Every morning during AirVenture 2018, Richard Kosi called the EAA’s airboss to find out what time he was to fly in the afternoon airshow. Every time, he was refused! Jack Bally did not bring OBSESSION up to Oshkosh just to be a 12-day static display. OBSESSION is meant to FLY and fly well she does. Thousands visited Jack’s exhibit and thousands were expecting to see her perform. Clearly, it was the most-asked question at the exhibit. If she didn’t fly safely, FAA most certainly would not have certificated her. VERY disappointed w/EAA on this issue, but hey, it’s their dance, for sure. But for me, it was shameful that OBSESSION was forced to be a wallflower.
I too was disappointed that I didn’t get to see this bird fly. But being the son of an air traffic controller, I know well that AirVenture is an extremely complex beast to manage. Consequently, sometimes those who should get to fly don’t get to fly. I’m just amazed every year when no one gets killed.
''Obsession' is a very apt descriptor. I once saw a R.C. model 'Storch', here in the U.K. that had taken twelve years to build, but this is an altogether different 'ball game'. VERY well done that man.
These guys are the absolute worst people I've ever seen when it comes to getting actual video footage of something. I'll agree that there's a video that (almost!) shows a takeoff and a video that shows a landing, but its filmed in a camera from 1997 and could not be any worse. All I want to see is a gopro stuck in the cockpit next to the pilots head and a 5 minute flight. I would be so happy to see this. Or an actually decent video of a takeoff and landing. This can't be that hard.
shot forshot Yes. But it’s a shame it’s underpowered. The pilot said All 4 engines running at full power are needed to climb only 350’ per minute; this means that if you lose just one engine, you’re likely screwed. What you have here is a very high-drag, underpowered, multi (2cycle) engine aircraft that together makes for a fundamentally unsafe airplane in all but the most ideal locations and flying conditions. I love how it looks and admire the incredible craftsmanship that went into this airplane, but you couldn’t get me to fly it. It’s meant to look at.
Apparently, they removed the gear reduction drives from the Hirth engines to get them to fit the scale cowling. This significantly hinders a 2-strokes ability to make power. As they need to rev. To extract maximum power, PSRU and constant speed props would be the answer. Or utilize 4-stroke V-Twin CanAm style ATV motors with PSRU.
As far as I know, there are no complete blueprints, that's why Jack used plans from an RC plane and scaled them up. Each factory had their own set and they were not all the same.
What an absurd, and fantastic build! I love crazy people, haha. The man-hours were staggering. If you hired factory workers it would be $1,600,000 in labor alone. This is not priceless, but its among the worlds supercars in value, and far more rare. That's a heluva legacy to leave, not many bespoke builders see their crazy creation ever fly. Specifications Empty wt:1,800lb Fuel Load: 250lb Pilot Wt: 200lb Takeoff: 2,250lb Dimensions Wing Span: 34'-7" Area: 157.8ft^2 (?) Aspect Ratio: 7.58 Wing-Loading: 14.26lb/ft^2 Speed: 90mph Climb: 350fpm Takeoff: 1,000ft (2,250lb*350fpm)/(33,000*0.6) = Excess power is 40hp, utilized to climb. Therefore a loss of a 50~80hp engine means a gradual descent is inevitable. And 4 engines = 4x chance of experiencing an engine failure. So, pilots should plan for and expect emergency and off-airport excursions. Also, only 25.3hp is wasted for induced drag at 90mph. And assuming a very draggy CD0min of 0.06, this aircraft only requires 64.76thp to fly 90mph. Even assuming a poor 0.6 propeller efficiency, this is ONLY 108hp. Therefore, these engines are only developing about 1/3 of their rated power. Or the propellers are specified wrong. Or both. The engines need to get within 80~90% of maximum RPM. Variable pitch props, and custom PSRU allowing near maximum rpm, 75hp per engine, and 75% prop efficiency, will probably allow 2,346 fpm climb rate with these same engines.
Beer seems to be behind many a rash decision. At least this rash decision has a great outcome. An amazing replica. Can we please have some aerial footage. Thanks
Whoa. Tops out at 90 and comes over the fence at 70. Must have three throttle settings. Idle, approach and max with approach being just a nudge aft of max.
Originally a 2-seat tandem. No lying down. Back seat was nixed when liability insurance company required it for coverage. Now, tools & 2-cycle oil are carried back there.
The late Vince Lombardi (who knew a thing or two about Wisconsin) would’ve exploded: “It ain’t flyin’?? Everybody just talkin’, talkin’, talkin’! Whatha hellz goin’ on heah!!”
endwood, man! I'd love to just check that plane out in person. it seems like such a cool idea! sounds like they're "sneekin up" on testing it. wish those guys luck :)
Humbling that they built one every 40 or so minutes back in WW2 (not sure of the start to finish time, that's the time between them coming off an assembly line in Detroit.
That's cool that he built this plane project, but why didn't he make the vertical fin and cockpit glass true to the shape of the B-17? It's very noticeable to any B-17 enthusiast. When I built a 4' wingspan B-17 from scratch I bought the Monogram 1/48 plastic model and enlarged it to printouts to scale up and get it all accurate.
@@firebird77clonefirebird89 I'm not comparing my plane to this one. My point was that he should have worked from the actual plans, enlarged them, printed from a large printer and used the templates to shape the tail true to a B-17. There's one guy who has a large RC B-29 and none of it looks right.
They need to make a model like this of a B36 Peacemaker! Here's a link to the website if anyone want to learn more about this wonderful little machine www.theballybomber.com/
OK , I need a cool 24 pack of beer to take with me before I ever think about flying that thing . Cruse is what about 90 he said . Stall is about what 70 I say .
I wonder if the pilot is aware that the builder detuned the engines by 15hp per? X4 would be like adding another engine in the current configuration. And truth be told, they could probably get even MORE power out of each engine. Just imagine going from 60hp per engine to 100hp per engine
The pilot was aware, the wooden props were the limit on the engine RPMs. Jack also had to add large heavy aluminium dampers on the prop shafts to keep the engine firing pulses from breaking the props. The engine break in RPMs had to be reduced from what the manufacturer recommended because the props were not able to run at high RPMs. It would have been great to be able to get 80 hp from each engine. New props would have been great, but the cost was way out of his budget. We discussed that break in issue a lot and I don't remember how he solved it. Jack had a lot of obstacles to overcome since he was using plans from an RC model to build the plane. There are no plans remaining from the various factories that built the WWII planes. It was fun to sit in the hangar and have a soda with Jack and discuss his progress and the problems he solved over the years. Jack was a great craftsman and he had a great attention to detail. I would have felt safe in anything he built. Most people who saw how well he built a metal plane would be shocked to know that he was a master woodworker.
Here, at least, is a decent video of a take off and flyby: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Uuq8rad3H-M.html It sure looks a little underpowered, but then I heard someone say it weighs 1800 pound empty, wow.
Losing interest in the project because of not posting any flight video. We've heard just about everything that can be said about building the plane. Why the reluctance to show video of it actually taking off, flying, and landing?
Rick Davis..... Not that anyone really cares, nor does it really matter if You lose interest or not, but there Are at least several videos of it flying... and based upon your own words about "losing interest in the project".... says a Lot, meaning you, yourself "probably" don't have the "metal" to even Begin a project of this scope.... let alone the perseverence to "see it through" to completion.
