General Discussion

[PR19_Kit]

DH have from for that 'format' anyway, viz the DH2. 

[Weaver]

Hmm, I was thinking as a what-if of maybe a jet powered, open cockpit, biplane witht the intake right behind the pilot, since putting the inlet on top of the fuselage makes alot of sense for preventing dirt and debris from getting in the the intake, while an open air cockpit should give the pilot great situational awareness, and the extra wing should help provided added lift to help reduce take-off runs.  It seems like a win/win/win situation.  I can't image what could possibly go wrong.



Regards

Pat

LOL - do it to an He-162 Salamander, then you have the whole engine on top of the fuselage, just like the M-15.

[NARSES2]

The "Air Cruiser" concept was a bad idea (whatever it meant)?

It wasn't so much a bad idea as just impractical with the technology available.

From memory it was origionaly an Italian concept, from one of their early 1930's air strategy theorists, for an aircraft that was able to fly above an oncoming enemy bomber stream and direct the defending fighters into the attack. Even at the time it was regarded as a purely theorectical concept, although a few designers, as here, dalied with it.

In the end it was the British who delivered on it, with radar technology and ground based controllers. Today you see it the form of AWACS.

[Rheged]

The explosive giant wheel the Allies tested for the invasion of Europe is right up there, the Panjandrum.  The Mythbusters even tried to build one.

Late again!  But Gerald Pawle's book The Secret War  Harrap  1956 has a full chapter devoted to this wondrous beast.  Here  https://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/second-world-war/the-great-panjandrum-scares-a-dog/1123500263001  is film shot by Louis Klementaski  of a panjandrum going wild at a demonstration to a party of brass hats.  The dog in question is an Airedale called Ammonal.  He is said to have been chasing errant rockets in much the same way as he would have chased rabbits.
See also here :-  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJQqXXENYsI   and here:-  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OviTWPxhRbc

[PFJN]

Hi,
OK, I guess I'm in for this build.  I've got a 1/72 scale FROG Vampire F.BMk 5/50 or a 1/48 scale Hobby Boss Vampire FB 9 for my base kit.  I'm not sure which one I'll use yet, but I'm ready to give it a try whenever this GB starts 

[Weaver]

The "Air Cruiser" concept was a bad idea (whatever it meant)?

It wasn't so much a bad idea as just impractical with the technology available.

From memory it was origionaly an Italian concept, from one of their early 1930's air strategy theorists, for an aircraft that was able to fly above an oncoming enemy bomber stream and direct the defending fighters into the attack. Even at the time it was regarded as a purely theorectical concept, although a few designers, as here, dalied with it.

In the end it was the British who delivered on it, with radar technology and ground based controllers. Today you see it the form of AWACS.

Yep.

It tended to manifest as a twin-engined "heavy fighter", perhaps with a defensive turret, but with an extra crew member (for fighter-control), instead of a heavy forward armament.

[McColm]

Does this GB cover design flaws?
What about using nuclear power for cars,planes, trains and ships?

[Wardukw]

Does this GB cover design flaws?
What about using nuclear power for cars,planes, trains and ships?

Mac I'd guess so mate ...a nuclear powered car or plane is a really bad idea ...we know that nuclear power is in ships and subs so that's kinda covered as I'll bet that didn't run without teething problems in the start .

[NARSES2]

Does this GB cover design flaws?
What about using nuclear power for cars,planes, trains and ships?

My view is that a design flaw is not necessarily a Bad Idea, it's simply an error in the process. Someone thinks blue prints are in imperial when in actuality they are metric could be classed as a design flaw for instance.

Nuclear powered vehicles in theory are not necessarily a Bad Idea either in my view, especially if you are coming at it from the viewpoint of the 50/60's. It's a controversial idea certainly, but if it can be made safe ?

However its for the Mods to decide.

[Weaver]

Does this GB cover design flaws?
What about using nuclear power for cars,planes, trains and ships?

It's more about concept flaws or gross design flaws (not the kind of human error stuff that NARSES2 correctly points out): ideas that shouldn't have got further than a screwed-up ball of paper on the drawing office floor. When I've proposed it (I know others have proposed it too), I've always intended it to be more funny than serious: like a modelling version of a Heath Robinson or Rube Goldberg cartoon.

Nuclear power isn't a bad idea for ships, as any number of successful nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and cruisers demonstrate. The Russians have also successfully operated nuclear-powered icebreakers for decades and the Chinese have recently expressed an interest in building one. It's been uneconomic in smaller vessels until recently, but that's entrirely dependent on the rpice of fossile fuels, which seems likely to only go up in the long run. The Royal Navy is known to have commisioned at least one study recently. There's no technical reason why you can't build a smaller surface ship plant: nuclear submarine plants are already in the right power-range.

A handful of nuclear-powered commercial ships have been built and operated successfuly and safely too. The only reason it wasn't more widely adopted was cost, and again, that equation might well change in the future. Lloyds Register has just revamped it's rules on commercial nuclear plants to make certification and safety more streamlined. The potential problem here is that militaries don't have the same level of perverse incentive to cut overheads to the bone that commercial operators do. A commercial nuclear plant being operated by properly trained crew is okay. A commercial nuclear plant being operated by an understaffed third-world crew with rushed training on minimum wages isn't.

[NARSES2]

Hi,
OK, I guess I'm in for this build.  I've got a 1/72 scale FROG Vampire F.BMk 5/50 or a 1/48 scale Hobby Boss Vampire FB 9 for my base kit.  I'm not sure which one I'll use yet, but I'm ready to give it a try whenever this GB starts 

Starts on 1st March...St David's Day 

[zenrat]

Whether something is a bad idea is surely subjective.

At 17 I thought it was a great idea to tune up my motorcycle and shed weight from it so it went faster.  My father disagreed claiming mudguards, air filters and mufflers were necessary items.

Which does illustrate that every bad idea started out with someone thinking it was a good one.  We should all try to remember that and show the thinking in our back stories.

[McColm]

Does this GB cover design flaws?
What about using nuclear power for cars,planes, trains and ships?

It's more about concept flaws or gross design flaws (not the kind of human error stuff that NARSES2 correctly points out): ideas that shouldn't have got further than a screwed-up ball of paper on the drawing office floor. When I've proposed it (I know others have proposed it too), I've always intended it to be more funny than serious: like a modelling version of a Heath Robinson or Rube Goldberg cartoon.

Nuclear power isn't a bad idea for ships, as any number of successful nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and cruisers demonstrate. The Russians have also successfully operated nuclear-powered icebreakers for decades and the Chinese have recently expressed an interest in building one. It's been uneconomic in smaller vessels until recently, but that's entrirely dependent on the rpice of fossile fuels, which seems likely to only go up in the long run. The Royal Navy is known to have commisioned at least one study recently. There's no technical reason why you can't build a smaller surface ship plant: nuclear submarine plants are already in the right power-range.

A handful of nuclear-powered commercial ships have been built and operated successfuly and safely too. The only reason it wasn't more widely adopted was cost, and again, that equation might well change in the future. Lloyds Register has just revamped it's rules on commercial nuclear plants to make certification and safety more streamlined. The potential problem here is that militaries don't have the same level of perverse incentive to cut overheads to the bone that commercial operators do. A commercial nuclear plant being operated by properly trained crew is okay. A commercial nuclear plant being operated by an understaffed third-world crew with rushed training on minimum wages isn't.

Thanks,  so you mean like using square wheels for driving over rough terrain.

[Weaver]

Does this GB cover design flaws?
What about using nuclear power for cars,planes, trains and ships?

It's more about concept flaws or gross design flaws (not the kind of human error stuff that NARSES2 correctly points out): ideas that shouldn't have got further than a screwed-up ball of paper on the drawing office floor. When I've proposed it (I know others have proposed it too), I've always intended it to be more funny than serious: like a modelling version of a Heath Robinson or Rube Goldberg cartoon.

Nuclear power isn't a bad idea for ships, as any number of successful nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and cruisers demonstrate. The Russians have also successfully operated nuclear-powered icebreakers for decades and the Chinese have recently expressed an interest in building one. It's been uneconomic in smaller vessels until recently, but that's entrirely dependent on the rpice of fossile fuels, which seems likely to only go up in the long run. The Royal Navy is known to have commisioned at least one study recently. There's no technical reason why you can't build a smaller surface ship plant: nuclear submarine plants are already in the right power-range.

A handful of nuclear-powered commercial ships have been built and operated successfuly and safely too. The only reason it wasn't more widely adopted was cost, and again, that equation might well change in the future. Lloyds Register has just revamped it's rules on commercial nuclear plants to make certification and safety more streamlined. The potential problem here is that militaries don't have the same level of perverse incentive to cut overheads to the bone that commercial operators do. A commercial nuclear plant being operated by properly trained crew is okay. A commercial nuclear plant being operated by an understaffed third-world crew with rushed training on minimum wages isn't.

Thanks,  so you mean like using square wheels for driving over rough terrain.

That sort of thing, yes.

*Bear in mind I'm not a mod, so this is all just my opinion, not official.

[PR19_Kit]

A nuclear powered Routemaster bus could be termed a Bad Idea. The reactor and shielding would take up so much room and weight that the payload would haven been a couple of pax at max! 

Someone thinks blue prints are in imperial when in actuality they are metric could be classed as a design flaw for instance.

Yeah, I suffered that once, resulting in the most GINORMOUS hydraulic manifold with comparatively tiny ports, which was far too big to get through the doors of the train!