It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Aircraft picture quiz

page: 57
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:24 AM
The first shot is of a Tempest II,
The second is the Tempest I prototype...

they both have four bladed props! - the apparent odd spacing of the blades is a trick of the camera shutter.

The last shot is the Saunder-Roe SR.A/1 flying boat jet fighter.

[edit on 29/1/06 by The Winged Wombat]

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:30 AM
Sea Fury


posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:45 AM
The advancement of the TSR 2 was not so much in its airframe, although it was better than the Tornado with both an internal weapons bay AND decent fuel capacity, but more in its overall concept as a 'bombing system' and its avionics fit. Certainly the XB-70 was amore adventurous airframe design. Its electronic systems and terrain following capability were like nothing seen before. Chief test pilot Jimmy Dell once commented, for example, how 'sitting there with your arms folded at less than 150ft was certainly very exciting'!. And this remember for a plane in which only the first prototype had flown, with a fully function TFR system already in place. He also estimates that the in service date would have been about 1974, rather than 1968 as is generall accepted, because of the sheer amount of new technology that required proving first. Maybe the Govt knew this all along and is one of the factors in its demise that has gone unnoticed?

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:14 AM
Here are some pictures of different engine installations in the Fury, if you look closely you will see that they are the same aeroplane, LA610. The lower photograph showing the Sabre installation, depicts LA 610 at the point where it became the fastest Hawker piston fighter ever built.

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:23 AM
how about this

Its kinda easy but I prefer putting in modern planes

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:43 AM
If it was a serious concept and not just someone's imagination, then I would suggest......

a) a Design concept on the road to the F/A-22, and...

b) a serious lack of directional stability ! Although with thrust vectoring and a computer - who knows

Kinda looks like somebody got the parts of their F/A-22, Mirage III and Vought Cutlass kits all mixed up!

Waynos, I think the real reason for the cancellation of the XB-70 was two-fold. Firstly, how much it was all going to cost. And secondly, the fear that speed and altitude just wouldn't cut it anymore. The same scenario was played out again later with the B-1A, which was re-born as the low-level B-1B penetrator. It's all rather cyclic as we've headed back there again with research into hypersonic bombers which present only a fleeting vulnerability over a target. It's all a bit "you invent a fast low-level penetrator" and "I invent look down-shoot down radar and missiles that can find you against the ground clutter" so "you go higher and faster" and I develop "missles to get you", so you go "stealth" and I develop "better detection systems" and only fight during the day when I can see your stealth aircraft.............. I'm surprised we haven't gone back to biplanes for better manoeuvre ! Hmmm, has anyone ever tried a tandem wing delta?

[edit on 29/1/06 by The Winged Wombat]

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:54 AM
Is it a modellers interpretation of the X-44 converted from an F-22 kit?

Here's a picture for emile, although anyone is welcome though I suspect it is not even s challenge for Wombat.

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:01 AM
Go for it emile !!!!!

I don't think I've ever seen a picture of one quite that shiny though.

[edit on 29/1/06 by The Winged Wombat]

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:26 AM
Oops..... I hit the wrong button and lost the U2U !

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:38 AM
I've sent it again, yer muppet

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:48 AM
Of course, it's us Skippies that get the blame for not ordering the TSR.2. If only we had had someone to nuke - oh, I know we could have nuked New Zealand. Maybe not, no one would have noticed!

After the UK Phantom fiasco - Speys to upset the aerodynamics and make it go slower, etc, you have to wonder how the F-111K might have turned out.

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:54 AM
F-111k? *shudders*

Looks quite decent in this impression, still prefer the old 'BAC Eagle' though.

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:04 AM
Don't be mistaken, after all the initial problems and scandals (if you recall, most of the carry-through box problems came back to a supplier who was selling GD sub-standard assemblies - I think he's still in the slammer) the F-111 turned out to be a fine aeroplane.

A fighter, it most definitely was not, and I'm not sure the USAF got what it needed (and that's a political story to rival "the last manned fighter"), even with the FB-111, but for once they built something that actually suited us here in down-under land. It must have been a huge mistake on their part.

Gotta go - 4 am here - time for some shut-eye.

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 05:37 AM

Originally posted by waynos
Here's a picture for emile, although anyone is welcome though I suspect it is not even s challenge for Wombat.

Just this one you won't think that can quizz me
Yak-23! Hahahaha your post name also prove what I said
Who can give me some photos to show the part of turret on Pia.108's wing? I mean a real bomber not a model.

[edit on 30-1-2006 by emile]

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 07:54 AM
Here you go emile....

P.108B Prototype...

P.108B Serie I.....


emile is this to add to your collection or is it for a modelling club?

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:15 AM
That's what I want! That's just what I want!!

Wombat, my Wombat, you are good man! I know how kind you are. Would you pleae give me that cutaway sending by E-mail? You just attach it if it is too big please use WinRAR or WinZip, Don't compress it don't resize it. I really want a whole picture, the bigger the better......
My email has been sent to you by u2u, you can make communication with me by ICQ
You also can use MSN to send please add me:

[edit on 30-1-2006 by emile]

[edit on 30-1-2006 by emile]

[edit on 30-1-2006 by emile]

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:06 AM
Sure emile. I'll have to scan it in two halves and then join them using photoshop.

The file is still 1.3 mb zipped from jpeg, so I hope both of our mailservers can handle it. It is on it's way to you.

The file is set up at 200 dpi and about 38cm wide, but prints nicely on A4 (as an insert into Word), but I'm sure you can make it bigger if you wish by inserting it into a Word document and enlarging it to suit.

[edit on 30/1/06 by The Winged Wombat]

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:59 PM
Hi, Wombat:
I think you are must more familier with Commonwealth CA-11 which also there are a couple of turrets on its wing. In my impression, except Piaggio108 and CA-11woomera, one of the US B-32 prototype had has wing turrets under wing according some introdusion of words. Can you prove it with photos or pictures? I had searched web for a long time before but failed.
Thesedays you're so free with nothing to do, why you don't help to do search together, Do you know are there others that has wing turret again?

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:01 AM
Hi emile,

I can find no evidence that the B-32 was designed with wing mounted turrets or barbettes. The XB-32 was certainly designed with remotely operated retractable fuselage turrets (as was the B-36) but not wing mounted. The production B-32 used manned fuselage turrets.

I can think of a few aircraft with wing/nacelle mounted turrets.....
Blohm und Voss BV 222 flying boat,
Focke-Wulf Fw 191, and
Messerschmitt Me 323E-2.

There is, no doubt, others.

Of course both Me 210 and Me 410 had remote barbettes on their fuselage sides.

During WWI there was a few designs (notably British) with manned gun positions in or on the top wing. These were primarily designed to fight Zeppelin airships.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:56 AM
The one that springs immediately to my mind is the Vickers Windsor heavy bomber which had gun turrets in the rear engine nacelles.

You may also like this design which was aimed at the RAF's '100 Ton Bomber' requirement which, had it been built, woul;d have been the RAF equivalent of the Convair B-36. Design features from the rival Bristol design were incorporated into the Brabazon airliner which flew in 1949.

new topics

top topics

<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in