19 Squadron to Remuster ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
19 Squadron to Remuster ?
OK a "Silly Season" post 
Forget the VTOL capability with a VNE of circa 6.58 Mach and a VC of 2.63 Mach along with a true un-refuled transglobal reach ... where could we install a runway flanked with palm trees that fall back for take-off ... Brize ? We'd also need a Statish that looked a bit like Jeff Tracey !
Mind you a Fighter Squadron doing Trucking Work ... what next
F-A-B
Coff.
Forget the VTOL capability with a VNE of circa 6.58 Mach and a VC of 2.63 Mach along with a true un-refuled transglobal reach ... where could we install a runway flanked with palm trees that fall back for take-off ... Brize ? We'd also need a Statish that looked a bit like Jeff Tracey !
Mind you a Fighter Squadron doing Trucking Work ... what next
F-A-B
Coff.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tracy Island was supposed to be a British territory in the South Pacific, and the only one of those left is.........Pitcairn
You'd need the V/STOL capabilities, but the isolation would be ideal for secrecy. With atomic powered aircraft, the range wouldn't be a problem
You'd need the V/STOL capabilities, but the isolation would be ideal for secrecy. With atomic powered aircraft, the range wouldn't be a problem
A squadron strength of 1 with no unservability, speed and electronics to defeat any enemy or spy, paid for by enterprising private funds.
Sounds to good to be true
But it exists, we have all seen it before CGI came into existance
Sounds to good to be true
But it exists, we have all seen it before CGI came into existance
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,565
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Oh no... just when I thought that all the "new maritime aircraft" threads had finally died a lingering death. On your head be it!
Surely, it should be 69 Sqn who are equipped with this new aircraft - their motto is "With Virgilance We Serve" or similar.
Surely, it should be 69 Sqn who are equipped with this new aircraft - their motto is "With Virgilance We Serve" or similar.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Looks like we might need BAe to quote for a Glass Cockpit upgrade ...
At least the uniform won't require too much modification ... with the reintroduction of the No2 Thunderbird Jacket
At least the uniform won't require too much modification ... with the reintroduction of the No2 Thunderbird Jacket
From the TBIPT
Thunderbird 2 is International Rescue's heavy-duty transporter aircraft which carries rescue equipment to the danger zone in one of 6 pods (including Thunderbird 4 in pod 4). Thunderbird 2 is a large, green VTOL aircraft that is used in most earth-based rescue missions. It is normally piloted by Virgil Tracy, who is often accompanied by either Alan Tracy, Gordon Tracy, Brains and sometimes Tin-Tin. Thunderbird 2 is 250 feet long with a wingspan of 180 feet and a height of 60 feet. A long-range craft, it is capable reaching anywhere in the world without refuelling and has a maximum speed of 5000 mph (but cruises at 2000 mph). It therefore arrives at the danger zone later than Thunderbird 1.
So it does not have a Nav, keep working the desk you dreamers
Thunderbird 2 is International Rescue's heavy-duty transporter aircraft which carries rescue equipment to the danger zone in one of 6 pods (including Thunderbird 4 in pod 4). Thunderbird 2 is a large, green VTOL aircraft that is used in most earth-based rescue missions. It is normally piloted by Virgil Tracy, who is often accompanied by either Alan Tracy, Gordon Tracy, Brains and sometimes Tin-Tin. Thunderbird 2 is 250 feet long with a wingspan of 180 feet and a height of 60 feet. A long-range craft, it is capable reaching anywhere in the world without refuelling and has a maximum speed of 5000 mph (but cruises at 2000 mph). It therefore arrives at the danger zone later than Thunderbird 1.
So it does not have a Nav, keep working the desk you dreamers
I used to wonder, a long long time ago, how a bulbous T2 could travel so fast. The lift-generating fusalage must have generated a huge transonic problem - and why did the wings sweep forward?
But the truth is, well all love TB. I bought the box set for my kids, you udnerstand...
But the truth is, well all love TB. I bought the box set for my kids, you udnerstand...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Whenurhappy ...
Just for you ... I mean the kids
Article from the Manchester Evening News 16/09/2008
Dr Phillip Atcliffe Salford University
Poor chap ... research funding was probably a bit short that year !
Best ...
Coff
Just for you ... I mean the kids
Article from the Manchester Evening News 16/09/2008
Dr Phillip Atcliffe Salford University
TALES of their daring rescue missions have captivated generations of youngsters, but now a leading academic is seeing if Thunderbirds holds up to scientific scrutiny.
Dr Phillip Atcliffe, from Salford University, has been analysing the iconic space vehicles from the 1970s show to see if their designs could have worked in the real world.
The aerospace engineer has assessed the vehicles for practicality and space and airworthiness.
And he's done it all in the hope that his work will help to encourage others to share his interest in science and technology.
"It's all about having fun with engineering for me," said Dr Atcliffe, who is based in the university's school of computing, science and engineering.
"I grew up with these TV series and I know they helped many people take an interest, and even go on to work, in engineering and science.
"What I'm doing is taking that to the next level and providing a way in which ordinary people can gain an understanding of how aircraft and spaceships work.
"While some of the features of the machines on TV or in films are dreadful from an engineering standpoint, others are very far-sighted - often in the same craft."
Dr Atcliffe allows fans of series like Thunderbirds, Stingray and Star Trek to post him scientific questions on e-forums.
He has spoken at schools and science fiction conventions. And he has even helped with official Thunderbirds books and artwork.
Of the five Thunderbirds vehicles he has considered, he says there is one that appears to strike a particular chord with viewers.
"The most common question I get asked is would Thunderbird 2 actually fly?" he said.
Anything can fly
"The answer is yes, because anything can fly. The question is would it fly well? Could it really do its job? And what is that job anyway? That's when it gets interesting."
According to Dr Atcliffe, Thunderbird 2 would use body lift to keep itself up at high speeds. He believes it could be improved with better streamlining to prevent temperature problems and suggests the wings are actually of dubious value.
However he admits that when it comes to the design of science-fiction vehicles, there may be other factors - as well as the science - that are important.
"There's a lot of history in these vehicles - fashions and influences from the times and the state of the art in design and engineering when they were created - and yet they manage to look remarkably futuristic, even 40 years later," said Dr Atcliffe.
"But overall, it's important to remember what a member of one forum said were the three key things about designing a vehicle for TV - it must look cool, look a bit like it might work, and look very cool."
Dr Atcliffe's verdict on the various machines:
Thunderbird 1: The ultimate aerial hot-rod. Nothing can go much faster and stay in the atmosphere - assuming it doesn`t melt itself. The model is rather too short and stubby for what it's supposed to do, and has too many lumps and bumps. I'm also not sure it really needs those wings.
Thunderbird 2: The Big Green Beast. Will use body lift to keep itself up at high speeds, so again those little wings are of dubious value. Could do with some better streamlining, lest it too have temperature problems. Not very aerodynamic once it's dropped the pod.
Thunderbird 3: It's a rocket, and a kind of visual pun on the number 3. Will have problems if an engine is damaged. Not much else to say, though I'm still trying to work out what it uses for roll control.
Thunderbird 4: The Floating Ford Capri van. Not very streamlined. Keep it underwater because it'll be instant seasickness on the surface. Could also do with more visible means of control.
Thunderbird 5: Big space station with loads of communications gear. Probably need a couple of others, presumably unmanned, to listen to the entire world. Would appear to have artificial gravity, which none of the others do, so the generator must be quite big and bulky.
Dr Phillip Atcliffe, from Salford University, has been analysing the iconic space vehicles from the 1970s show to see if their designs could have worked in the real world.
The aerospace engineer has assessed the vehicles for practicality and space and airworthiness.
And he's done it all in the hope that his work will help to encourage others to share his interest in science and technology.
"It's all about having fun with engineering for me," said Dr Atcliffe, who is based in the university's school of computing, science and engineering.
"I grew up with these TV series and I know they helped many people take an interest, and even go on to work, in engineering and science.
"What I'm doing is taking that to the next level and providing a way in which ordinary people can gain an understanding of how aircraft and spaceships work.
"While some of the features of the machines on TV or in films are dreadful from an engineering standpoint, others are very far-sighted - often in the same craft."
Dr Atcliffe allows fans of series like Thunderbirds, Stingray and Star Trek to post him scientific questions on e-forums.
He has spoken at schools and science fiction conventions. And he has even helped with official Thunderbirds books and artwork.
Of the five Thunderbirds vehicles he has considered, he says there is one that appears to strike a particular chord with viewers.
"The most common question I get asked is would Thunderbird 2 actually fly?" he said.
Anything can fly
"The answer is yes, because anything can fly. The question is would it fly well? Could it really do its job? And what is that job anyway? That's when it gets interesting."
According to Dr Atcliffe, Thunderbird 2 would use body lift to keep itself up at high speeds. He believes it could be improved with better streamlining to prevent temperature problems and suggests the wings are actually of dubious value.
However he admits that when it comes to the design of science-fiction vehicles, there may be other factors - as well as the science - that are important.
"There's a lot of history in these vehicles - fashions and influences from the times and the state of the art in design and engineering when they were created - and yet they manage to look remarkably futuristic, even 40 years later," said Dr Atcliffe.
"But overall, it's important to remember what a member of one forum said were the three key things about designing a vehicle for TV - it must look cool, look a bit like it might work, and look very cool."
Dr Atcliffe's verdict on the various machines:
Thunderbird 1: The ultimate aerial hot-rod. Nothing can go much faster and stay in the atmosphere - assuming it doesn`t melt itself. The model is rather too short and stubby for what it's supposed to do, and has too many lumps and bumps. I'm also not sure it really needs those wings.
Thunderbird 2: The Big Green Beast. Will use body lift to keep itself up at high speeds, so again those little wings are of dubious value. Could do with some better streamlining, lest it too have temperature problems. Not very aerodynamic once it's dropped the pod.
Thunderbird 3: It's a rocket, and a kind of visual pun on the number 3. Will have problems if an engine is damaged. Not much else to say, though I'm still trying to work out what it uses for roll control.
Thunderbird 4: The Floating Ford Capri van. Not very streamlined. Keep it underwater because it'll be instant seasickness on the surface. Could also do with more visible means of control.
Thunderbird 5: Big space station with loads of communications gear. Probably need a couple of others, presumably unmanned, to listen to the entire world. Would appear to have artificial gravity, which none of the others do, so the generator must be quite big and bulky.
Best ...
Coff
Perfect...you've ruined may day. I'd never considerd the aerodynamic effect of dropping the pod on T2. And were those real palm trees?
I hope you are happy. I'm heading home to tell the kids...
I hope you are happy. I'm heading home to tell the kids...
All you really need to do now is to do a similar analysis on a jolly fat bloke on a sleigh with 9 'engines', prove that he can't exist, and you've just screwed-up xmas for us.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TB2 was supposed to be a waverider - the lip under the cabin before the pod produced a standing shockwave, in the same way as the Valkyrie flew
Power was no object - the main propulsion was nuclear (presumably a thorium reactor) with heat transferred to the airflow through the two "ramjets" by liquid sodium-potassium alloy creating massive air expansion and thrust. Obviously this couldn't launch the aircraft as there would be no airflow through the rams, so takeoff was initially powered by "chemical engines" - presumably liquid fuel rockets. This also powered the VTOL lift jets.
Finally in the top of the tail were a bank of turbofans (eight from memory) for low speed cruise when there wasn't enough air through the ramjets. Fuel for this was never really identified in the TV21 diagrams - though boron hydride seems likely given the timing of the design
The wings were for directional control only - not for lift. The reverse sweep was to prevent drag from the wingtip vortices slowing the aircraft.
TB3 was always the interesting one - that was powered by three particle accelerators. Thats what the three "arms" are. Roll and yaw was controlled by small chemical puffer jets fitted in a ring just above the central cooling veins, with more mounted on the docking ring on the nose
Power was no object - the main propulsion was nuclear (presumably a thorium reactor) with heat transferred to the airflow through the two "ramjets" by liquid sodium-potassium alloy creating massive air expansion and thrust. Obviously this couldn't launch the aircraft as there would be no airflow through the rams, so takeoff was initially powered by "chemical engines" - presumably liquid fuel rockets. This also powered the VTOL lift jets.
Finally in the top of the tail were a bank of turbofans (eight from memory) for low speed cruise when there wasn't enough air through the ramjets. Fuel for this was never really identified in the TV21 diagrams - though boron hydride seems likely given the timing of the design
The wings were for directional control only - not for lift. The reverse sweep was to prevent drag from the wingtip vortices slowing the aircraft.
TB3 was always the interesting one - that was powered by three particle accelerators. Thats what the three "arms" are. Roll and yaw was controlled by small chemical puffer jets fitted in a ring just above the central cooling veins, with more mounted on the docking ring on the nose
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 6th Dec 2012 at 19:17.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Milo ...
Wow ... TV21 ... that's a blast from the past !
You've got to be an Engineer !
Anyway it seem's Haynes can supply the Pilot's Notes
Best ...
Coff.
Wow ... TV21 ... that's a blast from the past !
You've got to be an Engineer !
Anyway it seem's Haynes can supply the Pilot's Notes
Best ...
Coff.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coffman
not only did I get TV21 as a kid, I got Solo as well, another Century 21 comic - which was actually more informative about the Anderson's universe, and to my way of thinking at the time, more "grown up". Anyone else remember that one?
edit
Just found an online version of one of the TV21 TB2 cutaways, though the legend is slightly different: it appears to have been translated to Dutch and then back to English
from SuperM - Thunderbird 2 technical specifications
not only did I get TV21 as a kid, I got Solo as well, another Century 21 comic - which was actually more informative about the Anderson's universe, and to my way of thinking at the time, more "grown up". Anyone else remember that one?
edit
Just found an online version of one of the TV21 TB2 cutaways, though the legend is slightly different: it appears to have been translated to Dutch and then back to English
from SuperM - Thunderbird 2 technical specifications
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 6th Dec 2012 at 22:45.