Phil Brooks
-
Posts
624 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Everything posted by Phil Brooks
-
-
My first reaction was 'Lockheed Vega', but it appear to have had a barrage balloon welded on to the tail.
-
Have a look here. The push-me pull-you wing was the Halton Meteor, whilst the lifting body was a Burnelli design built by the Canadian Car Foundry, who had several very large projects on this principal, of which the Loadmaster seems to be tho only one which flew. Must say I like that B2000B. As for that flying gherkin, I've seen it before but my alzheimer's is slowing me down
-
OK, don't want to reveal all just yet, as then I'd have to let you know where on the web I found it, which would spoil the fun of showing you all this next one. I will tell you the source of both pictures soon, as I don't want to infringe anybody's copyright. This one has been slightly doctored to remove registration letters.
-
-
OK, clarification. The picture is clearly not the best. (But not from a comic, honest.) It was a twin, it was about 90% built, but then abandoned, and that huge steerable front(!) wheel spat was intended to double as a rudder. Scary. Perhaps just as well that it never flew, though it has potential as an interesting and different model project. Just remember to fly it inverted and backwards!
-
Designed by Burt Rutan, constructed by Lego! Not sure about the rules of this game, does it have to have flown? Oh what a giveaway. OK, try this one.
-
Compared to the pictures on Wikipedia, the nosewheel arrangement is wrong for a North Star, this retracts backwards whilst the North Star goes forward. Those engine nacelles don't look as though they contain merlins, no exhaust stubs. Could they be turbo-props? There seems to be some sort of efflux just below the leading edge. Apart from that, I haven't got a clue!
-
Nit-picking, but I understood that the 707 was derived from the KC135, not the other way around. I think ARIA stood for something like Advanced Range Instrumentation Aircraft. They were, and still may be, used to monitor and track missile test launches out of Cape Canaveral. Not surprisingly, they earned the nickname 'Snoopy'. Taliking of funny noses, here's one I like, though no one should have any trouble recognising the aircraft it's tacked on to.
-
-
OK, try this one. Not a difficult subject, but it's an interesting variant. Sorry about the quality, it's a capture from a home video.
-
-
-
Sorry, make that HINDUSTAN.
-
Hidustan HT-2. I think Simon has a copy of Green and Pollinger's Worlds Fighting Planes, I recognised the photo of the Calqui as well. Published 1954, my own copy much thumbed when a lad, just occasionally dipped into these days.
-
Thanks for all the information re the Vulcan, fellers. As we seem to have wandered a little off topic I think it's time for me to lose interest in this thread. David, are you really posting messages to the forum at 06.30 on a Sunday morning? Not sure whether my reaction is 'Quelle dedication' or 'Get a life'! Phil Brooks
-
Win a Multiplex Fun Jet kit!
Phil Brooks replied to David Ashby - Moderator's topic in All Things Model Flying
Ref GRE66's riddle. The term 'AeroPLANE' was originally applied to early fixed wing machines, and does not apply to helicopters, which are AirCRAFT. As to the original question, yes, the plane will take off. When the throttle is opened, whether it's propellor driven or jet, the motive force is applied to the air surrounding the craft, which will accelerate with respect to that air until its' AIRspeed is enough to give it lift. It's speed relative to the conveyor will be double its' airspeed (assuming no wind) but that doesn't matter a toss. OK, class is over, can I go and play with that fun jet now? -
Once again, thanks to everyone for the info. Adrian, sorry I didn't reply sooner, I didn't get notification of your posting, so I'd assumed that nobody else was taking part. Regards PB
-
I'm with flanker, if I wanted to play with dolls I'd build doll's houses. I build models. Funny, you never see this argument applied to cars, boats or trains. Wonder why?
-
Thanks Shaun :)
-
Does anyone know what's happening with the restoration of Vulcan 558? There was much hype last year after funds were apparently found to complete the restoration, and the promise was that she'd be flying again this April, in time for the 25th anniversary of the Falklands raid. I've recently tried to access the restoration society website, www.vulcantotheskies.com, and drawn a total blank. Any information would be appreciated.
-
Has any one addressed the compatability issue? Currently a 35Mhz PCM Rx is a 35 Mhz PCM Rx, and although my Tx is a JR my Rxs come from a variety of sources. If different manufacturers are employing different encoding algorithms in their systems, then having chosen my Tx will I have to buy all my receivers from the same company? A thought to bear in mind when making that vital first purchase.
-
As I understand it, lite ply has a thicker centre layer because it's balsa. So not only does it warp, it's not that strong! Nasty. While we're asking for information, can I put in a plea for more helicopter gen? I'd like to see an article, or even series, similar to the beginners fixed wing series currently running. I know nothing about flying model helicopters, and will probably never own one, but I do own a flight sim (aerofly) with several helicopters in it's aircraft list, and would like to know how to set up my Tx to utilise all those exotic sounding heli-only functions. Who knows, if I manage to master a virtual chopper, I might be tempted to try the real thing. Finally, still on sims, how about including the necessary data in kit reviews, etc, so that we can simulate the model being tested in our PCs? I enjoy reading what other flyers think of a given model, but it doesn't tell me whether I could handle it. It may be too time consuming and expensive to do for all models, perhaps an occasional article detailing all the necessary parameters for a popular or interesting plane could be run. Is it time for the editorial staff to recognise that some readers spend as much, if not more time, at the virtual flying field than at the real one.
