Exactly. The S6B has no need for a forward view, since the opposition must clearly be behind it...Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">EDIT: Wow, man the view out of that Supermarine S6B is BAD!![]()
Sadly, this philosophy, though useful for a plane that used the Solent as an airfield, proved a little embarrassing later when tried with wheels. Though the Hurricane may have not matched the Spitfire in elegance (or many other things), it did at least enable you to see which county you were landing in...
Having said that, the Spitfire does seem to have a unique two-stage braking system. The first stage applies maximal force to the wheels, and if that doesn't stop you, the prop digging into the turf usually does.
How anyone can fail to see the utter perfection of an aircraft that has built in stowage for a pipe and tobacco, I really don't understand... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lol okey, wea givva points for tha tobbaco
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
The Spitfire is too effete and nansy pansy girly for a warbird ....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
Nothing beats delta wings:
Holy heck thats taking it to the extreme!
I'm not even going to dignify that with a reply, WTE_G. I can make one of those from a sheet of foolscap paper - and it will probably fly better.![]()
Going back to Italian design, regardless of what you think of their aircraft, they do seem to have designed some of the best instrument panels - The Fiat G 50 being a case in point. Practical considerations seem to have necessitated putting the flaps and undercarriage operating levers adjacent to each other. The Italians found a way to minimise any possibility of confusion:
![]()
The initial prototype was plagued by hydraulic problems and panel seperation at speed and had inherent stability issues over Mach 3.0 but all of that was fixed in the second prototype.Originally posted by AndyJWest:
I'm not even going to dignify that with a reply, WTE_G. I can make one of those from a sheet of foolscap paper - and it will probably fly better.![]()
The second prototype was able to maintain sustained flight at over mach 3 without the heat issues that plagued other designs like the SR71. Prototype 2 was lost because it was hit by a F104 that got too close during a photoshoot, no fault of the Valkyrie at all.
The project was subject to an extensive panning in the press as part of one of those regular cost cut campaigns the Americans indulge in occasionally. A lot of the criticism was politically motivated. Much like the later supersonic version of the B1 bomber it was eventually cancelled as too expensive compared to other options.
Now i think the most beautiful plane is clearly ignored!
It clearly can't be a sissyfireor a product made by british designers
and for shure not a american mass-production model.
![]()
It must have clear lines, be streamlined, it must express it's purpose.
One of the of the most feared predators is the shark, when you look at this beauty you see a hunting shark, prowling the skies for prey.
![]()