|
|
|
| General RC Aircraft Discussion Discuss anything RC related |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| 02-20-2011 08:50 AM | ||
| kip51035 |
Re: full sie aircraft speed limitations Now that you mentioned the CF-100, I had 59 2.75 mighty mouse rockets on each wing tip 128 total, A rocket bay that could carry 64 of the same rockets and a quick replaceable gun pack that could carry 8 - .50 caliber or 4 - 20MM cannon machine guns. It also had hard points on the wing. The aircraft could be refueled and armed in less that 15 minutes. The enemy aircraft could be fired on from any angle, Like shooting a bird on the fly. Just do what the radar said and within seconds his airspace would be filled with 128 rockets all carrying 75 Lbs of HE. The duration of the CF-100 was 2 hours and 45 minutes and the one with tip tanks was 5 hours and 27 minutes. One of our pilots had one flying level at 55,000 feet. So what is considered a poor aircraft becomes a formidable enemy when it does not have to get behind you to shoot you down. The first CF-100 became operational in 1952. |
|
| 02-19-2011 07:18 PM | ||
| Tex Gehman |
Re: full sie aircraft speed limitations Well, I thought I was done here, but Kip, the reason they put the gun back in fighters was that missiles don't work well close up. Pre-Viet Nam the egg-heads decided that future air battles would be decided at distances where missiles would be effective. The ChiCom/North Vietnamese with MiG 17 and 19 fighters re-awakened the need for a close-in weapon. The Arrow was designed for defence against bombers. At no time was there a reason for it to defend against fighters, being thousands of miles from any deemed threat. For this reason it needed a sophisticated weapon control system capable of tracking and dispensing weapons at great distances and for multiple targets. [FYI the CF-100 was a one shot system and could target an enemy at relatively close range. ie: one CF-100 launched for each bomber. Totally unrealistic in Cold War thinking of masses of Soviet Bombers arriving over the pole.] For this reason alone the Arrow without a suitable fire control and weapon system was a dud from the start. Q.E.D. |
|
| 02-19-2011 05:51 PM | ||
| kip51035 |
Re: full sie aircraft speed limitations Top secret American weapons, thats why they had to put a gun on the F4 Phantom because only 15% of the missiles worked. |
|
| 02-19-2011 04:50 PM | ||
| bigguy |
Re: Concorde Quote:
|
|
| 02-19-2011 03:15 PM | ||
| Tex Gehman |
Re: Concorde I've got that on the back of my eyelids for future EDF or pusher. Supposed to make a great flying model. Tex. |
|
| 02-19-2011 03:07 PM | ||
| bigguy |
Re: full sie aircraft speed limitations more: On the headset walking it out after start on pushback from Terminal 3. Too bad it came to an end. |
|
| 02-19-2011 03:06 PM | ||
| bigguy |
Re: full sie aircraft speed limitations Not to steel from the thread but I have some pictures from back in the day. |
|
| 02-19-2011 10:41 AM | ||
| Tex Gehman |
Re: full sie aircraft speed limitations Kip: Hey, we're the same age! I was a squadron pilot in France in '58 and we watched this project with a lot of interest. No question that the Arrow would have fantastic performance, but that alone would not make it a good weapon. It did not have, and would never have, the covetted top-secret American weapons control system it needed to be viable. This made it a very fast antique in the eyes of most. [This was the height of the Cold War, and the fact that a minister of our government was purported to be "romantically involved" with a Russian spy made any kind of deal involving the US secret stuff a no-go.] A close friend was an engineer on the Arrow project and we chatted about it's virtues a lot. And the Iriquois was a long way from coming on-line. Too bad, though, the plane should have been allowed to chase a few records before being scrapped. In answer to the idea of accelerating straight up, you must understand that thrust declines very rapidly with increased altitude. That's enough, Tex, |
|
| 02-19-2011 09:59 AM | ||
| kip51035 |
Re: full sie aircraft speed limitations Well Tex.: The Arrow gross weight was 60,000 lbs, it carried 5,000 lbs in armament and 20,000 lbs of fuel. That leaves an airframe of around 35,000 lbs. Each American engine produced 26,500 lbs in A/B. Total thrust 53,000 Lbs. Airframe weight plus 10,000 lbs of fuel equals 45,000 lbs. I think maybe it could go straight up and excellerate. The Iraqua engines produced 26.000 lbs in military and 36,000 lbs in A/B. There was nothing in the world that could come close to it's performance and nothing on the drawing board either. There is a four hour TV special about it, I suggest that you watch it. I was twenty years old in 1958 when it flew over CFB Borden. |
|
| 02-18-2011 08:29 PM | ||
| Cougar429 |
Re: full sie aircraft speed limitations Let's not start that one! My dad was wiring Malton Airport when they were test flying the Arrows. He told me they used to light them up with the nose quite high, (one of the characteristics of a delta) and with the AB burning the pavement would smoulder for quite a while after takeoff. After once being near the launch end and later directly under the departure path of the Concorde I can well imagine what the Arrow must have sounded like on takeoff. As for airframe heating, we had the same effect with helis. When flying in icy conditions only the inner 1/3 of the blades would accumulate ice, (along with the rest of the airframe!!!!). The outer portions were too warm to suffer buildup. |
|
| This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
Your Privacy Choices