Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Teasing to tease


  • Please log in to reply
205 replies to this topic

#81 Jaws2002

Jaws2002
  • Posts: 419

Posted 10 December 2012 - 18:16

Where are the damn cannons? I want to pull up next to a Zepelin and give it a mighty broadside. :x
  • 0

#82 Avimimus

Avimimus
  • Posts: 1317

Posted 10 December 2012 - 18:56

Where are the damn cannons? I want to pull up next to a Zepelin and give it a mighty broadside. :x

lol - it does look like it could do with a 2 pdr in the waist position… of course, it should be a muzzle loader!
  • 0

#83 WW1EAF_Paf

WW1EAF_Paf
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1458

Posted 10 December 2012 - 19:01

Just came along this video. Most likely been posted here before in one of the many threads about seaplanes/flyingboats, but always nice to watch :)
Seaplane Trials
  • 0

#84 =FB=VikS

=FB=VikS
  • Developer
  • Posts: 1246

Posted 10 December 2012 - 19:24

Just came along this video. Most likely been posted here before in one of the many threads about seaplanes/flyingboats, but always nice to watch :)
Seaplane Trials

nice find! thanks!
  • 0

#85 SirHorse

SirHorse
  • Posts: 9

Posted 10 December 2012 - 21:03

That is a very fine looking machine.

The Ark I presume???

The pilot model could be given a long white beard. Noah Hawker, perhaps?
  • 0

#86 Avimimus

Avimimus
  • Posts: 1317

Posted 10 December 2012 - 21:40

Just came along this video. Most likely been posted here before in one of the many threads about seaplanes/flyingboats, but always nice to watch :)
Seaplane Trials

nice find! thanks!

Oh! Look at the Short 184…!

Watching the video - there are at least two Felixstowes. One of which has twin over-wing gunner baskets (so there were three different types of top-wing gunners tried?).

I'm also curious about how the windshields changed over time (the one's in the pictures have two small wind-screens of different shapes!
  • 0

#87 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 10 December 2012 - 22:17

Strange, to modern eyes, how they wanted to create tail draggers on the water.

I'd imagine the cockpit glazing kept water out of the cockpit on takeoff/landing. I can just imagine water surging over the nose and into the cockpit in anything other than flat calm conditions.
  • 0

#88 Bf-110

Bf-110
  • Posts: 649

Posted 11 December 2012 - 00:07

Now I see.I was fooled all that time believing Felixstowe had a fabric covered fuselage and had smoother angles on the belly and nose.

Still trying to get why some F2As had closed cockpits (like this) and some had open ones,like this:

Image

Can't wait to see it painted!
  • 0

#89 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 11 December 2012 - 00:26

Not sure where this is from:

www.flickr.com/photos/clydes_stream/5999352454/lightbox/
  • 0

#90 volatile_void

volatile_void
  • Posts: 55

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:32

Now I see.I was fooled all that time believing Felixstowe had a fabric covered fuselage and had smoother angles on the belly and nose.

Still trying to get why some F2As had closed cockpits (like this) and some had open ones,like this:

I think this was just a change in production, with earlier planes having the 'closed' cockpit and later ones having the open cockpit. Don't know for sure though..
There seems to be also another difference between earlier and later models. The earlier models (like the one 777 is modelling) have counter-rotating propellers, while on the later ones the propellers turn both in the same direction.
  • 0

#91 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:14

The earlier models (like the one 777 is modelling) have counter-rotating propellers, while on the later ones the propellers turn both in the same direction.

Correct, the aircraft built after June 1918 had "twinned" engines.
  • 0

#92 AndyJWest

AndyJWest
  • Posts: 1284

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:54

Regarding the counter-rotating props, aren't they going the 'wrong' way? I'm not saying that they are historically wrong - from what I've seen they are correct, but from the point of view of aerodynamics, it would be a lot safer to have them the other way round. If an engine fails, the torque from the other is going to make the boat (it is more boat than aeroplane, obviously) is going to roll towards the dead engine - which is just what you don't want. In WWII, the P.38 had 'wrong-way' counter-rotating engines, but this was done for improved gun accuracy apparently - not really a consideration in the Felixstowe. Any thoughts on this, anyone?
  • 0

#93 Markow

Markow
  • Posts: 201

Posted 11 December 2012 - 13:44

WowW BIG
  • 0

campribV.png


#94 Dooga

Dooga
  • Posts: 422

Posted 11 December 2012 - 18:21

Finally, a flying shed! ;)
  • 0

#95 Flying_Dutchman

Flying_Dutchman
  • Posts: 191

Posted 11 December 2012 - 20:36

WOW…

Wait a second… (have to pick my lower jaw from the floor)

Very nice!!!
What a beauty! :S!:
  • 0

#96 Goanna

Goanna
  • Posts: 17

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:26

Finally, a flying shed! ;)
An dwe all know any Bloke worth his salt loves a great shed - and a flyable one is just excellent!!
good work all you guys at ROF
Maybe for us in Santa's stocking
  • 0

#97 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:56

Andy, interesting, I had not thought of this. I would have thought that the handed props were intended to increase the down load on the tail to balance the the nose down moment caused by the high thrust-line.
But the props appear to rotate the wrong way for that as well! (unless I am muddled). The swirling air from the rotating blades appear to increase the angle of attack between the engines and hence at the tail and reduce it outboard of the engines.

regarding your observation, would the engine out torque effect be significant? Could it fly at-all on one engine ? I assume that this plane was relatively underpowered.

The RoF model matches the drawing I've seen. Incidentally the HP0/100 originally had handed props, but this was was changed. Not sure why.
  • 0

#98 alraz27

alraz27
  • Posts: 5

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:27

WOW! that is one amazing model - can't wait.
  • 0

#99 wrong_name_173

wrong_name_173
  • Posts: 308

Posted 12 December 2012 - 20:39

"Closed" cabin :) And, as in there?
  • 0

#100 Mac

Mac
  • Posts: 53

Posted 13 December 2012 - 19:51

Mac can't Wait…nice work 777
  • 0

#101 AndyJWest

AndyJWest
  • Posts: 1284

Posted 13 December 2012 - 20:00

Andy, interesting, I had not thought of this. I would have thought that the handed props were intended to increase the down load on the tail to balance the the nose down moment caused by the high thrust-line.
But the props appear to rotate the wrong way for that as well! (unless I am muddled). The swirling air from the rotating blades appear to increase the angle of attack between the engines and hence at the tail and reduce it outboard of the engines.

regarding your observation, would the engine out torque effect be significant? Could it fly at-all on one engine ? I assume that this plane was relatively underpowered.

The RoF model matches the drawing I've seen. Incidentally the HP0/100 originally had handed props, but this was was changed. Not sure why.

You may well be right that it couldn't have maintained height on one engine - but it might have extended the glide. The critical thing though isn't so much being able to maintain level flight, it is the effects of a sudden loss of power on one engine. You'll already have a sudden yaw, and with torque giving a roll in the same direction, a spin becomes more likely. Wikipedia has an article explaining the issues:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_engine
  • 0

#102 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 14 December 2012 - 00:39

Thanks, that is a good explanation - I had not really considered torque.
  • 0

#103 Blooddawn1942

Blooddawn1942
  • Posts: 149
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:41

This oversized duck looks fantastic. Can't wait to get it out of the water and into the skys!
But more I'm looking forward to bring it down with my Hansa….hehehe!
  • 0

MALAULA!!!

Outgunned, outnumbered though never outclassed!

Wyrd bid ful araed...


#104 Missionbug

Missionbug
  • Posts: 25

Posted 14 December 2012 - 18:53

She looks real gorgeous Loft, thank you very much for posting the images. :S!:

Can't wait to take her for a spin around the channel. ;)

Wishing you all the very best, Pete. :D
  • 0

#105 hypercop

hypercop
  • Posts: 200

Posted 15 December 2012 - 12:04

If I remember correctly, the developers wanted to give out the airplane AND the channel map before Christmas or New Year. Loft said he will still show a blog with photos of Felixstove with environment as background. If the blog appears even before release, the nwe blog should soon come times.

And, if I remember, the developers wanted to release the channel-map before their chirstmas-holiday.

Did I fail to see a message from the devs, that the release delays?
  • 0

#106 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 15 December 2012 - 14:29

Isnt Russian holiday in Januari?
  • 0

#107 Dressedwings

Dressedwings
  • Posts: 2094
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 15 December 2012 - 16:01

it appears so….. http://www.rusconhou...rusholidays.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.rusconhou...rusholidays.htm
  • 0

TOeIhAe.png

^CHECK THE LINK^


#108 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:01

Irc the dev's usually have a holiday after New Year.
  • 0

#109 Jason_Williams

Jason_Williams
  • Producer
  • Posts: 3467
  • LocationLas Vegas, NV USA

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:38

Russian Christmas is after our Christmas. I'm not sure how long our break will be this year. Much to do.

Jason
  • 0

#110 Gimpy117

Gimpy117
  • Posts: 1661

Posted 17 December 2012 - 19:25

enclosed cockpit?

Looks like I'm gonna be toasty in there
  • 0

#111 LordNeuro_Srb

LordNeuro_Srb
  • Posts: 990
  • LocationNovi Sad/Serbia

Posted 17 December 2012 - 19:32

Yes the Russia , Serbia at couple more countrys celebreting Christmas by Julian calendar on 7 th of january.
  • 0

#112 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:57

enclosed cockpit?

Semi-enclosed cockpit.
  • 0

#113 Tracer

Tracer
  • Posts: 69

Posted 19 December 2012 - 14:12

http://www.sukhoi.ru...l=1#post1947016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sukhoi.ru...um/showthread.p … ost1947016
  • 0

#114 Dietz

Dietz
  • Posts: 233

Posted 19 December 2012 - 16:05

One word:when?
  • 0

#115 realCallahan

realCallahan
  • Posts: 2070

Posted 19 December 2012 - 17:39

http://www.sukhoi.ru...l=1#post1947016
:D somebody of 777 talked too much :D
  • 0

#116 Bf-110

Bf-110
  • Posts: 649

Posted 19 December 2012 - 21:28

What is that sukhoi forum?Is it from the real aircraft company??? :o
  • 0

#117 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 19 December 2012 - 21:45

What is that sukhoi forum?

It's…a discussion forum.

Is it from the real aircraft company??? :o

No
  • 0

#118 Dressedwings

Dressedwings
  • Posts: 2094
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 19 December 2012 - 23:35

that link won't work for me. Whats it about?
  • 0

TOeIhAe.png

^CHECK THE LINK^


#119 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 19 December 2012 - 23:44

Please do tell what it said :D
  • 0

#120 Dressedwings

Dressedwings
  • Posts: 2094
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 19 December 2012 - 23:57

especially that 777 part "talked" too much. Its very intriguing
  • 0

TOeIhAe.png

^CHECK THE LINK^



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users