|
Jonny Nox posted:You could go the Bob Lutz route and buy a Soviet equivalent. Nah, its missing the 4 engines. If I was going Soviet I'd do the Backfire: 
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
Oh, I was talking about the F-111 A Hustler, or any other strategic bomber is basically unobtainable and beyond uneconomical. It's silly really. Unless you incorporate! Found MyfuckingHustler inc. Sell shares. Share holders can ride in your loving Hustler, but need to go dutch on fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Oh, I was talking about the F-111 Hell, put modern engines in it and see what it can do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
block51 posted:I've seen a B-58 on display at Pima air and space museum. Just sitting there on the ground that thing LOOKS fast. Such a sexy looking plane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Indeed. Economics be damned, military aircraft reached peak sexiness with the development of the B58, B70 and A12. I can't recall for certain but I am pretty sure I was making air plane swoosh noises to myself as I stood there looking at it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
If you were a billionare and wanted a supersonic private jet, what would be the best route to take? A reconditioned Concorde or maybe a Tu-144? I'm not sure if the bombers can actually stay above mach 1 to cross the Atlantic. Of course, if I were a billionaire my private yacht would be a luxury airship  The tail is where the lounge would be, with floor to ceiling windows like in a 18th century sailing ship
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
block51 posted:I can't recall for certain but I am pretty sure I was making air plane swoosh noises to myself as I stood there looking at it. For all your plane swoosh needs: http://anigrand.com/AA4007_XB-70.htm http://anigrand.com/AA4059_XB-59.htm also http://www.miniwing.cz/models_1_144/mini007/Avro_CF-105_Arrow.htm Wish I had the skill to consider spending the $$$
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Concorde would be the way to go, but I bet you would have an easier time actually buying a Tu-144. Hell, the Russians would probably throw in an on-board harem as part of the restoration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:For all your plane swoosh needs: You can actually buy a decent 1/48 Hobbycraft CF105 model for a fair price. AMT did a 1/72 Valkyrie years back too. I actually have one. http://www.modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/hamm70.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
slidebite posted:You can actually buy a decent 1/48 Hobbycraft CF105 model for a fair price. AMT did a 1/72 Valkyrie years back too. I actually have one. http://www.modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/hamm70.htm It might be the same kit, but Italeri now does 1/72 Valkyrie. And a 1/72 Hustler, now that I think of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
I suspect you're right, it probably is the same kit. I actually have a 1/48 Hustler and a B1 for that matter that are on my to-do list.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
slidebite posted:You can actually buy a decent 1/48 Hobbycraft CF105 model for a fair price. AMT did a 1/72 Valkyrie years back too. I actually have one. http://www.modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/hamm70.htm I just like working in (injected) 1/144 scale. They're cheap, and you can build them fast and put a bunch of them on a bookshelf. Yeah, I'm not very mature about the whole toy plane building thing. In my head, 1/48 will always be associated with people who buy $100 photo etch and Resin kits, then end up with a model that's more filler than plastic because the body was 2mm too short and the wings were 1mm off on chord on the wingtips. Which is the opposite of the above. Umm, this is a real derail though, so have a youtube playlist called "Wingsof the Luftwaffe" http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL321EC5570CED9FBE
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Then I got to thinking more seriously- there are a few business jets at the top of the market where adding 0.01 mach to the advertised cruising speed is apparently a thing... is that actually a meaningful sales metric when Mach 1 is a pretty clear ceiling on that? For the people or corporations who are the target market for the G650, being able to go nonstop from LA to London or Tokyo .05 Mach faster than an airliner (to say nothing of the time saved by not dealing with things like the TSA) can be enough to justify the $59 million price tag, since those kinds of people typically value their time at several thousand dollars per hour.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
God drat it I need to get off my rear end and put together all these models I have laying around after spending a bunch of money on paint and supplies. There's a local air museum at our town airport, and in their little shop within the museum they've got a ton of models for sale that no one has touched. Most of them were from some older guy that died recently and had piles of models he never completed. I bought an A-10A made sometime in the 80's, and inside the guy had put in all sorts of magazine clippings about the A-10. He even made a extremely detailed picture diagram showing all the cockpit instrumentation and such. I feel like I'm going to hell if I don't complete that one, because that old guy looks like he put a ton of research prep work into doing that model but never got a chance to 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
I haven't built a model for ages - it's been something like 15 years or so. I was pretty good at the basics, but I never had the tools or the patience to do all the little details that actually make a model look like a real aircraft. I've given some thought to building models again; the problem is that based on what I want to build, the kits are either crap or super-expensive. I guess that's what happens when you've got an interest in lesser-known or prototype aircraft made after WWII. On a related subject, an aircraft I'd love to see an example in airworthy condition is the Avro CF-100 Canuck. As much as the Arrow gets all the attention, the Clunk was the only military aircraft designed and built in Canada to be put into production. In fact, I was thinking of aircraft like this when I lamented the lack of airworthy historical aircraft. While they're bound to be hideously expensive to operate, we're getting to the point where, apart from a handful of F-104s, there are no airworthy "Century Series" fighters. Beyond that, what of contemporary naval types? How many F-8s are still flying today? Jonny Nox posted:A RAF Hawk just took off from Calgary. While it was awesomely loud I need to know WHY there was a Hawk taking off from Calgary. I'm guessing it's Suffield related, but what could the be doing here that they can't do in Jolly England? Cold weather training? Because they picked a hell of a good week for it then. Sure it wasn't one of our own? There was one at the Avitat much earlier this morning. Cedhed posted:But Avgas and Jet A are sold per gallon. The Jet A stuff doesn't apply; the B-36's J47 engines ran on gasoline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:For the people or corporations who are the target market for the G650, being able to go nonstop from LA to London or Tokyo .05 Mach faster than an airliner (to say nothing of the time saved by not dealing with things like the TSA) can be enough to justify the $59 million price tag, since those kinds of people typically value their time at several thousand dollars per hour. quote:One day back then, he convened a meeting with his team, and the discussion turned to a particular problem in Asia. “This is really bad,” Cook told the group. “Someone should be in China driving this.” Thirty minutes into that meeting Cook looked at Sabih Khan, a key operations executive, and abruptly asked, without a trace of emotion, “Why are you still here?”
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
joat mon posted:There's one in private hands! The Gutless Cutlass actually looks like it is in decent-ish shape, considering. I hate that I didn't know about Walt Soplata when I was growing up in Ohio in the 80's. His collection is considerably smaller these days than it was once. MrChips posted:
There are a couple F-100's still fying. Dude in Indiana owns two. Think this is one of them, for sale quite reasonable: http://www.shermanaircraft.com/showspecs.php?ad=1 Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I haven't built a model for ages - it's been something like 15 years or so. I was pretty good at the basics, but I never had the tools or the patience to do all the little details that actually make a model look like a real aircraft. I've given some thought to building models again; the problem is that based on what I want to build, the kits are either crap or super-expensive. I guess that's what happens when you've got an interest in lesser-known or prototype aircraft made after WWII. quote:On a related subject, an aircraft I'd love to see an example in airworthy condition is the Avro CF-100 Canuck. As much as the Arrow gets all the attention, the Clunk was the only military aircraft designed and built in Canada to be put into production. In fact, I was thinking of aircraft like this when I lamented the lack of airworthy historical aircraft. While they're bound to be hideously expensive to operate, we're getting to the point where, apart from a handful of F-104s, there are no airworthy "Century Series" fighters. Beyond that, what of contemporary naval types? How many F-8s are still flying today? quote:Sure it wasn't one of our own? There was one at the Avitat much earlier this morning. Could very well have been, but it had the bicolor rondel, and I though Canada's was always the maple leaf one? Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I suspect you're right, it probably is the same kit. I actually have a 1/48 Hustler and a B1 for that matter that are on my to-do list. Oh wow, a 1/48 B-1B must be enormous. Someday when I have the proper space I might build something like that. I was pleased this Christmas to get a 1/350 kit of the I-400, with tons of extra bits, enough to tempt me to build some sea for it and make a little diorama for the first time. Oh, Dioramas. You used to be a nerd too far for me... Jonny Nox posted:I just like working in (injected) 1/144 scale. They're cheap, and you can build them fast and put a bunch of them on a bookshelf. Yeah, I'm not very mature about the whole toy plane building thing. I know how you feel. I have several 1/144 scale fighters; I build 'em with the gear up for maximum pew-pew-screeeee-*KABOOM* action when I feel like a break from more work-intensive kits. After going the whole hawg with that Fw 200 I built, I decided that I'd only go to that level of detail on a few projects, as it (at least) doubles the building time. As for super-obsessive accuracy, it only bothers me if that's what I'm aiming for in that particular kit. On the other hand, I have crafted my own zimmerit with a teeny tiny screwdriver for this 1/72 tank I built, just because I knew the historical example would have had it, so... Mr. Chips, Mike-o: JOIN US. We all float down here 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
I would get an F104 god drat those things are boss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
My fantasy necromancy would be a Stuka and/or a YB-49 Flying Wing. I have a Revell kit for the latter, haven't gotten around to building it yet. I started building a Proctor Enterprises Fokker DR1 (http://www.proctor-enterprises.com/products/vk/dr1/dr1.htm) the summer before my son was born...I got the fuselage in stick & that was that. I put it away & will get back to it eventually. The kid's gonna be 20 in July. But I WILL FINISH IT SOMEDAY DAMMIT. (edit) VVV yeah, it's a big box o sticks. The plans are awesome, and the companion booklet on building & flying it is extremely detailed. To hear Proctor tell it, they made their plans off of Fokker's blueprints. They sure as poo poo are the most detailed I've ever seen for a wood R/C model aircraft. They warned that it would fly just like the real thing: gotta keep down elevator trim to fly level, and the fucker'll snap-roll on you if you don't stay ahead of it. Which I daresay may be more difficult to do from the ground than in the cockpit. PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Oh god, Proctor kits, my dad used to build those. I hope you enjoy assembling ribs!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:There are a couple F-100's still fying. Dude in Indiana owns two. I think the Collings Foundation has a -100 as well...and supposedly, they're trying to get funding to bring a -105 back to flying condition, but that could be a pipe dream. So that still leaves no F-101s, no F-102s, a handful of F-104s, no F-105s (at the moment) and a few F-106s that could be made flyable, but are languishing in boneyards or museums. In addition to these and the types flown by the Navy, what of all the other aircraft flown by other countries? Apart from the DeHavilland Vampire and a handful of Soviet types, there really aren't any other foreign warbirds of that era (or later) in flying condition. So many airplanes, not enough time or money... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:My fantasy necromancy would be a Stuka and/or a YB-49 Flying Wing. Oh I'd love a Ju-87 or a YB-49. MrChips posted:The Jet A stuff doesn't apply; the B-36's J47 engines ran on gasoline. Wow, I wonder what that does to the power output. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
EDIT: Doublepost
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Wow, I wonder what that does to the power output. Not much. The engine will produce the same power but it will run hotter than if it was running on jet fuel. As for other factors, the higher temperatures reduce engine life and the lead will foul the turbine blades with deposits over time (most old jet engines never had an issue with this as their overhaul intervals were very short to begin with). Many modern gas turbines (mostly, small turboprops and turboshafts) are certified to run on avgas for a limited period of time between overhauls, mostly to allow for its use as an emergency fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Sure it wasn't one of our own? There was one at the Avitat much earlier this morning. This Top Aces bird was also in YYC a couple of days ago:  C-FHTO by Rob Sowald, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Anyone here planning on going to Oshkosh this year? In strongly considering trying to bring one of our planes up this year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Anyone here planning on going to Oshkosh this year? In strongly considering trying to bring one of our planes up this year. Is it in any way possible to "accidentally" turn one of the pods on with ground power? I know they can't produce full wattage without the ram air, but is it even possible to get them to emit with weight-on-wheels?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Is it in any way possible to "accidentally" turn one of the pods on with ground power? I know they can't produce full wattage without the ram air, but is it even possible to get them to emit with weight-on-wheels? If I come it will be in a T-39, not a Prowler. ;-) As for for your question I'm going to take a pass. I'm overly conservative when it comes to discussing specific capabilities even something that seems as benign as that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Not much. The engine will produce the same power but it will run hotter than if it was running on jet fuel. As for other factors, the higher temperatures reduce engine life and the lead will foul the turbine blades with deposits over time (most old jet engines never had an issue with this as their overhaul intervals were very short to begin with). Many modern gas turbines (mostly, small turboprops and turboshafts) are certified to run on avgas for a limited period of time between overhauls, mostly to allow for its use as an emergency fuel. And that's why if I were to restore a B-36 it would most likely be from the A or B production runs, only has the 6 Wasp Majors (The J47s were added starting with the D model). And you wouldn't be carrying 86,000lbs of nuclear bombs so you don't really need that extra power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Not to sound like an old fart, but in the late 80s I was big into making model airplanes and had my own compresor and airbrush and all that. At airshows I would take detailed photos of old warbirds and other planes so I could reference them for wiring and wear patterns and other stuff. Someone gave me a model kit of a Junkers Ju 188, a lesser known and less-produced successor to the Ju-88. I wanted to build it as accurately as possible, but despite taking German at the time in high school and digging through our meager international documents at the time, it was freaking impossible to find out anything about this plane. Encyclopedias didn't have any info, there were just one or two crappy photos in WWII aviation books, and I often wondered if the thing ever really flew. It's great that nowadays you can find just about any plane that ever flew (or was only designed and planned) via the web. This thread is great for those obscure birds, but I still think of how much time I spent trying to track down information on that one obscure German plane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:And that's why if I were to restore a B-36 it would most likely be from the A or B production runs, only has the 6 Wasp Majors (The J47s were added starting with the D model). And you wouldn't be carrying 86,000lbs of nuclear bombs so you don't really need that extra power. I'd be interested to see how well a restored B-36 would cope with modern Avgas. The B-36 was designed to run 115/145 octane fuel, but modern Avgas is only 100 octane and would probably cause all kinds of damage if burned in a Wasp Major at full power. I know Fifi (the CAF's flying B-29) gets away with burning 100LL by being significantly lighter than a wartime Superfortress and using custom-built engines that aren't turbocharged, so I wonder if it would even be possible to get a Wasp Major to accept 100LL, seeing as they used two turbochargers as well as a supercharger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
There's a regularly-used waterbombing Martin Mars that uses Wasp Major engines, I guess they have found some source of fuel for it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
ehnus posted:There's a regularly-used waterbombing Martin Mars that uses Wasp Major engines, I guess they have found some source of fuel for it? I'd guess the Mars is probably running the engines at a reduced power setting or they're limiting the weight of the aircraft, or some combination of the two. I believe there are very limited amounts of 115/145 Avgas produced by special order (for events like Reno), but I can't imagine it would be economical to run that in an aircraft that burns several hundred gallons of fuel per hour.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:I'd guess the Mars is probably running the engines at a reduced power setting or they're limiting the weight of the aircraft, or some combination of the two. So, in my fantasy land, I also need to own a refinery capable of distilling grape juice. That may actually be more feasible than restoring a B-36, sadly. When volunteers started work to move the aircraft currently at the Pima Air and Space museum (the last B-36 built, no less,) the Air Force shat a brick, and tried to repossess it. They went as far as to getting the IRS to dent tax-exempt status to the volunteer group. They've done similar things, more recently, as well. At some point in the not too distant past, the US decided that us mere peasants can't be trusted with their cast-offs anymore. See also: the army now crushes a great deal of its expended brass instead of selling it to reloaders. Same concept also applies to aircraft sold as scrap. You're now required to render it permenantly unflyable. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
ehnus posted:There's a regularly-used waterbombing Martin Mars that uses Wasp Major engines, I guess they have found some source of fuel for it? It has Wright R-3350s, not Wasp Majors
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
What about E85? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:My fantasy necromancy would be a Stuka and/or a YB-49 Flying Wing. I think it was Revell that had a Polaris missile kit pulled from the market and tweaked because it was so detailed it revealed classified information; the Navy was understandably disturbed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:What about E85? Could avgas 100 be used if an octane booster was added to it? OR is that stuff just crap that doesn't work?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 20:14
|
|
