Favorite aircraft

Off topic posts are welcome in this forum!
No smear campaign, or you will be banned!

Moderator: Mike Everman

Post Reply
steve
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:29 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Clinton Conneticut / Melbourne Flordia
Contact:

Favorite aircraft

Post by steve » Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:22 pm

Just thought I'd spark some discussion! (BTW no water bombers, we already did that :-)

I am partial to the XF-84 thunderscreech "the loudest thing on earth"

The three blade constant speed propeller was driven by two interconnected turboshaft engines and the tips spun so fast that three constant sonic booms were produced. The noise was so loud that it induced headaches and abrupt nausea in the pilots and ground crews.

http://www.edwards.af.mil/moments/docs_ ... 07-22.html
Attachments
xf84hdraw.jpg
xf84hdraw.jpg (26.8 KiB) Viewed 11373 times
Image

Mike Kirney
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:11 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Round Lake Centre, Ontario, Canada

Post by Mike Kirney » Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:47 pm

Thank God they came to thier senses and ditched the propeller and went turbo-only. I have to ask why they even bothered building that thing. It's very ugly but kinda funky in its own twisted Frankenstienian way, like grafting a cat's head onto a Dachsund or something. I have two faves, I can't decide which I like more:

http://www.rarebear.com

or

http://www.rcaf.com/1946_1968_coldwar/a ... s/seafury/

The F8F and the Sea Fury were the top contenders for the fastest production piston/prop powered aircraft of their day (the twilight years and zenith of prop-driven technology).
Trig IS fun.

Mike Kirney
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:11 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Round Lake Centre, Ontario, Canada

Post by Mike Kirney » Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:55 pm

I really like the Argus too, so that's three faves (now you know why I'm not married):

http://www.rcaf.com/1946_1968_coldwar/a ... /index.htm

It could stay in the air for an entire day and then some. I used to work with a guy who used to maintain them and he told me they burned a ton of lubricating oil on each 19 hr. patrol.
Trig IS fun.

steve
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:29 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Clinton Conneticut / Melbourne Flordia
Contact:

Post by steve » Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:59 pm

a ton meaning a lot or actually a ton?

I also like the bearcat. Too bad they didn't finish it in time for WWII.
Image

Mike Kirney
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:11 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Round Lake Centre, Ontario, Canada

Post by Mike Kirney » Sat Aug 07, 2004 9:33 pm

Yes, a 2000 pound ton. I forget how many tons of fuel it burned on each patrol. Here is a souped-up racing Fury:

http://www.unlimitedair.com/BAPrep03.htm

I guess seeing Bad Attitude racing head-to-head with the Rare Bear would help me make up my mind as to which plane I like more. The Fury was better in stock trim I think, but the Bearcat is just so small and cute and fast and deadly. Neither was ready for WWII but both delivered plenty of munitions in Korea. I think a few token F8Fs flew in Viet Nam too, mostly as photo-recon.
Trig IS fun.

Anthony
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:41 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Quebec City, Canada

Post by Anthony » Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:26 pm

Here they are. Well, I have many other favorites, but I don't have pics and I'm too lazy to get some.

As for the Argus, I saw one sitting outside the Aviation museum at Ottawa. Nice bird, sad to see it having to deal with the weather. They're building a new hangar though, wonder if it's for the planes outside (Argus, DC-3, DC-9 and some others...).
Attachments
arrowrl205.jpg
Avro Arrow
arrowrl205.jpg (49.64 KiB) Viewed 11357 times
f22_index.jpg
F-22 Raptor
f22_index.jpg (12.82 KiB) Viewed 11358 times
B2_Spirit.jpg
F-117 (Nevermind the big B-2)
(117.17 KiB) Downloaded 1175 times
abl.sized.jpg
F-16 (Nevermind the AWACS)
abl.sized.jpg (98.17 KiB) Viewed 11358 times
Anthony
Image

hinote
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:54 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Central California

Post by hinote » Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:35 pm

Mike Kirney wrote:
The F8F and the Sea Fury were the top contenders for the fastest production piston/prop powered aircraft of their day (the twilight years and zenith of prop-driven technology).
I just saw flying examples of both these aircraft at Oshkosh last week.

I really like the sound of the Sea Fury, with its Bristol Centaurus engine. A very interesting, powerful and reliable radial engine with sleeve valves. It develops nearly 3000 hp with a nearly 1:1 power to weight ratio.

Bill H.
Acoustic Propulsion Concepts

hinote
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:54 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Central California

Re: Favorite aircraft

Post by hinote » Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:46 pm

steve wrote:Just thought I'd spark some discussion!

The three blade constant speed propeller was driven by two interconnected turboshaft engines l
Since we're talking favorites (and turboshaft power) this is my favorite:

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/tu-95_bear.pl

The Americans didn't think it could be done--ultra-efficient contra-rotating props (the largest ever made) turned at something like 900 rpm, driven by efficient turboshaft engines. It was as fast as the jet-powered B-52, but had vastly more range unrefueled.

Nobody ever tried to duplicate it. Imagine a modern version as a jumbo passenger airliner. Excellent speed, and world-beating fuel efficiency.

Who says we've progressed in the last 50 years, technology-wise?

Bill H.
Acoustic Propulsion Systems

Anthony
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:41 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Quebec City, Canada

Re: Favorite aircraft

Post by Anthony » Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:51 pm

hinote wrote:
steve wrote:Just thought I'd spark some discussion!

