Tailspin Turtle

Members
  • Content count

    1,105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tailspin Turtle

  • Rank
    Full Blown Model Geek

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://tommythomason.com/
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

9,744 profile views
  1. http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-navy-bombs-up-through-wwii.html http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2013/09/f2h-2-external-stores.html
  2. For what it's worth, I just ordered and received a Blackburn B-48 Firecrest from Atsushi Koyanagi, who is Akatombo (see https://www.facebook.com/atsushi.koyanagi.520 on Facebook). I paid with PayPal and the kit took about a month to get to Connecticut from Japan. It looks great for a cottage-industry product. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an on-line source in English listing his product line, much of which is out of production in any event. However, he responds almost immediately to requests in English by email for a current list of what he has available, almost all of which consists of odd-ball, one-off aircraft, most non US.
  3. Note that if the ejection seat is the scale width, then the consoles must usually be narrower than scale because of the thickness of the side of the kit fuselage. There may also be a problem in height if the cockpit is over a nose landing-gear well of the correct depth. Also see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/09/fitting-in.html Kit manufacturers deal with the problem in different ways. I'm told that the Kitty Hawk 1/48th F2H-2 cockpit is proportionally accurate but subscale, about 1/57th.
  4. Pretty good A4D drawings (the one in the Detail and Scale book is somewhat off, at least as printed). http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/08/a4d-skyhawk-one-more-time.html
  5. Deploying the F-4's drag chute on final was a no-no according to the flight manual but was sometimes done (deliberately) to minimize the landing roll if field length was marginal.
  6. This will help understand the F8U rocket pack versus the speed brake: http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-brief-history-of-f8u-crusader-armament.html
  7. Some build notes on the landing gear: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2014/02/hasagawa-p2v-neptune-kit.html
  8. Part of the F-111 image problem is that it wasn't a fighter, per se, certainly not an air-superiority fighter. The F-111A was a bomber. The F-111B was a missile truck (I don't think that there is a letter designation for that) optimized to shoot down enemy bombers and cruise missiles (big radar, six heavy missiles, long time on station, dash speed to engage the threat as far from the carrier as possible). The F-14 was a fighter, albeit big, that could do 75% of the Phoenix fleet-air-defense mission as an overload. The F-111B would have been better at the Phoenix mission (bigger radar dish, longer time on station, bring back all six Phoenixes, less wind-over-deck for launch and recovery) and potentially a replacement for the A-6 with a different suite of avionics. The carrier air group's air-superiority mission would have to have been fulfilled by something that looked like a Super Hornet.
  9. Dihedral is not necessarily measured from the wing root to the wing tip, certainly not in the case of the F4U Corsair, F4H Phantom, or C-130 Hercules. Each segment that has a different angle will have a dihedral number associated with it. It's rarely defined by aerodynamicists as the angle of the lower surface of the wing (i.e. I've never seen an example), although that's a convenient measurement, particularly during construction of model airplanes. I can't find a commonly accepted definition of the measurement. It's usually depicted as being along the midpoint of the upper and lower surface of the wing when viewed from the front. However, in the case of the A4D Skyhawk as apparently here, it is defined as the angle of the trailing edge of the wing with respect to horizontal. Note that in this case, the three-degree twist of the wing results in the dihedral line going from low on the front view of the wing at the break between the inboard section of the wing and the outboard panel that has dihedral to somewhat proportionall higher at the tip. With respect to low and high wings, an airplane with a wing located at the bottom of the fuselage needs notably more dihedral than one mounted at the top of the fuselage to achieve the same dihedral effect. An airplane with a swept wing needs less dihedral than one with an unswept wing (note that the F8U Crusader that has a high-mounted wing is has anhedral). After that, the discussion gets very complicated.
  10. I think this is a sloppily defined drawing. See CF104's above and the illustrations in this LINK (Photobucket wasn't working for me today),which are from a Lockheed aero report on the C-130 (you can't read the dihedral on the drawing but it is given as 2.5 degrees). It may be that the later C-130s had a different wing (note the location of the external fuel tanks) but I'm inclined to doubt it. The dihedral is clearly not the bottom of the wing (my guess based on the side view is that it is defined at the trailing edge of the wing; note the twist between the inboard wing and the wing tip). Both views show the wing tip slightly higher than the root, although as pointed out above, fuel load may cause the outboard panels to droop.
  11. Some F3H configuration notes: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/11/f3h-demon.html http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2011/05/f3h-sidewinder-and-sparrow.html
  12. And to follow up, my examination of John's drawing using Illustrator strongly suggests that the C-130 wing is flat across the top from tip to tip as drawn, the outboard panel dihedral and taper (in thickness) canceling each other out. The side view in both John's drawing and the Lockheed report indicates that the top of the wing tip is slightly higher than the top of the wing at the fuselage center line but given the variability of the outboard wing position with respect to fuel load, flat across the top would be my choice.
  13. I knew that but wrote outboard anyway. Thanks for the correction and the illustration. I also note that the dashed line showing the dihedral is lower at the inboard end than I would have expected but still above the lower surface. It is shown the same way on the three view in an early C-130 aerodynamic report, It may represent the location of the trailing edge of the wing.
  14. Probably more than you want to know about dihedral: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/03/anhedraldihedral-and-wing-sweep.html
  15. Yes but,,, I'm pretty sure that the dihedral number was not for the lower wing surface because aerodynamicists, who use the number, define it as the midpoint between the upper and lower surfaces. This distinction is important in this case because the upper surface of the C-130 wing outboard of the inboard (originally and incorrectly stated outboard) engine is not flat, but angled slightly upward.