Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
The Falcon II does look nicer, though I'm still unsure of the rear fuselage. Quite likely needs a larger prop as well - about 10ft diameter. Increases the likelihood of ground strikes but better performance. I would have thought guns in the nose rather than the booms?
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
Quoted
Are there any real advantages/disadvantages compared to a common layout?
A bit less drag and higher propeller efficiency but with considerable cost. Its the bailing out and not getting chopped to pieces that puts me off the most.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Commodore Green" (Mar 4th 2009, 10:34pm)
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Desertfox" (Mar 4th 2009, 11:48pm)
Quoted
Which doesn't make sense to me, as you only need gravity and airflow to acheive exit, no explosives or complicated rams to elevate the seat.
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
The XP-54 had a downward "firing" ejection seat. A simple solution would have the propeller be jettisioned together with the canopy. Blow the canopy, blow the prop.
The Australian fighter has a pusher mainly for the drag saving benefits. Much like the Do-335.
Quoted
And "[Restoration workers] were amazed to find that the explosive charges built into the aircraft to blow off the tail fin and rear propeller in the event of an emergency were still on the aircraft and active 30 years later."
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH