|
Phy posted:It's an Iranian fighter jet. That was developed from the F-5. With twin tails. And a blue and yellow paint job. NATO reporting name "Fauxrnet"
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
devmd01 posted:A couple of years ago in a PYF thread, someone linked to a page that I sadly can't find again, and don't remember the name of it to google - hopefully one of you can. You're looking for the Bugatti 100P.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
MrChips posted:You're looking for the Bugatti 100P. Here is my picture of it  bugatti-air-racer by RReiheld, on Flickr Not the best, but it is a terribly handsome aircraft. I had one of it hanginging from a few years ago as well, but haven't found it yet.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Someone could get really rich if they made some really nice mens' dress shoes which were actually crocs on the inside. Is this possible? kmcormick9 fucked around with this message at 22:12 on May 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
devmd01 posted:A couple of years ago in a PYF thread, someone linked to a page that I sadly can't find again, and don't remember the name of it to google - hopefully one of you can. Engines  There should be a reproduction Bugatti 100P flying this summer. http://bugatti100p.com/
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
joat mon posted:There should be a reproduction Bugatti 100P flying this summer. Holy crap. I had more than one friend that went to Osh this year, and none of them told me that there was a Bug replica getting ready to fly. My friends apparently suck. I might make a special trip to see it fly if they make summer 2012.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Engines It's a beautiful plane (those ailerons!), but it looks like it'd be absolutely terrifying to fly. With those engines where they are, you'd stall and go into a flat spin if you so much as breathe wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks all! 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
What are the openings on the leading edges of the V-tail for? Cooling?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
/\ /\ /\ Yes, they're for cooling the rear engine. Space Gopher posted:It's a beautiful plane (those ailerons!), but it looks like it'd be absolutely terrifying to fly. With those engines where they are, you'd stall and go into a flat spin if you so much as breathe wrong. Could the automatic split flaps system mitigate the tendency to spin? The Bugatti used a unique and complex system of self-adjusting split trailing-edge flaps. Both flap surfaces could be moved up and down, to suit the speed and power situation. The flap control was linked to a complicated system that sensed engine manifold pressure and air speed.  Figure 1 shows the flaps in the normal cruise position, triggered by moderate airspeed and manifold pressure. When the sensors picked up low airspeed and high manifold pressure, the flaps would be set in the takeoff/climb position, figure 2, increasing the lift of the wing. At max. power and high airspeed, the drag would be decreased to a minimum, figure 3. Less lift would be available, but not needed at this high speed. Fig. 4 shows the dive brake position, triggered by high air speed and low power. For landing the flaps operated to increase lift and drag, figure 5, while the top flap would rise while applyng the brakes, after landing (Fig.6). More detail
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
Geneseo County airshow, 1997  
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
Just read that there actually two groups trying to restore a Twin Mustang to flying status. I still refuse to believe any of the pictures of these loving things are real, I don't care if my grandfather flew em. Yall are goofin' me and I'm tired of it. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 09:21
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Just read that there actually two groups trying to restore a Twin Mustang to flying status. I still refuse to believe any of the pictures of these loving things are real, I don't care if my grandfather flew em. Yall are goofin' me and I'm tired of it. Yep, one of them is at Anoka County Airport in Blaine, MN. I got to tour their hangar a year or two ago and they had it in pieces. They needed a feathering prop for the reversed side engine and were having a bitch of a time finding one/getting one made. The Air Force has at least one on the F-82 on display at Lackland AFB but apparently they were rather unhelpful. They said that the current estimate was well over a million to get some German engineering firm to reverse engineer it. I'll see if I have the pics around tomorrow. The same guys owned 2 B-25s, a Grumman Albatross, some bizjet, about a dozen Corvettes and Vipers, and 50+ motorcycles, all in the hangar. Nuts.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 09:38
|
|
|
They shouldn't have to reverse engineer poo poo, the plans for all that stuff should still exist. The problem with going to the AF to help is that you basically have to find an enthusiast...the average joe doesn't give a poo poo. The 552 ACW (AWACS) let their old EC-121 static display (right outside wing headquarters) decay for over a decade before somebody pointed out that an AF-level regulation says it has to be maintained. A couple of months later, they gave her some great TLC...and found fuel and oil still on board.  Anyway, my point is that you need to find an AF historian, probably. Major wings usually have them, but I don't know if the 502d Air Base Wing (who runs Lackland) does. From there, you could try 2d Air Force then Air Education and Training Command...starting at the lower levels and moving up. Edit: Since you're not actually involved and this was a long time ago it's all completely moot. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 15:37
|
|
|
I just realized one of those long-dong carrying twin mustangs is named 'Miss Carriage' and I think that's amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
Here are some pics of that F-82 I got to see:   And here's the B-25 Betty's Dream which they owned at the time.  They don't own it any more (I don't think) but it's in that photo on the last page with all the B-25s. I think Lady Luck (their other one) and Miss Mitchell (the CAF B-25 I've worked on here in MN) are in it too but they are harder to pick out.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
 1951 ... the Duchess! by x-ray delta one, on Flickr An unbuilt follow-on for this  1950 ... Saunders and Roe- Princess by x-ray delta one, on Flickr Yeah, that happened.  30 by RReiheld, on Flickr Transatlantic passage for 30 people in stateroom luxury. Not the most economical, no. Alternate Zeppelin book title:  1929 ... ballooon juice gorilla gas-bags! by x-ray delta one, on Flickr Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 00:00 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
 From an old Timken bearings ad. Edit: Russian giant-seaplane makers Beriev are currently working on this monster:  400 feet long, 500-foot wingspan, max takeoff weight 2500 tons (not a typo, two and a half million kg). Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 01:03 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 00:56
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Slo-Tek posted:
 That flying boat is something else; 6 engines and contra-rotating props? As far as weird airplanes go, I think its up there next to Soviet wing in ground effect experiments and German asymmetrical madness. Also as you can tell it shocks me that there was ever something called "Zeppelin Stories".
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Just read that there actually two groups trying to restore a Twin Mustang to flying status. I still refuse to believe any of the pictures of these loving things are real, I don't care if my grandfather flew em. Yall are goofin' me and I'm tired of it. With two pilots, did they have to be ridiculously coordinated to prevent them from just flying around in circles, or did one steer and the other control the power, like an offshore racing powerboat?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
The Atlantic has a pretty good pictorial on the Hindenburg. Crazy to think that the Nazi's have been on U.S. soil before. http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/05/75-years-since-the-hindenburg-disaster/100292/
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Dr JonboyG posted:With two pilots, did they have to be ridiculously coordinated to prevent them from just flying around in circles, or did one steer and the other control the power, like an offshore racing powerboat? It was a night fighter. There was only one pilot; the other guy was a radar operator.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Actually, the Princess had ten engines. Eight of them drove the contra-rotating propellers (two engines per nacelle), with the other two in the outboard nacelles, driving single propellers.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Actually, the Princess had ten engines. Eight of them drove the contra-rotating propellers (two engines per nacelle), with the other two in the outboard nacelles, driving single propellers. ETOPS 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:Crazy to think that the Nazi's have been on U.S. soil before. The Nazis landed a group of saboteurs in Florida in 1942; from there they took trains to New York City and Chicago, and decided the mission was impractical and it was better here and gave themselves up. It didn't go as well as they'd hoped. Space Gopher posted:It was a night fighter. There was only one pilot; the other guy was a radar operator. That's fairly amusing, the F-15E -- it has a stick and throttle in the back seat in case something happens to the pilot and the bombardier has to fly home, but for some reason only the guy in front can pull the trigger on air-to-air missiles or guns -- the WSO's pickle switch only drops bombs and only when the pilot lets him, and the trigger on the backseat stick does nothing, whereas the pilot can use all weapons. I mean, it makes sense on the one hand -- the guy in back is the bombardier and shouldn't need missiles, and can't really see to aim the gun -- but on the other hand, if the pilot gets fragged and the WSO and airplane are still alive, the missiles might be useful. I guess in that case the WSO is expected to push his throttle all the way forward and call in the guys in the single-seat version. Speaking of firewalling the throttles, what do they mean by "Mach 2.5+"? How much "+"? Seems like the F-15 is old enough by now that it would've leaked or been made public.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
Cygni posted:I just realized one of those long-dong carrying twin mustangs is named 'Miss Carriage' and I think that's amazing. Even better it may also be the first documented sighting of a mudflap honey.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Speaking of firewalling the throttles, what do they mean by "Mach 2.5+"? How much "+"? Seems like the F-15 is old enough by now that it would've leaked or been made public. As I understand it, the F-15 is limited to Mach 2.5 at altitude, on account of engine temperature limitations. In a clean configuration (no stores, pylons and the like), the aircraft has the power to go faster than Mach 2.5 under certain conditions, but it would trash the engines. In reality, an Eagle with a combat load onboard would struggle to reach even Mach 1.6.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Just read that there actually two groups trying to restore a Twin Mustang to flying status. I still refuse to believe any of the pictures of these loving things are real, I don't care if my grandfather flew em. Yall are goofin' me and I'm tired of it. the 82 is loving awesome and is by far my favorite aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Did it have controls in both cockpits (like, say, the modern Mudhen) or was the RIO hosed if something happened to the pilot (as I assume is the case in two-place Navy jets)? From what I can see online, the P-82 prototypes and early versions kept dual controls, but later versions took out the right hand controls to fit more radar equipment. As for the F-15E's control setup, I think it's more so that the pilot and back seater can trade off napping and flying. There aren't many scenarios where you'd have a dead or incapacitated pilot, and a plane that's still capable of flying.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:As for the F-15E's control setup, I think it's more so that the pilot and back seater can trade off napping and flying. Good point, though the site I linked (which has more than you ever wanted to know about the Mudhen) says the second set of controls are for emergencies. The truth is probably closer to the early Twin Mustang's case, most likely -- MD was already making a fighter and a trainer, damned if they're going to build an entirely new rear cockpit for the bomber. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
I've got two of those decks
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
How exactly do winglets increase lift? i had a good 3 hours of staring at one but I couldnt figure it out.(The MD-88 I was on before that had none.)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
Tenchrono posted:How exactly do winglets increase lift? i had a good 3 hours of staring at one but I couldnt figure it out.(The MD-88 I was on before that had none.) Reduces drag, creating more lift.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
Tenchrono posted:How exactly do winglets increase lift? i had a good 3 hours of staring at one but I couldnt figure it out.(The MD-88 I was on before that had none.) Winglets basically work by reducing the effects of wingtip vorticies, which allows an aircraft to go faster for a given amount of thrust or require less thrust (and therefore burn less fuel) to fly at a given airspeed. On a basic wing, the lower pressure on the top of the wing and the higher pressure on the bottom meet at the wingtip, where they form a vortex that not only disrupts airflow over part of the wingtip (thus creating drag), but can also create significant turbulence behind the aircraft. A winglet is somewhat similar to a wing turned sideways, and when the rotating air comes off the wing, it strikes the winglet in a manner that produces a small amount of thrust from what would otherwise be wasted energy. Winglets also shift the location of the vortex slightly upward, which reduces the amount of interference the vortex causes with airflow over the top of the wing. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 05:07 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
Tenchrono posted:How exactly do winglets increase lift? i had a good 3 hours of staring at one but I couldnt figure it out.(The MD-88 I was on before that had none.) If you've ever watched a plane without winglets fly through clouds, you might've noticed that the air at the wingtips swirls up and over on top of the wing, decreasing lift. Winglets essential stop that air swirl. Or at least that's how it was explained to me. E: Beaten so utterly
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
Tenchrono posted:How exactly do winglets increase lift? i had a good 3 hours of staring at one but I couldnt figure it out.(The MD-88 I was on before that had none.) they move goofy aero poo poo away from the lift-generating surface of the wing without creating too much drag
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:they move goofy aero poo poo away from the lift-generating surface of the wing without creating too much drag So, lets talk about the whole wing thing. Wings have elliptical lift patterns. For a constant chord wing, you make the most lift near the wing root, and no lift at the wing tip. This has a lot of contributing factors, but the biggest single bit, is the pressure change across the wingtip causing spillage. Due to the lower pressure on the top of the wing, air from under the wing tries to come over the top. This causes crosswise flow across the surface of the wing. Since wing near the tip, is less effective, they often taper wings. both in structure, and chord. This lets you build a lighter wing. The aspect ratio of the wing, also affects the crosswise flow. The narrower the wing, the less the crosswise flow affects things. Crosswise flow also ends up stirring up something called a wingtip vortex. This is a big corkscrew of air that comes from the air spilling around the wingtip. This sucks up a lot of energy. So how do you get rid of that wingtip vortex? Well, higher aspect ratio wings help. Wing fences help. Lightly loading the wing helps. Winglets are effectively large wing fences. By reducing the amount of air spilled around the wingtips, you're increasing the effective span of the wings. By making more lift, you make smaller vorticies. Sadly, winglets also increase frontal and wetted area. Which doesn't help economy. But the smaller losses from the vorticies usually compensates. There's something called a hornier wing tip, that also reduces the wingtip vorticies. For smaller planes, the reduced surface area and very light construction often have a bigger benefit. A hornier wing tip looks like you ran a miter saw along the cord of the wingtip. Winglets, work when pointed up, and down. As I understand it, down is more effective, but there are ground clearance issues to consider on most airliners.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Edit: Russian giant-seaplane makers Beriev are currently working on this monster: Yeah, I can never wrap my head around the insane lift capacity of ground effect vehicles. Even the little ekranoplans could carry over 100 tonnes of cargo. This is an old pic, but I'd love to see someone build some of the concepts seen in the post 1980 section: 
Megillah Gorilla fucked around with this message at 16:43 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Yeah, I can never wrap my head around the insane lift capacity of ground effect vehicles. Edit nvm, thought those were aircraft, not ground effect vehicles.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
They're ground-effect vehicles that are intended to skim a few meters over water.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 16:58
|
|
