Aicraft design I made last 2008 showed up with Lockheed Martin!

a reply to: johndeere2020

I orinally designed it as an airliner. But the competition required a Long Range Strategic Bomber so I turned it into a bomber.

Why would a competition ask for something so specific? Me thinks this alone is suspect enough to bring up a few lawyers into the game.

originally posted by: WarriorMH
a reply to: johndeere2020

I orinally designed it as an airliner. But the competition required a Long Range Strategic Bomber so I turned it into a bomber.

Why would a competition ask for something so specific? Me thinks this alone is suspect enough to bring up a few lawyers into the game.

I think the organizers simply wanted something with enough realism.

I would have done the same thing if I was the organizer of the competition not for anything else, I think it adds to the fun and challenge of it.

Not all the contests have military significance (maybe). The previous competition before the long range bomber was for a Boeing 737-sized STOL airliner with enough range to fly nonstop from New York to London. Of course, the longer the range, the more points your design will get!

The organizers will actually test fly the model in the simulator and evaluate its handling, stability, performance, simplicity, and how much it meets or exceeds the requirements. Aesthetics have zero factor in the design (even if I put very ugly paintwork, they won't care!) so the design is evaluated purely by its capabilities.

a reply to: schuyler

And no music, video or publishing house will release any product without proper legal ownership copyright to protect their interests and the owner/Creator.

Required? No... One can self release... Without the legal protection..... But when have you watched a movie... Listened to a c. d. ...without the credits posting ownership/Creator rights?

You haven't... and you won't. Not professionally for distribution internationally... Unless YouTube is your idea of being the same.

Try using STAR WARS, GRAND THEFT AUTO.... maybe the "golden McDonalds arches"...or the word DISNEY... and see what happens...

I'm guessing you have none of afore mentioned legally required for professional releases or distribution items... either copyrighted music, novels or video... Nor patent or registered trademarks... I do.

So with about $11,000 in trademark and copyright attorney's fees since 2013..for Sony Music and Universal... whom we've longstanding sale and distribution contracts worldwide... I must not know what I'm taking about.....

MS

a reply to: Wolfenz

Relax, it was just a post from some random person on the Internet.

I highly doubt someone designing re-entry vehicles thought "I know let's pinch a concept used in a comic book".

I couldn't have responded to your post without reading it, if I did I'd have some remarkable powers at being accurate in terms of context within context I knew nothing about.

I'll call myself bicycle repair man...

A handheld object that's made to deliver kinetic energy in one point will always look remarkably similar, you could over complicate it's design all you want but ideally a hammer will be a hammer.

As for a re-entry vehicle, of course it could take many forms, but since space and weight is a huge issue when you're talking about getting things into space, it stands to reason it's going to be minimalist in design.

Considering aerodynamics was understood when that comic was made, the principles of gravity too, a reasonably intelligent person could come up with designs not unlike what you linked.

I've seen similar looking things used in fishing too, the weights used in sea fishing. Less splash and the weight sinks quicker too.

So what exactly are you arguing?

That concept artists are the innovators of the future?

People always steal their work?

originally posted by: RAY1990
As for a re-entry vehicle, of course it could take many forms, but since space and weight is a huge issue when you're talking about getting things into space, it stands to reason it's going to be minimalist in design.

Considering aerodynamics was understood when that comic was made, the principles of gravity too, a reasonably intelligent person could come up with designs not unlike what you linked.

I think it's wrong to use re-entry vehicles as an example as another poster have previously suggested.

Comparing hypersonic/supersonic design principles to subsonic designs (like my design) is like comparing apples to oranges.

I rarely make designs for supersonic/hypersonic aircraft because it's a different discipline from my perspective and I don't have the proper design tools for it.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: johndeere2020

congrats on your desigin - it looks pretty cool

but reality check :

there are sufficient differences between your design and lockheeds - that any attempt at " they stole my design " would be doomed - UNLESS you can find actual evidence that your schematics were in lockheeds posesion - and used as the start point

because - the crux of the argument is :

" ATS member johndeere2020 designed a conceptual aircraft for a design competition that looks like < this > , lockheed [ with a huge staff of designers ] made a desigin that looks like < that > it has some similarities - but lockheed COULD NOT have made thier design on thier own "

read the above - untill the absurdity of the " they stole my design " claim siinks in

lastly -i dont mean to detract from your design - but one could easily argue that you started with a B2 , stuck A10 engines on it and a c5 // c17 tail

then massaged it - till the computer sim gave you the preformance stats you wanted

I would like to see all the other designs in the competition,if they are all similar to these 2 designs then I doubt that anything was stolen but if all the other designs are radically different from these 2 designs then that`s more than a coincidence that these 2 are similar.

a reply to: johndeere2020

It doesn't matter if you are talking about reentry vehicles, supersonic aircraft, or subsonic aircraft. Form follows function regardless of the speed of the aircraft. When you compare subsonic aircraft, depending on the mission they're designed for, they're going to look similar. Yes, you'll find a few that are quite a bit different (MD-80 family), but you do with other designs too, depending on the mission.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

Yes, you'll find a few that are quite a bit different

Like many of Burt Rutan's and Kelly Johnson's designs which are quite unorthodox and distinguished themselves quite well, broke quite a number of world records.

I think the designer's talents also comes to play here.

a reply to: johndeere2020

I'm talking about planes built for the same role. I'm not talking about comparing Burt Rutan building a plane to fly around the world and a 737. An A320 and a 737 are designed for the same routes, and are very similar.

originally posted by: Tardacus
I would like to see all the other designs in the competition,if they are all similar to these 2 designs then I doubt that anything was stolen but if all the other designs are radically different from these 2 designs then that`s more than a coincidence that these 2 are similar.

This one of the judge's review of my design and he is a VariEze pilot in real life.

Judge review

Built-to-last's BTL-4 has racked up a final score of 6,938,896 with a Suitability score of 79. A very interesting and unique design that flies better than you might think at first. Like all of these designs, high efficiency means fantastic glide ratios. Descents and approaches even at idle power take a long time and considerable attention to get them slow enough.

I don't have time atm to look at each page of this thread but you might be able to see the design of others if you browse all the pages.

Contest page 1

I'm only one of the few engineers who entered the competition. My engineering discipline is not even related to aviation however, I'm already a long-timer in the hobby when I entered and have came to know quite a number of techniques to come up with very efficient designs.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: johndeere2020

I'm talking about planes built for the same role. I'm not talking about comparing Burt Rutan building a plane to fly around the world and a 737. An A320 and a 737 are designed for the same routes, and are very similar.

Burt Rutan also made many designs for General Aviation aircraft in a market niche dominated by Cessna, Beechcraft, Gulfstream, etc.

Again, his designs stood out among the designs of other companies.

a reply to: johndeere2020

And GA has about a hundred different designs, because they have aircraft that are built for everything from travelling 150 miles, to 6,000 plus miles.

If you look at families of designs, such as dedicated cargo aircraft, they're similar. The C-5 and C-17 are both oversize cargo aircraft. They're similar. The C-130 and A400M are tactical airlifters designed to operate from unimproved airfields. They're similar.

Twin aisle aircraft are largely similar. Both the A350 and 787 are designed for super efficient, long range flights. They look remarkably similar. There is no getting around the form follows function rule. Aircraft designed for similar missions, will have similar looks and capabilities.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I dunno zaph. Boeing and airbus products look nothing alike.


**fixes glasses** oh wait yes they do. They look nearly identical. Never mind.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
And GA has about a hundred different designs, because they have aircraft that are built for everything from travelling 150 miles, to 6,000 plus miles.

Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites did turn out prototypes serving **specific types** in GA and they turned out quite different than the competition at the same type.

a reply to: johndeere2020

I love how you avoid the point I'm making by sticking to GA. GA is just that, GENERAL. Burt Rutan is also known for developing oddball designs. Just because ONE designer or company turns out unusual designs, doesn't invalidate my point. Just as you dancing around it with that one designer/company doesn't invalidate my point.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Twin aisle aircraft are largely similar. Both the A350 and 787 are designed for super efficient, long range flights. They look remarkably similar. There is no getting around the form follows function rule. Aircraft designed for similar missions, will have similar looks and capabilities.

The A350 and 787 aren't super efficient designs, in terms of aerodynamics.

The same basic shape has only **marginally** improved in L/D (Lift over Drag ratio which is a measure of aerodynamic efficiency) over the old B-47 bomber where the shape first appeared and first flew last 1947!

I don't ever use those designs anymore in competitions when other, more modern shapes, using more modern research offers far better aerodynamic efficiency.

a reply to: johndeere2020

When compared to other aircraft of the same type, yes they are. When compared to a hybrid wing design, no they aren't. Both are designed to go a long way, with a fairly large number of passengers, as efficiently as possible for a tube designed aircraft.

You just aren't going to admit that form follows function are you?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Obviously he's not going to, and consequently I'm not even going to bother digging through secretprojects.co.uk to find all the times designs way closer to whatever he's on about matching his have been proposed YEARS before his anyway...

Bottom line is what he designed is cool and very nicely optimized for the role in question, but what it's most definitely not is new, revolutionary, or worth stealing when the company he's talking about had access to better designs even earlier.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
You just aren't going to admit that form follows function are you?

I'm not disagreeing with you over the "form follows function" rule.

I simply don't think it is being followed in practice. Because even the basic "tube" design can be improved a lot. I know because I did a "tube" design concept for a previous airliner competition that is up 50% more efficient than the 787.

If you did quite a bit of research into many aircraft types since WW2, you'll realize, the aviation industry is not very friendly to "radical designs" even if it is better or promises huge potential.

Aircraft customers (gov't or civilian) tend to avoid risks dealing with unorthodox designs, particarly dealing with problems never before encountered in more conventional designs that may be more costly to fix.