Pseudo-aircraft designer William W. Christmas

bjornart · 18th December 2010, 02:29 AM

From the annals of history (via Lore Sjöberg) I bring you the Christmas Bullet, an aircraft designed by a pseudo-designer:

Quote:

The second prototype was also destroyed on its first flight, again with the loss of the test pilot

From wikipedia: Christmas Bullet

Selling pseudo-science to the military, has it always been a career worth pursuing?

Puppycow · 18th December 2010, 03:44 PM

Just looking at it I thought, those wings don't look strong enough at all. Sure enough:

Quote:

On its maiden flight in January 1919, the wings of the "Bullet" peeled from the fuselage and the aircraft crashed[2], killing the pilot, Cuthbert Mills.[3]

Was the second pilot told what happened to the first pilot? Why didn't he tell "Dr." Christmas to test his "invention" himself.

Why didn't "Dr." Christmas go to jail?

ETA:

Quote:

The destruction of the prototype Liberty engine was never revealed to the US Army and a second Bullet was built powered by an Hall-Scott L-6 engine.[2] The second prototype was also destroyed on its first flight, again with the loss of the test pilot, Lt. Allington Joyce Jolly.

That sure sounds like a crime to me.

bjornart · 19th December 2010, 01:06 PM

I expect he got away with it because early aviation was so dangerous having two prototypes crash wasn't completely out of the ordinary. We can look back and say it was nuts, but that wouldn't have been obvious to as many people back then.

geni · 19th December 2010, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Just looking at it I thought, those wings don't look strong enough at all. Sure enough:

Worse than that. Those wings don't even fit properly. Since Christmas never produced any real designs the people building it were left trying too make things up as they went along (Vincent Burnelli had them building some proper wings but they were not finished in time).

Quote:

Was the second pilot told what happened to the first pilot? Why didn't he tell "Dr." Christmas to test his "invention" himself.

1919. There were a fair number of employed pilots about. In fact the first and second pilots offered the job refused to fly it. Christmas did not in any case know how to fly.

R.Mackey · 19th December 2010, 10:11 PM

His "work" is featured in an entertaining book called The World's Worst Aircraft.

A lot of crap gets sold to the military, even today... but this particular guy led an absolutely charmed life. I can't imagine anything this flagrant surviving a modern procurement process, even accounting for the novelty of aviation at the time.

EHocking · 20th December 2010, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

His "work" is featured in an entertaining book called The World's Worst Aircraft.

A lot of crap gets sold to the military, even today... but this particular guy led an absolutely charmed life. I can't imagine anything this flagrant surviving a modern procurement process, even accounting for the novelty of aviation at the time.

You didn't reckon on the British MoD then.
Defence Review: a £10.5 billion bill for planes that can’t fly in a war zone

paiute · 20th December 2010, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by bjornart

I expect he got away with it because early aviation was so dangerous having two prototypes crash wasn't completely out of the ordinary. We can look back and say it was nuts, but that wouldn't have been obvious to as many people back then.

Love this bit of optimism:
Performance

* Maximum speed: 175 (anticipated) mph (282 km/h)
* Range: 550 miles (885 km)
* Service ceiling: 14,700 ft (4,481 m)

Based on what, exactly?

And remember that aircraft design was a crapshoot in those days. Jimmy Doolittle earned the first PhD in aeronautics from MIT in 1925.

ApolloGnomon · 20th December 2010, 12:44 PM

That thing just LOOKS like the wing will fall off. And the body is horrible. My kids make more convincing aircraft out of cardboard boxes.

geni · 20th December 2010, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

His "work" is featured in an entertaining book called The World's Worst Aircraft.

At least two such books. I think it says something about a plane when the wikipedia article on it cites too different books on the world's worst aircraft.

R.Mackey · 20th December 2010, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by geni

At least two such books. I think it says something about a plane when the wikipedia article on it cites too different books on the world's worst aircraft.

