The Aviation Thread [Contains Lots of Awesome Pictures]

Don't forget the B-29'ski, the Tu-4.

ru_monino_aircraft_tu4_02.jpg

I said Super Fortresski. :cool:
 
On the B-29-ski ^, I wonder when they
copied the design from impounded USAAF aircraft which made emergency landings in the Soviet Union during WWII
came up with a completely original design, whether the soviets used the metric system for all the nuts & bolts?
:lol:
 
That's the Superfortresski he was referring to ;)
 
I love the air filters in front of the Hind's turbines. They make it look like a wolf spider.
 
the Ka50s a page back were awesome, but i still prefer the Hokum B ala KA 52 Alligator

https://pic.armedcats.net/b/bl/blayde/2009/08/19/ka-52-3.jpg
https://pic.armedcats.net/b/bl/blayde/2009/08/19/az_ka-52_3.jpg
https://pic.armedcats.net/b/bl/blayde/2009/08/19/az_ka-52_4.jpg
https://pic.armedcats.net/b/bl/blayde/2009/08/19/ka52_hokum_b.jpg
https://pic.armedcats.net/b/bl/blayde/2009/08/19/ka52_hokum_b_l1.jpg
 
It would, but bear in mind that it can't ditch on water.


Not off the top of my head, a low wing T tail is going to be preferable to a high wing T tail for downwash and stall reasons.

IIRC doesn't the T-tail suffer in stall performance???
 
IIRC doesn't the T-tail suffer in stall performance???

The Piper Tomahawk got the nickname "Traumahawk" due to it's rather, um interesting, stall characteristics.
 
I just got my hands on this piece of awesomenss:

9780756619022H.jpg


$50AUD. Bought it with a gift voucher I got from eng faculty for helping out at open day.

If you are remotely interested in aircrafts, its a fucken fantastic book.
 
why don't they make more of those double rotor copters? no power needed for a tailrotor = more power left to lift?

True, but the two rotors need to spin in different directions, which makes the whole design of the rotor hub far more complex.
[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_rotor]Wikipedia[/URL] said:
A principal disadvantage of the coaxial rotor design is the increased mechanical complexity of the rotor hub - linkages and swashplates for two rotor discs need to be assembled around the rotor shaft, which itself is more complex because of the need to drive two rotor discs in opposite directions. In an elementary engineering sense, the coaxial rotor system is more prone to failure because of the greater number of moving parts and complexity, though the engineering tolerances in aerospace are usually sufficiently precise to mitigate this somewhat. Additionally, while the resulting design has the capacity to be even more maneuverable than a conventional helicopter, achieving this in practice requires some ingenuity.

I guess for most applications the power loss from the tail rotor is easier to handle than the more complex design and production of a coaxial rotor setup.
 
^Plus more frictional losses and therefore noise. Same reason why the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear was so loud, with its contra-rotating props, that it could be heard on submarines' passive sonar.
 
why don't they make more of those double rotor copters? no power needed for a tailrotor = more power left to lift?

The additional drag from the hub really reduces the cruise efficiency, plus they're complex mechanically due to the method of yaw control.
 
what about the V-22 Osprey approach?
 
Top