had when I was a kid, and always kept that firmly in mind when firing one up.)
       
       If you want to see something that was even a bit more "out there" design-wise for its era, look up the Russian Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-1/IS-2/IS-4 fighter prototypes of 1938-41 vintage. In many respects, they resembled the (two-decades-earlier) RB-1, except that they weren't just monoplanes that could retract their gear like a Grumman F3F or F4F. They were biplanes that first folded their mains into the lower wing bottom surface, and then folded the wing up into the fuselage sides and the bottom of the top wing. The idea being to get the speed of a monoplane combined with the STOL performance of a biplane.
        I'd love to see film footage of one of those things doing its "variable geometry" trick in flight.
       
                                                                                                        Sincerely,
       
                                                                                                        Carl B.
      --- On Thu, 4/30/09, usshermitage <jesmith49@...> wrote:

      From: usshermitage <jesmith49@...>
      Subject: [Box-Art] Re: Free Download Alert 27APR09
      To: Box-Art@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 10:17 PM

      Hi Carl,

      Carl your much better at writing then I am perhaps you could add in his other works such as his involvment with the Dayton Wright RB-1.
      I have a few parts from some books while I was researching for a drawing of the RB-1. I would love to hear what you know.

      Best,
      Joe

      --- In Box-Art@yahoogroups .com, "C. Bibbee" <quadgop2000@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > Mike;
      >  
      >  Thanks. :-)
      >  
      >  I might add that "Boss Kett" and his team constructed the first power-operated retractable landing gear for an aircraft. They tested it on a Curtiss Jenny (!) in 1921, on the grounds that if it wouldn't "come back down" again, a bellyflop in a Jenny was no big deal, as an entire generation of trainees and barnstormers knew. It worked perfectly the first time, and the (then) U. S. Army Air Corps was convinced when they saw that just pulling the gear up gave even the notably drag-afflicted Jenny an extra six knots of airspeed at most throttle settings. It would be about another decade before retracts became standard equipment on U.S. military aircraft, but Kettering's team pointed them in the right direction.
      >  
      >  And for the record, I learned about that one from a retired gent here in my home town (Lancaster, OH) who was the test pilot who flew that Jenny that day.
      >  
      >                                                                                                   Sincerely,
      >  
      >                                                                                                   Carl B.
      >
      > --- On Tue, 4/28/09, mike wegener <bigwindowford@ ...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: mike wegener <bigwindowford@ ...>
      > Subject: Re: [Box-Art] Free Download Alert 27APR09
      > To: Box-Art@yahoogroups .com
      > Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 2:29 PM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Wow Carl! Very informative. I am always amazed how you come up with all this crazy information. My '57 Olds has a Kettering designed engine and it is a mighty fine powerplant. Now I appreciate it even more.
      > Mike
      >
      > --- On Tue, 4/28/09, C. Bibbee <quadgop2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
      >
      > From: C. Bibbee <quadgop2000@ yahoo.com>
      > Subject: Re: [Box-Art] Free Download Alert 27APR09
      > To: Box-Art@yahoogroups .com
      > Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 4:29 AM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Jean;
      >  
      >  Glad you're OK.  You're lucky- my sunburn just stays a sunburn.
      >  
      >  As for the pilotless airplane, that is in fact the Kettering Aerial Torpedo, built for the U.S. Army Signal Corps by Charles F. Kettering's company, which later became GM's research division. The Army designed it, but Sperry, who developed the automatic pilot for it, was actually a Kettering employee at the time. The "vacuum" control system was a servo system operating on compressed air pistons instead of electric or hydraulic servos as we are more familiar with today (at the time, the latter two were too heavy for the small Torpedo, which only had a 25 HP motor). The Torpedo's autopilot is believed to have been the first such device to use what we now call an inertial platform to "navigate" by the equivalent of dead reckoning- an early cybernetic system. The Torpedo was to have carried a 100- pound HE or incendiary warhead, and have a range (one way of course) of about 150 miles. Its guidance and fuzing was simple; a timer was set to the expected
      > flight time to the target, and the gas tank was filled with just enough gas to get it that far. When the timer ran down, or the engine stopped from fuel exhaustion (whichever came first), a simple electric switch hooked to the autopilot tripped two last vacuum pistons, that pulled the pins holding the wings to the fuselage in, releasing the wings. At which point the Torpedo would drop to the ground, nose first (with the tail acting as guidance fins) to be detonated by a simple impact fuse.
      >  
      >  By the time the Armistice was signed, Kettering's company had built about 20, and "Boss Kett" told the Army that they could build however many they wanted. The objective being to drop them on Germany.
      >  
      >  In an interesting coda to the story, during the early phases of WW II, Kettering (who was in his 70s by that time) came up with an improved monoplane version of the Torpedo, as was learned on a trip to Detroit by Cmdr. Charles Goodeve, RNVR, who was then head of the Royal Navy's Department of Miscellaneous Weapons Development (D.M.W.D):
      >  
      >  "Arriving in Detroit, he paid a courtesy call on the great American inventor Charles F. Kettering, who was directing the Reserach Division of the vast Gemeral Motors organization. Kettering, renowned in his own country as a second Edison, welcomed him warmly,  and then delivered a trenchant lecture on the iniquities of scientists!
      >  
      >  "' What we need to win this war is more inventors', he declared bluntly. 'All scientists ought to be torpedoed!' He then went on to discuss with Goodeve a remarkable project which he was developing on his own initiative. It involved the mass production of remote-controlled aircraft, each of which would carry 1000 pounds of explosive, and, to Goodeve's astonishment, he found that these had already been built by the hundreds. they were parked in serried rows in building after building, and even overflowed into the car-park outside.
      >  
      >  "Kettering explained that they could be turned out at the rate of one every minute. the engines were internal-combustion motors of simple design, and the wings were ingeniously made of hard, rolled sheet steel. technically, this was a considerable achievement, for no aluminium was required- and aluminium was then a rare and precious commodity.
      >  
      >  "Kettering envisaged a non-stop bombardment with his robot 'planes which would bring Germany to her knees. Pointing to a map, he decalred that a vast underground factory could easily be set up in Kent, the raw materials for manufacturing the aircraft nd their bombs being fed down vertical shafts. (I suspect "Boss Kett" intended to convert several then-disused tin and copper mines in the Kentish area- C.B.) As these expendable robots were completed-at the rate of one every minute- they would take off up a sloping runway, and fly out from the cliff-side towards Germany.
      >  
      >  "His small planes embodied a variety of control methods. Some, he explained, qwould fly straight. Some would zigzag. After a given time some would seek out their targets by using infra-red rays. Any large citry emits infrar-red radiations- particularly in winter, when buildings are heated- and kettering planned to turn this to advantage in homing his pilotless bombers.
      >  
      >  "Already he had tested the flying performance of his aircraft at a secret experimental station in the desert (Muroc?- C.B.), and he had taken elaborate steps to defeat any possible counter-measures adopted by the enemy.
      >  
      >  "At dinner that night the man who had invented self-starting, lighting, and ignition systems for motor-cars before the First World War talked with boyish enthusiasm of many other projects just as ambitious as his bomber fleet. On his own responsibility Kettering had already spent millions of dollars on developing various controlled devices (including the guidance systems later used in the "Azon", "Razon", and "Tarzon" TV-guided bombs- C.B.). As it happened, the rapid expansion of of orthodox bombing, which enabled a far heavier load of explosive to be directed at enemy targets, removed the need for his ingenious robots. But Goodeve was often to recall with envy the freedom which America's wealth in material and technical resources gave to her inventors. He remembered Kettering's "doodle bugs" too when the first German flying bombs began to fall on London."
      >  
      >  - Gerald Pawle, THE SECRET WAR 1939-45. New York; Willaim Sloane Associates, 1957. pp 250-251.
      >  
      >  You may notice that Kettering's "improved" WW II "torpedo" acted a lot like a modern Tomahawk cruise missile.
      >  
      >  Between the wars the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy both experimented with pilotless aircraft. The USN's versions evolved into target drones, that during WWII were launched from cruiser and battleship catapults as practice for both the catapult and AA crews. The Royal Navy, by comparison, in the 1930s experimented with a whole series of pilotless biplane floatplanes with names like "Queen Bee" and "Queen Wasp", which were supposed to fly to a target, either take photos, drop a bomb, or both, and then fly back, all under radio control. Their final development was a monoplane flying bomb called "Larynx", with a 150 HP radial engine and a 500 pound HE warhead. It was tried out, and finally cancelled after about thirty successful shipboard launches and test flights, in 1938-39.
      >  
      >  (Non-Kettering related info in this post from HISTORY OF ROCKETRY AND SPACE TRAVEL by Wernher von Braun and Frederick I. Ordway. New York; Thomas Y. Crowell & Co., 1966  [1st ed.])
      >  
      >  
      >                                                                                                  Sincerely,
      >  
      >                                                                                                  Carl B.
      >  
      >  
      >  
      >
      > --- On Mon, 4/27/09, Jean Aker <jfa23@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: Jean Aker <jfa23@...>
      > Subject: [Box-Art] Free Download Alert 27APR09
      > To: Box-Art@yahoogroups .com
      > Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 10:49 AM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Good Monday Boxsters,
      > Thanks for the well wishes for my health progress.
      > This morning I find my sun burn is much less painful and some of the red has turned tan.
      > I went on a 150 mile motorcycle ride on Saturday as a participant of an organized event know as a 'Poker Run.'
      > The ride starts at a local cafe and after paying a fee to play you select a card from a deck. The card you draw is recorded on a sheet and initialed by the dealer. It is then given to you for safe keeping.
      > Everyone rides as a group to the next stop and draws another card. After a beverage and/or a bite to eat we go to the next stop.
      > After four or five stops the hands are compared and the high poker hand wins the pot.
      > My hand was three sixes ... yes, it was 666!
      > I didn't win, but I did come in second. I was beat by a full house.
      > Sunday was spent relaxing with friends watching the NASCAR race from Talladega, AL. My favorite driver, Clint Boywer, was involved in a wreck on lap 7 and his crew was able to get his car back on the track for the final two laps. This kept his running until the end of the race streak alive and he is only two behind the current record holder.
      > The wreck on the final lap was something to see.
      > Carl Edwards' car went airborn and swiped along the fench on top of the wall spraying the audience with debris. Seven or eight spectators were slightly injured. The 99 car was completely destroyed. Edwards pulled himself out of the car and ran across the finish line to complete the race. He came in 24th!
      > This week the Chairman, in keeping with the free TV download, presents the Pre-S boxart for the Revell Douglas D-558-2 Skyrocket. This was the aircraft featured in the old Captain Midnight TV series.
      > Somehow this small single seat aircraft included a huge side-by-side seating cockpit on the small screen.
      > Kinda reminds me of the old Dr. Who TARDIS.
      > How can something so small on the outside be so large on the inside?
      > From my archives I scanned in a few old photos of unmanned weapons. One of them is the first known unmanned weapon built by the US.
      > The weapon was a small WW1 bi-plane filled with explosives. It was controlled by vacuum ... whatever the hell that means?
      > I also scanned in a photo of a WWII V-2 on display somewhere in the US after the war.
      > And finally, I scanned in a couple of shots of the old US Army Jupiter IRBM/MRBM rocket from the 1950s.
      > The images are all 1280 pixels so they look nice on a PC.
      > Get them at http://theboxartden .com/free_ downloads
      >
      > Jean
      >

    • usshermitage
      Hi Carl, Love to hear things that are not in print about aviation. There is a good book on the early race planes(1908 or so to the 1920 s) called The Speed
      Message 2 of 3 , May 1 9:51 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Carl,

        Love to hear things that are not in print about aviation. There is a good book on the early race planes(1908 or so to the 1920's) called The Speed Seekers by Tom Foxworthy that is very well done. Its out of print now, written in the 1970's, was$45.00 then but can be found a lot cheaper. Found mine on e-bay for a song! It has a chapter on the RB-1 with a couple of great pictures of the people who put the bird together and the RB-1.

        For you fellows who don't know of the RB-1 it was one of the 1st aircraft with retractable gear, flaps, wing slats. They all worked together, as you cranked the gear up and down they worked in concert with each other. This was not to be repeated until the F 104 in 1954! Not bad for a 1919 design.

        I was trying to find more photos, plans and history for my artwork of the RB-1. If you fellows go to the wikipedia you can read more then I can type about the RB-1, it still exsists in restored form in the Henry Ford Museum, not quite sure how it got there except that Henry Ford & Orville Wright were good friends and he might have given it to Ford for the Museum. But I don't know for sure.

        There is a great picture of the RB-1 showing its strength by having 12 men standing across the top of its wing!. Kettering is on the far right on the end of the wing.

        Best,
        Joe

        --- In Box-Art@yahoogroups.com, "C. Bibbee" <quadgop2000@...> wrote:
        >
        > Joe;
        >  
        >  I don't know much beyond what's in the Wikipedia entries on the Dayton-Wright Racer (which is how they have it listed) and the three XPS-1 pursuit prototypes that the Signal Corps bought in 1921 that were based on the Racer's design. The Racer was designed by Milton C. Baumann, and built by Dayton-Wright (which was the outfit Kettering ran that later became the GM Research Division after it was moved to Detroit). The landing gear on the Racer was hand-cranked to save weight. And weight was what pretty much doomed the XPS-1s, as the additional weight of tactical equipment (guns, etc.) would have added mass to what was already a power-critical airframe (due to the relatively low-powered engines of the day). As it turned out, their performance was not enough better than the biplane fighters of the day to be worth the effort.
        >  
        >  The strain that the pilot underwent cranking the gear up and down was apparently what induced "Boss Kett" to start thinking about power-operated retracts. Sort of the same way that he'd begun thinking about electric starting for cars before WW 1 after his then-boss (Ransome E. Olds, IIRC) was horrified when a "kickback" on a car's starter crank shattered the jaw of a friend of his, who died of infection a few days later. (I've dealt with crank-starting antiques, notably a tractor my father had when I was a kid, and always kept that firmly in mind when firing one up.)
        >  
        >  If you want to see something that was even a bit more "out there" design-wise for its era, look up the Russian Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-1/IS-2/IS-4 fighter prototypes of 1938-41 vintage. In many respects, they resembled the (two-decades-earlier) RB-1, except that they weren't just monoplanes that could retract their gear like a Grumman F3F or F4F. They were biplanes that first folded their mains into the lower wing bottom surface, and then folded the wing up into the fuselage sides and the bottom of the top wing. The idea being to get the speed of a monoplane combined with the STOL performance of a biplane.
        >
        >   I'd love to see film footage of one of those things doing its "variable geometry" trick in flight.
        >  
        >                                                                                                   Sincerely,
        >  
        >                                                                                                   Carl B.
        > --- On Thu, 4/30/09, usshermitage <jesmith49@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > From: usshermitage <jesmith49@...>
        > Subject: [Box-Art] Re: Free Download Alert 27APR09
        > To: Box-Art@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 10:17 PM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Hi Carl,
        >
        > Carl your much better at writing then I am perhaps you could add in his other works such as his involvment with the Dayton Wright RB-1.
        > I have a few parts from some books while I was researching for a drawing of the RB-1. I would love to hear what you know.
        >
        > Best,
        > Joe
        >
        > --- In Box-Art@yahoogroups .com, "C. Bibbee" <quadgop2000@ ...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Mike;
        > >  
        > >  Thanks. :-)
        > >  
        > >  I might add that "Boss Kett" and his team constructed the first power-operated retractable landing gear for an aircraft. They tested it on a Curtiss Jenny (!) in 1921, on the grounds that if it wouldn't "come back down" again, a bellyflop in a Jenny was no big deal, as an entire generation of trainees and barnstormers knew. It worked perfectly the first time, and the (then) U. S. Army Air Corps was convinced when they saw that just pulling the gear up gave even the notably drag-afflicted Jenny an extra six knots of airspeed at most throttle settings. It would be about another decade before retracts became standard equipment on U.S. military aircraft, but Kettering's team pointed them in the right direction.
        > >  
        > >  And for the record, I learned about that one from a retired gent here in my home town (Lancaster, OH) who was the test pilot who flew that Jenny that day.
        > >  
        > >                                                                                                   Sincerely,
        > >  
        > >                                                                                                   Carl B.
        > >
        > > --- On Tue, 4/28/09, mike wegener <bigwindowford@ ...> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > From: mike wegener <bigwindowford@ ...>
        > > Subject: Re: [Box-Art] Free Download Alert 27APR09
        > > To: Box-Art@yahoogroups .com
        > > Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 2:29 PM
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Wow Carl! Very informative. I am always amazed how you come up with all this crazy information. My '57 Olds has a Kettering designed engine and it is a mighty fine powerplant. Now I appreciate it even more.
        > > Mike
        > >
        > > --- On Tue, 4/28/09, C. Bibbee <quadgop2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
        > >
        > > From: C. Bibbee <quadgop2000@ yahoo.com>
        > > Subject: Re: [Box-Art] Free Download Alert 27APR09
        > > To: Box-Art@yahoogroups .com
        > > Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 4:29 AM
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Jean;
        > >  
        > >  Glad you're OK.  You're lucky- my sunburn just stays a sunburn.
        > >  
        > >  As for the pilotless airplane, that is in fact the Kettering Aerial Torpedo, built for the U.S. Army Signal Corps by Charles F. Kettering's company, which later became GM's research division. The Army designed it, but Sperry, who developed the automatic pilot for it, was actually a Kettering employee at the time. The "vacuum" control system was a servo system operating on compressed air pistons instead of electric or hydraulic servos as we are more familiar with today (at the time, the latter two were too heavy for the small Torpedo, which only had a 25 HP motor). The Torpedo's autopilot is believed to have been the first such device to use what we now call an inertial platform to "navigate" by the equivalent of dead reckoning- an early cybernetic system. The Torpedo was to have carried a 100- pound HE or incendiary warhead, and have a range (one way of course) of about 150 miles. Its guidance and fuzing was simple; a timer was set to the expected
        > > flight time to the target, and the gas tank was filled with just enough gas to get it that far. When the timer ran down, or the engine stopped from fuel exhaustion (whichever came first), a simple electric switch hooked to the autopilot tripped two last vacuum pistons, that pulled the pins holding the wings to the fuselage in, releasing the wings. At which point the Torpedo would drop to the ground, nose first (with the tail acting as guidance fins) to be detonated by a simple impact fuse.
        > >  
        > >  By the time the Armistice was signed, Kettering's company had built about 20, and "Boss Kett" told the Army that they could build however many they wanted. The objective being to drop them on Germany.
        > >  
        > >  In an interesting coda to the story, during the early phases of WW II, Kettering (who was in his 70s by that time) came up with an improved monoplane version of the Torpedo, as was learned on a trip to Detroit by Cmdr. Charles Goodeve, RNVR, who was then head of the Royal Navy's Department of Miscellaneous Weapons Development (D.M.W.D):
        > >  
        > >  "Arriving in Detroit, he paid a courtesy call on the great American inventor Charles F. Kettering, who was directing the Reserach Division of the vast Gemeral Motors organization. Kettering, renowned in his own country as a second Edison, welcomed him warmly,  and then delivered a trenchant lecture on the iniquities of scientists!
        > >  
        > >  "' What we need to win this war is more inventors', he declared bluntly. 'All scientists ought to be torpedoed!' He then went on to discuss with Goodeve a remarkable project which he was developing on his own initiative. It involved the mass production of remote-controlled aircraft, each of which would carry 1000 pounds of explosive, and, to Goodeve's astonishment, he found that these had already been built by the hundreds. they were parked in serried rows in building after building, and even overflowed into the car-park outside.
        > >  
        > >  "Kettering explained that they could be turned out at the rate of one every minute. the engines were internal-combustion motors of simple design, and the wings were ingeniously made of hard, rolled sheet steel. technically, this was a considerable achievement, for no aluminium was required- and aluminium was then a rare and precious commodity.
        > >  
        > >  "Kettering envisaged a non-stop bombardment with his robot 'planes which would bring Germany to her knees. Pointing to a map, he decalred that a vast underground factory could easily be set up in Kent, the raw materials for manufacturing the aircraft nd their bombs being fed down vertical shafts. (I suspect "Boss Kett" intended to convert several then-disused tin and copper mines in the Kentish area- C.B.) As these expendable robots were completed-at the rate of one every minute- they would take off up a sloping runway, and fly out from the cliff-side towards Germany.
        > >  
        > >  "His small planes embodied a variety of control methods. Some, he explained, qwould fly straight. Some would zigzag. After a given time some would seek out their targets by using infra-red rays. Any large citry emits infrar-red radiations- particularly in winter, when buildings are heated- and kettering planned to turn this to advantage in homing his pilotless bombers.
        > >  
        > >  "Already he had tested the flying performance of his aircraft at a secret experimental station in the desert (Muroc?- C.B.), and he had taken elaborate steps to defeat any possible counter-measures adopted by the enemy.
        > >  
        > >  "At dinner that night the man who had invented self-starting, lighting, and ignition systems for motor-cars before the First World War talked with boyish enthusiasm of many other projects just as ambitious as his bomber fleet. On his own responsibility Kettering had already spent millions of dollars on developing various controlled devices (including the guidance systems later used in the "Azon", "Razon", and "Tarzon" TV-guided bombs- C.B.). As it happened, the rapid expansion of of orthodox bombing, which enabled a far heavier load of explosive to be directed at enemy targets, removed the need for his ingenious robots. But Goodeve was often to recall with envy the freedom which America's wealth in material and technical resources gave to her inventors. He remembered Kettering's "doodle bugs" too when the first German flying bombs began to fall on London."
        > >  
        > >  - Gerald Pawle, THE SECRET WAR 1939-45. New York; Willaim Sloane Associates, 1957. pp 250-251.
        > >  
        > >  You may notice that Kettering's "improved" WW II "torpedo" acted a lot like a modern Tomahawk cruise missile.
        > >  
        > >  Between the wars the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy both experimented with pilotless aircraft. The USN's versions evolved into target drones, that during WWII were launched from cruiser and battleship catapults as practice for both the catapult and AA crews. The Royal Navy, by comparison, in the 1930s experimented with a whole series of pilotless biplane floatplanes with names like "Queen Bee" and "Queen Wasp", which were supposed to fly to a target, either take photos, drop a bomb, or both, and then fly back, all under radio control. Their final development was a monoplane flying bomb called "Larynx", with a 150 HP radial engine and a 500 pound HE warhead. It was tried out, and finally cancelled after about thirty successful shipboard launches and test flights, in 1938-39.
        > >  
        > >  (Non-Kettering related info in this post from HISTORY OF ROCKETRY AND SPACE TRAVEL by Wernher von Braun and Frederick I. Ordway. New York; Thomas Y. Crowell & Co., 1966  [1st ed.])
        > >  
        > >  
        > >                                                                                                  Sincerely,
        > >  
        > >                                                                                                  Carl B.
        > >  
        > >  
        > >  
        > >
        > > --- On Mon, 4/27/09, Jean Aker <jfa23@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > From: Jean Aker <jfa23@>
        > > Subject: [Box-Art] Free Download Alert 27APR09
        > > To: Box-Art@yahoogroups .com
        > > Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 10:49 AM
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Good Monday Boxsters,
        > > Thanks for the well wishes for my health progress.
        > > This morning I find my sun burn is much less painful and some of the red has turned tan.
        > > I went on a 150 mile motorcycle ride on Saturday as a participant of an organized event know as a 'Poker Run.'
        > > The ride starts at a local cafe and after paying a fee to play you select a card from a deck. The card you draw is recorded on a sheet and initialed by the dealer. It is then given to you for safe keeping.
        > > Everyone rides as a group to the next stop and draws another card. After a beverage and/or a bite to eat we go to the next stop.
        > > After four or five stops the hands are compared and the high poker hand wins the pot.
        > > My hand was three sixes ... yes, it was 666!
        > > I didn't win, but I did come in second. I was beat by a full house.
        > > Sunday was spent relaxing with friends watching the NASCAR race from Talladega, AL. My favorite driver, Clint Boywer, was involved in a wreck on lap 7 and his crew was able to get his car back on the track for the final two laps. This kept his running until the end of the race streak alive and he is only two behind the current record holder.
        > > The wreck on the final lap was something to see.
        > > Carl Edwards' car went airborn and swiped along the fench on top of the wall spraying the audience with debris. Seven or eight spectators were slightly injured. The 99 car was completely destroyed. Edwards pulled himself out of the car and ran across the finish line to complete the race. He came in 24th!
        > > This week the Chairman, in keeping with the free TV download, presents the Pre-S boxart for the Revell Douglas D-558-2 Skyrocket. This was the aircraft featured in the old Captain Midnight TV series.
        > > Somehow this small single seat aircraft included a huge side-by-side seating cockpit on the small screen.
        > > Kinda reminds me of the old Dr. Who TARDIS.
        > > How can something so small on the outside be so large on the inside?
        > > From my archives I scanned in a few old photos of unmanned weapons. One of them is the first known unmanned weapon built by the US.
        > > The weapon was a small WW1 bi-plane filled with explosives. It was controlled by vacuum ... whatever the hell that means?
        > > I also scanned in a photo of a WWII V-2 on display somewhere in the US after the war.
        > > And finally, I scanned in a couple of shots of the old US Army Jupiter IRBM/MRBM rocket from the 1950s.
        > > The images are all 1280 pixels so they look nice on a PC.
        > > Get them at http://theboxartden .com/free_ downloads
        > >
        > > Jean
        > >
        >
      • usshermitage
        Hi Carl, Love to hear things that are not in print about aviation. There is a good book on the early race planes(1908 or so to the 1920 s) called The Speed
        Message 3 of 3 , May 1 9:51 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Carl,

          Love to hear things that are not in print about aviation. There is a good book on the early race planes(1908 or so to the 1920's) called The Speed Seekers by Tom Foxworthy that is very well done. Its out of print now, written in the 1970's, was$45.00 then but can be found a lot cheaper. Found mine on e-bay for a song! It has a chapter on the RB-1 with a couple of great pictures of the people who put the bird together and the RB-1.

          For you fellows who don't know of the RB-1 it was one of the 1st aircraft with retractable gear, flaps, wing slats. They all worked together, as you cranked the gear up and down they worked in concert with each other. This was not to be repeated until the F 104 in 1954! Not bad for a 1919 design.

          I was trying to find more photos, plans and history for my artwork of the RB-1. If you fellows go to the wikipedia you can read more then I can type about the RB-1, it still exsists in restored form in the Henry Ford Museum, not quite sure how it got there except that Henry Ford & Orville Wright were good friends and he might have given it to Ford for the Museum. But I don't know for sure.

          There is a great picture of the RB-1 showing its strength by having 12 men standing across the top of its wing!. Kettering is on the far right on the end of the wing.

          Best,
          Joe

          --- In Box-Art@yahoogroups.com, "C. Bibbee" <quadgop2000@...> wrote:
          >
          > Joe;
          >  
          >  I don't know much beyond what's in the Wikipedia entries on the Dayton-Wright Racer (which is how they have it listed) and the three XPS-1 pursuit prototypes that the Signal Corps bought in 1921 that were based on the Racer's design. The Racer was designed by Milton C. Baumann, and built by Dayton-Wright (which was the outfit Kettering ran that later became the GM Research Division after it was moved to Detroit). The landing gear on the Racer was hand-cranked to save weight. And weight was what pretty much doomed the XPS-1s, as the additional weight of tactical equipment (guns, etc.) would have added mass to what was already a power-critical airframe (due to the relatively low-powered engines of the day). As it turned out, their performance was not enough better than the biplane fighters of the day to be worth the effort.
          >  
          >  The strain that the pilot underwent cranking the gear up and down was apparently what induced "Boss Kett" to start thinking about power-operated retracts. Sort of the same way that he'd begun thinking about electric starting for cars before WW 1 after his then-boss (Ransome E. Olds, IIRC) was horrified when a "kickback" on a car's starter crank shattered the jaw of a friend of his, who died of infection a few days later. (I've dealt with crank-starting antiques, notably a tractor my father had when I was a kid, and always kept that firmly in mind when firing one up.)
          >  
          >  If you want to see something that was even a bit more "out there" design-wise for its era, look up the Russian Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-1/IS-2/IS-4 fighter prototypes of 1938-41 vintage. In many respects, they resembled the (two-decades-earlier) RB-1, except that they weren't just monoplanes that could retract their gear like a Grumman F3F or F4F. They were biplanes that first folded their mains into the lower wing bottom surface, and then folded the wing up into the fuselage sides and the bottom of the top wing. The idea being to get the speed of a monoplane combined with the STOL performance of a biplane.
          >
          >   I'd love to see film footage of one of those things doing its "variable geometry" trick in flight.
          >  
          >                                                                                                   Sincerely,
          >  
          >                                                                                                   Carl B.
          > --- On Thu, 4/30/09, usshermitage <jesmith49@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > From: usshermitage <jesmith49@...>
          > Subject: [Box-Art] Re: Free Download Alert 27APR09
          > To: Box-Art@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 10:17 PM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Hi Carl,
          >
          > Carl your much better at writing then I am perhaps you could add in his other works such as his involvment with the Dayton Wright RB-1.
          > I have a few parts from some books while I was researching for a drawing of the RB-1. I would love to hear what you know.
          >
          > Best,
          > Joe
          >
          > --- In Box-Art@yahoogroups .com, "C. Bibbee" <quadgop2000@ ...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Mike;
          > >  
          > >  Thanks. :-)
          > >  
          > >  I might add that "Boss Kett" and his team constructed the first power-operated retractable landing gear for an aircraft. They tested it on a Curtiss Jenny (!) in 1921, on the grounds that if it wouldn't "come back down" again, a bellyflop in a Jenny was no big deal, as an entire generation of trainees and barnstormers knew. It worked perfectly the first time, and the (then) U. S. Army Air Corps was convinced when they saw that just pulling the gear up gave even the notably drag-afflicted Jenny an extra six knots of airspeed at most throttle settings. It would be about another decade before retracts became standard equipment on U.S. military aircraft, but Kettering's team pointed them in the right direction.
          > >  
          > >  And for the record, I learned about that one from a retired gent here in my home town (Lancaster, OH) who was the test pilot who flew that Jenny that day.
          > >  
          > >                                                                                                   Sincerely,
          > >  
          > >                                                                                                   Carl B.
          > >
          > > --- On Tue, 4/28/09, mike wegener <bigwindowford@ ...> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > From: mike wegener <bigwindowford@ ...>
          > > Subject: Re: [Box-Art] Free Download Alert 27APR09
          > > To: Box-Art@yahoogroups .com
          > > Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 2:29 PM
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Wow Carl! Very informative. I am always amazed how you come up with all this crazy information. My '57 Olds has a Kettering designed engine and it is a mighty fine powerplant. Now I appreciate it even more.
          > > Mike
          > >
          > > --- On Tue, 4/28/09, C. Bibbee <quadgop2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
          > >
          > > From: C. Bibbee <quadgop2000@ yahoo.com>
          > > Subject: Re: [Box-Art] Free Download Alert 27APR09
          > > To: Box-Art@yahoogroups .com
          > > Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 4:29 AM
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Jean;
          > >  
          > >  Glad you're OK.  You're lucky- my sunburn just stays a sunburn.
          > >  
          > >  As for the pilotless airplane, that is in fact the Kettering Aerial Torpedo, built for the U.S. Army Signal Corps by Charles F. Kettering's company, which later became GM's research division. The Army designed it, but Sperry, who developed the automatic pilot for it, was actually a Kettering employee at the time. The "vacuum" control system was a servo system operating on compressed air pistons instead of electric or hydraulic servos as we are more familiar with today (at the time, the latter two were too heavy for the small Torpedo, which only had a 25 HP motor). The Torpedo's autopilot is believed to have been the first such device to use what we now call an inertial platform to "navigate" by the equivalent of dead reckoning- an early cybernetic system. The Torpedo was to have carried a 100- pound HE or incendiary warhead, and have a range (one way of course) of about 150 miles. Its guidance and fuzing was simple; a timer was set to the expected
          > > flight time to the target, and the gas tank was filled with just enough gas to get it that far. When the timer ran down, or the engine stopped from fuel exhaustion (whichever came first), a simple electric switch hooked to the autopilot tripped two last vacuum pistons, that pulled the pins holding the wings to the fuselage in, releasing the wings. At which point the Torpedo would drop to the ground, nose first (with the tail acting as guidance fins) to be detonated by a simple impact fuse.
          > >  
          > >  By the time the Armistice was signed, Kettering's company had built about 20, and "Boss Kett" told the Army that they could build however many they wanted. The objective being to drop them on Germany.
          > >  
          > >  In an interesting coda to the story, during the early phases of WW II, Kettering (who was in his 70s by that time) came up with an improved monoplane version of the Torpedo, as was learned on a trip to Detroit by Cmdr. Charles Goodeve, RNVR, who was then head of the Royal Navy's Department of Miscellaneous Weapons Development (D.M.W.D):
          > >  
          > >  "Arriving in Detroit, he paid a courtesy call on the great American inventor Charles F. Kettering, who was directing the Reserach Division of the vast Gemeral Motors organization. Kettering, renowned in his own country as a second Edison, welcomed him warmly,  and then delivered a trenchant lecture on the iniquities of scientists!
          > >  
          > >  "' What we need to win this war is more inventors', he declared bluntly. 'All scientists ought to be torpedoed!' He then went on to discuss with Goodeve a remarkable project which he was developing on his own initiative. It involved the mass production of remote-controlled aircraft, each of which would carry 1000 pounds of explosive, and, to Goodeve's astonishment, he found that these had already been built by the hundreds. they were parked in serried rows in building after building, and even overflowed into the car-park outside.
          > >  
          > >  "Kettering explained that they could be turned out at the rate of one every minute. the engines were internal-combustion motors of simple design, and the wings were ingeniously made of hard, rolled sheet steel. technically, this was a considerable achievement, for no aluminium was required- and aluminium was then a rare and precious commodity.
          > >  
          > >  "Kettering envisaged a non-stop bombardment with his robot 'planes which would bring Germany to her knees. Pointing to a map, he decalred that a vast underground factory could easily be set up in Kent, the raw materials for manufacturing the aircraft nd their bombs being fed down vertical shafts. (I suspect "Boss Kett" intended to convert several then-disused tin and copper mines in the Kentish area- C.B.) As these expendable robots were completed-at the rate of one every minute- they would take off up a sloping runway, and fly out from the cliff-side towards Germany.
          > >  
          > >  "His small planes embodied a variety of control methods. Some, he explained, qwould fly straight. Some would zigzag. After a given time some would seek out their targets by using infra-red rays. Any large citry emits infrar-red radiations- particularly in winter, when buildings are heated- and kettering planned to turn this to advantage in homing his pilotless bombers.
          > >  
          > >  "Already he had tested the flying performance of his aircraft at a secret experimental station in the desert (Muroc?- C.B.), and he had taken elaborate steps to defeat any possible counter-measures adopted by the enemy.
          > >  
          > >  "At dinner that night the man who had invented self-starting, lighting, and ignition systems for motor-cars before the First World War talked with boyish enthusiasm of many other projects just as ambitious as his bomber fleet. On his own responsibility Kettering had already spent millions of dollars on developing various controlled devices (including the guidance systems later used in the "Azon", "Razon", and "Tarzon" TV-guided bombs- C.B.). As it happened, the rapid expansion of of orthodox bombing, which enabled a far heavier load of explosive to be directed at enemy targets, removed the need for his ingenious robots. But Goodeve was often to recall with envy the freedom which America's wealth in material and technical resources gave to her inventors. He remembered Kettering's "doodle bugs" too when the first German flying bombs began to fall on London."
          > >  
          > >  - Gerald Pawle, THE SECRET WAR 1939-45. New York; Willaim Sloane Associates, 1957. pp 250-251.
          > >  
          > >  You may notice that Kettering's "improved" WW II "torpedo" acted a lot like a modern Tomahawk cruise missile.
          > >  
          > >  Between the wars the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy both experimented with pilotless aircraft. The USN's versions evolved into target drones, that during WWII were launched from cruiser and battleship catapults as practice for both the catapult and AA crews. The Royal Navy, by comparison, in the 1930s experimented with a whole series of pilotless biplane floatplanes with names like "Queen Bee" and "Queen Wasp", which were supposed to fly to a target, either take photos, drop a bomb, or both, and then fly back, all under radio control. Their final development was a monoplane flying bomb called "Larynx", with a 150 HP radial engine and a 500 pound HE warhead. It was tried out, and finally cancelled after about thirty successful shipboard launches and test flights, in 1938-39.
          > >  
          > >  (Non-Kettering related info in this post from HISTORY OF ROCKETRY AND SPACE TRAVEL by Wernher von Braun and Frederick I. Ordway. New York; Thomas Y. Crowell & Co., 1966  [1st ed.])
          > >  
          > >  
          > >                                                                                                  Sincerely,
          > >  
          > >                                                                                                  Carl B.
          > >  
          > >  
          > >  
          > >
          > > --- On Mon, 4/27/09, Jean Aker <jfa23@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > From: Jean Aker <jfa23@>
          > > Subject: [Box-Art] Free Download Alert 27APR09
          > > To: Box-Art@yahoogroups .com
          > > Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 10:49 AM
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Good Monday Boxsters,
          > > Thanks for the well wishes for my health progress.
          > > This morning I find my sun burn is much less painful and some of the red has turned tan.
          > > I went on a 150 mile motorcycle ride on Saturday as a participant of an organized event know as a 'Poker Run.'
          > > The ride starts at a local cafe and after paying a fee to play you select a card from a deck. The card you draw is recorded on a sheet and initialed by the dealer. It is then given to you for safe keeping.
          > > Everyone rides as a group to the next stop and draws another card. After a beverage and/or a bite to eat we go to the next stop.
          > > After four or five stops the hands are compared and the high poker hand wins the pot.
          > > My hand was three sixes ... yes, it was 666!
          > > I didn't win, but I did come in second. I was beat by a full house.
          > > Sunday was spent relaxing with friends watching the NASCAR race from Talladega, AL. My favorite driver, Clint Boywer, was involved in a wreck on lap 7 and his crew was able to get his car back on the track for the final two laps. This kept his running until the end of the race streak alive and he is only two behind the current record holder.
          > > The wreck on the final lap was something to see.
          > > Carl Edwards' car went airborn and swiped along the fench on top of the wall spraying the audience with debris. Seven or eight spectators were slightly injured. The 99 car was completely destroyed. Edwards pulled himself out of the car and ran across the finish line to complete the race. He came in 24th!
          > > This week the Chairman, in keeping with the free TV download, presents the Pre-S boxart for the Revell Douglas D-558-2 Skyrocket. This was the aircraft featured in the old Captain Midnight TV series.
          > > Somehow this small single seat aircraft included a huge side-by-side seating cockpit on the small screen.
          > > Kinda reminds me of the old Dr. Who TARDIS.
          > > How can something so small on the outside be so large on the inside?
          > > From my archives I scanned in a few old photos of unmanned weapons. One of them is the first known unmanned weapon built by the US.
          > > The weapon was a small WW1 bi-plane filled with explosives. It was controlled by vacuum ... whatever the hell that means?
          > > I also scanned in a photo of a WWII V-2 on display somewhere in the US after the war.
          > > And finally, I scanned in a couple of shots of the old US Army Jupiter IRBM/MRBM rocket from the 1950s.
          > > The images are all 1280 pixels so they look nice on a PC.
          > > Get them at http://theboxartden .com/free_ downloads
          > >
          > > Jean
          > >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.