Go to car


Latest Comments
Car: 96570   By: wannabemustangjockey   Comment: "You know what new car shouldn't count as a new car..."
Car: 96570   By: DiRF   Comment: "You know what new car DOESN'T follow that scheme? ..."
Car: 16248   By: Low-Tech Redneck   Comment: "Getting strong "Background car in random Quantum L..."
Car: 96570   By: ricerocketboy   Comment: "The worst part is, all new cars follow the same fo..."
Car: 96558   By: DiRF   Comment: "To be fair, Chevy had some of the prettiest cars a..."
See last 25 comments
 Go to

Next picture
Ricecop Home
Linkage
Plates
Bling Bling
Photo
Free Post

 Top 10

Top 10 Ricers
Top 10 Non-Ricers
Top 10 Other Good
Top 10 Other Bad

 New & Retired

Newest Images
Retired Images

 Other

Submit a picture
Profile Lookup
FAQ
Site Log
Leader Board
Site Stats

 Online Now

0 Ricecops
1 Guests

Detailed List

 Login

Username:

Password:


Remember Login?

Sign up!
Why sign up?
Forgot my password


View this image at full size
Click here to let us know if the image above is broken.


Go back and vote on this image.

Picture Information
URL: http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=83973
Submitted by: Low-Tech Redneck
Comments: 4  (Read/Post)     Favorites: 0  (View)
Submitted on: 01-06-2011
View Stats Category: Other Vehicle
Description:
Convair Sea Dart - An "odd bird" if ever there was one. A supersonic jet-powered SEAPLANE


   Comments

Showing page: 1 of 1
[
1 ]

#1
1-06-2011 @ 11:28:28 AM
Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck Reply | Edit | Del
Designed in the late 40's, when the Navy feared that the new generation of supersonic jet aircraft would be incompatible with carrier operations due to long take off runs needed to get airborne. Finally flown in 1953, It had underpowered engines that meant it couldn't go supersonic outside of a dive, suffered vibrational problems, and was soon rendered obsolete by the arrival of the modern "Super Carrier" that could launch and retrieve jet aircraft. ANd upon further review, someone flipped the source photo.....

[Edited by Low-Tech Redneck on 1-06-2011 @ 11:29:22 AM]


#2
1-06-2011 @ 12:33:32 PM
Posted By : DiRF  Reply | Edit | Del
#1, Someone flipped the whatnow? :P

...and, yeah, I remember this plane from a coffee table book I had years ago called "The World's Worst Aircraft"... it's amazing how many planes were considered horrible because they couldn't fit more powerful engines.

[Edited by DiRF on 1-06-2011 @ 12:34:31 PM]


#3
1-06-2011 @ 12:38:14 PM
Posted By : Tastycakemix Reply | Edit | Del
Fixed.

I'd fly on top of this thing in a B-58. While its busy counting my engines, I'd drop a big, stupid bomb on it.
http://www.thunderstreak.com/pictures/B-58.jpg


#4
1-06-2011 @ 12:44:32 PM
Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck Reply | Edit | Del
#2, There was one notoriously bad BAD engine that was built in the late 40's or early 50's, I don't remember if it was a Pratt & Whitney or Westinghouse design, but, it was a famously gutless engine, and every plane fitted with it just failed to perform even close to spec.

[Edited by Low-Tech Redneck on 1-06-2011 @ 12:46:36 PM]


Showing page: 1 of 1
[
1 ]


Login to leave a comment

Classifieds 
Click here to post your own classified ad






Want to send some feedback? Click here.

Server time: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 01:09:50 PM

All pictures on this site are property of their respective owners.
Copyright 2000 - 2017 Ricecop. All rights reserved.