Page 100 – Key Publishing

Archer

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,486 through 1,500 (of 1,614 total)

← 1 2 3 … 99 100 101 … 106 107 108 →

Author

Posts
April 21, 2004 at 4:15 pm in reply to: Scottish forum meet #1605794

Archer
Participant

Hmm, so what you are all saying is that you’ll be having a get-together at East Fortune on saturday 24th april. Is that correct so far?

April 21, 2004 at 3:43 pm in reply to: New quiz #1605831

Archer
Participant

Doesn’t look like an ARV to me, could be though. If it is one, then the photo is more recent than it looks!

April 21, 2004 at 2:33 pm in reply to: flight sim aerobatics #1605948

Archer
Participant

Hmm, does this topic qualify for the historic forum? Only if you are using something from the FS1 to FS4 range!

And the most popular flightsim stunt must be the 747 under the Golden Gate Bridge (I did that in FS4 already!)

April 21, 2004 at 2:29 pm in reply to: New quiz #1605950

Archer
Participant

For those who want an extra challenge (and because I cannot figure it out): what type of aircraft is parked behind the Tiger?

April 21, 2004 at 2:27 pm in reply to: When and where #1605953

Archer
Participant

Originally posted by Melvyn Hiscock
Posting the pictures takes up restoration time!

and cat stroking time.

and. . . . . . .

IT WAS LUXEUIL!!!!!

Aahh, half a point for me then!

And of course you can post pictures of your cat on your website too. I guess Sid has grown by now.

Off to the next quiz now!

April 21, 2004 at 11:38 am in reply to: When and where #1606246

Archer
Participant

Originally posted by Melvyn Hiscock
so that I can show you pictures of the Rearwin.

You could always put them on your website so that the non-OW go-ers might get a chance to see them!

As for the base: Luxeuil perhaps?

April 21, 2004 at 7:11 am in reply to: The 'What The Heck' File #1606609

Archer
Participant

Photo 21 is a Douglas B-23 Dragon. I believe the CAF has an airworthy example under restoration, and I saw one (fuselage only) at Kermit Weeks’ place too, two years ago. This photo could be one of those two.

April 20, 2004 at 3:06 pm in reply to: When and where #1607632

Archer
Participant

Was this in 1996 perhaps?

April 20, 2004 at 8:02 am in reply to: When and where #1608417

Archer
Participant

Re: When and where

As I honestly don’t have a clue about the rest, I’ll take a stab at this one:

Originally posted by Melvyn Hiscock
How much did I drink that night?*

I’d say: A volume of liquid somewhere between ‘enough to float a small submarine’ and the level of water in the Brooklands paddock a few years ago should’ve done the trick. 😀

Anyone else with a guess for the other questions perhaps?

April 19, 2004 at 9:31 pm in reply to: The 'What The Heck' File #1608986

Archer
Participant

I know that twin-engined pusher-prop Bell, but I cannot remember what it’s called now. It starts with Aira….. or Airo…. something.

The D-XXIs are Dutch indeed, it’s a very familiar photo, so probably a publicity one. Also shot before 1940 as the markings where changed to orange triangles to avoid confusion.

The big Seattle bomber is a predecessor to the B-17. It first carried the name ‘Flying fortress’ but wasn’t developed beyond the prototype. Somehow I thought it was the XB-19, but the link from WebPilot proves me wrong 😀

April 19, 2004 at 9:22 pm in reply to: Replica of Napier-Heston Racer Planned #1608991

Archer
Participant

Would be interesting (to see and to fly!)

The question is though: Where will they find an airworthy Napier Sabre????

April 17, 2004 at 8:21 am in reply to: Contra-Rotating props #1612913

Archer
Participant

Very sensible indeed, weren’t both Precious Metal and Red Baron lost partly because of the props going flat? Obviously the first one is flying again, but I remember a few undignified photos of her lying in the desert!

April 17, 2004 at 8:16 am in reply to: Contra-Rotating props #1612955

Archer
Participant

Originally posted by turbo_NZ
I guess the other drawback is the added complexity of the gearbox and prop-shafts for this setup.

Indeed, and complexity always adds failure modes to the equation. In Alex Henshaw’s ‘Sigh for a Merlin’ he writes elaborately about the problems they had with translational bearings. These transfer the prop pitch setting from one prop to the other, and when it fails the rear prop goes into flat pitch, providing a very efficient airbrake! Quite a few Spits were written off because of this I think. They got it sorted in the end, but a contra prop will still be a complex arrangement that needs more maintenance than a single prop.

But then, the pilots love them!

April 16, 2004 at 8:04 pm in reply to: Contra-Rotating props #1613256

Archer
Participant

The reason for the contra props on the Shack lies in the power of the engine. To transfer the available horses to the surrounding air you need surface, much in the same way that you need larger wings to keep a heavier airplane aloft. That’s why you see props with an increasing number of blades as the hp of the engines increase throughout the Spitfire family. Now the problem with a lot of propblades is aerodynamic interference, and that decreases the efficiency again, thus throwing away your added thrust. Another option would be to increase prop diameter, but that has constraints based on airframe geometry (you’ll need longer gear legs or a Corsair solution) and tip speeds. The next step then is to create a contra prop, thus keeping the prop size reasonable but adding lifting (really pulling-) surface.

April 16, 2004 at 12:42 pm in reply to: Comets and Nimrods #1614098

Archer
Participant

There are no flying Comets anymore, the last one was XS235 ‘Canopus’ which is now preserved, and might one day fly again if plans work out, as there is a group lobbying for this purpose. Some photos of this aircraft are here.

As for Nimrods…. I believe they still fly for the RAF, but someone more knowledgable might enlighten you on that.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,486 through 1,500 (of 1,614 total)

← 1 2 3 … 99 100 101 … 106 107 108 →