Author Topic: Aviation Pictures: The Fourth Generation (Read 162866 times)

marauder648 · « **Reply #180 on:** 01 January 2019, 05:16:15 »

Wasn't the Spruce Goose more akin to a WIGE in its effect, it couldn't fly very high and really its hull and wings acted like lifting bodies.

And if you want some weird, big but beautiful lady of the skies the Saunders Roe Princess has to be up there.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #181 on:** 01 January 2019, 07:48:18 »

Here is a more modern idea...that didnt take off or have WiGE the Boeing Pelican

marauder648 · « **Reply #182 on:** 01 January 2019, 07:50:12 »

An interseting video about the TU-114 airliner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22H8M8h6Hdo

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #183 on:** 01 January 2019, 13:14:32 »

Quote from: marauder648 on 01 January 2019, 05:16:15

Wasn't the Spruce Goose more akin to a WIGE in its effect, it couldn't fly very high and really its hull and wings acted like lifting bodies.

I'm not sure. I've heard it claimed that it could have flown higher but the test flight it was on was so short that it didn't have time to try doing so.

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #184 on:** 01 January 2019, 14:15:06 »

Technically it was a taxi test, not a flight test; he wasn't even supposed to go airborne but "Howard Hughes" is your answer to that.

David CGB · « **Reply #185 on:** 01 January 2019, 20:45:31 »

Quote from: marauder648 on 01 January 2019, 05:16:15

Wasn't the Spruce Goose more akin to a WIGE in its effect, it couldn't fly very high and really its hull and wings acted like lifting bodies.

And if you want some weird, big but beautiful lady of the skies the Saunders Roe Princess has to be up there.

quite beautiful aircraft

Kidd · « **Reply #186 on:** 01 January 2019, 20:55:24 »

More JASDF Aggressor Squadron Camo

And a couple of parade designs

worktroll · « **Reply #187 on:** 02 January 2019, 12:34:58 »

Quote from: David CGB on 01 January 2019, 20:45:31

quite beautiful aircraft

Most definitely! 105 passengers in luxury accomodation. The only way to fly. Ah, but for the uncompleted Saro Duchess ...

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #188 on:** 02 January 2019, 13:01:01 »

Quote from: worktroll on 02 January 2019, 12:34:58

Most definitely! 105 passengers in luxury accomodation. The only way to fly. Ah, but for the uncompleted Saro Duchess ...

HANDSOME! The engine-arrangement looks related to the Comet, which would make sense; given the day.

Daryk · « **Reply #189 on:** 02 January 2019, 16:39:25 »

That looks like a cruise liner with wings... On that basis, I suspect I know why it didn't get built...

worktroll · « **Reply #190 on:** 02 January 2019, 16:42:44 »

The fact that there were a LOT of people with airfield-building experience, people with airplane building experience, and people who'd gotten used to flying in planes, destroyed the utility of the long-distance passenger seaplane.

But, like zeppelins, they still tug on our subconcious ...

HobbesHurlbut · « **Reply #191 on:** 02 January 2019, 18:23:09 »

Quote from: worktroll on 02 January 2019, 16:42:44

The fact that there were a LOT of people with airfield-building experience, people with airplane building experience, and people who'd gotten used to flying in planes, destroyed the utility of the long-distance passenger seaplane.

But, like zeppelins, they still tug on our subconcious ...

something about the Cat always get me.

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #192 on:** 03 January 2019, 10:23:12 »

Quote from: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 01 January 2019, 13:14:32

I'm not sure. I've heard it claimed that it could have flown higher but the test flight it was on was so short that it didn't have time to try doing so.

I'm trying to find the article, so I'll update if I do, but there was a computer study done by Lockheed (I think it was?) several years ago to see whether or not the plane was capable of more than the little hop it made, and what its performance really would have been like. The conclusion was staggering- in that the computer determined it couldn't have made the hop at all. And yet, it did. So much like the bumblebee, it shouldn't fly and yet...

Istal_Devalis · « **Reply #193 on:** 03 January 2019, 10:39:45 »

The idea that 'we dont know how a bumblebee can fly' thing is a myth, BTW. We know very well how it's able to fly. We've known for decades. It sticks around because it's anti-science bullcrap used to 'prove' scientists dont know what they're talking about.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bumblebees-cant-fly/

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #194 on:** 03 January 2019, 11:04:09 »

...yeah, that was meant more as a comparison than a real complaint on my end.

Kidd · « **Reply #195 on:** 03 January 2019, 13:14:52 »

Quote from: JadeHellbringer on 03 January 2019, 10:23:12

The conclusion was staggering- in that the computer determined it couldn't have made the hop at all. And yet, it did.

So, just a freak of the wind or something? Or perhaps bad data, considering the relative imprecision of instruments at the time?

Quote from: Istal_Devalis on 03 January 2019, 10:39:45

The idea that 'we dont know how a bumblebee can fly' thing is a myth, BTW. We know very well how it's able to fly. We've known for decades. It sticks around because it's anti-science bullcrap used to 'prove' scientists dont know what they're talking about.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bumblebees-cant-fly/

Fascinating. I didn't know about this myth to start with.

But even so, since the solution was discovered in the 1970s, doesn't that mean we didn't know how bumblebees etc flew until then?

Weirdo · « **Reply #196 on:** 03 January 2019, 15:00:13 »

There's a lot of things we didn't know until the 1970s, such as how bad an idea disco is.

PsihoKekec · « **Reply #197 on:** 04 January 2019, 01:09:38 »

Also, mechanics of bumblebees flight were not exactly a top priority for scientific community.

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #198 on:** 04 January 2019, 01:32:43 »

it is also more accurate to say that the mechanism was confirmed in the 1970's, as it had existed as a hypothesis and observations prior, and in the 70's they just finally got everyone to agree.

grimlock1 · « **Reply #199 on:** 04 January 2019, 08:17:59 »

Quote from: PsihoKekec on 04 January 2019, 01:09:38

Also, mechanics of bumblebees flight were not exactly a top priority for scientific community.

:-) I suspect that a few entomologists might take issue with that statement :-)

Not that I care. I mean it isn't like they can train bullet ants to attack on command.... Can they?

JarheadEd · « **Reply #200 on:** 05 January 2019, 01:02:38 »

Quote from: grimlock1 on 04 January 2019, 08:17:59

:-) I suspect that a few entomologists might take issue with that statement :-)

Not that I care. I mean it isn't like they can train bullet ants to attack on command.... Can they?

I'll segue back on topic with bugs and planes:

The Gee BEE

The Grasshopper

The Firefly

So many Hornets

JarheadEd · « **Reply #201 on:** 05 January 2019, 01:07:29 »

Quote from: HobbesHurlbut on 02 January 2019, 18:23:09

something about the Cat always get me.

Seamaster for me

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #202 on:** 05 January 2019, 02:03:32 »

I don't think I've ever seen a seaplane with jet engines before.

PsihoKekec · « **Reply #203 on:** 05 January 2019, 03:43:50 »

Soviets had a thing for overdoing it

worktroll · « **Reply #204 on:** 05 January 2019, 04:03:20 »

Quote from: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 05 January 2019, 02:03:32

I don't think I've ever seen a seaplane with jet engines before.

Unfortunately the jet engine came along just after massive construction of land runways ...

Sharpnel · « **Reply #205 on:** 05 January 2019, 04:04:04 »

The above is more of a WiGE than a true airplane IMO

Feenix74 · « **Reply #206 on:** 05 January 2019, 05:24:12 »

The shape of a flying boat also results in additional aerodynamic drag which means that flying boats are not as efficient as land based aircraft - a big part of the reason why there are jet airliners not jet flying boats.

marauder648 · « **Reply #207 on:** 05 January 2019, 05:59:58 »

Quote from: worktroll on 02 January 2019, 12:34:58

Most definitely! 105 passengers in luxury accomodation. The only way to fly. Ah, but for the uncompleted Saro Duchess ...

This beautiful lady kind of reminds me of this fantastic double hulled flying boat idea, it was absolutely huge thing called Airliner No 4 designed by this chap called Norman Geddes

http://www.keiththomsonbooks.com/blog/4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner_Number_4

I am Belch II · « **Reply #208 on:** 05 January 2019, 06:58:56 »

With all the Flying boats out there how about two different versions of the Spruce Moose.
Simpsons and Tail Spin. With the more modern update for the Dieselpunk Titanium Turkey.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #209 on:** 05 January 2019, 12:09:46 »

Quote from: marauder648 on 05 January 2019, 05:59:58

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner_Number_4

Can you imagine being in the wingtips of that thing while it banked?