Jump to content

ChocolateCrisps

Members
  • Posts

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

ChocolateCrisps's Achievements

New Member

New Member (2/9)

40

Reputation

  1. Tim Mason's The Cold War Years: Flight Testing at Boscombe Down 1945-1975 mentions that the Washington was one of two aircraft to serve in British use in that period never tested by the A&AEE, (the other being the Skyraider). That suggests to me that it had no equipment modifications for British use, so would therefore probably have only been able to use US weapons.
  2. Looks great, hopefully this colour technology will reach desktop printers within the next few years! It will be interesting to see how it compares to other printers in terms of print quality though - some pictures of the output seem to suggest a slightly more grainy texture than we see with current resin printers, which could be a limitation of the technique they use for the colour. And I really can't see the reason for all the complaints. As someone who has often bought pre-built models, I'm glad that there will potentially be more scope for them in the future, getting good ones of interesting subjects can be a right faff. Similarly, as someone who enjoys building kits, all that this technology means is that there are now more options - smaller manufacturers who maybe couldn't afford to injection mould are already starting to come on to the market with 3D printed goods, which means more kits available, not less! But perhaps most importantly, as someone who has at least started playing around with CAD in the hopes of one-day printing my own models, I can't stand this idea that 3D printing will take all the creativity out of the hobby - it just moves some of the creative input a stage upstream, for those of us who prefer screaming at our computers when they break things than we do our fingers!
  3. I'm possibly misunderstanding this somewhat, but I often see this tossed around - and isn't it exactly what tanks did end up being used for in the successful Western Front Campaigns of late WWII?
  4. Not sure if it helps much but one of my go-tos for questions like this is the RAF Museum's Collection site. Searching 'Rocket 60lb' on there bought up quite a number of warheads, but this generally seems to be how they've classified the two shown in the Eduard kits: I hope that helps!
  5. We've all seen your 3D Printed Aircraft - why not just CAD the entire Fleet Air Arm (how hard can it be?) and downscale them all slightly so they'll fit on one shelf?
  6. There's two very big problems with that approach though. The first is - what are the technologies for the next war? Historically, the nations that have often had the 'latest' technologies that all the cool kids will be using in the next war have not necessarily been the ones to actually win that war! And the second - even if it were possible to agree on what the technology for the next war will be (and that's a big if), can you ever get all your neighbours not only to agree on it, but to agree to share the work on it with you? It's all very well saying how much cheaper everything would be if we put all development in the hands of the Germans or the French, but we have had a fair few wars with them over the years, and we'd be in a rather uncomfortable situation if we ended up on the opposite side of a conflict to the people who were not only building our weapons, but were the only people on the continent left who knew how to build them...
  7. Where are you getting this from? They've been given a three year contract to develop the basic concept - from their website it doesn't seem like their plan is anything other than going on to actually produce the design after that, provided it seems feasible. "With a view to full-scale production, the AERALIS project has the scope to directly create over 200 new UK high-value design and manufacturing jobs, supporting a further 3800 in the UK supply chain." That sounds to me like they're planning to make something! And regarding the Defence Review - given the timing of the contract, I suspect that this is something which is going to be funded as a result of the Review, not cancelled by it!
  8. @WrathofAtlantis Thank you for the thorough explanation, that's very interesting! I can see why you'd say that the science is lacking in this area - as you rightly say, the effect of propeller flow interactions on aircraft have not been very thoroughly studied, but you're also combining that with intense manuevers, which are possibly the most difficult flight conditions to model even now, on account of the complex and unsteady flows going on. It's not entirely related but you may find it interesting if you haven't already seen it - the Whirlwind Fighter Project came to some interesting conclusions about the impacts of propeller behaviours on flight performance for the Westland Whirlwind - and that was another example of what seems to have been the right answer being entirely missed by science at the time!
  9. @WrathofAtlantis Thanks for the thorough reply! What's really got me confused is the turn rate values you mention early on. I'd have fully understood it if, when test pilots came to talk tactics, they were at odds with operational pilots. In this case though, (if I haven't misunderstood), you're saying that actual empirical test data was at odds with what was seen in combat, right? I simply cannot see how that can plausibly be the case, at least without there being some other factor that hasn't been considered. A test pilot's biases may cause some of the tactical conclusions they draw to be incorrect, but they won't have any impact on their ability to pull on the stick and record the time an aircraft takes to turn! I can only see the results being different if either the aircraft being tested were different in some way, or the test data being quoted was recorded in different conditions (speed, altitude, etc.) to the actual combat scenarios.
  10. Could you expand a little more on this please? I've tended to find test reports far more useful than combat ones, so I was just wondering where the problems lie, and what the cause is? Thanks!
  11. I have to be honest, I was sort of working on the basis that as they clearly still owned the things they might have at least used them occasionally!
  12. Seems like quite a good idea to me. AERALIS seem to be very much comparing the idea to the aircraft 'families' seen in the airliner industry, which as far as I'm aware do a reasonable job of keeping costs down across design and production, as well as keeping spare parts supply as simple as possible. It doesn't particularly seem to me to be as new an idea as they're suggesting though! The Spitfire was available with different engines and wings for different roles all the way back in WWII, and more recent military aircraft have similarly tried the common airframe approach to producing aircraft for different roles, with varying levels of success. I suppose the success or failure of the idea will really depend on how much thought they've put into it - if they do keep the design simple and don't try to push it too far, I can see it being quite an effective approach, but if they get carried away it could be a different story! Would you mind explaining this a bit more please? I'm probably just being thick, but I can't quite figure out how those two aren't mutually exclusive!
  13. Thanks Selwyn, that's just the kind of info I was after! I'd seen the crashed RAF GR3 pic before; the problem is that that seems to be the only photo of a Harrier with the 2" pods on the internet (that I can find, at least), despite them being Royal Navy weapons!
  14. I wasn't aware of that, so that narrows it down a little, thanks! As for searching, I've just been searching for "Sea Harrier Rocket pods", and I don't seem to be having much luck! Even just knowing how many pods could be carried and where would be better than nothing, but while there seem to be plenty of sites which say the Sea Harrier could mount "Rocket Pods" (many of which do further misidentify them as the Matra 68mm ones), they don't give any useful detail, and in general there seems to be far less out there for rockets than for any of the other weapon fits.
  15. Hey all, I've been scouring the internet for pics of SHARs with rocket pods for a few days now, but so far I've drawn a blank. I know they must have used the RN 2" pods, and I know that the Kinetic kit has a set of Matra pods on a double pylon of some kind, but I can't find any shots of the actual fit on an actual aircraft! I'd appreciate it if anyone had any pics or at least knows a little more about the fit. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...