![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0000, Doug Greenwell
wrote: There's a chapter in Eric Brown's book 'Wings of the Weird & Wonderful' in which he describes flight tests of the GAL 56 flying wing glider in 1946. This was a 28deg swept wing with an aspect ratio of 5.8 towed by a Spitfire IX* (!!!) to 20000ft (!!). Coooooooooool. ![]() He describes the opposite effect, with a very strong (often uncontrollable) nose-up pitch on take-off - this was thought to be due to ground effect. In this case the tug span was similar (37ft) to the glider span (45ft), so the wake/wing interaction would be different. Definitely. I think that the slipstream and the turbulence of that huge propellor might have an influence, too. Interestingly he also reports that the GAL56 could be flown hands-free on the tow - unless the tug slipstream was entered, in which case all lateral and longitudinal control was lost. Robert Kronfield was later killed spinning this aircraft. Seems like some gliders actually stabilize themselves behind a tow plane. Here's an example of a free-flight test of a space shuttle model that flew well in aerotow, but worse in free flight. Ladies and gents, Great Britains only serious contribution to spaceflight - the Reliant Shuttle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM Andreas |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At 16:11 06 January 2011, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0000, Doug Greenwell wrote: There's a chapter in Eric Brown's book 'Wings of the Weird & Wonderful' in which he describes flight tests of the GAL 56 flying wing glider in 1946. This was a 28deg swept wing with an aspect ratio of 5.8 towed by a Spitfire IX* (!!!) to 20000ft (!!). Coooooooooool. ![]() every tug pilots dream ... wonder what the climb rate was like! He describes the opposite effect, with a very strong (often uncontrollable) nose-up pitch on take-off - this was thought to be due to ground effect. In this case the tug span was similar (37ft) to the glider span (45ft), so the wake/wing interaction would be different. Definitely. I think that the slipstream and the turbulence of that huge propellor might have an influence, too. Possibly - he had trouble getting the nose down on landing too. Interestingly he also reports that the GAL56 could be flown hands-free on the tow - unless the tug slipstream was entered, in which case all lateral and longitudinal control was lost. Robert Kronfield was later killed spinning this aircraft. Seems like some gliders actually stabilize themselves behind a tow plane. Here's an example of a free-flight test of a space shuttle model that flew well in aerotow, but worse in free flight. Ladies and gents, Great Britains only serious contribution to spaceflight - the Reliant Shuttle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM Andreas That's a bit unfair ... we did manage one satellite into orbit on Black Arrow |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What do you expect from the juvenile mentality of the top gear presenters?
I'll bet they switched the explosive bolts for standard ones. Derrick. At 16:40 06 January 2011, Doug Greenwell wrote: At 16:11 06 January 2011, Andreas Maurer wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0000, Doug Greenwell wrote: There's a chapter in Eric Brown's book 'Wings of the Weird & Wonderful' in which he describes flight tests of the GAL 56 flying wing glider in 1946. This was a 28deg swept wing with an aspect ratio of 5.8 towed by a Spitfire IX* (!!!) to 20000ft (!!). Coooooooooool. ![]() every tug pilots dream ... wonder what the climb rate was like! He describes the opposite effect, with a very strong (often uncontrollable) nose-up pitch on take-off - this was thought to be due to ground effect. In this case the tug span was similar (37ft) to the glider span (45ft), so the wake/wing interaction would be different. Definitely. I think that the slipstream and the turbulence of that huge propellor might have an influence, too. Possibly - he had trouble getting the nose down on landing too. Interestingly he also reports that the GAL56 could be flown hands-free on the tow - unless the tug slipstream was entered, in which case all lateral and longitudinal control was lost. Robert Kronfield was later killed spinning this aircraft. Seems like some gliders actually stabilize themselves behind a tow plane. Here's an example of a free-flight test of a space shuttle model that flew well in aerotow, but worse in free flight. Ladies and gents, Great Britains only serious contribution to spaceflight - the Reliant Shuttle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM Andreas That's a bit unfair ... we did manage one satellite into orbit on Black Arrow |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 6, 9:40*am, Doug Greenwell wrote:
At 16:11 06 January 2011, Andreas Maurer wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0000, Doug Greenwell wrote: There's a chapter in Eric Brown's book 'Wings of the Weird & Wonderful' in which he describes flight tests of the GAL 56 flying wing glider in 1946. *This was a 28deg swept wing with an aspect ratio of 5.8 towed by a Spitfire IX* (!!!) to 20000ft (!!). * Coooooooooool. ![]() every tug pilots dream ... wonder what the climb rate was like! He describes the opposite effect, with a very strong (often uncontrollable) nose-up pitch on take-off - this was thought to be due to ground effect. *In this case the tug span was similar (37ft) to the glider span (45ft), so the wake/wing interaction would be different. Definitely. I think that the slipstream and the turbulence of that huge propellor might have an influence, too. Possibly - he had trouble getting the nose down on landing too. Interestingly he also reports that the GAL56 could be flown hands-free on the tow - unless the tug slipstream was entered, in which case all lateral and longitudinal control was lost. *Robert Kronfield was later killed spinning this aircraft. Seems like some gliders actually stabilize themselves behind a tow plane. Here's an example of a free-flight test of a space shuttle model that flew well in aerotow, but worse in free flight. Ladies and gents, Great Britains only serious contribution to spaceflight - the Reliant Shuttle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM Andreas That's a bit unfair ... we did manage one satellite into orbit on Black Arrow- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What about Skynet? I worked the Skynet 4 program. Andy |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What about Skynet?
Talk about thread drift! The Terminator has nothing to do with this discussion thank you very much. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At 18:20 06 January 2011, Andy wrote:
On Jan 6, 9:40=A0am, Doug Greenwell wrote: At 16:11 06 January 2011, Andreas Maurer wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0000, Doug Greenwell wrote: There's a chapter in Eric Brown's book 'Wings of the Weird & Wonderful' in which he describes flight tests of the GAL 56 flying wing glider in 1946. =A0This was a 28deg swept wing with an aspect ratio of 5.8 towed by a Spitfire IX* (!!!) to 20000ft (!!). =A0 Coooooooooool. ![]() every tug pilots dream ... wonder what the climb rate was like! He describes the opposite effect, with a very strong (often uncontrollable) nose-up pitch on take-off - this was thought to be due to ground effect. =A0In this case the tug span was similar (37ft) to the glider span (45ft), so the wake/wing interaction would be different. Definitely. I think that the slipstream and the turbulence of that huge propellor might have an influence, too. Possibly - he had trouble getting the nose down on landing too. Interestingly he also reports that the GAL56 could be flown hands-free on the tow - unless the tug slipstream was entered, in which case all lateral and longitudinal control was lost. =A0Robert Kronfield was later killed spinning this aircraft. Seems like some gliders actually stabilize themselves behind a tow plane. Here's an example of a free-flight test of a space shuttle model that flew well in aerotow, but worse in free flight. Ladies and gents, Great Britains only serious contribution to spaceflight - the Reliant Shuttle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpJdrlWR-yFM Andreas That's a bit unfair ... we did manage one satellite into orbit on Black Arrow- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What about Skynet? I worked the Skynet 4 program. Andy true - I should have one british satellite on a british launcher! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:13:49 +0000, Doug Greenwell wrote:
true - I should have one british satellite on a british launcher! Launched in 1971 and its still up there. Its radio was still working in 2006. Its orbit is expected to decay around 2106. Not too dusty for the second attempt at launching a satellite. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
another poor man's car engine conversion | jan olieslagers[_2_] | Home Built | 19 | February 22nd 09 03:49 PM |
Poor readability | Kees Mies | Owning | 2 | August 14th 04 04:22 AM |
Poor Guy | Bob Chilcoat | Owning | 6 | July 17th 04 06:45 PM |
I'm grateful for poor people who are willing to murder & die | Krztalizer | Military Aviation | 0 | April 20th 04 11:11 PM |
Concorde in FS2002: No lateral views | A. Bomanns | Simulators | 3 | July 19th 03 11:33 AM |