Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)

[MartG]

For some reason the aircraft industry went through a period of "Extremely noisy, terribly slow, bugger all payload - what a good idea!" back in the '60s. I can only assume they were stoned out of their minds at the time.

[anonymous-user]

MartG said:

For some reason the aircraft industry went through a period of "Extremely noisy, terribly slow, bugger all payload - what a good idea!" back in the '60s. I can only assume they were stoned out of their minds at the time.

Looks like 2 containers in cargo hold. Would have been quite cool to see (and hear) them operating in and out of your local fedex or UPS facility for a while.

Maybe that’s how our ideas of delivery drones might be viewed in the future?

[Speed 3]

Quite amazing wing efficiency even for today with that lump to lift in cruise. I've seen bigger horizontal stabs.

[Voldemort]

BAE test pilot Keith Hartley conducting a cockpit habitability trial

[

[DavieBNL]

...bet they didn't do that with the F-35!

[hidetheelephants]

MartG said:

For some reason the aircraft industry went through a period of "Extremely noisy, terribly slow, bugger all payload - what a good idea!" back in the '60s. I can only assume they were stoned out of their minds at the time.

The AW681 was an actual project that actual money was spent on, then cancelled when it was realised that it was a terrible idea and would cost a fortune.

[MartG]

A new one to me - Tu-141 unmanned reconnaissance drone, first flight 1974, in service from 1979. Total production - 152

[Lily the Pink]

MartG said:

A new one to me - Tu-141 unmanned reconnaissance drone, first flight 1974, in service from 1979. Total production - 152

That raises so many questions in my mind. How autonomous was it; did it have to have a preprogrammed flight path, did it return to base for a soft landing or was each mission suicide - in which case all data captured would have had to be transmitted back ? The state of computing and communications technology at that time was pretty primitive.

[MartG]

Lily the Pink said:

MartG said:

A new one to me - Tu-141 unmanned reconnaissance drone, first flight 1974, in service from 1979. Total production - 152

That raises so many questions in my mind. How autonomous was it; did it have to have a preprogrammed flight path, did it return to base for a soft landing or was each mission suicide - in which case all data captured would have had to be transmitted back ? The state of computing and communications technology at that time was pretty primitive.

According to Wiki it was recovered by parachute ( presumably in that huge tailcone ) and could carry various payloads of cameras etc. I'd guess it's course would be preprogrammed

[mko9]

MartG said:

Lily the Pink said:

MartG said:

A new one to me - Tu-141 unmanned reconnaissance drone, first flight 1974, in service from 1979. Total production - 152

That raises so many questions in my mind. How autonomous was it; did it have to have a preprogrammed flight path, did it return to base for a soft landing or was each mission suicide - in which case all data captured would have had to be transmitted back ? The state of computing and communications technology at that time was pretty primitive.

According to Wiki it was recovered by parachute ( presumably in that huge tailcone ) and could carry various payloads of cameras etc. I'd guess it's course would be preprogrammed

I would assume it to be roughly analogous to the US Firebee drone. That said, I have never heard of it before. Cool find.

[irocfan]

[JeremyH5]

irocfan said:

Oh well done, that is great!

[MartG]

Funny how many people keep posting that it's an A-10 despite a) it being correctly identified as a Pucara several times, and b) it looking nothing like an A-10 ( two seats, turboprop engines, etc. )

[MartG]

GE-9X engine testbed

[Eric Mc]

And we used to consider those earlier generation high-bypass turbofans to be big.

[Voldemort]

MartG said:

GE-9X engine testbed

Why? They're not going to retro-fit these to 747's. What will they learn that they wouldn't from running it on a test bed?

Cool pic tho'

[Europa1]

Voldemort said:

Why? They're not going to retro-fit these to 747's. What will they learn that they wouldn't from running it on a test bed?

Cool pic tho'

Because things that work well on the bench may not perform the same in real world conditions, I guess. Test beds don't go up to 30,000 feet.

[yellowjack]

Eric Mc said:

And we used to consider those earlier generation high-bypass turbofans to be big.

They're no RR Conways, are they?

[Speed 3]

Europa1 said:

Voldemort said:

Why? They're not going to retro-fit these to 747's. What will they learn that they wouldn't from running it on a test bed?

Cool pic tho'

Because things that work well on the bench may not perform the same in real world conditions, I guess. Test beds don't go up to 30,000 feet.

Not to mention travelling forward at 500 knots on something flexing and changing angle of attack either....

[Eric Mc]

It has been standard practice to fit new generation engines to older airframes to wring out any issues that will arise in actual flight conditions. It's much better to do this BEFORE they start being fitted to new aircraft destined for customers.

Avro Lancastrian with Rolls Royce Nenes -



Avro Lancaster wit Canadian Orenda engines -



Boeing 720 used by Pratt and Whitney Canada to test new turboprop engines -



Boeing B-52 used to test the Pratt & Whitney JT9D for the (then) forthcoming Boeing 747 -