Talk:The Spirit of Butts' Farm

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

FUEL and TANK?

Fueltank: ~32 oz (0.9 liters = 900ml) ? According to the german article, the aircraft has been flying for 38.5 hrs, a start weight of 5,00 kg and a empty weight of 2,65 kg. After landing, 55 cm³ of fuel remained in the tank (55 ml = 0.055 l) while using 70,225 cm³/h (57 g/h). Now lets do the math: 38,5 hours with a consumption of 70,225 cm³/h is 2703.6625 cm³ which is 2.7036625 l (0.714232072 US gal or 91.4217052 US fluid ounces). According to the fuel weight (70,225 cm³ = 57 g) that has been 2194.5 g. Compared to take-off weight and empty weight of the aircraft, a fuel consumption of less than 3 litres for 38.5 hrs of operation is more realistic but however still a fantastic and stunning for such a long distance. -- 80.219.153.231 (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also have a look to to: http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/L4E_atlantic_crossing_II.htm#Technical -- 80.219.153.231 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Say what?

The aircraft was a hybrid. The electric motor was only used during cruising, above 10,000 feet.

Say what? A hybrid what?

The plane didn't have an electric motor at all (beyond what's in it's servos and such), and it didn't fly at over 10K feet at all -- I think the highest it ever flew was 800 feet.

I'm going to remove this sentence, as it's obviously completely wrong.

dougmc 22:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TAM5CD - 30 April 2011.

I agree that the aircraft was NOT a hybrid. However, the TAM aircraft did contain a motor in addition to the motors in the servos. It was a three-phase motor used as an alternator. This generated the electricity needed to operate the electronics, ignition system, and the lights. The engine was modified by adding a power take-off shaft aligned with the crankshaft. This shaft passed through a hole drilled in the crankcase backplate. A short flexible tubing connected the power take-off to the alternator.

The table in the current posting contains a few errors, but I'm reluctant to correct them since corrections I submitted earlier were removed.

I assert three entries in the table are incorrect as discussed below.

1) Start time: "chosen for light winds at launch site" Actually, Maynard Hill consulted with Nelson Sherren who regularly provided 48 hour weather forecasts. The real criterion was whether favorable tailwinds were expected during the flight.

2) Tweak: "Smaller valves in engine" The valves in the engine were standard valves. However, the valve springs were modified by removing approximately one turn.

3) Cruising speed: 50 MPH The cruising speed, based on tests of the aircraft before its launch across the Atlantic, was closer to 45 MPH.

How do I know these things? I was very much involved in the TAM project for about five years, from its inception to the preparation of the dossiers (applications) for records. I signed both dossiers. During most of the extensive flight testing of prototype aircraft (eventually 29 were built), I ran the laptop computer used to record flight data and did the computer analysis after each flight. Similarly, I ran the telemetry data collection for all five record-attempt launches. I served as Contest Director for TAM-4 and TAM-5.

Recently, I spoke with Maynard Hill who authorized me to provide the answers given above. I tape recorded our conversation.

I like the idea of Wikipedia and have given some financial support for the program. However, I'm puzzled that statements by people actually involved in a project are removed and replaced with erroneous entries. The "chosen for light winds at launch site" statement did not come from any of us actually involved in the launch; where did it come from? Similarly, the Tweak seems to have come from someone's imagination.

Wikipedia policy seems to be that "verifiability" is more important than accuracy. Just because something has been published doesn't mean it's true. I saw a published report that asserted Butts' Farm was near Cape Spear! Butts' Farm is actually in Montgomery County, Maryland. Another report stated Maynard Hill monitored the trans-Atlantic flight from his home in Maryland, using a special telephone. He was in Newfoundland during all five flights.

I am webmaster for the TAM webpages and would welcome comments by any interested parties.

My name is purposely omitted here but it can easily be obtained by anyone who wishes to contact me. I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but rather to improve the accuracy for this Wikipedia entry. I hope I'm not violating Wikipedia policy here - the time I can devote to studying the extensive rules and guidelines is limited.

TAM5CD (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the speed to 42 Mph since, clearly, 67.59 Km is not equivalent 50 Miles. I assumed the Kph speed was correct since the speed noted on the TAM5 web site is 68 Kph. 122.107.58.27 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links

Both external links seem to be broken.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]