Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)
Discussion
AshVX220 said:
I never even knew the US planned to develop a supersonic airline until I saw the video Scotty2 posted above.
Full programme on it here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thTNrq8LYcYEric Mc said:
Well done. Those were the differences I was hoping people would be aware of.
Unlike the situation with Concorde where the airframe and engines were fundamentally the same from prototype to production - with some modification, the prototype 144 was almost a completely different aircraft to the production versions.
The wing of the prototype was much simpler than on the production versions, without the pronounced droop towards the wingtips. And, as MartG mentioned, the prototype had a simple copy of Concorde's ogival wing (without all of the subtle camber changes of Concorde). Production versions had a simple double delta shape.
The production version had much bigger trailing edge flaps.
The production version was fitted with retractable canards to try and cure pitch problems at the high angles of attack and slow speed regime encountered during take off and landing.
The prototype engines were clustered in a common box structure under the fuselage. On production version the engines were moved outboard on each wing grouped in separate underwing boxes, more like Concorde.
The nose wheel on the prototype was positioned much further back along the fuselage.
The main wheels on the prototype retracted into the central engine box. On the production version they were positioned inboard of the now separate engine boxes and retracted into the wing.
In many ways, the prototype 144 was more a "proof of concept" aeroplane and it should really have had a different designation to the production aircraft.
I can see why this forum ignored my silly post !Unlike the situation with Concorde where the airframe and engines were fundamentally the same from prototype to production - with some modification, the prototype 144 was almost a completely different aircraft to the production versions.
The wing of the prototype was much simpler than on the production versions, without the pronounced droop towards the wingtips. And, as MartG mentioned, the prototype had a simple copy of Concorde's ogival wing (without all of the subtle camber changes of Concorde). Production versions had a simple double delta shape.
The production version had much bigger trailing edge flaps.
The production version was fitted with retractable canards to try and cure pitch problems at the high angles of attack and slow speed regime encountered during take off and landing.
The prototype engines were clustered in a common box structure under the fuselage. On production version the engines were moved outboard on each wing grouped in separate underwing boxes, more like Concorde.
The nose wheel on the prototype was positioned much further back along the fuselage.
The main wheels on the prototype retracted into the central engine box. On the production version they were positioned inboard of the now separate engine boxes and retracted into the wing.
In many ways, the prototype 144 was more a "proof of concept" aeroplane and it should really have had a different designation to the production aircraft.
yellowjack said:
I don't want to risk annoying you any more, but given the location of the cockpit side door, and the side that the forward cockpit lid is hinged, I strongly suspect that the image has been flipped, too...
You're right - the direction of blade rotation gives it away tooirocfan said:
Anyone care to explain?
This...
...is a Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawk.
Whereas this...
MartG said:
...is a Russian built Hind helicopter.Other than "it's a helicopter, and painted in a drab matt colour" it shares absolutely no identifyable features with the Mi-25 (or Mi-35) Hind pictured alongside the article Mart G linked to above. For a start the Blackhawk is a side-by-side cockpit arrangement, the Hind has a Weapons Officer and a Pilot in stepped, one-behind-the-other cockpits. And the image has been flipped, because the Hind has one cockpit door, and it's located on the other side of the airframe. The front cockpit "lid" is hinged on the wrong side, and as Mart pointed out, the rotor on the actual real helicopter spins in the opposite direction to the way the blade profile of the one in the picture suggests.
It's just lazy journalism from whatever angle you care to approach it. To a car nut it would be like illustrating a feature on the new LR Defender with a photo of the LR Discovery with that silly number plate recess flipped onto the "wrong" side of the rear door.
yellowjack said:
irocfan said:
Anyone care to explain?
This......is a Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawk.
Whereas this...
MartG said:
...is a Russian built Hind helicopter.Other than "it's a helicopter, and painted in a drab matt colour" it shares absolutely no identifyable features with the Mi-25 (or Mi-35) Hind pictured alongside the article Mart G linked to above. For a start the Blackhawk is a side-by-side cockpit arrangement, the Hind has a Weapons Officer and a Pilot in stepped, one-behind-the-other cockpits. And the image has been flipped, because the Hind has one cockpit door, and it's located on the other side of the airframe. The front cockpit "lid" is hinged on the wrong side, and as Mart pointed out, the rotor on the actual real helicopter spins in the opposite direction to the way the blade profile of the one in the picture suggests.
It's just lazy journalism from whatever angle you care to approach it. To a car nut it would be like illustrating a feature on the new LR Defender with a photo of the LR Discovery with that silly number plate recess flipped onto the "wrong" side of the rear door.
yellowjack said:
...is a Russian built Hind helicopter.
Other than "it's a helicopter, and painted in a drab matt colour" it shares absolutely no identifyable features with the Mi-25 (or Mi-35) Hind pictured alongside the article Mart G linked to above. For a start the Blackhawk is a side-by-side cockpit arrangement, the Hind has a Weapons Officer and a Pilot in stepped, one-behind-the-other cockpits. And the image has been flipped, because the Hind has one cockpit door, and it's located on the other side of the airframe. The front cockpit "lid" is hinged on the wrong side, and as Mart pointed out, the rotor on the actual real helicopter spins in the opposite direction to the way the blade profile of the one in the picture suggests.
It's just lazy journalism from whatever angle you care to approach it. To a car nut it would be like illustrating a feature on the new LR Defender with a photo of the LR Discovery with that silly number plate recess flipped onto the "wrong" side of the rear door.
TBF I'd go further, using a pic of a hind is more like the article on a land rover defender using a picture of a unimog, given the difference in design and roles and appearance.Other than "it's a helicopter, and painted in a drab matt colour" it shares absolutely no identifyable features with the Mi-25 (or Mi-35) Hind pictured alongside the article Mart G linked to above. For a start the Blackhawk is a side-by-side cockpit arrangement, the Hind has a Weapons Officer and a Pilot in stepped, one-behind-the-other cockpits. And the image has been flipped, because the Hind has one cockpit door, and it's located on the other side of the airframe. The front cockpit "lid" is hinged on the wrong side, and as Mart pointed out, the rotor on the actual real helicopter spins in the opposite direction to the way the blade profile of the one in the picture suggests.
It's just lazy journalism from whatever angle you care to approach it. To a car nut it would be like illustrating a feature on the new LR Defender with a photo of the LR Discovery with that silly number plate recess flipped onto the "wrong" side of the rear door.
Teddy Lop said:
TBF I'd go further, using a pic of a hind is more like the article on a land rover defender using a picture of a unimog, given the difference in design and roles and appearance.
TBF, I'd agree. But it was late when I posted that, and I couldn't be faffed to think of another comparison. Your suggestion is far better than any of the alternatives (Land Cruiser, Jimny, Wrangler, etc) that I could come up with.
BrettMRC said:
Moving pictures, they were contra-rotating - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvRdorhkeJsIt could move but I haven't seen it in the air.
FourWheelDrift said:
BrettMRC said:
Moving pictures, they were contra-rotating - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvRdorhkeJsIt could move but I haven't seen it in the air.
OldMachinePress said:
The aircraft reportedly made a few hops into the air, but no true flight was achieved. It is not clear if there was an issue with the rotary propellers (such as insufficient thrust or excessive vibrations) or if the project simply ran out of time.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff