Enter keywords or a search phrase below:
Martin Maryland.
Gloster Meteor?
F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!
U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!
N is for NO SURVIVORS...
- Plankton
LSM
This British aircraft was designed to be built in larger numbers in WWII but was only built in limited numbers (60 or so I believe) It was based on an existing airframe, but, had significant changes, based on an earlier Farman design, which ironically had been a failure, with input from the Americans. The technology developed was then given back to the Americans. Although this aircraft wasn't used much, it lead the way to the future for the allies. What was the aircraft?
It is indeed the Sherpa! Over to you Osher!
Sherpa
ok, to stay in the UK, what Shorts design was used by the USAF?
Borg R3-MC0 I think it is the Short Belfast.
I think it is the Short Belfast.
You would think correctly;
WWW.AIR-CRAFT.NET
Gosh, the VC-10.
OK - I agree regards the Yak as well.
This aircraft was chartered during the Falklands war to the RAF, The RAF had previously operated & retired the type?
You are correct Milair. Although I think that name applies better to the Yak 38. Your up on plate.
Well there aren't that many A/C that can leap, so I will go with the H.S. Harrier?
You can imagine the perplexed look on my face when told the Bearcat was incorrect. So much so that I just got in the car and drove down to the Naval Aviation Museum about 20 minutes away. I have a buddy who works there and he showed me where they (the bolts) went. So anyway, this aircraft had (has) a unglamorous nick name of the Leaping Heap. Who am I?
I read it was the Hellcat, not the Bearcat. However, as Bearcat is close, and, as there could be a difference on source information, I'm going to run with MQM.
MQM - over to you! What do you have for us?
When the Bearcat was built, it was felt that the aircraft could overstress the wing when maneuvering, so breakaway wing tips were designed and installed, but then apparently situations of having one tip break away and not the other created a more dangerous situatuion. So explosive bolts were installed to insure separation of both wing tips. In the end it was felt that the explosive wing tips were more dangerous than useful, so the whole idea was abandonned.
Best wishes,
Grant
MQM107 I'm thinking it is the F8F Bearcat, which had explosive charges in the wing tips. Mike
I'm thinking it is the F8F Bearcat, which had explosive charges in the wing tips.
Mike
I have a side question. What were the explosives for?
Red, White, and YOU! group build of 2010
Ooops, sorry, bit slow to respond there! No, not the Bearcat, but, very close. We are on the tip of the answer...
juts a stab but i remember hearing something like this about the F-104.
"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how i soar"
Recite the litanies, fire up the Gellar field, a poo storm is coming
Check out my blog here.
I think that the last person perhaps unwittingly gave a hint in his comment. I could be wrong.
I think we need a tip. Maybe the era or country of origin.
As the floor's free...
This aircraft was lightened, but, this resulted in a g-force issue. An interesting, but sometimes uneven (and hence dangerous) solution was found. To get around the sometimes uneven solution, a more explosive solution was found, which a ground crewmember unfortunately found about the hard way. In the end the pilots were just told not to exceed a certain g.
Which aircraft?
In all fairness, I should have asked the simple question of, did the fan turn the same speed or faster than the prop. I found this while looking for more info.
A remarkably compact installation, adequate cylinder cooling was obtained using pressure baffling augmented by a magnesium alloy fan geared to turn at 1.72 times engine RPM (3 times propeller speed).
From this site:
http://tighar.org/Projects/Histpres/Corrosion_Report/bmw801.html
So in reality it isn't 'connected' to either shaft. I goofed again, sorry for the confusion guys. The DVD I have clearly showed the fan turning faster than the prop and I assumed it was directly connected to the crankshaft. I will try and be more careful next time.
Floor is free!
can we clarify please?
I gave one answer and the poster before me gave the other. And you said that we both were not correct.
The hollow hub is indeed connected to the prop shaft, but like I said the fan itself is driven from a gear system, not from the prop shaft. That is why I made the two statements, to clarify that the fan is not driven by the prop shaft itself.
Gear driven from the crankshaft at 3.12 times engine speed.
Sorry guy's that isn't correct. The new builds of the 190 do show that to be true, however, I am going from a dvd I have on the 190 that has WWII footage and a direct frontal view of them turning the engine over from a dead stop.
simpilot34 This should be a fairly quick one, especially for those Fw-190 afficianados. On said plane, what was the cooling fan on the radial engined ones connected to? The propshaft or the crankshaft?
This should be a fairly quick one, especially for those Fw-190 afficianados.
On said plane, what was the cooling fan on the radial engined ones connected to? The propshaft or the crankshaft?
The cooling fan had a hollow hub, which was attached to the prop shaft. The fan itself was driven by a reduction gear system.
IF I remember straight, the cooling fan was connected to the prop-shaft. Didn't it spin at the same rate as the prop? I'm no 190 expert, I think I read it in a model magazine somewhere...
Sim that is it and you got two of the three and there is no sense in dragging it out. The other item I was looking for was the fact that the banks were not twisted as air cooled radials are. Your up on plate, what you got?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.