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: 77
0
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
THE FIRST IS DE-HAVIILAND DH.
THE SEOND IS Heston Pheonix
I feel we still lost two that Planeman post





posted on May, 26 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   
The Heston Phoenix is correct emile, but not the other one.

Planemans two are the Ikarus S.451 (upper) and Ikarus 452-M (lower). I sort of let planeman know I knew them without actually fiving the answer, very silly of me



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I think only here three Waynos, Planeman and Wombat could help me.
Recently, I do research about comparetion of Tu-14 and Il-28. When I seach web I found that if I use Yahoo search engine I can find many pix from www.suchoj.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">this web but only few really exist. I thought they being there before, now has been remove. If you have already download it, please uploud here.
Otherwise, if you have any color pic of Tu-14 please show me, I am here to be biiiiiig big grateful to you.

[edit on 27-5-2006 by emile]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
emile, this is the closest I can come. It is the Tupolev Tu-73 (factory designation) which was the first prototype Tu-14




but look here www.lindenhillimports.com/ tu-14.htm for a colour picture of a Tu-14 model

Waynos' set....

1. Percival Q.6 (also available with retractable undercarriage)
2. Heston Phoenix
3. Gloster F.5/34
4. Henschel HS 122B-0
5. Ago Ao 192 V2



[edit on 27/5/06 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Wombat:
I couldnt open the link you give, and couldn't see the picture you post too

You all know the censorship being China government block anything they want even nothing about politics, what a stupid country!

Would you upload here or give me some method to openit?



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Try this emile....

www.lindenhillimports.com...



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Ok, By a friend help, I use an advanced proxy server to see your post, it is really wonderful picture! It is rare! thank you



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Here you go



these two are fictional... they did pretty well with the laser. Its much like actuall abls like so

[img]http://www.sargentfletcher.com/bus_dev/yal1a.jpg[img/]
look at the similarities with the ball shaped lense used to guide and direct the laser.




not really a plane though...



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   
The 2nd is Boeing747 fit laser gun
Who can tell me what's the different between Mirage 5 and Mirage 50 by shape?

[edit on 28-5-2006 by emile]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
mirage 5 doesn't have canards

easy enough

you didn't get the last one... Its in big red letters...



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TristanBW9456
mirage 5 doesn't have canards

easy enough

...


I don't think so. Some mirage III also has canards, and some mirage 50 hasn't canards. Moreover, that Kfir sometimes didn't fit canards.:bash::bash:



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Kfir is a separate aircraft and so is mirage III

you asked the diff between mirage V and 50

rough structura difference in percent between rafale's B and M

[edit on 6/2/06 by TristanBW9456]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
W.&W.
Doctor, who do you know Fiat 95? If has any infors please introduce to me or scan details of paper to my emailbox.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TristanBW9456
Kfir is a separate aircraft and so is mirage III

you asked the diff between mirage V and 50

rough structura difference in percent between rafale's B and M

[edit on 6/2/06 by TristanBW9456]


Well sometime Mirage 5 also fit canards if you search www.airliners.net by mirage 5 and 50 even III you may find all fall in mess.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
ah screw it... why would you make so many distinctions then... prolly internal stuff...



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
emile,

The Mirage 5 was designed at the request of the Israelis. It was a Mirage III with simplified avionics suitable for the good weather of the middle east. The main visual difference between the Mirage 5 and the Mirage III is the more slender nose radome which housed a reduced capability radar. The Mirage 50 was the Mirage 5 with the Atar 9K-50 engine and a return to Cyrano radar (but still in the slender radome), so if there is any visual difference it would be in the area of the engine bay (perhaps cooling intakes for instance). Neither aircraft originally had canards. With the modifications and upgrades that have been done to Mirages, it is extremely difficult to visually tell the difference between Mirage 5 and Mirage 50.

The Fiat G.95 was a planned VTOL tactical strike/recon fighter to replace the Fiat G.91. It was designed in the early 60's, but was never built.

This is Fiat G.95/4 of 1963



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   
This is an answer from expert! Quite exactly!



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Heres a question, Why was the p-55 not put into production. while your at it you may find out what the swoose goose (not spurce swoose) is... weird lookin plane

[edit on 6/3/06 by TristanBW9456]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Hi Tristan,

The US Army sponsored Competition R-40C specifically for unconvensional designs, perhaps hoping that one of the designs would produce a worthwhile advance in performance, albeit at some development risk over conventional designs. There were three aircraft types built as a result of the competition -

Vultee XP-54 'Swoose Goose' (an unofficial name, and also the winner of the competition)


Curtiss XP-55 'Ascender' (unofficial name)


Northrop XP-56 'Black Bullet' (again an unofficial name)


The performance of these aircraft was no better than conventional designs, so the risk involved in the development of them was not justified. The following extract from Lloyd S Jones' 1975 book 'US Fighters' might also explain why the XP-55 didn't get developed further.

'On November 15, 1943, The XP-55 flipped onto its back during stall tests and attempts to recover failed. The plane stabilized in the inverted state but the engine quit and the XP-55 fell vertically 16,000 ft before the pilot decided an inverted landing would ruin his whole day and safely abandoned the stricken machine. The possibility of this condition had been predicted by early wind-tunnel tests.......'

Without even looking at performance data, I would reckon that both the XP-55 and the XP-56 would have rather long take-offs due to the inability to rotate the aircraft because of the danger of the prop / ventral fin striking the ground. The ventral part of the XP-54 fins also looks to serve as 'tail-bumpers' to prevent the prop hitting the ground.



[edit on 4/6/06 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
1.


2.


3. Who's concept?


4.


5.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join