Man that is a gorgeous plane. Why billionaires fly around in random lears and random ticky tack planes always amazes me.
But as a friend said "It's because they are boring as shit and lack and creativity....they basically only think about stroking their ego and making more money"
Learjets do have the advantages of being fast, reliable, and having a robust logistical network and technical support from the manufacturer. But if I was really super rich I would do exactly the same, damn to the crew training hours and custom support and maintenance required
Indeed, the RC-2 ie Republic Commercial n° 2 IIRC.
Illustration attached which is uhh interesting.
Like, what variety of bad weather did the designer at Republic envisage that might render the regular windscreen entirely unfit for purpose but somehow NOT scrub the whole idea of attempting said landing?
This is from my experience flying a bunch of different GA designs but most notable when comparing a Republic Seabee to a 172 or CRJ. Having the windshield far from your face makes it harder to see through rain droplets. When the windshield is close your eyes focus easily on the runway past the rain drops or bug smattering, when far away the focus distance ruins your view. For an airliner having to fly in bad weather routinely it would be much easier to see through a dirty windshield and to have wipers and heated glass on a little vertical pane right in front of pilots face vs that beautiful bubble windscreen.
Ahhh right, read that wrong and assumed it was the other way around, but that is an excellent point, and was indeed the stated rationale.
Nb via Aviation Week ca 1947-11-10
FUSELAGE — In an extremely rare case of design direction, absolutely no compromise with aerodynamic considerations was made in the shape of the XF-12 fuselage. The long, pointed nose of the design virtually prohibits flow separation. The resulting problem with vision, particularly during the landing approach, was resolved by the use of a double windshield — the conical halves of the enclosure sliding down into the fuselage to reveal a conventional "sharp break" windshield for use in bad weather. In normal flight, vision forward is directly through both windshields.
NGL still question the sanity of the concept. IDK just struggling to see how, with the additional mass vs reduction in flow separation and the effects thereof etc, results in the double windshield coming out on top. Granted, aero is not my forté. Also, am an idiot, so there’s that.
It’s reminiscent of Concorde. Everyone knows about the nose being lowered for takeoff and landing, but separately from that there was a vizor which was raised over the windscreen to give cleaner aerodynamics.
Boeing had Republic beat to the punch with their 377 Stratorcruiser. Sharing a load of components and controls with an active military aircraft — the B-29 — meant it would have been super easy for airlines to hire folks right out of the USAF coming back from Japan or Korea to staff and service the Stratocruisers, and the USAAC contract for C-97 Stratofreighters and B-29 Stratofortresses mean they had an economy of scale.
This predates the modern nomenclature system introduced in the 1960's, at the time, the "F" designation was used for Foto recon aircraft, and "P" was used for phighters.
^^^Slightly joking, P was for "pursuit", but F was actually used for photographic recon, which is why it was used here. For reference, some of the first P-38's to see action were actually unarmed F-4 recon aircraft.
Ah, I see. I had no idea F was used for recon aircraft. And I definitely didn't know some P-38s were designated F-4. How many different "F-4"s does the US need?!
Plenty. You had the Lockheed F-4 Lightning, Grumman F4F Wildcat, Boeing F4B, Curtiss F4C, Douglas F4D Skyray, McDonnell F4H (later F-4) Phantom II, and Vought F4U Corsair.
A lot of the repeats in aircraft sharing the same designation as each other is from pre-1962, when the branches finally got their shit together with the Tri-Service Designation System. While it did for a little bit continue, it became a whole lot more cleaned up.
u/Empire_of_walnuts Well actually, it predates the 1947 USAF nomenclature. The 1924 Army nomenclature (Air Force was part of the army prior to 1947, independent after) designated fighters as 'Pursuit Aircraft' (P) and reconnaissance aircraft either as 'Observation' (O) or 'Foto' (F). Meanwhile the Navy had a different system and already used F for Fighter; but Scout (S) for Reconnaissance.
1947 saw the establishment of the USAF as an independent arm; at that point they abandoned P for Pursuit in favour for F for Fighter; and F for Foto in favour for R for Reconnaissance. At the same time A for Attack was abolished - single-engined attack aircraft were designated as 'Fighters' (hence the A-24 Banshee - US Army counterpart to the SBD Dauntless - becoming the F-24 Banshee); while multi-engined attack aircraft were designated as 'Bombers' (hence the Douglas A-26 Invader becoming the Douglas B-26 Invader). Meanwhile the US Navy retained its own designation system.
1963 saw the US Army, US Navy and US Air Force adapt a single designation system. At this point 'A-for-Attack' - abolished in the Air Force but still in use in the Navy - was adapted once again, hence why the first 6 'attack' aircraft are all US Navy types which were redesignated under the new system (A-1/ex-AD Skyraider, A-2/ex-AJ Savage, A-3/ex-A3D Skywarrior, A-4/ex-A4D Skyhawk, A-5/ex-A3J Vigilante, and A-6/ex-A2F Intruder).
Processing the film on the flight back to base means the photos are ready for analysis immediatly, rather than having to wait for the one-hour photo lab to finish their work.
Plus the faster you get the film developed the less chance of degradation of the exposed film's chemical structure.
It's become a meme that Kodak was not a picture company, but rather a chemical company -- which lead to their boardroom level failure to go digital, even though their labs were initially at the bleeding edge of digital imaging.
What a beautiful machine, very Art Deco, like those hood ornaments on luxury cars. It looks fast and the specs give a max speed of 410knots. Amazing airplane.
maxcelcat@reddit
IMHO the most beautiful aircraft ever built. Also the ultimate expression of multi-engined pison planes.
Apexnanoman@reddit
Man that is a gorgeous plane. Why billionaires fly around in random lears and random ticky tack planes always amazes me.
But as a friend said "It's because they are boring as shit and lack and creativity....they basically only think about stroking their ego and making more money"
Anarchistpingu@reddit
Learjets do have the advantages of being fast, reliable, and having a robust logistical network and technical support from the manufacturer. But if I was really super rich I would do exactly the same, damn to the crew training hours and custom support and maintenance required
Apexnanoman@reddit
If you have 10-20 billion or more in the bank the dev costs and crew training etc are pocket change lol.
The Tu-95 maxes out at like 575. Which is around the top speed of a Lear.
I'd bet you could get a turboprop XF-12 up in the high 400s speed wise. So you wouldn't exactly be pushing the Weight Flyer.
ComfortFun6426@reddit
A passenger version was proposed. KLM was interested, but alas, nothing came of it. Would have been a beautiful sight.
HumpyPocock@reddit
Indeed, the RC-2 ie Republic Commercial n° 2 IIRC.
Illustration attached which is uhh interesting.
Like, what variety of bad weather did the designer at Republic envisage that might render the regular windscreen entirely unfit for purpose but somehow NOT scrub the whole idea of attempting said landing?
Enquiring minds must know.
FLYING Magazine ca 1946-12 n° 39-06
HERE for the relevant page — see lower LHS
f38stingray@reddit
Is that a rotary retraction mechanism? Like the windscreen spins around and out of the way?
HumpyPocock@reddit
Yep!
An as it happens, earlier on I wondered what it’d look like minus the curved glass, so did a half assed scrubbing out of those lines…
f38stingray@reddit
That is so sick, this thing gets just a little quirkier the more I learn about it.
needmore100ll@reddit
This is from my experience flying a bunch of different GA designs but most notable when comparing a Republic Seabee to a 172 or CRJ. Having the windshield far from your face makes it harder to see through rain droplets. When the windshield is close your eyes focus easily on the runway past the rain drops or bug smattering, when far away the focus distance ruins your view. For an airliner having to fly in bad weather routinely it would be much easier to see through a dirty windshield and to have wipers and heated glass on a little vertical pane right in front of pilots face vs that beautiful bubble windscreen.
postmodest@reddit
Snow and icing rain? I guess you couldn't put wipers on the aero so you'd lower them for the wipeable ones.
...if the retraction mechanism wasn't iced over.
HumpyPocock@reddit
Ahhh right, read that wrong and assumed it was the other way around, but that is an excellent point, and was indeed the stated rationale.
Nb via Aviation Week ca 1947-11-10
FUSELAGE — In an extremely rare case of design direction, absolutely no compromise with aerodynamic considerations was made in the shape of the XF-12 fuselage. The long, pointed nose of the design virtually prohibits flow separation. The resulting problem with vision, particularly during the landing approach, was resolved by the use of a double windshield — the conical halves of the enclosure sliding down into the fuselage to reveal a conventional "sharp break" windshield for use in bad weather. In normal flight, vision forward is directly through both windshields.NGL still question the sanity of the concept. IDK just struggling to see how, with the additional mass vs reduction in flow separation and the effects thereof etc, results in the double windshield coming out on top. Granted, aero is not my forté. Also, am an idiot, so there’s that.
ctesibius@reddit
It’s reminiscent of Concorde. Everyone knows about the nose being lowered for takeoff and landing, but separately from that there was a vizor which was raised over the windscreen to give cleaner aerodynamics.
Harpies_Bro@reddit
Boeing had Republic beat to the punch with their 377 Stratorcruiser. Sharing a load of components and controls with an active military aircraft — the B-29 — meant it would have been super easy for airlines to hire folks right out of the USAF coming back from Japan or Korea to staff and service the Stratocruisers, and the USAAC contract for C-97 Stratofreighters and B-29 Stratofortresses mean they had an economy of scale.
Empire_of_walnuts@reddit
Why the hell does it have the F designation?
Xivios@reddit
This predates the modern nomenclature system introduced in the 1960's, at the time, the "F" designation was used for Foto recon aircraft, and "P" was used for phighters.
^^^Slightly joking, P was for "pursuit", but F was actually used for photographic recon, which is why it was used here. For reference, some of the first P-38's to see action were actually unarmed F-4 recon aircraft.
Empire_of_walnuts@reddit
Ah, I see. I had no idea F was used for recon aircraft. And I definitely didn't know some P-38s were designated F-4. How many different "F-4"s does the US need?!
Kanyiko@reddit
Plenty. You had the Lockheed F-4 Lightning, Grumman F4F Wildcat, Boeing F4B, Curtiss F4C, Douglas F4D Skyray, McDonnell F4H (later F-4) Phantom II, and Vought F4U Corsair.
Lopsided-Rooster28@reddit
A lot of the repeats in aircraft sharing the same designation as each other is from pre-1962, when the branches finally got their shit together with the Tri-Service Designation System. While it did for a little bit continue, it became a whole lot more cleaned up.
Kanyiko@reddit
u/Empire_of_walnuts Well actually, it predates the 1947 USAF nomenclature. The 1924 Army nomenclature (Air Force was part of the army prior to 1947, independent after) designated fighters as 'Pursuit Aircraft' (P) and reconnaissance aircraft either as 'Observation' (O) or 'Foto' (F). Meanwhile the Navy had a different system and already used F for Fighter; but Scout (S) for Reconnaissance.
1947 saw the establishment of the USAF as an independent arm; at that point they abandoned P for Pursuit in favour for F for Fighter; and F for Foto in favour for R for Reconnaissance. At the same time A for Attack was abolished - single-engined attack aircraft were designated as 'Fighters' (hence the A-24 Banshee - US Army counterpart to the SBD Dauntless - becoming the F-24 Banshee); while multi-engined attack aircraft were designated as 'Bombers' (hence the Douglas A-26 Invader becoming the Douglas B-26 Invader). Meanwhile the US Navy retained its own designation system.
1963 saw the US Army, US Navy and US Air Force adapt a single designation system. At this point 'A-for-Attack' - abolished in the Air Force but still in use in the Navy - was adapted once again, hence why the first 6 'attack' aircraft are all US Navy types which were redesignated under the new system (A-1/ex-AD Skyraider, A-2/ex-AJ Savage, A-3/ex-A3D Skywarrior, A-4/ex-A4D Skyhawk, A-5/ex-A3J Vigilante, and A-6/ex-A2F Intruder).
mechant_papa@reddit
The detail about this plane that always amazed me was the presence of a photo lab onboard for immediate processing of the photos.
redstarjedi@reddit
I wonder why? I'm sure they had one back at base.
Also crazy how film was used till the late 2000s even in the early 2010s.
Cthell@reddit
Processing the film on the flight back to base means the photos are ready for analysis immediatly, rather than having to wait for the one-hour photo lab to finish their work.
redstarjedi@reddit
For sure the Air Force had a 24 professional lab on base.
They even had mobile labs.
Saw on one eBay for 10k a few years ago.
A semi hardened cargo container with generator and all the darkroom stuff even for color.
Cthell@reddit
Of course - the "one-hour photo lab" line was a joke.
No matter how good the ground-based lab is, it can't compete with an onboard lab that got a several-hour headstart on the processing though
Otaraka@reddit
Sure but why not use the downtime when it’s flying back afterwards to get it done then. It means no delay once you land at all.
choodudetoo@reddit
Plus the faster you get the film developed the less chance of degradation of the exposed film's chemical structure.
It's become a meme that Kodak was not a picture company, but rather a chemical company -- which lead to their boardroom level failure to go digital, even though their labs were initially at the bleeding edge of digital imaging.
JimHeckdiver@reddit
Film has far more fidelity than digital pictures. That's finally starting to change, but there really was no beating it at the time.
redstarjedi@reddit
Absolutely. I still shoot medium format.
Sha77eredSpiri7@reddit
It's so pretty, so aerodynamic and smooth, teardrop shapes in as many places as possible. What a gorgeous aircraft.
matron999@reddit
What a beautiful machine, very Art Deco, like those hood ornaments on luxury cars. It looks fast and the specs give a max speed of 410knots. Amazing airplane.
Jessie_C_2646@reddit
There's no a lot weird about this, but there certainly is a lot of beauty happening.
YouCanShoveYourMagic@reddit
I wonder if that canopy was 10% of the total cost.
yoweigh@reddit
From wikipedia. 😢
StormBlessed145@reddit
My buddy built a model of one of these in the middle of last year. I'm gonna build one pretty soon.
Individual_Ninja_923@reddit
Its so pretty
Empty-Meringue-2386@reddit
Imagine that plane with RR Dart turboprops, and T56 later.
daanpol@reddit
I absolutely love the nacelle design. What a beauty.
Empty-Meringue-2386@reddit
One day I'll make a short list of all the fantastic WWII US warplanes that never got a chance - sich as the Beech A-38 Grizzly and a few others.