SS1 flight set for June 21

Peter Stickney wrote:

Doesn't explain the Hurricane, though. I'm sure that plane has its
dreamy admirers, but it's never "looked right" to me...



The Hurricane looks just fine, thank you


And the Hawker Hunter is a knockout.

- Where you should be
directing your attention is Blackburn. I mean the Blackburn
Blackburn, or the Roc, or the Firebrand - Those are World Class Ugly.



But had WW2 been an ugly plane contest, I think we'd all be
speaking Italian now



Nope French. There's a reason the 1930's Farman bombers were tasked
with night bombing - in the dark, nobody had to look at them.


Let us not forget the HP Heyford: http://www.doramusic.com/Heyford.jpg
http://skeet.worldonline.co.uk/heyford.jpg
http://www.biic.de/aviation-museum/p.../images/95.jpg
....this does credit to no one, and it almost got into WW II.

Pat

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

There was a great article about this replica and its creator/pilot some
time back in Smithsonian Air & Space. I was very saddened to learn of
the crash.


As the article mentioned, it was going to be in the new movie "The
Aviator"....and they are still going to have the H-1 in the movie, as
the movie trailer shows:
http://progressive.stream.aol.com/ao...he_trlr_dl.mov
...still it went out in a classic Golden Age Of Aviation Air Story way;
crashing into a geyser field in Yellowstone National Park- that's like
something out of "The Rocketeer"!

Pat

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.space.history.]
On 2004-06-06, Jim Logajan wrote:

Mix the failings of Usenet with the failings of the World Wide Web and the
result is slashdot.

Ooh, now there's a line I have to steal...

--
-Andrew Gray

Dale wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 02:11:59 -0500, Pat Flannery wrote:

Was it Sydney Camm who said "If it looks right, it flies right"? If
that's the case, then this aircraft must have levitated halfway up to
Heaven the moment they rolled it out of the hanger the first time.

Doesn't explain the Hurricane, though. I'm sure that plane has its
dreamy admirers, but it's never "looked right" to me...

Reminds me of a (probably apocryphal) tale:

It's the maiden flight of the B-17E, an engineer comments that they
had screwed up a beautiful design. A pilot responds, "yes, but it
sure looks like she can fight".

(On a side note: I got to see a Trident underway Friday for the first
time in over a decade. I had forgotten just how beautiful they were
underway.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Karl Hallowell" wrote:

Ok, "we" have been warned. While Internet reputation is devalued coinage,
I do risk something in that I have loudly predicted that the X-Prize is a
big step in real space development.

There's no risk at all to your reputation by making such a statement.
I can't think of anyone on these groups who doesn't agree with that
prediction.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Ami Silberman" wrote:
The differences between the Mercury spacecraft used for the MR flights and
the MA flights are minimal, the primary is that the MA flights used an
ablative heatshield, and the MR flights (at least the first, can't remember
on the second) used the earlier, "heat-sink" style heat shield.

IIRC that's mostly because Sheppard and Grissoms craft had already
been produced with the heatsink shield, and there were no pressing
reasons to modify them or swap them for craft with ablative shields.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Derek Lyons wrote:

(On a side note: I got to see a Trident underway Friday for the first
time in over a decade. I had forgotten just how beautiful they were
underway.)


Assuming you mean the sub, and not the missile or airliner, I always
thought it looked like a torpedo with a sail (that's what they call
conning towers nowadays for you non-qual pukes...like me) on it.

Pat

dave schneider wrote:

It's true that Pat's reference to the use of astrochimps in 50's
rocket movies is not based on Ham, but there's ample evidence that
Herb knows the difference.


The classic one is probably "Mona" from "Robinson Crusoe On Mars".

Pat

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

(On a side note: I got to see a Trident underway Friday for the first
time in over a decade. I had forgotten just how beautiful they were
underway.)


Assuming you mean the sub, and not the missile or airliner, I always
thought it looked like a torpedo with a sail (that's what they call
conning towers nowadays for you non-qual pukes...like me) on it.

Pat

Sub? Missile? Airliner? I thought he meant the chewing gum . . . ;-)

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

In sci.space.policy Derek Lyons wrote:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article ,
and they only have 5% of orbital energy.

"Space" and "orbit" are two different things.

Only to those with low goals and willingness to delude themselves that
a sub orbital ballistic trajectory constitutes 'going to space'.

Actually, no - the only ones not agreeing to border for space are those
who do so for other biases - like not limiting trajectory options for
ballistic (and otherwise) missiles. And thats hardly a serious reson to
consider there really not to be a border for space.


D.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++