Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
User Artwork / Re: 2707-200 3d model
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 07:06:27 pm »
I find myself wondering if our resident 2707 modeller had anything to do with this:

2
I can forsee a time when spacecraft production takes place either in weightless conditions using asteriod resources or on the Lunar surface.
Both will take advantage of vacuum conditions and being able to build structures that during fabrication do not have to bear loads of 1G. This at present is sometime in the future.
3
Found this information online.  "...at the end of 1941, was commissioned to develop a 24-cylinder air-cooled piston engine of 2 200 hp called Mx. It was built as a six-cylinder star engine in four underlying wreaths."  Sounds like an engine similar to the AS Wolfhound.

Or an air cooled Jump 222
4
Propulsion / Lycoming O_12 and H_24
« Last post by Kevin Renner on Today at 08:07:55 am »
Kudos to Old Machine Press

https://oldmachinepress.com/articles/

Also an article on the R-77xx.
6
Seems that Zippermayr was not the only one who worked on coal dust / fuel-air / FAE bombs.
Patent Nr / Veröffentlichungsnummer: DE680483
Title: Fliegerbombe für Kohlenstaubexplosionen
Inventor: Kurt von Haken
Year: 06.04.1933
The patent shows a sketch of a coal dust parachute bomb.

https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=einsteiger

https://patents.google.com/patent/DE680483C
8
From a strategic Bomber POV  the uk had 3 designes in operation, so on that front it's France that ought to have chosen a uk product.
Furthermore we got as far as a prototype low level Valient.
9
Patent Pending / Re: MBB and Bolkow Patents
« Last post by hesham on Yesterday at 04:06:06 am »
Triebflügel from Bölkow
Patent Nr / Veröffentlichungsnummer: DE1884174
Title: Triebflügelflugzeug
Inventor: Bölkow-Entwicklungen
Year: 03.03.1961
The patent shows two concepts for Triebflügel aircrafts.

https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=einsteiger

Thank you my dear Moin1900,

and please can you give us a direct link ?.
10
I don't want to debate TSR.2 Vs. IV-A. I don't think there is anything to debate because the two are so different in concept and role.
The TSR.2 was a tactical aircraft, designed for operation in rough fields and for lobbing a couple of WE.177s onto deeper targets and offering support to BAOR with conventional weapons and providing a reconnaissance capability. It was designed for terrain-hugging operations in contested airspace.
The IV-A was built as a supersonic nuclear bomber, in effect a short-range strategic bomber (the original spec called for 1,500km (930 miles) range). It didn't even have a stand-off weapon when introduced.
This is not to say the IV-A wasn't good, or that it could not have been improved with more advanced avionics and engines to have been even better. I just think it wasn't really ticking all the boxes for the RAF. It had good speed performance and with Speys would have been even better, but i'm not sure it offered the multi-role capability they were looking for and the avionics for TSR.2 were still works in progress when the programme was cancelled. Sticking them into the IV-A with new engines might not really have ended up that cheap. Before the demise of TSR.2 the chiefs had a long wishlist which not even TSR, let alone IV-A could really fulfill. On the converse, I'm not sure the TSR.2 was really what the French required given their need to build up the Force de Frappe and make a credible airborne deterrent.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10