• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Random picture thread. (Real photos rather than AI please)

Go to CruxDreams.com
wulf said:
They were having QC issues before Boeing bought them and merged. Pretty the same problem that Boeing is having now.
Click to expand...
Aren't you confusing Lockheed with McDonnell Douglas, in the 1990's?
Lockheed quit the airliner market in 1982 because their L-1011 wide body failed to sell, after development costs had gone over budget (particularly a side effect from troubles at Rolls-Royce, the manufacturer of their jet engines). Despite the L-1011 being a better design than the almost lookalike competitor DC-10.
 
7e296f6b4119a00ae8847da0189526cc--vintage-classic-cars-arce.jpg 1946-Mathis-VL333.jpg 43274.jpg Messerschmitt cabin scooter KR201.jpg Messerschmitt_Kabinenroller.jpg
 
Loxuru said:
Plenty of prototypes, but not easy to control in flight!
Click to expand...
wulf said:
The paying passengers in the middle seats wouldn't have much of a view. Discount tickets for those maybe?
Not sure the idea is aerodynamically viable.
Click to expand...
the Lockheed rendering is a bit extreme but it is viable... the main advantage is to avoid the vortex at the end of the wing and the induced resistance it generates.
It was somehow known from the beginning. Here the Bleriot III (but there are other examples too):
Bleriot III.jpgbleriot-3.jpgblerpeg_III_maysep06_500.jpg
 
In addition, a box-wing is more rigid with some additional advantages. Prandtl studied the arrangement and now the solution is sometimes called "prandtlplane".
Now there is some increasing interest to reduce fuel consumption (EC spent some money about but NASA too).
Here a Lockheed box-wing aircraft concept of 2011 and the NASA converticopter.
It's a long story and I finished the 5 images/day...
Lockheed_box_wing_aircraft_concept_2011.jpgNASA converticopter Elytron.jpg
 
Loxuru said:
Aren't you confusing Lockheed with McDonnell Douglas, in the 1990's?
Lockheed quit the airliner market in 1982 because their L-1011 wide body failed to sell, after development costs had gone over budget (particularly a side effect from troubles at Rolls-Royce, the manufacturer of their jet engines). Despite the L-1011 being a better design than the almost lookalike competitor DC-10.
Click to expand...
Yes sir you are right. I was thinking of MD.

In all fairness to me, I was distracted by the naked girl bowed down on the floor beside me awaiting orders.
And I'm old.
 
0f47aa8801aed4f086b036a05ec96e04.jpg 5dde17351a12af3a95380ac822b9cf2a.jpg 29cbb1fc073745c07f8eb51fef63a8d8.jpg 060e0cd7a2fc4f4dc0e1cb702fc9e4ae.jpg 1668805163_14-pornotaran-com-p-porn-ancient-castle-nudism-14.jpg
 
Kiduttaja said:
and back to ring wings, the Heinkel Lerche project of 1945 and the SNECMA Coleoptère prototipe:
View attachment 1470388View attachment 1470389
Click to expand...
I recall the Coleoptere being anounced as the aircraft of the future in childern enceclopedia published around 1960. Basically it was one of the several VTOL projects from the 1950's, dealing with the fact that new jet fighters needed concrete runways, instead of grass fields which were less vurnable to attack, but which created the risk of sucking debris into the engines. The prototype has made several tests in vertical flight, but many control problems showed up. At the first attempt to level to horizontal flight, the plane became uncontrollable and crashed. The pilot managed to eject. The project was then stopped.
 
Loxuru said:
I recall the Coleoptere being anounced as the aircraft of the future in childern enceclopedia published around 1960. Basically it was one of the several VTOL projects from the 1950's, dealing with the fact that new jet fighters needed concrete runways, instead of grass fields which were less vurnable to attack, but which created the risk of sucking debris into the engines. The prototype has made several tests in vertical flight, but many control problems showed up. At the first attempt to level to horizontal flight, the plane became uncontrollable and crashed. The pilot managed to eject. The project was then stopped.
Click to expand...
Both the US Navy and Air Force experimented with tail-standing VTOL aircraft in the 50s and 60s. The Navy want planes that could be launched from and return to, the deck of a small ship - like a destroyer or even a merchant ship - and protect the ship without the need for an aircraft carrier. Two designs, both turboprops:
by Convair
xfy1.jpg
And Lockheed
xfv1.jpg
The Air Force wanted a plane that could be launched and retrieved a trailer, for use in the absence of airfields. Only one design got to the testing phase, the Ryan X-13.
ryan-aeronautical-x-13-vertijet-E034G2.jpg
All three designs were successful in that they could take off and land vertically (and in the case of the X-13, rehook onto the trailed), and could convert to horizontal flight.
All three suffered from the same problem inherent to all tail-standers: the pilot had to land virtually blind, only able to look over his shoulder to get some view of the ground. This was only possible for highly skilled - and incredibly brave - test pilots, making them unsuitable for general deployment. Also, none of them performed very well and they would have been easy prey for any conventional fighter.
The advent of the jump-jet ended interest in the tail-stander.
 
Hornet1ba said:
Ford Abomination 1974
View attachment 1470683
Click to expand...
Hornet1ba said:
In 1974 i was a teenager getting into cars, but in retrospect they were quite dreadful !
Click to expand...
First thing I can say about the 1974 Mustang is AAAIIIIEEEEE!!!!!!!!:eek:

The previous year's model was true to the sports car mystique the Mustang had since it’s inception.

IMG_0613.jpeg

In '74 they made it into something midsized and boring. Sets my teeth on edge to this very day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom