Conkordski Crash
Discussion
J4CKO said:
Wasn't one just a s
t Russian Knock off of the other though ?
Or is it just two completely separate development efforts just ended up with two pretty similar looking planes as that is what supersonic flight requires ?
its like those hits tapes from the 80s that you bought as it had loads of the latest songs on, then you spot, in tiny writing "Not original artists", it is the RCZ to Concordes TT.
It's not just supersonic flight, but a supersonic passenger airliner. Indentical mission goals.t Russian Knock off of the other though ?Or is it just two completely separate development efforts just ended up with two pretty similar looking planes as that is what supersonic flight requires ?
its like those hits tapes from the 80s that you bought as it had loads of the latest songs on, then you spot, in tiny writing "Not original artists", it is the RCZ to Concordes TT.
Look at Boeing and Airbus for near-identical looking airliners.
Max_Torque said:
williamp said:
Oh, regarding the engine. The DB engine used in the Me109 and others was inverted, so the crank would be at the top, the tappets at the bottom of the engine. I'm sure there is a good reason why. Dont know myself..
I suspect it was due to the type of prop reduction gear used (or the lack of one?) ie prop centre must be certain height from ground (to fit big enough prop without hitting ground) and if you are using an inline planetary type reduction drive (or driving the prop 1:1) you want the engine crank centreline at that height, which means making an upsidedown engine to keep the total nose height low enough!
I think the reason, if there was any reason, was pilot visibility, both for ground handling and in the air. Cylinder heads aren't generally very transparent.
AER said:
Max_Torque said:
williamp said:
Oh, regarding the engine. The DB engine used in the Me109 and others was inverted, so the crank would be at the top, the tappets at the bottom of the engine. I'm sure there is a good reason why. Dont know myself..
I suspect it was due to the type of prop reduction gear used (or the lack of one?) ie prop centre must be certain height from ground (to fit big enough prop without hitting ground) and if you are using an inline planetary type reduction drive (or driving the prop 1:1) you want the engine crank centreline at that height, which means making an upsidedown engine to keep the total nose height low enough!I think the reason, if there was any reason, was pilot visibility, both for ground handling and in the air. Cylinder heads aren't generally very transparent.
AlexC1981 said:
Evoluzione said:
Have a few more 
OMG, the It Bike really exists!
http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/clips/153051/fle...
There was an interesting clip on something recently (I forget what) showing one of these being ridden properly, as the rider barges through some gates (opening them with his feet) and then down some stairs. Nice shot of "Brutus" there on a low-loader, looks like a fascinating place.
Evoluzione said:
There you go:
Interesting to see that Heinkel sporting a swastika on it's tail, I thought public display of the swastika was illegal in Germany. I certainly remember visiting the Deutsche Museum in Munich in 2013 and both the 109 and the 262 did not have it.
Edited by Evoluzione on Wednesday 30th November 14:33
AER said:
Max_Torque said:
williamp said:
Oh, regarding the engine. The DB engine used in the Me109 and others was inverted, so the crank would be at the top, the tappets at the bottom of the engine. I'm sure there is a good reason why. Dont know myself..
I suspect it was due to the type of prop reduction gear used (or the lack of one?) ie prop centre must be certain height from ground (to fit big enough prop without hitting ground) and if you are using an inline planetary type reduction drive (or driving the prop 1:1) you want the engine crank centreline at that height, which means making an upsidedown engine to keep the total nose height low enough!I think the reason, if there was any reason, was pilot visibility, both for ground handling and in the air. Cylinder heads aren't generally very transparent.
z06tim said:
If you are ever in Germany near Stuttgart or Heidelberg it's well worth visiting the museum at Sinsheim:
http://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/en/
Here you can see Concorde and the Tu-144 side by side. You can also go on-board each to see the differences.
Yes, been there.http://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/en/
Here you can see Concorde and the Tu-144 side by side. You can also go on-board each to see the differences.
Fantastic place.
AER said:
Not even that. The output shaft is below the crankshaft which is a downer for prop clearance.
I think the reason, if there was any reason, was pilot visibility, both for ground handling and in the air. Cylinder heads aren't generally very transparent.
But then neither are crankshafts. Edit; yes I can now see the width advantage though on a single engine plane.I think the reason, if there was any reason, was pilot visibility, both for ground handling and in the air. Cylinder heads aren't generally very transparent.
Exhausts is a good idea, but then if a busted engine letting go via them was a problem you would just lengthen and put them lower down. However I read somewhere if they exit out of the pilots line of vision then it's better at night as the flash and flames can dazzle, I still can't understand why you wouldn't just pipe them out of the way though.
It confounded me then and still does, my guess is weight distribution, but wouldn't be sure.
Can you imagine the issues with the pistons and bores filling with oil, especially when the engine is stood?
youngsod said:
Interesting to see that Heinkel sporting a swastika on it's tail, I thought public display of the swastika was illegal in Germany. I certainly remember visiting the Deutsche Museum in Munich in 2013 and both the 109 and the 262 did not have it.
