-
Posts
70 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Max89
-
-
I've been trying to do all my searching online. No doubt these books contain plenty of wartime photos, but I don't have any of them.
I'll have to look into buying a copy or two...
-
Does anyone have any wartime Lancaster Mk III photos that they can share? It might just be a case of me being terrible at searching for things, but for an aircraft as popular as the Lanc, I can barely find any good photos of it. The ones I do find are almost always of the surviving or museum aircraft.
I would prefer photos where the registration number of the aircraft is visible, if possible.
-
I found a drawing that hopefully makes it a little easier to identify the blisters/bulges on the Brooklyn-class cruisers.
On this drawing of the USS Savannah, the "blister" is clearly demarcated and can be seen running all the way from the first turret to the last.
- 2
-
Interesting. So a "blister" is essentially a widening of the hull to increase the ship's beam, and therefore provide additional stability, correct?
In the context of Brooklyn-class cruiser modifications, did the terms "bulges" and "blisters" refer to the same thing? Or were the bulges a separate modification?
-
I've learnt that some of the Brooklyn-class cruisers were fitted with blisters or bulges, and this leads me to two questions:
- Are "blisters" the same thing as "bulges"? I'm assuming bulges refer to anti-torpedo bulges.
- Was the USS Helena ever fitted with either blisters or bulges?
For example, here is a photo of USS Savannah with the following caption: "5 September 1944 photo as rebuilt after FX-1400 guided bomb damage off Salerno. Hull is blistered up to the main deck and her former single 5"/25 guns have been replaced with twin 5"/38s. She is also fitted with a new bridge and new light weight antiaircraft guns and arrangement of those guns. The entire Brooklyn class was planned to be so modified but this was canceled at the end of the war."
I can't really tell what they're referring to when they say "blistered up", because I can't really see anything that resembles blisters in that photo.
-
Thanks for the info, @ArnoldAmbrose.
Yes, I too think that the propeller (along with the anchor and ship bell) at the USS Helena memorial in Montana are all from CA-75, although I can't find any reputable sources to confirm that. One thing to note though is that the memorial was erected several years before CL-50's wreck was discovered in 2018.
It's a pity that the footage from RV Petrel's dive to CL-50 is hidden away. Paul Allen's team only shared a 30 second clip on YouTube where there's a shot of an outboard propeller half buried under the sea floor. There's probably a ton of useful info in that footage.
-
I'm modelling the USS Helena (CL-50) as she would've appeared during her final days before sinking, but I'm unsure of what propellers to use here.
I understand that when the ship was originally launched, she had 3-bladed props, but I also know that the ship was rebuilt/upgraded/modernized later.
Did the ship always have 3-bladed props until the end?
-
Is it just me or are the rear nozzles on the GR.3 wider than the front nozzles? I've been operating under the assumption that all four nozzles are identical in appearance.
-
I found a pretty good picture of the tailplane from an angle that avoid perspective distortion. So as Graham said, rounded at the front, then tapers at the back. See the image below.
- 1
-
Hey there,
I have some general questions about the Harrier GR.3 that I'm hoping someone here might have the answers to.
- I noticed that there are two boundary layer bleed air discharge ducts directly behind the canopy (#53 in this diagram). Are these actuated with controls to open/close/adjust them, or are they fixed?
- Does the tailplane taper out towards the end or does it end with a straight edge that's parallel to the fuselage? I've attached a crude drawing depicting top views of the tailplane, where #1 tapers out and #2 doesn't. Which is more accurate?
Thanks in advance!
-
Did all FAW 2s have this change applied, whether from the factory or through a retrofit?
-
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?
- 1
-
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.
-
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.
-
9 hours ago, 71chally said:
Definitely not boundary layer outlets, without checking I would say various engine pressure relief outlets.
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.
- 1
-
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?
-
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?
-
On 11/11/2021 at 2:10 PM, canberra kid said:
This is what it says in the pilots notes, to me it sounds like the set up on the Canberra,
7. Tailplane trim and indicator
(a) A four-way switch, at the top of the control column,
when operated fore-and-aft i.e., in line with the thumb,
provides tailplane trim. Operating the switch completes the
circuit to an electric actuator which resets the neutral
datums of the tailplane feel simulators , thus trimming the
tailplane.
(b) The position of the tail plain is shown on a TAILPLANE
indicator on the instrument panel. Two positions of the
aircraft Controls and Instruments
indicator, one marked FU and the other FD how the
trimmed position for take-off with the flap up and fl aps
down, respectively.
(c) A DUPLICATE TRIM- NOSE UP/ NOSE DOWN
switch under a flap on the port console, is provided as an
alternative control for tailplane trimming if the four-way
switch fails. Lifting the flap disconnect the electrical supply
to the fore-and-aft circuit of the four-way switch and
completes the circuits to the duplicate witch.
(d) Auto-trimming
The tailplane is automatically trimmed when the flaps are
-operated by the normal system .
John
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.
- 1
-
Off topic, but the amount of knowledge on this forum never ceases to astound me.
- 1
-
2 hours ago, KevinK said:
According to the Putnam "Supermarine Aircraft" Andrews & Morgan book, it didn't have elevators. When referring to the control system issues at high Mach numbers, they say "...increased downwash over the slab-type all-flying tailplane , that is, with no independent elevator."
Some confusion in references might arise from the fact that the Type 508 predecessor to the Type 525 Scimitar DID have an all-flying tailplane with elevators, but the 508 had a butterfly tail, the elevators giving additional pitch control.
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)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
6 hours ago, 71chally said:
They are the boundary layer air outlets, the inlets of which are just inside the main engine intakes on the inner walls of the fuselage. They don't move at at all.
There's a good view of them in that pic of '247'.
Getting back to the main question, there are no differences between an FAW.2 production machine or one that has been converted.
The hatch and canopy changes came about because the ejection seats and their operation were continuously updated and as such were modification states and not related to the aircraft Mk.
That's why converted aircraft and early production FAW.2s were seen with early style, before they were modified to later canopies/hatches and the command ejection system.
The new style bulged hatch was designed to eject right through, being frangible. It didn't have a blind, they were painted black from the inside.
The principle difference between an FAW.1 and 2 was actually the armament, the former relying on Firestreak missiles where as the latter was designed to carry Red Top. This necessitated carrying extra equipment and the extended booms were designed to house this. The opportunity was taken to add extra fuel tanks in the forward part of this booms.
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?
-
Does anyone know what these openings are (circled in red)? Were they actuated/movable or were they fixed?
Lancaster Mk III wartime photos
in Aircraft WWII
Posted
The combined Lancaster at War looks great. I found a seller in Canada and just ordered a copy.
Thank you all for the tips.