Best Jet of WW2?

Best Jet of WW2?

  • Me262

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Gloster Meteor

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bell P-59 Aircomet

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • He162

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ar234

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Me-163

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yokosuka Ohka

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • P-80

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes but I still failed. I'm normally good with US Helicopter designations.
 
I pretty much know most of them. When I was younger my father went to the US Army Flight School at Fort Rucker and became a UH-1H Huey pilot. We lived there for several years and I used to go to the US Army Aviation Museum there and look at all the helicopters. They have pretty much everything that they flew and even a lot of the experimental aircraft that never made it. Then after we left there I used to go to work with him and put his flight helmet on and sit in the Hueys and pretend to fly them. By the time I was 8 I could tell you which type it was just by the sound of the engines and blades. Now that I am in the army and flying Blackhawks I still get to keep up with it pretty much.
 
I have a whole library on aviation in my house but I still dont know everything. It would probably take me a lifetime to learn everything but it is all very interesting to me and I enjoy learning what I can.
 
What I think is interesting in Helo tech right now is the move to thrust vector tails instead of rotors. This appears to be much superior in many ways.

=S=

Lunatic
 
You mean NOTOL, right? Or something like that. The Police Helicopter for South Yorkshire has that.
 
plan_D said:
You mean NOTOL, right? Or something like that. The Police Helicopter for South Yorkshire has that.

NOTAR. It means (literally) "NO TAil Rotor". Evidently most of the noise from a conventional chopper comes from the rotor.

I saw a report on these on Discovery Wings (now "the military channel") and they appear to be superior in almost every way to rotor designs, and much quieter. These are the only kind of helo's allowed inside the Grand Canyon because of the noise levels.

Here is a very nice web page on NOTAR choppers:

http://www.kulikovair.com/Notar.htm

=S=

Lunatic
 

You are 100% correct. That is the main reason behind it. I am not sure too much about the tail thrust that comes with the NOTAR or the fan tail helos but I do know that the major disadvantage from earlier experiments with it was the lower tail thrust that you would get from it, but obviously they were able to get past that problem. Noise is the biggest problem with a conventional tail roter and no matter what you do with it whether you tilt it or put the blades at a 45 degree angel instead of a 90 degree angle like the Apache it will not reduce the noise signifigantly because of the fact that the the rotor wash from the main blades beats the wash from the tail blades which in turn causes the greater then wanted noise. NOTAR takes care of that problem because there is not wash from the blades since they are not there.

Plan_D said:
Yes, and it's extremely simple. Amazing they didn't think of it earlier.

They have actually been toying around with it and experimenting with it since the 1960's. One of the earliest aircraft to successfully employ the NOTAR system was MD-500 varients.
 
Here is a history and some examples:


And excuse me I stand corrected I said that they have been toying with it since the 1960's. The idea actually began in the 1940's but it was not until 1975 that the program was really started.
 

Attachments

  • notar.jpg
    16.3 KB · Views: 983
More powerful turbines with more available exahaust thrust and improvements in non-turbulent thrust vectoring technology were needed to make NOTAR's effective. Obviously, you need to be able to vary the thrust in a very controlled manner regaurdless of engine power output levels.
 
Last night on THC there were two documentaries. "Secret weapons of the Allies" and "Secret weapons of the Soviets".

They showed that the Mig-15 did not derive from German jet technology, it was in the works in the early 40's and they already knew about swept wings. The Russians actually had quite a jet engine project going, they just lacked the necessary alloys to make a viable combat unit till after the war.

Likewise, they showed Northrop designs that used swept wings (mostly forward edge swept but rear edge not so much) as early as 1942. Lockheed's first jet design even had an afterburner designed into it! (but was never built, it was considered too complicated and the F-80 was designed to be easier to build).



=S=

Lunatic
 
I watched both of those programs... That Russian Jet back in 1942 was pretty cool.... Finding out that at close to the speed of sound, there is a pressure buildup on the front intakes.... Killed the Test Pilot and they cancelled the project.....

Thats fast.... They said it was the fastest thing in the air during WWII....
 
well sad for the Soviets they did not have an operational jet during the war so how could the rocket fighter designed by them be the fastest thing in WW 2. by the way German techs had developed swept and foreward wing desings in the 1930's.....I've got copies of the records....helps to work for the gov
 

Interesting...I thought the fastest thing in WW2 was the Bereznyak-Isayev BI-1 Rocket plane, which was also in 1942. Or are we actually talking about the same thing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread