Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Various Messerschmitt projects
« Last post by newsdeskdan on Today at 02:50:27 pm »
official bf 109 Z drawing(that all official drawing we have for the bf 109 Z:


Yes Sgeorges

Ha, really? No. I've got a couple. So does whoever wrote that piece on the Me 309 for Klassiker der Luftfahrt. The drawing they've used is from the same report. Here's a couple of pages from it. To be fair, that drawing you've shown is pretty accurate.
2
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Various Messerschmitt projects
« Last post by hesham on Today at 02:47:11 pm »
official bf 109 Z drawing(that all official drawing we have for the bf 109 Z:


Yes Sgeorges
3
Space Projects / Re: Skylon Spaceplane
« Last post by steelpillow on Today at 01:29:40 pm »
One point about the Skylon engine location, a major problem with HOTOL that they could never sort out was the centre of gravity/centre of pressure mismatch caused by all the mass of the propulsion at the rear of the vehicle. Skylon's mid postion location of the engines was an attempt to solve this problem. Of course this brings own issues, such as exhaust impingement on the rear fuselage.
Posted earlier but seemingly taken down, here is a lower-res version of the SABRE system diagram:



Note how most of the gubbins is miles from the combustion chamber.
The obvious thing to do is what Frank Halford did to the Whittle jet when he turned it into the de Havilland Goblin - he straightened out all the kinks in the pipework and designed the thing around the airflow. It made for a longer engine, but a far more practical one. Do the same to the SABRE and you end up with a forward intake-cooler-turbine section, a pipe full of compressed stuff surrounded by widgetry, and a rear combustion chamber. This long, lean SABRE would improve the balance of HOTOL by moving the intake section forward, while improving SKYLON by also moving the rocket chamber aft. A halfway design, having just a stub rear fuselage, might just cut it.
4
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: FX Competition (F-15 alternatives)
« Last post by circle-5 on Today at 11:52:57 am »
It seems to be identical to the General Dynamics Tailormate study "B3" configuration as noted in my F-16 Evolution article (page 4). That doesn't preclude it also being the final fixed wing FX design as well, in fact I think it is rather probable that it was.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/F-16%20SPF%20Study.pdf

Thank you Overscan

I love your F-16 report.  Just didn't think of looking at LWF material for FX data.  As always, you nailed it.

These airplane models always look a lot better to me, when I can put them in their proper historical context.  Now I need to find a model of the earlier GD FX study with VG.
5
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Georges Sablier infos needed
« Last post by cluttonfred on Today at 11:49:46 am »
From the link posted by dan_inbox, the article posted by Cy-27 definitely looks more like the "Avionette faible puissance Sablier type 3" or perhaps an intermediate step between No. 3 (below) and No. 4.

6
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Westland aircraft projects
« Last post by Schneiderman on Today at 10:45:24 am »
The Interceptor was the subject of a quite intensive study carried out by the NPL and RAE. Models with several alternative tails were tested in the windtunnel, much of the focus being on spin recovery
7
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Various Messerschmitt projects
« Last post by sgeorges4 on Today at 10:33:47 am »
official bf 109 Z drawing(that all official drawing we have for the bf 109 Z:
8

Please refrain from the type of comments identified above. 
I shall do my best not to quote the man directly.
Huh?  Of course it's is a huge shift. 
My use of "yuge" in quotation marks wasn't an attempt to belittle the scope of any change of direction, I was using the man's own exaggeration of his accent to unsubtly point out that nearly all announcements and decisions from this Administration are padded with language intended to portray them as critical and earth-shattering. We are therefore reliant on our own ability to discern, based on the rest of the evidence available, just how much the current POTUS is interested in using the political power remaining to him to support/champion a major re-tasking of the space program.

I've not been trying in this thread to make qualitative judgement on a NASA plan which is so new it largely doesn't exist yet, I've been trying to point out that the Mike "kill the Shuttle to pay for Katrina Recovery" Pence speech is not the Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort. A big change requires a big commitment to take seriously, and so far there are nearly no signs of that commitment. Those who support a return to the moon, whatever the scope of that return, and who were critical of the previous Administration's vague plans to let non-NASA entities do things like lunar bases, should be critical of this lack of detail, lack of effort, and lack of commitment. Even while celebrating the goal, don't let the important things slide.

Perhaps you could be more specific about the "the current plan".  I don't see anything that would take away from NASAs immediate plans other than the asteroid visit which had been already pulled from the budget prior to this meeting.
The laws of physics and budgets haven't changed since the Augustine Report, so if the plan is to create a lunar base (or arguably even if it's just landings) then something in NASA's plans has to change rather drastically to pay for a lunar outpost/base. It's fair to say "raptor engines and carbon fiber tanks" potentially change what's available to craft an architecture with, but there is an existing architecture with entrenched political support which must either be killed or heavily revised to take advantage of those sorts of developments. Whether you believe the plan becomes "buy SpaceX hardware to make a better vehicle" or "buy SpaceX vehicles/rides on SpaceX vehicles," the support for "heritage hardware" in Congress (which killed the previous Administration's plan to develop things like high-performance engines in favor of "shuttle heritage hardware") must be overcome. Lest we forget the reasons there are no current manned lander programs or deep space habitat programs, and that items like the SEP program exist on a budget of spare change. The fuzziness of plans beyond the first couple SLS flights, be they last month's fuzzy plans or this month's, aren't a result of not having the desire to do more.

Just don't see how there could be any detail available at this point.  NASA will look at existing programs and timelines and see if there is a way to leverage the gains made by industry in the last few years. 

Perhaps that will create opportunities?  If industry can handle transport (faster, cheaper, better) NASA may be able to focus their attention on other tasks.





9
Well spotted! I had mis-interpreted the written description to imply a similar arrangement to World War I german fighters, with the radiator flush within the wing, and surface shutters. Strange that they do not appear on the 3 view . . . maybe the artist drew it by adapting a Ripon 3 view . . .


cheers.
          Robin.
10
In your opinion is possible for SpaceX build a lunar lander starting from a Dragon capsule design?

The answer appears to be no.  There simply isn't enough potential delta-v in Crew Dragon to make it into a lunar lander, because it's much too heavy.  Even to make it a lunar orbiter, you need more fuel than Crew Dragon currently carries. 

https://thephysicsofspacex.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/feasibility-of-spacex-moon-landings/

You could probably use Crew Dragon with an enlarged trunk for the "Command module" equivalent, but you would still need a specialized (and probably two-stage) "lunar lander" equivalent.   Using the existing SpaceX Falcon family hardware, you'd need two Falcon Heavy launches, one for the lander and one for Crew Dragon-Plus. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10