Author Topic: Aviation Pictures Part Trois (Read 194796 times)

Time for some what if/design sketches/studies. Obviously since few of these even got past the doodling phase, obedience to the laws of physics is sometimes optional...

Hawker Siddeley HS.1202-9: Looking at it, it clearly seems to be a 4th-gen aircraft that was superseded by the Typhoon

BAE P.110. The resemblance to the EAP demonstrator and eventual Typhoon is quite clear

This JASDF FS-X concept before they decided to go with a gold-plated F-16 has almost the exact same configuration with the twin vertical tail canard delta

BAE P.106B Reminds me more than a little of the Gripen except for the cranked delta wing and wings terminating further forward relative to the tail

Vought's mockup of their submission for what became the F-14 before they were eliminated from the competition

Concept art of another Vought design (X-100)

BAE Wharton P.103 tilt engine design is just a reminder that modern V/STOL aircraft are already quite tame from some of the ideas they've had before.

BAE P.1214-3 concept really brings home the bizarre.

Some neat artwork in this NASA document on mockups that were run through their wind tunnels:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890000646.pdf

Lockheed also had the CL288 design study of which I can't find a good picture of. It's an F-104 with two wing-mounted J-79s because what the F-104 really needed was more engine. I suppose the configuration resembles the Bristol 188 research aircraft with the T-tail and twin wing-mounted engines

ColBosch · « **Reply #518 on:** 04 February 2018, 00:49:15 »

Quote from: chanman on 04 February 2018, 00:16:09

Lockheed also had the CL288 design study of which I can't find a good picture of. It's an F-104 with two wing-mounted J-79s because what the F-104 really needed was more engine. I suppose the configuration resembles the Bristol 188 research aircraft with the T-tail and twin wing-mounted engines

"Hey Kelly, I think we've killed enough West German pilots." "Ben, hold my beer."

Deadborder · « **Reply #519 on:** 04 February 2018, 00:53:22 »

Quote from: chanman on 04 February 2018, 00:16:09

This JASDF FS-X concept before they decided to go with a gold-plated F-16 has almost the exact same configuration with the twin vertical tail canard delta

When Anime designers try to build actual planes

chanman · « **Reply #520 on:** 04 February 2018, 01:12:56 »

Quote from: ColBosch on 04 February 2018, 00:49:15

"Hey Kelly, I think we've killed enough West German pilots." "Ben, hold my beer."

Oh, that's Rich.

The West Germans had a 30% loss rate for F-104s, which... frighteningly isn't unusual. They operated the most aircraft though, so that converts into something like 270 airframes. Canada had the worse attrition rate: 110 airframes for a 46% loss rate.

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #521 on:** 04 February 2018, 04:15:35 »

I always wondered what the proper level-flight envelope was like for the XFV-12. All the stuff I've read only focuses on the total failure of the VTOL system, but says nothing about how it might have stood up as a conventional takeoff aircraft and how it handled at altitude.

Anyone ever hear anything?

Quote from: Deadborder on 04 February 2018, 00:53:22

When Anime designers try to build actual planes

Look for Patlabor 2 for 'doing it right' in that regard.

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #522 on:** 04 February 2018, 06:17:42 »

Great images
The HS 1202-9 looks an awful lot like an F-16

I see just about all of them as aerospace fighters in BattleTech though :)) (the wackier the better)

I am Belch II · « **Reply #523 on:** 04 February 2018, 07:33:50 »

That Japan update look like this design McDonnell Douglas F-15 STOL/MTD. It had vectored thrust. I guess its where the Canards of the Su-33 and the modifications came from something. The Russians got it, the US didn't.

Ruger · « **Reply #524 on:** 04 February 2018, 09:16:39 »

Quote from: chanman on 04 February 2018, 00:16:09

Concept art of another Vought design (X-100)

Hey! It's the original version of the VF-4 Lightning III from the Macross universe!

Edit: Or at least its prototype, the VF-X-4...

Ruger

hoosierhick · « **Reply #525 on:** 04 February 2018, 10:09:00 »

Edit: talking about the HS.1202-9. I don't know how I managed to quote the wrong post.

And that is why you don't leave a F-16 and F-18 unattended in the hanger overnight... :D

In all seriousness, I thought it was a concept for a navalized F-16 until I read the text.

ColBosch · « **Reply #526 on:** 04 February 2018, 10:36:42 »

Quote from: chanman on 04 February 2018, 01:12:56

Oh, that's Rich.

I cannot think of another industry where I know two generations of chief engineers right off the top of my head. :D

Quote

The West Germans had a 30% loss rate for F-104s, which... frighteningly isn't unusual. They operated the most aircraft though, so that converts into something like 270 airframes. Canada had the worse attrition rate: 110 airframes for a 46% loss rate.

Let's be honest: those would be horrifying numbers for missiles, let alone manned aircraft. While I am a big fan of Johnson and Rich's Skunk Works projects, mainline Lockheed was...not the best.

Bedwyr · « **Reply #527 on:** 04 February 2018, 10:57:37 »

Quote from: chanman on 04 February 2018, 00:16:09

Lockheed also had the CL288 design study of which I can't find a good picture of. It's an F-104 with two wing-mounted J-79s because what the F-104 really needed was more engine. I suppose the configuration resembles the Bristol 188 research aircraft with the T-tail and twin wing-mounted engines

Hmm...

Familiar.

worktroll · « **Reply #528 on:** 04 February 2018, 12:33:11 »

Quote from: ANS Kamas P81 on 04 February 2018, 04:15:35

I always wondered what the proper level-flight envelope was like for the XFV-12. All the stuff I've read only focuses on the total failure of the VTOL system, but says nothing about how it might have stood up as a conventional takeoff aircraft and how it handled at altitude.

Anyone ever hear anything?

Wind tunnel tests were promising, which was suprising considering its franken-fighter nature. Looks good, though.

While the liftoff problems were terminal, another issue would have been its low payload. Given the wing undersurfaces were covered in fan ducts & gim-crackery, it could only have managed a minimal weapons load on the fuselage itself - planned to be 4 Sparrows or Sidewinders, plus a 20mm cannon (Vulcan?).

W

ColBosch · « **Reply #529 on:** 04 February 2018, 12:57:07 »

I was so excited when I was looking for other pictures of the XFV-12, and found one showing it in flight!

...except it turned out it was a CGI mockup of a guy's planned remote-control build. Boo.

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #530 on:** 04 February 2018, 14:51:04 »

Quote from: worktroll on 04 February 2018, 12:33:11

Wind tunnel tests were promising, which was suprising considering its franken-fighter nature. Looks good, though.

While the liftoff problems were terminal, another issue would have been its low payload. Given the wing undersurfaces were covered in fan ducts & gim-crackery, it could only have managed a minimal weapons load on the fuselage itself - planned to be 4 Sparrows or Sidewinders, plus a 20mm cannon (Vulcan?).

Yeah, the lack of ordnance would be a thing, though I wonder how much you could get if you ripped all the ducting out and pulled the VTOL system completely. Watching a couple video clips of Phantoms lobbing Sparrows though, I'd say it's probably not safe - those low canards would really interfere with any missile fire coming from the wings. Maybe overwing rails like the Jaguar would work, but that'd be a huge PITA to reload.

Feenix74 · « **Reply #531 on:** 05 February 2018, 17:34:02 »

First flight of the Vahana single passenger electric VTOL self-piloted aircraft.

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #532 on:** 05 February 2018, 18:42:14 »

Quote from: mdauben on 30 January 2018, 12:37:08

I always thought this was an odd plane, the B-36 Peacemaker. Six turbo-prop engines and four jet engines.

My favourite bomber!

Ghost0402 · « **Reply #533 on:** 07 February 2018, 18:07:07 »

Pictures really don't do justice to how massive those bombers were.

God and Davion · « **Reply #534 on:** 08 February 2018, 13:54:06 »

Quote from: Ghost0402 on 07 February 2018, 18:07:07

Pictures really don't do justice to how massive those bombers were.

It is very hard to take a good picture of the B36 in the Air Force Museum. It is just too big. Actually, it is quite easy to take a bad picture of it. It is the background of all the other pictures. The wheels are over 12 feet tall.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #535 on:** 08 February 2018, 14:43:42 »

Well, here's a picture of one of the B-36 prototypes next to a B-29.

Fat Guy · « **Reply #536 on:** 12 February 2018, 15:13:31 »

It's official. The B-52 will out-serve the B-1 and B-2: http://www.combataircraft.net/2018/02/12/usaf-bomber-vector-revealed-b-1-and-b-2-to-be-scrapped/

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #537 on:** 12 February 2018, 19:13:56 »

Granddad flew the Peacemaker after the last of the B-24s was retired (in between he was a training officer), and absolutely hated it. He never had an unkind thing to say about the Liberator, and absolutely adored the Stratojet he finished on, but the B-36... he hated that thing in the kind of way that made a little kid who loved airplanes laugh hysterically. He had some good stories- coming home with three props desperately turning on the right side because the three on the left all died in-flight (of different problems, no less!), hangar doors freezing shut on the planes so they couldn't be readied for a sortie... that was a fun one. If you look at the below, you'll see there's a sort of cut-out in the door. The planes were too big to use the hangars previously intended for B-29s sometimes, so you'd have most of it indoors and the tail would stay outside. Well, freezing rain actually froze the doors to the planes, and because this was in Alaska in wintertime pouring hot water on it just refroze before you could get the door open- and the de-icer couldn't make it to the hangar because of the weather. So despite getting a 'wheels up in 20' notice, the squadron had to report back 'nope'.

(Upon seeing a photo a couple of years before he died of a B-36 in a museum, his response was to glance at the photo, roll his eyes, and say "Damn, I hoped they all suffered when they got scrapped. If ever an aircraft deserves to have a molotov lobbed at it...")

CrossfirePilot · « **Reply #538 on:** 12 February 2018, 20:37:56 »

Just ask Jack Northrop what his thoughts were on the B 36...and the Navy. Just discussing the reason for the B 36 adoption would run foul of a few forum rules (mostly politics, hate speech, and swearing). I think it served its purpose as a deterrent all right. "If the Americans have enough money to throw at that monstrous waste as a diversion, what are they really hiding?!?!"

"If all engines function normally at full power during the pre-takeoff warm-up, the lead flight engineer will sometimes say to the Aircraft Commander (AC), 'six turning and four burning.'" Erratic reliability led to the wisecrack, 'two turning, two burning, two joking, and two smoking, with two engines not accounted for.'"

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #539 on:** 12 February 2018, 21:05:17 »

I have to ask: what was the point of mixing props and jets on that thing in the first place?