Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Modelling Forum / Re: 3D printing
« Last post by riggerrob on Today at 06:16:19 pm »
Yes, merely e-mailing print files to a local fab shop is the future. 3D printers are still too fussy for casual home users.

Sellers of CNC plywood boat kits are currently reluctant to e-mail out cutting files until copyright law catches up to tooling. They are afraid that a customer will buy cut files (and a licence to build one) then re-sell them to hundreds of black market customers.

I can foresee a future where you bring your favourite garden gnome - to your local UPS Store - for scanning. Tomorrow your distant aunt receives an exact copy printed in any one of dozens of stock colours. For an additional fee, UPS will “fix” cracks and faded paint on the printed copy.
2
Designation Systems / Re: Kaman K-... list
« Last post by Pioneer on Today at 04:30:18 pm »
Just stmbled across this - the Kaman K-700

Quote
Proposed rescue helicopter for USAF based on K-1125 with two PT6A turboshafts, streamlined fuselage and large tail fin. Not built.

Intended as the ultimate H-43 design, the K-700's power would be derived from twin T-400-CP-400 turbo engines driv-ing the familiar intermeshing rotor blades. A stretched fuse-lage of nearly 12.5m would accommodate 14 passengers. Somewhat similar to the earlier proposed Huskie III, the K-700 was to have wheel landing gear, a "Vee" bullet-resistant windshield, self-sealing fuel tanks, provisions for external or internal auxiliary tanks, and an awesome array of armament, putting it on equal footing with contemporary gunships.

(Source: http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/kaman_k-700.php)

IMO the tail boom and fin look very flimsy for a combat exposed helicopter!

Regards
Pioneer
3
Designation Systems / Re: Armstrong Whitworth designations
« Last post by ursrius on Today at 02:20:17 pm »
The Aries was ordered to contract 725892/26 to meet Specification 20/25. Clearly there was a very long ‘gestation period’ as it didn’t fly until May 1930. By the time the Aries finally appeared, the Type Number system was well underway, so perhaps not unreasonable that it was retroactively denoted AW.17 when it became clear the original recipient of that type number would not see the light of day.
4
Designation Systems / Re: Armstrong Whitworth designations
« Last post by Schneiderman on Today at 08:23:10 am »
in a French magazine,I found this; AW.12 and AW.13 were a light bombers,
but I don't remember it now or its name.

We must don't forget this Info.

No, I think that we can ignore that for now. Without a reference to the source that we can check it is not information.
5
Designation Systems / Re: Armstrong Whitworth designations
« Last post by hesham on Today at 08:15:53 am »
in a French magazine,I found this; AW.12 and AW.13 were a light bombers,
but I don't remember it now or its name.

We must don't forget this Info.
6
Designation Systems / Re: Koolhoven F.K. Designations
« Last post by hesham on Today at 08:13:48 am »
Thank you my dear Apophenia.
7
My guess - what if Meteore 63 has been named for "6" passenger and "3" engines?
Just for advertisment purposes?

No my dear Silencer,

but they took CAMS-31 & CAMS-32 for examples and collected the numbers o be this.

Many thanks to my dear Toura.
8
Patent Pending / Re: German 1940 Glide Bomb with annular wing
« Last post by hesham on Today at 06:36:50 am »
Also please direct link.
9
Patent Pending / Re: Henschel Aircraft and Helicopter Patents
« Last post by hesham on Today at 06:36:16 am »
thank you my dear moin,

but please give us a direct link.
10
Designation Systems / Re: Armstrong Whitworth designations
« Last post by Schneiderman on Today at 12:43:05 am »
No you're not the only one.
AW seem to have set out to rationalise their numbering system sometime around 1930. Not only do the AW numbers appear to start with 14 but their drawings initially use a mix of Roman and normal numerals. For example the Atalanta drawings are mainly titled 15 but some documents say XV.  I have not seen the drawing of the Aries (flown May 1930) but apparently this says 17 while the twin engine monoplane fighter project (dated Aug 1931) is definitely XVII. So maybe just the result of confusion in the drawing office.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10