|
blugu64 posted:No, actually I think one is a fuel tank and the other the cockpit.... I was wrong! Jesus Christ.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
Godholio posted:Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
proto-Millenium Falcon spotted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 05:47
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
slidebite posted:I'm still waiting on a remake of circa 1998 Battlezone. Flying tanks in a strategy/action game in the first person perspective on the moon was even better than it sounds. Like, Battlezone 98 redux?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:No, actually I think one is a fuel tank and the other the cockpit.... I was wrong! There's a gun turret on the other wingtip? OHGOD
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Nuevo posted:Of course Blohm & Voss came up with something like that. Why wouldn't they. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 12:48
|
|
Amidships propellor? Sure, why not.
|
Yeah, like that. But more than just a port which I think that is by the screenshots, something updated with modern graphics. That said, on my wishlist for the next sale now. Thanks for the heads-up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Dannywilson posted:Me too, but IIRC, like Interstate '76, someone is sitting on the rights to the franchise just letting it rot. Really? I had no idea somebody was sitting on Interstate '76. blugu64 posted:No, actually I think one is a fuel tank and the other the cockpit.... I was wrong! I always assumed the pods on the end of the wings were gyroscopicly stabilized on the vertical axis - but this is wrong, it was just Dr_Strangelove posted:/----------X----------\ Oh lord:   Most of you here know of the Natter, the vertically launched, plywood made rocket powered and rocket firing fighter the Nazis dreamed up. Well, this thing is 1)towed into the sky and brought near a allied rocket formation. 2) launched, and uses its pulse-jet engine to make two passes at a bomber, one where it fires a weapon, (30mm cannon with like 5 rounds or rockets, TBA) and a second pass where it rams the bomber. Also TBA, if the pilot bails out or if German engineers could use springs to reduce the g-force of collision to something less than 9 G instead of the (calculated) 100 G.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
I think we need to commission "My Plane Is Fly!" to be written about these fantastic designs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I always assumed the pods on the end of the wings were gyroscopicly stabilized on the vertical axis - but this is wrong, it was just Wow, I didn't even think of the literal carnival ride that thing would be inside when making turns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Wow, I didn't even think of the literal carnival ride that thing would be inside when making turns. This is why flying wing ideas for airlines are stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:A few military aircraft could change the entire angle of attack of the wing for take off or landing. I believe that was only during the era of underpowered naval jet fighters though. vessbot posted:This is for visibility over the nose. The reasons were a lot more interesting than that. Landing gear are heavy. With capital letters. And the fuselage on the crusader is LOOOONG. To get reasonable tail clearance for landing you need equally long landing legs. By going with the tilting wing, they both saved weight, and provided better pilot visibility on landing. The crusader was ~not~ underpowered. Speaking of LOONG landing legs. The A-4's landing gear isn't all that long. It's just the A-4 is a tiny, tiny, tiny, airplane, that needs clearance to carry things underneath it. There's all sorts of neat things about the A-4. Like the landing gear are designed to fall into place if power fails. The slats on the leading edge of the wing are ~literally~ wind powered, and have no pilot or plane based controls. A combination of airspeed, and g-loading will cuase the slats to drop into place automatically during maneuvers. It's got what I think is the fastest roll rate of anything short of a r/c plane. (720deg/s) A F4 is 30500lbs empty. An A-4 is 9800lbs. Heck, a Crusader is 17,500lbs empty. The rudder on the A-4 looks funny, because it's a single skin of aluminum with external ribs. They had issues with flutter, so the usual engineering fix is to build a single skin, and come back and fix it later. ... they never fixed it later. I really like the A-4, and the design philosophy behind it. It's like an american Mig, that works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I always assumed the pods on the end of the wings were gyroscopicly stabilized on the vertical axis 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
What I don't get about most of those designs is the why. It seems like it's just an engineer having fun and posing challenges for himself, but then you see that many of them were actually proposed for production. What the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Inacio posted:What I don't get about most of those designs is the why. It seems like it's just an engineer having fun and posing challenges for himself, but then you see that many of them were actually proposed for production. What the gently caress. They were optimizing for things that aren't "usual." Like "number of engines." Or "can we make it of wood." Weird stuff happens when you put unusual constraints on things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Can we make a single engine aircraft with an observation pod with as much field of view as possible? There's some guy from a shipyard asking how attached we are to symmetry. Also focke-wulf is asking how attached we are to those older underpowered French engines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
They were also experimenting with aerodynamics. For instance, zigzagging wings (like the W-wing of the BV P.188.01) attempted at getting the advantages of wing sweep while mitigating its draw backs. An asymmetrical design like the BV P.111 is a compromise between achieving a stable floating design and minimizing the drag caused by extra pontoons: it's basically the principle of the outrigger canoe applied to a flying boat. Now stuff like the P.163, they have no possible justification besides expensive pranks, hatred of test pilots, engineering challenges, or excessive consumption of alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Really? I had no idea somebody was sitting on Interstate '76. Having your face right next to the breech of a 30mm cannon seems like a fun ride as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Inacio posted:What I don't get about most of those designs is the why. It seems like it's just an engineer having fun and posing challenges for himself, but then you see that many of them were actually proposed for production. What the gently caress. I've been thinking about this a bit lately. I could probably do a couple-thousand word post on the Nazis and their Amerika bomber projects (IE why in the name of god did they persist in even thinking about such things, let alone having meetings and devoting real-world resources to it) if it sparkles with the thread. As for the other designs, and suicidal rocket pods etc, the end motivation is really simple: you can either 1) keep dreaming and working on inter-continental bombers and rocket pod fighters and christ knows what etc, or 2) you can admit the war is lost. The Nazis especially would pick A - not only for the obvious psychological reasons, but because their ideology explicitly rejects the materialist view that numbers and resources are the deciding factor. They endorsed the view that "spirit" and "being Nazi" could overcome any odds. As to Blom und Voss, Dr. Richard Voght couldn't take no for an answer. The Luftwaffe made it explicitly clear that they hated the whole "asymmetric" concept but Voght kept submitting new designs. I know I've posted pictures of the P-194 I built, the asymmetric fighter made mostly out of wood with the jet engine pod on the bottom? That thing on paper was the best ground attack design of WW2, but the Nazis rejected it on how bizarre it looked. Phanatic posted:Having your face right next to the breech of a 30mm cannon seems like a fun ride as well. A good point, I think the pilot was gonna need a lot of national socialist ardor
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:As to Blom und Voss, Dr. Richard Voght couldn't take no for an answer. The Luftwaffe made it explicitly clear that they hated the whole "asymmetric" concept but Voght kept submitting new designs. I know I've posted pictures of the P-194 I built, the asymmetric fighter made mostly out of wood with the jet engine pod on the bottom? That thing on paper was the best ground attack design of WW2, but the Nazis rejected it on how bizarre it looked. That plane has a traditional propeller and a jet engine, is asymmetric and is built out of wood. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Inacio posted:That plane has a traditional propeller and a jet engine, is asymmetric and is built out of wood. My bad. Steel and wood, with aluminum for the control surfaces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think we need to commission "My Plane Is Fly!" to be written about these fantastic designs. I'd buy it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think we need to commission "My Plane Is Fly!" to be written about these fantastic designs. You're really not going to go with "My Plane Is Flight"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:A F4 is 30500lbs empty. An A-4 is 9800lbs. "Good morning class. In front of you are two aircraft, X and Y. One is a dedicated attack aircraft, the other is a dedicated fighter. They were both designed and in service at the same time by the same country. Your exam is to work out which is which. The following information may help you:"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Though those outrigger cockpits are pretty out there, I still like this one for how understated the insanity is. Looks normal enough at fist glance, but wait... the propellor is immediately behind the cockpit, encircling the fuselage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Nuevo posted:Though those outrigger cockpits are pretty out there, I still like this one for how understated the insanity is. I hadn't noticed that. Holy gently caress. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Amateurs, Focke-Wulf was willing to push things to the limit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Are those jets that provide thrust and a rotating motion to the "wings?" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:The reasons were a lot more interesting than that. Landing gear are heavy. With capital letters. And the fuselage on the crusader is LOOOONG. To get reasonable tail clearance for landing you need equally long landing legs. By going with the tilting wing, they both saved weight, and provided better pilot visibility on landing. The crusader was ~not~ underpowered. That's interesting about the Crusader, I hadn't thought about the increased tail clearance from the lower attitude. It's one of those things that becomes immediately obvious after someone mentions it. I also tickled by the concept behind the A-4 lightweight philosophy. They took the classic aerospace feedback loop of heavy weight requiring more weight to support it (more wing, more engine, more fuel) requiring more weight to support THAT weight, etc. (ultimately, the rocket problem), and turned it on its head. It's a lightweight plane which requires a smalle wing, and hey! It's so small that it doen't need to fold. Boom, there goes the structure and complexity behind the wing fold. Slats? Gravity and AOA actuated. There go the actuators. Gear retraction? Leave it a litle bit outside whereas most planes make some sort of spar cutout/kink. More structure saved. All that weight gone? Now we need even less wing and fuel, therefore we're even lighter, and the existing engine power now goes to performance rather than hauling that weight around. Ultimately, the A-4 weighed in at half of the spec of the proposal it was built under. However, I have very serious doubt over that 720 degree per second roll rate figure. I've seen it bandied around but never a reference to a good source. And given that the top performing competition/airshow aerobatic planes have half that roll rate (or slightly higher), while their entire purpose in design is maneuverability, I don't see how a plane with all the compromises of being a navy warplane can double that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Are those jets that provide thrust and a rotating motion to the "wings?" Not just jets, ramjets. With fuel pressurization provided by centrifugal force alone. And of course, rocket boosters to start the whole thing spinning and get the ramjets up to ignition speed. And the wings provided no lift, it would have flown with a slightly nose-up attitude so some of the thrust would be directed downward. A jet-propelled propeller-driven helicopter missile with guns, essentially. Late war Nazi interceptor concepts were loving wild.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I always assumed the pods on the end of the wings were gyroscopicly stabilized on the vertical axis - but this is wrong, it was just I think you mean longitudinal axis. If they were stabilized around that, it would only do harm and no good. It would take out rolling motions around the cockpit, but those aren't a big deal and are experienced by every normal airplane in turbulence and turns. What it would fail to take out (and what would be upsetting to occupants) is vertical displacements of the cockpit as the aircraft rolls around its own axis. Additionally, it would dis-align the cockpit from the rest of the aircraft in intentional turns, making them that much harder to fly. (The local weight vector would no longer be pointing toward the floor, and that pointing is a huge factor as a tactile cue in judging the coordination of a turn, as well as comfort)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
My favorite is still the supersonic coal fueled ramjet that was also to be built out of plywood. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Eh, it's easy to come up with batshit concepts when you've figured out no one will be able to ask you to make it work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
vessbot posted:That's interesting about the Crusader, I hadn't thought about the increased tail clearance from the lower attitude. It's one of those things that becomes immediately obvious after someone mentions it. So... 720 seems steep. Sure. So.. here's 10 minutes of research on the subject: http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepA4.html We can quote Budd Davidson for getting 400deg/s. "I tried to time the roll rate with my watch, but one roll happens so quickly you can't time it. So, I tried a double roll. Still too fast. Then a triple and finally we were doing four consecutive full-deflection rolls at a 30° nose-high attitude before I could get a reasonably accurate count. What was the roll rate? Only a sedate 400° per second. To put that in perspective, a Cessna is in the 75-90°-per-second range and a Pitts, the legendary fast-rolling Pitts, is only 180°. Four hundred degrees a second is so fast that your eyeballs take one more lap after the airplane has stopped turning." The blue angels used the A4 for a while, which is anecdotal, but it's something. This guy quotes 720deg/s http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=25618&start=15 But there's nothing to back that up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EEA-teJ-2Q There's an interesting video showing it's roll rate. Something well north of 360deg/sec.... Regardless, it's ~fast~ in a roll. Something about big ailerons and short wings, eh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Regardless, it's ~fast~ in a roll. Something about big ailerons and short wings, eh? Something tells me the Triebflugel would manage to beat it if that wing-rotor-whatever bearing ever seized up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Something tells me the Triebflugel would manage to beat it if that wing-rotor-whatever bearing ever seized up. Sure! For the 120degrees that the pilots head remained attached to the torso... I figure once the pilot is no longer ~live~ it's no longer relevant. :-)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Nuevo posted:Looks normal enough at fist glance, but wait... the propellor is immediately behind the cockpit, encircling the fuselage.   Blohm and Voss make rad planes
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Amateurs, Focke-Wulf was willing to push things to the limit. There's Heinkel's less-lunatic cousin to that, the Lerche  Landing that thing successfully (within the footprint of the airport) in IL2 is... probably one of my life's prouder achievements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
vessbot posted:There's Heinkel's less-lunatic cousin to that, the Lerche I spent a few tries landing it on a carrier while recording a track after Luthier made a challenge in the IL-2 thread. Didn't have anything else to do that month anyway. Ola fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
Trump sexual assault allegations just made airline chat great again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 11:23
|
|
