fubar57
General
Being serious for once, would the turbulence from the front wings create a problem for the center wings which in turn created more problems for the rear wings making it impossible to fly safely?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't usually call out spelling and typos, but this one is too good to resist.I looks like my grandmother put wings on her trailer.
Being serious for once, would the turbulence from the front wings create a problem for the center wings which in turn created more problems for the rear wings making it impossible to fly safely?
I would love to see a wind tunnel test with smoke on that design. Bet it creates all kinds of odd patterns! But to answer your question I have no idea.Being serious for once, would the turbulence from the front wings create a problem for the center wings which in turn created more problems for the rear wings making it impossible to fly safely?
I'd like to see a wind tunnel test of Gustav Whitehead's design that supposed to have flown before the Wright Brothers..
While that Folland isn't nearly as ugly as some that came before it this thread, I have to admit it is less than the best-looking single engine bomber ever built.
I'm not too sure how anyone expected an operational aircaft of the time to get by with fixed landing gear ... but it does look better than the Barracuda. Then again, so does the north end of a southbound donkey.
According to Winkle it was faster too!Looks like a more streamlined and robust design than the Barracuda.
While I can only agree that the French win the "Ugly Bomber" competition hands down I do feel the Brits did their best.
How about the Folland Frightful
From the people though brought us the Spitfire, the Supermarine Type 322 "Dumbo".
.