Author Topic: Aviation Pictures Part Trois (Read 199093 times)

Fat Guy · « **Reply #1050 on:** 16 July 2018, 14:11:22 »

Quote from: glitterboy2098 on 15 July 2018, 21:22:22

surprised they didn't slap some Jet Engines onto that later on..

With it's luck it would have wound up with Westinghouse engines, which pretty much ruined every design they were ever mounted on.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #1051 on:** 16 July 2018, 14:52:54 »

The Moonbat with some Jet Engines would look really good for a Aerospace asset for Battletech.

worktroll · « **Reply #1052 on:** 16 July 2018, 16:58:25 »

One Bat redesign did have early turbojets in the back of the engine pods. But there were too many other problems, and the Shooting Star was working just fine.

Feenix74 · « **Reply #1053 on:** 16 July 2018, 21:47:55 »

If you discount the aerofoil fuselage, the general shape and layout is similar to the Gloster Meteor, so it probably would have worked with two jet engines, just a shame that by then it was probably seen as a boondoggle.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #1054 on:** 16 July 2018, 22:22:53 »

Speaking of the Meteor, were there ever any confirmed instances of one encountering and engaging a Messerschmitt Me 262?

Feenix74 · « **Reply #1055 on:** 16 July 2018, 22:33:48 »

I believe the Meteor was never involved in any air-to-air engagement during WWII beyond interception of V-1 Flying Bombs. It was mainly used for ground attack and armed reconnaissance missions.

Bren · « **Reply #1056 on:** 16 July 2018, 23:28:49 »

Yeah the Meteor Squadrons always had pretty severe limitations on where they could fly. The British really didn't want the ~~Soviets~~ Germans to get a hold of one.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #1057 on:** 16 July 2018, 23:39:00 »

That certainly makes sense.

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #1058 on:** 16 July 2018, 23:43:06 »

It's just as well. The 262 had its share of flaws and problems, but the early Meteor's issues with weapon failures would have made for a really rough matchup with the German plane.

In addition, postwar tests by the RAF from a pilot who flew both types pointed out that the Schwalbe could turn much sharper- a huge consideration in dogfighting. Combine those two issues, and Meteors likely would have had a rough time in what would have been history's first jet dogfights.

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #1059 on:** 17 July 2018, 01:09:46 »

the 262 was slightly faster as well.. though IIRC the Jumo 04 engines on the 262 were really sensitive, and too many throttle changes in a short period could exacerbate the already short lifespan of the engine and cause engine failures..
it would have been an interesting matchup, IMO.

of course, both outclassed the P-80 Shooting Star (and greatly outclassed the P-59 Airacomet)

Feenix74 · « **Reply #1060 on:** 17 July 2018, 01:14:14 »

If my memory serves me correctly, the Me 262 also had a 50 kt speed advantage over the early build Meteors.

Although, I do get the impression that the Meteor's engines were a bit more reliable that the those of the Me 262 which I understand had a tendency to spit out compressor blades due to poor quality metals and manufacturing that the Germans had left late in the war.

marauder648 · « **Reply #1061 on:** 17 July 2018, 01:20:54 »

The 262's guns were also not really built for dogfighting. They fired a massive shell, but at a fairly slow ROF and at a rather low muzzle velocity compared to the quad 20mm cannons on the Meteor that had a far higher ROF making them better dogfighting weapons.

Bren · « **Reply #1062 on:** 17 July 2018, 01:36:39 »

Quote from: JadeHellbringer on 16 July 2018, 23:43:06

In addition, postwar tests by the RAF from a pilot who flew both types pointed out that the Schwalbe could turn much sharper- a huge consideration in dogfighting.

Would you happen to remember the source for this?

marauder648 · « **Reply #1063 on:** 17 July 2018, 02:03:18 »

Probably one of the books about/written by Eric Brown who was a pretty darn amazing bloke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_(pilot)

worktroll · « **Reply #1064 on:** 17 July 2018, 04:45:04 »

Farewell, SU-57 - we never really knew you.

Quote

Russian Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov ... said, per The Diplomat: “The Su-57 is considered to be one of the best aircrafts produced in the world. Consequently, it does not make sense to speed up work on mass-producing the fifth-generation aircraft.

It's hard to make 5th Gen planes on a 1st world budget. On a budget roughly equivalent to that of NY State ...

marauder648 · « **Reply #1065 on:** 17 July 2018, 05:04:16 »

The Russian military does seem to have an issue with run away budgets ~~(probably caused by graft/corruption lets be honest here)~~

And joint projects with India are not always successful, see the huge cost overruns with the conversion of the Vikramaditya into a carrier from a Kiev class ship. 2.1 billion dollars, 3 times the original agreed upon price and a massive delay in construction, no wonder the Indians went "NOPE!" and pulled out, they'd seen these kinds of money pots before.

Kidd · « **Reply #1066 on:** 17 July 2018, 07:23:15 »

Not so much, uh, diverted budgets as actual lack of budget to start with, coupled with as much bluster as possible on the adage that if you shout loud enough the bear will run away.

And I don't believe for a second the supposed costs of the SU-57.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #1067 on:** 17 July 2018, 07:54:56 »

When India pulled out of the Su-57 project I figured it wasn't going to last.

Kidd · « **Reply #1068 on:** 17 July 2018, 08:05:21 »

Meanwhile, the UK unveils its next superiority fighter - the Tempest, which is projected to enter iOC in 2035 and eventually replace the Eurofighter Typhoon while "complementing " the F-35

The WW2 Tempest also replaced the WW2 Typhoon, shot down many V-1 bombs and was a notable adversary of the Me-262.

Weirdo · « **Reply #1069 on:** 17 July 2018, 08:11:21 »

It looks like a modernised V-bomber.

I love it!

marauder648 · « **Reply #1070 on:** 17 July 2018, 08:30:30 »

Quote from: Kidd on 17 July 2018, 07:23:15

Not so much, uh, diverted budgets as actual lack of budget to start with, coupled with as much bluster as possible on the adage that if you shout loud enough the bear will run away.

And I don't believe for a second the supposed costs of the SU-57.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7_pVrIshxA

does actually work :p

ANS Kamas P81 · « **Reply #1071 on:** 17 July 2018, 08:31:42 »

Apparently it's got onboard autonomous operation hardware as well. "The new jet will be able to be operated by a pilot in the aircraft, but will also have an unmanned capability." They're advertising the thing as a hybrid drone/manned aircraft, which...I suppose works for your literal ultimate doorkicker, and yet uses the same airframe to come back later and provide support and supremacy.

Sadly, right now it's only a quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but good luck competing with the F-35. They're looking for international partnerships and funding, so...

JadeHellbringer · « **Reply #1072 on:** 17 July 2018, 09:41:35 »

Keep it aviation-related guys, a few comments here are walking right up to the politics line and spitting on it.

chanman · « **Reply #1073 on:** 17 July 2018, 12:26:32 »

Russia has an economy roughly the size of South Korea's so trying to imagine them keeping up their degree of defence spending is kinda unrealistic.

On a different note, I'm curious what China plans to use on its CATOBAR carrier that should be completing in the next couple years. I don't think the Su-33/J-15 were designed for catapult launches, and they've been reportedly dissatisfied with its performance off carriers anyway with at least a couple accidents (some fatal).

The FC-31/J-31 is a private venture and only two prototypes have been seen so far. In order to be ready for the new CV, they should be a fair way into the development process already.

I'm also a little surprised they haven't created a dedicated carrier trainer like the T-45 Goshawk or older T-2 Buckeye or TA-4J Skyhawks

T-45 Goshawk:

T-2 Buckeye:

TA-4J Skyhawk:

DoctorMonkey · « **Reply #1074 on:** 17 July 2018, 13:40:28 »

this is wonderful - a recording made by a Bomber Command pilot about his experience of a raid made just after he returned from it

https://player.fm/series/dan-snows-history-hit-106527/the-unheard-tapes-of-bomber-command-with-steve-stevens

snewsom2997 · « **Reply #1075 on:** 17 July 2018, 14:04:39 »

Quote from: Weirdo on 17 July 2018, 08:11:21

It looks like a modernised V-bomber.

I love it!

Looks like the strike variant of the F-22, the proposed FB-22.

Fat Guy · « **Reply #1076 on:** 17 July 2018, 14:12:53 »

Quote from: Bren on 17 July 2018, 01:36:39

Would you happen to remember the source for this?

That looks to be one of the Me 262 Project reproductions.

Bren · « **Reply #1077 on:** 18 July 2018, 14:32:25 »

Quote from: JadeHellbringer on 16 July 2018, 23:43:06

In addition, postwar tests by the RAF from a pilot who flew both types pointed out that the Schwalbe could turn much sharper- a huge consideration in dogfighting. Combine those two issues, and Meteors likely would have had a rough time in what would have been history's first jet dogfights.

Quote from: Bren on 17 July 2018, 01:36:39

Would you happen to remember the source for this?

Found this in RAF Meteor Jet Fighters in World War II, An Operational Log (Hugh Harkins):
Although they never met in combat, it is inevitable that the Meteor III is compared to its wartime rival, the Me. 262. The Meteor III had a higher profile drag compared with that of the Me. 262. This was principally caused by the Meteors higher wing drag, in turn caused by the Meteors lower wing loading, which corresponded to lower maximum speeds compared to the Me. 262. After a series of trials with the Me. 262 at RAE Farnborough in 1945, it was determined that with engines of equal thrust the Meteor III would be 20 mph slower than the Me. 262. On the plus side for the Meteor III, the lower wing loading gave it better take off performance, including a shorter take off run, and better manoeuvrability compared with the Me. 262.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #1078 on:** 18 July 2018, 14:46:04 »

Here is a sharks mouth on a airliner. Embraer EMB-190 Called the Profit Hunter!!!

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire · « **Reply #1079 on:** 18 July 2018, 15:05:43 »

Looks like a promotional item for Shark Week.