 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / October 2007V-22 Osprey is the Cover Story for the Current Issue of Time Magazine
seems she still has lots of kinks to worry about, but she has been sent to the front. Craig I have had the 1/48 scale Kit for a some time now but have not built it yet. I'm wanting to build the ''Gun-Ship'' version that they talked about using at one time. It looks like it's really a pretty good Kit. It also seems that there are a LOT of people on Both Sides that just seem to HATE ths thing. It's NOT a PLane and it's NOT a Helicopter. Soooo they just HATE it for being and doing Both tasks. And I think that it WTLL one day I hope Prove that it really Belongs in the Sky. All Hail the ''Shy-Pig'' Long and Far may it Fly. I think that it's really kinda KewL ... cyberborg .......... ,, > I have had the 1/48 scale Kit for a some time now but have not built it > yet. I'm wanting to build the ''Gun-Ship'' version that they talked [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > PLane and it's NOT a Helicopter. Soooo they just HATE it for being > and doing Both tasks. Another nifty fact about it; although it can't glide land if the engines quit, like a aircraft...it also can't autorotate land like a helicopter if the engines quit...so if the engines shut down, you are SOL: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1665835,00.html Pat >> I have had the 1/48 scale Kit for a some time now but have not built it >> yet. I'm wanting to build the ''Gun-Ship'' version that they talked [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Pat ...all I have to say about the V-22 is that if you actually know anything about aircraft (fixed wing and/or helos) the fear that overcomes you when one flies over your head is palpable.  Signature- Rufus >>> I have had the 1/48 scale Kit for a some time now but have not built it >>> yet. I'm wanting to build the ''Gun-Ship'' version that they talked [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >anything about aircraft (fixed wing and/or helos) the fear that >overcomes you when one flies over your head is palpable. they've spent the obligatory 4 billion, can't they declare it perfected, decide there's no need for it and cancel the program? hasn't it killed a couple of hundred jarheads already? on 10/5/2007 6:32 PM someone@some.domain said the following: > >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > couple of hundred jarheads already? > Marines, or Leathernecks, never jar heads. SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ >on 10/5/2007 6:32 PM someone@some.domain said the following: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Marines, or Leathernecks, never jar heads. dr atwater called himself a jarhead. or is that only acceptable to club members? on 10/5/2007 9:12 PM someone@some.domain said the following: > >> on 10/5/2007 6:32 PM someone@some.domain said the following: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > members? > Yeah, maybe like the "N" word. SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ >on 10/5/2007 9:12 PM someone@some.domain said the following: >> In article <13gdh3m7bmkfa87@news.supernews.com>, willshak [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> >Yeah, maybe like the "N" word. really? i never heard it used or accepted as a bad thing. i have some friends that i've called jarheads and they never reacted badly. close enough friends to be honest. now i'm cornfused. > they've spent the obligatory 4 billion, can't they declare it perfected, > decide there's no need for it and cancel the program? hasn't it killed a > couple of hundred jarheads already? No; thirty. And at least half of those were infantry they stuck in the back of one for no apparent reason. For that reason the number of people killed has little to do with whether it's a sound technology. Curt >> they've spent the obligatory 4 billion, can't they declare it perfected, >> decide there's no need for it and cancel the program? hasn't it killed a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Curt 30 too many. though i understand test pilots who know the risks. running in some troops was just wrong. >>> they've spent the obligatory 4 billion, can't they declare it perfected, >>> decide there's no need for it and cancel the program? hasn't it killed a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 30 too many. though i understand test pilots who know the risks. > running in some troops was just wrong. Nobody should die in plane crashes but the fact is they do, especially in aircraft with new technology. The only way to prevent deaths is to stop flying. An old H-53 pilot/college professor told us he felt that the Marines were simply not trained or equipped to develop and flight test something like the Osprey. IMHO, that is the reason for it's safety record. As he pointed out, all those Marines who died in the cabin should have been sandbags. Curt On Oct 5, 5:32 pm, some...@some.domain wrote: > >>> I have had the 1/48 scale Kit for a some time now but have not built it > >>> yet. I'm wanting to build the ''Gun-Ship'' version that they talked [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > decide there's no need for it and cancel the program? hasn't it killed a > couple of hundred jarheads already? Originally it was supposed to be a tri-service craft (AF, Navy, and Marines). That would have helped spread the cost. The AF opted out (so did Navy, I believe). As an old AF officer, I thought the AF was wacko. They always used to believe the world was covered with long concrete runways, and their air defenses would always prevent anyone from bombing their runways. So why go STOL or VTOL. The AF seems to be slowly changing its position on that. My fews about air warfare soon changed after I left AF, became an aerospace engineer, and talked to many users in other services. >> they've spent the obligatory 4 billion, can't they declare it perfected, >> decide there's no need for it and cancel the program? hasn't it killed a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > about air warfare soon changed after I left AF, became an aerospace > engineer, and talked to many users in other services. What's interesting is that the AF has been flying them for a while with no accidents, no loss of life. They will probably deploy before long due to the MH-53's age. Curt > Originally it was supposed to be a tri-service craft (AF, Navy, and > Marines). That would have helped spread the cost. > They had a great ad for it early on in the program showing a Navy one destroying a Soviet Typhoon submarine with a homing torpedo. Somebody wrote AW&ST saying that scenario indicated bad things going on in the world. I think it would make a lot more sense for Army rather than Air Force use. I had a 1/72 model of the V-22 by Testors around 15 years ago; I imagine it's a collector's item nowadays. When they make a model of something, and the model goes into and out of production and becomes a collector's item before the aircraft it's based on enters service, you've got a problem. Pat > > Originally it was supposed to be a tri-service craft (AF, Navy, and > > Marines). That would have helped spread the cost. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > on enters service, you've got a problem. > Pat My cousin had one in 1/48th probably, because he worked for Vertol (or Boeing, as they like to call themselves now) :) I had the AMT/Esci 1/72nd kit but never got it built. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > ...all I have to say about the V-22 is that if you actually know > anything about aircraft (fixed wing and/or helos) the fear that > overcomes you when one flies over your head is palpable. Oh, I know that! My older sister used to live under the approach path to one of the runways of the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport. We were sitting at dinner when suddenly it felt like a earthquake had hit, and Iran outside to see a 747 fly directly over me at around 500 feet altitude, appearing to move so slow that it looked like it was floating. :-) Pat >> ...all I have to say about the V-22 is that if you actually know >> anything about aircraft (fixed wing and/or helos) the fear that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Pat ...try being eyeball to eyeball with a C-5A while flying a Piper Arrow sometime. I'd rather stand on the approach threshold of a runway at ORD and have 747s pass over me all day than stand under one V-22...the thing just plain ain't natural. Signature- Rufus : Another nifty fact about it; although it can't glide land if the engines : quit, like a aircraft...it also can't autorotate land like a helicopter : if the engines quit...so if the engines shut down, you are SOL: I am sure the V-22 can glide if it is in flight configuration. You want a airplane that could/did NOT glide - the F-104. No way no how could you consider the "glide slope" of the Starfighter a "glide". Still, it was considered fairly successful, and widely adopted. Besides - helos don't autorotate below a certain altitude/ airspeed either. I do not see the V-22 being any worse that a helo in that respect when in hover mode. The more interesting question is how long are you in that transition/hover mode, and is the cross shafting of the engines such that it is more damage resistant that helos are, where the engines are, by necessity, very close together? I also expect the V-22 has much better ditching manners than a helo ever hoped to have. Has Mitsu given up on their V-22 design, where the entire wing rotated, unlike the nacells on the V-22? Bruce Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX. - Thuganlitha The Power and the Prophet Robert Don Hughes > : Another nifty fact about it; although it can't glide land if the engines > : quit, like a aircraft...it also can't autorotate land like a helicopter [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "glide". Still, it was considered fairly successful, and widely > adopted. No, it can't glide in a true sense - it has to "auto-rotate forward"...what I don't know is how/if the ability to tilt the rotors is affected if there is a dual engine flameout or a problem with the cross coupling. > Besides - helos don't autorotate below a certain altitude/ > airspeed either. I do not see the V-22 being any worse that a > helo in that respect when in hover mode. A helo has to maintain forward speed to auto-rotate. The pilot has to build enough rotational inertia in the mains to be able to flare into a somewhat vertical landing before that rotational inertia dissipates as forward speed bleeds during the flare. > The more interesting question is how long are you in that > transition/hover mode, and is the cross shafting of the engines > such that it is more damage resistant that helos are, where the > engines are, by necessity, very close together? The problem is that you can't land the thing with the rotors tilted, and if the cross-shafting is damaged it's all over anyway...engines running or not. > I also expect the V-22 has much better ditching manners than > a helo ever hoped to have. I seriously doubt that... > Has Mitsu given up on their V-22 design, where the entire > wing rotated, unlike the nacells on the V-22? > > Bruce ...now that's just as scary. Maybe more so. Signature- Rufus >> : Another nifty fact about it; although it can't glide land if the engines >> : quit, like a aircraft...it also can't autorotate land like a helicopter [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >....now that's just as scary. Maybe more so. it ain't gonna fly, wilbur! :> I am sure the V-22 can glide if it is in flight configuration. : : No, it can't glide in a true sense - it has to "auto-rotate : forward"... Reference, please. It was a fixed wing. It will glide, for some suitable definition of "glide", so long as there is air passing over the wing and generating lift. Now, if you are saying that the V-22 will auto-rotate, I will agree. Like a helo, it has to have a certain amount of altitude and/or airspeed to make that happen, however. :> Besides - helos don't autorotate below a certain altitude/ :> airspeed either. : : A helo has to maintain forward speed to auto-rotate. That is what I said. If you don't have the altitude and/or airspeed in a helo (or any aerocraft), you merely impact. Some times, airspeed and altitude don't do you diddly - re Challenger and Columbia. : The problem is that you can't land the thing with the rotors tilted, and : if the cross-shafting is damaged it's all over anyway...engines running : or not. Reference on the "can't land with the rotors titled", please. What I can find is that the pilot must make a very fast determination on whether to attempt to enter an auto-rotation state, or attempt to glide to a landing. Given that emergencies, by their nature, require a very prompt decision by the pilot, I don't see this a being a unique situation (the prompt decision requirement). I expect Harrier pilots make the same decision should the Pegasus engine decide to go on holidays.... :> I also expect the V-22 has much better ditching manners than :> a helo ever hoped to have. : : I seriously doubt that... Shrug. If the rotar/hubss snap off as designed, it will be safer that attempting to ditch a turbofan aircraft with engines under the wings (just about all large cargo and passenger aircraft). And given that the weight and balance of a helo is all very high on the airframe, I stand by my statement. :> Has Mitsu given up on their V-22 design, where the entire :> wing rotated, unlike the nacells on the V-22? : : ...now that's just as scary. Maybe more so. The only guarantee you can be sure of in an aerocraft is that it WILL return to earth at some point in the future. At other times, there just does not exist a market for the aerocraft after all - re Beechcraft Starship. Leading edge design, but too expensive and perhaps too ahead of its time. Bruce Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX. - Thuganlitha The Power and the Prophet Robert Don Hughes > :> I am sure the V-22 can glide if it is in flight configuration. > : [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > some suitable definition of "glide", so long as there is air > passing over the wing and generating lift. Reference - I'm a degreed aeronautical engineer. The V-22 does not have enough surface area to sustain a true glide the way a fixed-wing aircraft can. > Now, if you are saying that the V-22 will auto-rotate, I will > agree. Like a helo, it has to have a certain amount of altitude > and/or airspeed to make that happen, however. Yes - but when you figure the ability to tilt the rotors I'm not really certain what "auto-rotate" actually means for V-22. Any component of tilt robs from the lift vector, and so the optimum auto-rotation tilt should be 0 or 90 degrees...however they measure it wrt vertical. The possibilities for failure modes are far more numerous compared to a standard helo...have no idea how they drive the tilt - hyd, electric, pneumatic...or what systems there are to fail, or cascade failures. Only know I've seen film of what happens when the thing gets squirrelly in ground effect - it ain't pretty. > :> Besides - helos don't autorotate below a certain altitude/ > :> airspeed either. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > times, airspeed and altitude don't do you diddly - re Challenger > and Columbia. Mostly it's a matter of forward speed, and maintaining blade rotational energy. Altitude has little to do with it other than determining how fast you need to get the thing down - gross weight at time of failure is a bigger concern. The trick it to save enough rotational energy to convert forward speed to vertical lift somewhere near impact...er, touchdown. > : The problem is that you can't land the thing with the rotors tilted, and > : if the cross-shafting is damaged it's all over anyway...engines running > : or not. > : > Reference on the "can't land with the rotors titled", please. Thats pretty obvious, if you've ever seen one in operation...as I have. The rotor radius simply grossly exceeds the height of the rotors from the ground. Given that the aircraft will need to pitch down to maintain forward speed, I'd say the rotors couldn't be tilted much more than about 5 degrees without running the risk of a blade strike during a flared landing. And again, the specific mode of failure is a critical factor. > What I can find is that the pilot must make a very fast determination > on whether to attempt to enter an auto-rotation state, or attempt to > glide to a landing. Given that emergencies, by their nature, require > a very prompt decision by the pilot, I don't see this a being a unique > situation (the prompt decision requirement). A V-22 won't "glide". Period. It will need to auto-rotate in some sense, and I'm not interested in being an eye-witness to that... > I expect Harrier pilots make the same decision should the Pegasus > engine decide to go on holidays.... Harriers, OTOH, are something I know a great deal about. They don't glide very well either. Most serious Harrier engine failures are catastrophic...you either elect to eject, or to do a conventional landing. Not much more to consider than that. If you have the capacity to VL, you don't have an engine emergency...and even then, you will be limited by temperature, gross weight, or a combination of the two determining if you have the margin to VL - just like a helo's ability to hover is limited. Source of info: NATOPS. > :> I also expect the V-22 has much better ditching manners than > :> a helo ever hoped to have. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that the weight and balance of a helo is all very high on the airframe, > I stand by my statement. What I meant was that it probably has no better ditching characteristics than any other twin-rotored helo, and that helos have far more severe ditching characteristics than any fixed wing aircraft - BECAUSE of that high CG you cite...they impact, and then turn upside down in the water. That's a fact, and what aviators train to expect. I stand by my statement. > :> Has Mitsu given up on their V-22 design, where the entire > :> wing rotated, unlike the nacells on the V-22? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bruce The Starship was discontinued because the structural aging of composites was/is not fully understood, and Beech wasn't inclined to assume the financial risk of being liable if one came apart in the air. All Starships were leased, not sold - and so Beech simply took them all back and destroyed them. All but one - which belongs to Burt Rutan, who had a hand in the design. His is the only one left flying - I'll ask him about it if I run into him again...I get to about once every few years. His brother's a hoot, too. Signature- Rufus > Mostly it's a matter of forward speed, and maintaining blade > rotational energy. Altitude has little to do with it other than > determining how fast you need to get the thing down - gross weight at > time of failure is a bigger concern. The trick it to save enough > rotational energy to convert forward speed to vertical lift somewhere > near impact...er, touchdown. Which brings up a good point; just how is this in regards to a hard landing? Our helicopters are designed to take a pretty hard landing and crush in a way that allows the crew to survive. What about troops in the back of a Osprey? There's a good chance the wings are going to snap at the junction with the fuselage when it comes down hard due to the mass of the engines at the end...then the rotors will hit the ground and shatter, throwing debris all over the place. In vertical flight mode, they've managed to recreate a helicopter layout in far smaller scale that never worked in practice, the Mil V-12: http://avia.russian.ee/helicopters_eng/mi-12.php > Harriers, OTOH, are something I know a great deal about. They don't > glide very well either. Most serious Harrier engine failures are > catastrophic...you either elect to eject, or to do a conventional > landing. Not much more to consider than that. The British took the auxiliary air turbine generator off of the Harrier, because they didn't want the pilot to even try to restart the engine if it shut down. They had instances where the pilot would try a restart without realizing just how severe the sink rate in gliding flight was and wouldn't try to eject till it was too late. > The Starship was discontinued because the structural aging of > composites was/is not fully understood, and Beech wasn't inclined to > assume the financial risk of being liable if one came apart in the air. I talked to someone who had flown one, and it had a odd problem in regards to its composite structure. The composites were a very good insulator and the heat of the cockpit avionics couldn't escape... so by the time you had been airborne for half an hour, the cockpit was over 90 degrees. Pat >> Mostly it's a matter of forward speed, and maintaining blade >> rotational energy. Altitude has little to do with it other than [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > in far smaller scale that never worked in practice, the Mil V-12: > http://avia.russian.ee/helicopters_eng/mi-12.php Yeah...the inside of a V-22 is about the same volume as an H-53, so it's a lot of mass for not so much interior space, IMO. And again, I'm pretty sure that the prospects of doing a rolling landing are minimal if not nil, so... I have some video of what happens to a V-22 during a rotor strike - it was aired on 60 Minutes some years ago, of an incident that took place on the pad at NATC. Not pretty...someone involved once told me what had actually happened during that test, but I forget what they said. >> Harriers, OTOH, are something I know a great deal about. They don't >> glide very well either. Most serious Harrier engine failures are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > without realizing just how severe the sink rate in gliding flight was > and wouldn't try to eject till it was too late. Yes - the APU on a Harrier supplies high pressure air only, and not electrics like a true APU. There is still an airstart button on the throttle in a Harrier - the fan is big enough to keep the engine rotating during engine out forward flight if you watch your airspeed. Like with all turbines, you have to be in a specific speed/altitude box to maximize chances of a successful relight. >> The Starship was discontinued because the structural aging of >> composites was/is not fully understood, and Beech wasn't inclined to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Pat That's interesting...hadn't heard that. That would certainly aggravate composite fatigue...particularly for a pressure cycled airframe. I used to see one coming into the airport at Vegas from time to time. I have to assume it's probably Rutan's bird. They land flat and hot, like most canard configured aircraft. But they sure are/were neat. Signature- Rufus >>> Mostly it's a matter of forward speed, and maintaining blade >>> rotational energy. Altitude has little to do with it other than [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >have to assume it's probably Rutan's bird. They land flat and hot, like >most canard configured aircraft. But they sure are/were neat. he the one with his own graveyard? >>>> Mostly it's a matter of forward speed, and maintaining blade >>>> rotational energy. Altitude has little to do with it other than [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >> > he the one with his own graveyard? ...interesting. Our family had it's own graveyard sometime ago. It was the subject of a legal dispute with shopping mall expansion some years back. Turned out after some extensive research that we'd quit-claim to it. Signature- Rufus On Oct 7, 11:23 pm, some...@some.domain wrote: > >>> Mostly it's a matter of forward speed, and maintaining blade > >>> rotational energy. Altitude has little to do with it other than [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > - Show quoted text - FWIW: not all Starship's were leased. I didn't know Rutan had one, but if he did he turned it in. He hired Bob Scherer to fly chase during SpaceShipOne missions. Scherer has 3 of the birds (i think) and purchased several truckloads of spares from Raytheon to keep 'em going. He was also in a documentary about the Starship on Discovery or History Channel a couple of years ago > On Oct 7, 11:23 pm, some...@some.domain wrote: >>>>> Mostly it's a matter of forward speed, and maintaining blade [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > going. He was also in a documentary about the Starship on Discovery > or History Channel a couple of years ago I didn't realize that Rutan had a hand in the design of the aircraft until some years ago - and a friend of mine that's more in the know had told me he had owned one, so it would make sense that he would hang onto it - I know I would have. Makes sense for the purchased ones...I know I used to see the odd one in Trade-a-Plane from time to time, but that was some years ago. I know Raytheon/Beech supposedly cut up the ones they took back, so spares should have been available by the truckload to the proper bidder. Signature- Rufus >> >That's interesting...hadn't heard that. That would certainly aggravate >> >composite fatigue...particularly for a pressure cycled airframe. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >going. He was also in a documentary about the Starship on Discovery >or History Channel a couple of years ago that's the one i saw. he should keep his flying for the foreseeable future. > I used to see one coming into the airport at Vegas from time to time. > I have to assume it's probably Rutan's bird. They land flat and hot, > like most canard configured aircraft. But they sure are/were neat. The aircraft is a real beauty from the aesthetic point of view; but one wonders if the extrapolation of Rutan's concept of canards/swept rear wings doesn't really work in high speed aircraft as well as it did in the VariEze. With the VariEze, he'd come up with everybody's 1950's dream... a low priced, very fuel efficient, stall proof private aircraft with a reasonable turn of speed. Almost a flying motorcycle or Volkswagen. Pat >> I used to see one coming into the airport at Vegas from time to time. >> I have to assume it's probably Rutan's bird. They land flat and hot, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Pat He came and gave a lecture for us once, and as I recall that is still his vision of the future - the ability to commute by air...air-taxi, of sorts; using small light aircraft as a mode of public transportation between short distanced hubs or rooftops. He's a really interesting guy to listen to, and you can just feel that he's a conceptual thinker far beyond most folks in the room. But if you listen to the guy he starts making sense. I asked him if he employed many model builders at Scaled Composites - his reply was that if you came to him with an idea, you better be able to build it yourself...so yes - everyone at SC is a model builder. Signature- Rufus > >> I used to see one coming into the airport at Vegas from time to time. > >> I have to assume it's probably Rutan's bird. They land flat and hot, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > -- > - Rufus Something tells me that getting your license had better be tougher than it currently is. Many folks can't handle two-dimensional maneuvring. I don't think adding another dimension will help them. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > Something tells me that getting your license had better be tougher than > it currently is. Many folks can't handle two-dimensional maneuvring. I > don't think adding another dimension will help them. > The Ercoupe was designed to be operated more like a car than a aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERCO_Ercoupe. Aerobatic it wasn't, but it was supposed to be very easy to learn to fly. I'm trying to remember if anyone made a model kit of it, as I think I saw one advertised once. Pat > > Something tells me that getting your license had better be tougher than > > it currently is. Many folks can't handle two-dimensional maneuvring. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Pat Lindberg. It was very simple and the cockpit windows were raised lines on the fuselage. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> I'm trying to remember if anyone made a model kit of it, as I think I >> saw one advertised once. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on the fuselage. > Was it Lindberg or Aurora that made quite a few small scale private aircraft? I had a Beech Twin Bonanza from someone when I was a kid. Monogram made a couple in 1/48th scale. Pat >>> I'm trying to remember if anyone made a model kit of it, as I think I >>> saw one advertised once. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Pat lindberg had a buttload of very simple kits of private ac. they are easily bashed as they are the correct shapes and dimensions. > >> I'm trying to remember if anyone made a model kit of it, as I think I > >> saw one advertised once. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Was it Lindberg or Aurora that made quite a few small scale private > aircraft? I had a Beech Twin Bonanza from someone when I was a kid. Aurora had 4 or 5 lightplane kits. Some were close to 1/48th. > Monogram made a couple in 1/48th scale. Monogram made the Cessna 180 with and without floats. The other was a Piper TriPacer, usually with two figures and a dead puma. Turning the main gear around and eliminating the nose wheel would get you almost to a Piper Pacer. Both were closer to 1/40th. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > The other was a > Piper TriPacer, usually with two figures and a dead puma. > I had that one as a kid. I knew it had some animal the hunters had bagged, but forgot what it was. Pat >> Something tells me that getting your license had better be tougher than >> it currently is. Many folks can't handle two-dimensional maneuvring. I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Pat Yes I have one. Don't rememeber the maker, it's packed away. Rough and basic, canopy is part of fuselage and therefore not clear. It looks like the pictures I suppose. Even has decals. Like the military version at Wiki, didn't know that. Gives me an idea... Frank > Yes I have one. Don't rememeber the maker, it's packed away. Rough and basic, > canopy is part of fuselage and therefore not clear. It looks like the > pictures I suppose. Even has decals. > Found some photos of the kit here: http://i18.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/bb/70/cd60_1.JPG http://i18.ebayimg.com/03/i/000/bb/70/cc8f_1.JPG I think one was also part of this series of tiny model aircraft in dual kits: http://cgi.ebay.com.hk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300144769627#ebayphotohosting http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/boxtops/lin429.jpg Pat > > Yes I have one. Don't rememeber the maker, it's packed away. Rough and basic, > > canopy is part of fuselage and therefore not clear. It looks like the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Pat I've often wondered if they were original from Lindberg or packaged from another source. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > I've often wondered if they were original from Lindberg or packaged from > another source. > Me too, they looked like something done by another manufacturer, almost like a little give-away item with a product of some sort. Detail was poor, and the rivets huge. Some relation to the Eldon "Match Kits" done in Hong Kong, Japan, or Taiwan? Pat > Me too, they looked like something done by another manufacturer, > almost like a little give-away item with a product of some sort. Wait a second here...way, way, back when I was a kid trying to avoid being eaten by dinosaurs, some candy company (or was it soap?) had models you could get if you sent in wrappers plus 10 cents per model. They had quite a few different types also. I ordered some but they never showed up. I wonder if these were related to those? There's something about ones with soap here: http://modelarchives.free.fr/archives_P/Aplane/Aplane_Bonux_K.html Pat >> Me too, they looked like something done by another manufacturer, >> almost like a little give-away item with a product of some sort. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Pat were they diverted by the baking soda 'summarines? >> I've often wondered if they were original from Lindberg or packaged from >> another source. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Some relation to the Eldon "Match Kits" done in Hong Kong, Japan, or > Taiwan? They were originally done by "Busch", a German model company I'd never heard of: http://www.oldmodelkits.com/index.php?detail=7267&cat=Military%20Aircraft&manu=L indberg That explains how the fairly obscure Bucker Jungmeister aircraft ended up as one of the kits. Busch is still in business, making model trains and cars: http://www.busch-model.com/english.htm Pat > >> I've often wondered if they were original from Lindberg or packaged from > >> another source. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Pat A 1/175th scale X-15 would fit the old Revell B-52 to a 'T'. Indeed they did produce a B-52 with an X-15 and made modifications to the wing & tail and hung a pylon and glove under the right wing. I wish I'd kept that one. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> > Yes I have one. Don't rememeber the maker, it's packed away. Rough and >> > basic, canopy is part of fuselage and therefore not clear. It looks [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. I don't think mine is in a Lindberg box. And it has to be 1.48 or thereabouts cause the kit is a fair size and the real deal is small. Frank > I don't think mine is in a Lindberg box. And it has to be 1.48 or thereabouts > cause the kit is a fair size and the real deal is small. > I think you have the large version that was a individually released kit around 1/48th scale. The little dual kit one would be around 1/100 to1/144 scale and have a span of around 2 1/2 to 3 inches if I remember them correctly, and if they actually made a set with a Ercoupe in it... I think they did, but I'm not sure. Pat > > I don't think mine is in a Lindberg box. And it has to be 1.48 or thereabouts > > cause the kit is a fair size and the real deal is small. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Pat They were in the Lindberg catalogue sometime back in the early '60s and IIRC, there is someone with catalogues online. I captured a couple images from the '65 Aurora edition. Now, how to find my way back there? Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >>>> I used to see one coming into the airport at Vegas from time to time. >>>> I have to assume it's probably Rutan's bird. They land flat and hot, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. No - not that everyone should be flying, but that flying should be accessible to everyone as a form of public transportation. Signature- Rufus >>>>> I used to see one coming into the airport at Vegas from time to time. >>>>> I have to assume it's probably Rutan's bird. They land flat and hot, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >No - not that everyone should be flying, but that flying should be >accessible to everyone as a form of public transportation. yeah, i wanna take the 8:15 helibus to the office. > >>>>> I used to see one coming into the airport at Vegas from time to time. > >>>>> I have to assume it's probably Rutan's bird. They land flat and hot, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > yeah, i wanna take the 8:15 helibus to the office. Can I buy your helibus? Too much! The Helibus! Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> >>>>> I used to see one coming into the airport at Vegas from time to time. >> >>>>> I have to assume it's probably Rutan's bird. They land flat and hot, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. it won't pass a smog. damned epa and thier no nukes on cars bullshit. >>>>>>> I used to see one coming into the airport at Vegas from time to time. >>>>>>> I have to assume it's probably Rutan's bird. They land flat and hot, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. I'd catch that bus three times a day... Signature- Rufus >>> I used to see one coming into the airport at Vegas from time to >>> time. I have to assume it's probably Rutan's bird. They land flat [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > of sorts; using small light aircraft as a mode of public > transportation between short distanced hubs or rooftops. What amazed me was the tiny size of the prop on the VariEze, it looks like something off of a oversized RC plane > He's a really interesting guy to listen to, and you can just feel that > he's a conceptual thinker far beyond most folks in the room. But if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > his reply was that if you came to him with an idea, you better be able > to build it yourself...so yes - everyone at SC is a model builder. Aviation Week had him write a article about what aircraft would be like 100 years back in 2000. He designed a tail-sitting VTOL fighter, but said that's not what military aircraft would be like at all in the future. In the future a soldier shows up with something around the size of a shoebox opens it, and around 100 things around the size dragonflies come out of it driven by nanotech jet engines. These ignore friendly forces who are carrying IFF gear, but they fly straight into the foreheads of anyone who isn't carrying IFF gear and fire a small shaped charged straight into their brain. That should scare the hell out of anyone who thinks they may be in the area. His timescale may have been off though: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10411384 Pat >>>> I used to see one coming into the airport at Vegas from time to >>>> time. I have to assume it's probably Rutan's bird. They land flat [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Pat ...maybe not: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801434.html Signature- Rufus >> That should scare the hell out of anyone who thinks they may be in >> the area. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801434.html He thought the technology was still decades away; apparently it's not. You take such a remote control insect flier, stick a little needle on the front carrying a hard-to-detect toxin, and you've got yourself a great little covert assassination weapon - particularly if it hits the target at night, and the poison doesn't take effect till hours or days later. The CIA developed a special pistol back in the 1970s to silently fire a dart shaped like a tiny desert fly into a person and transmit a deadly disease to them and kill them after a few days. If these robotic dragonflies really exist, we may have come up with something very similar to the Hunter-Seeker out of Frank Herbert's "Dune" novels. Pat >>> That should scare the hell out of anyone who thinks they may be in >>> the area. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Pat ...if you can think of it, someone's probably already done it. Or is working on doing it. When I was about six or so, I drew up a sketch (that I still have) of a boat to use to clean up oil spills - oil floats on water, so I figured why not just scoop it up? What I drew was essentially a catamaran with a v-shaped scoop in the center that would be driven into the oil slick, and then the scoop could be turned upright...water would just be drained out of the bottom of the v, and the oil could be reclaimed. Imagine my shock when I saw a fleet of just such reclamation vessels in operation off the coast of Japan on the evening news some 30 years later, a bit smaller than I had envisioned at six years old...where's my money?.. Signature- Rufus >>>> That should scare the hell out of anyone who thinks they may be in >>>> the area. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >later, a bit smaller than I had envisioned at six years old...where's my >money?.. everyday somewhere in the universe, someone is inventing gun powder. -a e van vogt, the weapon shops of isher >>>>> That should scare the hell out of anyone who thinks they may be in >>>>> the area. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > everyday somewhere in the universe, someone is inventing gun powder. > -a e van vogt, the weapon shops of isher ...or re-inventing it. Signature- Rufus >>>>>> That should scare the hell out of anyone who thinks they may be in >>>>>> the area. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >....or re-inventing it. endlessly :> Reference, please. It was a fixed wing. It will glide, for :> some suitable definition of "glide", so long as there is air [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : enough surface area to sustain a true glide the way a fixed-wing : aircraft can. Rufus, if you have been on the 'net for any length of time, you should understand why it is bad for to argue from authority. If you are an aeronautical engineer, finding a source that states the V-22 can't glide should be trivial. The problem we seem to have is that you fundimental view of the V-22 is that it is a helo, my view is that it is a v/stol airplane. A reference I found on the web indicates that the V-22 can auto-rotate, when in vertical flight configuration, much like a helo. Sorta. Maybe. When configured with the engines horizontal, the V-22 can glide. What I have not found is whether the "normal" aircraft flight controls work when the engines are rotated vertical, or more than around 45 degrees above the horizontal. That cound affect the ability of the V-22 to glide to a landing in an engine failure event. Since you are a degreed aeronautical engineer, and closely interested in the V-22, finding references should be trivial. : The possibilities for failure modes are far more numerous compared to a : standard helo...have no idea how they drive the tilt - hyd, electric, : pneumatic...or what systems there are to fail, or cascade failures. I am well aware that the more complex the system, the more that can and will go wrong. I am also well aware that duplicating systems serves to increase the number of things that can go wrong. The real question is - what is the likelyhood of such an occurance. I deal with chaos theory (specifically, not knowing your precise entry/start conditions) every day. :> <re can't land w/rotars tilted> : : Thats pretty obvious, if you've ever seen one in operation...as I have. : The rotor radius simply grossly exceeds the height of the rotors from : the ground. Bunk. The rotars are designed to shear at the hubs. This is as silly as arguing that prop driver aircraft can't belly land because the props will hit the ground. The overriding concern is to get the machine on the ground. Whether it flies again is not important at the moment. : All Starships were leased, not sold - and so Beech simply took them all : back and destroyed them. All but one - which belongs to Burt Rutan, who : had a hand in the design. His is the only one left flying - I'll ask : him about it if I run into him again...I get to about once every few : years. His brother's a hoot, too. Name dropping is also considered to be a very bad form of arguement. And, no, Burt does not own the Starship that was used as a chase plane for SpaceShipOne (N514RS), it is registered to Bob Scherer. Bruce Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX. - Thuganlitha The Power and the Prophet Robert Don Hughes > :> Reference, please. It was a fixed wing. It will glide, for > :> some suitable definition of "glide", so long as there is air [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the V-22 is that it is a helo, my view is that it is a v/stol > airplane. It damn sure ain't no airplane...and it ain't a helo either - go watch one fly. I just had two in my back yard a few weeks ago. > A reference I found on the web indicates that the V-22 can > auto-rotate, when in vertical flight configuration, much like a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > affect the ability of the V-22 to glide to a landing in an engine > failure event. That's still not a "glide" in the true sense - it's an altered auto-rotation. I still don't buy your source...I'll ask Boeing. I can do that. > Since you are a degreed aeronautical engineer, and closely > interested in the V-22, finding references should be trivial. No, I'm distinctly NOT interested in the V-22 for engineering and common sense reasons of my own. But that doesn't stop me from knowing people that are. > : The possibilities for failure modes are far more numerous compared to a > : standard helo...have no idea how they drive the tilt - hyd, electric, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with chaos theory (specifically, not knowing your precise entry/start > conditions) every day. That all depends on the system, and what it is used for. You want chaos, go study combat survivability. > :> <re can't land w/rotars tilted> > : [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > silly as arguing that prop driver aircraft can't belly land because > the props will hit the ground. Double bunk - you obviously haven't seen the crash films I've seen. And yes - it makes a big diff if the props are rotating or not, even for a prop aircraft. That's speaking as a pilot myself. > The overriding concern is to get the machine on the ground. Whether > it flies again is not important at the moment. That is true - but if the only way to get the aircraft to the ground is in pieces, you get a lot of people killed..just like they have been in this thing. And nobody was even shooting at it at he time. > : All Starships were leased, not sold - and so Beech simply took them all > : back and destroyed them. All but one - which belongs to Burt Rutan, who [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bruce Hey, you want authority, I'll give you authority. And registration and ownership are also two different matters - but I would expect the aircraft to owned by Scaled Composites. Anyway, I still think the Rutan brothers are interesting people. Signature- Rufus > Has Mitsu given up on their V-22 design, where the entire > wing rotated, unlike the nacells on the V-22? > We had a couple of those also way, way, back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_X-18 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-142.htm I once talked to a pilot in the Navy aircraft test section (he went way back to the Tripartite Evaluation Squadron that flew the Kestrels in competition with the VAK-191) His story of what happened to the Osprey was this; the tilting wing design was much superior to the swiveling engine idea, in that it increased lifting power by not having the downwash of the prop/rotors fall on top of the wing, pushing it downward, allowed easy cross shafting of the engines, and allowed the wing control surfaces be used in vertical flight for easy control of the vehicle. But after LTV-Hiller-Ryan couldn't get a production contact for the XC-142, they sold the swiveling-wing patent to Canadair, as they were working on a VTOL cargo plane idea also: http://www.exn.ca/FlightDeck/Aircraft/Milestones/cl84.cfm When it came time to compete for the V-22 contract, an attempt was made to buy back the patent from Canadair, but they realized how important it was, and quoted a sky-high figure for it. Since the Bell XV-15 had proven successful during tests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XV-15 The V-22 had its design based on it. Unfortunately, the XV-15 didn't need to have a wing that would rotate 90 degrees to lay on top of the fuselage, a folding tail, or blades on its rotors that could be folded for storage; all of which were needed for compact storage on a helicopter carrier, and the ability to fit on its elevators. So something simple turned into something very complex, and we've been paying the price for it ever since. What the test pilot was really torqued off about was the cancellation of the A-12 Avenger II; he had done a lot of work on that program, and said that it would have been a great aircraft...but with the end of the Cold War the Navy wanted to put funds elsewhere and screwed over McDonnell-Douglas and General Dynamics to free up funds for other projects by claiming the plane was no good. He was getting very close to retirement, so felt he could get away with saying stuff like that. The reason he was at the airshow was to see one of the first appearances of the MiG-29 in America and see what he thought of it from a trained test pilot's perspective, so as to figure out what its potential was in air-to-air combat. He flew in in a TA-4J with a new Navy pilot; the kid was so awed by this guy that he was almost strewing rose petals in front of him when he walked. I think his having served three combat tours in Vietnam as a Skyhawk pilot and returning to the carrier on more than one occasion with his aircraft so shot up it had to be scrapped probably helped. :-) Pat >>I also expect the V-22 has much better ditching manners than >> a helo ever hoped to have. >>Has Mitsu given up on their V-22 design, where the entire >> wing rotated, unlike the nacells on the V-22? I have seen cartoon versions of them in Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex (phew!) On Oct 2, 10:10 pm, "cr...@earthlink.net" <cr...@earthlink.net> wrote: > seems she still has lots of kinks to worry about, but she has been > sent to the front. > > Craig I think most of the negative press is political. Admittedly it is unusual for a transport to have the cutting edge technology that the Osprey has, but it IS new technology. It certainly has teething problems, but that is inherent in new tech. Look at how long the F-22 has been in development. I think when early teething problems caused a drop in funding, this was detrimental to getting the bugs out quickly. The Harrier went through very similar teething problems and IT was almost cancelled also. The CH-46 that the opponents want to just keep using is not the most reliable thing around anymore either. > On Oct 2, 10:10 pm, "cr...@earthlink.net" <cr...@earthlink.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think most of the negative press is political. > We'll find out in a big hurry when they get to Iraq. > Admittedly it is unusual for a transport to have the cutting edge > technology that the Osprey has, but it IS new technology. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > getting the bugs out quickly. > The V-22 has been in development since 1982, and is now actually going to get operationally deployed, 25 years later. To give some meaning to that, the B-29 was also a state of the art pushing program technologically, that was first promulgated in January of 1940. This program pace means that it would have been ready to bomb Japan in 1965. The V-22's development phase was longer than than many of the aircraft that have served in the U.S. inventory's entire development period and operational service life. Pat > The V-22 has been in development since 1982, and is now actually going > to get operationally deployed, 25 years later. > To give some meaning to that, the B-29 was also a state of the art > pushing program technologically, that was first promulgated in January > of 1940. This program pace means that it would have been ready to bomb > Japan in 1965. Well, need to point out that 1.5X more was spent getting the B-29 program going, than the entire Manhattan Project. The V-22 never had its 'Battle of Kansas' ** mike ** >> The V-22 has been in development since 1982, and is now actually going >> to get operationally deployed, 25 years later. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >mike >** i dunno, doesn't seem like too great of an idea. looks more like a test toy. Tilt rotor work can be said to have begun in 1953 (or even earlier) with the XV-3 built by Bell. In the 70s, the Army and NASA sponsored the development of the XV-15 which can really be thought of as the prototype for the V-22. So the development period for this aircraft can be 35-55 years, depending upon what "start date" one chooses. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XV-15 Dennis >> On Oct 2, 10:10 pm, "cr...@earthlink.net" <cr...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Pat On Oct 2, 11:10 pm, "cr...@earthlink.net" <cr...@earthlink.net> wrote: > seems she still has lots of kinks to worry about, but she has been > sent to the front. > > Craig The V-22 might have its problems, but a Time magazine article should have no influence whatsoever on one's opinions of the merits of a new weapons system. Mainstream media bias against any and all new weapons systems goes back more than 50 years and is remarkably consistent. The list of weapons systems once criticized as too expensive, too dangerous, too heavy, too big, too fast, too slow, or that allegedly just wouldn't work includes (but is not limited to) the B-52, B-1, B-2, F-14, F-15, F/A-18, F-22, F-111, C-17, AH-64, M-1, and the Nimitz class aircraft carrier. If the mainstream media had made weapons acquisition decisions over the past 50 years, B-29s, F-86s, and Shermans would now be fighting in Iraq. On the other hand, the media (and the Democrats) once loved Rumsfeld's "light, lean, and lethal" theory of warfare... you know, Humvees with TOW missiles instead of heavy armor. That worked real well. Ed > On Oct 2, 11:10 pm, "cr...@earthlink.net" <cr...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> seems she still has lots of kinks to worry about, but she has been [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have no influence whatsoever on one's opinions of the merits of a new > weapons system. Granted...but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take a look for yourself and form your own opinion. Signature- Rufus |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.