:: Community Forums ›

#16: Re: OK Name THIS plane, heheh! Author: JG300-Stoopy, Location: Group W bench

Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:00 pm
----

- FireStorm

hmmm.... Stoop wasn't done modeling as he said..and I'm thinking Doug's got it.....Granville Brothers after all...

I suspect Fled knows!!! LOL spill the beans...

'Zactly. I should have made that more clear, but I figured the missing cockpit, rough tail surfaces and overall basic look of the figure would make it more obvious.

That was my fist foray into the world of GMAX, and on my old PC....I don't even know if I still have the original files, I just found that old screenie and figured it would lead to some fun. It got "tagged" a LOT quicker than I thought it would!

#17: Re: OK Name THIS plane, heheh! Author: JG300-Stoopy, Location: Group W bench

Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:14 pm
----
...also figure y'all deserve a few pix of the actual thingso you could see what it's S'POSED to look like!

The last shot is of a replica being prepped for the 2006 airshow season!!

#18: Re: OK Name THIS plane, heheh! Author: JG300-Ascout, Location: Cyberspace

Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:00 am
----
Struts AND wires?....now that's just weird in a racer!

#19: Re: OK Name THIS plane, heheh! Author: Kitform, Location: Cleveland. UK.

Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:06 am
----
I though a lot of the 'earlier' racing machines were 'struts & wires'.

I was led to believe that lightness of aircraft was more important than drag, I know drag is detromental to perfomance but the weight penalty for beefing up the airframe outweighed the performance loss incurred by drag.

A cheap lightweight system of keeping your wings on...:)

I may be completely off the mark here ???

#20: Re: OK Name THIS plane, heheh! Author: JG300-Ascout, Location: Cyberspace

Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:49 pm
----

- Kitform

I though a lot of the 'earlier' racing machines were 'struts & wires'.

I was led to believe that lightness of aircraft was more important than drag, I know drag is detromental to perfomance but the weight penalty for beefing up the airframe outweighed the performance loss incurred by drag.

A cheap lightweight system of keeping your wings on...:)

I may be completely off the mark here ???

Actually, I think you're right....weight is a relatively insignificant factor to sustained speed, only linear acceleration considers weight an enemy. And those early racers were exploring areas where drag suddenly was an increasing factor (exponentially) compared to the leisurely speeds of civilian, and even military, aircraft.

Most of those planes weren't monocoque, so they needed a way to strengthen the frame against the forces being encountered...

#21: Re: OK Name THIS plane, heheh! Author: JG300-Stoopy, Location: Group W bench

Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:57 pm
----
Not off the mark at all! Take a look at the wires in use and usually they're flying wires....specifically made for that purpose and so-called due to frequently having a teardrop or stubby-airfoil cross section. Same for the struts, of course. VERY good way to keep your wings from folding up in tight turns and aerobatics and well worth loosing a coupla knots over!

That's one of the interesting things about the pre-war Thompson and Bendix racers IMHO, and why I dig the history. The Laird-Turner meteor that XCalibre mentioned (and the Hughes H-1, although it never raced) showed the final culmination of some technlogy that largely developed because of these races...including full-strength internal spars with no external bracing required and other design innovations that became common use.

When Doolittle quit racing after flying the Gee Bee R-1 to a win, he said that the racers had no purpose left - what goes unsaid is that he also went on to discuss all the innovations that had been brought about because of them. Maybe he was being typically humble, because it was his direct involvement using his chemistry background and working on the side for Shell Oil that brought about Triptane, other additives, with higher-octane fuels that supported higher compression in engines for more horsepower....doesn't sound too important until you consider that a few years later when WWII started, the Allies had quite a leg up in that area and is a big reason for some of the superior performance that led to air superiority.

To think that developments like that came from backyard racers (and the Schneider trophy races as well, which were more big-league) is remarkable, compared to later eras when developments only come by way of large-budget and long-term efforts. Quite a time back then!

#22: Re: OK Name THIS plane, heheh! Author: Uhu_Fledermaus, Location: Blaricum, The Netherlands ~GMT+1

Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:59 pm
----
And I stand by my first answer....... a streched GeeBee Z, R or Y

"what's in a name ? " as good 'Ol Shakespear allready wrote Wink

just take a very close look at the thing Shocked

fled

#23: Re: OK Name THIS plane, heheh! Author: JG300-Stoopy, Location: Group W bench

Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:19 pm
----
Yep! You were rrreeeaaaallll close buddy, just didn't have the number (you got partial credit tho!). Take a look at the Gee Bee "QED" racer.....that's a real stretched Gee Bee!

The Y and E models are my favorites. Real production aircraft inended for the sport market. Didya know they also manufactered a very pretty little biplane? There' one at the New England Air Museum, just the cutest little thing!

-> Officer's Club

All times are GMT - 6 Hours

Go to page Previous 1, 2 :| |: Page 2 of 2