The three blade constant speed propeller was driven by two interconnected turboshaft engines l
Since we're talking favorites (and turboshaft power) this is my favorite:

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/tu-95_bear.pl

The Americans didn't think it could be done--ultra-efficient contra-rotating props (the largest ever made) turned at something like 900 rpm, driven by efficient turboshaft engines. It was as fast as the jet-powered B-52, but had vastly more range unrefueled.

Nobody ever tried to duplicate it. Imagine a modern version as a jumbo passenger airliner. Excellent speed, and world-beating fuel efficiency.

Who says we've progressed in the last 50 years, technology-wise?

Bill H.
Acoustic Propulsion Systems
Yeah, some people close their eyes to the old stuff cause it's old stuff, but they do not take the time to look deeper into things and try to exploit them to their full potential.

As for turboprobs, my guess is that they're pretty noisy... I might be wrong, but in my mind the blades cutting through the air make a lot of noise. And also, props of any kind loose their efficiency while at greater speeds...Although the Bear is pretty fast (but is that with maximum takeoff weight or "empty" weight?).
Anthony
Image

hinote
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:54 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Central California

Re: Favorite aircraft

Post by hinote » Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:29 am

Avenger wrote:

As for turboprobs, my guess is that they're pretty noisy... I might be wrong, but in my mind the blades cutting through the air make a lot of noise. And also, props of any kind loose their efficiency while at greater speeds.
There's no reason why a turboshaft powerplant should be any noisier than a recip. I watched a beautiful turbo conversion of an RV-4 airplane at Oshkosh that was actually a lot quieter than its recip equivalent.

Blade (prop) noise is largely a function of the tip speed, relative to the (local) speed of sound, and to a lesser extent there are additional factors such as disc loading, etc. Noise factors are counter-intuitive to other prop performance factors so a compromise is always necessary.

There are a lot of really noisy recip/prop aircraft flying out there; I noted some unacceptable departure (post takeoff) noise profiles in a surprisingly large number of aircraft at Oshkosh; in particular the aerobatic airplanes seem more prone to this problem. I imagined a departure with a PJ-powered aircraft under the same conditions and found it hard to believe it would be any noisier than what I observed in many prop-powered aircraft.

Bill H.
Acoustic Propulsion Concepts

Mike Kirney
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:11 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Round Lake Centre, Ontario, Canada

Post by Mike Kirney » Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:37 am

All internal combustion engines are noisy ... Steam = Stealth:

http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricA ... Besler.htm
Trig IS fun.

hinote
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:54 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Central California

Post by hinote » Sun Aug 08, 2004 2:09 am

Mike Kirney wrote:All internal combustion engines are noisy ... Steam = Stealth:
NOW you're in my neighborhood!!

The primary boilermaker for Besler (who took over the Doble operations) was Barney Becker.

He was directly involved in the steam-powered airplane project, building the boiler they used to flash the steam.

I met Barney in the late '60's; he was retired and living in Walnut Creek, CA.

He had acquired "Betsy" which was Doble #E-14--a beautiful coupe (2-seater) that weighed 6000 lb!! He had fully restored it and it was in great condition, and could be driven daily on the streets and highways of California.

I received a warm welcome as a fellow steam-car enthusiast, and got the ride of my life in Betsy. It could easily keep up with the traffic of the day, and even outpace it with no effort on the freeway.

One of our more interesting encounters was at the Long Beach meet of the Steam Power Club in 1974, where I gave Barney a ride in my own steam car; he got in being a real doubter (and supporter of the "traditional" methods of steam car power). I converted him early-on though--he jumped out of my car after the demo and vigorously shook my hand and complimented me on my successful effort. It was one of those lifetime moments you never forget.

The aircraft project was interesting, but the military was unimpressed--and the airplane was subsequently re-converted to its original powerplant. An interesting point in engineering history passed into
the archives, with no further action.

Bill H.
Acoustic Propulsion Concepts

Stephen H
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:51 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: New Zealand

Post by Stephen H » Mon Aug 09, 2004 4:21 am

i would have to say that this is one of my fav. air craft!!!
http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html

Stephen

Viv
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:35 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Normandy, France, Wales, Europe
Contact:

Post by Viv » Mon Aug 09, 2004 1:56 pm

I think I would have to add this one as a fave, B1b lancer, supersonic and will do it at 50 ft off the deck! has the best terrain following radar system ever fitted to a huge supersonic bomber:-)

I wonder if they will ever sell them off as surplus?

And another one is the sad story of the XB70, an awsum aircraft!

Viv
"Sometimes the lies you tell are less frightening than the loneliness you might feel if you stopped telling them" Brock Clarke

Viv's blog

Monsieur le commentaire

steve
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:29 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Clinton Conneticut / Melbourne Flordia
Contact:

Post by steve » Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:12 pm

that jet Cri-Cri was pretty cool. now it is not only the world's smallest twin, but also the smallest jet twin. how much thrust does it produce? (and how much trouble would it be to replace the turbines with pulsejets? :-)

the XB-70 is also one of my favorites. I saw the only remaining example at the USAF museum in dayton Ohio. It's bigger then it looks and the view from behind with all eight engines lined up in a row is awe inspiring.
Attachments
PG31-B.jpg
PG31-B.jpg (36.42 KiB) Viewed 11280 times
xb70.jpg
xb70.jpg (45.03 KiB) Viewed 11279 times
Image

Post Reply