Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Daggers

Aircraft porn

By Daggers, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

marbelladave

marbelladave

Posted
Posted

A long time ago in a universe far, far away, I saw an open day at Bruntingthorpe, probably the farewell do for the US air force, circa 1962.

The fighter pilots did their party trick of lifting off in their F-100s and climbing vertically on full burner, earthshattering and I thought the loudest noise possible, I was wrong...... :o

They then pulled off the same trick with the (big) B-47 bomber using 'rato' boosters, not quite vertical but that truly was shattering...... :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bellend Sebastian

Bellend Sebastian

Posted
Posted

The Boulton Paul Defiant ? Nightfighter?

Beat me to it! Damn!

It was a turret fighter. And a bit useless.

300px-Mk1_Defiant.jpg

Very good work, gentlemen.

To think that a fighter plane without any guns that could fire in the direction it was travelling in would be a good idea. I'm sure it made sense at the time, though

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbelladave

marbelladave

Posted
Posted

Very good work, gentlemen.

To think that a fighter plane without any guns that could fire in the direction it was travelling in would be a good idea. I'm sure it made sense at the time, though

Boulton Paul were subcontractors who designed and built the power operated turret that was used, in different versions, in all the RAF heavy bombers. Originally the Defiant was to be no more than a demonstrator for the turret but the demand for fighters at the start of the war saw it go into production.

The big problem was not that the guns could not fire forward but that the massive weight of the turret made it extremely slow and cumbersome, the Emiles simply ran rings round them.

They were tried as night fighters but their poor speed meant that they could barely keep up with the bombers they were trying to intercept, useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deucalion

Deucalion

Posted
Posted

A long time ago in a universe far, far away, I saw an open day at Bruntingthorpe, probably the farewell do for the US air force, circa 1962.

The fighter pilots did their party trick of lifting off in their F-100s and climbing vertically on full burner, earthshattering and I thought the loudest noise possible, I was wrong...... :o

They then pulled off the same trick with the (big) B-47 bomber using 'rato' boosters, not quite vertical but that truly was shattering...... :thumbup:

I saw a B1 do that at Cottesmore about 15 years back. Nice!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ADK

ADK

Posted
Posted

I think i know what that is but can't remember it's name. It was a prototype for a bomber/strike aircraft that would have been advanced for it's time. Got cancelled by one of the governments, some of the technologies were eventually used in the tornado.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deucalion

Deucalion

Posted
Posted

I think i know what that is but can't remember it's name. It was a prototype for a bomber/strike aircraft that would have been advanced for it's time. Got cancelled by one of the governments, some of the technologies were eventually used in the tornado.

Pretty much. It was cancelled by a Labour government but I can't remember which one, in the 60s though.

It was called the TSR2 and it was supposed to fulfil a role the Tornado went on to fill. The Americans were concerned about it because it was better than the F-111 which was their new toy at the time. They were considering buying the TSR2 instead of the F-111 and there were orders in the book from Australia and I think Saudi Arabia too.

So why cancel such a magnificent piece of engineering?

It probably would've been profitable too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deucalion

Deucalion

Posted
Posted

Anyone interested in engines? Here's a difficult question for anyone who fancies it.

Me-262_24.jpg

tm_meteoric_victory.jpg

Both the above entered service in 1944. They were also both of course jets. But very different jets.

How were the two engines different? What strength and major weakness did the German engines have? What strength compared to the German engine did the British engine have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbelladave

marbelladave

Posted
Posted

I still maintain a B1 doing a reheat boost is the loudest thing I've ever heard. Lovely!

The B-47 that I mentioned above used RATO (sometimes called JATO) packs, solid fuel rocket packs mounted either side of the rear fuselage to get the aircraft off the ground quickly, seriously loud..... :thumbup:

The 'Bone' is a seriously impressive aircraft, the original, supersonic version is reputed to have made a low level pass over a Russian destroyer somewhere in the Arctic, the concussion cause system failure on such a level that the ship was left 'dead' in the water.

The Russians never saw it coming...... :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbelladave

marbelladave

Posted
Posted

Anyone interested in engines? Here's a difficult question for anyone who fancies it.

Me-262_24.jpg

tm_meteoric_victory.jpg

Both the above entered service in 1944. They were also both of course jets. But very different jets.

How were the two engines different? What strength and major weakness did the German engines have? What strength compared to the German engine did the British engine have?

I know that the Jumo engine was designed to work with virtually any type of fuel, even regular diesel.

As to the difference, I think the Jumo had a proper turbine driven compressor whereas the Whittle jet did not. Not sure really...... :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...