Aviation Pictures Part Deux

[glitterboy2098]

The mig-29 is closer to the F-16 performance wise. One of the reasons the F-16 is used to emulate it in training events.

The Su-27 is closer to the F-15 strike eagle.

[Cache]

I few years ago my uncle called me to tell me the CAF was stopping in Madison for a few days before EAA, and that I should bring the family if we could make it.  He was piloting Diamond Lil at the time.  This year he was piloting FIFI.  I'm a little jealous.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/travel/oshkosh-airshow-boeing-b-29-superfortress-bomber-fifi/

Looks like another B-29 is expected to be flying soon.

[beachhead1985]

Because this plane was a BAD ASS MOFO

It carried almost double it's mass in ordnance and stores, who wouldn't love that?

[chanman]

Just got back from the Boundary Bay airshow, and they had some warbirds killing time before next week's much larger Abbotsford International Airshow

B-17G 'Madras Maiden' from the Erickson Aircraft Collection


B-25D 'Grumpy' from Historic Flight Collection


CT-133 Silver Star (Nene-powered T-33 by Canadair)

[JarheadEd]

Just a couple of photos from last summers work trip

 http://imgur.com/a/qpktE

[chanman]

Just a couple of photos from last summers work trip

 http://imgur.com/a/qpktE

I really dig the Meteors and Vampire!


Edgley Optica. See everything!

[Sharpnel]

Never has a plane looked more like a flying insect. A bee or wasp in this instance

I really dig the Meteors and Vampire!


Edgley Optica. See everything!

[Charlie 6]

Because this plane was a BAD ASS MOFO

As a ground guy within the USMC I've long felt a tilt-rotor based version of the Spad would have sufficed as a replacement for the AH-1W & AV-8B vice the JSF.  Oh well, I'm more evolutionary than revolutionary.  Also, many of the perceived F-35B shortfalls tend to change when one considers there should be three times the number of F-22s and the F-35 should be A-35 instead.

[DoctorMonkey]

As a ground guy within the USMC I've long felt a tilt-rotor based version of the Spad would have sufficed as a replacement for the AH-1W & AV-8B vice the JSF.  Oh well, I'm more evolutionary than revolutionary.  Also, many of the perceived F-35B shortfalls tend to change when one considers there should be three times the number of F-22s and the F-35 should be A-35 instead.

I fully expect the F-35 to spend some 95% of it's life loaded down with external ordnance and only slightly less obvious than a B-52, using "stealth" only to take out air defences in the first day of sorties

[Charlie 6]

I fully expect the F-35 to spend some 95% of it's life loaded down with external ordnance and only slightly less obvious than a B-52, using "stealth" only to take out air defences in the first day of sorties

Pretty much, but as someone pointed out to me the other day: a 5th gen stealth aircraft can function as a 4th gen bomb truck...the reverse is not true.

[CrossfirePilot]

I fully expect the F-35 to spend some 95% of it's life loaded down with external ordnance and only slightly less obvious than a B-52, using "stealth" only to take out air defences in the first day of sorties

So its like the F105 all over again, make this Mach 2 hotrod then load it down with so much ordinance that its subsonic.  When you should have just started out with sub sonic design and call it an A7.

[Feenix74]

The way it was briefed to me was that instead of having to rely on F-117 on day 1 and 2 to take out the air defences, then switch to B-52, B-1, F-16 and A-10s for the rest of the air war to do the heavy bomb-trucking. The concept of the F-35 is to be able to do the stealth missions on day 1 and 2 in place of the F-117 and then when stealth is no longer required bomb-truck it up with external stores to replace the F-16 and A-10. So replace three different airframes with one. This should result in a significant logistics and engineering saving that could be re-invested in other air capabilities.

Whether this actually eventuates, we will still need to wait a few more years to find out I guess.

[PsihoKekec]

It carried almost double it's mass in ordnance and stores, who wouldn't love that?

Those at the delivery adress.

[Bren]

Whether this actually eventuates, we will still need to wait a few more years to find out I guess.

Yeah, one quote that made me think:

“I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not ‘fighters’—they are ‘sensor-shooters’ optimized for different threat regimes, and can perform the roles of “F,” “B,” “A,” “RC,” “E,”EA,” and AWACS aircraft of the past.”
- David Deptula

[Feenix74]

I have concerns about how well the F-35 can perform the "B" role, in terms of the trans-continental reach that the B-1, B-2 and B-52 offer. A F-35 can do air-to-air refuelling but that is still not the same as a true strategic bomber launching from the one continent to hit a target on another continent with a precision guided weapon.

The sheer bomb payloads the B-1, B-2 and B-52 offer is significantly great than what the F-35 can carry even with external stores. While precision guided weapons can try to make up some of this payload shortfall, carpet bombing's psychological effect cannot be replicated with precision weapons.

To me, the F-35 it will always be considered an F/A not a true B.

[Fat Guy]

Well for that the Air Force is now serious about the Long Range Strike - Bomber program, and want at least a hundred of them.

Concepts from Northrup and Boeing:

[ANS Kamas P81]

Well for that the Air Force is now serious about the Long Range Strike - Bomber program, and want at least a hundred of them.

Concepts from Northrup and Boeing:

Look, ma, IRST targets!

[Stormlion1]

They may want a 100 of them, they will probably get like twenty to thirty.

[I am Belch II]

They will try and replacing the B52 again with the B3....they won't.

[JadeHellbringer]

They will try and replacing the B52 again with the B3....they won't.

Amazing how that bird just keeps on flying the way it does... with all respect to the B-1 and B-2, it wouldn't surprise me if somehow the BUFF outlasts the both of them.

[Charlie 6]

I have concerns about how well the F-35 can perform the "B" role, in terms of the trans-continental reach that the B-1, B-2 and B-52 offer. A F-35 can do air-to-air refuelling but that is still not the same as a true strategic bomber launching from the one continent to hit a target on another continent with a precision guided weapon.

The sheer bomb payloads the B-1, B-2 and B-52 offer is significantly great than what the F-35 can carry even with external stores. While precision guided weapons can try to make up some of this payload shortfall, carpet bombing's psychological effect cannot be replicated with precision weapons.

To me, the F-35 it will always be considered an F/A not a true B.

I've no idea why Deptula included "B" in that statement.  I can see the other designations but considering the F-35 as a bomber is ill-informed as you stated.

[Feenix74]

I think you are right. The B-52 was designed and built in a time when aircraft (and many products) were built to last (there was no designed service life, they were designed to fly forever). A bit of deeper maintenance to zero hour the airframe and try to find the funding to upgrade avionics and re-engine with more fuel-efficient engines and they will fly forever.

The B-2 is high maintenance (the stealth coating requiring additional care and maintenance) and has a designed service life after which its airframe is no longer safe to fly without very significant and costly repair/re-engineering. I can see the B-3 being used as a replacement of the B-1 and the B-2, not the B-52. In my opinion, the B-52 will end up being replaced by a B-4 which will be a UCAV.

[JadeHellbringer]

...considering the F-35 an airplane is a little far-fetched at the moment.  O:-)

Ah, hell, that's depressing, let's look at a real fighter for a few.

[Grognard]

Ah, hell, that's depressing, let's look at a real fighter for a few.

OK.  O0

[Fat Guy]

let's look at a real fighter for a few.

[chanman]

Amazing how that bird just keeps on flying the way it does... with all respect to the B-1 and B-2, it wouldn't surprise me if somehow the BUFF outlasts the both of them.

The B-52 was designed when people were still scared of flying. Nowadays, that extra structure would have been pared down for more performance or payload. Same as the KC-135s, the Tu-16

I think you are right. The B-52 was designed and built in a time when aircraft (and many products) were built to last (there was no designed service life, they were designed to fly forever). A bit of deeper maintenance to zero hour the airframe and try to find the funding to upgrade avionics and re-engine with more fuel-efficient engines and they will fly forever.

I doubt it. Most planes in the 50's actually had shorter service lives, and some had exceptionally short ones that you don't see any more. The B-58 and B-36 were in service for 10 years each. The B-47 for 18. The F-104 had a USAF career of 9-10 years (although the Italians flew it into the 2000's!). The F-94 Starfire spent 8 years in the USAF and only a year longer in the ANG.

Navy-wise, the infamous F7U Cutlass stayed in service for just 8 years, the F4D Skyray for 8 years, the F9F Panther for 9 years, and the F11F/F-11 Tiger for just 5 years (active service, 11 years for training)

The B-2 is high maintenance (the stealth coating requiring additional care and maintenance) and has a designed service life after which its airframe is no longer safe to fly without very significant and costly repair/re-engineering. I can see the B-3 being used as a replacement of the B-1 and the B-2, not the B-52. In my opinion, the B-52 will end up being replaced by a B-4 which will be a UCAV.

One of the issues is that composites, while great for stealth and weight, have a non-negotiable end of life. At some point, you need a new plane, period (which the B-2s are now approaching)


Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger - one of the losers of the Lockheed Bribery Scandal

[mike19k]

The B-52 was designed when people were still scared of flying. Nowadays, that extra structure would have been pared down for more performance or payload. Same as the KC-135s, the Tu-16

I doubt it. Most planes in the 50's actually had shorter service lives, and some had exceptionally short ones that you don't see any more. The B-58 and B-36 were in service for 10 years each. The B-47 for 18. The F-104 had a USAF career of 9-10 years (although the Italians flew it into the 2000's!). The F-94 Starfire spent 8 years in the USAF and only a year longer in the ANG.

Navy-wise, the infamous F7U Cutlass stayed in service for just 8 years, the F4D Skyray for 8 years, the F9F Panther for 9 years, and the F11F/F-11 Tiger for just 5 years (active service, 11 years for training)

Now I have never been involved in any way with aircraft other than as a passenger. Was the short life span because the wore out or was it that the technology passed them by? I look at some of the helicopters used by the military and the USMC is still flying the UH-1, I do not know if it is the same frame just updated or if they bought new frames. Based on what all the current and former Marines I know say leads me to think that for the most part they are mostly the old frames with updated tech in them. Were am I going with this, not sure but I was always under the impression that was why the had to be replaced and was not tell we got the F15, F16 that they were able to slow down the replacement of the frame due to tech updates.

[Feenix74]

The B-52 was designed when people were still scared of flying. Nowadays, that extra structure would have been pared down for more performance or payload. Same as the KC-135s, the Tu-16

I doubt it. Most planes in the 50's actually had shorter service lives, and some had exceptionally short ones that you don't see any more. The B-58 and B-36 were in service for 10 years each. The B-47 for 18. The F-104 had a USAF career of 9-10 years (although the Italians flew it into the 2000's!). The F-94 Starfire spent 8 years in the USAF and only a year longer in the ANG.

Navy-wise, the infamous F7U Cutlass stayed in service for just 8 years, the F4D Skyray for 8 years, the F9F Panther for 9 years, and the F11F/F-11 Tiger for just 5 years (active service, 11 years for training)

One of the issues is that composites, while great for stealth and weight, have a non-negotiable end of life. At some point, you need a new plane, period (which the B-2s are now approaching)

Apologies I should have been clearer with my posting, I meant the airframe engineering design service life, ie the number of hours of flying and cycles of take-offs/landings the airframe is designed to endure before it will fail (which is the exact issue you have highlighted with the B-2). With pre-1970s aircraft (especially the original Boeing designs such as the B-52s, KC-135s and even the Boeing 707) had airframes that did not have a design service life, with good maintenance practices and inspections, they will literally fly forever. Nowadays we would consider them to be over-engineered and, as you have said, we would reduce the airframe structure to meet (with a margin of error) the design service life, then use the weight savings towards improved performance or payload.

Even with the B-2 it is possible to zero-hour the airframe but the cost it do so with composite materials (some of which would simply have to be removed and completely replaced, some of which could be inspected to ensure that they were still serviceable) is prohibitive. It would be cheaper to build a new B-2 or B-3 from scratch.

[chanman]

Well, part of the issue is that understanding of aerodynamics and engine reliability/output were advancing by leaps and bounds in the 50's. Once they started stabilizing, you begin to see a lot more long-lived designs like the F-4 and F-8 or Mig-21 and F-5. The F-15 celebrates its 40th anniversary of being operational (not first flight!) next year.

Anyway...

One of the last gunfighters, the Hawker Hunter, packing a quartet of 30mm revolver cannon in the nose.


One of a series of short-lived US Navy aircraft (The story of nearly every US Navy fighter between the dawn of the jet age and before the F-8/F-4 alternates between unreliable or underpowered engines, and sometimes both), the McDonell F3H Demon:


The same image but larger (and B&W):



The F11F Tiger (yup, unreliable and/or underpowered engines again). As previously mentioned, a 'Super Tiger' with the J79 greatly increased performance but lost the Navy contract to the Crusader and foreign sales to the F-104. Also one of these managed to shoot itself down.


The F9F Cougar (the straight-winged Panther shared the F9F designation)


And a collection of oldies: Crusader, Skyhawk, recce Cougar, and a Demon

[I am Belch II]

I like the Cougar because before its swpt wings it was the F9F Panther.
One of the few planes that went form straight wings to swpt wings, and had a good life after the mod.