The P-38s manufactured for the Britons were missing a very vital (and "top secret") feature. American P-38 propellers spun in opposite directions, cancelling out adverse torque. The U.S. government didn't want British P-38s to fall into German hands with this vital technology, so Lockheed was ordered to produce the English planes with engines that spun in the same direction. This single feature made the English P-38s a nightmare to fly. They cancelled the order.
If you'll look at the Twin Mustang above, notice the pitch of the props. They turn in opposite directions, just like the P-38.
posted
Aha! Found more! The Centurion (which I mistook for the Dark Star earlier) actually has 2 larger cousins already built! The Pathfinder and Pathfinder Plus, both nearly double the size of the Centurion.
And one more thing....is it just me, or does the Constellation look like one of those weiner dogs with a big black nose? And wings...
posted
It took some searching but I found an image of the Have Blue:
If you click on the picture you will find a very brief and uninformative page about the have blue consisting of that picture and an article about 1 short paragraph long.
--Baloo
------------------ Getting motion sickness riding the emotional rollercoaster. [URL=http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/]www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited September 30, 1999).]
posted
Yes I remember the "Flight of the Phoenix." They took the two-engined plane and made it into a Skyraider. At least that is what it was in the scenes showing it flying.
posted
Wings going 10m up and 5m down? While that's probably o.k. from the viewpoint of engineering, I feel already a bit uneasy about the wings of a 747 flexing between 1.5m or 2m up.
It's been a while since I last saw it but now that you say it I believe it could be a Skyraider. Or a plane exactly looking like a Skyraider albeit not being one which takes us back to the original topic...
posted
It's more likely that they made the plane seen in Flight of the Phoenix from an old AT-6 trainer (WW II vintage). There were more of them and they could rather easily have acquired 10-20 for the price of a Skyraider (since I think they were still being manufactured at around that time).
I have a friend who was a young man in the Navy, stationed in San Diego when they were filming Tora, Tora, Tora. He helped modify the planes that stood in for the A6M Zeros (and/or some of the other planes). He says that they were fairly easy to modify and that the FAA had already approved a similar modification for another movie already, so they could make the physical changes and fly them under the other certification specifications.
He also says that the modification had them shortening the exhaust stack by so much that a 3-foot flame shot out of the stack. They had to install a heat shield on the aircraft to prevent it from incinerating itself.
posted
I forgot to mention why I included the Tora, Tora, Tora reference in the first place. The planes they modified were also AT-6 advanced trainers. They were nicknamed "Texan" in the U.S., but had different nicknames in Canada and England.
posted
With regard to the wing flex, I always thought that the flex was intended to absorb the shock of flying through turbulent air. That way, the ride is smoother and it's less likely that the wings will suffer "dynamic structural separation".
posted
That could be one reason. Another one might be the balance of forces. I'm not an aircraft engineer, maybe someone can confirm or disprove what I think.
gravity: pulling/bending the wings down buoyancy (I hope this is the correct term, never used it before): pulling/bending the wings up
As the wingspan is increased and the wings are simply scaled up to yield the same aerodynamic properties, the weight (and gravity force) rises roughly with the third power, but the area (and therefore the buoyancy, difficult word) only with the second power.
Consequence: The wings have to be relatively thinner or lighter than those of smaller aircraft, otherwise a large plane could not fly at all. This gives the wings less stability, though, and they have to be designed flexible. In this case some of the upward force is "wasted" to flex the wings, but there is still a surplus lifting the plane.
posted
I also have heard that the placement of the engines on the B-52 (and it's smaller predecessor, the B-47) was calculated so the engines would act as counterweights and cancel out torsional flex of the wing that would otherwise change the angle of attack along it's width unevenly.
--Baloo
------------------ The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad girls live. --George Carlin www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
posted
Oh yes, the torsional force should rise as well as the wing is scaled up. The engine weight could be equally important to stabilize the wing profile which would yield considerably different aerodynamic properties if only tilted a little bit.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
