Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)
Discussion
Shar2 said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
The prize goes to dr-gn! Give that man a cigar! 
The HS125 series uses a liquid de-icing system. The leading edges are, in fact, a series of tiny honeycombs and the fluid is pumped through here before flowing back across the aerofoil surface. Hence they can not be painted.
If you look at a Dominie just prior to start up, you will see a wet splatter on the ground beneath the leading edges where the Pilot's Assistant has run the anti-icing timer whilst the Captain has done his (or her) walkround.
Is that not technically anti-icing then? De-icing use the black expanding bag type leading edges. The HS125 series uses a liquid de-icing system. The leading edges are, in fact, a series of tiny honeycombs and the fluid is pumped through here before flowing back across the aerofoil surface. Hence they can not be painted.
If you look at a Dominie just prior to start up, you will see a wet splatter on the ground beneath the leading edges where the Pilot's Assistant has run the anti-icing timer whilst the Captain has done his (or her) walkround.
On the Learjet we have anti-icing, the leading edges of the wings are heated by hot air from the engines whilst the tail and engine intakes are protected by electrically heated mats. Pedantic I know.
Random website said:
...works on the principle of forming a film of Glycol based freezing point depressant fluid over the protected surfaces. This film of ‘de-icing’ fluid combats ice formation by both melting the ice (or preventing freezing of supercooled water droplets) and by preventing adhesion of any ice that does form. Hence, the system can be operated in a de-icing or anti-icing mode.
Odie said:
Just on firing through prop blades,
iirc the first pilot to do it just had "deflector" plates fitted to the back of his prop, then the mechanic timer was developed that would stop the gun from firing when a prop blade was in the way (similar to a cambelt/cam arrangement)
Some very cool pictures in this thread
I always wondered how they fired through the prop. Be intresting to see and engine driven gun! bet the RPM of it would be stupidly high! loliirc the first pilot to do it just had "deflector" plates fitted to the back of his prop, then the mechanic timer was developed that would stop the gun from firing when a prop blade was in the way (similar to a cambelt/cam arrangement)
Some very cool pictures in this thread
happygoron said:
Is it realistic to own and operate something like that for personal use? What are the logistics, etc in getting, tranporting, etc of it?chuntington101 said:
Odie said:
Just on firing through prop blades,
iirc the first pilot to do it just had "deflector" plates fitted to the back of his prop, then the mechanic timer was developed that would stop the gun from firing when a prop blade was in the way (similar to a cambelt/cam arrangement)
Some very cool pictures in this thread
I always wondered how they fired through the prop. Be intresting to see and engine driven gun! bet the RPM of it would be stupidly high! loliirc the first pilot to do it just had "deflector" plates fitted to the back of his prop, then the mechanic timer was developed that would stop the gun from firing when a prop blade was in the way (similar to a cambelt/cam arrangement)
Some very cool pictures in this thread
His aircraft eventually force landed on the wrong side of the lines and the deflector system was sent to Anthony Fokker for him to replicate for his aircraft. He went one better and designed a mecahnical/hydraulic interrupter ssystem for his Fokker E1.
This type of system becvame the norm for use on all fighter aircraft where bullets had to pass through a spinning propellor.
james_tigerwoods said:
happygoron said:
Is it realistic to own and operate something like that for personal use? Eric Mc said:
chuntington101 said:
Odie said:
Just on firing through prop blades,
iirc the first pilot to do it just had "deflector" plates fitted to the back of his prop, then the mechanic timer was developed that would stop the gun from firing when a prop blade was in the way (similar to a cambelt/cam arrangement)
Some very cool pictures in this thread
I always wondered how they fired through the prop. Be intresting to see and engine driven gun! bet the RPM of it would be stupidly high! loliirc the first pilot to do it just had "deflector" plates fitted to the back of his prop, then the mechanic timer was developed that would stop the gun from firing when a prop blade was in the way (similar to a cambelt/cam arrangement)
Some very cool pictures in this thread
His aircraft eventually force landed on the wrong side of the lines and the deflector system was sent to Anthony Fokker for him to replicate for his aircraft. He went one better and designed a mecahnical/hydraulic interrupter ssystem for his Fokker E1.
This type of system becvame the norm for use on all fighter aircraft where bullets had to pass through a spinning propellor.
Notwithstanding the canon vs. MG issue, I wonder what the true rate of fire was for a Spitfire or Hurricane with 8 MG's unsynchronised vs the Bf 109E with it's 2 synchronised MG's and 2 MGFF cannon ?
james_tigerwoods said:
happygoron said:
Is it realistic to own and operate something like that for personal use? What are the logistics, etc in getting, tranporting, etc of it?
spitfire-ian said:
james_tigerwoods said:
Is it realistic to own and operate something like that for personal use?
Over here, you might as well forget it. The CAA aren't positive towards small privately owned supersonic jets whizzing around in the UK's busy airspace!Blurb said:
Supersonic Flight:Over International Ocean Waters (Three Miles Off Shore)
With Permission at Edwards AFB, Mojave & Other Locations
Try asking for permission around here!With Permission at Edwards AFB, Mojave & Other Locations
Edited by happygoron on Wednesday 1st September 13:49
dr_gn said:
Eric Mc said:
chuntington101 said:
Odie said:
Just on firing through prop blades,
iirc the first pilot to do it just had "deflector" plates fitted to the back of his prop, then the mechanic timer was developed that would stop the gun from firing when a prop blade was in the way (similar to a cambelt/cam arrangement)
Some very cool pictures in this thread
I always wondered how they fired through the prop. Be intresting to see and engine driven gun! bet the RPM of it would be stupidly high! loliirc the first pilot to do it just had "deflector" plates fitted to the back of his prop, then the mechanic timer was developed that would stop the gun from firing when a prop blade was in the way (similar to a cambelt/cam arrangement)
Some very cool pictures in this thread
His aircraft eventually force landed on the wrong side of the lines and the deflector system was sent to Anthony Fokker for him to replicate for his aircraft. He went one better and designed a mecahnical/hydraulic interrupter ssystem for his Fokker E1.
This type of system becvame the norm for use on all fighter aircraft where bullets had to pass through a spinning propellor.
Notwithstanding the canon vs. MG issue, I wonder what the true rate of fire was for a Spitfire or Hurricane with 8 MG's unsynchronised vs the Bf 109E with it's 2 synchronised MG's and 2 MGFF cannon ?
But I'm probably wrong.
Mr Will said:
dr_gn said:
Eric Mc said:
chuntington101 said:
Odie said:
Just on firing through prop blades,
iirc the first pilot to do it just had "deflector" plates fitted to the back of his prop, then the mechanic timer was developed that would stop the gun from firing when a prop blade was in the way (similar to a cambelt/cam arrangement)
Some very cool pictures in this thread
I always wondered how they fired through the prop. Be intresting to see and engine driven gun! bet the RPM of it would be stupidly high! loliirc the first pilot to do it just had "deflector" plates fitted to the back of his prop, then the mechanic timer was developed that would stop the gun from firing when a prop blade was in the way (similar to a cambelt/cam arrangement)
Some very cool pictures in this thread
His aircraft eventually force landed on the wrong side of the lines and the deflector system was sent to Anthony Fokker for him to replicate for his aircraft. He went one better and designed a mecahnical/hydraulic interrupter ssystem for his Fokker E1.
This type of system becvame the norm for use on all fighter aircraft where bullets had to pass through a spinning propellor.
Notwithstanding the canon vs. MG issue, I wonder what the true rate of fire was for a Spitfire or Hurricane with 8 MG's unsynchronised vs the Bf 109E with it's 2 synchronised MG's and 2 MGFF cannon ?
But I'm probably wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrupter_gear
The early system was dependant on engine rpm so the effect was quite pronounced, later systems had only a small effect on the rate of fire.
The Browning machine guns used in Spitfires had a rate of fire of 1200-1500rpm (for the Mk2 and Mk2* iirc), so up to 12,000rpm for 8 guns.(!). Tearing calico as they say.
The Bf109 mg131's were 900rpm, per gun. The cannon was about 750 rpm. Obviously, all these figures are 'out of the aircraft', but I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans got pretty close to those numbers.
There's a remark somewhere (on the Bf109 or the MG131 article) about using electrically primed ammunition to get the maximum fire rate when using syncronisation.
Out of interest, I did a quick back of a fag packet calc on firepower:
Browning Mk2 - 12,000 rounds, 11.3 grams per round equals a throw weight of 135.6Kg/min.
MG131 - 900 rounds, 2 guns, 38.5grams per round = 69.3Kg/min.
MG151/20 - 750 rounds, 72 grams per round = 54Kg/Min
Combined for a total throw of 123.3Kg/min.
Not far off the spitfire/hurricane, but simpler, and with the benefit of a good chunk of it being HE.
jimmyjimjim said:
Mr Will said:
dr_gn said:
Eric Mc said:
chuntington101 said:
Odie said:
Just on firing through prop blades,
iirc the first pilot to do it just had "deflector" plates fitted to the back of his prop, then the mechanic timer was developed that would stop the gun from firing when a prop blade was in the way (similar to a cambelt/cam arrangement)
Some very cool pictures in this thread
I always wondered how they fired through the prop. Be intresting to see and engine driven gun! bet the RPM of it would be stupidly high! loliirc the first pilot to do it just had "deflector" plates fitted to the back of his prop, then the mechanic timer was developed that would stop the gun from firing when a prop blade was in the way (similar to a cambelt/cam arrangement)
Some very cool pictures in this thread
His aircraft eventually force landed on the wrong side of the lines and the deflector system was sent to Anthony Fokker for him to replicate for his aircraft. He went one better and designed a mecahnical/hydraulic interrupter ssystem for his Fokker E1.
This type of system becvame the norm for use on all fighter aircraft where bullets had to pass through a spinning propellor.
Notwithstanding the canon vs. MG issue, I wonder what the true rate of fire was for a Spitfire or Hurricane with 8 MG's unsynchronised vs the Bf 109E with it's 2 synchronised MG's and 2 MGFF cannon ?
But I'm probably wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrupter_gear
The early system was dependant on engine rpm so the effect was quite pronounced, later systems had only a small effect on the rate of fire.
The Browning machine guns used in Spitfires had a rate of fire of 1200-1500rpm (for the Mk2 and Mk2* iirc), so up to 12,000rpm for 8 guns.(!). Tearing calico as they say.
The Bf109 mg131's were 900rpm, per gun. The cannon was about 750 rpm. Obviously, all these figures are 'out of the aircraft', but I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans got pretty close to those numbers.
There's a remark somewhere (on the Bf109 or the MG131 article) about using electrically primed ammunition to get the maximum fire rate when using syncronisation.
Out of interest, I did a quick back of a fag packet calc on firepower:
Browning Mk2 - 12,000 rounds, 11.3 grams per round equals a throw weight of 135.6Kg/min.
MG131 - 900 rounds, 2 guns, 38.5grams per round = 69.3Kg/min.
MG151/20 - 750 rounds, 72 grams per round = 54Kg/Min
Combined for a total throw of 123.3Kg/min.
Not far off the spitfire/hurricane, but simpler, and with the benefit of a good chunk of it being HE.
jimmyjimjim said:
Out of interest, I did a quick back of a fag packet calc on firepower:
Browning Mk2 - 12,000 rounds, 11.3 grams per round equals a throw weight of 135.6Kg/min.
MG131 - 900 rounds, 2 guns, 38.5grams per round = 69.3Kg/min.
MG151/20 - 750 rounds, 72 grams per round = 54Kg/Min
Combined for a total throw of 123.3Kg/min.
You need to include muzzle velocity to get an accurate lethality factor.Browning Mk2 - 12,000 rounds, 11.3 grams per round equals a throw weight of 135.6Kg/min.
MG131 - 900 rounds, 2 guns, 38.5grams per round = 69.3Kg/min.
MG151/20 - 750 rounds, 72 grams per round = 54Kg/Min
Combined for a total throw of 123.3Kg/min.
One measure of lethality, as cited by the Shaw in the incredibly detailed (to the point of obsession) "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering" is Wf (Weight of Fire, lbs/min) * Vm^2 (Muzzle Velocity ft/sec, squared) * 10^-8 (to make the numbers readable). He only compares American aircraft guns in the tables he includes, but the M61 Vulcan just makes everything else look like a peashooter.
I'm sure I remember watching a Clarkson episode where he was shooting a radio controlled corvette with a helicopter mounted minigun. Think M61 Vulcan but 7.65mm
There wasn't a series of holes more a long gash in the side of the car
For real scareyness look for footage of an A10 in action.
ETA a picture of a proper gun...
There wasn't a series of holes more a long gash in the side of the car
For real scareyness look for footage of an A10 in action.ETA a picture of a proper gun...
Edited by Tango13 on Wednesday 1st September 22:17
Tango13 said:
I'm sure I remember watching a Clarkson episode where he was shooting a radio controlled corvette with a helicopter mounted minigun. Think M61 Vulcan but 7.65mm
There wasn't a series of holes more a long gash in the side of the car For real scareyness look for footage of an A10 in action.
ETA a picture of a proper gun...
You'd have to be mad not to want one...There wasn't a series of holes more a long gash in the side of the car
For real scareyness look for footage of an A10 in action.ETA a picture of a proper gun...
Edited by Tango13 on Wednesday 1st September 22:17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3D3bWR0n7w&fea...
Shar2 said:
Is that not technically anti-icing then? De-icing use the black expanding bag type leading edges.
On the Learjet we have anti-icing, the leading edges of the wings are heated by hot air from the engines whilst the tail and engine intakes are protected by electrically heated mats. Pedantic I know.
I suppose technically yes. On the Learjet we have anti-icing, the leading edges of the wings are heated by hot air from the engines whilst the tail and engine intakes are protected by electrically heated mats. Pedantic I know.
I tend to combine the terms anti-icing and de-icing, Mea Culpa! I've only flown one type with the inflatable leading edge 'boots' - the Jetstream TMk I - I'm more au fait with leading edge 'bleed air' systems similar to your Learjet.dr_gn said:
I'd have thought if it was used extensively for anti-icing you'd potentially soon run out of fluid, whereas with heated leading edges you obviously wouldn't ?
Random website said:
...works on the principle of forming a film of Glycol based freezing point depressant fluid over the protected surfaces. This film of ‘de-icing’ fluid combats ice formation by both melting the ice (or preventing freezing of supercooled water droplets) and by preventing adhesion of any ice that does form. Hence, the system can be operated in a de-icing or anti-icing mode.
The thing about the HS125/Dominie is that you don't have the liquid flowing all the time (and you tend to stay away from icing layers). The SOP was that if you were to enter, or about to enter, an icing layer (IMC with an OAT of +5 to -10 C [IIRC], then you set the icing timer to maximum and selected continuous ignition on the engines. You then exited the icing layer as soon as you could - the 125 having the climb/dive performance to expedite this. That way you minimised the amount of fluid useage. If you were stuck in an icing layer courtesy of ATC then you had (hopefully) sufficient fluid to cater for this until you could convince/batter ATC over the head to allow you to descend/climb.Random website said:
...works on the principle of forming a film of Glycol based freezing point depressant fluid over the protected surfaces. This film of ‘de-icing’ fluid combats ice formation by both melting the ice (or preventing freezing of supercooled water droplets) and by preventing adhesion of any ice that does form. Hence, the system can be operated in a de-icing or anti-icing mode.
In this case the system is being used in Anti-Icing mode.
At high level, outside of the icing band (ie below -10 C), but IMC, you can get rime ice build up (especially over the fuel tanks) so a quick squirt of the fluid could be used to remove this. In this case the system is being used in De-Icing mode.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Thursday 2nd September 00:37
eharding said:
You need to include muzzle velocity to get an accurate lethality factor.
One measure of lethality, as cited by the Shaw in the incredibly detailed (to the point of obsession) "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering" is Wf (Weight of Fire, lbs/min) * Vm^2 (Muzzle Velocity ft/sec, squared) * 10^-8 (to make the numbers readable). He only compares American aircraft guns in the tables he includes, but the M61 Vulcan just makes everything else look like a peashooter.
Ah Robert L. Shaw's book, excellent stuff!One measure of lethality, as cited by the Shaw in the incredibly detailed (to the point of obsession) "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering" is Wf (Weight of Fire, lbs/min) * Vm^2 (Muzzle Velocity ft/sec, squared) * 10^-8 (to make the numbers readable). He only compares American aircraft guns in the tables he includes, but the M61 Vulcan just makes everything else look like a peashooter.
Taught me a lot about the dynamics of the rolling scissors, especially in the vertical.
Muzzle velocity certainly comes into the equation since it is an estimate of the KE delivered by the rounds when they strike, although this only takes into account Kinetic Energy and not (as the Army term it) Chemical Effect (ie, explosive rounds).
You also have to consider the type of warhead the round may (or may not) carry. Certainly the early .50 Brownings with ball ammunition were less effective as opposed to when they utilised API (Armour Piercing Incendiary) rounds, even though the KE was about the same.
Additionally, while weight of fire is an indicator, it's a little simplistic on its own. A slower firing weapon (with the same weight of fire), by its very nature, is putting fewer round into the same piece of sky. It follows, then, that these rounds have less chance of impacting a target, especially when it is manoeuvring at speed.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff