I googled NF104 too. - Slight thread variance, but I loved this quote that came up.

Clicker,

You would have loved the Beverley then. :eek:

X-15
P-51
Vulcan B2

If only :(

Absolutely anything I haven't flown...

Trim Stab - you are so right :ok:

In my case, this includes:

Hot Air Baloon (tried a couple of times but weather was OOL).

Glider.

Any super carrier fixed wing with a cat launch and trap.

Mossie
B29
Mig 29

YF-23
Mustang or Spit
Catalina
:ok:

My best = ~44K, M1.83 (down hill with a tailwind!)

Lightning
F16
Thunderbird 1

STP

I'm old enough to have seen a Beverley fly but if you don't mind I'll stick to the slimmer girls who can curl their legs up. ;)

Quite a few interesting aircraft mentioned, nice to see the merlin engines are doing well.

Also high or fast flying seems to be popular as well. Highest I've seen was only FL370 on an almost empty DC-8 across the pacific, crew kept asking for FL410 but we were blocked by other traffic. Fastest was across the atlantic with a good tail wind with an average speed 560kts for the whole flight (DC-10-30)

Yes, Sunderland, Lightning, F4, Vulcan, Lancaster - 4 out of 5 :)

Did Gnat; Hunter and Phantom but, getting old, also A330.

Military mates flying that will now be grinning ear to ear. Phabulous.

Here's my guess. The rocket motor is mounted significantly above the longitudinal fuselage datum, in other words the thrust acts above the aircraft's CofG. If mounted parallel to LFD it would cause quite a big derotational moment (a pitch down force). At very high alitude with little or no aerodynamic control it would mean applying a continuous nose up moment using the RCS. THe pitch down effect of the rocket may have exceded the control authority of the RCS. By pointing the thrust line of the rocket through, or closer to the CofG, the problem goes away. Look where the line of thrust is acting here - looks like through the centre of the ac.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0px-NF-104.jpg

If you want to mount a rocket pack below the CofG, you'd need to angle it downwards. In NF-104 I would think that mounting it low would just have been yet another big drag penalty.


Just an idea. I'm surprised one of the QFIs or TPs around here didn't come up with that. Unless, of course, I'm completely wrong. :ouch:

Tourist,
The flight manual for the NF-104 states 'The rocket engine nacelle is located at the base of the vertical stabilizer. The rocket engine mounting is canted so that the thrustline will pass through the airplane center of gravity at rocket burn out thus minimising pitching moments due to pitch change'. :8

Ah. Smug mode! :cool:


This is the firt time a Baldrick's ever come up with a cunning plan that didn't turn out to be utter pig swill.

I would put you all in the mighty Jaguar and give you all a good laugh...


:O

Is this the dictionary definition of an oxymoron?

Some Russian kit would be fun: Mig-25, Su-37, Hind, Blackjack, or, if I was feeling particularly brave, one of those Caspian sea monsters.:uhoh:

Mosquito because she's beautiful.

SR-71 because she's a thinderingly powerful beast.

Sunderland Flying Boat because it's such a mad mixture of ship and aircraft.

F-14
Apache

For civil hardware the VC-10.