Senior Member
Hmm, it sounds plausible.. I just don't get why make it so huge? It has cables running through the two wheels that resemble blocks, but there isn't a set pattern, and it doesn't look like it's a pulley of some sort.
It is not a coat hanger rack, since you'd have to be over 3 meters tall to just reach it to unfold itPlus the random pulleys.
I think the mystery remains...
Senior Member
Member
Senior Member
I'm guessing that, with the machine guns mounted in a fixed position on front of the attacking aircraft, that's about where the attacker would have to approach from to get a shot at the plane if the pilot chose to come in from below and behind. Quite an ingenious concept indeed.Originally posted by Gathrun:
That's a rather inventive forerunner to the belly turret, if limited. I've never seen that before. I guess my lack of WWI aviation knowledge is showing.
Senior Member
I'm guessing that, with the machine guns mounted in a fixed position on front of the attacking aircraft, that's about where the attacker would have to approach from to get a shot at the plane if the pilot chose to come in from below and behind. Quite an ingenious concept actually. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by WernherVonTrapp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gathrun:
That's a rather inventive forerunner to the belly turret, if limited. I've never seen that before. I guess my lack of WWI aviation knowledge is showing.
One of the main features of the Gotha bombers.
With the fuselage tunnel , there was no necessity for a belly gunner , saving his body weight and that of his machine gun.
Another feature was the gangway which enabled pilot and gunners to switch positions or assist each other if required.
Ive just read about another innovation for airplanes which is currently in the making.
The german aerospace center DLR is developing a hydrogen fuel cell engine powered nose wheel for aircraft which will enable them to taxi without the help of those airport tugs or pushbacks or whatever you want to call them.
This means the nose wheel is not just steerable as usual but able to pull or push the airplane forwards and backwards on its own, removing the necessity for tug assistance.
Neither will they need to make use of their engines for taxiing anymore, saving kerosine and saving the diesel oil which is required for the tugs.
CO2 emissions of airports would be lowered by around 27 % if all airplanes would use such a nose wheel in the future and tugs would not be operated anymore at all. Also, taxiing would produce almost no noise anymore making airports become a lot quieter.
DLR estimates that up to 1200 hours of engine running time and between 200 and 400 liters (53 to 105 gallons) of kerosine will be saved per airplane within each year.
The fuel cell powered engine which uses hydrogen and oxygen is more energy efficient and thus burns less money than the diesel powered tugs and kerosine powered airplane engines with their respective electric generators do for the usual ground taxi procedure.
Airlines and airports would save a lot of money in the long run.
Thats the fuel cell engine
Senior Member
Celeon - have you seen something similar ?Originally posted by Celeon999:
see link below :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n95eU3yPpAE
Senior Member
Senior Member
Senior Member
With regards to the fuel cell nosewheel... And the lowered emissions...
All practical methods for making hydrogen today have a byproduct. Yes, that same CO2
From methane:
CH4 + H2O ? CO + 3 H2 + 191.7 kJ/mol
CO + H2O ? CO2 + H2 - 40.4 kJ/mol
Net result- 1 molecule of CO2 per 1 CH4
These nosewheels simply move the source of emissions from airports elsewhere.
That is not including the emissions due to heating of water to make steam used in the reaction.
Anyways...
My snow picture
