Author Topic: Aviation Pictures Part Deux (Read 265104 times)

I am Belch II · « **Reply #30 on:** 12 July 2015, 07:54:17 »

Quote from: Sharpnel on 12 July 2015, 04:37:47

And just because of helos

Every time I see a Bell 222 fly over I call it Airwolf.

Fat Guy · « **Reply #31 on:** 12 July 2015, 14:15:28 »

I much prefer the looks of this one:

Euphonium · « **Reply #32 on:** 18 July 2015, 10:50:17 »

The last flying Vulcan, XH588, doing a flypast over Carlisle Airports static display Vulcan a few weeks back.

Feenix74 · « **Reply #33 on:** 19 July 2015, 04:46:09 »

A flying Vulcan O0

The Avro 707:

The five Avro 707 were built as 1/3 scale models for flight testing the aerodynamics of the Avro Type 698 Vulcan. One (WD280) was transferred to the RAAF in 1956 for aeronautical research. WD280 was sold off in 1967 and the owner had it on display in his suburban backyard until 1999 when it was relocated to the RAAF Museum at Point Cook, Melbourne.

Bren · « **Reply #34 on:** 22 July 2015, 18:13:29 »

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #35 on:** 22 July 2015, 18:16:46 »

"...and here we see an F-35 in its natural environment... on the ground, partially disassembled for testing."

Bedwyr · « **Reply #36 on:** 22 July 2015, 18:24:02 »

Quote from: JadeHellbringer on 22 July 2015, 18:16:46

"...and here we see an F-35 in its natural environment... on the ground, partially disassembled for testing."

Ouch.

On that note does the ramp have a crater in it from the vertical landing?

chanman · « **Reply #37 on:** 22 July 2015, 18:27:48 »

Quote from: JadeHellbringer on 22 July 2015, 18:16:46

"...and here we see an F-35 in its natural environment... on the ground, partially disassembled for testing."

"We've had to use less smokeless formulas of smokeless powder"

Feenix74 · « **Reply #38 on:** 22 July 2015, 18:39:13 »

We are still working on the translucent protective layer for the canopy to minimise scratches from operation of the gun. In the meantime we are using this space blanket (which NASA kindly is selling to us at US$10M each) and instructing pilots not to do left turns as there is a bit of a blindspot on the leftside of the aircraft while the blanket is in place . . .

chanman · « **Reply #39 on:** 22 July 2015, 19:00:19 »

Quote from: Bedwyr on 22 July 2015, 18:24:02

Ouch.

On that note does the ramp have a crater in it from the vertical landing?

I doubt this specimen has been flying recently judging by its lack of left wing.

Fairey Delta 2

BAE EAP demonstrator that eventually led to the Typhoon

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #40 on:** 22 July 2015, 19:05:20 »

Rafales sure do look nice, don't they? (From Ace Combat 6)

chanman · « **Reply #41 on:** 22 July 2015, 19:12:08 »

One thing I just noticed about the J-20 prototypes - I think they're the first non-Lockheed Martin fighters with a frameless canopy. Notably, the F-35 and Mitsubishi F-2 don't have frameless canopies either. Only the F-16 and F-22 do.

It makes me wonder if the J-20/J-31 are actually just a form of misdirection and we're going to end up seeing further upgraded (what the hell would we call 'em, Gen 4.75?) Flankers with say... sidesticks, frameless canopies, and RAM like a cross between the Silent Eagle and Super Hornet upgrades applied to the big ol' Sukhoi.

Feenix74 · « **Reply #42 on:** 22 July 2015, 19:18:54 »

I will speculate the other way, I would not be surprised if underneath the skin of the J-20/J-31 you find that there are alot of parts "borrowed" from the Flankers.

chanman · « **Reply #43 on:** 22 July 2015, 19:24:41 »

Quote from: Feenix74 on 22 July 2015, 19:18:54

I will speculate the other way, I would not be surprised if underneath the skin of the J-20/J-31 you find that there are alot of parts "borrowed" from the Flankers.

Waste not, want not. However, the J-31 appears to be a private venture by Shenyang (the one making the various Flankers as well), and the engine choice (RD-33s) would imply it's more in the size range of the Mig-29 or Hornet.

You can barely see one hiding between the Flankers in this picture:

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #44 on:** 22 July 2015, 19:26:40 »

To hell with the F-117, THAT'S a stealthy plane. ;D

chanman · « **Reply #45 on:** 22 July 2015, 19:39:08 »

Quote from: JadeHellbringer on 22 July 2015, 19:26:40

To hell with the F-117, THAT'S a stealthy plane. ;D

Well, the Flanker is a gigantic plane. It can double as a privacy screen!

No, really. The Su-30 is only about half a foot sorter than the F-111F which makes it TEN FEET longer than a Tomcat or Eagle. It's got almost 6 feet more wingspan than an F-15 and is as tall as or taller than the Panavia Tornado, despite using twin fins.

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #46 on:** 22 July 2015, 19:48:08 »

Quote from: chanman on 22 July 2015, 19:39:08

Well, the Flanker is a gigantic plane. It can double as a privacy screen!

No, really. The Su-30 is only about half a foot sorter than the F-111F which makes it TEN FEET longer than a Tomcat or Eagle. It's got almost 6 feet more wingspan than an F-15 and is as tall as or taller than the Panavia Tornado, despite using twin fins.

Want a really good laugh? Screw comparing the Flanker to the Eagle or Tornado. Check it's length... now check the B-17.

