|
e.pilot posted:I like the gopros mounted all over it for...reasons? They should’ve also put those streamers everywhere to really sell that it’s a flight test article!
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1334952754830323713?s=20
marumaru fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:e: runners-up for best unexplored flight sim game world would be a latter-day WWII 1947 setting of piston and prop pushed to their absolute extreme, XF-12s, Mixmasters, Thunderscreeches, etc., and alt-1930s "victory through air power" world where it's all multi-engine air cruisers with 37mm cannons chasing after each other IL-2 1946 had some of the 1947 paper-only aircraft. I'm partial to the He-162 variants myself, good looking, fast and heavily armed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuFMBT2VAA4
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Fixed gear all the way to FL900. Funny thing, early high altitude jets like the B-47 and U-2 flying in coffin corner, couldn't decrease thrust because the fuel controller worked the idle up to be the same as cruise power. So the only way to begin a descent was to add drag by dropping the gear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYMqpL1DtV0 Here's their hour long unveiling video. I've seen about 20 mins of it so far, the thesis to this point is "we give the customers an app and use smart software and suddenly space access is cheap." They seem way more focused on turning space access into an app than the details like "we haven't flown our plane or our rocket yet but it'll work out within a year."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
So I was perusing the Wiki article on the Luftwaffe's Emergency Fighter Program that was supposed to get up a fleet of small, cheap, semi-disposable interceptors built quickly by unskilled workers from non-strategic materials (that are at the same time, sci-fi levels of tech and performance) and flown by barely trained Hitler Youth as a last desperate measure to counter Allied bombing. Among the panoply of designs of various powerplant types and general batshit Aeronautically Insane configurations churned out under that program, were the somewhat well-known He 162 and Bachem 349 Natter. Among the others, my eyes glided over the "glider" category like the Blohm und Voss BV 40 and my brain automatically filled it in as "rocket glider" (like the famous Me 163 Komet) but after some reading, had a dolly zoom moment when I saw that they really do simply mean "glider." It was supposed to be towed by a Me-109 and released for a single pass attack on the way down. Which brings into question, why doesn't the Me 109 dispense with the heavy and draggy glider it's towing, and simply use its own guns instead? The only possible answer being, that it was intended to do both, ultimately bringing a fighter-and-a-half to the fight at the cost of one engine and fuel load. vessbot fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
vessbot posted:So I was perusing the Wiki article on the Luftwaffe's Emergency Fighter Program that was supposed to get up a fleet of small, cheap, semi-disposable interceptors built quickly by unskilled workers from non-strategic materials (that are at the same time, sci-fi levels of tech and performance) and flown by barely trained Hitler Youth as a last desperate measure to counter Allied bombing. Among the panoply of designs of various powerplant types and general batshit Aeronautically Insane configurations churned out under that program, were the somewhat well-known He 162 and Bachem 349 Natter. They may have also intended for the comparatively expensive 109 to release the glider outside of engagement range and escape before anyone came after it, preserving it to launch more gliders later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
Midjack posted:They may have also intended for the comparatively expensive 109 to release the glider outside of engagement range and escape before anyone came after it, preserving it to launch more gliders later. True, that's a possibility I didn't think of. But I immediately question the feasibility of doing that, while getting to a position high enough above, and at a steep enough angle above (read: laterally close to) the bomber formation, which is already flying at the altitude limits of piston technology, while themselves being hampered by the weight and drag of towing another aircraft. (btw a mistake in my previous post, it's really one engine, and a fuel load and a half)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:
I've seen fiberglass mockups with more convincing landing gear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 03:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 04:06
|
|
|
I wouldn't buy that plane second hand knowing what the current owner is doing in there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 04:10
|
|
|
Rude registrations are a way of life, man. We have C-GOCK at my home airport, and although the G is identifiably a G, the font they chose for the registration makes it look significantly more like a C than alternative choices might.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
Nice Hiperbipe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
Why is that not a floatplane?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
do they make wheel pants with cuffs for slightly less formal parking ramps?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:IL-2 1946 had some of the 1947 paper-only aircraft. I'm partial to the He-162 variants myself, good looking, fast and heavily armed. All well and good, but I'm thinking less early jets and more a world where this becomes a template for powerplant design in large aircraft:  The B-36, A-1, Tu-95, and Westland Wyvern are all pretty much from the category I'm talking about in terms of what actually made it to production, other examples would be the Hughes XF-11, Boeing XF8B, Convair XC-99, YB-49, I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting. HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:All well and good, but I'm thinking less early jets and more a world where this becomes a template for powerplant design in large aircraft: why did they think the Brabazon was a good idea
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 07:06
|
|
|
vessbot posted:True, that's a possibility I didn't think of. But I immediately question the feasibility of doing that, while getting to a position high enough above, and at a steep enough angle above (read: laterally close to) the bomber formation, which is already flying at the altitude limits of piston technology, while themselves being hampered by the weight and drag of towing another aircraft. I don't think there's any mystery here. They're just desperate and clutching at straws. I note the Nazi's cancelled it themselves after a few test flights. Presumably because testing proved the idea impractical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 10:17
|
|
|
The Russians used a
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 10:30
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:why did they think the Brabazon was a good idea Imgur is a pain in the rear end on mobile so just imagine a photo of Jacob Rees-Mogg here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 12:04
|
|
|
It's fine to show your engineering mockup for the introduction while the 1st article is in production. Just say, "This is a our engineering test article, we remove the landing gear for wind tunnel testing and perform electronic and mechanical integration work with it." Everyone understands that you need the gov't contract money to complete the actual thing, if you are for real. Just don't try and pass of what is obviously an engineering test article as a production unit because then people think you are full of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 14:53
|
|
|
The other thing about all of those late war German designs is that the various companies knew the war was lost, and that as soon as they ran out of work their whole team of engineers were going to be handed rifles and sent to the defense of Berlin. Everyone, from owners down to draftsmen were incentivized to keep pushing out any design that seemed vaguely plausible. Better to be drawing crazy poo poo in a warm dry office than crouching in the mud...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
As someone put it in a great effort post, "Look Busy and Hope the Americans Capture You" e:url standard.deviant fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:why did they think the Brabazon was a good idea The thing to remember is that the Brabazon concept dated back to the late 1930s when Bristol began toying with ideas for a trans-Atlantic pressurised four-engined airliner to compete with the Boeing Stratoliner and the Short flying boats. It was then revised to meet an Air Ministry specification for the same thing, then cancelled, then brought out and tweaked again in 1942 for a Ministry spec for a long-range heavy bomber, then adapted back to a civilian application to meet the spec laid down by the Brabazon committee in 1944. At that time the jet engine was still in its infancy and the first turboprop was two years away from entering production. Neither of the gas turbine powerplants had the potential power needed, and Bristol's own Centaurus was the the most powerful British aero-engine available at the time...and even then it would need coupling with the contra-rotating prop setup. So the Brabazon was a late-1930s concept tweaked to a 1944 specification, and the world (both in terms of aviation and everything else) changed a lot in the five years between 1944 and 1949. The Brabazon committee was rather short-sighted, both in terms of market (it basically only looked at what the needs of British airlines serving the Empire would need) and in terms of vision, since it basically took the aviation world of the 1930s and made it bigger. The Brabazon specification called what was essentially a flying ocean liner, carrying a very small number of very rich passengers (or those travelling on HM Government's account) in great comfort. In terms of its sheer scale and its structural engineering the Brabazon was arguably just ahead of its time, since nothing like that size was seen on civil aircraft until the wide-body jets of the 1960s. But the execution was wrong. The same applied to the original Brabazon specification for what became the DH Comet, which originally called for an 'Imperial Mail-Plane' and DH's original proposal was for what was basically an up-scaled tri-jet Vampire carrying (IIRC) half a dozen passengers and a ton of air-mail. DH managed to have the spec changed to something more conventional, even if the design progressed through a number of fast-but-low-capacity flying wings to get to the final Comet version. Even as they were putting the Brabazon together the engineers knew that it was outdated, and before the prototype even flew the second example was being redesigned to use Proteus turboprops (which itself had a massively troubles development programme). Like most British machines, the Brabazon was fiendishly complicated and over-engineered, was a maintenance nightmare and had no thought in its design for 'stretch' or adaptation by the customer. The Stratrocruiser, Constellation and DC-6 had already shown that the future lay in smaller, higher-capacity, less luxurious, less complex and more versatile aircraft (although many of the Brabazon's issues also surfaced, to a lesser extent, in the Constellation).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
 Registration number chat
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
Nice
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
 and https://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/G-OCOK.html has an obvious celebrity owner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
wzm posted:
And Hammond's R44 is G-OHAM (Registered to "HAMSTERS WHEEL PRODUCTIONS LTD")
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
MisterOblivious posted:And Hammond's R44 is G-OHAM With Hammond's luck a helicopter does not seem like a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
I'm still amazed no Finn has ever tried OH-SHI Edit: bonus photo of spaniel with airplane: https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1133855
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
So the raptor needs Jerry as the test pilot
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So the raptor needs Jerry as the test pilot https://youtu.be/Nkb6jex6-80
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 03:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/1336150145369444352 pour one out for the great one
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
RIP to a real one
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/1336150145369444352 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 04:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/865449629223067648
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 05:00
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/1336150145369444352 Witnessed
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 05:51
|
|
|
He outlived the actor (Sam Shepard) who portrayed him in the 1980s film that depicted his exploits from the 1940-50s. I'm sure I'm not the only one who lurks this thread because his autobiography spurred my love of aviation from an early age. Godspeed, you cantankerous, stubborn, brave legend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 10:36
|
|
|
He shot down five me-109s in one dogfight lol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Hoopy Frood posted:He outlived the actor (Sam Shepard) who portrayed him in the 1980s film that depicted his exploits from the 1940-50s. I'm sure I'm not the only one who lurks this thread because his autobiography spurred my love of aviation from an early age. Godspeed, you cantankerous, stubborn, brave legend. I enjoyed his cameo in The Right Stuff, which consisted of him giving one of the other actors the hairy eyeball. Time to bring out his autobiography...it's a bit rosy, but well-written.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 03:35
|
|
