Even better
Send the entire cast of that essex program that appears on tv on channel 4/5 up there
Brits send Star Wars X-wing fighter to the stratosphere
A couple of Brits have made a cheeky pitch for tickets to the premiere of forthcoming Star Wars flick The Force Awakens by sending a model X-wing fighter into the stratosphere. Essex boys Matt Kingsnorth and Phil St. Pier, of Project Helium Tears (motto "For Essex, for Earth, for all mankind") hit 36,190m with their …
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 13:23 GMT Bob Wheeler
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
At one air show I went to (late 70's) a Vulcan flew down the runway at 200/300 ft then the pilot pulled the stick back so far that it looks like it was standing on it's tail. The afterburners were lit up and the ground shook as the Vulcan went up veritcally.
God it was a beautiful sight and sound!!!!!
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 14:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
"The afterburners were lit up and the ground shook as the Vulcan went up veritcally."
Is that so?
Perhaps this really isn't the sort of place to claim that Vulcans had afterburners (ignoring flying testbed configurations), as half of us are anoraks who know better. I doubt the airframe would have been strong enough for 50% more thrust from the engines.
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 15:16 GMT Mint Sauce
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
Perhaps this really isn't the sort of place to claim that Vulcans had afterburners (ignoring flying testbed configurations), as half of us are anoraks who know better. I doubt the airframe would have been strong enough for 50% more thrust from the engines.
I sincerely hope that when XH558 finally runs out of engine cycles, the pilots on the final display are allowed to give it absolutely flat-sticks over the airfield as a final goodbye.
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 15:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
"Perhaps this really isn't the sort of place to claim that Vulcans had afterburners (ignoring flying testbed configurations), as half of us are anoraks who know better."
This is the sort of place where we'd fit afterburners to a Vulcan just to make it howl louder. And thrust vectoring. And a shark tank for DEW capability. And then organise a trip to Machynlleth Loop to see* what happens.
(and enquiring minds want to know if the Vulcans ever flew the mach loop, and if there's any film..)
*and feel. Part of the Vulcan's awsomeness was feeling it's howl when it did it's missed approach and other crowd pleasers. We're short on strategic bombers, perhaps we should resurrect it?
-
Friday 1st May 2015 12:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
In theory it wouldn't be that difficult to fit afterburners to a Vulcan, the engines are similar to Concorde's (which do have afterburners) so you'd think a set of those would fit in OK with a bit of frame altering etc (ok, a lot).
Practically, maybe not, the Vulcan has long jet tailpipes iirc which might melt under the heat, and also it's unstable in pitch beyond something like 0.92 Mach so you'd have to turn them off pdq. Would be one heck of a thing to see, though.
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 12:43 GMT Rich 11
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
As the saying (originally about the F-4 Phantom, I believe) goes, "with enough thrust, you can get a brick to fly".
To fly, but not necessarily be stable. The Phantom's polyhedral wings were at least symmetrical. I think an X-Wing's wing symmetry would cause it to pitch badly.
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 13:12 GMT Hairy Spod
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
Yes, and the flight instructors on the two seat English Electric lightnings used to comment to the novice pilitots whilst going supersonic in the vertical that.
"You'll notice dear boy that the purpose of the wings on the lightning is merely to keep the nav lights apart"
-
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 12:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
"Given adequate funds, would it be possible to build a jet-engined full-size X-Wing that could fly like a normal aircraft? "
Given the improbable aerodynamics of the Harrier, or the SR-71, I would suggest that getting a modified X-Wing to fly would not be an insurmountable challenge, just an expensive one. At a guess you'd probably only want two rather than four engines, and you're then perhaps drifting towards and ARC-170.
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 13:10 GMT Ugotta B. Kiddingme
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
"you'd probably only want two rather than four engines"
Actually, four smallish engines might solve the CG problem someone else pointed out.
And remember, with modern computers and fly-by-wire, even the ludicrously unstable X29 flies more or less normally
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 14:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
The Harrier's jet engines are fitted in VTOL configuration, where as the X-Wing's engines are fitted in a fixed-forward configuration.
The SR-71, despite looking rather odd, has a large aerodynamic surface area to provide lift, which the X-Wing doesn't.
Basically I reckon without that unseen mechanism that provides the X-Wing's lift (Anti-grav repulsion, as per Luke Skywalker's land speeder), you're stuffed.
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 15:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
"The Harrier's jet engines are fitted in VTOL configuration, where as the X-Wing's engines are fitted in a fixed-forward configuration."
Not really relevant to my point. When vectored for forward flight a Harrier has no vertical thrust component from the engine. What's more pertinent to the X Wing question is the relatively small wings relative to the brick-like aerodynamics, and to the weight of the aircraft, along with the anhedral configuration (drooping wings).
And there's quite a few aircraft with small wings that can fly - as others have commented, the F104 is particularly notable, along with the EE Lightning. Arguably even the Tornado has a very small wing area for its size.
-
-
Monday 19th October 2015 12:29 GMT Peter2
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
When it comes to making aerodynamic shapes fly with sheer thrust, I think that the F105, the harrier or the Eurofighter are far from the best examples possible. How about an F15 with a wing missing?
http://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wing/
-
-
-
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 15:12 GMT Triggerfish
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
Eurofighter doesn't fly with stability I think they do that with a few modern fighters so that the are more manavuerable.
I would have thought with the X-Wing you are not getting enough surface area or the right wing shape on the leading edges, although thrust will help with that. Just what point does it stop being a plane for aerodynamics and turn into a rocket?
-
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 20:29 GMT Captain DaFt
Re: Here's an interesting poser that I have posed elsewhere.
"would it be possible to build a jet-engined full-size X-Wing that could fly like a normal aircraft?"
Well, first you'd have to correct one minor problem this artist pointed out.
(For those that don't click: "Splitting a turbine down the middle has a negative effect on its performance. Who knew?")
-
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 14:47 GMT Uncle Slacky
Re: Can't tell scale from photo
Looks like too much (cosmetic) dirt and/or texturing on it to be the 70s Mattel version, plus the guns on the wingtips of the 70s version are black, and you'd have to push R2D2's head down almost flush with the ship to get the wings to lock in attack position.
-
Friday 1st May 2015 08:33 GMT rdm
And yet it flies...sort of.
As far as making an X-Wing fly, Estes used to do a C6-3 powered X-Wing model rocket kit.
Flies quite well, actually. Massive amounts of clay in the nose to make it stable, mind, but not as much as the Kilngon Cruiser needed.
Then again, they also did a flying R2D2 kit...
As is often said by model fliers and fighter jocks "Put a big enough engine in something..."
-
Wednesday 7th October 2015 06:37 GMT ShadowDragon8685
The X-Wing is not very well-designed for atmospheric aerodynamic flight. The center of lift is entirely wrong, there's no rudder and no elevators/canards.
Better than a TIE fighter, sure. But in-universe and IRL, the X-Wing is an atrocious flyer on solely aerodynamic principles. It also only has landing legs, not wheels, so take-off would be impossible without some kind of launch assist, and landing would be absolutely impossible without either some kind of flying trapeze style thing where it catches onto a dirigible, or just lithobrakes.
So, nope. Not gonna fly until the invention of the repulsorlift.
-
Friday 11th December 2015 15:29 GMT oldcoder
You don't need a rudder... Just look at the B2 or other flying wing designs. Most don't have anything for a rudder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing
Granted, it still isn't well designed for atmospheric flying.
You also don't need elevators or canards... if you have suitable thrusters in place.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
