|
Now all we need is for someone to combine the two, and put a 75mm cannon back in a B25H and let us have a live-fire strafing run of some beach.
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Now all we need is for someone to combine the two, and put a 75mm cannon back in a B25H and let us have a live-fire strafing run of some beach. 75mm?! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:75mm?! Yeah, the -G and -H were WW2 attempts at a tank killer, the -G had a 75mm cannon transplanted from a sherman tank, but it was a tad heavy, so a special 'lighter' 75mm was made for the -H. They were pretty effective against stuff like coastal defences too. Edit: Business end of a B-25H: 
SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Aug 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Yeah, the -G and -H were WW2 attempts at a tank killer, the -G had a 75mm cannon transplanted from a sherman tank, but it was a tad heavy, so a special 'lighter' 75mm was made for the -H. They were pretty effective against stuff like coastal defences too. Yeah, bombs didn't work so well in the jungle, so the Air Corps asked for more and more guns. On top of the 75mm, the B-25H had fourteen .50 caliber machine guns at various stations around the aircraft. There was also the B-25J, that swapped the cannon out for another four .50 cals in the nose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
I don't know if they were ever actually intended as tank killers. I do know they served in the Pacific and were used against shipping and installations alongside the standard strafer B-25s with 8-12 forward firing .50 machine guns. The 75mm was also not as popular with crews because of the stress it put on the airframe and its slow refire rate. It was often removed and replaced with a pair of machine guns instead. The strafer B-25s started with field modified D models with 4 guns in the nose and 4 guns in side blisters. The ultimate B-25 strafer was the factory solid nose J variant with 8 guns in the nose in addition to the side guns, although these were often removed. With them on, and including the top turret, the J could have 14 forward firing guns, with an additional 4 in the rear and waist turrets. Some bombs were effective in the SWPA, notably the 23 pound parafrag used against airfields and assorted ground targets, and larger (250-500 lb) bombs with delay fuses used for skip bombing ships.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
Muzzle velocity sucked and you can't really walk 75mm rounds all over something like you can with a 50 cal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:No loving kidding. Probably has something to do with the videos being done by Combat Camera (so someone with an ounce of taste and a bit of actual talent) vs the typical 18-25 year old CHECK OUT MY SUPER AWESOME DEPLOYMENT VIDEO BRA!!!!!1111 I love those art-as-advertising/advertising-as-art type ads. We need more of them. Examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsCG26886w8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8WkIC7bMnE EnergizerFellow fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Aug 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Muzzle velocity sucked and you can't really walk 75mm rounds all over something like you can with a 50 cal. I wonder if anyone thought about sighting a .50 with the 75mm so you could tickle the target area until you were dialed in, then pull the lanyard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
ctishman posted:So this was just posted to Reddit (I know, I know, but it's too fantastic not to share). The poster says his 73-year-old grandfather is flying for a D-Day Reenactment. Grandpa gives no fucks about minimum altitude or stressing the airframe a bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Facebook link only, no Youtube, but apparently the Fagen Fighter Museum was crazy enough to stick 6 real working .50s on their P-51D and live-fire the things: I sent this to the local air museum and challenged them to one-up these guys by firing a Genie from their F-102. They said they were down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Facebook link only, no Youtube, but apparently the Fagen Fighter Museum was crazy enough to stick 6 real working .50s on their P-51D and live-fire the things: Holy crap, I just came in my pants. I want to see that fly and strafe some watermelons on FPS Russia. I can dream, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:I wonder if anyone thought about sighting a .50 with the 75mm so you could tickle the target area until you were dialed in, then pull the lanyard. Ballistics are pretty different so you'd have to set them for similar impact points and then your range is changing so fast that you'd have to have a heck of a mechanical computer to work it all out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
McDeth posted:Holy crap, I just came in my pants. I want to see that fly and strafe some watermelons on FPS Russia. I can't even imagine what the FAA restrictions are on armed civilian aircraft. Would they ever in a million years be allowed to take that thing into the air with loaded Brownings on board?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I can't even imagine what the FAA restrictions are on armed civilian aircraft. Would they ever in a million years be allowed to take that thing into the air with loaded Brownings on board? Maybe all you need is a concealed carry permit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I can't even imagine what the FAA restrictions are on armed civilian aircraft. Would they ever in a million years be allowed to take that thing into the air with loaded Brownings on board? FWIW Mike Dillon of Dillon Aero owns a couple T34 Mentors. Apparently in the recent past he's mounted a couple of his company's miniguns to them and strafed targets on his Arizona ranch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Been watching in-cockpit videos of takeoffs and landings on YouTube all night. I need a hobby. And my job sucks 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Been watching in-cockpit videos of takeoffs and landings on YouTube all night. What you don't see is the hours spent in sims or table flying poo poo but yes flying is loving sweet bro.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 14:05
|
|
|
^^^tineye.com don't have poo poo. Any chance you can direct any of us to a bigger version of that? VVV You are beautiful VVV Capn Jobe fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Aug 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
Capn Jobe posted:^^^tineye.com don't have poo poo. Any chance you can direct any of us to a bigger version of that? http://i.imgur.com/BsfeY.jpg
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
http://airwingmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/u2-pilots-pressure-suits.jpg beaten. and by bigger. the color on the one I found is better?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Re: the U-2 image...
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
I have an odd jet-related question. Pulsejets interest me and I've been looking at them, but I've wondered: Assuming you had the ducting designed to keep the thrust expelled in the right direction would it be possible to setup a turbocharger to the thrust end of the engine itsself, provide boost back to the intake, and in effect set up a feedback loop to ultimately exceed the original thrust? Or would just using a turbo itsself as the jet engine be more effective?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Rorac posted:I have an odd jet-related question. Pulsejets interest me and I've been looking at them, but I've wondered: Assuming you had the ducting designed to keep the thrust expelled in the right direction would it be possible to setup a turbocharger to the thrust end of the engine itsself, provide boost back to the intake, and in effect set up a feedback loop to ultimately exceed the original thrust? Or would just using a turbo itsself as the jet engine be more effective? There's a lot of research going into combined cycle pulse detonation/gas turbine engines right now. There are a few variations of this idea that I'm aware of, but the idea is to either have a conventional turbine engine combined with a pulse detonation engine (in a similar configuration to the Pratt & Whitney J58), or have the conventional combustors of a gas turbine engine replaced by a series of PDEs. In the first variation, you'd have an engine that could conceivably be efficient at any speed between zero and Mach 5; with the second variation, the engine will operate at speeds similar to today's gas turbines, but will be much more efficient and release far fewer pollutants, specifically NOx (which is the biggest pollutant released by modern gas turbine engines).
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Rorac posted:I have an odd jet-related question. Pulsejets interest me and I've been looking at them, but I've wondered: Assuming you had the ducting designed to keep the thrust expelled in the right direction would it be possible to setup a turbocharger to the thrust end of the engine itsself, provide boost back to the intake, and in effect set up a feedback loop to ultimately exceed the original thrust? Or would just using a turbo itsself as the jet engine be more effective?  I've heard of RC jets using actual car turbos adapted into small jet engines, but have never seen any details.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Some say he flies higher than Jimi Hendrix, some say he is faster than a speeding bullet, all we know is that he's the Stig's spooky cousin... U2 STIG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
grover posted:Early jet engines were a lot like that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-spt7y1v6Y
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
grover posted:Early jet engines were a lot like that. This is actually very simple. You just build a combustor and stick it where the engine normally goes. You now have a turbojet engine. It helps to upgrade the thrust bearings and make sure you've got really good oil flow, but that's basically it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
grover posted:Early jet engines were a lot like that. Right, but my understanding is that once those get going they add fuel constantly? Whereas pulsejets... pulse. More specifically, I read pulsejets have a weakness where they don't have much if any real compressive effect, which is what I was curious about using a turbocharger to fix.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
I guess this is the appropriate place to post this. Sorry guys, looks like Neil Armstrong's dead. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/25/13478643-astronaut-neil-armstrong-first-man-to-walk-on-moon-dies-at-age-82
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:I guess this is the appropriate place to post this. Ah hell. Godspeed you icy-blooded flying man. The next several years are going to suck if you like Apollo astronauts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
Rorac posted:Right, but my understanding is that once those get going they add fuel constantly? Whereas pulsejets... pulse. More specifically, I read pulsejets have a weakness where they don't have much if any real compressive effect, which is what I was curious about using a turbocharger to fix. Pulsejets generally have a constant fuel flow, but rely on the pressure created by each pulse to briefly stop the fuel flow into the combustion chamber, after which the resulting vacuum allows fuel into the chamber to be burned in the next pulse. If you attached an driven compressor to a pulsejet, you'd end up with what is essentially an inefficient turbojet, since the compressor would draw a substantial amount of energy from the exhaust and would lose efficency from not having the compressor sections ahead of the combustion chamber. The big efficency advantage turbojets and turbofans have over pulsejets largely comes from the fact that they can utilize several compressor "stages", which lets them run much higher pressure ratios than single stage turbines or pulsejets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Schindler's Fist posted:Ah hell. Godspeed you icy-blooded flying man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
MrChips posted:There's a lot of research going into combined cycle pulse detonation/gas turbine engines right now. There are a few variations of this idea that I'm aware of, but the idea is to either have a conventional turbine engine combined with a pulse detonation engine (in a similar configuration to the Pratt & Whitney J58), or have the conventional combustors of a gas turbine engine replaced by a series of PDEs. In the first variation, you'd have an engine that could conceivably be efficient at any speed between zero and Mach 5; with the second variation, the engine will operate at speeds similar to today's gas turbines, but will be much more efficient and release far fewer pollutants, specifically NOx (which is the biggest pollutant released by modern gas turbine engines). One thing I don't understand about PDEs is how can they, even theoretically, be more efficient than conventional turbines? More efficient than a pulsejet, I have no problems believing that, the combustion in a pulsejet's so slow that the charge blows out the back of the engine while it's still burning, you're losing a lot of impulse. But detonation is inherently less efficient than combustion. Heat of combustion of TNT, pinch a piece of the stuff off and burn it, you get about 15kJ/gram of thermal energy. If you take that same piece of TNT and detonate it in an unconfined fashion, you only get 2.5 kJ/gram out of it. Heat of detonation is *lousy* compared to heat of combustion, the only reason you want poo poo to detonate instead of deflagrate is because you want high pressures more than you want thermal efficiency. So how can a PDE even begin to offer greater efficiency than a conventional Brayton-cycle turbine?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:But detonation is inherently less efficient than combustion. Heat of combustion of TNT, pinch a piece of the stuff off and burn it, you get about 15kJ/gram of thermal energy. If you take that same piece of TNT and detonate it in an unconfined fashion, you only get 2.5 kJ/gram out of it. Heat of detonation is *lousy* compared to heat of combustion, the only reason you want poo poo to detonate instead of deflagrate is because you want high pressures more than you want thermal efficiency. So how can a PDE even begin to offer greater efficiency than a conventional Brayton-cycle turbine? With TNT, you're comparing apples to oranges, since in the first case it's reacting with oxygen and in the second it's just decomposing without any other substances involved. A fuel/air mixture, on the other hand, has the same potential chemical energy whether it detonates or deflagrates, the difference being in how combustion propogates through the mixture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
This year marks 100 years of Norwegian military aviation, so our national broadcaster did a short documentary from Sola Airshow, with some nice footage of a few of the display teams. They even put a reporter as a ride-along for the Vampire display. It's mostly in Norwegian but the footage is nice I guess? http://tv.nrk.no/program/dkro50002512/flyfest-paa-sola (should be accessible worldwide)
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
This past week I took a trip to the Military Aviation Museum in Virginia Beach and figured I share a few shots of my visit. The exciting thing about this museum is that the vast majority of their planes are airworthy, many of them original. The custom in Virginia Beach for businesses and attractions is to place a dolphin in front of their building. The museum's has been painted and adorned to look like a corsair.  Original V1 Buzz-bomb  Cutaway of a Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engine, the powerplant of the Me-262.  Penny placed in the port built into the  The aircraft powered by that engine, an SNJ/T-6 advanced Navy trainer (thanks for the correction iyaayas01)  Skyraider looking all cool.  TBM Avenger.  Absolutely gorgeous de Havilland Dragon Rapide.  1911 Wright EX Flyer. This plane was famously used as the first plane to cross the continental United States (The whole US at the time). The pilot navigated by rails for two reasons. Firstly it was an easy, straight navigable feature and, secondly, the plane constantly broke down and needed spare parts. Apparently by the time the plane reached the west coast, only 3 original parts remained. I'm unsure if this includes the pilot.  Hawker Fury. You can really see the resemblance to the Hurricane with the radiator shape and the pointed nose.  Boeing P-26 "Peashooter" in badass livery. I don't care how gaudy it is, I would have flown this thing to certain doom painted just like that.  Tableau featuring a B-25, Spitfire nose, and Fw-190 tail.  Better shot of a Mk.IX Spitfire. This particular model swapped the four outboard .303 MG's for 2 .50 caliber's in addition to the hispano 20mm cannons.  P-40 in classic Flying tigers livery. I think this is an E model despite the earlier paintjob.  Fw-190 D-9 replica. The Dora version of the Focke-Wulf was equipped with a radial engine. You can see the replica is missing the outboard machine gun ports.  Here's a B-17 they had parked out back.  Hurricane Mk. I  Polikarpov I-15is. Early War Russian fighter  Army trainer glider. This was the first flying thing cadets soloed in. Somewhat puzzling considering gliders are very different to fly from powered aircraft.  Yak-3 with the awesome Russian cerulean on the underside.  P-63 Kingcobra with that giant fuckoff cannon, done up in Russian livery since it was not really flown by the US.  Another Polikarpov, the I-16. Fun fact, at the time this plane was introduced it was the first true cantilever monoplane with retractable gear (non-hydraulic). Early versions were powered by the same Wright R-1820 that was in the Dauntless.  Allison V-1710 engine. Used to power the Kingcobra and early mustangs among other planes.  The I-135, and evolution of the I-15 shown earlier. In my opinion the superlative biplane fighter. Awesome paintjob too.  Sweet shot of the museum's FG-1 (Goodyear built corsair) undergoing maintenance.  This shot shows the plane from the front along with a pre-WWII Cessna.  Here's a Junkers they had parked on the tarmac.  Replica of a Fokker Dr. 1 done up like the Red Baron's plane.  Very nice attention to detail.  We were lucky enough to see this early Navy plane in flight. It was wild. Apparently the waving is ill advised because it takes a lot of muscle to work the controls but I'm sure the pilot knew what he was doing.  He still landed safely. Thanks to my wife who took most of these photos while I was yakking with the docent. dayman fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Lovely photos! dayman posted:
Man, the Germans did "light lower-dark upper" paint jobs on everything. dayman posted:
So, did this upgrade actually help in any way in WW2, or was it still a ticket to quick Messerschmidt death?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So, did this upgrade actually help in any way in WW2, or was it still a ticket to quick Messerschmidt death? No, I'm sure these were shot down just a cheerfully as the other Russian planes until they started rolling out the P-39's, Yak's, and La-5's. Thanks! dayman fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
dayman posted:
That is a labor of love by (now retired) airline pilot & Naval aviator Bob Coolbaugh. There were no real plans, so he made his own from scaled photos & bits & pieces. I was priveleged to talk to his wife while he flew in a 10-MPH crosswind at Millville last summer.   (his account of flying his creation here): http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38429 kudoes, your wife took great shots. PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 01:46
|
|