Silhouette challenge
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minehead Somerset UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning LM,
I think that Martin is probably close enough with the Convair C-131 but OH if you judge otherwise, it's an early start and a busy day ahead with short breaks!
However, in case you've got your "Strict-hat" on, it wasn't a prone cocpit. It's the Convair NC-131H TIFS, (standing for Total In Flight Simulation), it had an additional two seater cockpit with exceptional all round views, also, turboprop engines and and wing mounted fins so that the handling characteristics of different aircraft could be simulated without building prototypes.
I think that Martin is probably close enough with the Convair C-131 but OH if you judge otherwise, it's an early start and a busy day ahead with short breaks!
However, in case you've got your "Strict-hat" on, it wasn't a prone cocpit. It's the Convair NC-131H TIFS, (standing for Total In Flight Simulation), it had an additional two seater cockpit with exceptional all round views, also, turboprop engines and and wing mounted fins so that the handling characteristics of different aircraft could be simulated without building prototypes.
Good morning everyone.
I have no wish to be picky - RR is close enough, but as you say TC, in the Total In Flight Simulator the pilots were not prone.
It's all yours RR.
BTW, I note that your last post was at 0347. What is your lat & long?
I have no wish to be picky - RR is close enough, but as you say TC, in the Total In Flight Simulator the pilots were not prone.
It's all yours RR.
BTW, I note that your last post was at 0347. What is your lat & long?
Last edited by Lightning Mate; 13th May 2010 at 08:02.
TC, since there is nothing going on at the moment:
I think that, since the additional surfaces did not move, they were for another purpose.
The addition of the extra cockpit, kit, and crew etc., would have moved the centre of gravity quite a way forward. This would have reduced directional static and dynamic stability (but increased longitudinal stability at the expense of increased tailplane downforce and extra trim drag).
A look at the photograph below shows that the additional appendages were aft of the C of G and thus would have increased the directional stability.
Conventional wisdom would have suggested adding the surfaces to the tailplane, in which case they could have been smaller in area. I can only assume that the tailplane was not big enough to facilitate this.
I am more than happy to be corrected if you can find more data.
Just my two-penneth.
I'll go away now.....
LM
turboprop engines and and wing mounted fins so that the handling characteristics of different aircraft could be simulated without building prototypes.
The addition of the extra cockpit, kit, and crew etc., would have moved the centre of gravity quite a way forward. This would have reduced directional static and dynamic stability (but increased longitudinal stability at the expense of increased tailplane downforce and extra trim drag).
A look at the photograph below shows that the additional appendages were aft of the C of G and thus would have increased the directional stability.
Conventional wisdom would have suggested adding the surfaces to the tailplane, in which case they could have been smaller in area. I can only assume that the tailplane was not big enough to facilitate this.
I am more than happy to be corrected if you can find more data.
Just my two-penneth.
I'll go away now.....
LM
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minehead Somerset UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi LM,
Of course you are correct, I was being too simplistic in my description. It seems that the wing-fins were used to generate side forces to simulate cross-wind landings (if you zoom-in on the one in your photo, the lower surface looks like it has a gust-lock fitted, so I guess it may be all-moving) . They also had an unmanned cockpit that could be fitted in place of the one shown. See below
Factsheets : Convair NC-131H Total In-Flight Simulator (TIFS)
Of course you are correct, I was being too simplistic in my description. It seems that the wing-fins were used to generate side forces to simulate cross-wind landings (if you zoom-in on the one in your photo, the lower surface looks like it has a gust-lock fitted, so I guess it may be all-moving) . They also had an unmanned cockpit that could be fitted in place of the one shown. See below
Factsheets : Convair NC-131H Total In-Flight Simulator (TIFS)
Thank you TC - most enlightening.
So in order to simulate x-wing landings methinks they would have been moveable.
Schhhhh........
don't look now, but it's open house....
Ton, I see you are on line.
So in order to simulate x-wing landings methinks they would have been moveable.
Schhhhh........
don't look now, but it's open house....
Ton, I see you are on line.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Netherlands
Age: 80
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Teusje,
excellent choice this one (will explain later). I will not reply to this challenge as this would not be fair to other forummers. (at the same time this is a hint)
excellent choice this one (will explain later). I will not reply to this challenge as this would not be fair to other forummers. (at the same time this is a hint)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bergen op Zoom
Age: 61
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dijkman Du Dijkhastar III?
It's actually the Dijkhastar II
This is the Dijkhastar III.
You have control, Skytrain.
And thanks for giving the others a chance, Walter-Karl
And thanks for giving the others a chance, Walter-Karl
It must have something to do with the Nederland registration. Don't tell me it's your aeroplane WK !
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Netherlands
Age: 80
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave, it is not mine, but I made quite some formation flights with this homebuilt.
It was designed and built by a very good friend of mine and this aircraft was the first homebuilt category plane to be certified in Holland. Cor Dijkman Dulkes was a true fighter (especially with the aviation authorities here) and it is very sad that he lost a much more important fight a couple of years ago as he died from a terrible occupational decease.
Thanks Teusje
It was designed and built by a very good friend of mine and this aircraft was the first homebuilt category plane to be certified in Holland. Cor Dijkman Dulkes was a true fighter (especially with the aviation authorities here) and it is very sad that he lost a much more important fight a couple of years ago as he died from a terrible occupational decease.
Thanks Teusje
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Wales, UK
Age: 65
Posts: 6,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks teusje, and a good challenge....in fairness WK's comments lead me to assume it was a Dutch aircraft...and a quick look at some photo's I took some years back at one of the Cranfield PFA rallies lead me to the Dijkhastar.
Maintaining the same theme:
And LM, no, not in a hotel room tonight!
Maintaining the same theme:
And LM, no, not in a hotel room tonight!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Wales, UK
Age: 65
Posts: 6,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definitely LM.....
Incidentally teusje and WK, thanks for the correction on the model number. Having done a bit of digging I see that PH-KOR was originally a II model and converted to a III. My photo was of PH-COR which I had recorded as a III but which is listed by Scramble as a CWH model, and looks exactly the same as the challenge aircraft! Anyone able to clarify...?
Incidentally teusje and WK, thanks for the correction on the model number. Having done a bit of digging I see that PH-KOR was originally a II model and converted to a III. My photo was of PH-COR which I had recorded as a III but which is listed by Scramble as a CWH model, and looks exactly the same as the challenge aircraft! Anyone able to clarify...?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bergen op Zoom
Age: 61
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The challenge aircraft is PH-COR and is known under both the Dijkhastar II and CWH designations.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, Walter-Karl.
Ton.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, Walter-Karl.
Ton.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Netherlands
Age: 80
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The designs of Cor Dijkman Dulkes were:
PH-COR: GB-25 Dijkhastar with the name standing for DIJKman Dulkes, test pilot van der HAm and co-designer STAaRrgard. This first PH-COP was an illegal aircraft as it was built w/o knowledge or permission of the Dutch CAA. However, it did fly, albeit only once (that is the of course official version....)!
PH-COR: Dijkhastar II was the second and this time official and is the a/c in teusje`s picture.
PH-KOR: Dijkhastar III is the red one and basically had nothing in common with the Dijkhastar II.
PH-CDD: Dijkhastar IV: This was an amphibian which was nearing completion when Cor died and unfortunately never flew.
The illegal PH-COR was a single-seater, the second PH-COR, the PH-KOR and the PH-CDD were two-seaters.
PH-COR: GB-25 Dijkhastar with the name standing for DIJKman Dulkes, test pilot van der HAm and co-designer STAaRrgard. This first PH-COP was an illegal aircraft as it was built w/o knowledge or permission of the Dutch CAA. However, it did fly, albeit only once (that is the of course official version....)!
PH-COR: Dijkhastar II was the second and this time official and is the a/c in teusje`s picture.
PH-KOR: Dijkhastar III is the red one and basically had nothing in common with the Dijkhastar II.
PH-CDD: Dijkhastar IV: This was an amphibian which was nearing completion when Cor died and unfortunately never flew.
The illegal PH-COR was a single-seater, the second PH-COR, the PH-KOR and the PH-CDD were two-seaters.