Really weird aerospace patents

hesham said:
A strange patent to B. G. Carlson.
Click to expand...

The 'Des' for Design in the patent number is a tip-off.

This is a purely notional design to illustrate potential installation options for a range of aircraft engines (made using die-casting) then being designed by Bert G. Carlson's employer - Jack & Heintz, Inc. (aka JAHCO).

AFAIK, there is no online copy of patent Des. 145,880. However, 'Sheet 1' (the sideview of your top view) is attached.

BTW, B. G. Carlson (of Erieside and later Willowbee, OH) seems mainly to have been interested in control systems, autopilots, etc. He filed multiple patents for Sperry Gyroscope Company, Inc.; The Weatherhead Company; and Jack & Heintz, Inc.; etc.
 

Attachments

  • BG-Carlson-JAHCO-notion.jpg
    BG-Carlson-JAHCO-notion.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 47
Thank you my dear Apophenia,

and who can ID this ?.
 

Attachments

  • 34.png
    34.png
    69.4 KB · Views: 26
Hi klem,

klem said:
William A. Wolleat -Mono-wing airplane 1957-USD185821
Click to expand...

From the phrase "ornamental design" in the text, I'd conclude that this is a design patent (too). Apohenia just pointed this out earlier in the thread:

Apophenia said:
The 'Des' for Design in the patent number is a tip-off.

This is a purely notional design to illustrate potential installation options for a range of aircraft engines (made using die-casting) then being designed by Bert G. Carlson's employer - Jack & Heintz, Inc. (aka JAHCO).
Click to expand...

As design patents seem to be a regular of "really weird" stuff, I'm wondering what the deal with them was ... I believe they only patented the non-functional ("ornamental", as per the patent you quoted) aspects of a design. Why did it make sense to have that patented?

There must have been some kind of expected pay-off, but what would that have been?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
HoHun said:
... I believe they only patented the non-functional ("ornamental", as per the patent you quoted) aspects of a design. Why did it make sense to have that patented?

There must have been some kind of expected pay-off, but what would that have been?
Click to expand...

Henning: I have a feeling that this has mainly to do with corporate valuations. A company's value is partially determined by the number of patents held in its name. Of course, 'design' patents will add little or no value for industry peers. However, 'merger and acquisition' type investors with no background in aviation may be less discerning.

A closer look might also reveal how many attributions there are within other patent applications. Serious patent applicants will still attribute superficially-similar 'design' patents. This may all sound dodgy but filing 'design' patents is done even by industry giants.
 
hesham said:
A weird one,from E.F. Zaparka,


by the way,there's a designer of WWI called E. Zaparka
Click to expand...

Well, the give-away is assignee Zap Development Corp. Edward F. Zaparka (of NYC, later Baltimore, MD) was, of course, the inventor and namesake of the Zap flap. Zaparka was also interested in Flettner cylinders rotating to generate lift using the Magnus effect.

Your WWI inventor was Austro-Hungarian Oberleutnant Eduard Zaparka.
 
Hi,

Apophenia said:
Well, the give-away is assignee Zap Development Corp. Edward F. Zaparka (of NYC, later Baltimore, MD) was, of course, the inventor and namesake of the Zap flap. Zaparka was also interested in Flettner cylinders rotating to generate lift using the Magnus effect.

Your WWI inventor was Austro-Hungarian Oberleutnant Eduard Zaparka.
Click to expand...

Well, an Austrian Eduard emigrating to the US could be expected to anglicize his name to Edward, so without additional information, I'd not rule out this was the same guy based on his Christian name alone.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
HoHun said:
... an Austrian Eduard emigrating to the US could be expected to anglicize his name to Edward, so without additional information, I'd not rule out this was the same guy based on his Christian name alone...
Click to expand...

Quite true, Henning. And, after the mid-1920s, there seems to be no online trace of Eduard in Vienna.
 
From Aerp Digest 1937,

Mr. Hugh J. Knerr.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    195.7 KB · Views: 11
Pinterest is the most annoying website if you want to find out which objects are shown in images posted there.
- No source
- No attribution
- No description
Having said that, it looks like a Blackburn Beverley - but it isn't.
It might show a scheme to load/unload cargo with a removable cargo hold floor. However, with the usual lack of supporting text typical for pinterest, very difficult to tell.

I find this most vexing.
 
Arjen said:
Pinterest is the most annoying website if you want to find out which objects are shown in images posted there.
- No source
- No attribution
- No description
Having said that, it looks like a Blackburn Beverley - but it isn't.
It might show a scheme to load/unload cargo with a removable cargo hold floor. However, with the usual lack of supporting text typical for pinterest, very difficult to tell.

I find this most vexing.
Click to expand...
There is something even more disgusting: they charge to publish my drawings without my consent or my participation in the business. They are the herpes of the internet.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/555350197783460937/
View: https://es.pinterest.com/pin/555350197783460937/
 
Arjen said:
It might show a scheme to load/unload cargo with a removable cargo hold floor.
Click to expand...
Wheel a container up to the back of the plane and clip it in perhaps—steel containers also serve as a spine so the plane itself can be very lightly built?
 
You would probably want to be able to fly it without the container in place. Rigidity would have to be achieved without using a fixed cargo hold as a structural member. In the end, like a rag top car versus a hard top car, the vehicle with the flexible layout would need to be heavier all-in to achieve the same resistance to bending. Or even breaking.
 
Or an empty container. It has its own floor.
The only time you would have no container is if the craft were disassembled for maintenance.

Cargo aircraft get a lot of abuse—so I wonder if containers could somehow take the abuse themselves. Slide a new one in place and keep flying.

Probably a daft idea…

If wheels were clipped to the container, the airframe will never have punch-throughs it that the whole top of the container is what the airframe “feels”—nice and flat…less hot spots.
 
Fly it with an empty container, and the aircraft would most likely be heavier than an empty conventional aircraft, if only because of the mounting points for the removable part. A structure with drop-out parts can be made to be as rigid as a fixed structure, but this usually adds weight. See rag top vs hard top.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom