Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Early Aircraft Projects / Fokker parasol-wing fighters
« Last post by Arjen on Today at 04:27:11 am »
The Fokker parasol-wing fighters started with the rotary powered V.26, prototype of the E.V/D.VIII, described by Weyl as "more or less a V.13 [1918 D.VI prototype] with the bottom wing removed". The V.28 was very similar, but strengthened to use rotaries of up to twice the power of the V.26's Le Rhône. Three inline-engined were also built: V.27, V29 and V.30. The V.29 was slightly larger than the V.26/28, the V.27 slightly larger and heavier again than the V.29. I have found no image or description of the V.30 other than a line in The Complete Book of Fighters by William Green & Gordon Swanborough:
This[V.28], initially flown with a 110 hp Oberursel Ur II, was also tested with the 145 hp Ur III and 160 hp Goebel Goe III 11-cylinder rotaries. Similar airframes with different engines were the 110 hp Le Rhône-powered V 26, the V 27 and V 30 with the 195 hp Benz Bz IIIb and IIIa six-cylinder water-cooled engines respectively, and the V 29 with the 160 hp Mercedes D III.
The V.30 designation was reused for a V.26-based glider. Weyl writes the V.30 glider was originally meant to be a flying bomb.
The V.27 was modified when Fokker learned the German Army wanted an armoured single-seater for groud-attack and the protection of infantry support aircraft. As well as adding side armour, Fokker's chief designer, Reinhold Platz, added a hollow armoured spinner to protect the V.27's radiator. To cool the engine, six radial blades were attached to the spinner's armour plate to drive cooling air through the radiator. This worked so well, that Fokker wanted to use it on a new interceptor fighter that needed no armour. The modified V.27 was renamed V.37. Thijs Postma in his Fokker - bouwer van de wereldluchtvaart, Fokker b.v. 1979, writes that the F.6 (PW-5) was a development of the V.37. Green and Swanborough write that the F.VI (PW-5) was Fokker's first post-World War I fighter. To confuse matters even more, the V.40 designation was reused for what became the F.VI.
Weyl writes the V.41 was a development of the V.29. Construction of the V.41 was started in 1921 in Schwerin, Germany, but the aircraft was shipped to Amsterdam for completion. In Amsterdam, it was renamed D.X.

V.13, V.26, V.27, V.28, V.29, V.37 images from Fokker Aircraft of World War I by Paul Leaman, Crowood 2001.
PW-5 and D.X images from Fokker: The Creative Years by A.R. Weyl.
Aerospace / Re: Boeing 737 MAX family
« Last post by mboeller on Today at 04:26:33 am »
article about another aspect:

As far as I understand it:
"blowback". Both crews tried to escape the stall-warning from MCAS and overspeed at low attitude. Therefore the elevators lost efficiency and that in the end doomed the aircrafts.
Had a go at rescanning some of my earlier shots from the 1990's...


Hawker Siddeley P.1033 by Martin Winchester, on Flickr

Hawker Siddeley P.1000 by Martin Winchester, on Flickr

Hawker Sidderley HS1034/APG 1019 by Martin Winchester, on Flickr

Hawker Siddeley P.1201 by Martin Winchester, on Flickr
Aerospace / Re: US Navy’s UCLASS / CBARS / MQ-XX / MQ-25 Stingray Program
« Last post by Hood on Today at 03:13:58 am »
The lack of a 'buddy pack' for the USAF due to their selection of the boom system has been a long-standing downside that other operators using drogue and probe refuelling have avoided. Its surprising its taken this long to look at, but I guess modern materials are making a complicated folding boom more practical, though I guess asymmetric drag will still be an issue.
User Artwork / Re: sopwith camel double
« Last post by Hood on Today at 02:59:04 am »
Very nice work, thanks for sharing.
I have always been fascinated by Jupiter, could just stare at those cloud formations forever.
Forget hunting for little green men, there is so much more to discover on exoplanets than life. I can't imagine what some of those super hot gas giant exoplanets close to their parent stars must look like. They may have some incredible atmospheric features.
The Bar / Re: Were there German Pseudo Projects ?
« Last post by Hood on Today at 02:48:03 am »
A Pseudo project was the He 113, for sure (for propaganda / deception).

Not really a project as such, just a repainted He-100. In fact you could argue it was the most effective Luftwaffe deception of the war, a few cans of paint and some blurb for the picture captions and Allied pilots were still reporting tangling with it over the Channel in 1944.

All designers doodle and make studies of the latest technology. Sidney Camm's team was messing around with stuff like the P.1030 to see where the next generation was going. The only difference is, their sketches remained at the back of the cupboard as historical curiosities and not widely known until books like BSP came out in the 2000s. The German companies were raided for all info and any unofficial project was swept up and evaluated by the interrogators and they all got an air of legitimacy that was misplaced.

As for the designers working right up until the end of the war, I guess in situations like that you block out the bigger picture and focus on your day-to-day work to earn your Marks and maintain a semblance of normal life as all around you slowly crumbles.
It is a strange thing for the author to say, it either implies the book was written much earlier than its publication date which would explain some of the quirks that don't quite match the B-2 to the ATB presented here, or perhaps the author confused his MiGs?

The 'copied' AAM in the book could well be the R-33 (AA-9 'Amos') that resembled the AIM-54, of course it entered service much earlier than 1989 and so did the MiG-31. Also, given MiG had a fair bit of VG wing experience with the 23/27 family its rather odd the author thinks MiG would have to copy the F-14! Even so, the description would more closely fit the role of the MiG-31 than the MiG-29, but both types would have been quite familiar by the late 1980s.
Missile Projects / Re: AIM-120 AMRAAM projects
« Last post by litzj on Today at 01:50:47 am »

I have modeled CUDA / AIM-120C / CUDA+Booster / Meteor generic model

With some assumption, I could compare the performance of them.

A few questions:

AIM-120C?  What about AIM-120D?

Is CUDA + Booster pretty much the same as the LREW (which uses an "up & over" trajectory to enhance range)?:

How would an air-launched version of AMRAAM-ER, or SM-6 compare?

Just curious.

1) Ya, CUDA+Booster ~ LREW, my case showed that LREW is not impressive as Meteor in range performance
    (Further improvement attempt will be conducted)
2) AIM-120D...... There is only a rumor, trajectory optimization and enhanced long-burn motor, to extend its range, however there is no certain way to model it

3) Other massive AAM or high speed missiles will be modeled and tested
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Bartini Postwar Projects
« Last post by ucon on Yesterday at 09:46:40 pm »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10