Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)

Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Eric Mc

121,770 posts

264 months

Tuesday 17th January 2017
quotequote all
Stickyfinger said:


Not that is was that good really.

It only succeeded because it was out of range of most fighters, If hit at all it hand a tendency to break up.

FourWheelDrift

88,375 posts

283 months

Tuesday 17th January 2017
quotequote all
The restoration of the Condor wreck lifted from Norwegian waters in 1999 is still going strong - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uHA83Jsz9E

They are going to call it "Trigger's Besen"

SpamCan

5,026 posts

217 months

Tuesday 17th January 2017
quotequote all
MartG said:
It would have necessitated a complete redesign of the wing structure to carry the weight
Maybe so doesn't mean it would have been impractical as a weapons carrier though.

SpamCan

5,026 posts

217 months

Tuesday 17th January 2017
quotequote all
MartG said:
It would have necessitated a complete redesign of the wing structure to carry the weight
Maybe so doesn't mean it would have been impractical as a weapons carrier though.

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

183 months

Tuesday 17th January 2017
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
Did all Nimrods have vertical fins on their tail ? I can't remember seeing them, anybody know the purpose of them.
All Nimrods with an AAR probe were fitted with finlets on the tailplanes.

Nimrod, as I am sure you are aware, was developed from the DH Comet. Sadly DeHavilland had a habit of not designing big enough fins for its aircraft.

As a result, scabbing the bombay pack onto the basic Comet airframe produced problems with both Directional Stability (Yaw), and with Dutch Roll (Yaw/Roll coupling). The problems were particularly apparent when the bomb doors were open because you now had a huge keel area forward of the CofG and CofLift. To try to counter this Nimrod was fitted with a fin leading edge fillet in order to increase the aft keel area. However this really wasn't enough so the aircraft was additionally fitted with a rudder limiter linked to the bomb door selector (such that the aircraft's critical Sideslip Angle could not be overcome with the bomb doors open). Eventually this limiter was removed as spares became unavailable and the advice was to maintain a minimum of 250kts if manoeuvring whenever the bomb doors were open (a bit of a problem if dropping ASRA gear - Air Sea Rescue Apparatus ie dinghies).

When the AAR probe was fitted as a UOR (Urgent Operational Requirement) for Op CORPORATE the marginal nature of Nimrod's aft keel area was highlighted again - hence the fitment of the tailplane finlets.

Even then this was still a barely sufficient. Indeed after the removal of the ARAR/ARAX ESM (Electronic Support Measures) kit from the 'banana' fairing atop the fin, and its replacement with the Loral YELLOWGATE ESM pods at each wingtip, the banana fairing was retained so as not to reduce fin area. On MR2 from Op GRANBY onwards this fairing was used to house a towed array missile decoy.

On Nimrod MRA4 there must have been a fairly major Directional Stability problem as evidenced by the much larger fin leading edge fillet and larger finlets when compared to Nimrod MR2.


Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 18th January 00:04

PRTVR

7,072 posts

220 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
PRTVR said:
Did all Nimrods have vertical fins on their tail ? I can't remember seeing them, anybody know the purpose of them.
All Nimrods with an AAR probe were fitted with finlets on the tailplanes.

Nimrod, as I am sure you are aware, was developed from the DH Comet. Sadly DeHavilland had a habit of not designing big enough fins for its aircraft.

As a result, scabbing the bombay pack onto the basic Comet airframe produced problems with both Directional Stability (Yaw), and with Dutch Roll (Yaw/Roll coupling). The problems were particularly apparent when the bomb doors were open because you now had a huge keel area forward of the CofG and CofLift. To try to counter this Nimrod was fitted with a fin leading edge fillet in order to increase the aft keel area. However this really wasn't enough so the aircraft was additionally fitted with a rudder limiter linked to the bomb door selector (such that the aircraft's critical Sideslip Angle could not be overcome with the bomb doors open). Eventually this limiter was removed as spares became unavailable and the advice was to maintain a minimum of 250kts if manoeuvring whenever the bomb doors were open (a bit of a problem if dropping ASRA gear - Air Sea Rescue Apparatus ie dinghies).

When the AAR probe was fitted as a UOR (Urgent Operational Requirement) for Op CORPORATE the marginal nature of Nimrod's aft keel area was highlighted again - hence the fitment of the tailplane finlets.

Even then this was still a barely sufficient. Indeed after the removal of the ARAR/ARAX ESM (Electronic Support Measures) kit from the 'banana' fairing atop the fin, and its replacement with the Loral YELLOWGATE ESM pods at each wingtip, the banana fairing was retained so as not to reduce fin area. On MR2 from Op GRANBY onwards this fairing was used to house a towed array missile decoy.

On Nimrod MRA4 there must have been a fairly major Directional Stability problem as evidenced by the much larger fin leading edge fillet and larger finlets when compared to Nimrod MR2.


Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 18th January 00:04
Thank you for the information, I don't suppose DH envisaged a bomb bay or any of the other things fitted to it, would I be correct in believing that wings and fins cause drag and if speed is the primary goal, minimising wing area would seem logical, especially when the calculations would have been carried out without the aid of computers, so perhaps we shouldn't be to hard on them when they were pushing the limits of what was possible.

Eric Mc

121,770 posts

264 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
In De Havilland's original concepts for what became the Comet, one version the aircraft had no tailplane. It was because of this proposed design that they built the three DH108 Swallows - all of which crashed.




MartG

20,619 posts

203 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
F-89 Scorpion with rotating nose guns. Apparently it could also rotate 360 degrees on the longitudinal axis to hit targets alongside



I suspect it caused a lot of drag and buffeting smile

There was a similar trial on an F9F too



Edited by MartG on Wednesday 18th January 12:02


Edited by MartG on Wednesday 18th January 12:03

FourWheelDrift

88,375 posts

283 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
What they expecting to shoot at, Zeppelins?

MartG

20,619 posts

203 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
FourWheelDrift said:
What they expecting to shoot at, Zeppelins?
Bombers

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
In De Havilland's original concepts for what became the Comet, one version the aircraft had no tailplane. It was because of this proposed design that they built the three DH108 Swallows - all of which crashed.



There was a later proposal, not by DH, for a Vampire based business jet that looked a lot like the first of those sketches. I don't think it even reached the prototype stage though.


Eric Mc

121,770 posts

264 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
It made it to mock up stage -


JuniorD

8,616 posts

222 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
That thing looks like its designed particularly to fly vertically - in the downward direction

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

278 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
It made it to mock up stage
Then they realised that its centre of gravity would be insanely sensitive to changes in luggage weight?

Or that passengers / CAA / FAA would not be keen on a single-engined civilian jet design? (apparently there have been NO single-engined civilian bizjets).

Or they realised that the original version came with an ejector seat, but the civilian version would not come with multiple ejector seats?

Surprised it got as far as a mock-up.

Eric Mc

121,770 posts

264 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
Original single seat Vampires did not have an ejection seat either.

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

278 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Original single seat Vampires did not have an ejection seat either.
Every day is a school day! smile

Stickyfinger

8,429 posts

104 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all



Edited by Stickyfinger on Wednesday 18th January 15:36

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

183 months

Wednesday 18th January 2017
quotequote all
No single-seat Vampires ever had bang seats, merely the T11 and some export variants thereof.

perdu

4,884 posts

198 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
No single-seat Vampires ever had bang seats, merely the T11 and some export variants thereof.
I'm not surprised

The vibration of a bang seat going off would have shaken the little wooden fuselage apart

Phew






























Edited by perdu on Thursday 19th January 00:40

hidetheelephants

23,732 posts

192 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
perdu said:
I'm not surprised

The vibration of a bang seat going off would have shaken the little wooden fuselage apart
At the risk of a parrot, once you're pulling the big yellow handle do you care if the aircraft falls to bits afterwards?
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED