BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Mar 2018, 12:36

Username Protected wrote:

At least you can get a repair manual for it.

Reassembly is a reversal of dismantling (and refit in the reverse order of removal). If you can take it apart then you can fix anything on it, right?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Mar 2018, 18:23

Username Protected wrote:

Yep..I still have my RF-4C pubs.Tom

Another Recce puke. Mine is in my bookshelf behind me. Where did you fly the RF-4C? I had two tough tours, Sunny Zwei and Bergstrom.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Mar 2018, 20:11

Buy one, get one half off!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Mar 2018, 20:46

Oh, what nobody can or will say say. :pilot:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Mar 2018, 20:53

Username Protected wrote:

I couldn't afford to have it either, but what would that make the $100 hamburger?

It would make it about 1 foot away from where you had it tied down.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Mar 2018, 21:29

Sounds more like a $50,000 hamburger run. Plus you would need a huffer cart wherever you go. Do FBOs even have these?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Mar 2018, 22:59

Username Protected wrote:

Sounds more like a $50,000 hamburger run. Plus you would need a huffer cart wherever you go. Do FBOs even have these?

Not if you have a cartridge type starter. No doubt not EPA approved these days.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 May 2018, 17:51

First post on this forum so please go easy.

Can someone explain to be please what is the reason for the dihedral of the wing tips and the unahedral (spelling?) of the elevator?
Dihedral adds stability while unahedral reduces it. So why was it done this way?

Thank you.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 May 2018, 18:09

Anhedral is the opposite of Dihedral.

This site explains the F-4 design philosophy. It seems reasonable.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-F-4- ... -elevators

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 May 2018, 21:56

These are a steal then at $375K for 2. Much more economical with only 1 engine

http://courtesyaircraft.com/aircraft/f- ... -projects/

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 May 2018, 22:49

I’d buy it but I’m not sure I can afford to pay for a crew to handle the KC-135 I’d also have to buy!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 May 2018, 13:46

Username Protected wrote:

Anhedral is the opposite of Dihedral.

This site explains the F-4 design philosophy. It seems reasonable.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-F-4- ... -elevators

The Wikipedia article cited in that article explains it pretty well.

They'd already invested in expensive tooling to build the middle part of the wings by the time they figured out the airplane wasn't quite stable enough at Mach 2. Bending the wingtips up and the horizontal stabs down fixed the glitch- and it didn't break the bank or put the project too far behind schedule.

There was a lot of money getting put into high speed, high altitude aerodynamics research in the 1950s- think of the X planes and NASA but think of money on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean and then think of both sides of the Iron Curtain. The state of the art advanced pretty quickly...

The F-4's vertical fin looks intuitively small nowadays because we can compare it to dozens of different Mach 2 airplanes built in the last fifty years. But when it was on the drawing board in its original form, with straight wings and a straight horizontal stab, there wasn't anything to compare it to- they designed it to what was the state of the art at the time.

Phantom for sale