Anyone know what this plane is?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Aww, shucks.. Here's a newer one (not a Douglas, is that allowed?) what is the name and nickname?

General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark?

[Bob Smith]

You got it, Marty! Close enough. Actually its a F-111C version nicknamed "Pig" and used by the Royal Australian Air Force.

[Bruce Thomas]

You got it, Marty! Close enough. Actually its a F-111C version nicknamed "Pig" and used by the Royal Australian Air Force.

Actually, Marty is more than close enough. Your original post includes a photo that is used in the Wikipedia article for the F-111. That photo originates from the book Air War over Vietnam, Volume II, published in 1983, and identifies the 3 aircraft shown as "Three U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-111As of the 428th Tactical Fighter Squadron returning from a "Combat Lancer" mission in 1968".

According to the Wikipedia article, the RAAF's F-111C aircraft were not accepted into service until 1973.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

... Marty is more than close enough.

I didn't get it by myself.

I looked at the picture for a long time and tried a few different websites.

Googling "vietnam war fighter jet comparison" turned up something that led me to the Wikipedia article.

I didn't read the whole article--or notice that the picture you used was in it!   ???

Thanks for provoking another interesting search!   :)

[Bob Smith]

Here's my original view of the picture and caption, you're right. Somehow I mis-read as being an F-111C. Sorry I'm out of kewpie dolls!!

[Bob Smith]

What is this thing.

[N2APG]

From a quick google search........................


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_airplane

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

From a quick google search........................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_airplane

YouTube video of an RC model.  Looks like it crashed every time.  Three different flying fields, suggesting different days, and then what seems to be a whole new model for the fourth flight.

I would imagine that the gyroscopic forces from the rotating mass of the wings would be pretty strong, for good or for ill.

[Bob Smith]

Based on the magnus effect, it evidently worked, but must have problems or we'd have seen more by now..

[Neff Jacobs]

Apparently it was not a complete bust.   The Cousteau Society has been operating the two rotor ship Alcyone  since 1985.  I suspect in the case of smaller mono-hull boats the rotor adds to the motion due to gyroscopic  effects.

Having spent 40 years in engineering I will observe items become a commercial success or failure for more reasons than working well or not.  Case in point Kelly Johnson measured significant improvement in fuel economy using the Cambridge Meter.   It never seemed to catch on.  Was that because Earhart didn't make it, or because the filters seemed to plug a lot, or because according to an article in a Darwin paper Noonan reported Earhart habitually burned 52 gallons per hour or because it used a leaner burn than Pratt and Whitney recommended?    I strongly suspect a glittering endorsement form a successful Earhart could well have made the Cambridge Meter a must have item in all airplanes.

Oh well you give your best dress to someone famous who is going to walk the red carpet and take your chances Robert Irwin arriving in patched khakis will not draw more press coverage than your lack of coverage for the model.
Neff

[JNev]

Apparently it was not a complete bust.   The Cousteau Society has been operating the two rotor ship Alcyone  since 1985.  I suspect in the case of smaller mono-hull boats the rotor adds to the motion due to gyroscopic  effects.

Having spent 40 years in engineering I will observe items become a commercial success or failure for more reasons than working well or not.  Case in point Kelly Johnson measured significant improvement in fuel economy using the Cambridge Meter.   It never seemed to catch on.  Was that because Earhart didn't make it, or because the filters seemed to plug a lot, or because according to an article in a Darwin paper Noonan reported Earhart habitually burned 52 gallons per hour or because it used a leaner burn than Pratt and Whitney recommended?    I strongly suspect a glittering endorsement form a successful Earhart could well have made the Cambridge Meter a must have item in all airplanes.

Oh well you give your best dress to someone famous who is going to walk the red carpet and take your chances Robert Irwin arriving in patched khakis will not draw more press coverage than your lack of coverage for the model.
Neff

The better mousetrap does not always win, for sure.  Ask Lockheed (L-1011 comes to mind).

...52 GPH you say...

I wonder how well Noonan really knew of what he spoke, or how clearly he spoke that.  It's pretty heavy.  But to the point, who knows why not the Cambridge?  Your reasons are probably as good as any possibility.  I had a Cambridge lift/sink trend monitor in a Schweizer 126 that was pretty cool, but most folks didn't invest in that level of detail. 

Odd thing is I never flew the thing myself and suspect had I done so, it would have trended a nice, slow descent for me, as did most smaller ships; preferred the endurance of a Blanik with a big wing as I was about 60 pounds heavier back then.  In the smaller ships I was good for speed but not endurance.  I mostly measured sink by my wrist watch - or altimeter, depending on conditions... some days being bladder-limited, others being thermal-limited. :P

So, the Cambridge gathered dust as a cool but unnecessary extra, as I look back.  I guess I wasn't optimizing my flights any better than Earhart may have been.

52 GPH... ouch.

[Bob Smith]

 So I wouldn't have to ask a stupid question, I tried looking up a Cambridge meter on the internet and all I could come up with was parking meters in Cambridge! I assume it is some kind of flow meter. In your leisure you could drop a hint to me and about how it would make an airplane more efficient. Im eagerly waiting the outcome of the latest fundraising to see if we can get another week to explore. Ric has been good about keeping us up to date.

[JNev]

Here's a more modern example.  Mine was quite old at the time (ten years ago) and had an audible tone (common I think) - idea was to 'fly the tone', so to speak.  Which I never did as a practical matter, just played with on ground as I never finished the 126 project but sold it to the club.  It helps optimize as to speed to fly, etc. and considers lift/drag polar, etc. against lift/sink conditions.  Much more important to serious cross country / high performance sailplane folks than to those of us who just like knocking around in the local thermals.

Earhart's Cambridge was of course for fuel management - entirely different instrument.  I gathered it used exhaust temps but perhaps had to do with flow in a direct sense.  I'm sure more can be learned about that on this site.

[Neff Jacobs]

Earhart's Cambridge  Meter allowed her to lean precisely.  One setting in the Kelly Johnson Telegrams calls for a setting of .071, otherwise 14:1   Air to fuel ratio.   As the aircraft goes up in altitude the mixture tends to go rich.  Using the Cambridge meter allowed her to keep a precise setting at any altitude.  Certainly better than lean for max power or lean for max -100 rpm.   Now it is more common to lean for max and then add some number of degrees to the EGT.

The 52 GPH was a shocker to me.  It implies she was running 350 hp per engine at about 160 mph apparently a good deal of the time.   Noonan gave the burn in pounds I suppose since he was speaking to Ausie news men and may not have instantly known what that was in Imperial Gallons.  I divided by 6 and came up with 52.  I will see if I can find the exact quote in context since it's been a while. 
Neff

[JNev]

Thanks, Neff.

It would be good to know more about what Noonan knew and tried to convey since he made some sort of point of it.  52 GPH would be not only a shocker, but eerily suggestive of fuel exhaustion in about... 21 hours.  That's an oddly and nasty little coinkidink to just about when her last call to Itasca was heard, in terms of loose math and not really knowing what the scoop was / whether Noonan gave it right or knew.

Certainly if she followed Johnson's advice she'd of had plenty of margin, one would suppose, but we all know what she did with Hooven's advice too.

And now, to keep myself somewhat close to the subject - what plane is THIS?