Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Festung Norvegen holds out about as long as the fuel and aircraft parts do. After that it's goodbye. If Japan couldn't last into 1946 and mainland Germany couldn't last into the latter half of 1945, I don't see much chance of transferring enough material or industry into Norway to hold out for very long.

If you can magically transport all of Germany's industry and resources there, perhaps another six months. Perhaps. Among other things, the Soviets will probably come up through Finland and push the Germans into the sea, leading to the Sovietization of Scandinavia and a very different post-war world.
2
Graf Zeppelin was actually tremendously flawed as a carrier design, perhaps more so than any other carrier outside of the Japanese BBVs, because of the cradle launch system, which actually made her intended ops cycle more like a glorified seaplane carrier. Beyond the Fi-167, everything needed a purpose-designed launch cradle, and the number and type of cradles carried both determined her air group and limited her alpha-strike capability.

I think there's a serious argument to be made she'd have been stuck with Bf 109s and Stukas through the end of the war.

Consider, though - against a poorly protected convoy, what more do you need? The Bf109s can probably handle the CAM Sea Hurricanes or Martlets easily enough while the Stukas wreak havoc on the escort ships and/or the biggest Merchantmen, and either or both can act as shadowers guiding U-boats in. Put her up in Norway with the Tirpitz and she becomes significantly more trouble to sink and better placed to act?

Of course all this is conditional not only on the ship being built, equipped and crewed, but on the inter-service rivalries being sorted out.
3
Graf Zeppelin was actually tremendously flawed as a carrier design, perhaps more so than any other carrier outside of the Japanese BBVs, because of the cradle launch system, which actually made her intended ops cycle more like a glorified seaplane carrier. Beyond the Fi-167, everything needed a purpose-designed launch cradle, and the number and type of cradles carried both determined her air group and limited her alpha-strike capability.

I think there's a serious argument to be made she'd have been stuck with Bf 109s and Stukas through the end of the war.
4
Running the article through Google Translate, it's talking about a need to carry a wheelchair along when flying to a different location. Little bit of an essay coming up.

As it happens I actually am a wheelchair user, and I've flown gliders in the past, and I'm not entirely convinced these are practical solutions, or even that they're looking at the right problem. I'm unconvinced wheelchairs, even a lightweight, titanium-framed, active-user chair like mine, the sort being talked about in the article, are suitable for flying from.  Most active user chairs have a back that doesn't come above the waist, mine's higher, but I had to actively specify that, and it still doesn't support my upper back or head. If I can feel uncomfortably unsupported on a train, imagine what I'm going to feel in a crash-landing. And that back connects to the main frame through a set of fairly flimsy hinges designed to be readily collapsed by people who may not have a great deal of grip strength. Worse, even on active user chairs, the seat cushion usually sits on four or so webbing straps held together with velcro. You could fit a five-point harness, but there's a definite chance of the whole seating solution collapsing under load.

And that's for a rigid frame, most chairs aren't rigid, they're folders with a locking X-joint under the seat, in most cases a fairly flimsy one. My initial chair was a folder and I had to go back to Wheelchair Services and say 'look, this is actually making my condition worse' - I partially dislocated my hip at least twice when it flexed under me, ironically as I went over kerb-cuts in both instances. Now imagine what that joint, and/or the back, and/or the seat support webbing, is going to do if you slam 2-300kgs or more of pilot and structure down onto it at several G. The other seating issue is where do you put the pilot's chute? Okay, not everyone wears one in light/sports/general aviation, but they're standard issue when flying a conventional glider, and I'm not about to fly with a lower level of safety than non-disabled types. But if you're seated in a chair that's sized to fit you fairly precisely then that parachute becomes a problem.

Then there's the idea proposed in the article of using the wheels as undercarriage. I've had two friends who've had front casters shear in the past year. One of them just rolling along a corridor. Imagine the undercarriage digging in to ground loop when the undercarriage is also the chair you're sitting in, and the point digging itself in is at most 15cm from your feet.

