Classic warbirds and other aviation vids.

Fascinating story about this plane the "All American Bomber" B17. Simply incredible and worth the read.

warbirdsnews.com

WWII’s B-17 “All American” Separating Fact and Fiction

Debunks chain email discussing the February 2, 1943 bombing mission of Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress "All American" True account of events.
warbirdsnews.com warbirdsnews.com

aa2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dave91TM said:
Perfect example of why they needed electronic stability control. Its not a starfighter, but I believe the stubby winged things were known as widow makers.
Click to expand...

Essentially a rocket with minimal control surfaces. Looks like the X15 experimental plane

X15 from the early 60s
 
Dave91TM said:
Perfect example of why they needed electronic stability control. Its not a starfighter, but I believe the stubby winged things were known as widow makers.
Click to expand...
The "widowmaker" nickname for the 104 was almost exclusively because of the German Air Force. The 104 did suffer suffer from some inherent design issues particularly at low speed operations due to a lack of control surfaces. However, each design is a compromise and the control surfaces were more than adequate at Mach 2+. The larger issue with the 104 was the computer flight control system. In the early days, and the known cause of several crashes was the computer not relinquishing control to the pilot or not relinquishing all control to the pilot. Just as an FYI final approach speed minimum was approximately 230 knots. The RCAF procedure, should there have been an engine failure was simply to pull the handles and eject. There was no such thing as a forced approach/dead stick landing in a 104. I understand from my father, there was one dead stick landing with a Canadian 104 that was successful in the early sixties.
 
Cariboocreek said:
The "widowmaker" nickname for the 104 was almost exclusively because of the German Air Force. The 104 did suffer suffer from some inherent design issues particularly at low speed operations due to a lack of control surfaces. However, each design is a compromise and the control surfaces were more than adequate at Mach 2+. The larger issue with the 104 was the computer flight control system. In the early days, and the known cause of several crashes was the computer not relinquishing control to the pilot or not relinquishing all control to the pilot. Just as an FYI final approach speed minimum was approximately 230 knots. The RCAF procedure, should there have been an engine failure was simply to pull the handles and eject. There was no such thing as a forced approach/dead stick landing in a 104. I understand from my father, there was one dead stick landing with a Canadian 104 that was successful in the early sixties.
Click to expand...
Thanks Caribou, interesting. So would the flight instructor just casually end his lecture with an "Oh. by the way, if the engine fails eject!"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top