Silhouette challenge
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minehead Somerset UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning all,
HP, is it the Antonov M of about 1947 ??
Regrettably, I'm heading for a few hours in the workshop right now, so Open House please if correct
HP, is it the Antonov M of about 1947 ??
Regrettably, I'm heading for a few hours in the workshop right now, so Open House please if correct
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: either CET or GMT
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning LM, I took a quick peek at around 7am GMT, thought a while about posting something and then decided against it.
I'll try Mitsubishi ATD-X F-3B Shinshin.
What? Wiki says 8 tonnes MTOW & 10 tonnes dry thrust (15 w/ afterburner) for each engine!
There must be an error somewhere!
I'll try Mitsubishi ATD-X F-3B Shinshin.
What? Wiki says 8 tonnes MTOW & 10 tonnes dry thrust (15 w/ afterburner) for each engine!
There must be an error somewhere!
Last edited by HappyPass; 10th Jul 2011 at 10:44.
If those figures are accurate then it should go like a scalded cat.
Mind you, back in 1968 I was flying the Lightning F3, which on a good day had a thrust / weight ratio of 1. Not too shabby for 43 years ago. The RAF was fun in those days.
You have control again.
Mind you, back in 1968 I was flying the Lightning F3, which on a good day had a thrust / weight ratio of 1. Not too shabby for 43 years ago. The RAF was fun in those days.
You have control again.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: either CET or GMT
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks.
That would mean a thrust/weight ratio of 3.75 with afterburner at MTOW! Even with an engine out on take off and without afterburner the figure would still be 1.25, which to me is unrealistically high! (see Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes)
My guess is that someone needs to learn how to convert between weight units...
Next!
That would mean a thrust/weight ratio of 3.75 with afterburner at MTOW! Even with an engine out on take off and without afterburner the figure would still be 1.25, which to me is unrealistically high! (see Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes)
My guess is that someone needs to learn how to convert between weight units...
Next!
All I can say (with conviction) is that could never fly with those wings!
Some kind of rocket propulsion system envisaged? If that is an intake at the front it would be a jet.
Wossa stripey lines at the front mean?
Some kind of rocket propulsion system envisaged? If that is an intake at the front it would be a jet.
Wossa stripey lines at the front mean?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: either CET or GMT
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
could never fly with those wings!
Wossa stripey lines at the front mean?
If that is an intake at the front
join the dots...
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: either CET or GMT
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, as seen here:
Page 1 « L.H. Leonard “Helicopter-Type Aircraft” VTOL Tailsitters (1939) » RetroMechanix.com
Back to you
Page 1 « L.H. Leonard “Helicopter-Type Aircraft” VTOL Tailsitters (1939) » RetroMechanix.com
Back to you
Can't get a link, but go to Google Videos...
English Electric Lightning A very British Supersonic Interceptor
Watch the take-off - one had to be quick with the wheels...!!
English Electric Lightning A very British Supersonic Interceptor
Watch the take-off - one had to be quick with the wheels...!!