Talk:Vought XF5U/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gearbox made out of silver

Is there a simple explanation why parts of he gearbox were made out of silver?

Merge proposal

Oppose merge: Since I wrote or substantially contributed to both articles, there is a reason for treating them as separate aircraft. The V-173 emerges as the only true flying disk aircraft while the XF5U is an interesting development, but it is an "also-ran." There is enough information that is different to make each article stand out on its. own. FWIW Bzuk 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

Since no consensus has emerged, the merge proposal is moot. FWIW Bzuk 01:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC).

I agree that both of these stand on their own merits. They are suitably linked together. --Colputt 17:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft Speed

The speed in mph does not match the speed in kph. As well, have found sources which list top speed as 504 mph at 20,000 ft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.172.128 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

According to: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/SAC/XF5U-1_FlapjackACP-440601.pdf

top speed is 413 knots (475 mph / 765 kph) at 28,000 feet —Preceding unsigned comment added by KitsuneFX (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense...

Near the top of the article I read... "modified "flapping" blade arrangement with "one pair in each set staggered ahead of the other." I cannot understand this. The V-173 had three blades per prop (look at the picture), so I'm not sure what "pair" it's talking about. It would make some sense if it refers to the post-173 prototypes, which had four blades, but if this is the case the sentance needs to be moved to make this clear. Maury 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Argue for merge

Well I for one would like the merge. Why? Well...

1. about half of the content here is about the V-173
2. about half of the V-173 article is about the XF5U
3. when combined, the single article would be perhaps 25% longer than either is now

And additionally...

1. I see no information that should be unique to either article
2. on the contrary, there is information in one or the other that absolutely should be in the other

Maury 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What are those things?

Between the thing that passes for a fuselage and the propeller engines on the XF5U in the picture, there are two holes that look very much like air intake ports for jet engines. Can someone who knows about this aircraft edit either the article or the picture page to explain what those installations are? - ҉ - (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As the Lead states "Two piston engines buried in the body drove propellers located on the leading edge at the wingtips", I'd say those are the intakes for the piston engines. They were air-cooled radials, and it looks like the engines are mounted just behind the intakes. - BillCJ (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirection

I looked for Flying Pancake and was redirected here. Wouldn't it be more logical for the redirection to point to Vought V-173? That aircraft was nicknamed Flying Pancake; this was the Flying Flapjack. Devil Master (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you're right. Fixing. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Firing through propellors

"The problem with this arrangement on the XF5U-1 was that the propeller's radius covered nearly the entire frontal area of the aircraft. A typical wing installation of any forward-firing weapons such as machine guns, cannon, or missiles would be virtually impossible."

This seems a bit of a stretch, as synchronised guns had been used from the first world war onwards to solve this issue. Are there any references to back the claim up, or should it be dumped? Laylaholic (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

*wince* Interrupter gear would certainly solve the issue. As for missiles, perhaps slightly more difficult, but they fired Tiny Tim rockets from centre-section pylons of F4U Corsairs using lanyards...a dump is in order. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs a new picture

Look at the picture here, that is a normal looking plane, we all know that the back of this thing is AWESOME. Why don't we have a picture that shows off the rear more? The front is pretty normal. Klichka (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Xf5uturboprop.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Xf5uturboprop.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Vought XF5U.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Vought XF5U.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Internet Sources For Technical Diagrams Of The XF5U/Similarity With The V-22 Osprey

Similarity With The Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey Quote:

"The V-22's two Rolls-Royce AE 1107C engines are connected by drive shafts to a common center gearbox so that one engine can power both proprotors if an engine failure occurs."

The XF5U-1 also had connected drive shafts that could operate with only one functioning engine.

Note also that the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey has counter-rotating props that rotate in-board, which can only be used for one purpose, namely to reverse the effect of drag co-efficient developed by wing-tip vortices, just as on the XF5U-1.

The following files found on the internet must be in the public domain, because all records of the XF5U were presumably destroyed. Nobody can lay copyright claim to these technical drawings because anyone with a copy was retaining what was once classified information. The XF5U later became declassified by the U.S. government. Thus, it is firmly within the pubic domain, and any copyright claim to these drawings can be challenged on those grounds.

Check these out, look for yourself. There is NO copyright mark on either of these documents, or all rights reserved, even though one of them might claim to have it.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xf5uturboprop.jpg

My source: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5761

http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cvs-10021_v-341_airplane_assembly_inv.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27862259@N02/6043147320/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Wikipedia is not allowing that ANY of this factual information be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranSix (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

On the cutaway...I assume you overlook the PILOT PRESS COPYRIGHT DRAWING (emphasis theirs) almost dead center in the image? The Convair drawing of the turboprop may be PD-Navy. As for the V-22 comparison, that should be cited in the main text of the article ("the center gearbox configuration is similar...etc."), not as a "similar aircraft" (which it is not) and absolutely not as a "related aircraft". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for pointing that out, but this technical drawing is sourced directly from declassified material and a direct copy of the original. Claiming copyright is not legal in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranSix (talk • contribs) 17:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright cant disapear just because it is a copy and military classification has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright belongs to whoever created the original the fact that somebody has copied to the internet doesnt change the original copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Vibration Problems - Criticism - Solutions

Any vibration problems that the XF5U had were as a result of the even number of blades on the counter-rotating props. A solution to the vibration problems come through employing an odd number of blades.

This is a known principle of aerodynamic engineering. In terms of the XF5U, you would employ either three-bladed counter-rotating propellers, or five-bladed counter-rotating propellers.

The solution sought by aircraft manufacturers of tip vortices on the propellers at speed creating wave drag was to create the propfan.

The XF5U could be made feasible by employing multiple blades in a propfan turboprop configuration without major configuration changes. The advantage would be to have reverse thrust on touchdown, reducing the landing roll drastically.

The next step would be to employ ducted fans in the same space of the engine nacelles, replacing the conventional propeller configuration, and forward swept anhedral winglets at the extremities of its elliptical plan-form to ensure that wing tip vortices are kept at bay, and the resulting air flow fed into the ducted fan inlets. The empennage can simply be reconfigured into a v-tail if necessary, with the ducted fan exhaust through moveable vanes, employing vectored thrust.

A ducted fan aircraft of this configuration would provide for a theorectically much faster turboprop aircraft than one with external propellers, and one that could forseably be scaleable to large size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranSix (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure this is relevant to the article, please sign you post, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)