There's a wider issue of whether flying from the chair is even necessary. Most non-disabled people are stuck in the 'wheelchair-bound' mentality, but mention that around disabled people and we're likely to break out the bondage jokes. The reality is 5 out of 6 wheelchair users have some ability to walk, and most of the rest will be able to transfer from chair to a seat without help. So arguably the focus should be on ensuring there's level access to the pilot's seat and space to deploy a hoist for those who can't transfer unaided. As for flying to other locations, then yes, I will want my chair at the other end, but I'm also likely to want a change of clothing and other essentials, and even a rigid framed chair will collapse to the size of a large suitcase in about 30s - the wheels pop off and the back folds down (and that suitcase size includes the handy, backpack-sized bag that hangs underneath my seat). The optimum solution for most disabled people will be a seat they can transfer into and space behind or beside it for a collapsed chair and its wheels - exactly the solution we're used to with cars. (I'm excluding powerchairs from this  segment as they're just too large and heavy for light aviation aircraft as a rule).

That's not to say that standard cockpit seating can't be an issue, I did have to decide I couldn't continue to fly in a standard glider's seat due to pain/fatigue levels, but that was down to my legs not being supported, and would have been relatively easily fixable with cushions or a moulded support, doubly so with a hand-controlled rudder.

Where you could make a case for piloting from a wheelchair is with people who need fairly complex seating solutions, but that's a level of need that's both relatively uncommon and likely to need help getting the aircraft preflighted, so the support would potentially be there to transfer into a similarly set-up pilot's seat even if you need to transfer by hoist.

Where there's a larger demand for flying in a chair is with airline passengers, particularly those who need adapted seating. This isn't helped by passenger assistance often being less than brilliant, making people reluctant to have to rely on it for boarding.  Unfortunately I think the same issues with regard to chair rigidity apply, more so in fact as general aviation is likely skewed toward active users with rigid chairs, while airline passengers will fall closer to the standard distribution of most people having cheap folding chairs. There may even be floor pressure and weights and balance issues wrt the larger powerchairs, which can weight 2-300kg without their occupant. An airline-flight specific issue will be protecting the head of the passenger behind from possibly impacting with chair, or handles, or rear-mounted controls or oxygen cylinders durng a crash. And of course economics will rear its ugly head. I reckon a minimum of 7 economy seats would have to be given up for a single wheelchair space, though only 10 for 2. (Even a standard-sized manual chair likely overlaps a 3x2 area of seating at economy pitch, a six-wheeled outdoor powerchair definitely does, two chairs side by side should hopefully fit in a 3x3 set of seats, and you'll need to knock 1 seat off the exit row to widen the aisle enough to reach the allocated spaces as we're legally barred from the exit row itself).
5
User Artwork / Re: The Lockheed L-133
« Last post by Foo Fighter on Yesterday at 08:26:34 am »
Could the wing allow supersonic speed?  Considering the problems IC powered aircraft had approaching mach 1.
6
User Artwork / Re: X-30A COPPER CANYON and Tupolev Tu-2000A
« Last post by Meteorit on Yesterday at 06:05:43 am »
What a shame the model was lost :( I think Tupolev museum has the model of the initial Tu-2000 configuration. That drawings are not public was to be expected though.
For this comparison the Tu-2000A is more relevant anyway since it's clearly influenced by the original du Pont design (which has no resemblance to the final NASP configuration either).
Hopefully we can have a NASP a202 / Tu-2000 comparison some day.
7
User Artwork / Re: X-30A COPPER CANYON and Tupolev Tu-2000A
« Last post by flateric on Yesterday at 01:06:58 am »
These are only two images that left of that model. Model itself was lost either during Tupolev DB relocation or was given to MATI and stolen there.
Drawings are still classified.
8
User Artwork / Re: X-30A COPPER CANYON and Tupolev Tu-2000A
« Last post by Meteorit on Yesterday at 01:02:58 am »
The problem is the final configuration of Tu-2000 was very different from the early concepts shown to public.

I'm aware of that. If one only could have three-views of that configuration (or more images of that model)...
(Another one from buran.ru attached.)
9
User Artwork / Re: X-30A COPPER CANYON and Tupolev Tu-2000A
« Last post by DrRansom on June 25, 2017, 04:49:12 pm »
Trick question, none of them are realistic.
10
User Artwork / Re: X-30A COPPER CANYON and Tupolev Tu-2000A
« Last post by flateric on June 25, 2017, 04:48:20 pm »
The problem is the final configuration of Tu-2000 was very different from the early concepts shown to public.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10