Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 3)
Discussion
Only if it's in a positive g dive, if it's flying straight and level the lift will be upwards the same as if it wasn't inverted.
If you were to assume the wing would fly straight, you'd probably be best off separating when flying straight and level as the aircraft would lose lift and dive, while the wing would lose weight and climb. However I'd assume the separated wing would immediately stall and start to flip around all over the place.
If you were to assume the wing would fly straight, you'd probably be best off separating when flying straight and level as the aircraft would lose lift and dive, while the wing would lose weight and climb. However I'd assume the separated wing would immediately stall and start to flip around all over the place.
Apparently they only tried it once; on the “proof of concept” Hillson prototype, not the Hurricane. The aircraft “lost a few hundred feet of height” (because as per a previous poster the top speed with 2 wings in place was lower than the stalling speed as a monoplane) but it seems to have worked ok.
RizzoTheRat said:
Only if it's in a positive g dive, if it's flying straight and level the lift will be upwards the same as if it wasn't inverted.
If you were to assume the wing would fly straight, you'd probably be best off separating when flying straight and level as the aircraft would lose lift and dive, while the wing would lose weight and climb. However I'd assume the separated wing would immediately stall and start to flip around all over the place.
Yes, that's what I meant.If you were to assume the wing would fly straight, you'd probably be best off separating when flying straight and level as the aircraft would lose lift and dive, while the wing would lose weight and climb. However I'd assume the separated wing would immediately stall and start to flip around all over the place.
NDT said:
db said:
The tail is still there when inverted. The wing produces lift, even inverted. The wing would be forced up, and onto, the inverted aircraft.
Except when the aircraft is inverted the lift is pointing down, so both the lift and gravity will move the wing away.It made sense to me at the time, but the time was half past gin o'clock.
Messerschmitt Me 262 Mistel. When you run out of pilots throw aircraft at your enemy.
Ps. Just found out this is a model of the planned pairing which never flew. They planned many different aircraft combinations in 1945 but the only ones to be used operationally were the JU-88s with FW-190 or Me-109 aircraft carried.
Ps. Just found out this is a model of the planned pairing which never flew. They planned many different aircraft combinations in 1945 but the only ones to be used operationally were the JU-88s with FW-190 or Me-109 aircraft carried.
Edited by FourWheelDrift on Saturday 6th March 16:24
Not the clickbaity thing you might expect from the title, and there's pics of some interesting helicopters in the article
https://hushkit.net/2021/02/22/10-worst-helicopter...
https://hushkit.net/2021/02/22/10-worst-helicopter...
Linky of the Bristol Belvedere said:
This left troops trying to board through a door four feet off the ground as the fuselage was still high enough to allow torpedoes to be loaded on the underside. Which turned out not to be a major requirement in the jungles of Borneo due to the paucity of submarines.
giveitfish said:
There's about as many frontline combat aircraft on that deck as the RAF has in total 
(obviously I'm joking, but it's starting to be a close-run thing - I count 55 on that desk vs. what, 150 Typhoons we have now?)
why are those numbers relevant? Many, i suspect most "front line" countries used to have greater numbers of less capable aircraft. (obviously I'm joking, but it's starting to be a close-run thing - I count 55 on that desk vs. what, 150 Typhoons we have now?)Edited by giveitfish on Monday 15th March 18:50
Teddy Lop said:
giveitfish said:
There's about as many frontline combat aircraft on that deck as the RAF has in total (obviously I'm joking, but it's starting to be a close-run thing - I count 55 on that desk vs. what, 150 Typhoons we have now?)
why are those numbers relevant? Many, i suspect most "front line" countries used to have greater numbers of less capable aircraft. (obviously I'm joking, but it's starting to be a close-run thing - I count 55 on that desk vs. what, 150 Typhoons we have now?)Edited by giveitfish on Monday 15th March 18:50
The complexity of these aircraft and the maintenance required to keep them flying.
The reduced quality of the training engineers in the RAF receive now.
The ever dwindling numbers they can retain (even techie pay and a retention bonus failed to retain people). Those left in are then expected to do more with less and that just keeps happening. (I’m old school RAF having done 24 years so far, the RAF has long acknowledged that it would cease to operate at this level and safety were it not for the goodwill of those in the service. The new bread joining recently won’t hang around for long. In get trained and some experience and get out (which is how the armed forces want it as it’s cheaper)
Yet another pay freeze (I realise these are exceptional times though). I bet I haven’t had 5% in the last 10 years and real world with inflation that’s a nice pay cut.
Then how many of those 150 are available or could be made ready fairly quickly.
I would at a bet say not even 60%, I don’t work typhoon so I don’t know there serviceability rates so it’s a bit of a guess but it’s an educated guess from years of experience of being on frontline squadrons.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff