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: 71
0
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I got that part. We had Hornets for a long time before I found out they were USN aircraft. But it seems (underline seems) to me (underline and italicise to me) that designers were somehow lazy or plain ignorant.

We have this thing called a catapault, it means we can take-off. We have these things called arrestors, it means we can land. Both are dangerous and tricky and pilots don't like it, but hey, why try to find another solution?

I realise Harrier would never fulfill the USN's need, but it is a clear case of lateral thinking. It seems to me (as before) that while jets for the USAF were full of design innovations, the only one the Navy got was the swing-wing from the F111, and even that has gone no further than Tomcat, Tornado and Backfire, regarded now as an engineering cul-de-sac.

So, in summation, (at length) it would appear to a casual observer that canards would make "naval aviator"'s lives easier, so why weren't they used, extensively?

[edit on 22-3-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I think you are over estimating the effects of canards. Carnard jets are not inherently so STOL as to be able to operate from carriers without catapults/ski-jump or arrestor gear - the rafael and Su-33 need assisted take-off and landing just like the F-18 does.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Back to the quiz,..

(I'm hoping someone will get Waynos' last pic)

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
The picture Waynos posted last one is TT-1 I think but not sure
Last two pix Planeman posted has been showed in this quizz three times at least.

I always post some word quizz to ask picture:p W· W : who can give me a picture to show Bristol Type 62?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Sorry emile, but I'd have to say waynos' last one is the Beech Jet Mentor.

Howlrunner, think of a canard surface as a tailplane - that's all it is - it isn't a magic STOL devise. Where it works well is with an otherwise tailless delta. Now a delta doesn't actually stall, it just drags itself to death in fact. At slow speed the elevons on a tailless delta create enormous drag so replacing them with a 'tail' surface in the canard position means that lifting the nose adds overall lift rather than depressing the tail (which is what a conventional tail or elevons on a tailless delta do).

A conventional tail does not add to the overall lift created, because it's job is to create a force downward about the CG - by placing that surface forward it has to lift the nose and therefore adds to the overall lift.

The use of a canard surface does not, in itself, make an aircraft stall proof. That only happens if you set the foreplane at a greater angle of incidence than the mainplane. That way the foreplane stalls first and drops the nose before the mainplane can stall.

I'm not sure I've explained that clearly or not. Picture this.... conventional tailed wing..... in the landing config, the wing has rear surfaces drooped (flaps) to create the greatest lift at the slowest speed, but with a tailless delta, the elevons have to be deflected upward to push the tail down and the nose up - therefore it is opposite to the effect of the flaps. So the answer for low speed approach and a delta is to fit a tail - worked for the A-4 Skyhawk - but even better, fit is as a canard surface. The effect of positioning the tailplane surface as a canard is not as marked when you are talking about a wing other than a delta, and there are some aerodynamic disadvantages for the wing of having that surface forward.



[edit on 23/3/06 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Sorry emile, but I'd have to say waynos' last one is the Beech Jet Mentor.

You are always correct, I have checked web, yes that is Jet Mentor.
Try these please:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


[edit on 23-3-2006 by emile]

[edit on 23-3-2006 by emile]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
You'll have to wait your turn emile, planeman has a selection up first that are still open, we shouldn't tread over previous selections.

1 Aerocar 'Roadable Monoplane'

2 Payen Pa 49

4 VJ 101

5 Although it looks like the VJ 101 I know this is American and predates it, cannot remember the name though, watch out for an edit if it comes back to me



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
No. 5 Bell XF-109 mockup.... much of the technology and research from this went into the VJ-101

Emile's lot....

1. Stearman N2S-3 (but it says that on the tail)
2. Pitts S2B
3. SOKO G.2 Galeb
4. Sindlinger HH-1 Hurricane
5. Sukhoi Su-31
6. Sopwith Camel Replica
7. Cessna T-37
8. Beech 18
9. Perhaps not what it appears... looks like a modified Stearman 75 to me
10. Bucker Jungmann - so says the name on the cowl.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
re my number 3 above. Here's a clearer pic of it:

Note the spacious crew compartment...



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat

4. Sindlinger HH-1 Hurricane


Is this the 2/3 replica they build in Queensland?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Howlrunner,

I don't know if the 2/3 one in Queensland is from a Sindlinger kit, but the kit is an American design - see Aerofiles



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Emile,
I believe this is the Bristol Type 62....



It is the Napier Lion powered Ten-Seater of 1920/1921. Type numbers were not allocated to Bristol aircraft until 1923, when all aircraft produced up to that time were retrospectively given numbers in chronological order. The number sequence then continued on from Type 90.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Ok, an easy quiz (perhaps)... but a not so easy question to follow !!!!

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.



And the question....... What do all these aircraft have in common ?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
1 Grumman F9F Panther

2 Sukhoi Su-7

3 General Dynamics F-16B

4 Hawker P.1040

5 MiG 21

6 Republic F-84


I was thinking maybe they were all flown by the same air force but another thought occurs to me, Have they all donated their fuselages to different models with redesigned wing planforms? 1,4,5,6 swept wings, 2 VG wings and 3 a tailles delta?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Absolutely Correct, Waynos... and those aircraft were.....

1.


2.


3.


4.


5. (I was thinking of this one actually - I think the swept wing version might have come first)


6.



[edit on 24/3/06 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
there is some easy at last
1) f9f-8
2)su-17
3)f-16xL
4)I go back to seaching, I am sure which just in my PC somewhere
5)MIG-21-11
6) F-84



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
re my number 3 above. Here's a clearer pic of it:

Note the spacious crew compartment...

Guess I'm the only UAV geek around these parts... well, it's the Centaur Gull seaplane UAV, developed in Britian...
www.centaurseaplane.com...
It uses wave-piercing technology apparently,..



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Thats interesting reading planeman, I haven't heard of that one before.

Although (pedantry corner) Its not a seaplane, its a flying boat



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Here's another little selection to mull over









posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I saw a Potez 842 and a Westland Hornet.




top topics



 
0
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join