Random TRANSPORTATION pictures

[sc_rufctr]

My dream project!

[Heel n Toe]

[WPOZZZ]

Originally Posted by URY914

Post Monaco GP when they saw Bieber at the podium?

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by NeedSpace

I love the Pitts...always wanted to fly one. CashFlyer, did you ever fly one of these? Thoughts?

One of those specifically? (An S-2C) No.

I have flown the S-2A and S-2B. The A models have a 360 cid engine, and the B models have a 540 cid engine. The Skybolt pictured in my post belongs to me, and is basically an S-2A clone.

My opinion.... They are all good flyers. By good flyer, I mean it will do exactly what you ask of it. It holds a mirror up for you to see exactly where your skill level is. They don't fly like a Cessna, and I highly recommend getting some type specific training* prior to strapping into one as PIC. They are not very forgiving of sloppy or lazy, but I also would not call them dangerous. They just require a little more pucker. There is very little opportunity to take your hands off the controls and play Candy Crush. Patterns should be tight. Glide ratio is like a streamlined brick. Landing speed is about 40% - 50% faster than a 172.

I find that I really like the B. As they say, there is no replacement for displacement. When you fire up the 540 and it rocks the whole damn airplane, it's really hard to not get wood.

That being said, my Skybolt has the IO-360. Why? Lighter, better fuel economy, and mostly because the project already had it installed. The Skybolt has a little bit more wing area than the Pitts, which allows it to land a little slower and to glide a little better. And the Skybolt cockpit is a little wider, making ingress and egress a little easier, and a little more room is also nice if you are wearing a parachute.

None of them are really good 'cross country' machines, IMO.

If you want to read a lot more, check here: Pilot Reports on fighters, bombers, antique aircraft and homebuilt aircraft
The guy is a professional contributor to one of the pilot mags, and has a lot of airplane reviews on that page.

* I trained with Steve Wolf. Meet the team at WingOver Aerobatics LLC
Steve designed a very nice evolution of the single seat Pitts S1 design, which he called the Wolf Pitts. Now that Steve has retired, parts for his design are being produced by Griggs Aircraft: Griggs Aircraft Refinishing | Wolf Aircraft Products

[masraum]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

My dream project!

I've just got to figure out how to mount that in the boxster.

Originally Posted by cashflyer

I was really intrigued by this one today.........





Howard:



Super Chipmunk:

Is it just me, or are planes with the wing mounted below the fuselage almost universally more attractive than planes with the wings mounted above? I understand that having the wings above is supposed to make the plane more forgiving or easier to fly, right? But they just generally don't look as cool. Bi-planes are excluded. They're in a class by themselves.

[kach22i]

2001 Stola S 82 Concept
2001 Stola S 82 Concept - Conceptcarz

This redesigned Boxster is designed by Stola and its styling is inspired by the 550 race car of the 1950's. It is powered by 3.7 litre turbocharged Boxer engine, producing 450bhp. It has a topspeed of 300km/h (186.4 mph) and accelerates from 0 - 60 mph in 4.8 seconds. There are no plans for producing the Boxster Stola S82 Spyder.

Stola S82 Concept '2001
https://en.wheelsage.org/stola/car2621/pictures/95667/


Ruf R Spyder (986) '2002–04
https://en.wheelsage.org/porsche/boxster/986/pictures/95026/



Ruf R Spyder (986) '2002–04
https://en.wheelsage.org/stola/car3639/pictures/292818/


http://www.planet-9.com/news-items/38207-purist-mid-engined-roadster-lightest-porsche-9.html

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by masraum

Is it just me, or are planes with the wing mounted below the fuselage almost universally more attractive than planes with the wings mounted above? I understand that having the wings above is supposed to make the plane more forgiving or easier to fly, right? But they just generally don't look as cool. Bi-planes are excluded. They're in a class by themselves.

I think attractiveness is a subjective quality. Some guys like fat chicks. Some people think a Prius looks cool. I personally think there are some good looking high wing planes, like the Howard. And there are some good looking low wing planes, like the EMB 314.

As for quantifiable data, a study done in 2010 showed that accidents in low wing planes have a higher fatality percentage. Unfortunately the study only looked at the physical design, and did not correlate the usage of the aircraft, pilot hours, etc... so the data is a little suspect. Ie; most ag planes are low wing, and ag planes have a higher accident & fatality rate compared to the rest of the flying population, therefore there is potential for the data to be badly skewed


As for flying characteristics, a high-wing creates visibility problems in a banked turn. A low wing tends to float more upon landing - especially if your approach is fast.

On small planes, it's easier to design a low wing with retractable gear than a high wing.

Lots of stuff to consider. Just type "high wing vs low wing". You may as well type AK47 vs AR15, or Ginger vs Mary Ann.

I like the biplane because it allows me to not see anything above me or below me when flying, and to not see the damn pavement in front of me when taxiing. It's like riding a really expensive motorcycle with blinders on.

[Jolly Amaranto]

Those darn ag planes are just highly attracted to the ground.

[Flieger]

In theory the high wing as an aerodynamic advantage in that the suction surface (the more critical one) is unbroken by the fuselage, meaning the flow should stay attached over the whole surface. It's similar to why the swan neck supports are all the rage for rear wings on race cars these days.

But as was said, there are pros and cons to every design. Visibility is more important than outright efficiency for a fighter since they've got plenty of power and fuel to burn.

It is interesting to me that sailplanes seem to be all mid-wings.

[bugstrider]

Sent via Jedi mind trick by the cat

[kach22i]

Kaiser-Jeep M715: Photos, Reviews, News, Specs, Buy car

[URY914]

[URY914]

[URY914]

[URY914]

[Jolly Amaranto]

Its time to repair the old railroad bridge over the Brazos.

[pete3799]

[NeedSpace]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

One of those specifically? (An S-2C) No.

I have flown the S-2A and S-2B. The A models have a 360 cid engine, and the B models have a 540 cid engine. The Skybolt pictured in my post belongs to me, and is basically an S-2A clone.

My opinion.... They are all good flyers. By good flyer, I mean it will do exactly what you ask of it. It holds a mirror up for you to see exactly where your skill level is. They don't fly like a Cessna, and I highly recommend getting some type specific training* prior to strapping into one as PIC. They are not very forgiving of sloppy or lazy, but I also would not call them dangerous. They just require a little more pucker. There is very little opportunity to take your hands off the controls and play Candy Crush. Patterns should be tight. Glide ratio is like a streamlined brick. Landing speed is about 40% - 50% faster than a 172.

I find that I really like the B. As they say, there is no replacement for displacement. When you fire up the 540 and it rocks the whole damn airplane, it's really hard to not get wood.

That being said, my Skybolt has the IO-360. Why? Lighter, better fuel economy, and mostly because the project already had it installed. The Skybolt has a little bit more wing area than the Pitts, which allows it to land a little slower and to glide a little better. And the Skybolt cockpit is a little wider, making ingress and egress a little easier, and a little more room is also nice if you are wearing a parachute.

None of them are really good 'cross country' machines, IMO.

If you want to read a lot more, check here: Pilot Reports on fighters, bombers, antique aircraft and homebuilt aircraft
The guy is a professional contributor to one of the pilot mags, and has a lot of airplane reviews on that page.

* I trained with Steve Wolf. Meet the team at WingOver Aerobatics LLC
Steve designed a very nice evolution of the single seat Pitts S1 design, which he called the Wolf Pitts. Now that Steve has retired, parts for his design are being produced by Griggs Aircraft: Griggs Aircraft Refinishing | Wolf Aircraft Products

This is excellent, thanks for all the info. I think I have a new favorite plane to dream about....


Controller.com | 1989 STEEN SKYBOLT For Sale

[sc_rufctr]

One of the most beautiful cars ever made.

[kach22i]

TIGON Diesel Hybrid - Page 2 - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com