C-23 Sherpa
MARK ATKINS
to...
http://community.webtv.net/C-23FE/doc
RT
MARK ATKINS <C-2...@webtv.net> wrote
> Ever heard of the C-23 Sherpa? Want to learn about the C-23 Sherpa? Go
> to... http://community.webtv.net/C-23FE/doc
Sorry - it'll always be a Skyvan to me - even with the nose job :-)
cowboy
C-2...@webtv.net (MARK ATKINS) wrote:
> Ever heard of the C-23 Sherpa? Want to learn about the C-23 Sherpa? Go
> to...
>
> http://community.webtv.net/C-23FE/doc
That is not the short sherpa. The Short S.B.4 Sherpa first flew on Oct
4 1953 and was built to test the aero-isoclinic wing.
(there's a question for your quiz Phil, what is an aeroisoclinic wing
supposed to do)
It was developed as a powered version of the SB1 which was a glider
that crashed during test flying.
The Sherpa had rotational wing tips and a conventional rudder but no
horizontal tailplane, ailerons or elevators.
One SC1 on loan from the Science museum in London is in the Fleet Air
Arm Museum, Yeovilton and another in the Ulster folk and Transport
Museum, Holywood, Wales fairly near to its original home.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
cowboy
"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> MARK ATKINS <C-2...@webtv.net> wrote
> > Ever heard of the C-23 Sherpa? Want to learn about the C-23 Sherpa?
Go
> > to... http://community.webtv.net/C-23FE/doc
>
>
something similar. It was sold as a commuter airliner if my
recollection is correct.
Ross Madsen
comes up on the radio "Hey Tower, if that thing can fly I might strap a
couple of wings to the tractor".
MARK ATKINS wrote in message
<23030-38...@storefull-261.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Doug Stott
The SD3-30 was a very significant upgrade from the previous SC7, the
Skyvan.
The 330 was powered by PW PT6's and had 30 seats. The Sherpa was
developed from the 330 specifically for the USAF use in Europe as it
could carry most of the jet fighter engines around.
The main external difference from the 330 to the Sherpa was the lack of
windows and the drop down ramp. The Sherpa was certified with an
autopilot, which the 330 did not have.
I flew the first SD3-30 into Australia back in December 1980, (VH-KNN)
Following that aircraft was KNO, KNP and KNQ were imported. Later on
two additional 330's came to Australia, LSI and HUS. I believe that all
have now either been retired or exported o/s.
The 330 was later developed into the 360, which had 36 seats and a
single tail. Only a couple of those left now with Sunstate in Qld.
Lots of people knocked them, because of their looks, flat sides etc, but
they were a good aeroplane, flew well and were easy to maintain in the
field. I did over 6000 hours in the 330/360s and they had better than
99.5% departure reliability. Lots of passenger firsts for such an
aircraft, such as overhead lockers and high ceiling etc.
Great cargo door on the front left side, could be used to carry large
items and the config could be made into a combi.
cheers
cowboy wrote:
>
> In article <85m2j9$eaj$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au>,
> "RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > MARK ATKINS <C-2...@webtv.net> wrote
> > > Ever heard of the C-23 Sherpa? Want to learn about the C-23 Sherpa?
> Go
> > > to... http://community.webtv.net/C-23FE/doc
> >
Phil C
"cowboy" <cow...@ram.net.au> wrote in message
That is not the short sherpa. The Short S.B.4 Sherpa first flew on Oct
4 1953 and was built to test the aero-isoclinic wing.
(there's a question for your quiz Phil, what is an aeroisoclinic wing
supposed to do)
Having patted a model of the ting ( your taxing me here old dog)
IF IF its the one I recall with the Hinged outer wings ( think it was 27
percent as Matra copied a thing on a Drone/missile that never flew into
production) Which to me always reminded me of the Powered Glider model
To save space I summarise thus airflow takes the least line of resistance
Right?
add to this contention a sort of line evening out the forces of lift and
drag and with just enough sweep you get a pretty good flying wing-Right ?
The danger as I see it doodling here at 0253 will be wing loading and
laminar considerations add to this ( remember it was begat by a glider)
will be C of G and Tailplane forces all working to disturb this isoclinic
principal .
Bugger it its too late I have to get out Teds wading pool and the bluo to
illustrate the try and write it down I know what I am trying to say but
words are not my best medium ( hi Jacko & JV )
In short a very good "flying wing type shape" and with the flow and lines
of force ( via the medium of airflow + lift is the aim remember ) a nice
sail plane without those long wings ( see the hinge in your mind now)
But please its not a winglet because if the loading and that magic force
line
Got it !!!! Have a look at that cargo plane of a few years ago with its
fully "blown" wings and there is the clue.
I think vickers beat shorts on the wing thing in the 50's As shorts
traditionally ( first flying boat ever from memory) and this "sherpa " of
which you speak was originally a glider wing test for a tender on a big
Tailless bomber.
will play with the wading pool and plastic and recreate what I visualise
then get back to you with a less verbose summation.
Thanks for the brain strain when I drag myself in.
In return cop this ! explain to me a cauchy number and the taylor theorem
( Hint related in my sense to Maclarin series)
Good night off for 3 whole hours Kip and back to work .
Phil
cowboy
"Ross Madsen" <rjma...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> A Shorts 330 lands at Tindal airport, as it is taxying in the
grasscutter
> comes up on the radio "Hey Tower, if that thing can fly I might strap
a
> couple of wings to the tractor".
>
I see the joke ross, they don't have grass at Tindal......right?