JackMcCornack

Excellent points, LouDiamond. As someone who would be using this for real world operations, I can't claim any experience that would make me disagree. I don't know why there was a DARPA grant available and I don't know why it didn't mention the 100 lb ruck sack. As far as egress, we haven't explored the full range of techniques, but put out a drogue chute, drop the nose, and go over the front has top marks so far--the over-the-side technique was explored in the search for what would look coolest on film. I'm happy enough making this sort of things for the movie industry; Ike warned me when I was 8 that the "military industrial complex" was going to be trouble. As far as the fuster cluck aspects of getting a crowd of Switchblades out of a tailgate transport plane; I'd say it depends on the plane(s) and the number of Switchblades. I think 2 is max out of a Skyvan, which is my only experience, but pushing two stunt performers out of a (parked) Chinook only used up about a third of the floor space. 'Course, no rucksacks and no real time pressure. "Danger is my middle name." --J. D. McCornack

said Mike: >t: As a covert insertion tool, I could see where it would be very useful, >but I'm just wondering how covert it would be. Duno how useful in real life. Radar-wise, it's not any stealthier than a guy in a birdman suit--just faster and longer range. With power it's less stealthy than that. >I mean, you wouldn't want to just drop it on their heads :-) Depends on who "they" are. >and they are large enough that hiding them might be difficult. Considering how hard the prototype was to find when nobody was hiding it, I don't think it would be much of a problem. With the wings folded in, it's roughly the size of a surfboard; throw a couple bushes on it and it's gone. Which reminds me; in the flight test pictures on the web site were from flight #2, where we added a bunch of surface area to the tip draggers (big rectangles riveted to the triangular drag brakes) in an effort to give directional control during deep stall, and one side's painted orange so we could see what the pilot was doing with them when we reviewed the videos. In operation, I presume folks would paint the whole Switchblade the color of the destination, plus camo blotches. Also, they don't need round parachutes. With a square canopy, a GPS or radio, and two servo-controlled string winders, there's no reason they shouldn't come down under canopy after the pilots have gone, and land on target via RC, homing to a transmitter, or global position coordinates. Heck, they could carry the ammo and hershey bars. Double-heck, you could send unmanned Switchblades out to resupply the team. They probably wouldn't land in the pea gravel without adult supervision (altitude is one area GPS is a bit weak), but the necessary hardware is available off-the-shelf to get 'em within 50-100 yards/meters of where you want them. But I dunno what we're going to do with them. We've had no military interest (a cynic suggested we're not bribing the right generals) despite there being a DARPA request for a "single soldier transport" yadda yadda. The money went to somewhat silly ideas (in my opinion; not quite "...and then the parachute will open on impact..." but close) and Switchblades have the limitation of requiring paratroopers, but hey, it sure seems to me there would be circumstances they'd be just the ticket. "Danger is my middle name." --J. D. McCornack

...and Quade, and AggieDave etc, As a glider, its ability to fly somewhere else after the pilot becomes a parachutist is limited. At a conservative (and easy to do the math with) fivish to one L/D gives a range of one statute mile per thousand feet descent (use sixish for nautical miles). With supplementary oxygen, leave the transport aircraft at 30,000 feet, range is 25 miles with confidence over low terrain -- but not much altitude left for it to fly away home. A slicker design (yeah, we have the molds built but have't jumped a prototype -- it takes money to do this stuff and we need a motive; preferably an interested client) could boost the range to 50+ miles, but once the pilot's gone there's a big air-grabbing hole in the top and L/D goes to hell again. And if you were a covert ops guy, wouldn't you rather have longer range than fly-home-and-reuse capability? In what I'd imagine a genuine covert insertion would be like, these are Bic aircraft; use and discard. Power will bring range up to 100 miles (somewhat more with external fuel tanks) but not particularly stealthy. As to noise in glide, even our crude prototype was inaudible from a mile away (except for the crunch into the desert part of the procedure) in its uncanopied/uncontrolled flight -- its last, as you might well guess. Best dismount seemed to be: deploy the pilot chute of the Switchblade, pilot chute attached to the tail, Switchblade slows, nose drops, pilot goes over the handlbars and does his own thing, six seconds later the Switchblade main opens. Hold the Switchblade in a stall (squish both brake levers), release, pilot rolls off the side of the Switchblade (over/forward of wing) with Switchblade pilot chute ripcord in hand, Switchblade deploys its pilot chute and six seconds later the main; that worked well too. Pilot leaving the Switchblade at high speed without starting the timer, well, that worked allright but it's hard on the equipment. "Danger is my middle name." --J. D. McCornack

Mike, your private message did not get to me; I'm brand new to this list and there was some sort of newby glitch. Please resend...or tell me how to get in touch with you off-list. Recovery is a round reserve canopy on a timer, which usually works. We've only flown one into the desert without benefit of canopy (the pilot was busy doing other things and didn't start the timer when he and the machine parted ways); the Switchblade has considerably more parasite drag without a pilot on board (the notches for arms, legs and torso are exposed to the breeze) but it still tracked in straight as a die and a 5/1 L/D as best as we could measure against the horizon. Anyway, if they

Thanks for the "Cool toy! I want one!" comment. Frankly, it's not the coolest toy in the Kinetic toys-with-caopies quiver. Does anybody here know how I could contact the Austin Powers producers? I've heard they're going for yet another film in that franchise and we've got something the Bond folks consider a bit over the top--which sounds perfect for Austin Powers, right? Oh yeah, re the Switchblade construction: the first flying prototype was not all-metal, it was aluminum frame and fiberglass/epoxy/foam skin accessories and sub-structures. It looked like aluminum because, rather than smooth the fiberglass and paint it, we covered it with silver sign vinyl--quick, easy, and probably worth an L/D point versus leaving the surface fuzzy. The next four flying models were carbon/epoxy but EON wanted them to look like the prototype they'd seen in the video, so they painted them to match. "Danger is my middle name." --J. D. McCornack

Can I tell you how much was practical footage and how much was CGI/bluescreen? Actually, that's one thing specified by our contract: I can't. And since I'm hoping (with two under my belt so far) to do another Bond someday, I'll stick to the letter of the contract. That said, Michael G. Wilson, the producer, had no such restrictions, and on the DAD DVD there's a Director's/Producer's commentary track where he comes right out and tells you. There are certainly parts of that sequence (and the sequence is really quite brief) that look pretty darn suspicious. We did offer them a chase plane (a slicker/powered version of what you saw on the screen) but that didn't fit the budget, and it seems unlikely they could get formation flight close-ups without a throttleable camera plane. And when they bail and one of the abandoned Switchblades heads right for the camera--well did they use CGI, or did they kill a cameraman? But the part I've read here that seemed unrealistic to somebody--the part where they go out the tailgate, pop the wings out, pitch up, and reverse their heading? Hey, I've got a video of Allan Hewitt doing that very thing on a launch at Eloy, and it looks cool! If the movie footage was CGI (go ahead and beat me; I'll never confess) it was done by computer artists that had pored over actual flight footage. Jack PS--L/D roughly 6/1. I know there are canopies that do better than that, but not at 200 mph. PPS--Could one land it? If I were in a burning Skyvan and there was a Switchblade on board but no parachutes, I would sure as hell give it a shot. The trick would be to line up on an open section of freeway with medium-fast pitch trim, sweep the wings full forward at around 100 feet, and use both brakes to rotate/flare; touchdown speed about 110. On contact I think I'd sweep the wings back and hope the fins would keep it sliding straight, but let's get real; it'd be my first flight and I'd not be all that likely to get the glide flattened out +- 15 feet of the tarmac. Still, it's possible that a properly performed Switchblade landing would be no worse than falling off your Hayabusa at about 12,000 RPM in third gear. "Danger is my middle name." --J. D. McCornack

Re yaw stability: your deduction is correct; as test flown and as delivered to EON they will return to a heading after they've been disturbed from it, but from a technical/operational standpoint it's trivial--a small rudder with an RC servo and a GPS driver. If we were going to provide these for covert insertions (instead of playing let's-pretend for the movie folks) we probably wouldn't bother switching the heading holder off. The tip draggers are lots more powerful than the rudder, if the pilot needs to maneuver, just do it; when done, let go of the brakes and it'll find its way back on track. Re stability in general: thanks for the complement regarding the difficulty. This was the first aircraft I ever designed (or built) where I wasn't qualified to do the test flying, and we had one big question that only test flying would answer: when the pilot left the Switchblade, and the wing loading dropped by 75%, would it pitch up and smite him? So we made the test mule rock steady and stable in stall as well as flight, to let Alan have the best shot at getting free of it. Frankly, making it fly was never a concern (for me it wasn't, though the film folks had every right to wonder). The concern was; how good a jump platform can we make a 70 pound airplane the size of a sportbike? Jack "Danger is my middle name." --J. D. McCornack

Interesting discussion; sorry I'm two years late on discovering it. I'm kindsa new to the guilty pleasures of the Internet; did an ego-trip Google of my own name and this forum came up. Anyway, it was great to see such interest in the Switchblade, and if anybody interested, I'll be happy to give complete (as much as our contract with the Bond people allows) feedback to all the questions raised on this string. So...let me know. Jack "Stop me before I design again" McCornack "Danger is my middle name." --J. D. McCornack