I'll wait.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #47 on:** 22 July 2015, 20:34:47 »

Quote from: JadeHellbringer on 22 July 2015, 19:48:08

Want a really good laugh? Screw comparing the Flanker to the Eagle or Tornado. Check it's length... now check the B-17.

I'll wait.

A max take off weight of a B17 was 65k pounds and the F15 can weight at 68k and the F15e is over 80k.

chanman · « **Reply #48 on:** 22 July 2015, 20:40:46 »

Quote from: JadeHellbringer on 22 July 2015, 19:48:08

Want a really good laugh? Screw comparing the Flanker to the Eagle or Tornado. Check it's length... now check the B-17.

I'll wait.

Not just the length. While the B-17 clearly has much more wing area and wingspan, it's actually shorter (height-wise) than the Flanker and has a similar loaded weight. The Flanker also has a much heavier MTOW, is a tonne heavier when empty, can carry about double the payload, and has uh... 50 times the climb rate or so.

I think a lightly-loaded Flanker in a zoom climb can actually reach the B-17's service ceiling in the time it would take the Fort to raise its landing gear. Ain't technology great?

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #49 on:** 23 July 2015, 15:11:28 »

Quote from: Bedwyr on 22 July 2015, 18:24:02

On that note does the ramp have a crater in it from the vertical landing?

It's an internal gun, so it's a F-35A air force model.
The tarmac/deck melting is the F-35B marine model, with its STOVL mode..

The marine and navy versions don't have internal guns to reduce weight, they'll fly with gun pods if a gun is needed.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #50 on:** 23 July 2015, 15:13:04 »

Quote from: glitterboy2098 on 23 July 2015, 15:11:28

It's an internal gun, so it's a F-35A air force model.
The tarmac/deck melting is the F-35B marine model, with its STOVL mode..

The marine and navy versions don't have internal guns to reduce weight, they'll fly with gun pods if a gun is needed.

Gun pods which won't work

Bedwyr · « **Reply #51 on:** 23 July 2015, 17:25:38 »

I wonder what the design considerations were that gave the Kit 29 that bent-in-the-middle look? It's furious that the front fuselage would either fly at such a low nose down attitude of the wings have such a high angle of attack.

worktroll · « **Reply #52 on:** 23 July 2015, 20:15:23 »

Quote from: chanman on 22 July 2015, 18:27:48

"We've had to use less smokeless formulas of smokeless powder"

Yup, I was noting that too. Are they having problems from the inlets ingesting that gunk? Used to be a Soviet problem, odd to see it come back on US planes.

I'm reasonably sure the Vulcan didn't use black powder ...

Fat Guy · « **Reply #53 on:** 23 July 2015, 22:45:52 »

The GAU-8 on the A-10 spews so much smoke and crud that one A-10 was lost during testing when both engines flamed out after ingesting gun exhaust. Many fixes were tried, the eventual winner was linking the engine igniters to the trigger so they activated whenever the trigger is depressed.

Speaking of the GAU-8, how it's often described as being the size of a Volkswagen...

Fat Guy · « **Reply #54 on:** 23 July 2015, 22:48:52 »

chanman · « **Reply #55 on:** 24 July 2015, 00:06:47 »

Bren · « **Reply #56 on:** 24 July 2015, 02:35:34 »

Quote from: Fat Guy on 23 July 2015, 22:45:52

The GAU-8 on the A-10 spews so much smoke and crud that one A-10 was lost during testing when both engines flamed out after ingesting gun exhaust. Many fixes were tried ...

Imagine if the internet was around then ...

Newest USAF ground attack aircraft still can't fire gun without crashing!
Many attempts to cure 'worst design in modern American aviation' have already failed.
Click here to read why I know everything and why the USAF should stick with tried and true Skyraider for decades to come.

Sharpnel · « **Reply #57 on:** 24 July 2015, 07:07:19 »

Quote from: Bren on 24 July 2015, 02:35:34

Imagine if the internet was around then ...

Newest USAF ground attack aircraft still can't fire gun without crashing!
Many attempts to cure 'worst design in modern American aviation' have already failed.
Click here to read why I know everything and why the USAF should stick with tried and true Skyraider for decades to come.

Because this plane was a BAD ASS MOFO

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #58 on:** 24 July 2015, 07:42:20 »

Quote from: Bedwyr on 23 July 2015, 17:25:38

I wonder what the design considerations were that gave the Kit 29 that bent-in-the-middle look? It's furious that the front fuselage would either fly at such a low nose down attitude of the wings have such a high angle of attack.

My first thought was the old problems the deltas had compared to regular sweptwings for landing. Approach and landing speed on the MiG is supposedly on par with an F-15, in the 280-300kmh range. That's according to a little digging on the internet and supposedly unclassified sources, at least. Wing sweep is about the same, 40 degrees on the MiG and unspecified but visually close to that on the Eagle. Wing area on the MiG, though, is only 2/3 that of the F-15 - 38m² versus 56.5m². That much smaller wing means it's typically going to need a lot more airflow, thus speed or AOA are your two choices. Since they land at the same speed, I'm gonna call the higher AOA at lower speeds the choice they went with.

The above is purely speculative outside of the hard numbers found on the interwebs, and could be complete rectally-extracted Barbara Streisand for all I know, but I'm sticking with it until someone smacks me with a trout. YOU'LL NEVER FIND ME!

chanman · « **Reply #59 on:** 24 July 2015, 12:07:39 »

Kit 29? ???