[Guest]

I was after all responsible for an aircraft design thirty years ago.

And to what aircraft would that be?

[YEAGER007]

You know what caldrail, I've had it with your inability to comprehend or even just read what is written.
In every single one of your posts you say things that I have already mentioned.

Furthermore, as you claim to be a practising pilot of some experience, you will know that the position of the centre of gravity is not fixed. It varies according to the load carried on any particular flight, and one of the essential responsibilities of an aircraftas captain (as defined by CAA regulations) is to ensure the CoG is within safe limits for that flight. It isn't physically possible to keep the main spar and the CoG in the same place.

If you opened your eyes for once you'd notice that I mentioned the CoG varies with load! You must be either dyslectic, blind, or you’re just too imprudent to read properly.

The center of gravity also shifts as cargo and passengers are loaded on the aircraft.

You're damning yourself as a careless pilot and for that reason please stay the heck out of my airspce.

You don’t occupy any airspace, you’re a has-been, remember.
You have no clue who I am and you have never flown with me, so who the hell are you to tell me what kind of pilot I am. Not that your opinion matters, mind you... You have proven that your opinions are useless after all.

The reason a tailplane is not curved at the top and flat underneath, is because the function of the tailplane and elevator combination is to create either positive or negative lift at the tail in order to control pitch.

No, the function of the tailplane is to maintain stability. The elevator is there to control pitch. It's no good trying to teach me to suck eggs.

I'm sure you like sucking other stuff, don't you? If you wake up and opened your eyes, you’d see that I was referring to the tailplane & elevator combination. That is what is being discussed here after all. I guess one needs to say everything over and over with you, like one would do with a small child.


You keep on contradicting yourself… You started your childish argument because you claimed the tailplane's function is to keep the tail in the air. LOL! Let’s look at an earlier statement you made…

tailpanes don't work like that. Quite the reverse, they add a small measure of lift to keep the tail from dropping.

It seems you can’t make up your mind about what it’s function is and how it works. The one moment you claim it adds lift to keep the tailplane from falling, the next moment you claim there is never any lift at the tailplane...

By definition, it cannot generate reduced air pressure on the opposite surface.

Have you made up your mind yet?

Further, I don't consider further reading is necessary - I was after all responsible for an aircraft design thirty years ago.

Now that is ARROGANCE personified! I agree about you reading being a futile exercise, though… with your lack of comprehension, no amount of reading will help. Your repeated foolish arguments and lack of realizing what I’m saying shows that you obviously consider yourself to be above studying subjects you are clueless about. Listening to you I bet that plane was one dangerous aircraft to fly. It’s a good thing you haven’t been involved in anything like that in the last 30 years and on more than one occasion. What happened? Did they fire you? I would understand why! Let us know what aircraft to steer clear of, please. But you know what… I call bull. First your claim to fame is that you are a failed pilot. Now all of a sudden you are a has-been, once-off aircraft designer that doesn't now anything about aircraft design and tries to get sympathy because “financial circumstances" caused you to be unable to fly... Let me guess... Your little plane didn’t sell very well? Forgive me if I don't get my violin out for you. Next you’re going to tell us you designed the Concorde... The SR-71? The Space Shuttle?

Even though your antics are amusing, it is getting a bit long in the tooth... So why don’t you run along and go design us a nice paper plane!

[Guest]

Now that is ARROGANCE personified! I agree about you reading being a futile exercise, though… with your lack of comprehension, no amount of reading will help. Your repeated foolish arguments and lack of realizing what I’m saying shows that you obviously consider yourself to be above studying subjects you are clueless about. Listening to you I bet that plane was one dangerous aircraft to fly. It’s a good thing you haven’t been involved in anything like that in the last 30 years and on more than one occasion. What happened? Did they fire you? I would understand why! Let us know what aircraft to steer clear of, please. But you know what… I call bull. First your claim to fame is that you are a failed pilot. Now all of a sudden you are a has-been, once-off aircraft designer that doesn't now anything about aircraft design and tries to get sympathy because “financial circumstances" caused you to be unable to fly... Let me guess... Your little plane didn’t sell very well? Forgive me if I don't get my violin out for you. Next you’re going to tell us you designed the Concorde... The SR-71? The Space Shuttle?

Even though your antics are amusing, it is getting a bit long in the tooth... So why don’t you run along and go design us a nice paper plane!

If you are right YEAGER007 then caldrail designing a paper plane would be worrying aswell, it could poke someone in the eye.(Sorry couldn't resist)
I'm loving this "Friendly" conversation between two "Experts" but maybe you two should go on Nasa Website or something and argue with the Real Experts before this gets Violent.

[KG64_Cnopicilin]

It's always hard to know which one is a professional.

[rollnloop]

I don't know if any of them is apro, but Yeager knows his aero basics, at least.

Caldrail writes nonsense on aerodynamics.I don't want to sound harsh, but i don't know any other way to define it after reading

tailpanes don't work like that. Quite the reverse, they add a small measure of lift to keep the tail from dropping.

, sorry.

Here's to learn a bit:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bga.html

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airpla ... lator.html

Enjoy

[Fireskull]

Uh, pardon me - can we get back on topic about the J7W1 Shinden?



Like a lot of people reading this topic, I always wondered how this aeroplane would compete in a turn fight with aircraft that have tails in real life combat. To me, it doesn't look like a dog fighter, but we know that appearance can mislead a person.

How does it respond when you guys fly it in IL-2?

[Murph]

Considering that the prototype never got off the ground, any FM for this would have to be an educated guess. Many other canard aircraft have been built since, but I don't think any were designed quite like this one.

[caldrail]

Caldrail writes nonsense on aerodynamics.I don't want to sound harsh, but i don't know any other way to define it after reading

No, it isn't nonsense, and you should realise that unless you happen to be somewhat better qualified to write, you can be accused of the same thing.

As for paper aeroplanes, I was rather good at those too. It certainly impressed the examination board adjudicator who was reviewing my physics project and saw my paper rogallo-deltas flying.

No-one got hurt in the demonstration by the way.

[KEPOS]

Considering that the prototype never got off the ground, any FM for this would have to be an educated guess.

The first of the two prototypes made a number of flights before the war ended.

The Shinden's first flight was on August 3, 1945. The other flights were on the 6th and 9th of August. The war ended six days later.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/artwork/kyush ... orther.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABsh%C5%AB_J7W

[Murph]

Well, then I stand corrected. I always thought the prototype suffered a prop strike while taxiing which destroyed the engine.
Edit- Having looked at the video on Youtube I see that the first attempted test flight was a failure because of the prop strike, but that a later test flight was successful. Does any actual data exist from this flight?

[KEPOS]

Well, then I stand corrected. I always thought the prototype suffered a prop strike while taxiing which destroyed the engine.
Edit- Having looked at the video on Youtube I see that the first attempted test flight was a failure because of the prop strike, but that a later test flight was successful. Does any actual data exist from this flight?

There is data on all three test flights. However, it's difficuilt to tell what an aircraft's ultimate handling capabilities are from just the first couple of flights, since the first number of flights for any new aircraft are always very conservative and very carefully executed, with the test pilot recording every little quirk found during these flights, no matter how small. The data is then conveyed to the engineers, who will make adjustments to the aircraft as seen fit. So, you’re right in that regard, any real FM would still be a bit of a guess. According to the design specs the Sinden was expected to be highly maneuverable, though.

[Guest]

Well in game even with the updated Flightmodel for it from SAS this thing is not intended for dogfighting.

[Storebror]

Well in game even with the updated Flightmodel for it from SAS this thing is not intended for dogfighting.

It wasn't in real life as well.
The Shinden is meant to be an interceptor for B-29s. It shoud avoid dogfights as much as possible.

Best regards - Mike

[Guest]

Well the Me-163 was definatley designed for Bomber Interception but it is just as good at dogfighting.

[Guest]

You may want to do a little research on the 163.

I dont need to, I know what it is for, I'm just saying it is alot better than an Me-262 or anything else at dogfighting. 8 Minutes flight time is heaps. Online that is enough to fly across an entire Map from base to the battle and shoot down 2-3 planes before returning to base with fuel.