Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Boland Aircraft of 1910s
« Last post by AirAusquin on Today at 08:13:25 pm »
Created a sketch of the concept described in the article. The article stated that it had "sockets" for the additional wings (each wing 20 ft spand and 6 ft chord) over the 30 ft fuselage length. With all five wings mounted the basic design may have looked similar to the sketch. The aircraft that may have flown could have just had the front "planes" and the rear wing (second picture).

Dynoman, in these days of computer 3D drawings, watching such very neat and clean hand drawn sketches is a delight! Wonderful!
Just one big observation, the newspaper talks about dual propellers: "This will turn two propellers, one at either side of the machine"...

Alejandro
2
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Bell/NACA early studies for X-1
« Last post by hesham on Today at 03:22:34 pm »
In the late 60's or early 70's, I attended a talk by Chuck Yeager at Norton AFB in which he certainly said that the X-1 had an all moving tailplane.  I know I'm old but my memory is still good.

Nice Info Hermankeil.
4
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Bell/NACA early studies for X-1
« Last post by hermankeil on Today at 03:19:55 pm »
In the late 60's or early 70's, I attended a talk by Chuck Yeager at Norton AFB in which he certainly said that the X-1 had an all moving tailplane.  I know I'm old but my memory is still good.
5
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Boland Aircraft of 1910s
« Last post by hesham on Today at 03:19:37 pm »
Amazing concepts dear Dynoman.
6
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Aerion SBJ
« Last post by LowObservable on Today at 02:29:42 pm »
Would you put your CEO on something that says Lockheed on the side and looks like an F-104?
8
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Recon Sabres-The RF-86F and RF-100A
« Last post by iverson on Today at 12:57:35 pm »
There were only six of these aircraft. They were intended for high-speed, high-altitude dashes into denied airspace prior to the availability of the U-2. They had no armament, were plumbed for four drop tanks for extra range, and had cabin/systems modifications to support the use of full pressure suits.

A couple of photos and a drawing of a Taiwanese RF-100A can be found on p.83 and on the back cover of Clarence Fu's book F-100: Service History of the RoCAF F-100 (ISBN 957-8628-14-5). He might still have a copy available: 

fujingping@gmail.com
Clarence Fu
P.O.Box 112 –129
Taipei, TAIWAN

For more general RF-100A info, try googling. See:

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/f100.htm
http://www.skytamer.com/North_American_RF-100A.html
https://supersabresociety.com/slick-chick-f-100-proceeded-u-2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6021st_Reconnaissance_Squadron#RF-100A_Slick_Chick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF-100A#Project_Slick_Chick
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f100_3
http://www.456fis.org/F-100.htm

http://sweetrose.yocumusa.com/duncan/rfsabres.htm

https://fighterwriter101.blogspot.com/2016/02/taiwan-and-rf-101a-voodoo.html
9
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Boland Aircraft of 1910s
« Last post by Dynoman on Today at 12:15:29 pm »
Created a sketch of the concept described in the article. The article stated that it had "sockets" for the additional wings (each wing 20 ft spand and 6 ft chord) over the 30 ft fuselage length. With all five wings mounted the basic design may have looked similar to the sketch. The aircraft that may have flown could have just had the front "planes" and the rear wing (second picture).
10
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Focke Wulf (Tank) Ta 154
« Last post by iverson on Today at 11:55:30 am »
It is not exactly a kamikaze--the pilot was intended to eject prior to detonation, as shown in the drawing just above. The nose shape itself indicates a Mistel-type shaped charge warhead with a long, stand-off fuse to insure that the charge explodes far enough from the target to insure maximum penetration.
As I understand it, the pilot would not eject from the FW-190, but "jettison" the Ta-154 which would go on to crash onto the bridge or ship or whatever. Then he flies back with the FW-190.
That's why I wrote "the Ta-154  is a kamikaze drone" --only the Ta-154 , not the whole Mistel.

The ejection scheme you describe is that of the Pulkzerstörer variant, anti-bomber-formation. In a Pulkzerstörer, the pilot would be at altitude and able to eject.
In a Mistel, after setting the course into the ground target, he would be too low.

Agreed. I was merely objecting that the term "kamikaze" implies suicide by the pilot, which is inaccurate as a description of either configuration.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10