There is no text information for this aircraft at the moment. Comments John Frazer , e-mail , 26.12.2017 17:59 Milton Hatfield lived in the same town where these came from, and traded work for flight lessons, and provided parts and the engine for the plane.

In the '80s he built 3 "Little Bird" planes based on the Arup planforms and he again verified their qualities of slow safe landings, stability and speed and handling.

Several videos are online of them and him talking about them and the Arups.

They've been bought for preservation, but nobody's building on them directly.

The model in the Indiana airport is 80% scale of the S-4. reply John Frazer , e-mail , 26.12.2017 17:53 They had advertizing painted on them, as they way of paying for their hangar space and maintenance costs, they didn't tow billboards or anything. They flew a few years, several pilots, routine operations at airshows and never a problem. Almost stall-proof and hence spin proof. Notably safe flying, a real car for everybody (which happens occasionally, and the market is never interested).



Absolutely mild predictable and responsive handling. There's video of them, and they weren't doing hammerheads and flatspins but they didn't mind high degree turns at low speeds and high A.

S-2 was 900+ lbs, on 37 hp engine got 97kts, and landed at 23kts. Silly slow approaches and short rolls.

Not draggy due to any supposed wing-tip wash-around at cruise, they were fast and slippery.

Zimmerman worked for NACA and say the ATup planes ut on good performances.

Later when the Navy got interested in it for a carrier plane, he worked for Vought on their giggle-factor enhanced flapjack. It's not clear why they apparently thought it had high drag and so needed the huge props countering the alleged wing-tip wash around drag which low-aspect ratio planes are supposed to be subject to.

There's video of Zimmerman playing with a model hovering vertically,and reportedly with the 173 he was working toward that: apparently for a Hellcat-sized fighter 40 kts landing speed wasn't slow enough?



Meanwhile, Boeing didnt work on their model 390 for their proposal for the Navy flapjack fighter. A 3000hp engine with centered contra-props like a big Arup isn't as humorous as the Vought flapjack with its silly flapping propeller.

We may consider the Vought plane to be a parody of the Arups and the Navy's way of throwing away the Boeing plane, based on the Arup.

If they'd built it, then the planform wold have taken over hte Fleet and all the Military and when anybody wanted to pay for use of the Arup patents, all civil aviation.

Everything would be a lifting body today. Same experience for the Burnelli A-1 and the Horton wingless of the '50s Mostly because of the giggle factor, there's no commercial interest for lifting bodies and no makers want to touch it. reply DICK ATKINS , e-mail , 19.08.2015 05:20 TO BRUTE 4C....WHERE CAN I FIND INFO CONFIRMING THAT ARUPS FLEW TILL THE 80'S. FROM VOUGHT-1 reply norm , e-mail , 23.01.2013 18:08 does anyone know where to get a ARUP built? reply Klaatu83 , e-mail , 20.09.2012 15:15 For those interested, plans are available on the internet for the Arup aircraft reply brute4c , 16.02.2010 15:00 There were several of these planes built and they were very stable...so much so that they were used as flying billboards from the 30's till the 80's in long accident free carreers.



The low aspect ratio provides a lot of lift for the overall size of the plane...not a lifting body really but more an almost all wing aircraft.



The podiatrist who came up with the original idea was flipping felt shoe heel inserts into the air and watching them fly...never know what will be the genesis of some good stuff. reply M. Hughes , e-mail , 07.02.2010 05:53 This looks like a very practical design. Does anyone have a set of plans? reply travelman , 28.07.2008 19:54 See more information about these aircraft at: www.aerofiles.com /_al.html reply travelman , 28.07.2008 19:37 In response to the message by "Aero-Fox", "the lack of which doomed this little number to severe instability...", the ARUP designs were very succesful and safe aircraft that just did not catch on like other aircraft of the time. The oversized props mentioned on the Chance-Vought were a method to counter vortices off the wingtips to reduce drag and provide more lift to the airfoil. The ARUP aircraft were so safe that there was never a fatality. It flew accident free for many years. This safety record was for the ARUP specific aircraft only. With a 37hp engine, the ARUP could fly 97mph and land at just 23mph. See YouTube for a video on this aircraft. www.youtube.com /watch?v=Nxz1UF67EQI reply Deed Pendell , e-mail , 10.03.2008 03:42 Arup was designed and built by a doctor in South Bend IN in the 1930's and was taken to an air meet in chicago. It was an early lifting body design.

A full size replica has been built and is on display at the South Bend Regional Airport. reply Aero-Fox , 07.03.2008 02:07 Almost looks like a predecessor to the Chance-Vought V-173 'Flying Flapjack', minus the oversized wingtip props...the lack of which probably doomed this little number to severe instability... reply Do you have any comments? Name E-mail



