Author Topic: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion  (Read 3509 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Mossie

  • Twiglet doctor
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 13431
  • Don't laugh at his mule
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #105 on: March 21, 2019, 04:51:37 am »
Grown up version of the Rovers from The Prisoner?
I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

Offline joncarrfarrelly

  • Bertie Bassett
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 7020
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #106 on: March 21, 2019, 12:35:23 pm »
Self erecting VATOL FW 860, perhaps something similar for a tail-sitting Flapjack.







"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Online Scotaidh

  • Makes own decals
  • ***
  • Posts: 539
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #107 on: March 23, 2019, 06:52:15 am »
I've looked, and I don't see anyone making one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer_Channel_Wing 

Would these would be allowed?  The wing-shape is anything but conventional, even though it uses conventional means to generate lift ...
"We're all here because we're not all there."

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • Moderator
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 29548
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #108 on: March 24, 2019, 02:52:05 am »
Within the (extremely wide.... :o) terms of reference of this GB I'm sure a Channel Wing would be allowable, but I'll consult with my fellow mod.
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline zenrat

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 14900
  • Currently on double secret probation.
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #109 on: March 24, 2019, 03:26:34 am »
I've looked, and I don't see anyone making one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer_Channel_Wing 

Would these would be allowed?  The wing-shape is anything but conventional, even though it uses conventional means to generate lift ...

Its a nice idea but I wouldn't know where to even begin building u shapes with an aerofoil section.
Fred

Another ill conceived, lazily thought out, crudely executed and badly painted piece of half arsed what-if modelling muppetry from zenrat industries.

Offline NARSES2

  • Nick was always on his mind - just ask the Pet Shop Boys
  • Global Moderator
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 37051
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #110 on: March 24, 2019, 07:35:55 am »
Within the (extremely wide.... :o) terms of reference of this GB I'm sure a Channel Wing would be allowable, but I'll consult with my fellow mod.

Which Kit has done and we have agreed it's a goer  :thumbsup:
Decals my @r$e!

Offline joncarrfarrelly

  • Bertie Bassett
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 7020
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #111 on: April 11, 2019, 01:40:26 pm »
Don't forget this work around for yer conventional flying machines.  :wacko: :thumbsup:



"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Offline joncarrfarrelly

  • Bertie Bassett
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 7020
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #112 on: April 11, 2019, 01:59:39 pm »
I added some Gloster VTOL stuff to my old Gloster topicc:
http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,16717.msg841160.html#msg841160

A teaser:


"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • Moderator
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 29548
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #113 on: April 11, 2019, 02:03:44 pm »
An EIGHTEEN engined Meteor?  :o :o :o

The mind not only boggles, it almost explodes at the very idea! Can you imagine the fuel system?! And how long would it fly for, 2 minutes?  :o
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline joncarrfarrelly

  • Bertie Bassett
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 7020
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #114 on: April 11, 2019, 02:23:19 pm »
"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Offline joncarrfarrelly

  • Bertie Bassett
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 7020
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #115 on: April 11, 2019, 02:24:24 pm »
An EIGHTEEN engined Meteor?  :o :o :o

The mind not only boggles, it almost explodes at the very idea! Can you imagine the fuel system?! And how long would it fly for, 2 minutes?  :o

 ;D ;D

Tethered flights only, the tether being a fuel hose.  ;D :wacko:
"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • Moderator
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 29548
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #116 on: April 11, 2019, 02:49:55 pm »
And that B-P airliner has THIRTY EIGHT engines!  :o

I'm not sure the designers were thinking straight back then............. :banghead:

That's nearly one engine per passenger!
« Last Edit: April 11, 2019, 02:52:51 pm by PR19_Kit »
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline Weaver

  • I'm either dumb or evil - you decide.....
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 16657
  • Has a life outside What-If that is also What If
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #117 on: April 11, 2019, 04:34:08 pm »
And that B-P airliner has THIRTY EIGHT engines!  :o

I'm not sure the designers were thinking straight back then............. :banghead:

That's nearly one engine per passenger!

Don't think it does actually. It's not clear for the P.141, but that whole series of proposals used air-driven lift fans in addition to vectored-thrust cruise engines, so many of those 'engines' in the drawing are just fans. The real engines are in the pods under the wings - not sure what's going on with the tip pods though.

The funny thing about safety in the hover is that the safest options are at the extremes: either one engine or lots and lots. If a single engine fails, then at least the aircraft falls 'flat' with no pitch or roll moments, and properly designed undercarriage gets a chance to reduce the impact forces to survivable levels. If you have lots and lots of engines on the other hand, then the failure of one is such a small proportion of the total thrust that the craft only (at most) sinks slowly and any pitch/roll moment created is well within the capabiltiy of the RCS to correct. The dangerous configurations are that that have a small number of (but more than one) unlinked lift engines: in that case the loss of thrust is a significant proportion of the total, and the pitch/roll asymmetry is likely to be outside what the RCS can handle.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2019, 04:40:24 pm by Weaver »
Neophyte: Is Eris true?
Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
Neo: Even false things?
MtY: Even false things are true.
Neo: How can that be?
MtY: I don't know man, I didn't do it.
Principia Discordia

Twitter: @hws5mp
www.minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • Moderator
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 29548
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #118 on: April 11, 2019, 05:27:37 pm »
And you really do need lots and LOTS to get over the failure likelihood problem. With many engines the MTBF (Mean time between failures) issue comes to the fore as it's more likely that one will fail, the greater number there are.
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline Tophe

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 15176
    • my what-if models
Re: The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means GB - Discussion
« Reply #119 on: April 11, 2019, 07:39:30 pm »
Years ago, I decided that the Boulton-Paul P.141, with its code like the Bv-141, must be asymmetric:
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]