|
invision posted:
I have a Proctor Enterprises kit of the DR-I that I will finish someday. It came with blueprints, and flying instructions. If built right, Proctor says, it will fly like the original, which was inherently unstable due to the huge wing area and the short moment between the wing & the tail. This instability, in the hands of a talented (and possibly insane) pilot, meant that the DR-I could execute 180-degree turns and loops with little notice and within extremely small boxes. It was loved and feared by pilot and quarry alike. It also meant that the plane has to be flown with forward pressure on the stick al all times, as it constantly wants to pitch up (see any film or photo of a DR-I, restored or replica, in level flight). To land it requires it to be flown all the way to the runway - forget about flaring. So yeah, unforgiving, requiring constant attention, almost impossible to stay ahead of the aircraft. That assessment seems spot-on.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
invision posted:So, in Vancouver, WA there was an air museum called Pearson Air Museum. It was privately owned by a trust or something, and had some cool planes in it. The National Park Service apparently took it over at the beginning of the year, and the old people took their toys and went home, leaving it with basically nothing but the following: I used to live in Vantucky and remember the DC-3 parked out front. I heard it went down to Aurora with the DC-3 they have there? Too bad about the decline; maybe they can arrange a plane-share program with the Evergreen museum?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:I was making a joke that riding on the MD-80/DC-9 series is "going there on a towering pillar of smoke and noise" compared to more modern airplanes with higher-bypass engines. The MD-90 uses high-bypass IAE VG2500s so I was merely correcting your joke to actually make sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
I've stumbled across three books lately that have been blowing my mind: Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Fighters, Ground Attack and Special Purpose Aircraft, and Strategic Bombers 1939-1945. The effect is like picking up one of those 'aircraft of the world' books (that I used to read as a kid) except from some weird alternate dimension near ours. Some projects are just variants on aircraft that existed, others are shadows of things to come later, and some projects are just...strange.   I'll let you guess which is which I've been reading a fair bit from the strategic bomber book because of my interest in the Fw 200 and the Ju 290, and a fair bit of the projects covered are more insubstantial than most paper projects, because the Reich Air Ministry (RLM) essentially hated all strategic bomber projects. In pre-war Nazi Germany, it was apparently doctrine that no war would last a long time; wars would be short and intense. Finding fuel for a strategic bomber fleet was also essentially beyond the ability of the Third Reich once trade with the USSR stopped. And of course, in the battle of strategic bomber proponents vs tactical bombers supporters, the tactical bomber guys won overwhelmingly, to the point the one real heavy bomber project was sabotaged by Luftwaffe officials who insisted it be as fast as a fighter and be able to dive bomb. Despite all this, the various aircraft makers were always dreaming up new designs for strategic long range aircraft and submitting them, essentially because the aircraft makers believed the designs were of critical importance. (Or a really fat defense contract, take your pick.)   When the RLM shot down proposals for more conventional modified airliner-bombers to replace the Fw 200, Focke-Wulf dreamed up the Fw 261. It had the abilities of a B-29, save it's range, which was much greater. Below is another proposal to replace the Condor: the Junkers EF 100. Like the Condor it started off as an airliner for Lufthansa, and then was modified for the Naval bomber/recon role. Work stopped on it in 1941 - only to be taken up again in 1942, only to be abandoned again when the Ju 290 had flown. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
A sick part of me wishes Nazi Germany survived long enough* to get more of those utterly bizzaro proposals off the drawing board. Especially Blohm und Voss alternative universe contraptions. *Completely ignoring that whole holocaust, cost of lives in fighting, etc thing. In other news, I was going through some boxes of books that my uncle gave me from his downsizing and the dude had TONS of WW2 books, most of them written in the 50s to 70s, and a few even period during the war. He has Gallands book in there too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Ahhhh... WWII books from the 50's, where every tank that's boxy is labeled as a tiger, and all bubble canopy planes are P-51s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
How is this possibly a good idea? Any time you tried to turn you'd be flung about. Looks cool, though. slidebite posted:A sick part of me wishes Nazi Germany survived long enough* to get more of those utterly bizzaro proposals off the drawing board. Especially Blohm und Voss alternative universe contraptions. Ah yes, the "drat that's some cool poo poo, pity about the evil" disclaimer I always have to add whenever I talk about some of the incredible things the Nazis* were thinking up. *Evil, evil, evil!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
I'm surprised http://www.luft46.com/ hasn't been posted more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:How is this possibly a good idea? Any time you tried to turn you'd be flung about. quote:Ah yes, the "drat that's some cool poo poo, pity about the evil" disclaimer I always have to add whenever I talk about some of the incredible things the Nazis* were thinking up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Ahhhh... WWII books from the 50's, where every tank that's boxy is labeled as a tiger, and all bubble canopy planes are P-51s. My son does that. Every tank is now a Tiger tank. Panzer Mk3? Tiger. Panther? Tiger. Sherman? Tiger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
My home airline, SAS, is retiring their MD-80s, and recently had their last flight. The newspapers are waxing poetic about the "Cadillac of the Skies" and the "Beloved Workhorse." Personally I'm not going to miss the noisy bastards, and I'm sure the improved fuel efficiency of the replacement A320s will slightly lower the billions my government will have to infuse SAS with to keep it afloat over the coming years. Pics of the Scandinavian Mad Dog's last flight here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
Mad dogs own. On the inside they are so much quieter than the A320 up front.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Mad dogs own. On the inside they are so much quieter than the A320 up front. everyone who likes mad dogs raise your hand 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
We had a B-25 flyover at the game here this weekend. They were doing practice runs on Friday all over town and it was awesome hearing it fly 1000 feet over. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
bolind posted:My home airline, SAS, is retiring their MD-80s, and recently had their last flight. The newspapers are waxing poetic about the "Cadillac of the Skies" and the "Beloved Workhorse." Personally I'm not going to miss the noisy bastards, and I'm sure the improved fuel efficiency of the replacement A320s will slightly lower the billions my government will have to infuse SAS with to keep it afloat over the coming years. If you ever get nostalgic delta will probably have the same planes operating out of ATL next week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:How is this possibly a good idea? Any time you tried to turn you'd be flung about. It was going to be a dive bomber/ground attack plane. The pilots are in one wing pod, and the two gunners are in the other - the idea was that by placing the crew in the wingtips, they would have an excellent field of view. Also, guns would have a much less restricted field of fire if they didn't have to worry about props and tail surfaces.  A much saner project (save one insane twist) was the Ju 187. During the battle of Britain the Ju 87 started to show its age, and the Ju 187 was a update to the design. This is something that say, the Japanese were very good at: design a new warplane to replace an older one, while keeping the design essentially conventional. German aerospace engineers, of course, just had to add one brilliant twist to that process...  [/URL]For extra defense, they added a remote turret to the rear of the plane. Instead of making it a tail turret like a untermenchen aeronautical designer would have done, they mounted the turret to the fuselage and had the tail rotate out of the turret's way. Some of the designs are so eccentric, in fact, that I can't help but wonder if the designers were doing whatever the gently caress they wanted because they knew anything that wasn't an existing design would be rejected. I mean seriously German engineers, you are going to tell me you took this poo poo seriously  If by the end of the war they were taking the piss and just writing RnD checks to investigate what they thought was cool, I can't really blame them. I think everyone around here would agree that Luftwaffe procurement was often downright retarded. Take this for example:   Oh, and the entire cockpit could eject itself via rockets This is the Henschel P87, a ground attack plane that looks like something Mr. Rutan would have designed. After much engineering work had been done on it and it was time to start building prototypes, the top Luftwaffe brains rejected the whole enterprise, writing a not saying "pilots would not become accustomed to having propellers in the rear and tailplanes in the front."  I should point out this was in 1941. slidebite posted:A sick part of me wishes Nazi Germany survived long enough* to get more of those utterly bizzaro proposals off the drawing board. Especially Blohm und Voss alternative universe contraptions. I know what you mean - I think we're OK as long as we don't start thinking along these lines without those asterisks. A cool machine is a cool machine. Also, at least some of the designs in the book resemble, or would inspire other designs: Nazi A-10:  (The book's authors claim this Junkers design for a jet powered attack aircraft with big guns and heavy armor actually was an influence on the A-10's design; not sure how much truth their is to that.) Nazi Northrop flying wing:  Nazi B-36:  Nazi B-47:  Nazi Vickers Valiant:  [/URL]Nazi Tu-95:  Nazi very long range reconnaissance strategic bomber flying wing split tail modular external cargo container carrier:  [/URL]Nazi oh gently caress it: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If you ever get nostalgic delta will probably have the same planes operating out of ATL next week. Nebakenezzer posted:
Look at the tail and canopy. Either the person that did that drawing has seen an A-10 and wanted to imply that Republic was full of Nazis, or it's accurate to the German design, And Republic really was full of Nazis. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
I really don't see what's wrong with that plane, it's not like the germans were the only country doing weird stuff...  e: also..  
SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Look at the tail and canopy. Either the person that did that drawing has seen an A-10 and wanted to imply that Republic was full of Nazis, or it's accurate to the German design, And Republic really was full of Nazis. Was Northrop full of Nazis as well? Because the YA-9 had a similar cockpit configuration, and engines in the wing root to boot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Oh, and the entire cockpit could eject itself via rockets Well, we did try this in the B1-A until it killed a pilot. The 4 ejection seat design seems to work a lot better in the Bone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
I made this just for fun this morning trying to come up with painting comps:
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
It's no secret Fairchild Republic cribbed a lot from that Junkers. A good design is a good design no matter where it comes from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
I kind of love this
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I kind of love this It looks like something out of crimson skies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Well, we did try this in the B1-A until it killed a pilot. The 4 ejection seat design seems to work a lot better in the Bone. The F-111 had a perfectly fine ejection capsule/cockpit, and the individual ejection capsules in the B-58 worked ok IIRC. I'm pretty sure that the B-1 ejection capsule worked as well as seats did. Sure the first actual use resulted in 1 loss of life, but so did the first use of the seats on the B-1B. Ejection has always been a BIT of a gamble on every airframe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:The F-111 had a perfectly fine ejection capsule/cockpit, and the individual ejection capsules in the B-58 worked ok IIRC. I remember reading, too, the production run B-70 would've had the entire cockpit eject as a capsule as well, as it was thought the safest way for a full crew of four personnel to eject at super-sonic speeds. The XB-70, as it only had two crew members, had individual capsules that worked the one time it was used, save for a broken arm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
I love the fact that this thing is clearly set up to try and catch the little parasite fighter again. That tiny landing strip is as adorable as it is impractical. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I remember reading, too, the production run B-70 would've had the entire cockpit eject as a capsule as well, as it was thought the safest way for a full crew of four personnel to eject at super-sonic speeds. The XB-70, as it only had two crew members, had individual capsules that worked the one time it was used, save for a broken arm. Standard ejection seats are bad news at supersonic speeds. It's possible to survive, but you can expect to be completely hosed up. I got to meet a guy who had an F-15 disintegrate around him at stupid high speeds and the list of medical issues he had (flail injuries, almost complete facial reconstruction, spinal problems, etc) was just jaw-dropping.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Standard ejection seats are bad news at supersonic speeds. It's possible to survive, but you can expect to be completely hosed up. I got to meet a guy who had an F-15 disintegrate around him at stupid high speeds and the list of medical issues he had (flail injuries, almost complete facial reconstruction, spinal problems, etc) was just jaw-dropping. Supersonic ejection's best case scenario is probable crew survival upon landing. It makes no further promises.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It looks like
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Supersonic ejection's best case scenario is probable crew survival upon landing. It makes no further promises. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Here's an article on the f-15 driver godholio was talking about : http://www.ejectionsite.com/insaddle/insaddle.htm
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Balls of loving adamantium, in that picture there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
ursa_minor posted:Here's a little painting I did for my Dad and his buddies last night - He and his friends all own little Cessnas, Aroncas, Satabrias and whatnot, and they call themselves the Hundred Horse Air Force, so I thought it'd be funny to do a little series of their imagined exploits. I'm really just using it as something to learn on, I'm extremely new to digital painting. Very nice! It's Aeronca and Citabria (Airbatic backwards)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:(Airbatic backwards) I never noticed that before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I never noticed that before. I've always wanted a Citabria and I soloed in a pre-war Chief so that post pushed all of my buttons!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Ever heard folks call them "Aeron-AH-Cas" out loud?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
My favorite planes are the Junkers 88 and the BF-110. I wish I could have one of either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Looks comparable to the de Havilland Vampire: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 00:33
|
|