Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
I doubt that FuG 240 Berlin could be built in such high numbers to be disposable on regular fighters, if they get shot down. What could be the alternative? Neptun maybe?
Thanks for your feedback. I am not the designer but quick answers.

1. 4 tubes plus the FPL which can take a liner for another 4. Some could be loaded with tandem 400mm torpedoes.

2. Flat isn't that unusual these days. Strongly built etc.

3. Outer hull (casing) isn't pressurized, it's mostly free-flooding

4. Just not visible for to location of cross-section

5. See buoyant antenna. Wrote up briefly discusses sensors.

6. ???

7. Torpedoes are close to neutrally buoyant. Location is optimized for diver ops from FPL. Divers can use pure-Oxygen rebreathers more safely if they are less than 7m from surface.
FuG 240 N Berlin with parabolic antenna and plywood radome would have been the most modern German AI radar by the time the Ho 229 could have arrived at a test squadron. Its installation is also visible in a widely circulated side line drawing of the Ho 229 derivative Go P.60
(1) two torpedo tubes is awfully few for a sub of this size, regardless of that huge extra tube. This is particularly true if one is occupied by a set of 4 IDAS
(2) flat front and rear walls - is this a thing with submarines? I thought they would need to be near-hemispherical
(3) I don't quite see why the hatches need to be pressurised to the outer skin.
(4) no source of powering the rotation of the fore hydroplanes
(5) tethered floating antennas/sensors seem absent
(6) left and right computer workstation appear to require gymnastics
(7) why would one store the heavy torpedoes above the lightweight command centre? Seems like a poor idea from a roll stability point of view

Teaser image didn't save for me at first but try this method:
Click on image, then long press on image but instead of choosing save image choose view image, it will take you to teaser image's orignal site and then you can long press and save image.
here is some non standard designations "l ad-ri54 796 electronic reconnaissance aircraft of the soviet union 1/1 ii" (

Young Fox B = An-12R
Black Crow A = Il-20
Dust Fungus = Yen radar
Bee Deer = PRS-1 radar

Propulsion / Re: Armstrong Siddeley Terrier engines - technical data
« Last post by Apophenia on May 15, 2017, 11:36:52 am »
Also see tartle's post on Terrier engines for F9/35
Designation Systems / Re: PZL Mielec Designation
« Last post by hesham on May 15, 2017, 09:09:20 am »
Nice thread this.
My own submission: the British War Office and Admiralty should have bought the Dunne D.8 and its planned Armstrong-Whitworth successor in quantity as a training aircraft. We lost huge numbers of trainee pilots on recycled antiquated death traps, mostly stalling or flying into the ground on the trainee's first few flights, and huge numbers more in their first few days on the front because they could not use their aeroplanes yet.

In which war?

The Boeing Bird of Prey to replace the F-117! It had one of the lowest Radar Cross Section (RCS) for its time and supposedly tested day light stealth! Just a few modifications would have been needed to turn it into a stable bombing platform. Well ok maybe not a few modifications thrust vectoring, wing redesign,  fly by wire, radar, engine and FLIR.  Would be nice if they had a few air frames hidden  away at area 51 as a Silver Bullet Force! Much like the F-117 program started out as until congress made them buy 59 Night Hawks. The F-118 Silent Bird.

PS by Dragon 029
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]