BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Off Topic and Technical Support => Off Topic => Topic started by: Bedwyr on 09 July 2015, 17:16:02
-
Ok, before we were so rudely interrupted by, erm, me...
I was responding to Hellbie.
Yeah. RNP (required navigation performance) is the bees knees. It allows people to fly gnarly continuously turning approaches to lower minimums. Alaska first used it to get into Juneau down the Gastineau Inlet more reliably, but extended it to places like DC Reagan.
I missed this one earlier, but there's a couple tweaks that run right up my alley.
The Potomac River Visual is what Hellbie is describing and it's kind of gnarly. (Pilots find it fun, passengers less so.)
http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KDCA/IAP/all/pdf
Check out the third from the last. It literally follows the river.
I've met the guy that did the first set of RNP approaches using monitoring technology to ensure minimum standards of performance as part of Alaska Airlines. He later formed a company named Naverus (later bought by GE Aviation). If you look at the last approach in that pdf, it's essentially the RNP'ified version of the Potomac River Visual. You need specific crew training, authorization, and I believe HUD guidance to fly the approach.
Modify message
-
Well, Reagan National isn't my least favorite approach...that would be most any amphib on a CH-53E. I'll attempt to find a picture later.
-
May I suggest that the topic name be changed to "The Pattern is full"?
-
May I suggest that the topic name be changed to "The Pattern is full"?
Nah. I like Hot Shots. ;)
-
Mirage F1
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7056/13485779544_ee0b2b2ce2_b.jpg)
I'm not sure what it was about them or the clientele, but for a design that wasn't made in particularly large numbers (under a thousand) or especially widely used (14 air forces), it's managed to find itself in a lot of scraps
-
Well let's get a picture in here already! How about the PZL-230 Skorpion? A Polish Air Force attack aircraft prototype that nearly saw production, but was cancelled in 1994 due to a lack of funds.
(https://aamroczek.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/s_25u2318_dxo.jpg)
-
Well let's get a picture in here already! How about the PZL-230 Skorpion? A Polish Air Force attack aircraft prototype that nearly saw production, but was cancelled in 1994 due to a lack of funds.
(https://aamroczek.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/s_25u2318_dxo.jpg)
Man, it looks like some kind of Otaku creation
-
What were the performances of that thing? The style is interesting but did it fly?
-
I stumbled on this today at Foxtrot-Alpha (photo from USMC/DoD). Here's a nice shot of two sub-functions of Assault Support: aerial refueling and air logistics support.
-
Well let's get a picture in here already! How about the PZL-230 Skorpion? A Polish Air Force attack aircraft prototype that nearly saw production, but was cancelled in 1994 due to a lack of funds.
(https://aamroczek.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/s_25u2318_dxo.jpg)
I can't lie. That's a snazzy looking aircraft. Even if it does look like it came out of a Japanese anime.
-
I saw this and thought it was cool
attached text
Original Top Gun Dale "Snort" Snodgrass flew for the movie, and has flown >4800 hours in the F14 Tomcat. This photo: "Lets Buzz the Tower", was snapped during a 1988 airshow as he whipped his jet past the USS America.
-
I can't lie. That's a snazzy looking aircraft. Even if it does look like it came out of a Japanese anime.
That is some gnarly dihedral pretty high up and back. Roll moments must be awful on that thing.
-
the Skorpion never flew.. it was a paper project, only ever got to the mockup stage before it got cancelled. started in 1980, went through a ton of requirements changes. originally it used a pair of pusher turboprops with a kind of 'canard A-10' look, but in the late 80's the new government decided it needed to be turbojet powered, with 1000 kph speed and about 4 tons of munitions space. which eventually evolved into the version that got the mockup.. the Polish airforce was enthusiastic about it, but the government cancelled it to move the funding to non-military projects. it also was going to be modular, and thus easier to maintain and upgrade.
-
In the last one, people were talking about the best ride. I have never been in the 141 but have C-5, C-17, and C-130, I would say the 130 is the worst I have ever been in, C-17 was the best.
-
I have climbed through a C-5 and a C-17 while they were parked on the apron, never had the opportunity to actually fly in either of them. I have flown a few times in the C-130.
Best C-130 flight was a training sortie which also doubled as a deployment for a collegue and I as the airfield survey team to check out a small country airfield for suitability to host ongoing C-130 training flights (ie make sure the flyboys were not doing damage to a small local airport). This training sortie involved tactical nap-of-earth flying in a C-130. Got to go up to the cockpit and sit in the jumpseat while the crew were doing their nap-of-earth flying, it was liking doing a rally car race stage in a semi-trailer (prime mover in American) 8)
Worst C-130 flight was the same flight, where sitting in the hold of the C-130 while it was doing the above mentioned tactical flying meant that I ended up with motion sickness and spent about 45 mins dry-wretching with my head stuck into a garbage bag (that the loadmaster was kind enough to give me when he was worried that I was going to overfill the two airsick bags he had previously given me). Supposedly, my face had gone the same shade of green as my DPCU (camo uniform) :-[
Edit - almost forgot to post an image. RAAF C-130s from front to back A-model, E-model, H-model, J-model
(https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/all-four-model-c-130-a-e-h-j-hercules-operated-by-the-raaf-at-point-cook-may-2014.jpg)
-
I have climbed through a C-5 and a C-17 while they were parked on the apron, never had the opportunity to actually fly in either of them. I have flown a few times in the C-130.
Best C-130 flight was a training sortie which also doubled as a deployment for a collegue and I as the airfield survey team to check out a small country airfield for suitability to host ongoing C-130 training flights (ie make sure the flyboys were not doing damage to a small local airport). This training sortie involved tactical nap-of-earth flying in a C-130. Got to go up to the cockpit and sit in the jumpseat while the crew were doing their nap-of-earth flying, it was liking doing a rally car race stage in a semi-trailer (prime mover in American) 8)
Worst C-130 flight was the same flight, where sitting in the hold of the C-130 while it was doing the above mentioned tactical flying meant that I ended up with motion sickness and spent about 45 mins dry-wretching with my head stuck into a garbage bag (that the loadmaster was kind enough to give me when he was worried that I was going to overfill the two airsick bags he had previously given me). Supposedly, my face had gone the same shade of green as my DPCU (camo uniform) :-[
Edit - almost forgot to post an image. RAAF C-130s from front to back A-model, E-model, H-model, J-model
(https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/all-four-model-c-130-a-e-h-j-hercules-operated-by-the-raaf-at-point-cook-may-2014.jpg)
Having lots of room to move about on the C-17 made it lots better, after takeoff we would go and find a place to sleep. (when we went our 23 man unit took the entire plane).
-
F-20 Tigershark
Gorgeous little plane, but the emphasis is on 'little'. I don't see how it could have ever been seen as comparable to an F-16 just in terms of payload.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8535/8644118495_f709be5cda_b.jpg)
-
Having lots of room to move about on the C-17 made it lots better, after takeoff we would go and find a place to sleep. (when we went our 23 man unit took the entire plane).
For that particular best/worst flight in a C-130 the payload was:
Airfield Engineers, 2 of.
Toyota Landcruiser Troopcarrier, 1 of
so plenty of room to stretch out on the web-seating.
However, I know what you mean by squeezy. I have been on a 7 hour C-130 flight where we have been packed in like sardines with a bunch of grunts. Trying to get to the pisser-a-phone was not much fun (climbing over the top of sleeping grunts without waking them up).
As an old Warrant Officer Loadmaster once told me - if there is an emergency, do not bother going after one of the two parachutes that are mounted on the interior wall of the C-130, go for the fire axe, because he who owns the fire axe owns the parachutes >:D
-
Well let's get a picture in here already! How about the PZL-230 Skorpion? A Polish Air Force attack aircraft prototype that nearly saw production, but was cancelled in 1994 due to a lack of funds.
Just wow! I love the looks of that Polish Scorpion. Just as weirdly beautiful as the PZL 11 (http://simviation.com/pageimages/KY-pzl_p11c1.jpg) of yore. O0
-
F-20 Tigershark
Gorgeous little plane, but the emphasis is on 'little'. I don't see how it could have ever been seen as comparable to an F-16 just in terms of payload.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8535/8644118495_f709be5cda_b.jpg)
As cool as it looked (and the black paint job helped) the F-20 was a 1960s airframe that had been modified as far as it could. Conversely, the F-16 was a still new airframe that had only just begun it's life. Compare the skinny, lightweight, dogfight-only F-16s of the time to what we have today, and there's no way that the F-20 could have matched that
-
As cool as it looked (and the black paint job helped) the F-20 was a 1960s airframe that had been modified as far as it could. Conversely, the F-16 was a still new airframe that had only just begun it's life. Compare the skinny, lightweight, dogfight-only F-16s of the time to what we have today, and there's no way that the F-20 could have matched that
Well, they're not entirely the same kind of aircraft. The F-20 is basically just a re-engined F-5E and has an airframe dating to 1959 built with Korean War combat mindsets; the Viper is fifteen years newer with post-Vietnam air war theory in mind. The F-16 is also two feet longer, six feet wider, has 50% more wing surface, and hauls fifteen thousand more pounds of plane, gas, and bullets. It's the difference between an AMC Hornet - a good car, and one with room for a lot of performance - and a Plymouth Barracuda, a great car with a huge supply of power just because it has more room. Or for that matter, a different Hornet compared to a Tomcat. One's good, one's great. One's also a hell of a lot more expensive than the other, so...
-
In the last one, people were talking about the best ride. I have never been in the 141 but have C-5, C-17, and C-130, I would say the 130 is the worst I have ever been in, C-17 was the best.
Doesn't really matter which one. I think that the Air Force must decorate transport pilots based on how many passengers they can make puke.
-
Keith Ferris' 25-foot by 75-foot mural at Smithsonsian (http://luckypuppy.bravehost.com/GALLERY/upload/2013/11/22/20131122210810-3d7726dd.jpg) That have always been my favorite picture in the smithsonian book for the space and aviation museum.
-
Here is a newly restored Bell UH-1H Huey. It is now a permanet feature at the Fannin County Veterans Memorial Park in Blue Ridge, GA. The memorial features pillars that list Fannin county veterans of past wars including the Civil War, both World Wars, Korean and Vietnam Wars and Iraq.
Here is a link to the story. http://fanninsentinel.com/?p=4621
-
Keith Ferris' 25-foot by 75-foot mural at Smithsonsian (http://luckypuppy.bravehost.com/GALLERY/upload/2013/11/22/20131122210810-3d7726dd.jpg) That have always been my favorite picture in the smithsonian book for the space and aviation museum.
Terrific picture! Coincidentally, I just finished reading Die Grosse Jagd, Heinz Knocke's memoirs. He was a Me 109 pilot, who shot down 16 B17 (and a lucky devil, as he was shot down 5 or 6 times doing so, yet managed to bail out or crash land every time). Attacking a box was indeed a terrifying experience, and your picture makes a perfect illustration of it.
-
MH-53J. A gorgeous beast of a helicopter.
-
As cool as it looked (and the black paint job helped) the F-20 was a 1960s airframe that had been modified as far as it could. Conversely, the F-16 was a still new airframe that had only just begun it's life. Compare the skinny, lightweight, dogfight-only F-16s of the time to what we have today, and there's no way that the F-20 could have matched that
Weren't the F-20's and the F-5's more for the export market though. Places you wouldn't want to sell F-16's too?
-
Weren't the F-20's and the F-5's more for the export market though. Places you wouldn't want to sell F-16's too?
originally yes, but it wasn't really "places you wouldn't want to sell F16's" so much as all exports of F16's and F15's (then the airforces newest 'super fighters") were banned by congressional orders. instead the US's allies could purchase F4's, A4's, and the like. and for those on a budget, the F-5.
the F20 was originally a F5 upgrade program following in the footsteps of the F5E (which enhanced the F5 with better avionics and engines). basically the F20 was going to be an 'export only' multirole fighter that could ofer 80% of the F16A's capability (better in some places, like being able to carry Sparrow Missiles) while still being cheap compared to planes like the F4.
sadly politics killed the F20.. a lot of people in the military and in the military industry were pushing to have the ban on exporting the F16 and F15 lifted (for various reasons), and when that ban was finally lifted, most nations interested in the F20 decided instead to buy drastically discounted surplus F16's.
-
Here is a newly restored Bell UH-1H Huey.
Hueys are fun to jump out of.
-Jackmc
-
And just because of helos
(http://pawsru.org/dis/src/dis18795_airwolf02.jpg)
-
And just because of helos
(http://pawsru.org/dis/src/dis18795_airwolf02.jpg)
Every time I see a Bell 222 fly over I call it Airwolf.
-
I much prefer the looks of this one:
(http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/bluethunder5114.jpg)
-
The last flying Vulcan, XH588, doing a flypast over Carlisle Airports static display Vulcan a few weeks back.
-
A flying Vulcan O0
The Avro 707:
(http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/P6525-0076.jpg)
The five Avro 707 were built as 1/3 scale models for flight testing the aerodynamics of the Avro Type 698 Vulcan. One (WD280) was transferred to the RAAF in 1956 for aeronautical research. WD280 was sold off in 1967 and the owner had it on display in his suburban backyard until 1999 when it was relocated to the RAAF Museum at Point Cook, Melbourne.
-
(http://www.shockmansion.com/wp-content/myimages/2015/07/712.gif)
-
"...and here we see an F-35 in its natural environment... on the ground, partially disassembled for testing."
-
"...and here we see an F-35 in its natural environment... on the ground, partially disassembled for testing."
Ouch.
On that note does the ramp have a crater in it from the vertical landing?
-
"...and here we see an F-35 in its natural environment... on the ground, partially disassembled for testing."
"We've had to use less smokeless formulas of smokeless powder"
-
We are still working on the translucent protective layer for the canopy to minimise scratches from operation of the gun. In the meantime we are using this space blanket (which NASA kindly is selling to us at US$10M each) and instructing pilots not to do left turns as there is a bit of a blindspot on the leftside of the aircraft while the blanket is in place . . .
-
Ouch.
On that note does the ramp have a crater in it from the vertical landing?
I doubt this specimen has been flying recently judging by its lack of left wing.
Fairey Delta 2
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7246/7501081808_cdd4892d0d_b.jpg)
BAE EAP demonstrator that eventually led to the Typhoon
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/4/9/2278945.jpg)
-
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111207055038/acecombat/images/thumb/7/7a/RAFALE_ESPADA_Side.jpg/500px-RAFALE_ESPADA_Side.jpg)
Rafales sure do look nice, don't they? (From Ace Combat 6)
-
One thing I just noticed about the J-20 prototypes - I think they're the first non-Lockheed Martin fighters with a frameless canopy. Notably, the F-35 and Mitsubishi F-2 don't have frameless canopies either. Only the F-16 and F-22 do.
It makes me wonder if the J-20/J-31 are actually just a form of misdirection and we're going to end up seeing further upgraded (what the hell would we call 'em, Gen 4.75?) Flankers with say... sidesticks, frameless canopies, and RAM like a cross between the Silent Eagle and Super Hornet upgrades applied to the big ol' Sukhoi.
(http://i.imgur.com/4ZRnz.jpg)
-
I will speculate the other way, I would not be surprised if underneath the skin of the J-20/J-31 you find that there are alot of parts "borrowed" from the Flankers.
-
I will speculate the other way, I would not be surprised if underneath the skin of the J-20/J-31 you find that there are alot of parts "borrowed" from the Flankers.
Waste not, want not. However, the J-31 appears to be a private venture by Shenyang (the one making the various Flankers as well), and the engine choice (RD-33s) would imply it's more in the size range of the Mig-29 or Hornet.
You can barely see one hiding between the Flankers in this picture:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mlFx9lYLxUA/VBzjbX0HohI/AAAAAAAAkAE/c94TMlRGkOQ/s1600/J-31%2B%2B%2BJ-11B-BS-BSH%2Blineup%2B-%2B19.9.14%2BJ-31%2B-%2B14.5.14%2Bj-31%2Btest%2Bflight%2BChinese%2BF-60J31%2BShen%2BFei%2B(Falcon%2BEagle)%2Bfifth%2BGeneration%2BStealth%2BFighter%2BJet%2Bfrom%2Bits%2Bflight%2Bplaaf%2Bpakistan%2Bair%2Bforce.jpg)
-
To hell with the F-117, THAT'S a stealthy plane. ;D
-
To hell with the F-117, THAT'S a stealthy plane. ;D
Well, the Flanker is a gigantic plane. It can double as a privacy screen!
No, really. The Su-30 is only about half a foot sorter than the F-111F which makes it TEN FEET longer than a Tomcat or Eagle. It's got almost 6 feet more wingspan than an F-15 and is as tall as or taller than the Panavia Tornado, despite using twin fins.
-
Well, the Flanker is a gigantic plane. It can double as a privacy screen!
No, really. The Su-30 is only about half a foot sorter than the F-111F which makes it TEN FEET longer than a Tomcat or Eagle. It's got almost 6 feet more wingspan than an F-15 and is as tall as or taller than the Panavia Tornado, despite using twin fins.
Want a really good laugh? Screw comparing the Flanker to the Eagle or Tornado. Check it's length... now check the B-17.
I'll wait.
-
Want a really good laugh? Screw comparing the Flanker to the Eagle or Tornado. Check it's length... now check the B-17.
I'll wait.
A max take off weight of a B17 was 65k pounds and the F15 can weight at 68k and the F15e is over 80k.
-
Want a really good laugh? Screw comparing the Flanker to the Eagle or Tornado. Check it's length... now check the B-17.
I'll wait.
Not just the length. While the B-17 clearly has much more wing area and wingspan, it's actually shorter (height-wise) than the Flanker and has a similar loaded weight. The Flanker also has a much heavier MTOW, is a tonne heavier when empty, can carry about double the payload, and has uh... 50 times the climb rate or so.
I think a lightly-loaded Flanker in a zoom climb can actually reach the B-17's service ceiling in the time it would take the Fort to raise its landing gear. Ain't technology great?
-
On that note does the ramp have a crater in it from the vertical landing?
It's an internal gun, so it's a F-35A air force model.
The tarmac/deck melting is the F-35B marine model, with its STOVL mode..
The marine and navy versions don't have internal guns to reduce weight, they'll fly with gun pods if a gun is needed.
-
It's an internal gun, so it's a F-35A air force model.
The tarmac/deck melting is the F-35B marine model, with its STOVL mode..
The marine and navy versions don't have internal guns to reduce weight, they'll fly with gun pods if a gun is needed.
Gun pods which won't work
-
I wonder what the design considerations were that gave the Kit 29 that bent-in-the-middle look? It's furious that the front fuselage would either fly at such a low nose down attitude of the wings have such a high angle of attack.
-
"We've had to use less smokeless formulas of smokeless powder"
Yup, I was noting that too. Are they having problems from the inlets ingesting that gunk? Used to be a Soviet problem, odd to see it come back on US planes.
I'm reasonably sure the Vulcan didn't use black powder ...
-
The GAU-8 on the A-10 spews so much smoke and crud that one A-10 was lost during testing when both engines flamed out after ingesting gun exhaust. Many fixes were tried, the eventual winner was linking the engine igniters to the trigger so they activated whenever the trigger is depressed.
Speaking of the GAU-8, how it's often described as being the size of a Volkswagen...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg)
-
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa2/crudge1991/GAU-8.jpg)
-
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/11708064_10153554443258856_3458029734724770942_o.jpg)
-
The GAU-8 on the A-10 spews so much smoke and crud that one A-10 was lost during testing when both engines flamed out after ingesting gun exhaust. Many fixes were tried ...
Imagine if the internet was around then ...
Newest USAF ground attack aircraft still can't fire gun without crashing!
Many attempts to cure 'worst design in modern American aviation' have already failed.
Click here to read why I know everything and why the USAF should stick with tried and true Skyraider for decades to come.
-
Imagine if the internet was around then ...
Newest USAF ground attack aircraft still can't fire gun without crashing!
Many attempts to cure 'worst design in modern American aviation' have already failed.
Click here to read why I know everything and why the USAF should stick with tried and true Skyraider for decades to come.
Because this plane was a BAD ASS MOFO
(http://dechielfirearms.com/WordPress/wp-content/gallery/skyraider/skyraider-3.jpg)
-
I wonder what the design considerations were that gave the Kit 29 that bent-in-the-middle look? It's furious that the front fuselage would either fly at such a low nose down attitude of the wings have such a high angle of attack.
My first thought was the old problems the deltas had compared to regular sweptwings for landing. Approach and landing speed on the MiG is supposedly on par with an F-15, in the 280-300kmh range. That's according to a little digging on the internet and supposedly unclassified sources, at least. Wing sweep is about the same, 40 degrees on the MiG and unspecified but visually close to that on the Eagle. Wing area on the MiG, though, is only 2/3 that of the F-15 - 38m2 versus 56.5m2. That much smaller wing means it's typically going to need a lot more airflow, thus speed or AOA are your two choices. Since they land at the same speed, I'm gonna call the higher AOA at lower speeds the choice they went with.
The above is purely speculative outside of the hard numbers found on the interwebs, and could be complete rectally-extracted Barbara Streisand for all I know, but I'm sticking with it until someone smacks me with a trout. YOU'LL NEVER FIND ME!
-
Kit 29? ???
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.b-29doc.com/) is expected to be flying soon.
-
Because this plane was a BAD ASS MOFO
(http://dechielfirearms.com/WordPress/wp-content/gallery/skyraider/skyraider-3.jpg)
It carried almost double it's mass in ordnance and stores, who wouldn't love that?
-
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
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/t31.0-8/11731769_10100513264297193_3591429501510686528_o.jpg)
B-25D 'Grumpy' from Historic Flight Collection
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/t31.0-8/11731769_10100513264302183_8007515473336278811_o.jpg)
CT-133 Silver Star (Nene-powered T-33 by Canadair)
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/t31.0-8/11226075_10100513263843103_3088879830884857340_o.jpg)
-
Just a couple of photos from last summers work trip
http://imgur.com/a/qpktE (http://imgur.com/a/qpktE)
-
Just a couple of photos from last summers work trip
http://imgur.com/a/qpktE (http://imgur.com/a/qpktE)
I really dig the Meteors and Vampire!
Edgley Optica. See everything!
(http://www.airteamimages.com/pics/74/74689_big.jpg)
-
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!
(http://www.airteamimages.com/pics/74/74689_big.jpg)
-
Because this plane was a BAD ASS MOFO
(http://dechielfirearms.com/WordPress/wp-content/gallery/skyraider/skyraider-3.jpg)
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It carried almost double it's mass in ordnance and stores, who wouldn't love that?
Those at the delivery adress.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deptula)
-
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.
-
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:
(http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/mt/flightglobalweb/blogs/the-dewline/assets_c/2012/08/northrop_grumman_NGB_bomber-thumb-560x373-162571.jpg)
(http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=47917)
-
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!
-
They may want a 100 of them, they will probably get like twenty to thirty.
-
They will try and replacing the B52 again with the B3....they won't.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d0/bf/af/d0bfaf9ae568b64e0e766160f6a7edb3.jpg)
-
Ah, hell, that's depressing, let's look at a real fighter for a few.
OK. O0
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Fighters/AmericanProps/P51sChino08.jpg)
-
let's look at a real fighter for a few.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/F-15E_391st_USAF_081215-F-7823A-931.jpg)
-
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
(http://q-zon-fighterplanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Grumman-F11F-1F-Super-Tiger.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://hdwallpapers.cat/wallpaper/hawker_hunters_swiss_air_force_alps_hd-wallpaper-386032.jpg)
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:
(http://www.boeing.com/assets/images/history/mdc/graphics/histlarg/hist025b.jpg)
The same image but larger (and B&W):
(http://stellar-views.com/images/F3-Demon.jpg)
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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Grumman_F11F-1_Tiger_in_flight_c1950s.jpg)
The F9F Cougar (the straight-winged Panther shared the F9F designation)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/F8F-8_Cougar_with_Sidewinder_missiles_in_flight_1958.jpg/1280px-F8F-8_Cougar_with_Sidewinder_missiles_in_flight_1958.jpg)
And a collection of oldies: Crusader, Skyhawk, recce Cougar, and a Demon
(http://www.vfp62.com/IMAGES_2/f8_f9f.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
That's a bit of a stretch. The maintenance you describe is essentially replacing major structural elements with newly fabricated ones. Few, if any, of the B-52's the in the air are actually the same planes that rolled off the assembly lines. They are jsuta collection of replacement parts that are still attached to a certain serial number. The process is hideously expensive and time consuming but is still done because there isn't currently a better option.
-Jackmc
-
Here is a good photo. Its a C17 going in for landing at Toronto City Airport. I dont know if it landed there, or did a touch and go. I do know it would of had no problem landing there.
-
That's a bit of a stretch. The maintenance you describe is essentially replacing major structural elements with newly fabricated ones. Few, if any, of the B-52's the in the air are actually the same planes that rolled off the assembly lines. They are jsuta collection of replacement parts that are still attached to a certain serial number. The process is hideously expensive and time consuming but is still done because there isn't currently a better option.
-Jackmc
That is certainly true of the avionics, the mechanical and hydraulic components but not the airframe. See Section III.a on page 11 of the B-52H Re-Engining Report by the Defense Science Board Task Force (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428790.pdf). Acknowledge the report is 10 years old but as the report indicates the B-52H have an airframe structural life that will take them to 2040 without major re-engineering.
-
That is certainly true of the avionics, the mechanical and hydraulic components but not the airframe. See Section III.a on page 11 of the B-52H Re-Engining Report by the Defense Science Board Task Force (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428790.pdf). Acknowledge the report is 10 years old but as the report indicates the B-52H have an airframe structural life that will take them to 2040 without major re-engineering.
Actually, that estimate exists because the H has already underwent at least one fairly significant mid-life refit (reinforcement of some structural members, replacement of others) of the airframe to address structural integrity issues with the base airframe. Before the refit, the H has a nasty habit of catastrophic structural integrity loss in flight. That's not an uncommon attribute for aircraft from the 40's and 50's. Those birds didn't have airframe lifespans because no one really understood the finer points of structural fatigue. The lifecycle limits on newer aircraft are the results of the blood lessons learned from earlier aircraft.
-Jackmc
-
In the 50's, you built 'em cheap and piled 'em high if you were the USAF.
F-84Fs awaiting scrapping in 1958:
(http://www.airplanesofthepast.com/images/airforce-archives/f84f-thunderstreaks-davis-monthan-amarg.jpg)
In happier times:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/92d_Tactical_Fighter_Squadron_-_Republic_F-84F-45-RE_Thunderstreak_-_52-7114.jpg)
-
Image is from World of Warships, but I saw this thing hanging off the end of a Des Moines-class cruiser, and wondered. Closest I could find is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edo_OSE
The tail section looks wrong, and overall the lines of the fuselage say P-38 to me, so I'm wondering - is this supposed to be an Edo (interestingly a proper contemporary, albeit never accepted) or is it just "a plane?"
-
I think it's just "a plane". The combination of features - an inline engine not a rotary, single main float with outriggers, bubble cockpit, tailfin extension forward - doesn't match any real floatplane. The vast majority of IJN & USN floatplanes used radials, and the tailfin extension simply doesn't fit - they're usually added to increase stability, but the honking great float underneath would be far more significant.
If anything, I think it's been based on a what-if. The engine & cockpit strongly suggest the Hawker Typhoon to me, although the wing has been moved back. I did find a model of such a hypothetical conversion
(http://www.scaleworkshop.com/workshop/images/monsoontm_d.jpg)
But it looks more like "inspired by" than a copy thereof.
W.
-
Or vaguely like an XP-40 ...
(http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/128776.jpg)
-
I think it's just "a plane". The combination of features - an inline engine not a rotary, single main float with outriggers, bubble cockpit, tailfin extension forward - doesn't match any real floatplane. The vast majority of IJN & USN floatplanes used radials, and the tailfin extension simply doesn't fit - they're usually added to increase stability, but the honking great float underneath would be far more significant.
If anything, I think it's been based on a what-if. The engine & cockpit strongly suggest the Hawker Typhoon to me, although the wing has been moved back. I did find a model of such a hypothetical conversion
(http://www.scaleworkshop.com/workshop/images/monsoontm_d.jpg)
But it looks more like "inspired by" than a copy thereof.
W.
It is a "what if" Typhoon but there were proposals for a carrier version with folding wings
-
It doesn't have the 20mm Hispanos in the wings, and the tail has that Grumman look (to me) with the ventral fin extension, but I'll roll with it being a Typhoon/Tempest variant. I love seaplanes, despite their inherent performance hit, so any new ones are good. And Worktroll, that's a really sweet whif!
-
(http://www.scaleworkshop.com/workshop/images/monsoontm_d.jpg)
But it looks more like "inspired by" than a copy thereof.
W.
Beautifully built model O0
-
It's a fictional variant of the Typhoon IB, dubbed the Monsoon, created by this guy (http://www.scaleworkshop.com/workshop/monsoontm_1.htm).
The only modifications to the original Typhoon IB model kit was to remove and cover up the landing gear and their doors, then add the floats from a Kingfisher model. So the tail, wings, fuselage, cockpit, engine, 20mm Hispano cannon in the wings (not sure how you could miss them ANS!) & underwing rocket racks are all original and unchanged from the Typhoon kit.
-
20mm Hispano cannon in the wings (not sure how you could miss them ANS!)
I meant I didn't see the guns in the 3D model of the plane from WoWS, sorry.
-
(http://www.thewordofmatus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/yf-23-920-5.jpg)
YF-23, because I posted one in the last thread. This time when they were fixing it up for the Dayton Museum.
-
the state of that yf 23 makes me almost cry.
-
there are a lot of old warbirds out there to make anyone cry.
including this place.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/05/war-plane-graveyard-photos_n_5453840.html
or this Scottish Phantom.
(http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/home/twamoran/urbanghostsmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Phantom-XT852-West-Freugh.jpg)
-
I nearly cried when I saw that this is how we disposed of the majority of our F-111s:
(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/11/24/1226205/191570-f111s-dumped-near-ipswich.jpg)
We did keep a few as gate sentries but none were maintained in flying condition :'(
-
the state of that yf 23 makes me almost cry.
I heard that it beat F22 out in the tests but lost to political manuevers.
-
You would've heard right.
another place it lost out: Pricing.
-
You would've heard right.
another place it lost out: Pricing.
I had a gi joe YF-23 toy that shot out water as a kid.
-
I nearly cried when I saw that this is how we disposed of the majority of our F-111s:
We did keep a few as gate sentries but none were maintained in flying condition :'(
They buried them with the escape capsules in place? ??? That could be ugly.
I suppose they took the dynamite out ... (had a family friend lose 1 1/2" in height in that Nowra ejection)
-
They would have been deactivated by removing all the pyrotechnics.
Yes, it is amazing what pilots go through (and survive) in an ejection and 1-2 inches of lost height is normal from what I was told. Another story from my time at the O Mess bar is that following the introduction of the Pilatus PC-9 they had to introduce a height restriction (I cannot remember the exact height) on trainee pilots, as over a certain height the pilot would hit their knees on the dashboard during an ejection and pretty much sheer their lower legs off . . .
-
(http://www.thewordofmatus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/yf-23-920-5.jpg)
YF-23, because I posted one in the last thread. This time when they were fixing it up for the Dayton Museum.
The greatest fighter never built.
-
I nearly cried when I saw that this is how we disposed of the majority of our F-111s:
(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/11/24/1226205/191570-f111s-dumped-near-ipswich.jpg)
That's a lot of high quality aluminum going to waste. Any special reason they weren't scrapped?
-
As I understand it, the F-111 was a strategic bomber that you can strap on a "bucket of instant sunshine" and mess up somebody's day, it was a requirement of the purchase contract we had with the US that after we retired the F-111s that they were not to be onsold to another country. So to scrap and recycle them would still see the airframes sold to another country (probably South Korea, India or China who are the big metal recycling countries in the Asia-Pacific). Therefore, the decision was made by Defence to disposed of the F-111s at the Ipswich landfill site, just kilometres from RAAF Base Amberley where they were based.
-
As I understand it, the F-111 was a strategic bomber that you can strap on a "bucket of instant sunshine" and mess up somebody's day, it was a requirement of the purchase contract we had with the US that after we retired the F-111s that they were not to be onsold to another country. So to scrap and recycle them would still see the airframes sold to another country (probably South Korea, India or China who are the big metal recycling countries in the Asia-Pacific). Therefore, the decision was made by Defence to disposed of the F-111s at the Ipswich landfill site, just kilometres from RAAF Base Amberley where they were based.
It was too much for them to use a guillotine type tool to cut the fuselage in pieces and then sell them for scrap?
-
The airframes were pretty contaminated by assorted carcinogenic linings & layers ...
-
The airframes were pretty contaminated by assorted carcinogenic linings & layers ...
It's more aluminum-lined asbestos than the other way around ;D
-
"bucket of instant sunshine"
Interesting; the guys I used to hang with in the 1980s talked about "physics packages". Melbourne was pretty leading edge for meteorological modelling at the time, and we had many interesting visitors with buzz cuts and accents. Several physics grads got jobs at remote places in the US too. ;)
-
That F23 picture is upsetting to me. It's in a hanger and in a museum, there is no way it should be in that bad of shape.
-
That F23 picture is upsetting to me. It's in a hanger and in a museum, there is no way it should be in that bad of shape.
It isn't. Notice I said its in for repairs? This is what it looks like now in the R&D Museum. It sits right under the Valkyries nose.
-
It actually spent over a decade outside in the desert in storage. That's why it looks so bad. In the picture it's in the Air Force Museum's restoration hanger being made presentable again.
It's restored and on display now.
-
It's more aluminum-lined asbestos than the other way around ;D
The fuel tanks were lined with an epoxy/resin/paint that was not very nice (google F-111 Reseal/Deseal and you will get some of the RAAF's potted history of trying to keep the F-111 airworthy).
-
It isn't. Notice I said its in for repairs? This is what it looks like now in the R&D Museum. It sits right under the Valkyries nose.
I spy with my little eye a Darkstar.
-
I spy with my little eye a Darkstar.
One of the highlights of my life was seeing those two planes together. Sadly the R+D Museum is so sad of a area for such great old planes. Heck, the Museum considers the Valkyrie its totem plane, its image is everywhere and its not even actually inside the museum proper.
-
(http://deanoinamerica.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/stealth-fighter-joke.jpg)
Meanwhile, at the Arizona boneyard, military aircraft sit in the desert sun, retired...
-
Do I say "I see what you did there", or ... ???
-
I believe the phrase is "I see nutzink!"
-
I will "see" you a stealth fighter and raise you another stealth fighter . . .
(http://aviationhumor.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/military-humor-funny-joke-airforce-next-generation-stealth-fighter.jpg)
-
So the F-22C[loaking] Raptor is finally here!
-
One of the highlights of my life was seeing those two planes together. Sadly the R+D Museum is so sad of a area for such great old planes. Heck, the Museum considers the Valkyrie its totem plane, its image is everywhere and its not even actually inside the museum proper.
Good news! The fourth hanger at the main complex is nearly finished and will open in spring of 2016. All the planes in the annex will finally be with the rest of the collection.
-
"Comrade Mikhail, we have much need of more engine."
(http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/reditt-com-mig-25-foxbat.jpg)
(http://www.atlasaerospace.net/image/f_pilotag14.jpg)
-
So is it a plane or a pod racer with wings tacked on? ;)
-
Worlds biggest set of hair dryers right there.
-
But not without its dangers... why do you think Putin has so little hair?
-
The only foreign user of the Mig-31 - Kazakhstan
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/2/4/2108424.jpg)
-
Is nice.
-
Interceptor time! Some of the last of the single-purpose aircraft, an exercise of tying to get to altitude as fast as possible with as much gas and missiles as possible
A J-8III releasing the drag chute
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/8/5/1424583.jpg)
Tornado ADV with a full load of missiles
(http://www.geocities.ws/jetnetuk/photos/tornado_adv4.jpg)
Unusual colour photo of Su-15s with live R-8 (AA-3 'Ahab') missiles... and tactical camo
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s193/KieronP/Su-15TM5man.jpg)
MiG-31 in its natural habitat
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Russian_Air_Force_Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-31_Pichugin-1.jpg)
MiG-31 showing an unusual missile load - looks like four R-33 (AA-9 'Amos') and two of the older R-40 (AA-6 'Acrid') missiles
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9pxtQhOFqAU/maxresdefault.jpg)
The F-14 was arguably designed as a pure interceptor and flew as one for most of its life.
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/F-14-VF-24.jpg)
'Murrica! City of Jacksonville bicentennial F-106. Delta Darts were flown by the ANG until 1988, telling you exactly how worried the USAF was about Soviet bombers that their interception was entrusted to AIM-4 Falcons. Incidentally, F-106s weapons bays are pneumatically opened, the the plane only has enough charge to open it three times - once for a pair of Falcons, once for the second pair of Falcons, and once for the Genie
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/F106A/58-0760.jpg)
-
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/F-14-VF-24.jpg)
Dammit Moon Moon.
'Murrica! City of Jacksonville bicentennial F-106. Delta Darts were flown by the ANG until 1988, telling you exactly how worried the USAF was about Soviet bombers that their interception was entrusted to AIM-4 Falcons.
Well...up until the end, how reliable was the Strategic Rocket Force versus the bombers? The latter will get eaten alive, but at least they had a good chance of getting off the ground under their own power...
-
Unusual colour photo of Su-15s with live R-8 (AA-3 'Ahab) missiles... and tactical camo
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s193/KieronP/Su-15TM5man.jpg)
I don't think I've ever seen a photo of a cammoed Su-15 before. That makes it an awesome find right there and then.
-
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/ZbzcuyxeIbyH3pIWIdjUsw--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NDM5O3E9OTU7dz02NDA-/http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/5/3/1620356.jpg)
MIG-29, and it just looks like they walked away one day and didn't look back, doesn't it?
-
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/ZbzcuyxeIbyH3pIWIdjUsw--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NDM5O3E9OTU7dz02NDA-/http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/5/3/1620356.jpg)
MIG-29, and it just looks like they walked away one day and didn't look back, doesn't it?
No paycheque, no maintenance :P
-
Speaking of old things and the new. A baton has been passed in Marine Aviation.
-
Speaking of old things and the new. A baton has been passed in Marine Aviation.
Betcha the V-22 will in turn be replaced with a shortened CH-47 :P
-
The Mighty Phrog is no more!
-
Speaking of old things and the new. A baton has been passed in Marine Aviation.
My college thesis was about tilt-rotor technology, and in it I said that it in 15 years, the Marines would retire the Frog in favor of the Osprey- which my instructor (an ex-Marine) said was ludicrous.
He was right. They're a year earlier than I predicted.
-
My college thesis was about tilt-rotor technology, and in it I said that it in 15 years, the Marines would retire the Frog in favor of the Osprey- which my instructor (an ex-Marine) said was ludicrous.
He was right. They're a year earlier than I predicted.
Nice. When I went through Field Artillery Officer Basic Course I was told I'd be a M777 battery CO: nope M198s in OIF 1. Win some; lose some.
Betcha the V-22 will in turn be replaced with a shortened CH-47 :P
Actually, I think we'll see a pusher design next. Hard to do though on a medium or heavy lift helo.
-
Actually, I think we'll see a pusher design next. Hard to do though on a medium or heavy lift helo.
"Pusher design" - my first thought... ^-^
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/26/article-0-02CE35AE00000578-463_468x273.jpg)
-
I think we'll see a pusher design next. Hard to do though on a medium or heavy lift helo.
Well, the Sikorsky S-97 RAIDER prototype is flying now.
(http://www.sikorsky.com/SiteAssets/Lists/PressRelease/NewForm/RAIDER_Press3.jpg)
-
"Pusher design" - my first thought... ^-^
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/26/article-0-02CE35AE00000578-463_468x273.jpg)
Boy, there's some memories... pulling a firefighter C-130 down a runway in August in the thin air of Denver via tow-rope around the nose gear is an experience I never want again.
-
Well, the Sikorsky S-97 RAIDER prototype is flying now.
(http://www.sikorsky.com/SiteAssets/Lists/PressRelease/NewForm/RAIDER_Press3.jpg)
That is a pretty neat helicopter
-
Boy, there's some memories... pulling a firefighter C-130 down a runway in August in the thin air of Denver via tow-rope around the nose gear is an experience I never want again.
Holy pants...I'm a small humanoid, but my Never Again was pulling around a Cessna 172. You pulled a HERC?!? [AAAH]
-
Well, the Sikorsky S-97 RAIDER prototype is flying now.
(http://www.sikorsky.com/SiteAssets/Lists/PressRelease/NewForm/RAIDER_Press3.jpg)
Yup, that was the one I of which I was thinking. The US Army and USMC have different definitions, and requirements for, medium lift that are based on the size of the respective rifle squads. Eighteen personnel, or a reinforced rifle squad, is the primary metric for us. Not sure that will work but the attack pusher, forgetting the name, might do as a H-1 Y/Z replacement.
S/F
Matt
-
Holy pants...I'm a small humanoid, but my Never Again was pulling around a Cessna 172. You pulled a HERC?!? [AAAH]
Well, not ME. Me and about two dozen-odd other people, later assisted by a motor tug that someone dug up. Two pull lines attached to the nose gear, half of us on one line and half on the other... definitely hated life by the time that motor tug pulled up to help. I don't handle heat well, so that was about twelve kinds of misery.
-
2-seat MiG-29s. The looks of the tiny nosed trainer variants
(http://aviator.rs/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/mig29m2_23.jpg)
(http://www.adwallpapers.gr/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Mig-29-right-Zebra.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/MiG-29_Fulcrum_B_Luftwaffe.jpg/1280px-MiG-29_Fulcrum_B_Luftwaffe.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/MiG-29UB_18301_V_i_PVO_VS%2C_september_13%2C_2009.jpg/1280px-MiG-29UB_18301_V_i_PVO_VS%2C_september_13%2C_2009.jpg)
(http://warfare.be/0702ey70/update/november2012/mig29ub.jpg)
(http://www.lotnictwo.net/pic/0709/0709020060.jpg)
(http://walkarounds.airforce.ru/avia/rus/mig/mig-29ub/ap_mig-29ub_04.jpg)
(https://deanoinamerica.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/mig-29ub1.jpg)
(http://toad-design.com/migalley/wp-content/gallery/mig-29-variants/mig29-ub.jpg)
-
The attack chopper with a pusher prop reminds me of the AH-56 Cheyenne prototype.
It didnt carry troops or cargo.
-
The attack chopper with a pusher prop reminds me of the AH-56 Cheyenne prototype.
It didnt carry troops or cargo.
I so frigging love that aircraft.
-
I'm starting to understand just where the Flanker stuffs all that fuel. Eleventy bajillion upgrades later, the latest Mig-29s are acquiring a distinctly Flanker-like dorsal profile for (yet more) gas
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-29SMT_%289-19%29%2C_Russia_-_Air_Force_AN2269907.jpg/1024px-Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-29SMT_%289-19%29%2C_Russia_-_Air_Force_AN2269907.jpg)
Meanwhile, the two-seat combat-capable models are developing the big droopy radome of Su-30s (or the Tomcat. Look at that nose and canopy. Doesn't it look F-14esque?)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-35_MAKS%272007_Pichugin.jpg/1024px-Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-35_MAKS%272007_Pichugin.jpg)
-
actually, that dorsal bulge is for an ECM system in most of the variants that have it.
-
Not strictly a pic...but thought you all would enjoy it nonetheless: it's a 360 degree video from inside the cockpit of a P-51 with it's F-22 wingman (https://youtu.be/-RFjROsovWs) from the Heritage Flight Museum.
-
Not strictly a pic...but thought you all would enjoy it nonetheless: it's a 360 degree video from inside the cockpit of a P-51 with it's F-22 wingman (https://youtu.be/-RFjROsovWs) from the Heritage Flight Museum.
Nice! The closest I will ever get to a P-51 in my life time. Seeing that F-22 nearby was awesome as well.
-
Matt Younkin's hangar was right next to the hangar of the dropzone, I worked at, operated out of and the we'd frequently do late summer night staff cookouts which Matt and guests would attend if they weren't at some airshow as Matt was a good friend who'd occasionally help out if we were short pilots. One night he brought over Doug "Rosie" Rosenthal (another airshow legend) who was spending the night on a ferry flight with a P-51. That night many of us snapped photos of our wives or girlfriends draped over that P-51.
-Jackmc
-
(https://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/Aviamix-2015/i-mBxHcjJ/0/O/Aviamix2015-06.jpg)
Full size picture. (https://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/Aviamix-2015/i-mBxHcjJ/0/O/Aviamix2015-06.jpg)
-
Wow! That's a rare pic and a half! Very cool, very appreciated!
In return, a photo taken by an RPG.net member called, appropriately for here, MadCat, located in Kent. Who took this photomontage at an airshow recently:
(http://i.imgur.com/02yXGY8h.jpg)
-
How about the Vulcan with the planes that was used to the test the Vulcan design.
-
The wacky funsters at Air New Zealand have a new in-flight safety video
https://youtu.be/ji65WI5QLZI (https://youtu.be/ji65WI5QLZI)
For the American forum aviators, the New Zealand national rugby union team are known as the All Blacks.
And just in case any Middle Earth fans missed these, my precious . . .
https://youtu.be/qOw44VFNk8Y (https://youtu.be/qOw44VFNk8Y)
https://youtu.be/cBlRbrB_Gnc (https://youtu.be/cBlRbrB_Gnc)
-
Ecuador still operates Kfirs *and* Atlas Cheetahs! (Columbia also operates Kfirs)
(http://img1.jetphotos.net:8080/img/1/3/2/4/94807_1178497423.jpg)
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/8/5/2345586.jpg)
-
In tragic news, seven people killed when a Hawker Hunter crashed into a road in England during an air show. The incident happened away from the show, no word yet on what caused it.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8281/7554567082_3ba2b19ae0_b.jpg)
Not the aircraft in question, just posting a pic of one.
-
Latest news state the pilot failed finishing the loop he was doing and crashed on the highway near the airport. :(
-
I thought Britain had strict rules about only doing aerobatics above areas empty of people... What was the pilot doing making a loop above a busy highway?
Saw it on the news, btw. Nasty.
-
In tragic news, seven people killed when a Hawker Hunter crashed into a road in England during an air show. The incident happened away from the show, no word yet on what caused it.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8281/7554567082_3ba2b19ae0_b.jpg)
Not the aircraft in question, just posting a pic of one.
Just back from Shoreham
Never want to see that again
-
I saw much the same many years ago in Broomfield, CO with an F-86 Sabre at an airshow at what was then Jefferson County Airport (now Front Range). The elevators jammed during a maneuver, and the pilot found he was aimed right at the crowd- he took the extra second or two to steer the plane into a field between the airport and a housing development, where it wouldn't hurt anyone... and that delay cost him his own life. Horrifying to watch- and watching the video today brought on a lot of those memories. (It also brings on wondering if much the same happened here- the plane looks a little sluggish coming out of the loop, more than one would expect)
Thoughts are with those on the ground who were killed. I'll be keeping a close eye to see what comes of this in terms of a cause. :-\
-
Just back from Shoreham
Never want to see that again
I don't blame you. I just saw the video of both the crash and the initial rescue efforts of bystanders at the scene. Somehow the pilot SURVIVED, without ejecting, though is currently fighting for his life in hospital. Video is inconclusive as to just why the loop maneuver failed, there doesn't appear to be any sign of control issues and the jet maintains power until impact. The aircraft is clearly under control, you can see it attempting to maneuver to the left as it's about to hit. I believe the pilot stayed with it and saw where he was coming down, and tried to aim elsewhere but didn't make it. That's just my speculation from the clips I saw, and they are horrific. Will be praying for the survivors and those who lost loved ones.
-
I'd say roadway was better than directly into buildings, but it looked like he had no better option.
The pilot apparently survived the crash, but his survival is still in the balance.
Thoughts & prayers for those involved.
-
Just saw the footage on the news. Thoughts and prayers with all those touched by the tragic events.
Yesterday was a very hot day in the UK (I was watching the cricket last night on TV and the commentators were saying they were expecting 30 deg C in London). I wonder if the Hunter's climb performance was degraded by the higher than normal air temperature resulting in a loop that was too low to be successfully completed.
-
While not impossible, it seems unlikely to me that the pilot - ex-RAF Harrier pilot, and senior British Airways pilot, with long history in the veteran plane sides, would make that mistake. I'd prefer (yes, emotional bias) to believe in a mechanical failure compromising flight controls.
-
Such a sad day. All my well wishes to that pilot.
-
While not impossible, it seems unlikely to me that the pilot - ex-RAF Harrier pilot, and senior British Airways pilot, with long history in the veteran plane sides, would make that mistake. I'd prefer (yes, emotional bias) to believe in a mechanical failure compromising flight controls.
It's a 60 year old airplane; if the engine choked on the hot air at the upper part of the loop then there's not a pilot in the world that can pull up out of that.
The pilot's still alive, in critical condition, but the casualty count has risen now to 11, including two from Worthing United FC.
Back on general thread topic: OppositeLock has a neat little post about the He-162, a jet fighter made with a lot of wood structural members. I've always liked this little plane, it's a neat looking airframe aesthetically and I've had a soft spot for split-tail designs. It's noteworthy for pioneering the first ejection seat system, so it's not a complete developmental dead-end. It's hard to find photos of them without the swastika, though, so...have a cutaway!
(http://wingermodels.com/16.jpg)
-
I don't blame you. I just saw the video of both the crash and the initial rescue efforts of bystanders at the scene. Somehow the pilot SURVIVED, without ejecting, though is currently fighting for his life in hospital. Video is inconclusive as to just why the loop maneuver failed, there doesn't appear to be any sign of control issues and the jet maintains power until impact. The aircraft is clearly under control, you can see it attempting to maneuver to the left as it's about to hit. I believe the pilot stayed with it and saw where he was coming down, and tried to aim elsewhere but didn't make it. That's just my speculation from the clips I saw, and they are horrific. Will be praying for the survivors and those who lost loved ones.
We won't know exactly what happened until its investigated
Could be as many as 20 fatalities
Worst UK airshow accident since DH 101 in 1952 at Farnborough
-
Found out today that a friend of mine drove along that stretch of road with his 4 year old son on the way back from swimming about 30 minutes before the accident. He is thanking his lucky stars that they did not stay in the pool any longer than they did.
-
Finally seen a flying Mosquito. Such a nice plane.
-
I came across this image on the interweb:
(http://stories.scienceinpublic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/DEFENSE-wedgetail.jpg)
Three E-7A Wedgetails (parked on the apron that I built ^-^ ) operated by No 2 Squadron Royal Australian Air Force.
We have come a long way from:
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Airco-DH5/DH5_serial_A197.jpg)
Airco D.H.5 as operated by No. 2 Squadron Australian Flying Corps in 1917
-
Like that photo of the E-7. That at least half of the fleet.
-
I saw one of those land in Anchorage, AK about a month ago.
-Jackmc
-
Exactly half the fleet of six Wedgetails that 2SQN operate.
Wow, Anchorage AK, that is a long way from home. At least one of the Wedgetails is currently in "the sandpit" as part of OP OKRA (the Australian Defence Force's contribution to the international effort to combat the Daesh/ISIL threat in Iraq). I would assume that flight to Anchorage would have been part of a training exercise.
-
Or it was delivery from Boeing in Seattle. I saw one at Boeing Field in 2007/8 where they do the finishing.
-
(http://members.shaw.ca/letts/ww.jpg)
Westland Whirlwind
-
At first glance when I saw the picture I thought it was a piston-engine Me 262.
-
Or it was delivery from Boeing in Seattle. I saw one at Boeing Field in 2007/8 where they do the finishing.
The last of the six were delivered to 2SQN from Boeing in 2011.
If my memory serves me correctly, they were ferried via Hawaii (they have the extra fuel tanks like a B737 BBJ as well as an in-flight refuelling, they do not have to go the northern ferry route via Anchorage).
-
(http://members.shaw.ca/letts/ww.jpg)
Westland Whirlwind
Gorgeous plane, absolutely gorgeous. Meant to have Merlins, ended up with underpowered and unreliable Peregrines, IIRC. In the same class as the "nutless" Cutlass - gorgeous looks, lethal engines.
(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Vought-Cutlass/IMAGES/Vought-F7U-Cutlass-Title.jpg)
-
Gorgeous plane, absolutely gorgeous. Meant to have Merlins, ended up with underpowered and unreliable Peregrines, IIRC.
Yeah Whirland is gorgeous, it was a shame they never gave her a second chance with merlin engines, she would had been a lethal twin engine fighter. Instead they just used her for low level strike missions before retiring her.
-
lets have some better Cutlass Images shall we?
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c272/mnankivil/F7U-3129678ProjectCutlass.jpg)
(http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/F7U-Cutlass-631.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ec/0c/91/ec0c911f501a0d06696ae4c6a93cba13.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/41/74/a4/4174a4ae4aed1729ec254943e68c442a.jpg)
(http://www.millionmonkeytheater.com/f7upics/124415.jpg)
-
Yeah Whirland is gorgeous, it was a shame they never gave her a second chance with merlin engines, she would had been a lethal twin engine fighter. Instead they just used her for low level strike missions before retiring her.
I agree, it is a gorgeous plane and it seems that, despite all the engine issues, it has a good service live.
-
lets have some better Cutlass Images shall we?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ec/0c/91/ec0c911f501a0d06696ae4c6a93cba13.jpg)
Oh what a beautiful plane. It's one of my favorite to look at.
-
Gorgeous plane, absolutely gorgeous. Meant to have Merlins, ended up with underpowered and unreliable Peregrines, IIRC.
The engines weren't underpowered or unreliable - the Peregrine was just on the chopping block when the Air Ministry put in its engine rationalisation scheme. The Whirlwind was inextricable from the Peregrine so orders/production froze when Rolls Royce focused only on Merlin/Griffon.
(http://members.shaw.ca/letts/ww2.jpg)
-
The Cutlass looks awesome in some pictures and one of the ulgiest planes the next picture.
-
In the same class as the "nutless" Cutlass - gorgeous looks, lethal engines.
A lot of beautiful jets in that time period. It's pretty obvious the Cutlass was the inspiration for the Lucifer ASF (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/File:Lucifer_3025.jpg). Converting a kit is another on my Great List of Unfinished Projects™.
-
Wow, Anchorage AK, that is a long way from home. At least one of the Wedgetails is currently in "the sandpit" as part of OP OKRA (the Australian Defence Force's contribution to the international effort to combat the Daesh/ISIL threat in Iraq). I would assume that flight to Anchorage would have been part of a training exercise.
I wonder if it was one of the original two and headed back from a checkup at Boeing-Seattle. It was on August 4th. Unfortunately, my phone camera wasn't good enough to take a photo that would let me enlarge the pic enough to see the aircraft numbers.
-Jackmc
-
I my memory serves me correctly (and if the plan has not changed since I left), all the deeper maintenance will occur in Australia.
We (me and my mate who took over the posting from me) built a two-bay hangar for 2SQN, one of the bays was sized to include a full deeper-maintenance gantry platform set up like what Qantas has at Tullamarine to do deeper-maintenance on their B737s. We even slurged, spent some of the project contingency funds and included a gantry crane in that bay so that we could lift the surfboard radar off the airframe in that hangar. Boeing was initially planning to do it with two mobile cranes working together via a lifting jig or fly the aircraft to RAAF Base Amberley to do it. I thought that was a less than optimal solution.
-
Moving any object with two separate cranes is a plan made of NOPE and WAIT FOR IT. Good work on the gantry sir.
-
Cheers and thanks.
My favourite bit of that whole plan that Boeing presented to Defence was the bit where the removal and reattachment operations had to be done in a temperature controlled environment. If my memory serves me correctly it was 21.5 deg C +/-0.5 deg C for all the precision located holes for the holding bolts and the panel screws in the surfboard radar and in the airframe to line up.
As I politely suggested to the Boeing support engineer, it was going to be difficult enough to temperature control a rather large hangar space, let alone one where the doors would be wide open "Excuse me Mr Boeing, how are you proposing to get rid of the diesel exhaust from the two running mobile cranes . . . so may I suggest Defence will include a gantry crane in the specs of the 2SQN hangar, no Defene does not expect Boeing to pay for it and I am sure my 2SQN aero engineer collegues will let you borrow. Yes I know the Boeing hangar at RAAF Base Amberley has a gantry crane that can do the job but when we get a pelican-strike on the surfboard radar on departure/arrival at Williamtown and make an emergency landing at Williamtown, how do you plan to get the aircraft to Amberley?"
-
I have a better quality one of these but somebody has already loaded this up to youtube already. If you wanted to see how a E-7A Wedgetail is built:
https://youtu.be/tpMk9R2vSSM (https://youtu.be/tpMk9R2vSSM)
-
The engines weren't underpowered or unreliable - the Peregrine was just on the chopping block when the Air Ministry put in its engine rationalisation scheme. The Whirlwind was inextricable from the Peregrine so orders/production froze when Rolls Royce focused only on Merlin/Griffon.
(http://members.shaw.ca/letts/ww2.jpg)
And there are moves to build a replica
http://www.whirlwindfighterproject.org/
-
An amazing but flawed plane/boat, the Sea Dart.
-
It looks like midget X-15.
-
Gorgeous plane, absolutely gorgeous. Meant to have Merlins, ended up with underpowered and unreliable Peregrines, IIRC.
No, as DaveMac said, it was designed from the outset around the Peregrine, so when that engine was axed, the Whirlwind was left orphaned. As for what a single-seater with twin Merlins would have been like, check the post-war DeHavilland Sea Hornet
-
As for what a single-seater with twin Merlins would have been like, check the post-war DeHavilland Sea Hornet
A truly fantastic aircraft?
-
A truly fantastic aircraft?
And much larger. Thought exercise though: Imagine if the RAF had gotten on the Mosquito train back in '39 instead of squandering Merlins on stuff like the Fairey Battle or Bolton-Paul Defiant. Heck, instead of even the Lancaster (maybe build it with some of the radials or other engines that the Halifax used).
Fighter Mozzies with the quad pack of 20's would have been murder on the the Luftwaffe bombers during the Battle of Britain, and with speed and endurance none of the other fighters could touch
-
The Merlin was a fantastic engine. The Lancaster was a great heavy bomber because it had 4 Merlins, if the Lancaster had 4 radials from the start then we probably would have just had another Short Stirling or Handley Halifax (which started with 4 Merlins and then later models switched to 4 radials) both of which were relegated to second-line duties by the Lancaster.
-
Well, I can't really explain this...We built it because we could maybe?
The Design doesn't really lend itself to any practical applications IMO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ0ZQesixms
Dav
-
Well, I can't really explain this...We built it because we could maybe?
The Design doesn't really lend itself to any practical applications IMO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ0ZQesixms
Dav
Replace the engine and impeller with a centrifugal-flow turbine and you have every successful first-generation jet fighter.
-
Actually, it's a brilliant idea, which played an impact in the Leviathans backstory.
It's called the Coanda effect. Put a fan in a duct, with little clearance, and you increase efficiency enormously. Normal propellors lose energy via tip vortexes, which spin off taking power with them. More speed, more loss. The duct prevents the vortexes forming > improves efficiency. Any resemblance to turbofan engines is purely actual.
(In some cases, like the backpack hovers, you also get lift from air sucked over the rim. But not so much here.)
Problems with the Caprioni design included insufficient power, inefficient prop design, useful load limits due to the design, drag issues due to the tunnel front, and the fact the pilot couldn't see anything from way up there.
The development of ducted airscrews, and later multi-stage ducted airscrews, was as important for Leviathans as moving to metal construction was for airplanes in the mundane timeline.
W.
-
Well, I can't really explain this...We built it because we could maybe?
The Design doesn't really lend itself to any practical applications IMO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ0ZQesixms
Dav
Oh look a propeller knock-off of the jet engine! ;D
-
Oh look a propeller knock-off of the jet engine! ;D
Noooo, you're talking about this:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GGpAky2aTYA/SvBegCenmpI/AAAAAAAABRM/sSX3kuM3sSA/s400/cc2-10.jpg)
Caprioni N.1 - used an engine to drive compression then burnt fuel in the output.
It's as if they got the idea of the afterburner, but without the compression stage. So close ... given the Italian design elegance which was applied to the inline engines they got hold of from Germany, imagine hom-grown jets starting in the late 1930s ...
-
Noooo, you're talking about this:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GGpAky2aTYA/SvBegCenmpI/AAAAAAAABRM/sSX3kuM3sSA/s400/cc2-10.jpg)
Caprioni N.1 - used an engine to drive compression then burnt fuel in the output.
It's as if they got the idea of the afterburner, but without the compression stage. So close ... given the Italian design elegance which was applied to the inline engines they got hold of from Germany, imagine hom-grown jets starting in the late 1930s ...
People seem to forget about he Italians and there ideas for the jet engine.
-
a Romanian predecessor.. the Coanda 1910 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83-1910)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Coanda-1910_front_quarter_view.jpg)
(http://internationalresinmodellers.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Coanda_1910c.41165932_std.jpg)
(image of a replica)
(https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.OMPlr5mQizfyZamb9nh8Uw&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
used a "turbo-propulsor" aka ducted fan to produce thrust, but never actually flown to anyone's knowledge. the builder (Coanda) later claimed it to be the first jet (even though it did not have combustion in the airstream, just a ducted compressor fan) and to have flown it (though no proof was ever found). these claims came after the first Jets were unveiled in the 1940's, which was probably why he wanted to inflate his own contributions to aviation history.
-
Not a huge F22 fan, but love the picture. Taken yesterday while taking off in Estonia.
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/F-22s-in-Estonia_03-706x456.jpg)
-
A pair of Hawk T-2s doing a close pass at Ayr airshow today.
-
In a hilarious and unexpected move, one of the units in the new RTS Act of Aggression from Eugen (Wargame series) is... an XB-70, dressed in black
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/act-of-aggression/images/4/4d/AoA_Ingame_Valkyrie.png/revision/latest?cb=20150815162252)
-
*snorts* The XB-70 is about as stealthy as a barn. Actually, barns are stealthier, as they get lost in ground scatter.
-
*snorts* The XB-70 is about as stealthy as a barn. Actually, barns are stealthier, as they get lost in ground scatter.
At Mach 3, you can be as stealthy as you like but your infrared signature is probably visible from the horizon
-
*snorts* The XB-70 is about as stealthy as a barn. Actually, barns are stealthier, as they get lost in ground scatter.
So did the XB-70.
(my sense of humor is clearly reserving my seat in hell)
At Mach 3, you can be as stealthy as you like but your infrared signature is probably visible from the horizon
The SR-71 ran surface temperatures of 640F and exhaust temperatures past 3200F; there's nothing 'probably' about it. CATCHING it after you detect it, on the other hand...
On that note, a couple fantastic stories:
http://oppositelock.kinja.com/favorite-sr-71-story-1079127041
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/5511236/the-thrill-of-flying-the-sr-71-blackbird
A picture to make it relevant:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/ifgshxxdihmrnvf8hiyx.jpg)
And my recruitment ad for it:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/r5v2rudq215cpivau1lq.png)
-
So did the XB-70.
(my sense of humor is clearly reserving my seat in hell)The SR-71 ran surface temperatures of 640F and exhaust temperatures past 3200F; there's nothing 'probably' about it. CATCHING it after you detect it, on the other hand...
On that note, a couple fantastic stories:
http://oppositelock.kinja.com/favorite-sr-71-story-1079127041
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/5511236/the-thrill-of-flying-the-sr-71-blackbird
A picture to make it relevant:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/ifgshxxdihmrnvf8hiyx.jpg)
And my recruitment ad for it:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/r5v2rudq215cpivau1lq.png)
Everyone one of those pilots probably joked that the pic added 20 pounds when it was really there suits!
-
At Mach 3, you can be as stealthy as you like but your infrared signature is probably visible from the horizon
No you can't. At Mach 3, you ionize the air around you into such a huge radar reflective bubble, that you can even be detected by non-military gear. But as has been pointed out, doing anything about something moving Mach 3+ is excessively difficult.
-Jackmc
-
No you can't. At Mach 3, you ionize the air around you into such a huge radar reflective bubble, that you can even be detected by non-military gear. But as has been pointed out, doing anything about something moving Mach 3+ is excessively difficult.
-Jackmc
You say that, then they get a weapon that moves at the speed of light
-
Ah, but it's a relatively short ranged weapon mated to a strictly subsonic delivery platform.
-Jackmc
-
And has been cancelled.
-
And has been cancelled.
Ah? They're not going to keep testing it further?
-
Ah? They're not going to keep testing it further?
The YAL-1 has been mothballed. There's some talk about using a super high-altitude UAV mounting a more-advanced laser, but current technology just isn't up to the goals of the program.
-
Ah? They're not going to keep testing it further?
It really wasn't "all that". Besides the unworkably short range, it worked by being able to focus a beam on target for 5 seconds which is an eternity in combat. It's also easily countered by programming in a trivial roll rate into your ballistic missiles and any aircraft with a laser sensor would be able to go evasive and defeat it.
-Jackmc
-
It really wasn't "all that". Besides the unworkably short range, it worked by being able to focus a beam on target for 5 seconds which is an eternity in combat. It's also easily countered by programming in a trivial roll rate into your ballistic missiles and any aircraft with a laser sensor would be able to go evasive and defeat it.
-Jackmc
So they can't keep using the plane testbed to try different designs/equipment?
-
So they can't keep using the plane testbed to try different designs/equipment?
Oh the testbed aircraft is probably still in use.
-
Oh the testbed aircraft is probably still in use.
No. It was mothballed in the Mojave.
-
So they can't keep using the plane testbed to try different designs/equipment?
Hence why it's mothballed while new designs/equipment are thought up and built. Not everyone's a Heterodyne-level spark.
-
No you can't. At Mach 3, you ionize the air around you into such a huge radar reflective bubble, that you can even be detected by non-military gear. But as has been pointed out, doing anything about something moving Mach 3+ is excessively difficult.
-Jackmc
"Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil. For I am at 80,000 Feet and Climbing." - A sign at the entrance to the old SR-71 operating base Kadena, Japan
-
"Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil. For I am at 80,000 Feet and Climbing." - A sign at the entrance to the old SR-71 operating base Kadena, Japan
One of my favorite quotes.
-
No. It was mothballed in the Mojave.
Actually, it's at the Boneyard, not in CA.
-Jackmc
-
AMARG? at Davis-Monthan?
that's in Arizona, not California. (have visited the neighboring Pima Air Museum.. didn't get a chance to take the tour of the boneyard itself. really want to go back there, i saw that the museum gotthe B-36 restored and on display now.. when i went they'd just gotten it and it was parked in their storage area.. even half a mile away that thing was freaking huge..)
-
http://www.unknowableknowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/uncle-sam-has-a-ray-gun-2.jpg (http://www.unknowableknowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/uncle-sam-has-a-ray-gun-2.jpg)
Massive image, 4600x3400. The airframe's still intact, and the turret mounting is still there, but I imagine the laser, the control systems, and all the optics/mirrors/whatever are very, very long gone, and the engine nacelles went with them. It could probably be restored, but without a major modification to that nose it'd be nigh pointless.
Idly, hey look an F-105, far right side leaning way over!
-
The poor plane :(
-
So aside from getting treated for tongue cancer (of all the cancers for a vocalist ???), Bruce Dickinson is apparently busy qualifying to fly the 747-400F for Iron Maiden's upcoming world tour
(https://www.ironmaiden.com/fefiles/images/JET-003B_1000.jpg)
-
Yeah, he's licensed on several big jets already. During the UK pilot strike a couple years back, he scabbed to keep the planes in the air.
-
Yeah, he's licensed on several big jets already. During the UK pilot strike a couple years back, he scabbed to keep the planes in the air.
Yeah, he flew 757s as an actual job with Astraeus. Apparently being a literal rock star doesn't pay the bills like it used to.
-
Or he wanted to fly the big birds. I wonder what his resume looked like?
-
"Did someone say 'big bird'?"
(http://i1.wp.com/sometimes-interesting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/an225-7.jpg)
-
Now that is big!
Actually the use of 'Big Bird' was a light poke at the book Serenade to the Big Bird by Bert Stiles. Its a pretty good book about B-17's.
-
From 'Big Bird' to 'Little Bird'
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/MH-6_Little_Bird.jpg)
-
A little bird, you say?
Bede BD-5J
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/3/8/1949837.jpg)
Sonex JSX-1
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/SonexJSX-1.jpg)
-
(https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-large/2005-4700_640_lg.jpg)
Howard Hughes H-1 Racer. The last privatly built aircraft to hold the speed record. Everything after it was military.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/q29lKCe.jpg)
You could not pay me enough to venture onto that flight deck of spinning death. Still, it's what you're used to ...
-
Hellcats and Dauntlesses. One deadly airgroup!
-
Darn aliens coming to steal our water!
-
A safer but no less crazy flight deck. Not putting the pic up since it ended up kind of huge, but the ship is the 7000-ton escort carrier USS Barnes (CVE-20), the year is 1943, the planes are P-47 Thunderbolts and P-38 Lightnings, and the Japanese aren't going to be happy about those planes getting where they need to go.
I know this normally would go in the Navy thread, but I thought aircraft fans might enjoy seeing how planes like P-38s got where they needed to go when you're dealing with the giant Pacific Ocean in the days before in-flight refueling.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/USS_Barnes_%28CVE-20%29_transporting_P-38s_and_P-47s_1943.jpeg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/USS_Barnes_%28CVE-20%29_transporting_P-38s_and_P-47s_1943.jpeg)
-
How about P40s flying off a carrier.
-
A safer but no less crazy flight deck. Not putting the pic up since it ended up kind of huge, but the ship is the 7000-ton escort carrier USS Barnes (CVE-20), the year is 1943, the planes are P-47 Thunderbolts and P-38 Lightnings, and the Japanese aren't going to be happy about those planes getting where they need to go.
I know this normally would go in the Navy thread, but I thought aircraft fans might enjoy seeing how planes like P-38s got where they needed to go when you're dealing with the giant Pacific Ocean in the days before in-flight refueling.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/USS_Barnes_%28CVE-20%29_transporting_P-38s_and_P-47s_1943.jpeg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/USS_Barnes_%28CVE-20%29_transporting_P-38s_and_P-47s_1943.jpeg)
There's a term and designation for that duty: aircraft ferry.
-
I spent about 3 hours walking around the RAF Museum at Hendon today with these forums' (fora's?) 3CL
Here is a photo of a Spitfire with a Canberra and a Lightning in the background
There are many many more where these came from
Poor quality as iPhone camera and then uploaded to Facebook before re-downloading onto iPad to post here (why do things the easy way?)
-
There's a term and designation for that duty: aircraft ferry.
I'm well aware of that. I'm sharing for those who might not have seen it before.
-
I spent about 3 hours walking around the RAF Museum at Hendon today with these forums' (fora's?) 3CL
Here is a photo of a Spitfire with a Canberra and a Lightning in the background
There are many many more where these came from
I see the lighting hasn't improved from the last time I was there!
Poor quality as iPhone camera and then uploaded to Facebook before re-downloading onto iPad to post here (why do things the easy way?)
-
A safer but no less crazy flight deck. Not putting the pic up since it ended up kind of huge, but the ship is the 7000-ton escort carrier USS Barnes (CVE-20), the year is 1943, the planes are P-47 Thunderbolts and P-38 Lightnings, and the Japanese aren't going to be happy about those planes getting where they need to go.
I know this normally would go in the Navy thread, but I thought aircraft fans might enjoy seeing how planes like P-38s got where they needed to go when you're dealing with the giant Pacific Ocean in the days before in-flight refueling.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/USS_Barnes_%28CVE-20%29_transporting_P-38s_and_P-47s_1943.jpeg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/USS_Barnes_%28CVE-20%29_transporting_P-38s_and_P-47s_1943.jpeg)
"The bad news, men, is that we just got a mission. The good news, well...Lord, there is no good news. Anyways, get to work, and Godspeed. That is all."
-
A safer but no less crazy flight deck. Not putting the pic up since it ended up kind of huge, but the ship is the 7000-ton escort carrier USS Barnes (CVE-20), the year is 1943, the planes are P-47 Thunderbolts and P-38 Lightnings, and the Japanese aren't going to be happy about those planes getting where they need to go.
I know this normally would go in the Navy thread, but I thought aircraft fans might enjoy seeing how planes like P-38s got where they needed to go when you're dealing with the giant Pacific Ocean in the days before in-flight refueling.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/USS_Barnes_%28CVE-20%29_transporting_P-38s_and_P-47s_1943.jpeg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/USS_Barnes_%28CVE-20%29_transporting_P-38s_and_P-47s_1943.jpeg)
Hope they didn't hit rough weather doing so would have made a mess of the deck and the ocean floor
-
I'll just leave these here. BIG pics
http://i.imgur.com/NMEPDqt.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/RObWtNw.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/RfDC23N.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/92xv6Bu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/IChALzh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/mXkH0zO.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/koVYBF0.jpg
-
COOL.
ME Bf-109
Super Hornet F-18F
Super Hornet F-18F
Super Hornet F-18E
Spitfire
Spitfire
Spitfire
COOL!!!
-
http://www.unknowableknowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/uncle-sam-has-a-ray-gun-2.jpg (http://www.unknowableknowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/uncle-sam-has-a-ray-gun-2.jpg)
Massive image, 4600x3400. The airframe's still intact, and the turret mounting is still there, but I imagine the laser, the control systems, and all the optics/mirrors/whatever are very, very long gone, and the engine nacelles went with them. It could probably be restored, but without a major modification to that nose it'd be nigh pointless.
Idly, hey look an F-105, far right side leaning way over!
Unfortunately, it appears the airframe was cut up in September 2014.
-
Unfortunately, it appears the airframe was cut up in September 2014.
Sad end for a idea for a plane.
-
Unfortunately, it appears the airframe was cut up in September 2014.
The sad part is there probably was no real reason to chop it up. Just that someone wanted it gone or they needed the parking space.
-
The sad part is there probably was no real reason to chop it up. Just that someone wanted it gone or they needed the parking space.
I wouldn't be so sure. You don't chop up a pristine 747 for a test bed for a highly experimental system. Instead you find a ragged out air frame (even more so for freighters like a 400F) that has just enough service life cycles or hours to get the job done. It probably wasn't cost effective to rehab back into service it especially given that the USAF only has six other 747, none of which are 400 series like the YAL-1.
-Jackmc
-
Or someone high up wanted to make sure the program stays dead.
-
I was in contact with the folks behind the project for a bit. That 747 was very heavily modified to carry the enormous tanks for the chemical laser, and it would've been more expensive to convert it to other uses than to just recycle it and buy new airframes as needed. It certainly did its job; it proved the viability of the concept, if not the specific weapon itself. It will be revisited once technology advances and more-powerful lasers are possible.
-
the Airforce is already working on a newer version of the concept using solid state lasers. they have plans to put them onto AC-130's.
-
the Airforce is already working on a newer version of the concept using solid state lasers. they have plans to put them onto AC-130's.
Well, if they could make it work, it would be the most accurate weaponry the AC-130s will have carried.
-
Well, if they could make it work, it would be the most accurate weaponry the AC-130s will have carried.
I think the idea is to create the most accurate weaponry period.
*EDIT: One thing I'll say about laser weapons; once they get them small enough - the adage 'dogfighting is dead' that has been repeated continually since the 30s - will finally be true.
-
If you think about it, when you have laser weapons the idea of air power might be dead as well. A good laser based AA System would be death on anything radar could see and death on anything in line of sight as well.
-
If you think about it, when you have laser weapons the idea of air power might be dead as well. A good laser based AA System would be death on anything radar could see and death on anything in line of sight as well.
It has been some time sense I have read it, but that was kind of the premise of David Drakes Hammer Slammers. The tanks were big enough to take the damage for a moment, but anything that flew was shot down as soon as it cleared line of sight. So it was only tanks (150 tons plus if I remember correctly) and infantry. If this came to pass I for one would find it very funny, seeing as how often I have heard it said that air power makes ground units useless.
-
SJ Games' Ogre has the same premise. When your average anti-armor weapon is a gauss-delivered tacnuke, and giant laser towers guard borders, cities, and military installations, flying is lunacy.
-
The smaller a laser gets and the more powerful than that is they way things might go. Even expensive ones set up around high value targets would cripple aviation strikes. The only natural counter would be swarms of stealth drones and expect to lose dozens of them to take out any laser AA Installations.
-
The only natural counter would be swarms of stealth drones and expect to lose dozens of them to take out any laser AA Installations.
I fear a future in which saying 'drone strike' conjures up an image not unlike this:
(http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2013/03/F130305DG05.jpg)
-
The smaller a laser gets and the more powerful than that is they way things might go. Even expensive ones set up around high value targets would cripple aviation strikes. The only natural counter would be swarms of stealth drones and expect to lose dozens of them to take out any laser AA Installations.
Beam attenuation would be an issue at extreme range so I could see sub orbital missiles lobbing stealth glide bombs in to take out the towers
-Jackmc
-
Beam attenuation would be an issue at extreme range so I could see sub orbital missiles lobbing stealth glide bombs in to take out the towers
-Jackmc
Possibly. Gonna all come down to cost and how there deployed. Movable Laser AA vehicles than can be deployed quickly? Towers that are static? Heavily fortified bunkers with heavy duty armor to protect the laser? Even the converted C-130's are an option.
-
NOE - it doesn't matter how fast the laser travels if there's a hill between you. ;)
-
I fear a future in which saying 'drone strike' conjures up an image not unlike this:
(http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2013/03/F130305DG05.jpg)
Reminds me of the Drones from Ender's Game movie.
-
Here's the J-20 from a seldom seen angle.
(http://cdn.defencetalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/J-20-air-to-air-missile-5th-gen-696x377.jpg)
-
Looks kinda Hollywood-y. You sure that's the real plane?
-
Looks kinda Hollywood-y. You sure that's the real plane?
Yep thats a real design. It looks like that.
Wasnt there a design that looked exactly like a F-35 with 2 engines??
-
That would be the J-31.
(https://tiananmenstremendousachievements.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/a-j-31-stealth-fighter-performs-at-the-airshow.jpg)
-
It's not over until the pilot yells 'Winchester'!
-
Here's the J-20 from a seldom seen angle.
(http://cdn.defencetalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/J-20-air-to-air-missile-5th-gen-696x377.jpg)
For an AIM-9, that's downright porn...
-
In case anyone is interested, this coming weekend is the last one the Vulcan will be flying
End of an era in more ways than one
Will be sorry to see the old girl grounded but its the right decision
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/
-
In case anyone is interested, this coming weekend is the last one the Vulcan will be flying
End of an era in more ways than one
Will be sorry to see the old girl grounded but its the right decision
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/
Be really neat the Vulcan would do a tour of the US.
-
Be really neat the Vulcan would do a tour of the US.
Can't argue that a bit. I regard never seeing a Vulcan in flight as being right up there in regrets to being grounded for what ended being Nirvana's last show in Denver (I had tickets, dammit!) and dating my ex. It's THAT high of a regret.
-
Oddly enough, I can't help but wonder if those Vulcan air fresheners in their shop would be just the right size for game use ...
-
Be really neat the Vulcan would do a tour of the US.
Never going to happen I'm afraid
-
Never going to happen I'm afraid
I know that is horrible. Its too bad that more Euro stuff don't make it over for a tour. I wish it would, but I guess the logistics of that is way to hard to figure out and the costs.
Would love to see some Russian equipment, but I guess I got to get over there to see that.
-
TV commentator to Russian Tu-22M pilot at US airshow: "Have you ever flown to the US before?"
Russian pilot: "Many times. In simulator."
-
That reminds me of this classic ATC exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747,
call sign Speedbird 206.
Speedbird 206: " Frankfurt , Speedbird 206 clear of active runway."
Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven."
The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop.
Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?"
Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now."
Ground (with quite arrogant impatience):
"Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?"
Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark, -- and I didn't land."
-
My all time favorite joke...
That reminds me of this classic ATC exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747,
call sign Speedbird 206.
Speedbird 206: " Frankfurt , Speedbird 206 clear of active runway."
Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven."
The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop.
Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?"
Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now."
Ground (with quite arrogant impatience):
"Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?"
Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark, -- and I didn't land."
-
That, and the naval equivalent with the aircraft carrier telling the other sender to change course ;)
-
Yep, definitely one of my favourites, and another one is the:
A Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich overheard the following:
Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance time?"
Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in English."
Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German pilot, flying a German airplane, in Germany. Why
must I speak English?"
Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent): "Because you lost the bloody war."
But my all time favourite is:
An airline pilot hammered his airliner into the runway really hard. The airline had a policy that required the pilot to stand at the door while the passengers exited, give a smile, and a "Thanks for flying XYZ airline." He said that in light of his bad landing, he had a hard time looking the passengers in the eye, thinking that someone would have a smart comment. Finally everyone had gotten off except for this little old lady walking with a cane. As she came to the door she said, "Sonny, mind if I ask you a question?" "Why no" said the pilot, "Ma'am, what is it?" The little old lady said, "Did we land or were we shot down?
-
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/yfpsuybshuwhl9rdvzu9.jpg)
Seems pretty vanilla at a glance, right? Look closer.
That's the only 747 in-flight refueling tanker ever made. Boeing lost the bid to build the new big-boy tanker to McDonnell-Douglas' KC-10 Extender (which of course is the DC-10 framework), and so this prototype became the only one of its kind. And it still flies even today- in Iran's air force.
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150420070356-restricted-04-iran-military-0420-super-169.jpg)
-
Phantom, Fulcrum, and Tomcat? Now they're just rubbing it in! >:(
-
No F-5?
-
No F-5?
Must have been getting washed that day. ;)
But since you asked nicely... Have some Turkish F-5s.
(http://www.bredow-web.de/ILA_2010/Jagdflugzeuge/F-5_Freedom_Fighter/F-5_Freedom_Fighter_Flug.jpg)
-
or a superior version of the MiG-21, the Chengdu JF-7
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Pakistani_Chengdu_J-7.JPG)
-
Man, it looks weird seeing Sidewinders on a MiG.
-
Man, it looks weird seeing Sidewinders on a MiG.
Welcome to the Pakistani Air Force, Chinese versions of Russian built with western electronics and weapons systems.
-
Must have been getting washed that day. ;)
But since you asked nicely... Have some Turkish F-5s.
(http://www.bredow-web.de/ILA_2010/Jagdflugzeuge/F-5_Freedom_Fighter/F-5_Freedom_Fighter_Flug.jpg)
I have always like the look of the F-5.
-
Must have been getting washed that day. ;)
But since you asked nicely... Have some Turkish F-5s.
Maybe the F-5 was taking the pic
-
Maybe the F-5 was taking the pic
Needs a bigger selfie stick... ;)
-
you wanted an Iranian F-5?
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Saeqeh.jpg)
well technically that is their new "no seriously guy's we invented it from scratch all on our own, original design, do not steal" Saeqeh. but IMO adding twin tails to an F-5 does not a new fighter make..
-
Needs a bigger selfie stick... ;)
"What, you thought this was a refueling probe? Sucker."
(http://www.aircraftinformation.info/Images/A-6_01.jpg)
-
IMO adding twin tails to an F-5 does not a new fighter make..
No, but some cheap fiberglass, a fish finder, handheld GPS, and a Thrustmaster do!
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Q-313-cockpit.jpg)
-
nah, that was their totally fake "stealth plane", the Qaher-313.
(http://cdni.wired.co.uk/1920x1280/o_r/q133.jpg)
-
The main wings...look so awkward.
-
The main wings...look so awkward.
Looks kinda like a chicken or turkey prior to cooking
-
nah, that was their totally fake "stealth plane", the Qaher-313.
(http://cdni.wired.co.uk/1920x1280/o_r/q133.jpg)
That damn thing makes me so angry, along with their phony new MBTs. Just...****** it, Iran.
-
Does it work?
-
Does it work?
It's totally fake.
-
it works in the sense that it caused the media spend a bunch of time talking about how advanced iran has to be to build a stealth plane. it's utterly fake though. i seriosuly hope they don;t try to actually fly something based on it, it would be suicide for any pilot at the stick..
-
Take a look at that cockpit, and notice the white interior walls of the CAST FIBERGLASS BODY. It's not even a good mockup, and there's no engine or anything else in it.
-
And there are even better pictures with people nearby and you realize there is no way for a human pilot to fit into cockpit.
-
The Iranian government released a photo of it supposedly on a test flight. The picture was an obvious fake, depicting the mock-up shopped onto a picture of the first mountain they found in Google image search.
-
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/8/3/2716386.jpg)
Full size (http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/8/3/2716386.jpg)
-
F-11/F11F Tiger. A tidy little plane like a substantially less lumpy Etendard, and used by the Blue Angels. Career was cut short by the introduction of the substantially higher performance F-8/F8U Crusader just a year later
(http://home.planet.nl/~hout0323/images/Webpages/NYC06/Day1/00027_Intrepid_Grumman-F11-Tiger.jpg)
-
It's now playing in your head.
-
Well played sir
-
It's now playing in your head.
Snaaaaaaaaake...
-
Snaaaaaaaaake...
Fine. FINE. I'll continue the lyric.
(http://www.airplanegeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/F-16-by-Paul-Filmer_400.jpg)
(http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/picturesaa/fe1.jpg)
(http://www.airplanegeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/F-16-by-Paul-Filmer_400.jpg)
It's now playing in your head.
Also, can I throw that on Facebook? I want to see how many friends (not from this thread) get it.
-
Also, can I throw that on Facebook? I want to see how many friends (not from this thread) get it.
Be my guest, I just stuck a few screenshots of google search results together.
Meanwhile, from the Not So Flawed prototype table, there's the F-111B. Yeah, people talk a lot about the weight, but some of the things I've read actually show it wasn't nearly so bad. The F-14, for example, couldn't land with a full load of Phoenixes, but the -111B could - and could do it with 5,000 pounds more fuel than the minimum landing recommendation, giving you plenty for a go-around. It also had twice the range of the -14 with the monster fuel tanks, which may not be quite so big a thing with IFR but it means you can stand your carrier off further and in less danger and still not need to refuel jets. Plus that monster fricking ordnance load...
(http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/attachments/forum31/53161d1252664272-f-111_01.jpg)
I'm pretty sure those are all Mk. 82 practice bombs, or something like it, but the idea of 24,000 pounds of droppable ordnance with a full fuel load is delicious. Makes me wonder what a Sea Vark could have done with AIM-120s...on that note, the F-111B and its glorious Crusader face.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/General_Dynamics_F-111B_on_the_ground_c1968.jpg)
Meanwhile, here's a weird one, a Boneyarded -111B with a weird nose variation.
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/2/8/2/1600282.jpg)
I'm guessing this was for radar and avionics improvements, or was there ever anything about the flight performance that required it?
-
I loved the Pig (as we affectionately called the F-111C/G that we had the RAAF). Costs us years in extra development and testing but that is what you get when you "Australianise" a design by asking for the F-111B strengthened undercarriage be mated to the F-111A plus new longer wings for hot weather operations and modified air intake design.
Nothing like being able to put a LGB through a Head of Government's office window to get your message through >:D
-
Well, that's actually somewhat in the direction I'm looking, Feenix. Use an F-111B because I like the nose design better, only give it a landing-camera (that naturally goes to the RIO's screen) and in the same pocket stick a super-zoom-cam like they ended up doing with the F-14, for BVR visual IDs. Then just load the damn thing up like a missile truck - that first FB-111 pic I posted, replace each bomb pylon with, oh, a pair of AIM-7 or AIM-120s. Sixteen missile on the bloody thing, for laughs. Or else offer prayers to Itano himself with AIM-9s...
Anyway, my setting - I've got a decent sized airforce for a book I'm writing, but I wanted to have it shifting around somewhat. My thought was all through the 1960s to "modern day" (1974) they've been using a lot of smaller jets, namely the F-5 and G.91 in dedicated air and ground combat roles. The government wants something like an F-4, the do-it-all jet, but goes big with development. "Monday it's an interceptor, Tuesday it's a fighter, Wednesday it's an attack plane, Thursday it's a long-range bomber, Friday it's a victory formation" sort of mindset. Having a nice big plane also means you can do the jobs and carry the weapons of a whole squadron in just one aircraft...or so people think.
What say you guys, believable or no? And would the -111 handle it, at least theoretically? I did say 'fighter' but this was not long after the era of 'missiles will make guns and planes obsolete' so there'd still be that potential justification. And well...did anyone else develop a multirole plane that big and beefy, anyway? I can't think of anything suitably large and proud from the Soviets.
Meanwhile, have a Whif version I found!
-
Nice idea, I like where you are going with it O0
It would go the same way as the F-4 and the F-14 in that it would be the king of the BVR but a terrible dogfighter (although there is a couple of stories about a RAAF F-111s scoring air-to-air kills at EX Red Flag on unsuspecting fighter jocks who thought they had pounced on easy prey :o )
So effectively you need a "Top Gun" program to give your F-111 crews superior dog-fighting skills so that they can try to out-dogfight more agile and smaller dogfighters.
From my discussion with real fighter pilots - discretion is the better part of valour in those situations, so if you are in an non-advantageous position entering an engagement, you manoeuver so that the opponent cannot get a firing solution, light the burners, "extend" and end the engagement to fight another day.
The advantage of an air interdictor version of the F-111 is as you say the ability to load up with an insane amount of BVR missiles such as the AIM-54 Phoenix or the newer but shorter ranged AIM-120 AMRAAM and do your best Robotech Veritech missile spam impersonation before the engagement gets to dogfighting range. So you would load up on as many AIM-54/AIM-120/AIM-7 as you can get onto a pylon, probably carry a couple of AIM-9s for self-defence. The F-111C did have a M61 GAU-4 20mm rotary cannon pod that could be mounted in the bomb-bay (designed for straffing but there is at least one gun-kill on an F-16 at EX Red Flag that was attributed to an F-111), so I guess that could be your self-defence weapon as well or if you could mount a couple more AIM-120/AIM-7 in the bomb-bay that might be a better use of the space.
-
That f111 looks like a f15 in a way.
-
The issue with the F-111B, aside from using the weakass TF-30s like the F-14A was that IIRC, it might actually be too long to fit the hangar elevators.
-
Concept art of planes that never make it to metal (and thus, subject to the laws of physics) are always fun.
An early FS-X concept:
(http://www.geocities.co.jp/Playtown-Knight/9679/JASDF/FS-X.jpg)
3-view drawing of the Republic F-15 proposal (I think I posted some of it earlier
(http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls7b050rHU1r21kweo1_400.gif)
A North American proposal (NA-237) for a fighter-bomber study
(http://i.imgur.com/gGs7Ml5.jpg)
On the F-111B I'm not sure how they got A-3 Skywarriors or RA-5 Vigilantes below decks, both being far longer than the F-111B but they might just have folded up differently (or maybe just kept them on deck?)
Speaking of big ass fighters, you could just take the A-5 airframe and give it a radome and more pylons to cross it with a strike fighter like the F-4.
(http://www.boeingimages.com/Docs/BOE/Media/TR3_WATERMARKED/7/4/4/a/BI29866.jpg)
(http://img10.hostingpics.net/pics/47775RA_5C_Vigilante_0023.jpg)
To get something like what this modeler has done:
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/images/Vigi2000_01.jpg)
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/images/Vigi2000_05.jpg)
-
The issue with the F-111B, aside from using the weakass TF-30s like the F-14A was that IIRC, it might actually be too long to fit the hangar elevators.
Well, start with the TF-30s but let them mature into the F110 monsters that the later Tomcats ran. That'd turn the -111B into a beast, especially since it's still got over twice the fuel of a Tomcat. That would give the -111B fantastic range with an interceptor's load, or a very long patrol and loiter time for fighters/attack planes. Sure, it's not an A-10, but dear god can you imagine the unholy number of rocket pods and bombs you could mount on that thing as a strike-CAS role?
Speaking of big ass fighters, you could just take the A-5 airframe and give it a radome and more pylons to cross it with a strike fighter like the F-4.
You know, having the F/A-5 be developed by a foreign power, and the F-111B (or whatever) becoming my nation's counter to it - that would REALLY drive the shift away from the F-5/G.91 duo they run. "We need a high performance, high power aircraft to counter the threat" for example. And while I dig that fixed-wing Aardvark, the wings-spread look is just too beautiful to me to pass up.
An early FS-X concept:
(http://www.geocities.co.jp/Playtown-Knight/9679/JASDF/FS-X.jpg)
3-view drawing of the Republic F-15 proposal (I think I posted some of it earlier
(http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls7b050rHU1r21kweo1_400.gif)
This is a family friendly forum, how dare you post something that indescribably sexy!
-
Ive always liked the F-108 design. Its like a fighter sized XB-70.
-
You know, if I was to ever do my own science-fiction wargame, I'd just take all this concept art - which, as it was produced for the US government, is public domain - and would just change the names and file off the serial numbers.
-
You know, if I was to ever do my own science-fiction wargame, I'd just take all this concept art - which, as it was produced for the US government, is public domain - and would just change the names and file off the serial numbers.
That's what I'm doing with a novel, mwahaha. And noone can directly accuse me, because the descriptions are vague enough!
-
Ive always liked the F-108 design. Its like a fighter sized XB-70.
The -108 I think had a spiritual successor, one of my alltime favorites, the F-16XL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-16XL_loaded_with_500lb_bombs.jpg
It's got that same "cranked arrow" double delta going on.
It's always been a shame that the -15E won the little flyoff almost entirely due to MacDonnel greasing more palms and the "rawr two engines safer" nonsense... particularly when the -15E remains inferior even to F-4's at dropping dummies, is near useless trying to hit anything with ******, and has such a bad reputation in the CAS role that ground forces in Afghanistan calling for help upon hearing Strike Eagles were coming to the rescue would call back "Never mind, we got this."
The XL took the already stunning strike and bombing platform of the -16, increased the lift, took it to supercruise capability (to the point transonic drag effects were easily dismissed)... to the point it's motto was "Twice the payload, twice as far, on half the fuel".
Though its supercruise is what kept those two prototypes flying for so long; below angles 40 it was faster than a blackbird which is why it was used as a chase plane for same. (naturally above that altitude, it's the -71's game). It's part of why you can find so many NASA pictures of the -16XL and the -71 flying together.
... and its homies agree, it really looks good in black, fool!
http://www.f-16.net/g3/var/resizes/f-16-photos/album11/album01/aaj.jpg
Airframe #2 even became a test platform for testing transonic and hypersonic wing patterns. Some of the shapes they tested for the HSR project using "gloves" that fit over the leading edge were truly bizzare. The fly by wire system being so good that you could mismatch the left and right wing profiles and it would still fly straight.
It was bigger, lighter, higher lift, more agile, smoother riding through the transonic, supercruise without diving to get there, drip-drop...
-
Concept art of planes that never make it to metal (and thus, subject to the laws of physics) are always fun.
I just picked up Buttler & Gordon's two tome epics: Soviet Secret Projects - Bombers since 1945, and Fighters since 1945. O. M. F. G., what-if modeller's heaven. If only for the Mig-21 derivatives, and the path leading to the Mig-25, these were worth the price, even in not the best condition (if a used book is described as "slightly foxed", these two got badgered.)
Will try and get some scans tomorrow.
And for Chanman, you are aware of the NR-349?
(http://www.hyperscale.com/images/N.A.-349%20024.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/RockwellNAANR-349IMI02_zpsc93dea75.jpg)
Three, count'em three GE-79s and six Phoenixes.
-
Yup, see what I mean about the laws of physics? Judging by all the other J79-using designs, adding a F-107 style pilot-eater intake over the top of the fuselage might not be out of order, not just to provide air to the middle J79, but also enough cooling to keep it from melting out the bottom of the aircraft
-
I just picked up Buttler & Gordon's two tome epics: Soviet Secret Projects - Bombers since 1945, and Fighters since 1945. O. M. F. G., what-if modeller's heaven. If only for the Mig-21 derivatives, and the path leading to the Mig-25, these were worth the price, even in not the best condition (if a used book is described as "slightly foxed", these two got badgered.)
Will try and get some scans tomorrow.
I will owe you a slab. That's story gold for me.
-
Hornet Ball 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6xcamVTE3Y
Still trying to figure out whats going on at 6:35, its a fire test of some sort though...
Dav
-
Hornet Ball 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6xcamVTE3Y
Still trying to figure out whats going on at 6:35, its a fire test of some sort though...
Dav
Looked like a DDG firing a standard missile. Interesting airspace coordination by Red or Green Crown, whichever it is, for a photo op.
-
Looked like a DDG firing a standard missile. Interesting airspace coordination by Red or Green Crown, whichever it is, for a photo op.
I think there's been a few times where the Hornets fly chase for Harpoon test firings.
-
(http://www.airforceworld.com/bomber/gfx/b1/b10e.jpg)
B1...I think. And I think its foam or maybe ice.
-
Sub zero ice testing.
(http://www.airforceworld.com/bomber/gfx/b1/b10e.jpg)
B1...I think. And I think its foam or maybe ice.
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/18/article-0-132850E6000005DC-69_634x467.jpg)
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/uh60.jpg)
Very low-level cloud is always a hazard in a hangar ;)
When I see pictures like these, I always feel sorry for the poor avtechs who have to clean the AFFF out of every nook and cranny of the aircraft when the foam fire suppression system is accidentally tripped. :'(
-
I think there's been a few times where the Hornets fly chase for Harpoon test firings.
Or Tomahawk, good point though.
-
Here, have some fanciful ATF RFI and RFP pictures and artists' concepts - most from the awesome yf-23.net (http://www.yf-23.net) page.
Concepts refer to this figure (from 1982):
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/ATF%20SPO%20RFI%20chart.gif)
Lockheed illustration:
(http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/lockheed-atf-art.jpg)
One of the actual Lockheed submissions (CL-2016, sometimes mistakenly reported as the CL-1980) looking a lot like an evolution of the Blackbird family (and probably about as maneuverable as a brick). YF-23 notes that as a purely theoretical study, it looks like the Lockheed designers just went and had some fun with the Blackbird. Estimates were 115 ft long and 113,000 pounds for Concept 12 and 116,000 for Concept 19
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Lockheed/CL-2016.jpg)
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Lockheed/Lockheed%20CL-2016%20ATF%20Concept%2012%20b&w%20623.jpg)
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Lockheed/Lockheed%20CL-2016%20ATF%20Concept%2012%20623.jpg)
The Raubvogel conventional fighter from HB:HS seems to draw inspiration from these two concepts:
(http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/a/a1/Roubvogel.jpg)
The same design concepts show up again in various SST proposals
Dassault supersonic business jet:
(https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=61297)
Lockheed again with a SST mockup. Caption dates it to June 27, 1966 from the LA Times archive
(https://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/fa_1112_lockheedsst600.jpg)
Boeing 2707 fixed-wing concept
(http://www.airfields-freeman.com/FL/Boeing_2707.JPG)
Some later proposals from 1986. You can see what became the F-22 taking shape, but also how much the initial designs resemble fictional aircraft like the MiG-37 invented by model-makers Italieri and Testors
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Lockheed/Lockheed%20ATF%20evolution.jpg)
MiG-37 'Ferret'
(http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/170412_Mig-37_01.jpg)
For those who like to swing... Lockheed concepts for the NATF (Navy F-14 replacement) program.
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Lockheed/NATF%20AFX%20comparison.jpg)
-
Next, let's talk about Northrop... being Northrop. First, their fixation on light, tiny fighters. The heaviest of their 3 RFI concepts is just a touch over 16 tonnes. Also, for those wanting to base sci-fi fighters off RL fictional fighters from the past, one of the concepts looks a lot like the Guardian conventional fighter (and even more like the Bullet Suicide Drone offshoot), while another looks more than a bit like the Sabre ASF.
Concept 1, the most radical and a proposal for making fighters cheaper again. One of the ideas was to use folding-fin missiles stored internally to reduce drag and space (much like some 50's interceptors.
Northrop's internal designation appears to be P-900
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Northrop/Northrop%20P-900%20Advanced%20Fighter%20Concept%20623.jpg)
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Northrop/Northrop%20P-900%20Artists%20Impression%20623.jpg)
Plan and side drawing
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Northrop/P-900%202%20view%20623.png)
Schematic
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Northrop/Northrop%20P-900%20Future%20Compact%20Fighter%20drawing%2002%20623.png)
It was supposed to be an omni-fighter of a sort with the weapons mounted in modular packages, including as can be seen here, guns in certain configurations
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Northrop/Concept%201%20weapons%20623.jpg)
CBT's Guardian for comparison (the artwork of the Bullet from TRO:Prototypes is even closer):
(http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/3/3d/Guardian_fighter.gif)
The second concept...looks more than a little like the Boeing Jump Bomber or Medium Strike Fighter (AKA: Defender/Steinadler/Kaiseradler/Crane/Defender II/Drake)
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Northrop/Concept%201%20lightning.jpg)
As compared to...
Medium Strike Fighter:
(http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/8/87/MediumStrikeFighter.jpg)
Boeing Jump Bomber
(http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/1/14/Boeing_Jump_Bomber.jpg/800px-Boeing_Jump_Bomber.jpg)
The third concept definitely shows a lot of ideas that re-emerge in the YF-23:
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/Patents/Northrop%20Patent%20294478.gif)
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/ATF/Northrop/Northrop%20ATF%201982%20RFI%20Concept%203%20drawing%20623.jpg)
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/Patents/Northrop%20Patent%20294478%20b.gif)
... and the Sabre ASF
(http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/3/3e/Sabre-31d.png/759px-Sabre-31d.png)
(http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/6/66/Sabre.gif/800px-Sabre.gif.png)
-
Some of the Northrop ideas look like they go back to the N-102, a joint proposal with Dornier for a German requirement in the 70's (probably for a replacement for their F-104s).
Some notable bits: the proposal showed up in 1982, so about the same time as the ATF RFIs. The design was about the weight of a Gripen, but dropped canards or a horizontal tail for thrust-vectoring.
Now the very weird part: twin non-afterburning turbofans, although it was expected to be able to reach Mach 2. In many ways, the YF-23 was kickstarted by a cancelled $20 million USD German study
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/DNA/ND-102/ND-102.jpg)
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/DNA/ND-102/ND-102%20model%201.jpg)
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/DNA/ND-102/ND-102%201982.jpg)
(http://yf-23.net/Pics/DNA/ND-102/ND-102%203%20view%20623.gif)
Oh hey, some more preliminary FS-X drawings from Japan
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/19a13wnq41jzxjpg.jpg)
(http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii43/Vifam7/FS-X_1_zps50b1ea3e.jpg)
-
So why did everyone seemingly walk away from vertically vectored thrust? Was it the lack of afterburning?
-
So why did everyone seemingly walk away from vertically vectored thrust? Was it the lack of afterburning?