It's often stated the Germans are embarrassed about the wars, but you definitely get the impression at Sinsheim that it's neither embarrassment nor pride, purely neutral and open just as it should be; 'this is what we did in those times, it's history'.dr_gn said:
The propshaft centreline had to be well within the vee, because the entire engine was designed around a fundamental requirement for having a cannon firing through the propeller hub. That's why the supercharger is side mounted, and also one of the reasons it has fuel injection: There's no room for a carburettor.
I think FI is utilised due to carbs not working very well upside down, at altitude, in high G situations and just being a bit crap overall really, although it has to be said back then FI was in its infancy and carbs weren't.Apologies to Eric for derailing your thread!
Edited by Evoluzione on Saturday 10th December 09:47
Evoluzione said:
youngsod said:
Interesting to see that Heinkel sporting a swastika on it's tail, I thought public display of the swastika was illegal in Germany. I certainly remember visiting the Deutsche Museum in Munich in 2013 and both the 109 and the 262 did not have it.
It's often stated the Germans are embarrassed about the wars, but you definitely get the impression at Sinsheim that it's neither embarrassment nor pride, purely neutral and open just as it should be; 'this is what we did in those times, it's history'.Foliage said:
Gandahar said:
I think an interesting thought here is that in 2016 can the Chinese just copy a US stealth fighter and sort of looks the same, but does it work?
We know Russia from this sad episode tried the same and it didn't. Supersonic transport in the 70's was really really pushing the boundaries. It's pretty amazing Concorde did so well, it was almost like France and Britains Apollo landings tech wise. So it worked well for so long, but not surprised the Russian one hit turbulence.
So the Chinese stealth fighters. I bet if you put them up against the F22 raptor and all the modern ground to air missiles we might find history repeating.
Looks good for the hawks in China. Build another airfield in the south china seas. Etc etc.
lolWe know Russia from this sad episode tried the same and it didn't. Supersonic transport in the 70's was really really pushing the boundaries. It's pretty amazing Concorde did so well, it was almost like France and Britains Apollo landings tech wise. So it worked well for so long, but not surprised the Russian one hit turbulence.
So the Chinese stealth fighters. I bet if you put them up against the F22 raptor and all the modern ground to air missiles we might find history repeating.
Looks good for the hawks in China. Build another airfield in the south china seas. Etc etc.
Yep they look exactly the same... http://i1.wp.com/su-27flanker.com/wp-content/uploa...
When does "sort of" translate to "exactly" by the way. Thanks for the misquote and the lol....
Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 10th December 21:08
Eric Mc said:
I think you will find, as John Farley said in the programme, there was very little in common between the Tu-144 and Concorde - apart from the common goal of building a supersonic airliner.
But he's just a test pilot with an opinion to be quite blunt Eric. We would need accurate Russian information to see how much data was used in it's construction and design.I'd always score an experienced test pilot with an opinion over some person on the internet.
Plus I've heard the same view from many other aviation commentators over the decades.
And as I keep saying, when you look at the two designs in any detail you will see that they have very little in common where it really matters.
Plus I've heard the same view from many other aviation commentators over the decades.
And as I keep saying, when you look at the two designs in any detail you will see that they have very little in common where it really matters.
CanAm said:
Evoluzione said:
youngsod said:
Interesting to see that Heinkel sporting a swastika on it's tail, I thought public display of the swastika was illegal in Germany. I certainly remember visiting the Deutsche Museum in Munich in 2013 and both the 109 and the 262 did not have it.
It's often stated the Germans are embarrassed about the wars, but you definitely get the impression at Sinsheim that it's neither embarrassment nor pride, purely neutral and open just as it should be; 'this is what we did in those times, it's history'.
It must have been a relaxing experience...
"Unlike in the Concorde, the Tu-144 cooling system was very noisy. Passengers seated next to each other could have a conversation only with difficulty, and those seated two seats apart could not hear each other even when screaming and had to pass hand-written notes instead. Noise in the back of the aircraft was unbearable." [/Wiki]
"Unlike in the Concorde, the Tu-144 cooling system was very noisy. Passengers seated next to each other could have a conversation only with difficulty, and those seated two seats apart could not hear each other even when screaming and had to pass hand-written notes instead. Noise in the back of the aircraft was unbearable." [/Wiki]
Evoluzione said:
CanAm said:
Evoluzione said:
youngsod said:
Interesting to see that Heinkel sporting a swastika on it's tail, I thought public display of the swastika was illegal in Germany. I certainly remember visiting the Deutsche Museum in Munich in 2013 and both the 109 and the 262 did not have it.
It's often stated the Germans are embarrassed about the wars, but you definitely get the impression at Sinsheim that it's neither embarrassment nor pride, purely neutral and open just as it should be; 'this is what we did in those times, it's history'.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff