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.
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.
''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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here, at least, is a decent video of a take off and flyby: ruclips.net/video/Uuq8rad3H-M/видео.html It sure looks a little underpowered, but then I heard someone say it weighs 1800 pound empty, wow.
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!!”
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.
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.
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
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
Ive been watching the progress on this plane for many years now. Fantastic to see it done and made out to Oshkosh!
In fine !!
A man who understood that he could sit in his handmade model , in order to build a big big big RC model !!
Congratulations 👏👏👏👏👏👏 👍
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.
@@rev.andyh.1082 Someone doesn't every year?
A mini B17? Hell yeah! I remember thinking: why dont people make mini flyable versions of large planes? Its good to see that thought became reality :D
Rest in peace, Jack. Thanks for building an awesome 1/3 scaled B-17.
One word kept coming up again and again. Beer.
there is no good story that starts with a glass of water!
i know it is pretty off topic but does anybody know a good website to stream newly released tv shows online ?
@Max Jacoby I use Flixzone. Just google for it =)
@Daniel Julius Yup, have been watching on flixzone for since march myself :)
@Daniel Julius Thank you, I signed up and it seems to work :D I really appreciate it!
Whaaaaaa? No flight footage?
Still... pretty damn cool.
RegressMeNot www.theballybomber.com/videos.html
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.
Yeah, I've been following this build, hopefully someday somebody will catch it flying on video
ruclips.net/video/Uuq8rad3H-M/видео.html this is one of him taking off
thanks pretty kool vids
Been flying for some time how. And not much flight footage. Boo
''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.
What would possess anybody to give this a thumbs down ?? the craftsmanship and their hearts they put into this it is fantastic good on you boys
Well I thought I was FINALLY gonna get to see it fly. 😔
Chad Cole ruclips.net/video/Uuq8rad3H-M/видео.html
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/
Can't find a video of it running, taxing or flying?
Less talk more flying 😂😂😂😂😂✈️✈️
The idea for building this had to be the result of drinking a lot of brews.
Thanks for sharing this.
Truly a homebuilding pioneer. Very nice. Now...how about in cockpit and ground to air flying footage?
R/C models are approaching that size!
So cool .....
Ha that's funny "only 17 years to build"
Yes, and a B29 had taken 29 years?
The builder of my Varieze took 17 years to build it :-)
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.
@@fez3327 -
One was FINISHED every 40 minutes.
They took weeks to actually BUILD.
@@cavelamb Yes I eluded to that... It took me 10 years to build a 17' sailboat. I understand both sides to the coin.
One of these days there should be a video of this bird flying...
Nicely Done Chaps
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.
Could someone please tell me if there is footage of it flying please 🙏🏻
The museum in Urbana Ohio is building a full scale B-17 piece by piece. They have all the original blueprints.
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.
At first I thought it was an RC plain ??? Nope. Would love to see it fly. Wow
That's a lot of engineering and a lot of metal work! Beautiful!
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.
Here, at least, is a decent video of a take off and flyby: ruclips.net/video/Uuq8rad3H-M/видео.html
It sure looks a little underpowered, but then I heard someone say it weighs 1800 pound empty, wow.
That's amazing. Can we have some footage of it flying please?
Yeah , where is the flight footage. This plane is amazing, well , let's see it fly!
now make a bf109 and a p51 add guns to it and see which plane survives a gunfight xD
Pilot looks and sounds like them dudes who stand in the Home Depot parking lot
Best display at Oshkosh!
How many beers is 40,000 man hours? Oh, so that's what he did with the empties. Props to recycling.
Dr Evil would have put lasers on the fricken Mini B17.
I've seen at least 4 videos of this plane but not a single one flying. Starting to not believe.
It flew from Dixon, Il to Oshkosh.
Ok why is there no flying footage of this plane on youtube. Or at least quality footage.
Check out ruclips.net/video/c4HSlr33JQw/видео.html to see it flying!
I love this. Great great story teller!
It would get old telling the same story over and over again.
Talk, talk, talk ... no flight. Thumb DOWN.
wow, totally cool
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!!”
So amazing! Saw it in person yesterday.
Would be nice to see it fly😊
Would be nice to see 4 radial engines installed instead of the 4 Hirth Engines. Might even cruise at 100+ mph vice 90 mph. More power = more speed.
A bit awkward at the end and no flying shots... I wondered if this guy ever finished this project...
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.
"it will defeat gravity" :-)
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.
You're really going to compare a four foot model to this one third scale plane?
@@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.
@@riproar11 There are no original complete B-17 plans left. Jack used the plans from an RC plane and scaled them up.
This was amazing. Wish there was a video of this plane in flight.
ruclips.net/video/Uuq8rad3H-M/видео.html
I watched all that so I can see it fly and nobody did... Bummer... Still nice set up, can you post a in flight video?
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
“You got about 50 hours on it”
“Fifty TWO hours”
Whoa now we got an ace here
When was the last time u flew an f-27?
That's some bad ass shit right there! Anybody know where there's some footage of it flying??
These small scale planes must be confusing for other pilots. Objects in air may be closer than they appear!
What! 1st I've heard about this thing... so cool! I need more of it! Very cool
....whole lot of folks standings around doing nothing...does it fly?? Let's see that.
The only difference between men and boys are the price of the toys.
Only 17 years! Lol
I wonder if they would up the revs on the engines a little it would take that wing wag out of the plane?
Only 17 years guys
amazing ! Cockpit looks kinda wrong but what a feat to build/fly anyway!:-)
endwood, think they had to do it for visibility. I thought that too, but I got to thinking about a scale windshield. it would be very poor vis.
Yr probably correct there Nick:-)
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 :)
Nice killer machine
Would love to see it with more power
I'd build all the great fighters and a dornier and lancaster
Oshkosh failure to not show this plane flying.
Amazing impressive
Reminds me of a "The Astronaut Farmer"....
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 .
Stall is 50, he said he lands at 70.
RIP JACK.
More plane..... less talk!
4 "dislike"s so far...wtf is there not to like??!
Andork Kuomo probably the fact that that bird just sat on the ground as we listened to some dude blabber on.
Well it wouldn't be much of a news report if they just stood there, showed pictures and said nothing, lol!
yak, yak, yak. yak & nothing else. Waste of time
Ah u don't show it flying ,,,,,,,lame
More in flight footage please!!! 😎
would love to see some flight footage as as well.
Excellent build
Sounds like they need more powerful engines
Look forward to a B17 kit soon.
Stall speed?
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.
@@JoystickTX1 I fit into those "most people" category. Regardless of his previous occupation, his work was absolutely amazing. ☺️👍👍👍
Just to be clear, the pilot lies down to fly? or does he sit up in the cockpit? Either way it's a tight fit!
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.
She’s got some of the sexiest nose art I’ve ever seen.
Amazing. I want a B-29. Lol
Naa it doesn't fly!
Hell yeah
Yup less talk more show
Now someone's gotta make a 1:1
It is beautiful
I thought it was a RC..
Very interesting
Dam ,
Very nice!!!
neat plane, but it barely flys :(
Is it RC or real?
Why🤔
FINALLY!
He has a website for it with videos of it flying
That's good news for all these folks (me included) who wanted to see some video of him actually flying it.
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.
Not quite an accurate scaling, but close enough. Good job!
Ur mom is scared of an accurate scale 😂🤣🤣