Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

[ceptimus]

Similar to the flying boxcar, but even weirder (in my opinion) was the Blackburn Beverley.



I used to visit a chemical works in the town of Beverley - standing on top of one of the outdoor chemical tanks I could view the remains of one of those beasts in the military museum next door.



Sadly there are no longer any flying examples. I saw this model flying at some shows around 10 years back (only 13% scale!) but even that model is now defunct.


(Website about the model version)

[BrotherMan]

Cariboooooouuuuuu!

[SR71]

Originally Posted by curses

Lookit the birds they've got in this museum:
Patriots Point - Explore Museum

I am now going to have to forgo my hate for SC and visit.

They have your Tracker.

[godfry n. glad]

And a Tracer, too!

It made my "Things to See and Do in Charleston" list.

I get the impression they let you touch them...are you allowed to sit in the cockpit?

[curses]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I get the impression they let you touch them...are you allowed to sit in the cockpit?

OOh, that would be the greatest!

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by BrotherMan

Cariboooooouuuuuu!

Cariboooooouuuuuu!





Check out the proportional size of the tail on that thing....

STOL...This thing is good at 'hightailing' it out of wherever.

[SR71]

Nice.

STOL LOL!! STOL is awesome. Here's one of the scads of vid on YouTube - A lot of them end with the plane flipping forward on the landing.

Alaska STOL Contest - YouTube

[godfry n. glad]

Kewl. Can you imagine doing the equivalent of that in a 30 passenger craft?

I just checked the marketing manual for the Caribou, and they claim they need 500 feet of ground roll and another 500 or so feet to clear 50 foot obstacles at field's edge, with a 14% to 18% climb gradient, depending upon the load weight, of course...All with frilly curtains on the windows.

Somewhere on YouTube, there's a short clip of a fellow landing his Caribou on a primitive field without flaps. The craft had lost flap control. The pilot managed the landing, but plowed his left wheel nearly entirely into the field surface, burying it. The plane was undamaged.

ETA: I found this, which is better.

[godfry n. glad]

Do flier types use 'left-right' designation, or have they opted for the maritime 'port-starboard' ('staabud') usage?

[ceptimus]

Mostly we use port and starboard.

Have you noticed when travelling on commercial airliners that almost all embarkation and disembarkation is done via the port doors? There's a long-lasting tradition for you!

I guess when these planes are eventually scrapped, the starboard door hinges and latches are still in pristine condition, but the ones on the port side have probably been replaced several times, due to wear.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Mostly we use port and starboard.

Have you noticed when travelling on commercial airliners that almost all embarkation and disembarkation is done via the port doors? There's a long-lasting tradition for you!

I guess when these planes are eventually scrapped, the starboard door hinges and latches are still in pristine condition, but the ones on the port side have probably been replaced several times, due to wear.

Thanks...I'd noticed that when viewing some orthogonal drawings that the port/starboard system was used. I had noticed that aircraft at airports dock on the port side, it was another factor that motivated my question. I had thought it quaint when I noticed it.

Ooooo...This looks fun. It's got that Trader stubby nose twin engine with a stylin' tail in the Constellation mode. The Scottish Aviation Twin Pioneer:

(Just a slight step back and to your right, Lizzy, and we'll be done with this masquerade.)

[godfry n. glad]

O my dog...I've found skyprOn.

[Dingfod]

You just now discovered that?

[godfry n. glad]

Yep...I'm a slow maturing type. Naive, y'know? I was just cruising the 'net looking for freeby planepix and I stumbled into that site that offers teasers and when I wanted to expand to full screen, it told me that such was limited to 'members' and would I like to join...just like the big-time pr0n sites.

[ceptimus]

We ought to have something slender and elegant to balance the recent posts about cargo transporters, so here's an ASH 30:



This is two seater sailplane with a retractable Wankel engine/propellor for self-launch or recovery back to an airfield. When in glider mode, it has a glide angle of about 60:1. That means that from 10,000 feet high in still air it could glide 113 miles before it landed!

[godfry n. glad]

Okay...I'll go for that.

U-2?



It's not a glider and it's glide ratio is only "somewhere in the upper 20s", but it looks like one and has an operational ceiling of 70,000 feet. I was surprised to find out that it is still operational in US military duties, having outlasted the mach-3 SR-71 that was originally planned to be its replacement.

[ceptimus]

http://www.youtube.com/v/Fg_JcKSHUtQ&start=130

[godfry n. glad]

Well, that's whey kewl, but people are never going to give it any credence, nor will it ever garner a defense contract, unless they can get it to crap on select targets.

[curses]

Soooo Lockheed have released concept drawings of its new 6th gen fighter. This thing is pretty.

This Is Lockheed Martin's New Amazing Fighter—But Do We Really Need It?

OTOH, do you agree with the author's assessment that the future of fighters is RC? I don't think that I do, nothing will beat a pilot that's there in the thick of things for split second decision making.

[godfry n. glad]

Having superiority in the air seems to be a pretty important objective in warfare (or diplomacy). Clearing the air of your opponents' observation craft or surveillance sites is a pretty necessary function, but I think that a more versatile craft (rather than the biggest, fastest, carries the heaviest load, or has the most gizmos), like 'attack/fighter' are going to be the demand of the future. I note that in the past two fifth generation military aircraft, the F-22 and the F-35 have been collaborative products of not only aircraft producers, but national purchasers, as it is a hideously costly undertaking. The results seem to be products which don't excell at anything, but can easily undertake a greater variety of tasks and do well enough (for government work).

As much as I'd like to see it produced, I think this is the MIC continuing to milk the public coffers. We don't need it, we can't afford it. Focus should be on doing more with less, not throwing money at just doing more. Ability to adapt to the changing battlefield, battle versatility, is the appropriate goal, IMHO.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by curses

OTOH, do you agree with the author's assessment that the future of fighters is RC? I don't think that I do, nothing will beat a pilot that's there in the thick of things for split second decision making.

I think the pilotless planes (partly autonomous, partly R/C) will win in the future.

The advantages they have over piloted planes:

• Expendable
• Can manouver in ways impossible for manned planes (the G-load would kill the pilot)
• Greater useful payload capacity (no need to carry ejector seat, parachute, instrument displays, canopy, heater, oxygen supply, etc. etc.)
• Probably much cheaper. One pilotless plane may not be a match for an F-22, but if you can build ten or maybe a hundred of them for the same money, I would expect the swarm to win against the singleton

[SR71]

I think the advent of stealth is going to change the game in much the same way as the development of the machine gun, internal combustion engines, and recoil damped breach loaded artillery scripted the cavalry out of warfare. As more countries develop it, it changes the game in fundamental ways.

[Dingfod]

Eat my EMP.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I think the pilotless planes (partly autonomous, partly R/C) will win in the future.

Advantages, probably. Class....um. No.

Is the Global Hawk.

[godfry n. glad]

I have found the Virtual Aircraft Museum to be a help.