Flying the P-51 B

[Ghost666]

1 hour ago, spreckair said:

Like calling a submarine "Descender".

I think I would rather name a sub "Ascender". Any boat can descend, but it takes a real sub to "ascend".  

[jollyjack]

the winner is ...:

 

[jollyjack]

Any way, back to the mustang; this one crashed under mysterious conditions they say:

 

[Rjel]

2 hours ago, jollyjack said:

Any way, back to the mustang; this one crashed under mysterious conditions they say:

 

It's always a shame when a couple splits up. Especially when at altitude.

4 hours ago, Wardog5711 said:

Yeah, it makes about as much sense as calling the XF-12 the "Rainbow".

But at some point, you eventually run out of cool names.

 

 

Such a shame it never made it into production. It might be the sleekest four engine prop plane ever designed. Certainly the sleekest airplane Republic ever made.

[czech693]

[JG1_Vonrd]

The XP-55 Ascender could have been a good aircraft but suffered from insufficient pitch authority and poor stall characteristics along with a poor engine choice. By the time it flew, jets were being developed and it had no advantage in comparison.

 

Properly designed canards do have some advantageous qualities though. They can be designed to have the canard stall before the main wing stalls making them almost stall / spin proof. Refer to Burt Rutan's EZ line of aircraft. A very popular homebuilt with beautiful handling (I've flown a Long EZ and loved it's handling). It's not foolproof though, r.e. John Denver. His crash was due to an improperly located fuel selector valve though and nothing to do with the canard design.

 

Pure canards do give up some maneuverability because of the canard stalling first. The pilot can't push the wing to it's limits because the canard will stall before the wing does. So, maybe not the best angles dogfighter. Canards added to conventional airframes were popular for a while in some leading edge fighters (Kfir for example).

 

The Beech Starship was an innovative design but suffered from being on the bleeding edge of aircraft as well as materials design. While it looked super fast, it wasn't any faster (and actually slower) than Beech's King Air line (and other contemporaries).  

 

Also, the pusher engine does have efficiency advantages. Look at the Cessna 337 Skymaster. The aft (pusher) engine is considered the critical engine since it produces more thrust. Both engines are the same displacement and horsepower.

 

I don't think that the canard / pusher has been explored to it's potential.

[AndyJWest]

If the pusher canard was good enough for Orville & Wilbur, it's good enough for me. ?

 

[Trooper117]

13 hours ago, czech693 said:

 

Now your'e talking!... The 'Thud'... a proper jet.

[Jaegermeister]

On 3/20/2023 at 3:12 PM, jollyjack said:

the winner is ...:

 

 

Are you suggesting that Merlin was defeated by a Goblin at some point in medieval history? 

[jollyjack]

On 3/16/2023 at 10:57 PM, Irishratticus72 said:

Well, I don't know what game you're playing, but just last night I flew a 190 A3 with two Allisons, one on each wing.

 

Was that before or after a few pints?

[Irishratticus72]

1 hour ago, jollyjack said:

 

Was that before or after a few pints?

Obviously before, afterwards I flew a submersible.