DoLittle posted:

The Bugatti air racer is very pretty and unique:

VikingSkull posted:

I just found this in my pictures and didn't really know why I saved it, so here's another Skyraider pic!

FullMetalJacket posted:

does anyone else miss fighter ace 2?

i spent alot of time in 109's and yak 9's. oh my teenage years...

VikingSkull posted:

little fuckers

decahedron posted:

The only reason the I-16 was around in WWII was because the Russians were idiots. It was obsolete by '38.

superdylan posted:

Click here for the full 1000x750 image.


Click here for the full 1000x750 image.


Click here for the full 1000x750 image.

Don't really know what to say about that

Sterndotstern posted:

So if I'm understanding correctly, there are two options for building a SSTO lifter:

1) Use a rocket but lug your oxidizer around with you. This has the advantage of simplicity and atmosphere/speed independence, but taking oxidizer requires a heavier fuselage to carry more weight, which in turn requires more fuel, leading quickly to larger scale craft and increased fuel requirements for a given payload.

2) Use a turbine/ram/scramjet hybrid to burn air to attain orbital speed in the atmosphere. This has the advantage of being relatively efficient for a given payload mass, since a higher ratio of the lifter's loaded weight is used for payload (versus fuel). The drawbacks include the need for a separate thrust system in order to function without atmospheric oxygen and the obvious (significant) engineering hurdles involved in building a craft powered by four separate paradigms of propulsion which must survive mach 25+ speeds within the atmosphere.

Sound about right?

^^^ Fine, how about some UGLY radial engines in charming but ugly helicopters:






Even though it's a funny place to stick a rotary engine in a heli, I suppose Sikorsky had his reasons for using a 1931-vintage engine for his otherwise modern chopper...

River Raid posted:

One of my dad's friends used to fly H-34s. Said he would piss the bed at night everytime he even thought about having to put one down in water. Since the pilots sit so loving high and the balance of it making it immediately flip when it touches down in it.

Nerobro posted:

Those are aerodynamic balances. They help offset the forces on control surfaces as air speeds increase.

Nerobro posted:

I'm accustomed to seeing mass balances inside the wings themselves, and aerodynamic balances at the wingtips. You'll see them quite commonly on elevators and rudders.

I"m saying that spade isn't there for CG reasons. The spade is there for CF reasons.

I'd imagine the use of a spade makes more sense due to the length and high aspect ratio of the control surface. Using an aerodynamic ballance in the middle of an alerion is going to have less flutter and torque issues than you'd find in a nice stocky control surface like a rudder, where using the tip for aerodynamic balance is very common.

grover posted:

Not technically an aircraft, but it flies at Mach 7 and will travel about 250 miles and I think warrants a mention here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BfU-wMwL2U

AlmightyPants posted:

Also, there was FST - Flight Simulator Toolkit I believe - that let you mess around with building your own planes. I do recall having trouble making anything that actually flew. Of course, I was in middle school. And usually stuck a dozen massive engines on what amounted to a twig. It was fun watching it spaz out!

BonzoESC posted:

I've heard that too. Does http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/257503/ describe it?

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ffJgk1-tCA&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ffJgk1-tCA

eggyolk posted:

I'm assuming the sonic boom gets drowned out by the SRBs?

simplefish posted:

Real? Fake?
http://m.imgur.com/gallery/jFmLx

C.M. Kruger posted:

cyclobenzaprine (a muscle relaxant) and diphenhydramine (i.e. Benadryl)

FrozenVent posted:

My naval architecture teacher used to joke that ships are designed from the propeller out; I assume it's the same for airplanes. Propeller science is ridiculously complex.

Nebakenezzer posted:

It's a little quiet, thread. Haev images:

Kilonum posted:

Not for me, closer to $40 to PVD via cab and train.

Nebakenezzer posted:

Airbus has a page on its efforts to restore a Focke-Wulf 200 Condor.

Nebakenezzer posted:

Good lord, the Privateer was goofy looking:

dupersaurus posted:

Discovered a surprise mini-airshow yesterday after I saw a B-17 fly over my house. Full album here, largely not ruined by boneheaded photog mistakes

Nebakenezzer posted:

Privateer:

Cat Mattress posted:

hobbesmaster posted:

https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/976866444532207616

Nebakenezzer posted:

With the NYT/WaPo they are not wrong

priznat posted:

Dornier Do-31 and it rules

Also I like how the Luftwaffe was so hot and heavy for no runway takeoffs they strapped a rocket to a F-104G https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/12/that-time-the-luftwaffe-experimented-with-a-rocket-launched-f-104g-starfighter/

Wingnut Ninja posted:

Okay, after staring at this for several minutes, I'll bite: what is -worthy about this pic? Unless it's just that it's a slick as hell FMS.

HookedOnChthonics posted:

Pimp My Bomber: B-17 Edition is out

Plinkey posted:

I have a ~40 minute drive to and from work every day, and most podcasts are like 45 minutes. So I'm hanging in the right lane in my Focus ST these days.

Nerobro posted:

I get worse gas mileage with my Focus ST than I did with my Mazda 6 V6. By a couple mpg.

vessbot posted:

Ooh another fun one. The pneumatic start on Yaks. It's not a turbine on the accesory drive like typical air starters, it's air going through the intake manifold distributed into the cylinders like an intake mixture, and pushes the pistons down, on what's normally the intake stroke, to turn the engine over. Not gonna work if you use nitrogen!