Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
5
User Artwork / Re: von Brauns Ferry Rocket kit master parts
« Last post by athpilot on Today at 06:17:14 am »
Hi, very impressive artwork! I´ve got Myhra´s Book ("German ideas from ... for a proposed space program"[2014]). So my question is, what about the 570 other pictures not included in Myhra´s book? Can we see more here, please?
Greetings
Athpilot
6
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 05:35:34 am »
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1281946/stratcom-commander-describes-challenges-of-21st-century-deterrence/#.WZYu6kzeKkk.facebook

Quote
"We can't [assume] that having 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons under the New START Treaty somehow deters all our adversaries. It doesn't," the general said.

Why we should have decoupled our arsenal from that of the USSR/Russia after the Cold War and sized it for our and our allies security needs. Which IMHO was START I - 1200 launchers and 6000 warheads.

Have you read the article?
In context it's very clear he is not advocating for larger numbers of warheads and delivery systems.
He's advocating for modernisation of the triad and for the need for complementary capabilities (like cyber attack/ defence etc.)
Where do I say he advocates for more warheads? You understand MY was MY opinion on the subject quote, right? Comprehend much?
7
Naval Projects / Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Last post by Tzoli on Today at 05:26:05 am »
Amateur Drone Lands on the U.K.'s New Aircraft Carrier, No One Even Notices

Quote
The drone went undetected and the Royal Navy didn't seem to care.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a27747/drone-uk-aircraft-carrier/

Why should they? The images it could record are the same that could be found on the net, if it would be an attack drone that small amount of explosive would do minimal harm to the ship (except if detonating near the radars) though modern radars are weather proof so small explosive can't really do much harm in my opinion.
8
Earlier in the thread, and on the Project Carver thread, various reports popped up about work done to improve the Atar 09K50.
Various reports of single crystal turbine blades and other improvements were mentioned. The writeup on the Carver, which featured comments by the Project Officer on the Carver, mentioned thrust improvements of 10% plus for example, if I remember correctly, as well as better throttle response.
Then there was the Atar Plus programme between South Africa and France.
I have never quite got the chronology correct, but have always had the feeling that these were two seperate projects, with the Atar upgrade later possibly morphing into the less capable "tweaked" Atar Plus joint venture.

Anyway, an interesting picture of a photograph of what i gather is the original upgraded Atar programme.
I really wish the information plaque was legible.  :'(
9
Early Aircraft Projects / Arkhangelsky dive bomber SBB-1 and SBB-2
« Last post by blackkite on Today at 04:58:28 am »
Hi! Arkhangelsky dive bomber SBB-1 and SBB-2.
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/sbb.html
http://eroplany.narod.ru/bibl/shavrov2/chr1/p1/sb1.htm
http://alternathistory.com/pikiruyushchii-bombardirovshchik-arkhangelskii-b-2-sssr
http://xn--80aafy5bs.xn--p1ai/aviamuseum/aviatsiya/sssr/bombardirovshhiki-2/bombard-1920-e-1940-e-gody/pikiruyushhij-bombardirovshhik-sbb/
"In parallel with the development of SB-RK with engines M-105 KB Arkhangelsky began to develop a new high-speed near-bomber SBB. First, the new aircraft had an index C (under this designation the airplane was purged in TsAGI), but soon the index of the car was replaced by B. The aircraft was conceived as a cardinal modification of the serial satellites with increased combat performance and continuity in production technology.  When designing it, we used the experience of creating MMN , SB-RK, and later Ar-2 . The crew of the SBB included a pilot, a navigator and a radio operator."

"The main advantage of the new aircraft was the significantly improved aerodynamics. The overall configuration and combat scheme of the B bomber were similar to the SAT aircraft, but with a two-keel plumage.  In order to "maximize the speed of the aircraft," the load per unit area of the wing in the normal version of the combat load was brought to 149 kg / m2 and to 162 kg / m2 in the overload.  In this connection, the wing area was reduced to 40 m2.  The wing became shorter and slightly narrower than the wing of the SB.  At the same time, to ensure the required landing speed, it was supposed to use the guards of TsAGI, which was a cross between the usual flaps and Fowler flaps.  The profile of the wing was chosen to be of the NACA-22 type with a relative thickness at the root of 14.7% and at the end of 8%. "

"As the main engine of the power unit SBB was considered M-105 with a turbocharger TK-2.  In addition, it was planned to use the M-106 engine.  By this time, the M-105 had already passed 50-hour state tests, and the turbocharger TK-2 was installed on a SAT aircraft with M-103 engines for flight tests. n the future, in order to further improve the aerodynamics of the aircraft, it was planned to install the M-105TK inverted. In this case, the layout of the engine installation and the radiator was improved and a seat in the wing was released to accommodate the fuel tanks instead of the radiators.On this issue, there was an agreement with the engine builders of the 26th plant. However, in the future, from such an option, the power plant was abandoned, as it does not have significant advantages for a bomber aircraft over the traditional installation of a motor. "

"In November 1939, after discussing the layout of the SBB, it was decided to build an airplane.  According to the Decree of the Defense Committee of 4 March 1940, two copies of the B-1(SBB-1) and B-2(SBB-2) were built. The first variant corresponded to the variant of the high-speed bomber, and the second - to the dive bomber. The B-2 aircraft differed from the B-1 with a wider fuselage and slightly different layout of the forward part of the fuselage. "

"On April 10, an order was issued on NKAP No. 309, according to which the entire design team of AA Arkhangelsky was transferred to the 32nd plant.  Despite the difficulties associated with moving and settling in a new location, in the summer of 1941 a second version of the SBB, the B-2 dive bomber, was being built.  It was assumed that, in comparison with the B-1, its maximum speed at the calculated altitude would be greater by 40-60 km / h.
 At the same time, in connection with the successes of the 103 and 103U bombers during tests at the Air Force Research Institute, the interest of the military and NKAP in aircraft B was steadily declining, and the war that was started interrupted all sorts of work on this machine.  Sam AA Arkhangelsky Order NAKAP No. 823 of August 9, 1941 was transferred to the aircraft factory No. 156 for the organization of repair and recovery of serial bombers SB. Later, AA Arkhangelsky's Design Bureau was evacuated to Omsk in October 1941, and the B-1 aircraft was sent to the rear in December 1941. What happened to him later is unknown. "


SBB-1(СББ-1)
Wing span, m: 16,00
Length, m: 12,27
Height, m: 3,52
Wing area, m2: 46,00
Weight, kg
Empty airplane: 4100
normal take-off: 5980
Engine type: 2 x PD M-105R
power, hp: 2 x 1050
Maximum speed, km / h
On the ground: 454
on height: 540
Cruising speed, km / h: 475
Practical range, km: 880
Lifting capacity, m / min: 788
 Practical ceiling, m: 10100
Crew: 3

Ar-2(Ap-2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhangelsky_Ar-2
http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft20887.htm
10
User Artwork / Re: Motocar's Cutaway drawings
« Last post by Motocar on Today at 04:56:58 am »
Meantime, down in Moscow subway, yesterday.

Nice to see that work in such distant latitudes, thank you for the note ...! Thanks flateric
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10