wuzak
Captain
Are they like the winglets of the current MotoGP bikes?
http://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/sv/3.65/dir/8a8/image/8a8984e3ab33feed077db5b24786c181.jpg
Aviation myths that will not die
- Thread starter fastmongrel
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Are they like the winglets of the current MotoGP bikes?
http://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/sv/3.65/dir/8a8/image/8a8984e3ab33feed077db5b24786c181.jpg
Exactly, Sheens liked a short wheelbase fast steering bike but this makes it unstable at high speed, the slats mouldings winglets whatever you call them are to hold the front end down at high speed.
Times change, Sheens bike had about 120/140 BHP now MotoGP bikes are 200+BHP they actually spend a short period of time with any weight on the front wheel.
I know about the electronics suite, the previously mentioned ACU champion (his name is Mick Crick)was involved in it and slick shifters for the Petronas team when Moto GP first started.. Pat Hennen is a name from my youth, a tragic loss to racing.
parsifal
Colonel
I suspect a grassy knoll here.....
Eh? I got interested in motorbikes at 17 years old in 1977 in 1978 Pat Hennen suffered brain damage after a crash at the Isle of Man.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
The claim b-17s being the main killer of LW fighters......it will be bogus but we can rely on any amount of conspiracy theorist like explanations to try and convince us.
B17s carried special triangular bullets in their MGs
I agree that it was a dollar short, being somewhat slower than other V-1 interceptors at the requisite altitude.
We should be careful how we judge it too late. We have the benefit of hindsight and know that the last launch sites and territory within range of London would be overrun around the same time that the M series arrived in Europe (operational might be another issue), but those developing the aircraft did not. It was too late, but how could that have been known at the time?
Cheers
Steve
We should be careful how we judge it too late. We have the benefit of hindsight and know that the last launch sites and territory within range of London would be overrun around the same time that the M series arrived in Europe (operational might be another issue), but those developing the aircraft did not. It was too late, but how could that have been known at the time?
Cheers
Steve
I have read that particularly about the hurricane, the fact is there is nothing to keep a hurricane afloat even if you do make a good job of ditching it.
Ditching a Hawker Hurricane? Not advised. The last paragraph of advice in the notes, assuming no alternative, hardly inspires confidence.
"When about to touch the water a normal banked turn, with full rudder, should be made so as to prevent 'hooking' the radiator into the water.'
Good luck with that!
Cheers
Steve
"When about to touch the water a normal banked turn, with full rudder, should be made so as to prevent 'hooking' the radiator into the water.'
Good luck with that!
Cheers
Steve
fubar57
General
The same for a P-51...
- Thread starter
- #394
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Was there any single engined bird that was safe to ditch, they all have scoops a prop and a big metal weight at the front.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Most of your USN types were capable of a relatively "smooth" ditching (if there is such a thing) over Army types.
The other advantage of the Navy's aircraft over the Army's, is that they had relatively better buoyancy, allowing for better escape where as the Army types seemed to sink before they touched the water!
One of the reasons a Navy type would set down better in the water than the Army's, is because thier Radial engined airframes lacked the coolers that tended to act like an arrestor.
Of course, this is assuming that conditions were perfect, like smooth seas, controllable aircraft, proper approach (slight nose-up attitude, gentle descent) and being in good physical condition to affect such a landing.
The Pilots' Notes for all the British singles which I have read discourage ditching in favour of abandoning the aircraft by parachute. This includes some FAA types. The one for which I don't have notes and am curious to know about is the Fairey Swordfish. Apart from the fixed undercarriage it doesn't look too bad.
Cheers
Steve
Cheers
Steve
fubar57
General
I have the Aircrew Manual for the Mk.II Steve but don't see anything about ditching. Would you like it?
Barracuda is comparatively rosy;
It should be possible to ditch the Barracuda successfully, though the landing will probably be unpleasant, as the latter half of the ditching will be made with the forward part of the aircraft covered with green water and heavy spray. ... The deceleration of the aircraft, when ditched, will be similar to that experienced when the aircraft is deck-arrested on the wires.
fubar57
General
LMAO!!!!!! I love it
GregP
Major
Ditching a Barracuda definitely improved the aesthetics of the rest of the sky. People would smile and women would sing. Food would go on sale.
If ever there was an ugly aircraft, the Barracuda was one of them. Not the ONLY one, of course. One of the worst of the lot has to be the LWS-6 Zubr.
It had Jay Leno's chin, which isn't too bad on Jay, but is the pits for an airplane. Conversely, it might be Jimmy Durante's nose instead.
If ever there was an ugly aircraft, the Barracuda was one of them. Not the ONLY one, of course. One of the worst of the lot has to be the LWS-6 Zubr.
It had Jay Leno's chin, which isn't too bad on Jay, but is the pits for an airplane. Conversely, it might be Jimmy Durante's nose instead.
Last edited:
