Re: Food for Thought

Date:         10 Jun 97 00:34:59 
From:         kchao@acsu.buffalo.edu (Kuang-Chung Chao)
Organization: UB
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1997.1196@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Don Stokes <don@rata.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>....snip....
>
>On the subject of patents, does anyone know why Boeing did not patent the
>use of engine nacelles on pylons to get the engine airflow away from the
>airflow over the wing?

The nacelles on pylon were first used on B-47 by Boeing. So even if Boeing
applied for one, then it would belong to the US Gov't. From William Cook's
"The Road to 707", Cook implied that the whole idea was from Boeing's own
wind tunnel study. But from Eugene Rodgers' "Flying Higg -- The Story of
Boeing and the Rise of the Jetliner Industry," on P.99 he said "Boeing
designer had been impressed by Lockheed's decision to use pod on a jet
fighter.  The decision was clinched when Schairer found German studies
showing the desirability of pods." So maybe Boeing didn't have enough
claim on it. But I've read nothing indicating that this was the reason
why they did not apply. Well, I'm not even sure there was no patent for
it. ;) I don't have "From Legend to Legacy", maybe there's more stuff
in it, anybody care to check it out?

The design was done in 1946, so maybe it was just one of those
"in the good old days" thing. ;)

regards,

kc

--
Kuang-Chung "K.C." Chao                     Tel: +1 (716) 691-5524
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Eng.       kchao@acsu.buffalo.edu
State Univ. of NY at Buffalo    http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kchao