|
ctishman posted:I look at something like that and wonder what would happen if an aerodynamic surface failed in flight Watching that take off, I was thinking "drat. That does not look at ALL stable." In fact, it looks like it actively wants the pilot dead. And succeeding at least once.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
ctishman posted:I look at something like that and wonder what would happen if an aerodynamic surface failed in flight Watching that take off, I was thinking "drat. That does not look at ALL stable." In fact, it looks like it actively wants the pilot dead. They actually are stable. The wings are always swept so the outer portion is aft of the CG, and they have either a negative twist or negative camber at the tip so the tip produces negative lift and acts as a tail plane. Obviously bad things happen if alpha gets too high, but you shouldn't be able to get alpha too high as the center portion of the wing with positive twist or camber will stall first. They have bugger-all pitch control authority though, but that doesn't matter because they have bugger-all moment of inertia in the pitch direction, and the two effects cancel out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
Munnin The Crab posted:That has the very same wingshape and colour, so maybe it Was a center fuselage plane at a weird angle. Thanks folks. When I went to WWII weekend last summer there was a team that was gathering funds to restore one. They have most of the fuselage and a couple engines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
Terrible Robot posted:The Germans also built (or atleast designed) a twin fighter, the BF-109Z, but unless you live in an alternate dimension it wouldn't have been one of those either. If we're dreaming of alternate universes, This would rule the skies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
The props also act as gyroscopes to damp out any uncommanded pitch and yaw changes. I bet it was fun trying to figure a replacement damping force for the jet powered wing (YB49?).
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Falkenbok posted:The props also act as gyroscopes to damp out any uncommanded pitch and yaw changes. I bet it was fun trying to figure a replacement damping force for the jet powered wing (YB49?). The main issue with the YB-49 was the lack of proper computer assistance to help maintain flight characteristics, which when the B-2 was finally developed did have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:They actually are stable. The wings are always swept so the outer portion is aft of the CG, and they have either a negative twist or negative camber at the tip so the tip produces negative lift and acts as a tail plane. Obviously bad things happen if alpha gets too high, but you shouldn't be able to get alpha too high as the center portion of the wing with positive twist or camber will stall first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke_Delta And uncommon-ish plane. The high power, or nose heavy ones, end up with a trim element on the vertical tail beacuse they don't have enough pitch trim available. The original plane had it's TE cut up several times to get the reflex right. Somehow this guy gets away with very little reflex.. http://www.verheesengineering.com/gb/delta.html Something in common with most deltas is that they tend to have high landing speeds. you can't really put flaps on a delta.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Munnin The Crab posted:That has the very same wingshape and colour, so maybe it Was a center fuselage plane at a weird angle. Thanks folks. One's on the way.  That photo's from a while ago, here's where they're at now. Or at least in September when they updated that page.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:One's on the way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
drat, apparently they've been at it since 1985, when they first hiked to the wreck in the Indonesian jungle and started making plans to haul it out. Nearly 30 drat years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
ctishman posted:drat, apparently they've been at it since 1985, when they first hiked to the wreck in the Indonesian jungle and started making plans to haul it out. Nearly 30 drat years. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
That poor golden eagle, it has no feet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Oh man, Black Widow love. I built a model of one when I was a kid and it was one of the aircraft that made me interested in military aviation. What a plane, cannot wait to see the restored one fly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Yeah, the Black Widow was one of the few aircraft models I built as a kid. I think the only other one I ever finished was an Aardvark. I wish I could find the Libyan MiG-21 I got for a dollar when I was younger at the West Point yard sale they have every year, some old timer officer was getting redeployed elsewhere. He wanted like 50 bucks for it which wasn't unfair due to it being perfectly built and airbrushed, but he saw me looking at it and said "gimme a buck and take care of it". I have it in an acrylic case somewhere, I need to dig it out. Bums me out that kids don't build models anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Bums me out that kids don't build models anymore. They still sell some Revell in toystores around here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
grover posted:I saw it in... 91 or 92, maybe? They were talking about restoration but hadn't really started yet, and had hadn't yet built the restoration shop. The fuselage was in one of the hangers, but most of it was sitting outside on pallets in the grass, exposed to the elements. It mostly looked like this: And even that's better then what it looked like when they got to it:  Indonesia let them have the wreck in exchange for an operational Stearman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Bums me out that kids don't build models anymore. A few years ago I tried to build and paint a UH-1 Huey gunship, but I couldn't keep track of the paint and the parts when I had so many other things going on in my life at the time. They do require a certain amount of dedication.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The main issue with the YB-49 was the lack of proper computer assistance to help maintain flight characteristics, which when the B-2 was finally developed did have. Given enough computing power, we could make the Statue of Liberty fly -Ben Rich
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Given enough computing power, we could make the Statue of Liberty fly quote:There is not enough thrust in all of Christendom to make a carrier fighter out of this aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:There is not enough thrust in all of Christendom to make a carrier fighter out of this aircraft. Well, he said 'the aircraft that we want' not 'a carrier fighter out of this aircraft'. And given they wanted something more high performance than the F4, I kinda think he had a point, the F111 was *never* going to be that aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Well, he said 'the aircraft that we want' not 'a carrier fighter out of this aircraft'. The F-111B gets kind of an unfair treatment, generally. It was the correct decision to cancel it, but not because it was underpowered--the Tomcat had the exact same engines and effectively the same gross weight--but because it was designed for an obsolete mission. The Navy had since the end of WW2 had a day superiority fighter and a heavy all-weather fighter until the Phantom, which performed both roles. There was no way the F-111 could have matched the Tomcat in maneuverability, but this was because of the Tomcat's more advanced aerodynamics, not power-to-weight ratios. The F-14 was (and I guess still is, in Iran) no great shakes in the knife-fighting department, but all that body lift means it could fly rings round the Aardvark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Madurai posted:The F-111B gets kind of an unfair treatment, generally. It was the correct decision to cancel it, but not because it was underpowered--the Tomcat had the exact same engines and effectively the same gross weight--but because it was designed for an obsolete mission. The Navy had since the end of WW2 had a day superiority fighter and a heavy all-weather fighter until the Phantom, which performed both roles. There was no way the F-111 could have matched the Tomcat in maneuverability, but this was because of the Tomcat's more advanced aerodynamics, not power-to-weight ratios. The F-14A had a reputation for being underpowered. Sometimes it exploded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
The only reason why the Tomcat is looked upon kindly is because it was a movie star; in reality it was a shitheap. It was unreliable, overcomplicated and until the improved variants much later in its career, not a particularly forgiving aircraft to fly, to say nothing of the fact it was never really tested in its designed role. Also, there is debate as to how effective the AWG-9/Phoenix weapons system actually was; sure it worked reasonably well in controlled circumstances, but from what I understand, every missile fired in anger failed to hit their target (as far as we know; there is very little information about Iran's experience with the Phoenix). MrChips fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Also, there is debate as to how effective the AWG-9/Phoenix weapons system actually was; sure it worked reasonably well in controlled circumstances, but from what I understand, every missile fired in anger failed to hit their target (as far as we know; there is very little information about Iran's experience with the Phoenix). Didn't a bunch of the Phoenix engagements happen towards the end of their service life and a bunch failed because of bad rocket motors? I know at least one of their attempted engaments was against an Iraqi mig25 which had turned to run to iran at mach 2+. Not really the incoming soviet bomber style target it was intended to engage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Counterpoint: F-14 is loving cool, and there were some truly great and iconic CAG paint jobs too. (Tomcatters, Jolly Rogers, Sundowners) Actually I don't want that argument. Suffice to say the Navy's air arm has a history of some pretty good paint work  
Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
^^^^ Nice shot ^^^ Well, you can do at least one more: http://www.amazon.com/Revell-218717-144-2C-Hawkeye/dp/B001RKCCBW Well, maybe two: http://www.sears.com/revell-monogram-revell-1-144-e-2c-hawkeye/p-SPM7127005308P Hat trick: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Revell-1-144-04092-E-2C-HAWKEYE-NIB-/230662962200 (edit) Yeah...lots 'o' cash. VVV That Phantom, in that livery, was the very first model I ever attempted to build, back in 1972. I was nine, and it didn't end so well. PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Wait, not done yet!   Stupid Hornet flying the wrong way! ok, now I'm done. And shipping to Canada makes buying models online basically a non-starter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:And shipping to Canada makes buying models online basically a non-starter. For the rest of this weekend, these guys in Calgary and I think Edmonton are having a spring sale. 25% off all kits - you're welcome. Atten: Mr. Chips they have some weird German planes, the Revell Germany Luft '46 collection, and a $20 price for a 1/72 Ju 290. I bought a 1/72 Drakken and a 1/72 He 219 'Owl' edit: VVV :Fist Bump: VVV Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:For the rest of this weekend, these guys in Calgary and I think Edmonton are having a spring sale. 25% off all kits - you're welcome. Guess where I'm going tomorrow? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Went yesterday. Won't make south store in time though. Bought Acadamy AH-64a, Revell me262a-2, Minicraft b-29 Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Went to the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum in Hamilton this morning. Took somewhere around 100 pictures, and no time to put them up now (will do on Monday) but here's a teaser: This is one of 2 flyable Lancasters left in the world. It's getting a full engine overhaul right now. The mechanics say she'll be ready to fly for May 1st. Cannot wait. Oh hell, here's another: 
VERTiG0 fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
VERTiG0 posted:Went to the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum in Hamilton this morning. Took somewhere around 100 pictures, and no time to put them up now (will do on Monday) but here's a teaser: my friends had their wedding reception there! I have pictures as well, none of the very good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Well, as I alluded to before I got swamped with other things I had to take care of, I went to the 2013 Avalon Air Show. Here are some photos:  More formation fire by Powercube, on Flickr Never seen this routine before, it's actually interesting as opposed to most "commercial pilot flies a Pitts on the side" deals.  VH-AES by Powercube, on Flickr This C-47 used to be in the parking lot at Essendon  Roulette Break-away by Powercube, on Flickr The Roulettes still have the strangest name of any Western demo team...  09-4173 Is vertical by Powercube, on Flickr Interesting that this is a Raptor from Langley. VV Sorry, always get the two mixed up. Still, not the usual Raptor. Powercube fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Mar 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
It's from Langley. The FF tail flash is the 1st Fighter Wing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Can anyone else not help but pop at least a half-chub when seeing Raptors fly or is it just me?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
movax posted:Can anyone else not help but pop at least a half-chub when seeing Raptors fly or is it just me? No, the second you even hear their engines spool up is the second everyone's pants begin to tent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
movax posted:Can anyone else not help but pop at least a half-chub when seeing Raptors fly or is it just me? With Raptors in the pattern here in Alaska, you can tell who is watching by how their cars slowly veer off the road.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Z42vGgTA0 Why haven't we bought more of these?! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
Tenchrono posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Z42vGgTA0 Because it takes a lot of dollars to do this: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 01:39
|
|
