Rare Aircraft Pictures, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 7-7-2007 @ 10:41 PM by wenfieldsecret
Originally posted by Now_Then
Erm no. That is a Nimrod
Nimrod if that is a quip about the things falling out of the sky lately then poor taste.

Problem is that they were refitted to take on air to air re-fueling for the faulklands war, now 20+ years on air to air refuling is part of their every day job, they are fantistic aircraft. But they are being pushed to do something they were not designed to do, their sucess will be their demise - don't fix wot ain't broke. But it is overdue for retirement from it's current role. BBC link


i did not mean to mention those recently lost in the middle east...i wouldnt poke fun at recon heroes.....when i met some british nimrod aircrew...they told me there were only three....

many aircraft round the world are due for retirement....but it'll take the big one to drop outta the sky for that to happen....



reply posted on 8-7-2007 @ 09:13 AM by Now_Then
Originally posted by edsinger
Originally posted by Now_Then

This one deserves a mention, WestPoint23
posted it on
this thread
Don't know any more about it other then he (she?) said its authentic and did not crash.



WOW! What is the story? I know it didn't take off.....did it?

I have heard of a C130 taking off the deck of a carrier, anyone got that picture?


Yhea its impressive aint it?

I don't know very much at all, it was posted in another thread where this photo was being discussed. (p.s. I very much doubt it took off or landed on the carrier - that would be impossable, but very funny to watch em trying )

I suggested that it is perspective that makes it look so close, the wing span of the F14 is 64 feet, as opposed to the apparent 42ft which I came to by aproximating the guys height to 6ft and multiplying by 7.



reply posted on 8-7-2007 @ 09:32 AM by Now_Then
That C130 landing on a carrier was wicked, the wing tip cleared the tower by 15ft!

Heres another from the same site.

View of a U-2R aboard the USS America in 1969
Link

An X-15 and an F-104. I think the X-15 is still to this day the fastest and highest flying aircraft (4,520 mph (Mach 6.7) and 354,200 ft - over 67 miles) - but that seems to be unofficial.
Link

[edit on 8/7/2007 by Now_Then]


reply posted on 8-7-2007 @ 10:03 AM by Now_Then
This short clip seems to be the last fly by, above the level of the deck.

Another angle.

Something fishy bout this one.


[edit on 8/7/2007 by Now_Then]



reply posted on 8-7-2007 @ 10:09 AM by neformore
One large chunk of Soviet Cold War nastiness

[img]
[/img]

Which has a lovely comment attributed to it


"an outstanding failure which revealed an embarassing lack of understanding of the problems of high-speed flight."



reply posted on 8-7-2007 @ 05:18 PM by wenfieldsecret
Originally posted by neformore
One large chunk of Soviet Cold War nastiness

[img]
[/img]

Which has a lovely comment attributed to it


"an outstanding failure which revealed an embarassing lack of understanding of the problems of high-speed flight."


the picture wouldnt link me....


reply posted on 11-7-2007 @ 11:05 AM by waynos
There is indeed a story to that pic, here's what I wrote about it some time ago on another thread;

some opinions I put here may have since changed

In RAE trials during 1943-46 various fighters were dived at full power from 40,000ft in what the test pilots desctibed as 'an attempt to break the world air speed record vertically downwards'

As part of these trials, once the terminal velocity was reached the guns were fired, and I quote, 'to see if the wings came off'. Nice work if you can get it!

It is recorded that in these trials the highest mach number ever recorded on a piston engined aircraft in flight was obtained when Sqn Leader A Martindale, in 1946, dived Spitfire XI 'EN409' to a speed of mach 0.92. However the photo below shows both what that speed did to the Spitfire and what a skillful pilot Sqn Ldr Martindale was! The propeller was ripped clean off and the fron end looks like its been repeatedly bashed with a lump hammer. And yet it appears to have landed perfectly.

external image

The account goes on to note that several other types were tested in this way, including the P-47 Thunderbolt and P-51 Mustang and none of them were able to reach the speed of the Spitfire because their high speed drag increased more rapidly. The major reason was in RJ Mitchells choice of a thin wing tapering to 9% thickness chord ratio, this was thinner than all other wings (even the P-51!) and against all aerodynamic advice of the time.

They alsdo found that NACA work oN laminar flow (NACA pioneered this work, not the RAE) was basically sound but that the promised advantages were not being obtained in practice. This was traced to surface roughness of the wing finish leading to skin friction which was cancelling out the benefits of laminar flow. This led to a change in the way the P-51 wing was manufactured and to the design of a laminar flow wing for the Spitfire, which led to the Spiteful.

Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



In Case Of Videos Of Flying People
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags
First flight for \'flapless\' plane - the Evolution of Aviation
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags
F22 mishap or more that meeets the eye?
  Posted 4 days ago with 4 member flags
Boeing X-37 and X-40 - the ultimate history
  Posted 8 days ago with 3 member flags
Its a bird, its a plane, no its a ....
  Posted 17 days ago with 0 member flags