Groundhog Day on the Forums.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

There just doesn't seem to be anything new asked really. 

 

Can we have an Original Discussion about a Topic that hasn't been done in 100 previous Threads, just different Phrasing?

[dburne]

Sounds like you just did.

 

[unreasonable]

There may be nothing new being asked, but there are new people asking. 

 

So I suppose the answer is "No". 

 

 

Sounds like you just did.

 

No, this complaint comes up from time to time.....

[Uufflakke]

Well, to be honest many of the topics, linked information and images I've already seen at Ubi, AAA, AAS, SAS1946 and here.

 

That is inevitable when it is about combat planes which covers 'only' 6 years from 1939 untill 1945.

 

Do you have a suggestion then?

[von-Luck]

Let's talk about the apparent lack of supremacy of the 109 or maybe Stalinium and it's capacity to resist 20mm mine rounds.

 

 

von Luck

[Uufflakke]

And the same goes for non WWII combat aviation topics.

On all the afore mentioned sites I've seen topics passing by like beer topics, cats topics, dogs topics, cars topics, motorcycle topics, gun topics, home-made pits topics etc., and so on, und so weiter.

It is what it is.

Perhaps we are too long around on these dedicated webfora.

But enough info for newcomers I would say.

[=X51=VC_]

Hmm... OK I'll bite. It always bugged me that Soviet aircraft all share a very similar wing planform, even across design bureaus, types and size classes. No other nation exhibits this phenomenon, but that compound curve taper is ubiquitous in the VVS. Was this mandated from a higher level than individual design bureaus? Did Mr. Yakovlev and Mr. Lavochkin arrive at essentially the same shape independently? Was it actually optimal in some way?

 

Probably not completely original, but might spice up your day

[Wulf]

Seriously, does this really require an explanation?  When you threaten people who dare to deviate from the officially approved topic list, ultimately you just end up with yet another uninspiring merry-go-round pc echo chamber.

 

Yawn, anyone want to start another thread about how wonderful the devs are.....  

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Hmm... OK I'll bite. It always bugged me that Soviet aircraft all share a very similar wing planform, even across design bureaus, types and size classes. No other nation exhibits this phenomenon, but that compound curve taper is ubiquitous in the VVS. Was this mandated from a higher level than individual design bureaus? Did Mr. Yakovlev and Mr. Lavochkin arrive at essentially the same shape independently? Was it actually optimal in some way?

 

Probably not completely original, but might spice up your day

Good one. Adding to that: Why did the Yak use a Clark YH and the LaGG use a NACA 23016 and 23010 (Tips).

Funnily enought the 109 shares the same profile with the 321 and 323 Gigant. 

[Dakpilot]

Seriously, does this really require an explanation?  When you threaten people who dare to deviate from the officially approved topic list, ultimately you just end up with yet another uninspiring merry-go-round pc echo chamber.

 

Yawn, anyone want to start another thread about how wonderful the devs are.....  

 

It is indeed groundhog day on the forums...

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

A simple question that’s been buzzing in my head: When designing the shutters for the radiator outlets, why were designers time and again settling on a hinged door type that opens directly into the airflow, essentially making it an air brake? You’d think a sliding door system or a shutter that retracted into the fuselage would be preferable, since it would create much less drag?

 

The only explanation I can come up with is, that the door is there to shield the outlet from the airflow, so it doesn’t interfere with the flow of air through the outlet, but I really have no idea.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

A simple question that’s been buzzing in my head: When designing the shutters for the radiator outlets, why were designers time and again settling on a hinged door type that opens directly into the airflow, essentially making it an air brake? You’d think a sliding door system or a shutter that retracted into the fuselage would be preferable, since it would create much less drag?

 

The only explanation I can come up with is, that the door is there to shield the outlet from the airflow, so it doesn’t interfere with the flow of air through the outlet, but I really have no idea.

There were a couple of Types that used this System of a Radiator Retracting into the Fuselage, the He-100D. I guess the Door Type is just simpler, and the Advantages Minimal. 

And MS.406. 

Edited January 12, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[=X51=VC_]

A simple question that’s been buzzing in my head: When designing the shutters for the radiator outlets, why were designers time and again settling on a hinged door type that opens directly into the airflow, essentially making it an air brake? You’d think a sliding door system or a shutter that retracted into the fuselage would be preferable, since it would create much less drag?

 

The only explanation I can come up with is, that the door is there to shield the outlet from the airflow, so it doesn’t interfere with the flow of air through the outlet, but I really have no idea.

 

Would opening a door into the airflow not create suction behind the radiator, therefore forcing more through-flow and improving cooling at the cost of drag? That and mechanical simplicity.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It does look very odd though in flight. Probably cause Crashes out of Shame and Laughter

 

Would opening a door into the airflow not create suction behind the radiator, therefore forcing more through-flow and improving cooling at the cost of drag? That and mechanical simplicity.

I would also argue Simplicity. With the Expanse of the Heated Air out of the Radiator, the would probably never be a Suction Effect, only the Mythical "Meredithe Effect" the P-51 Jockeys will go on about into eternity when it comes out. 

Edited January 12, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[Archie]

Why was the P-39 Airacobra cockpit designed the way it was, with doors either side? I know the engine is behind but it still seems a weird design.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

So you can look cool as you roll down the windows and stroll down the taxiway with your elbow and head out of the cockpit, obviously.

[AndyJWest]

Why was the P-39 Airacobra cockpit designed the way it was, with doors either side? I know the engine is behind but it still seems a weird design.

 

One could reverse the question, and ask why more fighter aircraft didn't have doors. After all, it is easier to enter a door in a hurry than it is to climb in through a normal cockpit. Likewise for getting out. I suspect the answer to that may be that the openings for doors create a structural weakness, just where you don't want it. Presumably the thick door frames of the P-39 are load-bearing, which solves the problem, at the expense of reducing visibility. Which possibly answers the original question. The P-39 was radical in many ways, and not all of them necessarily wise.

[Danziger]

And so the carhop can put your tray in your window.

[TAAC_Blue]

You would definitely be the coolest guy at Sonic!

[Feathered_IV]

There just doesn't seem to be anything new asked really. 

 

Can we have an Original Discussion about a Topic that hasn't been done in 100 previous Threads, just different Phrasing?

 

Yeah!  Lets talk about me. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

One could reverse the question, and ask why more fighter aircraft didn't have doors. After all, it is easier to enter a door in a hurry than it is to climb in through a normal cockpit. Likewise for getting out. I suspect the answer to that may be that the openings for doors create a structural weakness, just where you don't want it. Presumably the thick door frames of the P-39 are load-bearing, which solves the problem, at the expense of reducing visibility. Which possibly answers the original question. The P-39 was radical in many ways, and not all of them necessarily wise.

 

You know what makes me ask another question which is why was the P-39 so radical?

[AndyJWest]

You know what makes me ask another question which is why was the P-39 so radical?

 

Larry Bell was trying to break into the military aircraft market, and probably saw unconventional designs as his best chance. The Bell company's previous effort, the YFM-1 Airacuda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_YFM-1_Airacuda), was even more radical. 

[Lensman]

One could reverse the question, and ask why more fighter aircraft didn't have doors. After all, it is easier to enter a door in a hurry than it is to climb in through a normal cockpit. Likewise for getting out. I suspect the answer to that may be that the openings for doors create a structural weakness, just where you don't want it. Presumably the thick door frames of the P-39 are load-bearing, which solves the problem, at the expense of reducing visibility. Which possibly answers the original question. The P-39 was radical in many ways, and not all of them necessarily wise.

 

Plus the door is difficult to make fully aerodynamic.

[Trooper117]

Groundhog day?... It may be a good time to just take a break, leave the forums for a couple of months, concentrate on something else... or, here's a good one, go and get fully immersed in real life.

 

Come back feeling fully refreshed and revitalised. Now, doesn't that feel better?    

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Yawn, anyone want to start another thread about how wonderful the devs are.....  

 

I heard a great deal of good things about New Zealand, so whats up? 

[ACG_pezman]

Would opening a door into the airflow not create suction behind the radiator, therefore forcing more through-flow and improving cooling at the cost of drag? That and mechanical simplicity.

 

We have a winner!

 

The airflow gets pulled through when you have a door leading to improved cooling efficiency.  That is why the Yak-1 s.69 and Yak-1 s.127 have such a drastic change in the radiator doors.

[sallee]

Just to say, the confusion is at an end. My similar post has been removed because I had obviously missed this one...

[Lensman]

Has it really come to this ...?

 

 

(Watch out for that first 'steppe' ... it's a doozy!)