Jump to content

Max89

Members
  • Posts

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Max89

  1. Did all FAW 2s have this change applied, whether from the factory or through a retrofit?
  2. I learnt today that the "chin blisters" on the Sea Vixen were initially used for retractable rocket launchers, but were later repurposed on the FAW 2 to house gas canisters used to cool the Red Tops (picture below). Can someone confirm if this is accurate? When did this change take place? Also, did all aircraft that were built as FAW 2 come from the factory with these gas canisters in place of the rocket launchers? Or was this always a retrofit?
  3. Does anyone know where I can find high resolution photos of A-10A Thunderbolts in the 1980s? The only requirement I have is that the tail number should be clearly visible, including the first two digits which are typically in smaller font.
  4. Does anyone know why the vertical stabilizers on A-10A 76-0540 look different compared to all other aircraft of its type? It almost looks as if the bottom of the vertical stabilizers are "clipped". You should be able to see this in the attached photo on the left. Here's the source of the image: https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air-Force/Fairchild-A-10A-Thunderbolt-II/185519 The funny thing is that if you look up earlier pictures of that same aircraft when it was in service, it has normal looking stabilizers.
  5. I see. I'm also wondering if any of the outlets circled in red could be opened and closed. If they could be closed, I can just smooth them out in my 3d model instead of actually modelling in the outlets. This is the only diagram I've been able to find, but sadly it's all in Russian. Not much use in translating it either because the image is cropped.
  6. Another question about the openings on the back of the fuselage, lol. What are the openings circled in red in the image below? Are they all boundary layer outlets as well?
  7. Does anyone know if the boundary layer bleed "vents" on the Supermarine Scimitar (if that is the correct term) could be opened and closed from the cockpit? I have these circled in red in the diagram below. And a slightly more complicated question... what benefit do these provide? And why were they positioned above the engine intakes in this manner?
  8. I don't see anything in these pilots notes suggesting the presence of elevators, trim tabs, flaps or any other movable control surface on the tailplane. As 71chally says, it sounds like trimming was done by moving the entire tailplane slab and holding it in position.
  9. Off topic, but the amount of knowledge on this forum never ceases to astound me.
  10. Thank you for the information. I assume that rules out the presence of flaps on the Scimitar's tailplane as well (similiar to the Blackburn Buccaneer's tailplane flaps)?
  11. To add to my original post, I found a cutaway for the Scimitar, and I don't really see anything on this diagram that suggests the presence of elevators or flaps on the tailplane.
  12. It appears that the Supermarine Scimitar F.1 had an all moving tailplane, but I can also see lines on the tailplane surface suggesting the presence of elevators (highlighted in red below). Did the Scimitar actually have movable elevators, or am I just looking at panel lines? There's also a little snippet on Wikipedia that suggests the aircraft had elevators that worked in tandem with the moving tail, but I don't see any sources or mentions of that anywhere else.
  13. Interesting. Would XS590 have been a late production FAW.2? And would it have rolled off the production line with the updated canopy, hatch and extended booms already included?
  14. Does anyone know what these openings are (circled in red)? Were they actuated/movable or were they fixed?
  15. So the "wing modification programme" was just to repair the wings? I'm assuming the wing shape and appearance would have remained mostly the same then, Was anything else done for "mod 9" besides the wing reinforcement plates?
  16. I'm looking at the history for F.6 XS925, and I noticed that in Nov '84 the aircraft was sent to a "wing modification programme". A few months later in Feb '85 it was upgraded by British Aerospace to extend airframe flying hours by 400 hours. Does anyone know the details behind the wing modifications of Nov '84 and upgrades of Feb '85? What did they do? And were there any externally visible differences? The museum accession containing more information on this aircraft is right here: https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/collections/1990-0690-A-LIGHTNING-F.6-XS925.pdf
  17. It is indeed really odd that the EE Lightning had a fixed/immovable cone. I would've thought that this was a necessity for any aircraft that exceeded mach 1. Was this the case for all variants?
  18. I've come to learn that the inlet cone was actually movable on many cold war aircraft, and that it'd move forward or backward depending on the airspeed. Did any of the Lighting variants have a movable cone? Or was it fixed/immovable?
  19. Quite educational indeed! Okay, so just to make sure I'm on the same page... do I have this right?
  20. Thank you all for the information. I also just realized that I've been using incorrect terminology all along. I see that the part I was referring to is called the horizontal stabilizer, not the elevator. I understand now that "elevator" only refers to the movable control surface attached to the horizontal stabilizer.
  21. Ok, so now I know what it's called. Anyone have closeup pictures of where the tailplane attaches to the fuselage?' I'm trying to figure out how to model this correctly in 3D. Should I attach the fins to the tailplane at an angle? Or the tailplane to the fuselage at an angle? Was this adjustable on the real aircraft?
  22. I noticed that in many diagrams and pictures of the B-24, the rudders seem to be pointing upwards at a slight angle. I'm trying to figure out where this angle comes from. Are the rudders mounted to the elevator at an angle, or is it the elevator that's mounted to the fuselage at an angle? Or is it both? It's really difficult to tell by looking at the diagrams, and I don't have many useful pictures of the tail to go by, especially ones that show where the elevator and rudders attach. Take a look at the attached image. Any ideas?
  23. I know that only one prototype was completed because the manufacturer never got any orders for the 105, but does anyone know about the fate of that particular prototype? Also, was the GT7 105mm gun on the prototype actually functional? Details and photos here: http://www.military-today.com/artillery/rooikat_105.htm
  24. Some very good pictures there, thanks. So both lamps look like they were meant for ID only... which means they probably weren't retractable. I wonder why the drawing I referenced in my previous post labels that as a retractable landing lamp. Strange.
  25. Are you sure about this? I found a drawing of the FB.11 where the lamp under the right wing is labelled as a "retractable landing lamp". I couldn't find this drawing with a larger font so it is a little difficult to read, but I'm fairly certain that this is what it says. If it actually was retractable on either one or both wings, then I wonder if it would have dropped/retracted automatically with the landing gear, or whether it was controlled separately.
×
×
  • Create New...