It's not hard to see why. My book is the one by Bill Yenne -- it's a light bit of illustrated coffee-table reading, but entertaining.

Originally Posted by EHocking

You didn't reckon on the British MoD then.
Defence Review: a £10.5 billion bill for planes that can’t fly in a war zone

It does still get rather bad -- I work in aerospace, often with defense -- but at the risk of debating superlatives, they attempted to fly this particular "aircraft" twice, both times it crashed immediately, both pilots were killed. Hard to do much worse than that.

TjW · 21st December 2010, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

That thing just LOOKS like the wing will fall off.

It's interesting that Vincent Burnelli was associated with it in any capacity at all. I usually associate that name with the "lifting fuselage" idea.

EHocking · 22nd December 2010, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

It does still get rather bad -- I work in aerospace, often with defense -- but at the risk of debating superlatives, they attempted to fly this particular "aircraft" twice, both times it crashed immediately, both pilots were killed. Hard to do much worse than that.

Sort of went with the territory being a test pilots though, didn't it?

According to Wiki, "In the 1950s, test pilots were being killed at the rate of about one a week,..."

Come to think of it, the injury/fatality rate was probably quite high for any of the early technology pioneers.

geni · 22nd December 2010, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by TjW

It's interesting that Vincent Burnelli was associated with it in any capacity at all. I usually associate that name with the "lifting fuselage" idea.

He was more flying wing. Burnelli was probably involved as an employee of the Continental Aircraft Company (which had previously managed to build one plane which while outdated did fly). He actualy had the company building a proper set of wings for the Christmas Bullet but unfortunately they were not finished in time.

18th December 2010, 02:29 AM	#1
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,398	Pseudo-aircraft designer William W. Christmas From the annals of history (via Lore Sjöberg) I bring you the Christmas Bullet, an aircraft designed by a pseudo-designer: Quote: The second prototype was also destroyed on its first flight, again with the loss of the test pilot From wikipedia: Christmas Bullet Selling pseudo-science to the military, has it always been a career worth pursuing?
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,398	__________________ Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS! -Cecil Adams

18th December 2010, 03:44 PM	#2
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,792	Just looking at it I thought, those wings don't look strong enough at all. Sure enough: Quote: On its maiden flight in January 1919, the wings of the "Bullet" peeled from the fuselage and the aircraft crashed[2], killing the pilot, Cuthbert Mills.[3] Was the second pilot told what happened to the first pilot? Why didn't he tell "Dr." Christmas to test his "invention" himself. Why didn't "Dr." Christmas go to jail? ETA: Quote: The destruction of the prototype Liberty engine was never revealed to the US Army and a second Bullet was built powered by an Hall-Scott L-6 engine.[2] The second prototype was also destroyed on its first flight, again with the loss of the test pilot, Lt. Allington Joyce Jolly. That sure sounds like a crime to me.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22 Last edited by Puppycow; 18th December 2010 at 03:46 PM.

19th December 2010, 01:06 PM	#3
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,398	I expect he got away with it because early aviation was so dangerous having two prototypes crash wasn't completely out of the ordinary. We can look back and say it was nuts, but that wouldn't have been obvious to as many people back then.
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,398	__________________ Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS! -Cecil Adams

19th December 2010, 10:11 PM	#5
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	His "work" is featured in an entertaining book called The World's Worst Aircraft. A lot of crap gets sold to the military, even today... but this particular guy led an absolutely charmed life. I can't imagine anything this flagrant surviving a modern procurement process, even accounting for the novelty of aviation at the time.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

20th December 2010, 09:47 AM	#6
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by R.Mackey His "work" is featured in an entertaining book called The World's Worst Aircraft. A lot of crap gets sold to the military, even today... but this particular guy led an absolutely charmed life. I can't imagine anything this flagrant surviving a modern procurement process, even accounting for the novelty of aviation at the time. You didn't reckon on the British MoD then. Defence Review: a £10.5 billion bill for planes that can’t fly in a war zone
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

19th December 2010, 01:34 PM	#4
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,583	Originally Posted by Puppycow Just looking at it I thought, those wings don't look strong enough at all. Sure enough: Worse than that. Those wings don't even fit properly. Since Christmas never produced any real designs the people building it were left trying too make things up as they went along (Vincent Burnelli had them building some proper wings but they were not finished in time). Quote: Was the second pilot told what happened to the first pilot? Why didn't he tell "Dr." Christmas to test his "invention" himself. 1919. There were a fair number of employed pilots about. In fact the first and second pilots offered the job refused to fly it. Christmas did not in any case know how to fly.

20th December 2010, 09:57 AM	#7
paiute Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Smack in the middle of a de Broglie wavelength. Posts: 1,140	Originally Posted by bjornart I expect he got away with it because early aviation was so dangerous having two prototypes crash wasn't completely out of the ordinary. We can look back and say it was nuts, but that wouldn't have been obvious to as many people back then. Love this bit of optimism: Performance * Maximum speed: 175 (anticipated) mph (282 km/h) * Range: 550 miles (885 km) * Service ceiling: 14,700 ft (4,481 m) Based on what, exactly? And remember that aircraft design was a crapshoot in those days. Jimmy Doolittle earned the first PhD in aeronautics from MIT in 1925.
	__________________ A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong? Now free for download! http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine

20th December 2010, 12:44 PM	#8
ApolloGnomon Aluminum Tripod Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Time Zone Zed Zed Plural Zed Alpha Posts: 1,908	That thing just LOOKS like the wing will fall off. And the body is horrible. My kids make more convincing aircraft out of cardboard boxes.

20th December 2010, 03:59 PM	#9
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,583	Originally Posted by R.Mackey His "work" is featured in an entertaining book called The World's Worst Aircraft. At least two such books. I think it says something about a plane when the wikipedia article on it cites too different books on the world's worst aircraft.
	Last edited by geni; 20th December 2010 at 04:03 PM.

20th December 2010, 06:15 PM	#10
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by geni At least two such books. I think it says something about a plane when the wikipedia article on it cites too different books on the world's worst aircraft. It's not hard to see why. My book is the one by Bill Yenne -- it's a light bit of illustrated coffee-table reading, but entertaining. Originally Posted by EHocking You didn't reckon on the British MoD then. Defence Review: a £10.5 billion bill for planes that can’t fly in a war zone It does still get rather bad -- I work in aerospace, often with defense -- but at the risk of debating superlatives, they attempted to fly this particular "aircraft" twice, both times it crashed immediately, both pilots were killed. Hard to do much worse than that.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

21st December 2010, 07:06 PM	#11
TjW Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: up in the air Posts: 10,004	Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon That thing just LOOKS like the wing will fall off. It's interesting that Vincent Burnelli was associated with it in any capacity at all. I usually associate that name with the "lifting fuselage" idea.
	__________________ TjW People like TjW -- Kelly

22nd December 2010, 05:35 AM	#12
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by R.Mackey It does still get rather bad -- I work in aerospace, often with defense -- but at the risk of debating superlatives, they attempted to fly this particular "aircraft" twice, both times it crashed immediately, both pilots were killed. Hard to do much worse than that. Sort of went with the territory being a test pilots though, didn't it? According to Wiki, "In the 1950s, test pilots were being killed at the rate of about one a week,..." Come to think of it, the injury/fatality rate was probably quite high for any of the early technology pioneers.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

22nd December 2010, 02:54 PM	#13
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,583	Originally Posted by TjW It's interesting that Vincent Burnelli was associated with it in any capacity at all. I usually associate that name with the "lifting fuselage" idea. He was more flying wing. Burnelli was probably involved as an employee of the Continental Aircraft Company (which had previously managed to build one plane which while outdated did fly). He actualy had the company building a proper set of wings for the Christmas Bullet but unfortunately they were not finished in time.