Aviation Pictures: How expensive can a fifth generation thread be?

[chanman]

I agree on the mechanic pool, but all rotary wing pilots have to learn fixed wing flying first, so I don't think the pilot pool will be as limited.

I imagine staying current on the type will itself be expensive unless the plan is to exclusively use reservists who fly V-22s as part of their day job. The physics of tilt-rotors make them pretty unique - for example, I don't think any fixed-wing aircraft has that kind of roll inertia with the engines out at the wing tips. Similarly, helos have conventional main rotor, co-axial rotor, and fore-aft tandem rotor (Chinook/Sea Knight), but side-by-side tandem rotors haven't been a thing since some of the WW2-era German experiments.

[sadlerbw]

I would think that, given a choice between retired V-22's and retired CH-53E's for firefighting, the latter would win. The extra carrying capacity is probably more valuable than the extra speed, although the theoretically longer endurance of the V-22 might even things up a bit. The Marines are supposed to be getting more and more of the 53k variants over the next several years, so there may even be e-models getting surplussed that still have life left in them for approved civilian uses. Of course, operating and maintenance costs are a huge part of the ownership expense, and I don't know if there is consensus on which would be cheaper to operate, or if either of them are even close to the realm that a non-military operator would want to deal with.

[Daryk]

With the length of California, I think there would be a role for V-22s, even if the majority of the fleet would be 53s...

[chanman]

With the length of California, I think there would be a role for V-22s, even if the majority of the fleet would be 53s...

I suspect Chinooks are far more plausible. Aren't the big Sikorsky helos also infamously expensive to run? The list of operators really tells its own story on the matter.

Not that it hasn't been tried. Looks like Heavy Lift Helicopters did firefighting conversions on 6 surplus CH-53Ds back in 2007 and used them for a few years before they were grounded by logistics. https://www.airattackmag.com/the-saga-of-the-ch-53d-fire-stallions

Firefighting Chinook:
https://billingsflyingservice.com/chinook-helicopter-fire-fighting/

[CVB]

The S-64 Skycrane is used for aerial firefighting by the Italian Corpo nazionale dei vigili del fuoco (National Firefighters Corps) and (South) Korean Forestry Service, and by Erickson Inc., who also purchased the type certification and manufacturing rights for the S-64 from Sikorsky in 1992.
Would make a good parallel contract for a VTOL merc unit during a garrison main contract.

Nice livery.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

We had one of those or something darned close at the regional airport this summer on fire duty.  July was pretty bad here.

[Giovanni Blasini]

Know what the pisser is?  The CH-53, while it holds 300-500 gallons less, is 53 mph faster, and thanks to being more fuel efficient, can operate for 3.5 hours at at time instead of two.  When dropping with a bucket instead of an internal tank, that means more drops per hour.

Now, admittedly, both are probably a bit big to pull the trick I saw a UH-1 pull near my old condo, and that’s refilling their bucket from a nearby swimming pool, but that’s why you have multiple size birds, right?

[Daryk]

Given the current panoply of sizes, I think that's right.

[chanman]

J-16D at the Zhuhai airshow. You don't get a sense of how big the Flanker is until you see it dwarfing people in the foreground



For those keeping track of which particular Flanker this is, the J-16D is an EW variant of the J-16, which is an indigenized take on the Su-30* - new avionics (obviously, as an EW bird), domestic engines, and supposedly much heavier use of composites in the airframe. Not a lot published information about it.

Interestingly, the J-16 looks like it was developed from the J-11B unlicensed single-seat Flankers that progressively introduced more indigenous equipment over the course of the production run instead of straight-up copying the Su-30 MKK/MK2s that the PLAAF and PLAN already operated.

Kind of like how the J-7E and the Mig-21bis have a common ancestor in the old Mig-21F-13 but evolved separately into noticeably different machines.

[Colt Ward]

Unliscensed?  Just state the truth- stolen design from buying a airframe for 'testing' purposes, then back engineering it.  Russians decided to not to sell something- forget which- to the ChiComs for carrier operations over the last few years because of this tendency.

Though I grant, Chinese birds are probably the best amalgamation of NATO & old Warsaw Pact tech with the thefts from both.

[chanman]

Unliscensed?  Just state the truth- stolen design from buying a airframe for 'testing' purposes, then back engineering it.  Russians decided to not to sell something- forget which- to the ChiComs for carrier operations over the last few years because of this tendency.

Though I grant, Chinese birds are probably the best amalgamation of NATO & old Warsaw Pact tech with the thefts from both.

Well, they did have a manufacturing license for the original Su-27, so the Russians helped set that line up for them. Shenyang just steadily ship-of-Theseused all the components in violation of the license to manufacture the airframes only to original spec, complete with equipment purchases from Russian suppliers. Hasn't stopped the Russians from selling progressively newer airframes to them.

The J-15 is straight-up reverse-engineered from Su-33s purchased from the Ukrainians.

As for the J-16s, who knows what percentage is independently developed from the J-11B and what is copied from the purchased Su-30MKK/MK2s. I'm not sure there'd actually be a way to tell.

[Fat Guy]

China has a loooooooong history of this. After Tiananmen Square we wouldn't sell them any more Black Hawks, so they just copied it resulting in the Harbin Z-20.

[Daryk]

Two interesting videos on the 787:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lapFQl6RezA (the plane)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf6H8kSunRA (the engine)

[Failure16]

Apologies if someone got to this first, but I hadn't seen it until I ran across it on TMP:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a32131240/french-dassault-fighter-jet-joyride/

Its funny because no one died. Damn funny.

[Fat Guy]

The author did a great job maximizing the comedic effect.   ;D

[Luciora]

A good read with a satisfactory ending.

[Daryk]

The author did a great job maximizing the comedic effect.   ;D

Agreed!  ;D

[chanman]

Apologies if someone got to this first, but I hadn't seen it until I ran across it on TMP:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a32131240/french-dassault-fighter-jet-joyride/

Its funny because no one died. Damn funny.

It seems to be a thing that happens from time to time:
http://www.vfp62.com/F14_RIO.html

This also definitively answers the question of how the F-14's ejection system works on a backseat ejection (which is... it depends on the settings  :D)

[I am Belch II]

J-16D at the Zhuhai airshow. You don't get a sense of how big the Flanker is until you see it dwarfing people in the foreground



For those keeping track of which particular Flanker this is, the J-16D is an EW variant of the J-16, which is an indigenized take on the Su-30* - new avionics (obviously, as an EW bird), domestic engines, and supposedly much heavier use of composites in the airframe. Not a lot published information about it.

Interestingly, the J-16 looks like it was developed from the J-11B unlicensed single-seat Flankers that progressively introduced more indigenous equipment over the course of the production run instead of straight-up copying the Su-30 MKK/MK2s that the PLAAF and PLAN already operated.

Kind of like how the J-7E and the Mig-21bis have a common ancestor in the old Mig-21F-13 but evolved separately into noticeably different machines.

Just also remember that its a carrier plane, so much larger than a Super Hornet or a Rafael Fighters.

[chanman]

Just also remember that its a carrier plane, so much larger than a Super Hornet or a Rafael Fighters.

The J-15s/Su-33s are, but the rest (Su-27, 30, 34, 35, 37, J-11, J-16) aren't.

They're about the same weight as a Tomcat, but a fair bit longer (nearly 3 meters)

[Daryk]

That'll make them a little harder to stuff into the hangar bay...

[chanman]

Indian Su-30 MKIs next to their new Rafales:


Indian Su-30 MKI in formation with a Typhoon and a Tornado:


Russian Flanker next to a Turkish F-16


Malaysian Su-30 in formation with an Eagle, a Raptor, a Hawk, a Hornet, and a Fulcrum


Indian Su-30MKI in formation with Eagles and Mirage 2000s


And of course, the F-15 isn't a small fighter either. Here is one stalking an Aggressor F-5E


Just as a point of reference, a Flanker's internalfuel load is between 9-11 tonnes (somewhere between a quarter and a third of the max takeoff weight - MTOW - depending on model/variant)
It's carrying almost a fully-loaded F-5's weight in fuel, and definitely as much as a fully-loaded F-CK-1 or FA-50's weight.

F-CK-1


Mix of ROKAF aircraft: F-15, TA-50 Golden Eagles, F-16, F-4, and F-5E

[chanman]

Surprisingly difficult to find pictures of the J-10 with Flankers considering... but these should give an idea. It's about the same length as a Typhoon (about 2.5 feet longer than a Rafale), and with about 4.5 ft less wing span

[Giovanni Blasini]

Holy crap that's a big plane.

[Daryk]

It's more the other was never that big, really...  ^-^

[chanman]

It's more the other was never that big, really...  ^-^

To be fair, the Flanker family seems to be the rare fighter designed with sufficient internal fuel capacity right from the get-go. Many other tactical aircraft are seen with external tank(s) more often than without. One of the big outliers being the Mig-29, but that might just be more because of the design specifics than lack of interest



https://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-Air-Force/Myasishchev-VM-T-Atlant-3M-T/6551171/L


And the most Art Deco-ist girl - the XB-38. An experimental B-17E equipped with the P-38's Allison engines


I'm not sure they could have kept the streamlined cowlings in production though - the Lancaster's engine pods are nowhere near as sleek as those on the Mosquito or Spitfire - I imagine it might be a cooling-related issue, especially when flying at high altitudes where thinner air might reduce cooling capacity - a persistent problem for B-29s. As a matter of fact, the prototype XB-38 was lost to... an engine fire

Lanc


Mozzie:


Spitfire Mk. VB:

[PsihoKekec]

Soviet Union was a big country and Su-27 was supposed to cover a good chunk of it on internal fuel.

[glitterboy2098]

Soviet Union was a big country and Su-27 was supposed to cover a good chunk of it on internal fuel.

Yep.
Which was also why they used it to make the carrier plane, even though the smaller MiG-29K would have been easier to operate from a skijump flattop. With little in-flight refueling projection ability to speak of, they wanted a fighter that had good range while still carrying a decent warload to maximize their options.

[chanman]

Yep.
Which was also why they used it to make the carrier plane, even though the smaller MiG-29K would have been easier to operate from a skijump flattop. With little in-flight refueling projection ability to speak of, they wanted a fighter that had good range while still carrying a decent warload to maximize their options.

I don't think the carrier Flankers have ever been able to take advantage of their fuel capacity because of the lack of a catapult. Being limited to using the ski jump means the aircraft can't actually take off if their thrust to weight ratio gets below what is needed to accelerate it up to take speed in the space available, so those Su-33s and J-15s are hauling around a lot of extra airframe.

The Indian carriers use/plan to use the Mig-29K and India already operates Mig-29s. For the PLAN, parts supply chain (the PLA doesn't operate the Fulcrum) likely beat out any other consideration.

As for the Admiral Kuznetsov, I assume it simply flies whatever the Russian Navy has available...

The 2-seat Mig-29Ks do have a very Tomcat-esque form to the canopy though (and a Mig-29UB for comparison)

[kato]

Re Flanker size:

Actually the Su-27 was pretty much dwarved by the aircraft that it partially replaced, i.e. the Tu-128.



The Tu-128 had a length of 30.06m and wingspan of 17.53m with MTOW 45 tons, i.e. it was almost 40% bigger than the Su-27.

The closest US counterpart for the Tu-128 was probably the North-American XF-108, which would have been of similar size (at 27m length) - and have somwhat similar roles, although the principal weapon system for the Tu-128 was intended for relatively short-range interception instead of the long-range concept for the XF-108.