Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum


Go Back   Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum > SHADO Operations > Control Room

Notices

SPONSORED BY
&

Reply Bookmark and Share
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2013, 04:44 PM   #1
Odahs
Astrophysics Technician
 
Odahs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Essex, United Kingdom
Posts: 367
Default Which planes might have flown?

Hi all,

newbie to the forum, I was just wondering what peoples thought's are on which of the UFO (or other series) aircraft would have been practical and could have flown?

Also interested in any videos/pictures/news of flying models based on the series vehicles that have been built and flown to date.
Odahs is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 08:07 AM   #2
Crimson Binome
Communications Officer
 
Crimson Binome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Posts: 1,040
Default

Hi welcome to the Forum
Think the Shadair Transport looked like an Antanov style plane
and Seagull X-Ray looked like a private Concord
Crimson Binome is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 11:41 AM   #3
Odahs
Astrophysics Technician
 
Odahs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Essex, United Kingdom
Posts: 367
Default

Thanks for the welcome

Agreed both look enough like conventional planes to be viable designs in my opinion too

I think the Albatross looks quite conventional and plausible too.
Odahs is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2013, 03:05 AM   #4
Richard Baker
Eagle Pilot
 
Richard Baker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Warrior, Alabama
Posts: 539
Default

One thing about the Anderson designs- they are built around high powered fictional power plants, some with Antigrav also. Even if a craft may not be aerodynamically efficient, if you throw enough thrust behind it it will fly.
I have been going through the Haynes International Rescue and Supermarionation Cross-section books recently, first just checking references for TB-3 and then just marveling about the unique hulls and engineering he created. Most of the craft could work, they may have some features which would complicate the airflow, but I think that is what gives then a certain charm.
Personally, I would love to be a passenger on the Fireflash- the leading of the wings would be a great place to view the world while traveling...
Richard Baker is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2013, 01:07 PM   #5
Odahs
Astrophysics Technician
 
Odahs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Essex, United Kingdom
Posts: 367
Default

With you there Richard, give enough thrust and it will fly just fine

I often think aircraft like TSR 2, XB-70 and X-22A were more Anderson than real

What might have been if we hadn't had penny pinching governments, fuel crisis and a world run strictly on economics rather than adventure! I might have been going to work in one of these!



We might too have seen much more powerful power plants, but instead most of the development is now about quietness and fuel efficiency.

Agree too that the features that are not quite realistic are usually those that might have created more than necessary induced drag - but they always add to the charm and distinctiveness of the vehicles (or in some cases functionality).

I've I feeling for UFO at least, there might have been a tendency to keep things fairly conventional for a more adult intended audience too (even if I first watched it when I was 6!!) so all might make quite viable flying models.

Not that I've stopped believing in any of the Anderson vehicles down the years!
Odahs is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2013, 03:54 PM   #6
boatshewsd2
Life Support Officer
 
boatshewsd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: United States (California)
Posts: 1,779
Default And A Star To Steer Her By...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odahs View Post
With you there Richard, give enough thrust and it will fly just fine

I often think aircraft like TSR 2, XB-70 and X-22A were more Anderson than real

What might have been if we hadn't had penny pinching governments, fuel crisis and a world run strictly on economics rather than adventure! I might have been going to work in one of these!



We might too have seen much more powerful power plants, but instead most of the development is now about quietness and fuel efficiency.

Agree too that the features that are not quite realistic are usually those that might have created more than necessary induced drag - but they always add to the charm and distinctiveness of the vehicles (or in some cases functionality).

I've I feeling for UFO at least, there might have been a tendency to keep things fairly conventional for a more adult intended audience too (even if I first watched it when I was 6!!) so all might make quite viable flying models.

Not that I've stopped believing in any of the Anderson vehicles down the years!


Roger that.

What a wonderful world, indeed...
boatshewsd2 is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 08:23 AM   #7
ldo
Travel Tube Technician
 
ldo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Posts: 74
Default

Considering that the Boeing V-22 Osprey took over 20 years of development, and several billions of dollars, before it would fly without continually crashing and killing its crew, I wouldn’t be too sanguine about many of these other concepts...
ldo is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 09:58 AM   #8
Odahs
Astrophysics Technician
 
Odahs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Essex, United Kingdom
Posts: 367
Default

Oh I don't know, there have been successes with fan in wing tilt-rotors, with modern fly by wire systems and artificial stability, it could just be just a matter of time! The Doak VZ-4 was close to the Anderson concept and flew pretty good!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87Vc5Ass7w8

The V-22 was ground breaking, it took just as long to build reliable helicopters and indeed conventional fixed wing aircraft back in the day too!
Odahs is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2014, 10:31 AM   #9
Odahs
Astrophysics Technician
 
Odahs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Essex, United Kingdom
Posts: 367
Default

It has all got to me - I've ordered motors and various other bits for a prototype RC Kingfisher, 'UFO helicopter' or VTO aircraft as it was named by Mike Trim.

I was pondering it all yesterday in the garden and what should fly past, a V-22 Osprey, first I've ever seen. It was in full forward flight and was frankly mind blowing. Somewhat inspired, I made some calculations and with plenty of guess work too, came up with a list of hardware to buy.

If anyone has any reference materials for this model it would be much appreciated.

I currently have:

Screen grabs from Ordeal

3 view from theartofufo.com

Mike Trim profile painting

Still have some grey areas on the model design, so anything else would be really appreciated.

Depending on how many months, years or decades it takes me to get the Kingfisher flying, I'm also pondering a flying Sky 1, one of those big Mobile Transporters from UFO (full of 1/43 scale mobiles) and the Angel Interceptor.

The only design issues I see with the Kingfisher at the moment is the wing position being very aft, in vertical flight mode this leads to a very short moment arm for the stabilising tail rotor (very much shorter than the Doak VZ-4), this could be good or bad lol. With such a short moment to the tailplane as well, it could turn out very aerobatic, if not inherently very stable.

Found this on Youtube recently whilst researching, profile Angel Interceptor model in flight:

http://youtu.be/c_Y-wx6my8I

The same guy has also flown a Fireball XL5 and Thunderbird 1
Odahs is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2014, 07:01 AM   #10
Ham Salad
Communications Officer
 
Ham Salad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odahs View Post
With you there Richard, give enough thrust and it will fly just fine

I often think aircraft like TSR 2, XB-70 and X-22A were more Anderson than real

What might have been if we hadn't had penny pinching governments, fuel crisis and a world run strictly on economics rather than adventure! I might have been going to work in one of these!

I agree! I want that 'atomic and automatic world! This one sucks!

Sign me up for a jetpack, a flying car, a house with sliding doors, and a silver jumpsuit toot sweet!

On the other hand, my '82 Z-28 looks pretty much like straker's car, sans the gull wing doors...and I'll also accept that Nehru jacket in grey as well.
Ham Salad is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 21-05-2014, 07:26 AM   #11
ldo
Travel Tube Technician
 
ldo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Posts: 74
Default

Well, you know, Governments have to work within the taxes that citizens are prepared to pay.

One thing seems clear, though: the world took a wrong turn on atomic power when it concentrated on sources like uranium and plutonium that could also be used to make bombs. It’s now going to take decades to bring non-weaponizable thorium up to speed.
ldo is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2014, 06:47 PM   #12
Ham Salad
Communications Officer
 
Ham Salad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldo View Post
Well, you know, Governments have to work within the taxes that citizens are prepared to pay.
It's not really about taxes...it's about government control and regulation.

For example, atomic powered rocket engined fully capable to getting spacecraft around the solar system with the technology of that time were built and tested by the late '60s...and politics in the form of regulation that prohibited the use of atomic propulsion in space has kept us on earth for 40 years.

Regulations, by the way, that the Chinese and Russians ignored.

Another example is the fact that a certain leader essentially cancelled the manned space program in my own nation on a whim...costing billions and with nothing to replace the existing fleet of spacecraft which were still serviceable.

This could also cost us our only manned space station, because unless Private space companies are successful in taking over resupply the station will eventually fall out of orbit, wasting THAT investment.


The reality is that getting the human race off this planet is vital: the earth is a catastrophe planet, and every species on it is doomed to extinction. As a race, we need to be off this planet before 'mother gaia' get around to murdering all her children again (as she does about every 5 million years).

Last edited by Ham Salad; 21-05-2014 at 06:49 PM.
Ham Salad is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2014, 07:07 PM   #13
ldo
Travel Tube Technician
 
ldo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Posts: 74
Default

That “atomic propulsion” has to get us off the ground in the first place, and the problems of using such polluting technologies in our atmosphere is where the main difficulty lies. NASA has already successfully used ion rockets on production spacecraft, which hold the promise of, for example, a Mars mission taking one month instead of eight.
ldo is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2014, 03:48 AM   #14
Ham Salad
Communications Officer
 
Ham Salad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldo View Post
That “atomic propulsion” has to get us off the ground in the first place, and the problems of using such polluting technologies in our atmosphere is where the main difficulty lies. NASA has already successfully used ion rockets on production spacecraft, which hold the promise of, for example, a Mars mission taking one month instead of eight.
Possibly, but I don't see a heavy lift booster using them. We had atomic heavy lift booster rockets built and tested by 1968. The issue wasn't that of pollution, but the usual luddite fear of technology and atomic power. Progress and development is by its nature dangerous, and danger must be accepted or no progress will be accomplished.

it's possible to create some sort of orbital elevator or perhaps a earth to orbit accelerator...but such an undertaking would be huge, and very, very expensive. The wealth required would demand an international effort...which is precluded by economies that are increasingly crippled by failed economic theories.

Ion drives are exclusively low thrust: they have no application to what is the real need, getting heavy cargoes out of the earth's gravity well.

As for 'polluting technologies', there's no such thing as a 'non polluting technology': as the eco conscious claim that even carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Which of course means that burning any type of fuel is verboten.

Again, those requirements didn't stop the russians or chinese from putting atomic vehicles into orbit; and if the west does not remove political impediments to progress they will be the ones with interplanetary space flight. It's the russians that today have manned orbital capability while NASA shuttles sit in museums, and our own astronauts and space station that have been endangered by such spurious concerns.

Finally, there's a faulty assumption that humans 'pollute' the atmosphere, or are a danger to the ecosystem: again, the facts of geologic history say otherwise. The earth's ecology and atmousphere and climate are catastrophe based: the earth's atmousphere and climate will change radically regardless of what humans do or do not do, and every species on earth is doomed. A mass extinction is overdue by about a million years already: it could happen tomorrow.

At any rate, it's not about taxes, at least for US: NASA is a TINY part of the the total expenditures, and taxpayers are in general not only pleased to pay for it, but would be pleased to pay more. The apollo program was proof of that, and the wealth created by the technology that it engendered is essentially the driving force behind most of the technology since then.

Space is good business.

Last edited by Ham Salad; 22-05-2014 at 04:14 AM.
Ham Salad is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2014, 04:12 AM   #15
ldo
Travel Tube Technician
 
ldo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ham Salad View Post
We had atomic heavy lift booster rockets built and tested by 1968.
None that flew.
ldo is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 22-05-2014, 06:51 AM   #16
Ham Salad
Communications Officer
 
Ham Salad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldo View Post

They weren't allowed to fly. That was pretty much the point that was being made: the issue is and was bad government, not technology.

From your own reference:

>NERVA demonstrated that nuclear thermal rocket engines were a feasible and reliable tool for space exploration, and at the end of 1968 SNPO certified that the latest NERVA engine, the NRX/XE, met the requirements for a manned Mars mission.

Further, there have been no ion engines that have ever lifted a craft to orbit, either...nor have there been any that have flown on a manned mission. There's no indication that an ion engine would be feasible on a craft of the size and mass required for a manned mission.

It's not just a matter of thrust, either: for a manned mission, you'd need a power system that could generate a field powerful enough to protect the crew from radiation from the sun. Outside the safety of the earth's magnetic field, you're in constant danger of a solar hiccup that could give you a lethal dose in minutes.

Last edited by Ham Salad; 22-05-2014 at 07:21 AM.
Ham Salad is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2014, 08:07 AM   #17
ldo
Travel Tube Technician
 
ldo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Posts: 74
Default

But you said “built and tested”, when there was no such thing.
ldo is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2014, 08:24 AM   #18
Odahs
Astrophysics Technician
 
Odahs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Essex, United Kingdom
Posts: 367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldo View Post
But you said “built and tested”, when there was no such thing.

The statement 'built and tested' is correct.

The statement 'never flown' is also correct.

They were built and test fired (built and tested) successfully at the Nevada Test Site , but none were actually flown before the program was ended.
Odahs is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2014, 01:53 AM   #19
Ham Salad
Communications Officer
 
Ham Salad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odahs View Post
The statement 'built and tested' is correct.

The statement 'never flown' is also correct.

They were built and test fired (built and tested) successfully at the Nevada Test Site , but none were actually flown before the program was ended.
Right you are.

I also would caution against thinking that wikipedia is a valid source: it is not, because it has no authority or accountability.

For example, the article implies that richard nixon personally cancelled the Atomic engine project, when in fact it was done by the congress of the opposing party. At the time Nixon was essentially a lame duck, and he essentially had no choice but to go along with congress.

It also implies that the project was cancelled because of a lack of interest in the mars project: this is also blatantly untrue, as the project was cancelled because of ecological radicals and the treaty which prohibited use of atomic power in space.

Last edited by Ham Salad; 23-05-2014 at 01:57 AM.
Ham Salad is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2014, 02:18 AM   #20
ldo
Travel Tube Technician
 
ldo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Posts: 74
Default

The nice thing about Wikipedia is, they make a point of citing their sources.

If you can point to references for your claims, by all means add them to the article.
ldo is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site and contents are copyright © Bernard Walsh 2010 all rights reserved, no reproduction of material in any form without written permission email: Bernie.walsh@mac.com