It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 64
0
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Howlrunner,

The Planet Satellite was built in 1948 (as was Prince Charlie Jug Ears - see below for relevence), but it actually has a 'Y' tail rather than a 'V' tail. Other than the fact that the fin is inverted, it still has a fin and a rudder. I suppose if you put the fin on top the rear end would look rather like a Beaufighter with fin and dihedral tailplane.

I don't think there was anything particularly radical in their minds in making the fin ventral other than to protect the prop blades on take-off and landing. Almost everything else about the aircraft was pretty radical though, including the material it was constructed from. It was an alloy called magnesium-zirconium, which had a density about 40% less than aluminium. Note that this is a different material than the one sought by most of the world's aero engineers - unobtainium!

I case you're wondering what it was powered by, it was a 6 cylinder Gypsy Queen of some 250 hp mounted over the CG and driving the prop by an extension shaft. I think, had testing continued, that they would have run into engine cooling problems, as this was supposed to be achieved by means of a flush slot across the aircraft roof. Flush slots and NACA ducts for engine cooling seem to have a history of being unsuccessful. Interesting, because (unless the designer knew something no one else did) it rather ignores all previous experience with buried / rear-mounted engines - from P-39 / P-63 to Dornier Do 335.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot to mention that, unlike the Learfan, all attempts to get the thing airborne were unsuccessful, and there was no further development. I guess if you design it so it can't rotate to get the lift to take-off it is just another WOFTAM (Waste Of F****** Time And Money). Nice design, innovative engineering, brilliant metallurgy, eye-pleasing - really nice looking boat anchor!

Perhaps we should start a thread called Great WOFTAMs of the World. Perhaps not, it would be sooooooo wide ranging, wouldn't it.

So there you are, two British WOFTAMs in the one year !


[edit on 1/3/06 by The Winged Wombat]




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   
I'm not normally one to do this sort of thing but; Great post wombat, I really enjoyed reading that



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Thanks Waynos, I think we've all got to have a bit of a giggle from time to time, otherwise the world just just ends up taking itself too seriously.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I dunno, Wombat...

In the 50s and sixties the Yanks came up with so many good WOFTAMs...

From Jack Nortrop's B49, through to the twin-prop yellow pancake thingy to the X-wing VTOL Pogo, or whatever it was called, to the "flying saucer" that could only get 4 feet off the ground, all great stuff!

Then there was the X3, the successor to the X1, X1a etc, that could only achieve its research speeds in a steep dive and then became frighteningly unstable. To the point it killed its pilot. What was the point, to learn how NOT to design research aircraft?

edit:sp

[edit on 2-3-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Good heavens, I never intended to award exclusivity of WOFTAMery to anyone, least of all Britain!

But you do have to be sure of what WOFTAMs really are - the whole concept has to be really silly or flawed, rather than changing circumstances removing the need for something.

For instance, the XB-49 started out as the B-35, one of the competitors in the competition that resulted in the Convair B-36, and most of it's problems centred around props and engine reduction gears, so that while its performance wasn't bad, it would have taken too long to get into service. I seem to recall that the size of the bomb bay on the B-35 wouldn't have allowed it to carry those big bulky "special" weapons, either. If that be true, then we have a case of tendering an aircraft that deliberately doesn't meet one of the fundemental requirements of the specification and expecting it to win the competition - now THAT does classify as a WOFTAM

The X-3, if I remember correctly, never got it's intended power plant, so that one's not really a WOFTAM. Plus I suppose if you call it an X-Plane you can say you were only trying to find something out - and then say it was valid because you found out that the concept wasn't valid !

The Pogo, it's competitor the Lockheed XFV-1 and the later Ryan X-13 - yep all WOFTAMS.

The flying flapjack I rather like - it did what it was supposed to do and was incredibly strong - problem was that the requirement for it disappeared (or in itself was a WOFTAM) before they got it done. Did you know that the airframe was so strong and so stiff that when they tried to scrap it, they dropped a wrecking ball on it, and the wrecking ball just bounced off it!

The "flying saucer", I think you will find, was Canadian, and you know how they (quite rightly) hate to be confused with yanks - so let's say no more about that one, except that it was definitely a WOFTAM:shk:



[edit on 2/3/06 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Some notes on the X-3....

Firstly, the sole completed X-3 did not crash (and didn't kill any of its pilots), but was passed to the US Air Force Museum in 1956.

The intended role of the X-3 was to take the next step beyond purely rocket aircraft in exploring speeds up to Mach 2 (Aircraft such as X-1 could only spend a few seconds at transonic speeds because of the fuel usage of their rocket engines). This was to be achieved using Westinghouse J46 engines, which of similar dimensions to the J34, was originally referred to as a development of that engine, but capable of producing more than twice the thrust.

With hindsight, even with that installed thrust, it may not have achieved Mach 2 since the principles of area rule were not discovered until later, but the fact that the J46 was firstly delayed by anything up to 5 years and eventually abandoned - moved Douglas to initially install J34s (on the basis that they could be interchanged with the J46 later) and eventually left them with no suitable powerplant at all.

That the aircraft failed in it's primary mission, cannot really be placed at the doorstep of the designers. However, the aircraft really redeemed itself in the hands of NACA's Joe Walker, by (if you like) going out of control.

What had occurred was a demonstration of the phenomena of inertia, or roll coupling (also called roll divergence), where rolling the aircraft can cause uncontrolled yaw. This phenomena is peculiar to aircraft with most of its mass along the longitudinal axis and very little across the lateral axis (or span) - extreme example - F-104. At the time the USAF was suffering unexplained losses of early F-100 Super Sabres, and the discovery of this phenomena by Joe Walker and the X-3 led to testing of the F-100 by NACA and confirmation that this phenomena was the cause of the problem. The answer was to increase both the wingspan and the height of the fin.

It is noted in Jay Miller's book "The X-Planes" that the data collected by the X-3 directly contributed to the design of Lockheed's F-104.

So, far from being a WOFTAM, the X-3 turned out to be quite a valuable tool in the end. Perhaps adding more to aerodynamic knowledge than, say, the Bell X-1. (The Bell X-1, literally shaped like a 50 cal bullet, proved that given enough thrust a 50 cal bullet shaped object will go supersonic - just like a 50 cal bullet!)


[edit on 2/3/06 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Hmm, seems my memroy is a little faulty. Most of my info on the early years of jet design comes from reading Time Life's History of Flight series when I was a kid. That's how I know of the "coke bottle" area "rule of thumb" etc. It's also how I learned that the Super Sabre had the alarming tendency to reverse its yaw, great fun, I'm sure.

Thought it was the X3, obviously wrong. One of the X planes lost control in a steep dive and killed its pilot. His last words were "she goes". If that helps. Unless I'm confusing myself here.

And definitely didn't mean to offend any Canucks out there.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
A quick flip through Jay Miller's books, indicates that there was, in spite of a number of accidents, and perhaps surprisingly, only two fatalities associated with the official X-Plane series.

These were....
Captain Milburn Apt in the Bell X-2 and Major Michael Adams in one of the X-15s.

Of course there were many more experimental aircraft of many nations that we refer to as X-Planes, many of which have resulted in the loss of their pilots.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Wombat:
I am sorry, too many days passed before I give you this link, because we quizz the aircraft use Chinese to called aircraft, so lead to so many misunderstanding, here is what you need: www.histaviation.com...
Here is an intersting one.

and a helicopter


Then, Waynos:
You are a great expert of British Aeroplane, here is a question for you.
I believe you know Hawker biplane very well, but I am confused how can I identified Hawker Demon, Hurt, Hind, Fury, Nimrod, Audax, Hector, Tomtit,and Woodcock? Are they different? if not why the same aeroplane was called so many name to cause me very confusion

maybe some pictures I got was named totally wrong? How many kinds of Hawker series exist on earth? Would you teach me?


[edit on 5-3-2006 by emile]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Yes, emile, I knew I had seen that aircraft somewhere, and it was on that website!

1. An early Sukhoi T8 mockup - on the way to Su-25

2. Zlin Z-35 or variant

[edit on 5/3/06 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
emile, I'll pass on the helicopter but the plane pictured is the design mock up of the Sukhoi T-8, also called LVSSh, from which the Su-25 was developed.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Hawker biplanes

Wow, emile, this could end up being a very long post but I will be as brief as I can.

Firstly, the Hawker company was formed out of Sopwith (who had built the famous Sopwith Camel and Sopwith Pup etc) by Tom Sopwith and Harry Hawker when the Sopwith company was forced into liquidation by excessive tax demands by the British Govt after World War 1.

Now the planes;

You ask how many Hawker types there are, well, I have a book on Hawker aircraft which runs to 700 pages emile so there are far too many to detail here, however I will stick to the ones you specifically ask about in this post to keep it as simple as I can (and in order to do this I must also miss plenty out as there were sub variants such as ’Persian Fury’, ‘Panther Fury’ etc which really cloud the issue!

The Hawker Woodcock was only Hawkers second design and still looks very much like the Sopwith Camel/Snipe family that it is descended from. A single seat fighter of relatively sluggish performance it only equipped two RAF squadrons compared to its more successful rival the AW Siskin. It was also produced for the Danish air force as the Hawker Danecock. It is actually quite easy to identify as it bears no relation to the later Hart/Fury series.

Woodcock


The Tomtit was also unrelated to the Hart family and was a small basic trainer of unremarkable appearance.

The rest of the Hawkers you ask about can be split into two groups, the 2 seaters and the single seaters, Within these two groups identifying individual types is very difficult, if not impossible, from visual clues.

the single seaters

Skipping the Hornbill and the Hoopoe prototypes which were identical to the following types except for radial engines we can keep this simple by stating that there was basically only one single engined type, the Fury. There is also the Hornet and the Nimrod but the Hornet was just the private venture prototype that was basically a Kestrel engined Hoopoe, that became the Fury in RAF service and the Nimrod was the carrier capable version of the Fury with a hook fitted, apart from Spats on the wheels of the Fury and Nimrod Mk II’s and long exhaust shrouds for night flying versions there is nothing much to choose between them. Other than that the Nimrod Mk II also had its wings angled slightly backwards in a similar fashion to the Tiger Moth.

Fury


the two seaters

These were much more prolific and it can be very hard to distinguish between them.

The daddy of the series was the Hart, this light bomber was so successful that it was chosen as the basis for a variety of versions. The Hart was a major refinement and redesign of the unsuccessful Harrier and also introduced the kestrel engine which allowed for its streamlined appearance. This engine also endowed it with superior performance to the RAF fighters of the day and led to the Fury being developed. Here is a hart that was still in service during WW2.



The Demon was visually identical to the Hart but was a two seat fighter and carried a frazer nash gun turret, this was not an enclosed turret however, the gunner was still open to the elements so there isn’t much of a visual clue there.

The Osprey was a version of the Hart used for fleet spotter and reconnaissance duties and the Hart Prototype also served as the Osprey prototype, Like the Fury/Nimrod, the only visible difference between the Hart and Osprey was the latters arrestor hook.

The Audax was effectively still a Hart, but used in the army co-operation role and its only visible difference was its extended exhaust manifold which extended down the side of the fuselage in the same manner as the night fighting Demon.

A tropicalised version of the Hart used for air policing duties in Iraq entered service as the Hawker Hardy. Again, there is no real outward difference from the basic Hart.

A close support version of the Hart was produced for the South African Air Force as the Hawker Hartbees.

The replacement for the Hart light bomber with the RAF was the Hawker Hind. This was yet another Hart variant but this time fitted with a more powerful version of the Kestrel engine and improver accommodation in the cockpit with the rear cockpit sides cut down like those of the Demon turret fighter. The one obvious visual clue to identify the Hind is that this was the first version to be fitted with a tailwheel instead of a skid. The Hind was only ever intended to be an interim type until the Battle and Blenheim monoplanes became operational.

The final Hart variant was the Hector, this was an army co-operation aircraft to replace the Audax and was borne out of a need to cut the demand for Kestrel engines. This makes it the most easily identifiable version with its distinct nose profile designed around its Napier Dagger powerplant.




posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
hahahaha more cheating on my part now










posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Hmmm, that top picture is a bit small but I'll guess at the MiG 31 Firefox (Clint Eastwood variety).

The second picture is Sir George Cayleys 1840's ancestor of the V-22 from right here in Yorkshire, after take off the 'rotor's folded flat to act like biplane wings.

when you ignore the viking ship looks and think about the concept of that VTOL plane it is remarkable advanced even today.

Finally you have the Messerschmitt P1112 in its March 1945 configuration.

Yes?

[edit on 5-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
is the one behind the Messerschmitt a Blohm und Voss?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   
No, they're both the same pane.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
TristanBW9456
here is your plane on ground



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Did that Hawker stuff answer your questions emile?

Heres a piccy or two to have a go at;


















[edit on 6-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
So, in a blinding insight, I can tell you number 2 is an autogyro.
3 is definitely Scaled Composites.
And that looks suspiciously like the, afore-mentioned, Learfan.

I guess the Messerschmitt picture's angles don't make it too clear. At least not to me...



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Thank you for your type many lettles, your cludes are very useful to help me identified every type of Hawker series, but I have to spend more time to learn those, since you said there are over 700 pages on Hawker.
I want to post reply yesterday, but got some problem with internet.
the last two picture in which one is Gloster Gnat but Yugoslavia built under licence, the buttom one called Adams 500 you take photo from here:1000aircraftphotos.com...

I am very interesting on first one, in terms of paint as G-ASCX that should be DH.114 Heron, but ........




top topics



 
0
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join