Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
johnbr , last image on the bottom of Post #2: Is it my imagination or is that engines spinner and exhaust cone a bit on the long side?
Probably true, but, I did do some basic searching (hard as that may be to believe), and from what I've found, the engine is kind of long. I've trimmed off a bit for basic figuresLooks like it's a cutaway from Look and Learn magazine - never intended to be 'accurate' I would expect.
And yet, the only two real problems with the design was that it wasn't area ruled and the engines weren't powerful enough: The first was fixed with the F-102A; the second I'm not sure, the J73 was powerful enough, but it was somewhat larger in diameter and heavier.This is not quite as crazy as was the USN's Sea Dart.
And yet, the only two real problems with the design was that it wasn't area ruled and the engines weren't powerful enough: The first was fixed with the F-102A; the second I'm not sure, the J73 was powerful enough, but it was somewhat larger in diameter and heavier.
I'm curious what was wrong with the concept other than the idea of operating supersonic aircraft off water instead of carrier decks or land-bases?Oh, I don't think there were problems with the design, so much as the basic concept.
I'm curious what was wrong with the concept other than the idea of operating supersonic aircraft off water instead of carrier decks or land-bases?
That said, there were aircraft prior to that point that operated off of water. The arrangement that had a pair of ski's wasn't too bad.Operating supersonic aircraft off water instead of carrier decks or land bases was enough.
The tail-sitter had some serious flaws. Ironically, transitioning from vertical to level flight wasn't that hard to do -- the problem was reversing the process.There were some wacky ideas in the 1950s; see XFY-1 and XFV-1 (https://vertipedia-legacy.vtol.org/vstol/wheel.htm); the Sea Dart wasn't the worst.