Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
User Artwork / Re: Motocar's Cutaway drawings
« Last post by Motocar on Yesterday at 06:22:44 pm »
Just amazing work, Motocar!!! What program(s) did You use to make those great cut-outs?


I use modest paint and a lot of creativity ...!  Motocar
2
Propulsion / Re: Rolls-Royce Liftjets from RB82 to XJ-99
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 12:44:01 pm »


And on a more general note, i was trying to find out who really invented the 3BSN as we know it ?



How about  Jack Britt, Rolls-Royce? (patent filed June 1954)  U.S. Patent  2,933,891, "Jet pipe arrangements for jet propulsion engines". He even has an arrangement for reversing thrust. http://www.google.com/patents/US2933891
[/quote]

IIRC this one was also before US efforts:

3
Propulsion / Re: Rolls-Royce Liftjets from RB82 to XJ-99
« Last post by charleybarley on Yesterday at 12:31:35 pm »

And on a more general note, i was trying to find out who really invented the 3BSN as we know it ?



How about  Jack Britt, Rolls-Royce? (patent filed June 1954)  U.S. Patent  2,933,891, "Jet pipe arrangements for jet propulsion engines". He even has an arrangement for reversing thrust. http://www.google.com/patents/US2933891

There is also a drawing of a 3BSN, Fig 21-8, in "The Jet Engine" RR Limited, 3rd edition dated July 1969.

And, filed May 1967, a P&W cooling scheme for an afterburner 3BSN. http://www.google.com/patents/US3429509

The first to fly? Perhaps this is a 3BSN on the YAK38 http://scalemodels.ru/modules/photo/viewcat.php?id=4223&cid=170&min=60&orderby=dateA&show=12
4
Hi,

we forget to talk about RAF D. of R (Directorate of Research) specifications,and they were
a 12 issues;

D of R.1     ------?
D of R.2     ------?
D of R.3     recce aircraft; DH-30,DH-31 & DH-41 and Avro-?
D of R.3A   recce aircraft; DH-35 and Avro-?
D of R.4     long-range twin engined bomber; HP-24 Hyderabad and Vickers Virginia
D of R.4B   long-range single engined bomber; Avro-549 Aldershot,DH-?,HP Type-X
D of R.5     ------?
D of R.6     single seat shipboard fighter; DH-33,Avro-?,Fairey ?
D of R.7     deck-land recce aircraft; Blackburn R.1 Blackburn
D of R.8     deck-land torpedo carrier; Blackburn T.2 Dart and HP-19
D of R.9     coastal defence torpedo bomber; DH-36Blackburn T.4 Cubaroo,Avro-556 &
                 Avro-557
D of R.10   ------?
D of R.11   ------?
D of R.12   troop carrier; DH-28 and Vickers Victoria
5
Northrop Stalker II - Cobra
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,27940.msg291016.html#msg291016

Sneaky Pete - Long EZ
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5017.msg107004.html#msg107004
From our own Stargazer:
http://stargazer2006.online.fr/aircraft/pages/sneekypete.htm

There are references to the Ghost Squadron on SPF regarding the Pave Hawk squadron based at Groom Lake that is used for SAR and range activities.

V-Indicator - Platform Unknown
The Lockheed project involved a laser anemometer optical air data system that would be used to take place of a conventional pitot-static probe system, where its protrusion would be a problem for LO signatures or for very high speed aircraft. The Vindicator is actually "Velocity-V" indicator.

There is a forum that covers these patches and others on SPF at:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4374.msg36203.html#msg36203
6
User Artwork / Re: Motocar's Cutaway drawings
« Last post by Motocar on August 21, 2017, 06:47:33 am »
Retired by mistake in quote published.

Motocar
7
User Artwork / Re: Advancedboy's Designs Topic
« Last post by ADVANCEDBOY on August 21, 2017, 03:05:13 am »
What aircraft would you like to be sketched? I can do a new design  for an existing or theoretical program or rework my older designs. The hydroplane was my older sketch reworked.
8
hi all

North Korean new missiles:
KN-12 = 122-mm MLRS
KN-15 = Pukguksong-2 (MRBM)
KN-16 = 240-mm MLRS
KN-17 = Hwasong-12 (MRBM)
KN-18 = ? (MaRV SCUD variant)
KN-19 = Kumsong-3 (cruise missile)
KN-20 = Hwasong-14 (ICBM)
9
Theoretical and Speculative Projects / Re: Ski-jump capable MiG-23?
« Last post by kaiserd on August 20, 2017, 11:39:26 am »
Thank you all for your input. To just briefly address more trivial matters, like i said initially of course the ships will have to be modified in the first place, but not a lot because as Vikramaditya shows, MiG-29K can operate off it very well, fits on the elevator, in the hangar etc. I see no issue with MiG-23A/K doing same, i am 98% certain the MiG-23A/K would have been just fine as a ski-jump fighter of a 280m modified Kiev-class, but to be absolutely sure of the feasability of this concept i am really looking for hard data (if there is any) from the tests made with MiG-27 no.603 operating from the ski-jump at NITKA to show one way or the other  whether the tests were indeed successful or not.

The matter of landing is also a non-issue, the MiG-23K/A was designed to land on carriers, and as a sidenote during the painful history of soviet CV development in the first half of the 1970s there were proposals for the third and fourth Kiev class to be modified with catapults and operating MiG-23K and Su-25K, but of course nothing came of that. 


Btw, here is the project 1143.42, which is how i imagine this  MiG-23 capable Kiev to look like in the first place:

This area is an interesting what-if re: Soviet navy aviation.
I agree that a radically modified Kiev class could have operated MIG-23s using the ski-jump and arrester gear but these modifications to the Kiev class ship would have to have been very deep, extensive, expensive and time consuming (just ask the Indians). The need to strip them of nearly all their missile armament would have been controversial in the Soviet Navy.
At this time the Soviet Navy would have been starting from scratch for many elements of an actual CTOL carrier (arrester gear etc).
All to operate CTOL aircraft that would then have been significantly impacted and impared by using the ski-jump versus steam catapult or versus non-carrier versions operating from normal runways, all in the context of it not yet being clear how dissappointing and limited the YAK-38 would prove to be (or that far more capable Soviet STOVL carrier fighter would never enter service).
 
All of these aspects increased the technical and "political" challenges and risks with a scenario of trying to turn the Kiev's in to ski-jump carriers with CTOL aircraft.
In retrospect because we know that their YAK-38 air component turned out to be next to useless operationaly (and with a horrible accident record) such a risk may look like it was obviously worth taking.
However without this advantage the decisions to press on with Kievs as they were is more reasonable.
10
User Artwork / Re: CiTrus90's 3D Drawings of Unbuilt Aircraft
« Last post by Motocar on August 20, 2017, 11:06:32 am »
Thanks!

[...] if you authorize me to use them to accompany the cutaway.

I'd forgotten to answer you, but yes, feel free to use them! As long as proper credits are given, I have no issue with the use of any of my pictures (unless they're used commercially, that is).

Thanks and quiet use them without commercial purposes respecting your respective credits and just to illustrate
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10