the sexiest aircraft

Boy, you're an old fart! I probably built the same balsa kit...25 years later, powered with two .40s and had a 4 ch RC. I never could sync those engines....I got to know the design very well after a few crashes.
Reply to
Tom Gardner
Loading thread data ...
Kelly designed it in the 30's!!! I still can't phathom that. But then again, the SR-71 was from the '60's even more unbelievable. I wonder what is being designed today?
Reply to
Tom Gardner
How did you manage to get the two engines to turn in opposite directions?
Reply to
RAM^3
There's an sr71 on a pylon outside the San Diego Aerospace Museum. Mostly covered with pigeon crap now.
Reply to
daniel peterman
Lancair IV, Sukhoi 29, any plane with cute female flight attendants.
Reply to
daniel peterman
The statistic I love to quote (probably already did in this group at some time) about the A-10 is that when the pilot pulls the trigger with the gun at its full 4,200 rpm firing rate, the recoil produces a 9,000 lb reverse thrust on the airframe, effectively canceling one whole engine. If you look closely at the nose, the gun is offset significantly to the left, because the barrels fire at the 10:00 position (viewing from the front). If they didn't offset the gun, the airframe would instantly yaw off target. As it is, the aircraft can put roughly 70% of the rounds in one 2-second (140-round) burst into a tank-sized target from two miles out. Not bad grouping.
One of my direct reports was a structural engineer for Republic before he joined my organization. He designed "wing splice 270" (IIRC) which is the point where the wing cranks upward to achieve dihedral. During Desert Storm, we cut out a newspaper photograph of an A-10 that had returned with an 18" hole right through "wing splice 270". We captioned it on the bulletin board "Ron does nice work".
Reply to
Bob Chilcoat
I remember that picture that splice also houses the landing gear if i remember right?
A sam went right through the wing but the A-10 was so low the warhead hadnt armed and then plane had to belly land? but it still flew home and i think was a repairable aircraft after that?
I dont think anything else in the airforce except maybe a B52 could sustain that much damage and still land. THo i could be wrong
Reply to
Brent Philion
With respect to the OP, I agree. It looks like an embryonic P51 or F4; just hit it with the right hormone to get one or the other.
Speaking of F4's has anyone mentioned the double ugly? Two wrongs made a right in that case.
Bill
Reply to
Bill Schwab
An aircraft sexy? I think you have a bit of a warped perspective on sex and/or sexy.
Reply to
Abrasha
Small though.
Here's something that made a Wasp Major look small, 127 Liters, the Lycoming XR-7755 from
formatting link
'This 36 cylinder engine was destined to be the largest reciprocating engine ever built. The displacement was 7,755 cubic inches.
This huge engine was 10 feet long, 5 feet in diameter and weighed 6,050
pounds. It produced 5,000 HP at 2,600 RPM, and the target was 7,000'
** mike **
Reply to
mike
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:28:30 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, "Keith Marshall" quickly quoth:
And search for a new pair of dry undies in the meantime.
But lots of fun.
Curses, foiled again! I uploaded the wood index to my home page. Thanks for catching that for me. It's "all better now."
--- Chaos, panic, and disorder--my work here is done.
formatting link
Comprehensive Website Development
Reply to
Larry Jaques
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:40:29 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (daniel peterman) quickly quoth:
Which reminds me of the sexiest plane: anything run by Naked Air. 'Nuff said?
---------------------------------------------- Never attempt to traverse a chasm in two leaps
formatting link
Comprehensive Website Design ===========================================================
Reply to
Larry Jaques
Man, you just have no soul. T
Reply to
Tom Wait
I believe it was the opening scene of "The Carpetbaggers" Gerry :-)} London, Canada
Reply to
Gerald Miller
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this is what happens: "Hveem" writes on Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:49:50 -0000 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
True, in one sense of the word.
But seems to me, there's no room for initiation into the Over A Mile High Club.
All depends on what you want to do, and how you want it done....
pyotr
Reply to
pyotr filipivich
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this is what happens: "Martin H. Eastburn" writes on Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:42:55 -0600 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
B-58 Hustler, for flat out excessive amounts of speed.
Reply to
pyotr filipivich
How about the plane that made the Mustangs/spitfires necessary?
Focke-Wulf 190, especially the F-9 and the strumgruppen (sp) variants. I would certainly like to know what they sounded like!
I know what you are sayin about the 51's I get to see/hear them once or twice a month.
Reply to
Dave Gee
The several presidents of the corporations that held Beech over the last 10 years or so said all sorts of obscene things about the aircraft, and whoever owns them now (Rockwell?) wans them all run through the crusher. Supposedly the owners of the remaining ones have to keep them in locked hangers to keep them out of the claws of the corporate moguls who are worried about liability stretching out to infinity on a product they'll never make a buck on.
Jon
Reply to
Jon Elson
That's the BD-5, not 10. A fairly successful product of Jim Bede's. It didn't get the first two consecutive pilots to ever fly it killed.
The BD-10 would have been a HELL of a fine aircraft, if it had worked. The engine selected was a total antique, the GE CJ-618 (military designation J-85) turbojet. The performance was enough to satisfy just about anyone, though.
Oh, it WAS sexy!
Jon
Reply to
Jon Elson
It was a TOTAL disaster from beginning to end. The structural engineering was apparently done on the back of an envelope. I have all the company newsletters, which detail some of the early goofs. When the nose gear broke up on the first taxi test, and they had to admit it was bad engineering, I started to wonder what was going wrong. I've read the NTSB brief synopsis of the two accidents, just look under type BD-10, they should pop up. There was a site that had a complete post-mortem on the 2nd accident, where they took a production rear section and tested it to failure with the traditional hydraulic test rig. (Why didn't anybody do a SINGLE structural test on the plane BEFORE it flew? Huh?) They showed it failed at 80% of the design stress.
Here are a few Google hits on the search string "BD-10 crash"
formatting link
Apparently, people are STILL trying to make it work :
formatting link
formatting link
Some pix :
formatting link
When Bede was starting up the project I thought seriously of quitting my job and volunteering to set up their flight test instrumentation. Glad I didn't do that, as they would have laughed me out of the place. Their idea of flight dynamics testing was to strike the stick at ever increasing airspeeds, and hope they would notice a poorly damped vibration and stop to fix the problem. The dreaded "thump" test, abandoned in the 1940's as way too unscientific. And, apparently, one of the accidents was caused by a flutter problem, too. I'm not sure where the vertical stabilizer strength fit into all this, or whether that was a false direction. But, still, anything that fails at less that the DESIGN load is really scary.
Jon
Reply to
Jon Elson

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.