Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: oboe on June 01, 2011, 06:44:57 AM

Title: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: oboe on June 01, 2011, 06:44:57 AM
There was a lot more to you than most people know.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/Marilyn-at-home-LIFE-color-.jpg)
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Masherbrum on June 01, 2011, 06:48:47 AM
Agreed.     :cheers:
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: flight17 on June 01, 2011, 12:00:23 PM
yup...

Did you know she was a Rosie the Riveter (sort of) before she became a model? She made drones for target practice and thats where she met the guy who told her to try out for modeling.

We have one of the drones she might have possibly made, but they didnt put serial numbers on them, so we cant proove she actually worked on ours.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/flightsimer/Air%20Heritage/MMdrone.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarilynMonroe_-_YankArmyWeekly.jpg
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: F22RaptorDude on June 01, 2011, 03:46:50 PM
yup...

Did you know she was a Rosie the Riveter (sort of) before she became a model? She made drones for target practice and thats where she met the guy who told her to try out for modeling.

We have one of the drones she might have possibly made, but they didnt put serial numbers on them, so we cant proove she actually worked on ours.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/flightsimer/Air%20Heritage/MMdrone.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarilynMonroe_-_YankArmyWeekly.jpg
Such a thing could never fly  :rofl Unless you just put a ton of power to it. Looks like gliding characteristics would be anything short of a joke, but hey what do I know.
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Babalonian on June 01, 2011, 05:34:49 PM
They never really were intended to fly, maybe blow up, but primarily - to fall out of it.
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: JOACH1M on June 01, 2011, 05:36:52 PM
There was a lot more to you than most people know.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/Marilyn-at-home-LIFE-color-.jpg)
Taylor swift will always have my heart! :cool: :bolt:
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: SFRT - Frenchy on June 02, 2011, 07:41:18 AM
Meh ... Was never into her. Way too much of the 'cutie cutie baby baby' attitude, plus she had ' I m going to be fat' fingers. Don't hate, just what I think. :salute
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: flight17 on June 02, 2011, 12:28:41 PM
Such a thing could never fly  :rofl Unless you just put a ton of power to it. Looks like gliding characteristics would be anything short of a joke, but hey what do I know.
it flew, it was remote controlled too. Its pretty light though. Its pretty much just a thin sheet metal shell with a little internal support. plus that engine is a 4 cylinder engine.

Thats what it looked like after being restored. We got it all shot up. When that happened in RW, they just re-skinned it and flew it again.   
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: dentin on June 02, 2011, 12:41:38 PM
There was a lot more to you than most people know.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/Marilyn-at-home-LIFE-color-.jpg)

+1
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Puma44 on June 02, 2011, 02:39:02 PM
Such a thing could never fly  :rofl Unless you just put a ton of power to it. Looks like gliding characteristics would be anything short of a joke, but hey what do I know.

Again, spoken from the bottom of an empty clue bag. :uhoh. Might be a good idea to do some googling......
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: F22RaptorDude on June 02, 2011, 02:45:51 PM
Again, spoken from the bottom of an empty clue bag. :uhoh. Might be a good idea to do some googling......
May I add the fact that the wings are a little short, what makes it fly is that huge engine, not sayings its crap i said Flying Characteristics were a joke, I never doubted its flying ability.
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Puma44 on June 02, 2011, 02:52:52 PM
May I add the fact that the wings are a little short, what makes it fly is that huge engine, not sayings its crap i said Flying Characteristics were a joke, I never doubted its flying ability.

So, you or someone you know has actual experience flying one? In other words, you have verifiable knowledge of it's flight characteristics vs making an off hand comment based on a picture?
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: F22RaptorDude on June 02, 2011, 02:55:20 PM
So, you or someone you know has actual experience flying one? In other words, you have verifiable knowledge of it's flight characteristics vs making an off hand comment based on a picture?
Taking a good look at it can make a person assume, you don't need insult a person who's wrong, makes you look like a troll. Just saying.
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Reschke on June 02, 2011, 02:55:59 PM
Those things flew and were flown every where they had a gunnery training area.
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Babalonian on June 02, 2011, 02:57:44 PM
It's a circa-1940s flying target drone used for circa-1940s weapons training, a single component to combat training and not for practicing maneuvers with.  It didn't need any other characteristics other than to be able to fit under the wing/fueselage of the towing plane that took it up, fly straight and level for X-amount of time when released, and fall out of the sky when it got shot.
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: VonMessa on June 02, 2011, 03:00:15 PM
May I add the fact that the wings are a little short, what makes it fly is that huge engine, not sayings its crap i said Flying Characteristics were a joke, I never doubted its flying ability.

Really?

Such a thing could never fly  :rofl Unless you just put a ton of power to it. Looks like gliding characteristics would be anything short of a joke, but hey what do I know.

I guess it was that statement that confused me...

Unless you consider to 20-30 hp of a Righter opposed-twin geared-down 2-stroke a "ton of power" :headscratch:

Oh, yeah. Happy Birthday,  Norma Jean Dougherty   :banana:

Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: dedalos on June 02, 2011, 03:00:56 PM
I never doubted its flying ability.

So, what did you mean by "could never fly?"
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: F22RaptorDude on June 02, 2011, 03:02:17 PM
When I used the  :rofl Face I was joking. I looked at the wings and saw how small they looked at the camera angle.
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Reaper90 on June 02, 2011, 03:07:40 PM
Such a thing could never fly, the wings are too short.

(http://www.whatifmodelers.com/gallery/3617_24_10_08_9_15_58.PNG)

(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Lockheed-F104/IMAGES/3View-Color-Lockheed-F-104.jpg)

(http://www.cavok-aviation-photos.net/eggebek04/F104G_2674.jpg)

Nope, wings are too small. That'll never fly.  :noid
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: F22RaptorDude on June 02, 2011, 03:10:38 PM
Such a thing could never fly, the wings are too short.

(http://www.whatifmodelers.com/gallery/3617_24_10_08_9_15_58.PNG)

(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Lockheed-F104/IMAGES/3View-Color-Lockheed-F-104.jpg)

(http://www.cavok-aviation-photos.net/eggebek04/F104G_2674.jpg)

Nope, wings are too small. That'll never fly.  :noid
You know the Ironic thing is I knew that would be brought up, and even more ironic i'm watching a show about it.  :uhoh
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: ScottyK on June 02, 2011, 08:53:01 PM
 get rid of the badger and change it to a short bus
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Puma44 on June 03, 2011, 02:07:09 AM
Taking a good look at it can make a person assume, you don't need insult a person who's wrong, makes you look like a troll. Just saying.

Ahhhh, there's no insult here, just asking a couple of questions, that you still haven't answered.  Just asking.

You seem to have a genuine interest in things that fly.  There is a wealth of knowledge in here about most anything one could want to know about concerning aviation, and more.  If you spent a little time researching versus making off the cuff statements that demonstrate nothing more than ignorance, you might gain some credibility and learn something in the process.  Just observing.   :salute
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Tyrannis on June 03, 2011, 02:26:35 AM
Such a thing could never fly, the wings are too short.

(http://www.whatifmodelers.com/gallery/3617_24_10_08_9_15_58.PNG)

(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Lockheed-F104/IMAGES/3View-Color-Lockheed-F-104.jpg)

(http://www.cavok-aviation-photos.net/eggebek04/F104G_2674.jpg)

Nope, wings are too small. That'll never fly.  :noid
i was watching the Military channel's "top ten" episode about fighters. and they had the f4 phantom on there.

they had an old phantom pilot. who said because of the shape of the phantom(especially its wing) it was technically aerodynamically impossible to fly due to how much drag the shape of its body created.
and its only because of the 2 giant engines pushing it through the sky that it was ever able to actually sustain flight.
(bsically they said it was nothing more than a giant greyhound bus with 2 big engines strapped to the back that made it go very fast).


point is, apparently it doesnt matter about the shape of the aircraft. if you got a strong enough engine on it to push it through the sky, it can sustain flight. least i think that was the point  :headscratch:
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 03, 2011, 03:24:24 AM

they had an old phantom pilot. who said because of the shape of the phantom(especially its wing) it was technically aerodynamically impossible to fly due to how much drag the shape of its body created.

Not true, the wings were not "aerodynamically impossible to fly".  The plane was big and heavy, that's why it needed those two powerful engines to push it through sky and not because the wings were not able to get any lift due to their design.

ack-ack
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: sunfan1121 on June 03, 2011, 03:38:38 AM
Such a thing could never fly, the wings are too short.

(http://www.whatifmodelers.com/gallery/3617_24_10_08_9_15_58.PNG)

(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Lockheed-F104/IMAGES/3View-Color-Lockheed-F-104.jpg)

(http://www.cavok-aviation-photos.net/eggebek04/F104G_2674.jpg)

Nope, wings are too small. That'll never fly.  :noid
It did have a tendency to fall out of the sky. Didn't the F104 almost kill Chuck Yeager?
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Puma44 on June 03, 2011, 12:06:43 PM
i was watching the Military channel's "top ten" episode about fighters. and they had the f4 phantom on there.

they had an old phantom pilot. who said because of the shape of the phantom(especially its wing) it was technically aerodynamically impossible to fly due to how much drag the shape of its body created.
and its only because of the 2 giant engines pushing it through the sky that it was ever able to actually sustain flight.
(bsically they said it was nothing more than a giant greyhound bus with 2 big engines strapped to the back that made it go very fast).


point is, apparently it doesnt matter about the shape of the aircraft. if you got a strong enough engine on it to push it through the sky, it can sustain flight. least i think that was the point  :headscratch:

That's why it has both dihedral and anhedral in the wings and stabilator, aerodynamic stability.  A demonstration that with enough horsepower, even a refrigerator can go supersonic.  :O
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: flight17 on June 04, 2011, 01:36:52 PM
May I add the fact that the wings are a little short, what makes it fly is that huge engine, not sayings its crap i said Flying Characteristics were a joke, I never doubted its flying ability.
dont always believe what a picture is showing you. thats a ~12ft wingspan

It didn't need any other characteristics other than to be able to fit under the wing/fueselage of the towing plane that took it up, fly straight and level for X-amount of time when released, and fall out of the sky when it got shot.

thats not true for this model. It was fully remote controlled.
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Penguin on June 04, 2011, 01:47:29 PM
get rid of the badger and change it to a short bus

Hey, leave him alone.

-Penguin
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Captain Virgil Hilts on June 04, 2011, 03:38:02 PM
It did have a tendency to fall out of the sky. Didn't the F104 almost kill Chuck Yeager?

It had really twitchy low speed handling characteristics, a trade off made in its time to gain the speed that fighter pilots demanded. Jet engines were still very new, and not very efficient, so in order to get the desired speed, the plane was made like a missile. It remained in service as a front line fighter for around 30 years. Not a bad record, actually. Fighter pilots of the time asked for speed and acceleration, Kelly Johnson gave it to them.
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: mensa180 on June 04, 2011, 04:08:53 PM
From what I understand shorter wings are more desirable the faster and higher you want to go, terribly inefficient in thicker atmosphere though, Mach 3+ and you start to be riding in a rocket that happens to have wings [ex: X15] more than you're riding in an airplane.
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Penguin on June 04, 2011, 05:01:23 PM
If I may rant...

It was not just American figher pilots demanding increased speed and acceleration, it was a general trend toward rocket-like fighters.  You see, ever since there have been bombers, there have been interceptors.  These planes sacrificed long range capability for short range performance.  As bombers went higher and faster, so did the interceptors.

Eventually, bombers became so high and so fast that the concept of the point-defense interceptor came into being.  Examples include the Me-163b Komet and the Bachem Ba 349 Natter.  After World War II, the Cold War began, and the threat of nuclear bombers arose.  With the designs of the Germans, the allies became more interested in developing higher, faster interceptors.

As jet engines became cheap to the point of being disposable, missles came into being.  New designs focused heavinly on carrying the maximum number of missles to the highest altitude in the shortest amount of time.  They became more and more like missles themselves, with huge engines and high fuel consumption.

Eventually, the SAM was born.  It was the embodiment of the point-defense interceptor role: fast, hard-hitting and replaceable.  It, however, was phased out as well when the ICBM came on the scene (this also increased the threat of unpreventable nuclear annihalation if the world went to war).

-Penguin
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Pigslilspaz on June 04, 2011, 05:16:41 PM
Putting this thread, back on it's tracks.

(http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/21/2128/Y4KED00Z/posters/marilyn-monroe.jpg)
Title: Re: Happy Birthday, baby
Post by: Puma44 on June 04, 2011, 09:22:28 PM
It did have a tendency to fall out of the sky. Didn't the F104 almost kill Chuck Yeager?

No, Yeager almost killed himself in an NF-104. 

http://www.kalimera.org/nf104/stories/stories_13.html

Any aircraft will fall out of the sky if mishandled.   :salute