Hi All,
F-100 🙂Geoff.
Is it a fake..look at the color in the rearmost 3173 window/cockpit canopy.
not enough $$ lining the right pockets for the F8U-3?
That is one mean looking beast; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF8U-3_Crusader_III
I recall the AF447 was piloted by the least experienced pilot of three and plane had 2 malfunctioning speed pitot tubes…showing too much airspeed.
The plane would have recovered if someone had had the glue what to do….earlier.
I know movable tail planes currently exist to act as rudders but will there ever be a movable tail exploiting the benefits of the vertical tail position and the benefits of the leaning position (as the F22 has)?
It is called a ruddervator.
I assume 6th / 7th generation fighter have have either a ruddervator or just a wing.
Feathering or not, auto-rotating props are a load of drag. They never solved this issue.
Somehow I get a feeling it is better at the rear than in the front if it brakes.
Mirage 2000…designed in the mid seventies.
Plane will be soon 50 years old; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAKWi6Bf-wQ
Basically trying to use helicopter rotor transmissions in a jet. Lose the engine it becomes a massive air brake. Not cool.
Errrr…MadRat !
Ever heard of the feathering ?
See chapter 3.2; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller_(aeronautics)
Look 01:15 this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrziTee4b2c
Big prop at low rpm is the most efficient; http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/propeller/cruise_propeller_efficiency_screen.pdf
I found data of the end of the most economical business plane.
It is the little details.
@TopSpeed, I am not sure that a direct view is needed. I think that there is enough of space related or Mil related studies that show that flight is not imparted by a remote display like a digital screen or an helmet with a 3D view (unveiling here the quote mark around my use of the word Cockpit 😉 ).
Sorry I am just trying to see the dangers that lurk ahead not just the ones that are already in the system but not happened yet.
The KLM / PAN AM incident that took place in the Canary Islands was a sum of the three major factors and few smaller factors.
Pilot was experienced, but a dickhead…there will be plenty of dickheads flying aeroplanes in the future too whether you have a system that flies without a pilot or not.
I bet a STUNTMAN is one solution, but you also need to have a person who is thrustworthy flying but also as a human.
Going through the Neil Armstrong book you see what is demanded outside the 100% flying skills…a dude who never looses his grip !
I quickly based on my MINIKITE design drafted a sketch…and it resulted that I could make a 10 seater with TIO-540 engines flying with 2.4 litre / passenger / 100 km consumption ( but it could be as low as 2 l / passenger / 100 km )…..but if you add the rocket propulsion to it you could fly with pistons to and from the airfield….and ignite the rockets at 4-5 km altitude and sling it to Mach 2 at 20-25 km altitude in a jiffy…and glide at high speed back to 15 km and start driving it again with piston engines. And good side is that you are starting to get somewhere in time ! From 25 km at mach 2 you glide at 1/50 ratio to 10 km a distance of 750 km…for free …and in 20-30 minutes..from 40 km you go 1500 km for free in 45 minutes.
:applause::applause:
The plane is 11 m long and 9 m spanning…thanks to the semilifting body design.
Moves twice as fast as this on pistons only; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Duke
Frontal area in Duke is 6.14 m2 and this MINIKITE bizjet version 2.8 m2.
I counted 4.35 m2 frontal area for LF2100, which is about 2/3 of the Dukes frontal.
Here is the scanned story ( I already had this on my very first computer ) about LF 2100.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234933[/ATTACH]
It is a Stampe SV-4, http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/F-BBON.html
I am trying to find an article where Bill Lear actually lays down the efficiency numbers for this LEAR FAN 2100.
http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/learavia_learfan.php
I think it was 30% more efficient than a jet.
This says 11 mpg at 350 mph; https://books.google.fi/books?id=1oJwAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=lear+fan+2100+efficient&source=bl&ots=654n4rjw4n&sig=Rm61RuNRylACrgV8dSSQMEe919M&hl=fi&sa=X&ei=ztrJVOODEsKZygOv6YAo&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=lear%20fan%202100%20efficient&f=false
It says four times more economical than a regular turboprop.
11 mpg in a 10 seater aeroplane means 2.1 liter/100 km/ passenger…and that is a better mileage than a A380 has per passenger today ( by 40% ).
Here are the 300 troopers, 2 x MINIKITE and 10 armored carriers inside the SOLAR EAGLE.
:applause:
Max electric output 8 000 kW ( 11 000 shp )….+ SSME of 1.8 mN.
Slight overload ( 45 000 kg )..still very low wing loading as 85 000 kg be at just 50 kg/m2.