Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by TomcatViP on Today at 05:33:47 pm »
The hand sign interface is remarkably clever. I see it as a breakthrough in this field. As I have experimented some years ago hand sign recognition to controll a swarm of drones in real time, I still think that their way of doing it is brilliant. Let's hope that they will share more of it soon.

Last but not least, those that want to see this as a fake mockup, a soon to be popular internet jocke or are taking this display as a derision are only delusional to themselves: a lot of work, time and money (across various succeeding administrations obviously) went behind this Tempest fury. A remarkable sign of continuity.
Any UK foreigner should be humble watching this scene of transparency with so much being shared so openly with the public.
I do not know the extent of your internet search or what method you used, and probably you've seen these before, but just in case (and since it kind of fleshes out this topic a bit) here are a few Swedish pages with what seems to be reasonably good info on the B 6. The second link in particular points to a page linking to three forum topics devoted specifically to each of the two aircraft:

I'm also attaching a few pics I found along the way.
Found a complete profile on the 2PA-L and a small text, but still in Polish unfortunately, this time in Typy Broni i Uzbrojenia 151:
Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by TomcatViP on Today at 05:03:36 pm »
Fantastic design. Jaw dropping agility.
For those afraid of the ship rolling over, you have to understand that for this happening, the force would have to fight both the counterweight under the ship and pushes the water against the immersed part of the hull. Water having a density of 1000kg/m3, it's a lot of pressure to put (without pulling thought the net). And the net is ensuring a smooth impact while distributing the load among the pillars.
Only reference I could find so far was this small part of a larger AT-12 plan from Monografie Lotnicze #25, but I'll keep digging.
Amazing work as usual my dear Skyblazer,
and I can add;
CP 38-385  also Curtiss Model-83
CP 39-460  also Martin M-177
CP 39-640  also Burnelli XBA-1,Consolidated LB-22 & LB-24,Chance Vought V-302
                 and Martin M-178

Thanks. I've added these to my spreadsheet and will eventually update the PDF.
I realize I made a mistake about the Stearman in CP 39-640, which was NOT the XA-21.

Are you quite sure about the Martin 177 being submitted along with the Model 167? I haven't found a reference for this.
(I don't use the M- prefix for Martin, as the company itself didn't seem to use it)
Aerospace / Re: UK Spaceport
« Last post by TomcatViP on Today at 04:32:25 pm »
9 eng and electric pumps make a lot of complexities for 150kg in orbit.
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by kcran567 on Today at 04:09:23 pm »
Overall size of the Aircraft looks very smallish, T-38 sized.

 Is the mockup 1:1 or 85%
Intakes on the mock-up look very small also, and the exhaust nozzles look very small.

Any indicators of features of nozzle design? looks like just a square opening. Subsonic?? no visible after-burning nozzles.

Looks like subsonic design for greatly reduced IR? Looks IR stealthy.
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Douglas 1930s Observation Plane
« Last post by circle-5 on Today at 03:39:23 pm »
Could this model has been (intentionally) lacks the wing struts?

Similarity to Curtiss O-52 is striking - and wing's planform "asks" for struts.

There were some Douglas high wing observation's types - but none of them have been as clean and elegant 8-)

The model is generally well preserved (for its age) and shows no evidence there ever were any struts this was a fully cantilevered wing design.  I imagine the wing support structure was intrusive inside the cockpit, but the absence of struts gave the crew an unimpeded view of the ground below.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10