Merry Christmas airplane guys!
That’s a nifty engine in itself.There's a lanyard that starts a little 2 stroke in the nose cone. The 2 stroke starts the engine. Some call it the first APU
View attachment 181344
View attachment 181345
As I recall, the school I went to had one for the students to train with. Although they had a turbine test cell, that engine wasn’t a runner.That’s a nifty engine in itself.
my great grandmother built those in Dallas during WW2. cool plane - I’d love to ride in one once Collings Foundation cleans up their safety record a bit + they’re touring again.Today on VFT
View attachment 181595
All of the initial funding for quiet sonic booms was from DARPA.... so there's no doubt there's a military weapons tie in there somewhere. As this thing just reduces the "boom" to a 75db "thump," it won't really be stealthy enough to go undetected. So I don't really know what the military objective would be.The NASA/Lockheed Martin X-59 : What is its military objective? Perhaps to fly supersonic for quick deployment then drop out to subsonic without audible detection at its target area??
The NASA/Lockheed Martin X-59, built in the "Skunk Works," was just approved for final assembly. There might yet be a Concorde replacement in our future. Link.
View attachment 181599
Airliners have been doing zero visibility (CATIII) landings for the better part of 50 yrs now, so that's not really a problem. I suspect the pilot will watch the outside world on displays during approach and landing.I don't know about flying but at the picture the Cock Pit is a real Pit -- pilot is down in the hole
Jets of this type usually needs to have the nose pointing upwards at landing
To the side the wing is impairing visibility
forward to the side is the canard wing.
Can anyone land such a plane --and walk away
Revolutionary Peoples' Army of North Pole. Or maybe just Red ArmyMerry Christmas airplane guys!
Yes, the B-24 was more prolific than the -17... about 18,000 built over the -17's 12,000. So yeah, that equates to more bombs delivered. The 24 was the faster of the 2 and range and load were about equal. So that would give the 24 the edge in numbers. The B-17 on the other hand was easier to fly with an engine out... which was a common occurrence in wartime, and was more likely to make it home when damaged. That alone made it the favorite of the crews who had flown both. My take is both were valuable to the effort.Re: The B24.
If my reading (and memory) is accurate, the Liberator is the un-sung hero of WWII, having flown MANY more missions than the famous B-17. Pretty much all the movies and printing fiction laud the Flying Fortress. Not to take anything away from the Fort, it was a hell of a plane.
Unsung? Just off the top of my head I can think of 3 movies made about the Mossie...The Mosquito was another unsung hero.
If I'm not mistaken, the B-17 could operate at higher altitude than the B-24. I think the difference was about 5,000 feet. That could be an advantage when defenders are shooting at you.Yes, the B-24 was more prolific than the -17... about 18,000 built over the -17's 12,000. So yeah, that equates to more bombs delivered. The 24 was the faster of the 2 and range and load were about equal. So that would give the 24 the edge in numbers. The B-17 on the other hand was easier to fly with an engine out... which was a common occurrence in wartime, and was more likely to make it home when damaged. That alone made it the favorite of the crews who had flown both. My take is both were valuable to the effort.
Ain't that the truth.Not to mention the crews. How they managed to get those humongous brass balls into flying suits amazes me.