>
Editor: I have been meaning to write for some time with comments on your Feature Article in the July issue (Don Piccard - 50 Years of Ballooning Memories). What finally compelled me to do so was Don's quote in the most recent issue: "He who does not object, ratifies and concurs."
First of all, I enjoyed the article very much; both the factual and the fanciful parts. The 1947 flight described also chronicles my beginnings in a career of ballooning. I was part of the ROTC crew that launched Don in his FUGO* (or Fu-Go, not Fu-Gos. *Fu is from fusen, meaning "balloon"literally, wind-ship, and Go has many meanings in Japanese, but in this case it is "weapon." Therefore, Fu-Go equals balloon weapon.) balloon. In fact, I think I can identify myself in the picture on the first page of the article.
In a story of this magnitude, I suppose it is inevitable that glitches will show up, and there were quite a few here. Let's just consider most of them as typos (unless "Sioux Falls, North Dakota" was an intentional needle) and worry about the more important ones. One of the worst has already been corrected (thank you, Don. see Nit Pickini, p. 37, Balloon Life, September 1997).
Charlie Moore definitely deserves the credit for the first manned flight under a plastic balloon. That flight was made on November 3, 1949. His second flight was made a year and a day later and I have seen numerous photos of that flight. In the period from the 1949 flight through 1952 there are records of some 30 manned poly balloon flights involving at least eight different pilots, and I'm sure that list is incomplete.
The report of Yost's HAB experiments (middle of p. 30) is misleading at best, and grievously inaccurate at worst. There may have been an 8000 cu. ft, balloon tested in 1953 (I don't have documentation on that), but to say "he flew it" is misleading. It would have been a demonstration of hot air buoyancy, barely lifting the heat source, if that. The first documentation I have comes two years later (September 30, 1955) and is of a 14,550 cu. ft. polyethylene balloon, heated with two burners (probably also plumbers fire pots), and developing a net lift of 48 pounds. Then, indeed, "Within a few weeks, he [meaning General Mills] had built a 27,000 cubic foot model...." But it barely lifted a 130 Ib person assigned to the project (Willie Marbon, October 13, 1955, at Huron, SD), and it was tethered, not a flight. The actual "First Flight" was, as is usually reported, on October 22, 1960 in Bruning, Nebraska.
The next topic shows up in several places in the article and relates to the claim that Raven had dumped hot air ballooning as a sport and Don Piccard saved it. Right off the bat I am going to give Don a lot of credit for his part in bringing the sport to life, but to say that Raven had abandoned its interest is totally false. If Don Piccard had not existed, the sport would nevertheless be alive today through Raven's efforts, though probably in a different form. It doesn't matter what Dale Gates heard, thought he heard, or how he reported it to Don, I was at the other end of that situation and I can say categorically that the claim "...the Raven sport balloon program died...." is simply not true.
Regarding Raven's government contracts for HAB development, our only contracts were with the Office of Naval Research, and none was "terminated." They reached successful endpoints and concluded normally. Don's departure had nothing to do with government contracts. Since I don't have facts, I won't speculate on the reason, but it was well known that there were differences of opinion between he and then-President Ed Owen.
Finally, and on a lesser note, the "explanation" of the theory and deficiencies of superpressure balloons was actually a description of zero-pressure balloons; and it notes the very things that superpressure balloons are intended to circumvent.
I hope this doesn't sound as though I am casting aspersions. I am trying to present facts. I have great respect for the things Don has done and I wouldn't want to be misinterpreted.
Jim Winker
Retired Vice President of Raven Industries
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
The 1953 reference was taken my the author from Dick Worth's book, Ballooning. A 1987 article in Balloon Life based on an interview with Ed Yost refers to the correct date and also refers to the episode as a "flight." The actual first free flight of the modern hot air balloon did occur in October 1960 . Editor
Editor: Once again I feel compelled to comment on opinions in a Mike Rose crewing article. Rose's comments on dropline landings being "something that is seldom learned during a pilot's training" and that a "dropline landing is not a normal landing" reflect his Texas regional biases. In New England, a pilot and crew unfamiliar with and not practiced in dropline landings would be sorely lacking in needed skills.
In New England, the typical landing site is very small by western standards and often surrounded by very tall trees. Rip landings are rarely a viable option. New England pilots rarely see a flying season without at least a few dropline landings. During a good season a New England pilot may do as many dropline landings as Rose professes to have done in his entire flying career. This is confirmed by Chris Mooney, the chief New England REMAX balloon pilot and possibly the only full-time balloon pilot in New England. He told me he regularly uses the dropline, and he believes that it "greatly increases his options."
While Chris and I absolutely concur with Rose that ground crew should never be necessary for a safe landing, well-trained ground crew capable of handling a dropline can give a pilot valuable options which would otherwise be unavailable. If you are dropping into a tight field with even light steady winds, the momentum of the balloon drifting into a downwind treeline may be more than enough to cause damage to the balloon. Crew capable of handling a dropline can halt the balloon and keep it away from the trees. A student pilot's training here would be seriously deficient without training in dropline procedures. A well-trained pilot should have some chase crew experience so he or she is familiar with both ends of the dropline. (A New England ballooning tradition is "Ace Chase makes the best pilot.")
Here are a couple of points in use of the dropline not mentioned in the article: First, the crew person handling the dropline should initially firmly hold onto the dropline without pulling on it in any direction. The objective is to bring the balloon to a halt in the air first, with dropline maneuvering taking place only after the balloon is stopped and stabilized, and only upon the direction of the pilot. Pulling (sideways or down) on the dropline can cause a pendulum effect swinging the balloon down, often right into the very obstacle the pilot is trying to avoid.
Paul Stumpf, the Aerostar Northeast Regional Distributor and one of the best repair station operators in the Northeast (and a highly capable balloon pilot), taught me another lesson in the use of droplines. Never attach a dropline by tying it around a balloon's uprights. Stumpf notes that a strong wind gust could be enough to cause even metal uprights to buckle. For Aerostar balloons, he recommends attaching the dropline to a tether block adjacent to one of the envelope attachment blocks.
James Ellis
Harvard, Massachusetts
Editor: Your recent story (Dymocks Flight Team, September, 1997) referred to me as the owner of Balloon Aloft Australia. Peter Vizzard and Judy Lynne are in fact the owners of Balloon Aloft Australia. My long term involvement with Balloon Aloft is as owner of the part of the business based in Canberra only.
John Wallington
Canberra, Australia
Editor: I am seventeen year old boy from Belgium. I collect all things of balloons, and I wondered if you could put an announcement for me, so I may come in contact with all the readers of your magazine, which can and would like to help me to further my collection.
Jim Van der Meulen
Hansevelde 105
9240 ZELLE
Oost-Vlaanderen
Belgium
Copyright © 1997 Balloon Life. All rights reserved.
>