Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
Quoted
Using my moderator powers I say "no" to the Manta.
So... you're saying "no" to the Manta, but that Canadian 'thing' is okay? In my opinion, the manta design is far more realistic than that air contraption, which I think should be considered to be a 1997 design (when the game came out) and comes out of a game with the word "Fantasy" in the title. I think it should either be "yes" to both or "no" to both and not "yes" to the one and "no" to the other.
... of course that is my opinion.
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
Quoted
How about 38,000 ft? More realistic
15000ft is more than pushing the available technology. For 38,000ft you need a centrifugal compressor a couple of foot across and 600-800hp to drive it.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Salaam86" (Feb 25th 2007, 10:17pm)
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
Please tell me what you don't understand about this statement:
The cutting edge superchargers (centrifugal single stage single speed) fitted to the Merlin I series had a critical altitude of 16250ft. At that altitude they gave their maximum 1000hp.
Quoted
Now...this isn't sci-fi. This was an actual real world concept design. I would point out hoo, that it's no where near sci-fi. And if you start censoring players then you have the problem of censorship when its all within the rules. If I went and created an amazing springsharp design nobody would complain.
Quoted
Originally posted by Swamphen
Quoted
So I overcame the technological limitations you said would keep it from achieving 48,000 ft.
Were they overcome in real life? No. Nuff said.
BTW, we have had 'sharped designs thrown out...
Quoted
Originally posted by Swamphen
Both the XB-35 and YB-49 were unstable in yaw, even with the 'propeller fins' on the former and the vertical stabilisers on the latter. They 'snaked' significantly which was a major factor in their rejection by the USAF. The Go 229 is largely speculative for obvious reasons.
There's a reason flying wings didn't see service until fly-by-wire was available.
Me 163, Me 329 etc. have a orthodox fuselage and aren't really comparable. The XP-56 also but its fate may be instructive.
While Canada's gasbags are more an issue of weight vs lift this design is way too far beyond the bleeding edge for 1930s tech.
There is also the point that there is no way Japan would allow one of their 'clients' to have aircraft that the home islands couldn't intercept...
Quoted
Originally posted by Swamphen
Yes they did. With a few very specialised aircraft a number of years later, not in the mid 1930s.
I have no idea why we're still arguing anyway, since The Moderator Has Spoken.
Quoted
Subsequently, Major Cardenas stated for the record that the airplane was marginally stable, rather than "extremely unstable." On November 16, 1948, an official Air Materiel Command report on the bombing evaluation, which was conducted under manual conditions, i.e., without autopilot, reiterated the inadequacies of the YB-49 under the test conditions, but referred to the "marginal directional stability of the aircraft in fight." Installation of a satisfactory autopilot was considered a top priority.
Quoted
Why did the Flying Wing fail to go into production? A popular explanation, with a ring of truth to it, is that the aircraft was 30 years ahead of its time. Even its most ardent supporters would not deny that it had problems. The B-35 series was doomed by overwhelming difficulties with propellers, gearboxes, and maintenance problems with the complicated exhaust system. Perhaps even more pertinent, it was overtaken by the jet age.
The B-49 was hampered by marginal directional stability that compromised its ability to perform bombing or reconnaissance missions. Pilots and engineers close to the program recognized that stability deficiencies would have been corrected with a proper autopilot and stability augmentation devices, given adequate time and support for the project.
This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Salaam86" (Feb 25th 2007, 11:05pm)
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
Quoted
Using my moderator powers I say "no" to the Manta.
So... you're saying "no" to the Manta, but that Canadian 'thing' is okay? In my opinion, the manta design is far more realistic than that air contraption, which I think should be considered to be a 1997 design (when the game came out) and comes out of a game with the word "Fantasy" in the title. I think it should either be "yes" to both or "no" to both and not "yes" to the one and "no" to the other.
... of course that is my opinion.
Quoted
Originally posted by Salaam86
Lets remember that the flying wings WERE in flight by 1940.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N-1M
Not to mention the Horton 229 was a jet powered wing in flight late war.
The Horton 229 flew in 1944.
And was basically the first German attempt at a flying wing that was ever taken seriously.
[...]
And thirdly, the YB-35 first flew in 1946
And was extremely advanced for it's time.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH