Vepariga Posted September 23, 2009 Posted September 23, 2009 yeah the desert is the best place to put them as corrosion and weathering isnt much of a problem out there.
Ghost Train Posted September 23, 2009 Posted September 23, 2009 Lol the "F-19" looks like the Talon from Turkish Top Gun aka "Stealth".
Bowen Posted September 23, 2009 Posted September 23, 2009 "Turkish Top Gun"? Hadn't heard that one before
Ghost Train Posted September 23, 2009 Posted September 23, 2009 "Turkish Top Gun"? Hadn't heard that one before Yea.... they even got some top-name stars like Jessica Biel and Jammie Fox to re-eneact some generic dramatic sequences.
David Hingtgen Posted September 23, 2009 Posted September 23, 2009 Looks a lot more like the "standard" F-19 stuff of the late 80's/early 90's to me. Monogram's was cooler than Testors': http://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/f19/f19.html Almost a perfect match for the photos above. (GI Joe's was based on Testors')
Bowen Posted September 23, 2009 Posted September 23, 2009 Looks a lot more like the "standard" F-19 stuff of the late 80's/early 90's to me. Monogram's was cooler than Testors': http://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/f19/f19.html Almost a perfect match for the photos above. (GI Joe's was based on Testors') Any thoughts on my questions regarding the swing-wing NATF, David? Or anyone else for that matter
Shadow Posted September 23, 2009 Posted September 23, 2009 Heh, I still have some old micromachines of the F-19. Never found a model in any store though.
Omegablue Posted September 25, 2009 Posted September 25, 2009 no $h!t disk tracy what's your next case? Your avatar looks fake... Forgiveness, I browsing on my cell phone then and the smaller pics on the small screen looked somewhat less 'Fake'.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted September 26, 2009 Posted September 26, 2009 Canadians - what I was trying to get across is that I can't name any names from 1940 off the top of my head; I think Woodward was flying in Africa with 33 Squadron before 1940.
David Hingtgen Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Latest A400M pic. Props 1 and 3 rotate opposite of 2 and 4. I'm unaware of counter-rotating implemented that way--normally aren't all engines on the same wing going the same direction? I'm thinking there could be some really weird P-effect going on if one outboard engine quits...
VF-19 Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Latest A400M pic. Props 1 and 3 rotate opposite of 2 and 4. I'm unaware of counter-rotating implemented that way--normally aren't all engines on the same wing going the same direction? I'm thinking there could be some really weird P-effect going on if one outboard engine quits... Perhaps is a form of thrust reversing on turboprops? IE, the pilot landed, and didn't bother to rotate the props back to the "normal" orientation?
David Hingtgen Posted October 1, 2009 Posted October 1, 2009 No, that's how they're designed. They even have 2 different engines designed, for the 2 different gearboxes needed to accomodate the 2 different props. Logistics nightmare... (and no prop blade rotates THAT much for reversing)
Noyhauser Posted October 1, 2009 Posted October 1, 2009 No, that's how they're designed. They even have 2 different engines designed, for the 2 different gearboxes needed to accomodate the 2 different props. Logistics nightmare... (and no prop blade rotates THAT much for reversing) According to Airbus they only have one engine and two gearbox types. They consider this an acceptable trade off considering the advantages they anticipate; Perhaps one of the most interesting A400M innovations was the decision to adopt “handed” propellers whereby the propellers of each pair of engines turn towards each other. This counter-rotation characteristic is known as Down-Between-Engines (DBE) and the A400M will be the first aircraft ever to use such a configuration. The advantages of DBE have far-reaching effects both aerodynamically and structurally. Firstly, airflow over the wings is symmetrical, improving lift characteristics and the lateral stability of the aircraft. Secondly, DBE allows for an optimum wing design by eliminating most of the effects of torque and prop-wash on each wing, concentrating the airflow over the most efficient portion of the wing located between the engines. DBE also reduces the “critical engine” effect of severe yaw in the event of an outboard engine failure. The result allows a 17% reduction in the area of the vertical tail surface. Further aerodynamic advantages inherent in DBE have been found to give a 4% increase in lift from the wing at slow speed, which enables, for the same total lift, a simpler, lighter flap system to be employed. As a consequence of the lessening of the aerodynamic forces applied to the flaps, the surface area of the horizontal tail-plane can also be reduced by 8%.
David Hingtgen Posted October 1, 2009 Posted October 1, 2009 AFAIK the gearbox change is enough that it effectively creates 2 engine types--it's not easy to swap them around. DC-10 was like that. I think the engines were "left" and "center/right" on it. You CAN change them, but they really don't want to. And there's still 2 props---props which the plane itself can't carry inside. It's generally considered a really good idea for military cargo planes to be able to transport their own engines and props.
David Hingtgen Posted October 1, 2009 Posted October 1, 2009 Like Russian jets? Need new desktop wallpaper? http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.sear...disp_order=desc
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 Got a question on those commercial aircraft towing trucks. Is there a good site out there for their pics and technical specs? I am curious what engines they use, how much they weigh, what kind of torque figures they are chucking out, are they AWD etc etc.
David Hingtgen Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 Hard to find specs for those, but this is one of the larger ones (won't do a 747, but most anything else): http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/00...le/specs_page_2 Bigger one, fewer specs, but an interesting note: http://www.douglas-equipment.com/uploads/p...d765c9a18a5.pdf 112,000lbs of tractive effort exceeds that of most any steam locomotive. Though it has the huge advantage of using rubber tires on pavement, instead of slick steel tires on steel rails.
Nied Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 Any thoughts on my questions regarding the swing-wing NATF, David? Or anyone else for that matter I can cover that one, or at least half of it. I have not seen any information on how the NATF would overcome the RCS concerns of a swing wing, there's very little detailed info on Lockheed's NATF proposal (and if you think that's bad just try finding info on the F-23N). It's even possible the info you want is classified. As for why a swing wing was used in the first place, your surmise is pretty much correct. The only way to meet the Navy's landing speed, weight, and top speed requirements was to use a swing wing. The standard F-22 wing is fine for the speeds the Air Force lands at, but to get it on a carrier you need to go much slower which either requires adding various high lift devices (big flaps etc) or a swing wing. When you add those high lift devices to a folding mechanism for a fixed wing and you end up with a pretty heavy plane that likely would have too much drag to reach the speeds the Navy wanted.
David Hingtgen Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 But with the YF-23's inherently larger wing, stealthier and sleeker design, it doesn't face those problems quite so much.
Bowen Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Thanks guys, glad to see I wasn't spouting complete gibberish
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Hard to find specs for those, but this is one of the larger ones (won't do a 747, but most anything else): http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/00...le/specs_page_2 Bigger one, fewer specs, but an interesting note: http://www.douglas-equipment.com/uploads/p...d765c9a18a5.pdf 112,000lbs of tractive effort exceeds that of most any steam locomotive. Though it has the huge advantage of using rubber tires on pavement, instead of slick steel tires on steel rails. Cool. Thanks David. 70 tons. I understand that most of that is lead? Got interested because I just found out that the M577 from Aliens was built over one.
F-ZeroOne Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Lead? I presume Retracting Head means for ballast purposes.
David Hingtgen Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 I have no idea what tugs use for ballast. (locomotives, yes)
electric indigo Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 From the Cinefex issue for "Aliens" : "When we got it the vehicle weighed seventy-two tons. The outer structure was four-inch plate steel and the wheel arches were lined with lead."
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 From the Cinefex issue for "Aliens" : "When we got it the vehicle weighed seventy-two tons. The outer structure was four-inch plate steel and the wheel arches were lined with lead." Eh? 4 inch steel plate for the outer structure??!?! That seems crazy. It would be quite a lot cheaper to use lead I would think!
F-ZeroOne Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Cheaper, possibly. Allowed by environmental regulations? Doubtful.
David Hingtgen Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Thicker sheets of steel is how locomotives are ballasted. (that, and pouring concrete into voids) Plus, keeping the fuel tank full----5000 gallons weighs quite a bit.
Nied Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) Last airshow I'm going to this year, and likely the last San Francisco Fleet Week I'll make it to for a while as my wife and I are moving back to Boston at the end of the month. I am glad I could get a good picture of the sneak pass over the bay, who's jelous of the GIB (guy in back) getting the incentive ride? Had some others admiring the show as well (one of the other great little touches about Fleet Week in San Francisco): Edited October 11, 2009 by Nied
Warmaker Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 A nice reminder of a time when the military called the San Francisco Bay Area home.
David Hingtgen Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 IMHO the UAL 744 is the neatest thing there. Certainly the rarest to see do a fly-by. (actually, this weekend I was indulging in another of my interests)
David Hingtgen Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 OMG, an F-22 that's not totally grey with grey markings and grey insignia. Check the fin flash: http://www.elmendorf.af.mil/shared/media/p...F-5929O-003.jpg
Chewie Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 747 comes in a little low at Maho Beach. Wow. That was insane.
Recommended Posts