|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Nov 3, 2018 6:20:16 GMT -7
and one B-17... that burned up under suspicious circumstances.
AWESOME the XB-38!!! Oh, yes Lockheed-Vega getting their two cents worth of the Fortress contracts. I have always thought, that they should have been put into full production. Those Allison engines look good on a Fort. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2018 6:32:08 GMT -7
It was also a faster fort.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Nov 3, 2018 6:37:48 GMT -7
The V-1710 would also be developed into the massive V-3420 24 cylinder engines. That would power two of the biggest machines of World War II!!! Each V-3420 was actually two V-1710 engines in a common housing joined to one prop shaft. It was the prime moving power of the..... 
and the....
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Nov 3, 2018 8:03:20 GMT -7
Sadly - none of those entered service...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2018 14:37:28 GMT -7
GASP! cowboy40, I did not know about those! I can only imagine what those V-3420's sounded like. It must have been glorious! |
|
|
|
Post by jeffwright on Nov 19, 2018 15:45:02 GMT -7
New one on me as well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 18:19:00 GMT -7
I finished the work part of an annual inspection on an American Aviation AA-1A* today. Next week I'll either put it back together or go to work on a Flight Design CTLS in trade for some taildragger training in a J3 Cub. Also got to go for about an hour ride-along in a Barron to check out the ADS-B and try to troubleshoot a cold cylinder (my money is on the injector).   
* - built in Ohio, so still a American Aviation. Later models were built in Savannah, Ga by Gulfstream. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 13, 2020 14:14:00 GMT -7
Not sure why, but these machines are still some of my favorite aircraft in my flight sim collections...these are part of my CFS2 fleet  Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo  Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat  Vought SB2U-3 Vindicator  Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless  Douglas TBD-1 Devastator  Grumman TBF-1 Avenger |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2020 14:39:11 GMT -7
I do love the old Wildcat, Also known as the Martlet by Royal Navy where it seems to have held its own against German and Italian designs. My desired variant is the General Motors FM-2 with 120 more horsepower, more fuel, fewer guns, and more ammo per gun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 4:30:18 GMT -7
Jet Fuel from Sea Water
This is at least Aviation-related, and also sciency and interesting...
I've been seeing blips and blurbs about this for a while. This is about the least ignorant article I have found so far
In short, the U.S. Navy has worked out a method for producing Jet Fuel (basically Kerosene) from sea water by pulling CO2 and Hydrogen from the water. Costs are $3-$6/gallon. $3 is close to what the airlines pay, $6 is more like AvGas prices.
Could be good for the Navy. Further development could be good for more of us. If made with Nuclear or Renewable power, it could be a convenient and stable method for storing surplus energy or providing vehicle fuels.
It gets into the weeds here... you were warned.
$6/gal for jet fuel seems high, until you consider that the Navy starts by paying $3/gal, then adds the cost of operating a fuel tender to carry the fuel from a port to the carrier. I don't know how much that adds per gallon, but it's safe to say it is more than $0, so $6 might be a net savings. Carriers are also more vulnerable during refuelling operations, and removing that vulnerability should be taken into account. And, let's not forget, you don't have to sink a carrier to take it out of action, you just need to sink the less-protected fuel ships. Do that and the planes stop flying, rendering a Carrier useless.
Next the article states that it only makes sense to derive Jet Fuel from Sea Water if your ship is nuclear powered, so we're good to go there (not sure why the author did not make that clear).
Then we get to the inefficiencies - nothing is free, right?
1. you’d have to process close to nine million cubic meters of water to make 100,000 gallons of fuel. 2. The output of the process is 60% Jet Fuel, 40% waste (25% of that being Methane). ► this article [ LINK] states that 30% is methane with the remainder being short-chain hydrocarbons that could be refined into jet fuel. 3. The jets would still be burning a hydrocarbon, so it's not "green".
I immediately thought 1. The ocean has a lot of water in it so we're covered. It also has too much CO2 in it, and this process uses that CO2.
2. Methane is not waste - it's fuel! Heck, it's ROCKET fuel.
3. Good point, but I'm not sure the Navy was going for 'green'. It seems like they were thinking logistically. Still it's not NEW CO2, so it's at least Neutral.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Mar 7, 2020 8:58:15 GMT -7
We'll see if that actually pans out. There have been lots of ideas bandied about, over the last decade or so, concerning extracting fuel or other energy resources land, air and water and all have generally come to naught...
Some are still being researched, to be fair.
The Navy always has to think logistically since they are extremely dependent on long distance support. This is the main reason all current carriers are Nuclear powered. That removes the need to refuel the ship itself, and increases space for supplies for the crew and airwing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 11:48:00 GMT -7
The Oshkosh Airshow has been cancelled for 2020.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Oct 14, 2020 14:12:51 GMT -7
I still can not bring myself to like this airplane....huh...i hate it for two reasons. Problem plagues the program and the second I do not feel it is a good replacement for either the F/A-18 Hornet or the F-16 Fighting Falcon...the F-35 will never be as loved as the "Viper"  Did I say that i hate this airplane!!! |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 14, 2020 19:42:52 GMT -7
It still hasn't "grown" on me but, I've heard that the basic models are doing much better after the bugs have been worked out.
The STOVL version is apparently "working" though I doubt it will ever really replace the old Harrier for versatility and payload.
With the surprise announcement of the Pentagon apparently designing and flying a new fighter in about one year - I'm suspecting that the F-35's service life may resemble something from the 1920's-1930's.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Oct 15, 2020 7:55:50 GMT -7
It still hasn't "grown" on me but, I've heard that the basic models are doing much better after the bugs have been worked out. The STOVL version is apparently "working" though I doubt it will ever really replace the old Harrier for versatility and payload. With the surprise announcement of the Pentagon apparently designing and flying a new fighter in about one year - I'm suspecting that the F-35's service life may resemble something from the 1920's-1930's. I agree with your assessment here, and thank you for reminding me about the versatility of the AV-8B Harrier! |
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Oct 15, 2020 16:42:52 GMT -7
You're welcome for the Harrier! Sorry, UK pride there!  Actually, have the Marines AV-8Bs' been replaced yet? |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 15, 2020 20:19:58 GMT -7
There's a reason the Harrier family was in service for what..? 50 years or so?
Hawker knocked one more out of the park before they were pushed into mergers and disappeared (preceded by the old Fury family, Hurricane, Tempest, Typhoon, etc...).
|
|
