• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Airplane images

eohrnberger said:
An interesting thought.

Aircraft construction, at least at that time, was an aluminum skin riveted onto aluminum spars, so seemingly like a fragile eggshell, and this structure is to take damage and continue to function sufficiently to maintain flight.

I'm not saying they didn't, the battle damage that B-17s took and still brought the crew home is legendary. I'm saying the juxtaposition of what it was made of and the damage it was capable of sustaining and keep flying just seems to be at serious odds with each other somehow.
Click to expand...

I think it was the combination of wing spread and power. They were not big planes and they had a narrow fuselage compared to the B-24 or the B-29. They were more shaped like the B-36 I think; well sorta.

B36.jpg

What's that saying? "if lift plus thrust is greater than load plus drag..."
 
The GB R1 has always sort of set me to the "What's it all about Alfie" state of mind:


GB R1.jpg

What if a guy just strapped himself to the back of a huuuhge engine?
 
jet57 said:
I think it was the combination of wing spread and power. They were not big planes and they had a narrow fuselage compared to the B-24 or the B-29. They were more shaped like the B-36 I think; well sorta.

View attachment 67211291

What's that saying? "if lift plus thrust is greater than load plus drag..."
Click to expand...

Yup. Got that right.

The B-36 is a huge airplane.

B-36aarrivalcarswell1948.jpg


(Compared to a B-29)
 
jet57 said:
The GB R1 has always sort of set me to the "What's it all about Alfie" state of mind:


View attachment 67211292

What if a guy just strapped himself to the back of a huuuhge engine?
Click to expand...

That's a rotary engine in that. You realize that that it's not too much bigger (or further back) than the cowling there, right?

Also, I think this design had stability issues at speed.
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, it's like sitting on the nose of a rocket.
Click to expand...

060928-F-1234S-004.jpg

Speaking of rockets....The Lockheed f-104 Starfighter. Mach II in 1958. The leading edges of the tiny wings were sharp enough to cut paper.
 
iguanaman said:
060928-F-1234S-004.jpg

Speaking of rockets....The Lockheed f-104 Starfighter. Mach II in 1958. The leading edges of the tiny wings were sharp enough to cut paper.
Click to expand...

You said a mouth full there.
 
iguanaman said:
060928-F-1234S-004.jpg

Speaking of rockets....The Lockheed f-104 Starfighter. Mach II in 1958. The leading edges of the tiny wings were sharp enough to cut paper.
Click to expand...

Another one of my favorites. The thing just looks bad ass and fast as hell even just sitting there.
 
eohrnberger said:
That's a rotary engine in that. You realize that that it's not too much bigger (or further back) than the cowling there, right?

Also, I think this design had stability issues at speed.
Click to expand...

Right. For such rather short plane the engine looks huge. They are supposed to be one of the most dangerous planes to fly.

Sort of reminds me of this:

8000 horsepower.jpg

8,000 horsepower on a 90 inch wheel base.
 
jet57 said:
Right. For such rather short plane the engine looks huge. They are supposed to be one of the most dangerous planes to fly.

Sort of reminds me of this:

67211293d1482005331-airplane-images-8000-horsepower-jpg


8,000 horsepower on a 90 inch wheel base.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that looks like it's dangerous as hell as well. Of course, there's not much of a suspension or chassis to control and manage all that HP.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yeah, that looks like it's dangerous as hell as well. Of course, there's not much of a suspension or chassis to control and manage all that HP.
Click to expand...

That's what the problem with the GB looks like to me too. It's like an engine with a rudder on it ya'know? The pilot's just there - because...

And Altereds ARE the most dangerous cars in Drag Racing


Alterd fueled.jpg
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
An interesting thought.

Aircraft construction, at least at that time, was an aluminum skin riveted onto aluminum spars, so seemingly like a fragile eggshell, and this structure is to take damage and continue to function sufficiently to maintain flight.

I'm not saying they didn't, the battle damage that B-17s took and still brought the crew home is legendary. I'm saying the juxtaposition of what it was made of and the damage it was capable of sustaining and keep flying just seems to be at serious odds with each other somehow.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The B-24 was faster, could carry more bombs and much farther than the B-17...but it was much easier to bring down (apparently).
I guess the B-24 was for when you have air superiority and the B-17 was for when you did not and you had to fight your way there and back.
 
Here is one of the most useless military aircraft ever made.

xf84h-5.jpg


'The XF-84H was quite possibly the loudest aircraft ever built (rivaled only by the Russian Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" bomber[16] ), earning the nickname "Thunderscreech" as well as the "Mighty Ear Banger".[17] On the ground "run ups", the prototypes could reportedly be heard 25 miles (40 km) away.[18] Unlike standard propellers that turn at subsonic speeds, the outer 24–30 inches (61–76 cm) of the blades on the XF-84H's propeller traveled faster than the speed of sound even at idle thrust, producing a continuous visible sonic boom that radiated laterally from the propellers for hundreds of yards. The shock wave was actually powerful enough to knock a man down; an unfortunate crew chief who was inside a nearby C-47 was severely incapacitated during a 30-minute ground run.[18] Coupled with the already considerable noise from the subsonic aspect of the propeller and the dual turbines, the aircraft was notorious for inducing severe nausea and headaches among ground crews.[11] In one report, a Republic engineer suffered a seizure after close range exposure to the shock waves emanating from a powered-up XF-84H.[19]

The pervasive noise also severely disrupted operations in the Edwards AFB control tower by risking vibration damage to sensitive components and forcing air traffic personnel to communicate with the XF-84H's crew on the flight line by light signals. After numerous complaints, the Air Force Flight Test Center directed Republic to tow the aircraft out on Rogers Dry Lake, far from the flight line, before running up its engine.'

https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Republic XF-84H
 
Mosquito fighter-bomber pilots would admire the Spitfire, but point out that they had only thing better than a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine in their (plywood!) plane. Two Rolls-Royce Merlin engines!

article-2449430-01AC22E00000044D-707_625x363.jpg
 
Manc Skipper said:
Mosquito fighter-bomber pilots would admire the Spitfire, but point out that they had only thing better than a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine in their (plywood!) plane. Two Rolls-Royce Merlin engines!

article-2449430-01AC22E00000044D-707_625x363.jpg
Click to expand...

Fastest airplane until like 1946 (or something like that).
The RAF used them as pathfinders, marking the main bomber force's bombing targets using a variant called 'oboe mosquito' - radio triangulation.

An amazing aircraft.
 
eohrnberger said:
Fastest airplane until like 1946 (or something like that).
The RAF used them as pathfinders, marking the main bomber force's bombing targets using a variant called 'oboe mosquito' - radio triangulation.

An amazing aircraft.
Click to expand...

Faster than the P-38?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom