Aviation Pictures: The Fourth Generation

[beachhead1985]

Hm. I wonder what the down-ward ejection seats do to you? Seems the B-52 had them.

[chanman]

Hm. I wonder what the down-ward ejection seats do to you? Seems the B-52 had them.

They're fine as long as you meet the minimum altitude requirements - for obvious reasons.

The CA-27 Sabre has been grounded since mid-2018 because the aircraft is fitted with a Martin-Baker ejection seat which was retrofitted to the aircraft during the return to flight service program at the Temora Aviaion Museum (TAM) - the aircraft is owned by the RAAF but on loan to TAM. Martin-Baker has notified operators of historic ejection seats that they have ceased supplying parts for all historic ejection seats. Current RAAF policy is to only operate the aircraft with a serviceable ejection seat.

TAM’s Meteor F.8 will continue to fly for a period of time as TAM has in stock the required ejection seat consumables to keep the aircraft airworthy for a number of years.

I wonder if they'll be able to refit a modern seat. That said, I think the last few civilian jet warbirds (L-39 Albatross, CT-114 Tutor) I've asked said that their ejection seats were disabled due to the compliance difficulties for explosives

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

They're fine as long as you meet the minimum altitude requirements - for obvious reasons.

Less thrust required?

[worktroll]

A "who's who" of chinese fighters: left to right Shenyang J-11, Chengdu J-10, Shenyang J-8II, Shenyang J-8, Chengdu J-7, Shenyang J-6, Shenyang JJ-2. Front row Xian JH-7A, Nanchang A5.



Now has anyone got any rational, non-belligerent (both ways) reviews on the J-20 and J-22 (not pictured)?

Also, Indian pilot shot down over Pakistan was reportedly flying a Mig-21. Brave, brave man.

W.

[Daryk]

A MiG-21?  In today's IADS environment?? I don't think "brave" is the word...

[Fat Guy]

Pictures taken on February 26th of an F-117A operating in the R-2508 range complex near Death Valley.







The jet appears to be the old 49th Operations Group commander’s aircraft.

[worktroll]

One shot I saw of wreckage appeared to have a more curved pointed nose, so might have been a Tejas - didn't look right for a Mig-29, or a Mirage 2000.

[Fat Guy]

One more pic:

[Daryk]

With all the [Rule 4] going on, I'm not sure anything rational is happening on that particular border at the moment, so a MiG-21 isn't out of the question.

[Ghost0402]

One more pic:

There have been rumors for a few years that they would put a plane back together and fly them.  There we go.

[I am Belch II]

f117 had such a unique look to it, to bad it's not flying around anymore

[ANS Kamas P81]

There's been rumors of the -117s coming back as drone aircraft, and with China Lake for weapons development, Ft. Irwin for training and evaluation, and Edwards AFB all in that region, it's the perfect testing ground - especially to see if it can be armed with more recent munitions (SDB, JSOW, etc) and still operate well.

Zooming in on the photo, there's definitely visible cockpit glass, so it's not like other UAV conversions like the JetRanger or Piaggio Avanti where it's a slicked-over windowless design.  Odds are, it's still manned then, unless they're using them as target drones perhaps?  It's not like we have other stealth aircraft to test and train weapons against, like QF-4s or QF-16s.

[grimlock1]

There's been rumors of the -117s coming back as drone aircraft, and with China Lake for weapons development, Ft. Irwin for training and evaluation, and Edwards AFB all in that region, it's the perfect testing ground - especially to see if it can be armed with more recent munitions (SDB, JSOW, etc) and still operate well.

Zooming in on the photo, there's definitely visible cockpit glass, so it's not like other UAV conversions like the JetRanger or Piaggio Avanti where it's a slicked-over windowless design.  Odds are, it's still manned then, unless they're using them as target drones perhaps?  It's not like we have other stealth aircraft to test and train weapons against, like QF-4s or QF-16s.

I was surprised when the -117 retired before the -35 was online.  I know its a one-trick-pony and that's a four letter word in this day and age, but it's a pretty damn good trick. Did the air frames start showing stress cracking sooner than expected? 

[ANS Kamas P81]

By retirement, the airframes were in their third decade (maiden flight 1981, IOC 1983) and it was decided to axe the Nighthawk to free up budget for more Raptors, back when we were still going to have lots of F-22s.

No comment past that, but anyway.  Seems someone found a few shady bucks to keep playing with the things.

[truetanker]

Playing? or more like put it all on black when the color is clearly red...

TT

[chanman]

Less thrust required?

Uhhh.. A downward ejecting seat will need to be fired at a high enough altitude that the seat will clear the plane and the parachute is able to deploy. If you fire it too low, you become a smear on the ground.

A "who's who" of chinese fighters: left to right Shenyang J-11, Chengdu J-10, Shenyang J-8II, Shenyang J-8, Chengdu J-7, Shenyang J-6, Shenyang JJ-2. Front row Xian JH-7A, Nanchang A5.



Now has anyone got any rational, non-belligerent (both ways) reviews on the J-20 and J-22 (not pictured)?

Also, Indian pilot shot down over Pakistan was reportedly flying a Mig-21. Brave, brave man.

W.

Those look like models. I've never heard of the J-22. Do you mean the Shenyang J-31?

Not much to say about the J-20 - they seem to still be in the initial evaluation/test phase of service like the F-35. They're supposed to still be waiting on the definitive engines though. Shades of the F-14's struggles with the TF30 in that regard.

[Kidd]

IAF Mig-21 Bison was downed by JF-17 Thunder

Ironic, since the JF-17 is essentially a modern derivative of the Mig-21.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Uhhh.. A downward ejecting seat will need to be fired at a high enough altitude that the seat will clear the plane and the parachute is able to deploy. If you fire it too low, you become a smear on the ground.

I get that.  I was just thinking that when the seat engages it would need less thrust due to not fighting gravity and also not having to clear the tail.

[ANS Kamas P81]

You'd still want a solid kick to get you well away from the aircraft as fast as possible.  Ignoring the whole 'it's a giant bomber loaded with explosives that is about to meet its maker' part, there's a massive amount of turbulence anywhere near a BUFF and, in all honesty, just because it's downwards firing in relation to the plane doesn't mean it'll be downwards when you actually eject.

The B-52 that crashed in 1994 at Fairchild was at the 90 degree roll point, with the aircraft yawing downward, when the copilot attempted to eject.  Bombardier and navigator positions would have been going equally sideways.

Now, that said, what happens in something like the Guam crash-on-takeoff a couple years ago?  Obviously the upper deck crew can escape quickly, but the poor suckers in the bottom of the plane (who survived without incident) don't have any option for that sort of thing.  You're literally stuck just riding it out and hoping it's not too hard a hit?  Yikes...

[chanman]

You'd still want a solid kick to get you well away from the aircraft as fast as possible.  Ignoring the whole 'it's a giant bomber loaded with explosives that is about to meet its maker' part, there's a massive amount of turbulence anywhere near a BUFF and, in all honesty, just because it's downwards firing in relation to the plane doesn't mean it'll be downwards when you actually eject.

The B-52 that crashed in 1994 at Fairchild was at the 90 degree roll point, with the aircraft yawing downward, when the copilot attempted to eject.  Bombardier and navigator positions would have been going equally sideways.

Now, that said, what happens in something like the Guam crash-on-takeoff a couple years ago?  Obviously the upper deck crew can escape quickly, but the poor suckers in the bottom of the plane (who survived without incident) don't have any option for that sort of thing.  You're literally stuck just riding it out and hoping it's not too hard a hit?  Yikes...

At least they had seats. Lower deck crew on an Avro Vulcan had to execute a manual bail out if they needed to leave the plane

[glitterboy2098]

There have been rumors for a few years that they would put a plane back together and fly them.  There we go.

not rumors. plenty of pysical evidence like that photo. but it isn't any conspiracy stuff like drone conversion.
the F-117's were mandated to preserved in flyable condition. in case they needed to be reactivated. only way to ensure that they remain in flyable condition is to reassemble a few every year and fly them. presumably they have been rotating through the ones in storage, so that no aircraft goes more than a few years without an inspection and test flight.


and several countries have been refitting their MiG-21's (and/or J-7's) to more modern avionics and munitions compatibility. India, Romania, etc. the aircraft is still very rugged and with the avionics and weapons updated it still makes a very good interceptor. some Indian ones were even able to take down F-16's in some recent wargames. plus refits would be a lot cheaper than buying an all new 4th gen fighter.

[Kidd]

and several countries have been refitting their MiG-21's (and/or J-7's) to more modern avionics and munitions compatibility. India, Romania, etc. the aircraft is still very rugged and with the avionics and weapons updated it still makes a very good interceptor. some Indian ones were even able to take down F-16's in some recent wargames. plus refits would be a lot cheaper than buying an all new 4th gen fighter.

The Indian Mig-21 Bison is kind of similar to an F-16 Block 25 I think, at least in the AA domain. An argument can be made for some Block 52-esque capabilities.

On the other hand, the JF-17 is a very modern chap, even though it lacks a helmet display.

[Fat Guy]

The F-35C achieved Initial Operational Capability on February 28.

[Smegish]

The F-35C achieved Initial Operational Capability on February 28.

Landing? Or doing a burnout on a non-catapult takeoff?  ;D :D

[Fat Guy]

Looks like a touch-and-go.

[I am Belch II]

I like the burn out.

[Cannonshop]

Landing? Or doing a burnout on a non-catapult takeoff?  ;D :D

only 20 years late!  I know that's not fair,  the F-22 had a similar distance to go.

[DaveMac]

At least they had seats. Lower deck crew on an Avro Vulcan had to execute a manual bail out if they needed to leave the plane

Same on the Victor

Another one with downward seats were early versions of the F104 because of concerns about the ability of an upward firing seat to clear the tailplane. Over 20 USAF pilots died after ejecting at low level because of the type of seat. They later put in an upward firing seat that could clear the tail but could only be used as speeds over 100mph.  A lot of the export versions were fitted with Martin-Baker Mk.7 "zero-zero" (zero altitude and zero airspeed) seats

[Cannonshop]

Same on the Victor

Another one with downward seats were early versions of the F104 because of concerns about the ability of an upward firing seat to clear the tailplane. Over 20 USAF pilots died after ejecting at low level because of the type of seat. They later put in an upward firing seat that could clear the tail but could only be used as speeds over 100mph.  A lot of the export versions were fitted with Martin-Baker Mk.7 "zero-zero" (zero altitude and zero airspeed) seats

[chanman]

Same on the Victor

Another one with downward seats were early versions of the F104 because of concerns about the ability of an upward firing seat to clear the tailplane. Over 20 USAF pilots died after ejecting at low level because of the type of seat. They later put in an upward firing seat that could clear the tail but could only be used as speeds over 100mph.  A lot of the export versions were fitted with Martin-Baker Mk.7 "zero-zero" (zero altitude and zero airspeed) seats

I suspect with the F-104, there was a mistaken focus on having to bail out during combat or at the higher end of the F-104's performance envelope. (Given that this was the 50's, that may have been influenced by data from WW2, where that might be the case. Not like you can execute a manual bail out if something goes wrong at landing.)

Instead, as an early high performance jet with early high performance jet issues, that decision would have left pilots in a real bind if something went wrong during takeoff or landing... incidentally when most such problems occur