Horribly fuel inefficient vice AB, AFAIK. The point of the USMC AV-8 concept was to be taking 9-line briefs on the ground vice in the CAS stack. In the case of the former STOVL makes sense.
-
was to be taking 9-line briefs on the ground vice in the CAS stack.
Some day this may be translated into English ... ???
W :)
-
Some day this may be translated into English ... ???
W :)
Makes sense to me :P
Essentially, the Harriers get briefed on the ground and go off to perform a mission rather than loitering in a "stack" waiting to be called upon to conduct a mission
Because they can forward deploy, they can do this more easily than a lot of other fixed wing aircraft
-
Aha. Context added, makes sense.
:worktroll:
-
A "nine liner" is a briefing format
-
Yup, Dan has the right of it. Never really manifested itself that way to support maneuver fight though.
-
Some day this may be translated into English ... ???
W :)
Nine liner is the medavac request.
Horribly fuel inefficient vice AB, AFAIK. The point of the USMC AV-8 concept was to be taking 9-line briefs on the ground vice in the CAS stack. In the case of the former STOVL makes sense.
So not sure how it applies to the Harrier.
-
So why did everyone seemingly walk away from vertically vectored thrust? Was it the lack of afterburning?
Are we talking about vectored thrust for VSTOL like the Harrier family or 2-dimensional vectored thrust nozzles like on the F-22 and the tailless/canard-less Northrop concepts?
-
(http://timadamsphotography.com/3389%20B-25%20Nose%20art.jpg)
When you absolutely, positively need to fill something full of .50-sized holes, send in a solid-nose B-25.
-
That's in the CAF?
-
The latter. Despite being seen in virtually all illustrations of the 90s, it's not at all common in practice.
And it's worth noting the F-16 is 41 years old. And the BUFF makes it look like a young'un. Imagine entering WW2 with Wright Flyers ...
-
Low hanging aerodynamic fruit etc etc. It makes more sense to have B-52s and F-16s still flying now than back then when NACA was still coming up with crazy new wing planforms and cambers every minute.
-
Plus F-16's and B-52's are just so effective at the jobs they do.
-
(http://timadamsphotography.com/3389%20B-25%20Nose%20art.jpg)
When you absolutely, positively need to fill something full of .50-sized holes, send in a solid-nose B-25.
Don't forget the twin strap on packs on the side. Also turn that top turret forward and there you go 14 .50cals.
-
Don't forget the twin strap on packs on the side. Also turn that top turret forward and there you go 14 .50cals.
And for that little extra swap some .50 cals for a 75mm
-
Wasn't the 75 in addition to the MGs? (carried instead of bombs?)
-
they had to remove some and re-arrange the MG's to fit it in.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c340/davemarkowitz/B-25/b25-cannon.jpg)
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Prescott2006/Highlights/Barbie3TakingOff.jpg)
-
Wasn't the 75 in addition to the MGs? (carried instead of bombs?)
From a quote off of Wikipedia. "bring to bear 10 machine guns coming and four going, in addition to the 75 mm cannon, eight rockets and 3,000 lb (1,360 kg) of bombs."
I remember when they fired the gun, the recoil made the B25 feel like it stopped in flight. A good strafing run 3-4 shots could be fired at a target in a pass. Nice amount of fire power for a plane.
The A-26 was know for its 50's on the nose, don't remember if they put something larger on it.
-
That 75 must have been all kinds of fun to light off...
-
That 75 must have been all kinds of fun to light off...
A whooooole lot of upset Japanese transport ships and patrol craft during the south Pacific/Philippines campaigns at the hands of that boomstick. A three-inch shell might not do much more than piss off a cruiser, but a troopship?
Well, it looks a heck of a lot like this.
(http://www.ww2shots.com/gallery/d/17719-3/Wewak_+New+Guinea+in+September+1943-ww2shots-navy.jpg)
(B-25s attack ships in New Guinea, Sept. 1943)
-
Then there's the Henschel Hs 129 B3 with an autoloaded high velocity 75 mm. The most powerful forward facing gun ever mounted on an aircraft until the A-10's GAU 8.
(http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/all_images/weapons/Hs129b3.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Hs_129B-3.jpg)
(http://finnegan2749.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/1-hs129-5.jpg)
-
Nine liner is the medavac request.
So not sure how it applies to the Harrier.
Because the 9 Line brief is the Close Air Support Brief, per JP 3-09.3, and its been that way since I came in the Marine Corps 20 years ago. That's the brief to which I was referring. It is likely been adopted for use as the MEDEVAC because of the format's simplicity; I seem to recall someone mentioning at my first CAX in '96 that having all air support request built as 9 Line formats would be helpful.
-
The most powerful forward facing gun ever mounted on an aircraft until the A-10's GAU 8.
Only because this didn't fly...
(http://www.zvlastnezbrane.estranky.sk/img/original/745/gerat-104.jpg)
The simplest of all recoilless designs - it fired a 35cm (16") shell forward, and a 35cm counterweight backwards. Unfortunately, blast effects experienced in ground trials ...
(http://www.zvlastnezbrane.estranky.sk/img/original/757/gerat-104-5.jpg)
meant it never flew.
-
of course gun support from a prop plan contiunes to this day
-
Because the 9 Line brief is the Close Air Support Brief, per JP 3-09.3, and its been that way since I came in the Marine Corps 20 years ago. That's the brief to which I was referring. It is likely been adopted for use as the MEDEVAC because of the format's simplicity; I seem to recall someone mentioning at my first CAX in '96 that having all air support request built as 9 Line formats would be helpful.
I know that the MEDEVAC has used the nine-line at least as far back as Vietnam, not sure when they started using nine liners for the MEDEVAC request but the Army has been doing MEDEVAC (or Dust off) as far back as 1962 in more or less the current way. My guess it that the close air support took it from there. I did not know that close air support was using it, I was trained (early 90's) that the only nine line was the MEDEVAC request (looks like my instructors were wrong) so that it could not be confused with anything else.
-
P-39
37mm auto-cannon x1, .50 caliber HMG x2, .30-06 caliber MG x4
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Bell_P-39_Airacobra_in_flight_firing_all_weapons_at_night.jpg)
the Russians loved it for busting tanks.
-
Well if we are going to talk WW2 Flying Can Openers:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d0/82/67/d08267467582c71da99e875168b22904.jpg)
Hawker Hurricane IID with two wing pod mounted 40 mm Vickers S guns
-
That Hurricane with the 2 x 40mm is better then the Stuka with the 37mm.
-
That Hurricane with the 2 x 40mm is better then the Stuka with the 37mm.
A whole mess of ruined T-34s and other vehicles would like a word with you about that claim.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/ruse/images/a/a0/A_ju87g1de.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110420145339)
-
A whole mess of ruined T-34s and other vehicles would like a word with you about that claim.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/ruse/images/a/a0/A_ju87g1de.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110420145339)
Good thing they didnt learn how to put more ammo in those 37s
-
Good thing they didnt learn how to put more ammo in those 37s
As underpowered as the Stuka was to begin with, they really were pushing the limits of the aircraft by carrying them as they did. More ammo was NOT a solution... more Stukas was a better bet. ;D
-
As underpowered as the Stuka was to begin with, they really were pushing the limits of the aircraft by carrying them as they did. More ammo was NOT a solution... more Stukas was a better bet. ;D
I kinda miss not having a BT fighter called the Sturmovik to contrast with the Stuka.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2
-
P-39
37mm auto-cannon x1, .50 caliber HMG x2, .30-06 caliber MG x4
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Bell_P-39_Airacobra_in_flight_firing_all_weapons_at_night.jpg)
the Russians loved it for busting tanks.
Nope, they used it as a fighter. The misconception of being used as tank buster comes from poorly translated Russian articles. Like all fighters they were used to pound ground targets when air opposition was found lacking, but Soviets never used them as dedicated CAS platform, they had plenty of Il-2 and Pe-2 for that.
-
http://www.peashooter85.com/post/91500493621/ppsh-41-addendum-the-fire-hedgehog-last-night
Hey Alexi, hold m'vodka and watch this.
-
I see nothing wrong with this plan. I'm also quite drunk and suffering from traumatic brain injury.
-
And it's official: Northrop Grumman has won the contract to build next US bomber. Which means the Boeing-Lockheed team should be submitting their lawsuit to protest the decision soon. ::)
I can't wait to see what the B-3 looks like. Probably a lot like this:
(http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/04/Northrop-Grumman-Long-Range-Strike-Bomber-concept-LRSB.jpg)
-
Surprised, Nothrup back in the day didn't exactly cover themselves in glory with the B-2's.
-
Surprised, Nothrup back in the day didn't exactly cover themselves in glory with the B-2's.
No, but they did make it in the first place, which gives them a leg up on Boeing having to start from the ground up. (It's been a long time since their last strategic bomber going into service, you'll agree. ;) )
-
Given the pace of modern US aircraft development, the B-3 should be ready just in time for James McKenna to declare the formation of the Terran Alliance. ::)
-
With all these guided munitions, powered and unpowered, you wouldn't need to be *super* stealthy with the stand off ability of those. That might give a little leeway in the design specifications.
-
Well, without the contract, what does Northrop-Grumman have for current military production? LockMart's got the F-35 deal and the F-22 as well, so either NorG gets a contract or it risks losing the defense business. Same problem the Navy has with shipbuilders, there's just too few manufacturers, and picking one over the other has to take 'keeping them alive' into consideration.
The big question is going to be infrared stealth; with the surge in IRST technology keeping yourself as cool as possible (namely your engine exhaust) is going to be key. I'm wondering if Northrop is going to port over the F-23's engine systems - look at those exhaust troughs and compare them to the Black Widow II's. It looks like they're paying even more attention to the heat-tile system than on the B-2...and I'm wondering what kind of cold bypass air system they're going to have to blend into the exhaust.
-
No, but they did make it in the first place, which gives them a leg up on Boeing having to start from the ground up. (It's been a long time since their last strategic bomber going into service, you'll agree. ;) )
Your right. It gives them a tiny leg up.
-
The design looks like a B2, so save some money on the design. Maybe the design should come off a Russian design like the F35
-
No, but they did make it in the first place, which gives them a leg up on Boeing having to start from the ground up.
Not exactly, Boeing acquired the company who had the airframe that lost the big to the B2.
-Jackmc
-
actually, given that the emphasis in what little has leaked seems to have been on a smaller aircraft than the B-2, maybe their design will use YF-23 elements?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg)
i could see an YF-23 like planform, given the Su-34 treatment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34) with a two person cockpit and some tweaks on the design and size to provide longer range and ordnance carriage.
Northrop had been proposing something like that a few years back actually.
(artists conception based on the scant details that got released)
(http://paralay.com/lrsa/507.jpg)
(http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/futurebombers1.files/FB-23-4.jpg)
-
Not exactly, Boeing acquired the company who had the airframe that lost the big to the B2.
-Jackmc
Now now, if you're going to quote my post to make me sound ignorant, quote the whole thing. Editing out the part where I point out that they haven't had a bomber GO INTO SERVICE in a long time so you can make the above point is dirty pool. #P
-
actually, given that the emphasis in what little has leaked seems to have been on a smaller aircraft than the B-2, maybe their design will use YF-23 elements?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg)
i could see an YF-23 like planform, given the Su-34 treatment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34) with a two person cockpit and some tweaks on the design and size to provide longer range and ordnance carriage.
Northrop had been proposing something like that a few years back actually.
(artists conception based on the scant details that got released)
(http://paralay.com/lrsa/507.jpg)
(http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/futurebombers1.files/FB-23-4.jpg)
I'm sorry, thats awesome.
-
actually, given that the emphasis in what little has leaked seems to have been on a smaller aircraft than the B-2, maybe their design will use YF-23 elements?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg)
i could see an YF-23 like planform, given the Su-34 treatment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34) with a two person cockpit and some tweaks on the design and size to provide longer range and ordnance carriage.
Northrop had been proposing something like that a few years back actually.
(artists conception based on the scant details that got released)
(http://paralay.com/lrsa/507.jpg)
(http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/futurebombers1.files/FB-23-4.jpg)
What was the YF-23 performance like compared to F-22? I know that it outperformed Raptor in several key areas. To get a feel for what a bomber with her elements might perform.
-
northrop kept the full specs pretty quiet, but from what was released..
YF-23 was faster in a straight line and more stable in flight, and had slightly better super cruise.
it was also a lot stealthier.
with the EMD Phase proposal near the end of the program, it would have had more weapons carriage too (the YF-23 prototypes built didn't have much storage space because weapons tests were not part of the program at that initial fly off stage.)
-
Given the pace of modern US aircraft development, the B-3 should be ready just in time for James McKenna to declare the formation of the Terran Alliance. ::)
So I'm guessing they've already got the name 'Torrent' picked out?
(http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/3/3d/Torrent.jpg)
-
Now now, if you're going to quote my post to make me sound ignorant, quote the whole thing. Editing out the part where I point out that they haven't had a bomber GO INTO SERVICE in a long time so you can make the above point is dirty pool. #P
Apologies if you took it that way. I was only pointing out that they did have some experience since the BUFF.
As for GBoy's thoughts: I'm willing to bet that the losing bid actually looked a lot like a beefier Y-23. That's essentially what Lockheed proposed when they lost the bid for the B-2. Essentially something between a tactical and strategic bomber (Operational/Theater Bomber?) that chose reduced cost and high payload over ultra levels of stealth and endurance, but the USAF was willing to accept a higher price tag and lower payload in exchange for cutting edge stealth and longer legs.
-Jackmc
-
No, but they did make it in the first place, which gives them a leg up on Boeing having to start from the ground up. (It's been a long time since their last strategic bomber going into service, you'll agree. ;) )
Very true, but if I was on the Boeing tender response team I would be politely pointing to the fact that the last Boeing built strategic bomber is still in operational service (and is planned to be until 2045), that it has the highest mission capability rate of the current air force strategic bombers and the lowest cost per hour of flight . . . but what would I know . . . ^-^
-
"Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full." (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/low-flying-air-force-globemaster-spooks-brisbane/6911368)
Reminds me of the old joke about the Air Base Commander who receives a phone call from a local concerned resident complaining about the noise of the jet fighters flying near their home. The officer askes the resident whether the aircraft have a white star or a red star on them. The resident says a white star. The officer say that then is the sound of freedom and hangs up . . .
-
That's only half funny. I have a laugh about that kind of thing actually.
For those who don't know me well, I majored in aviation electronics many years ago from a now-bought-out school in Broomfield, CO. The school sat on what was at the time Jefferson County Airport, now Front Range Airport (it's no longer in Jefferson County since some creative re-drawing of the area). The airport has been there under one name or other since just after WWII.
Fine. That was the end of things until the mid-90s, when the Denver-areas expansion finally reached out into the Broomfield area and resulted in large expansions in the area, including a number of large tech companies building campuses nearby (Sun Microsystems in particular had a huge one). That prompted housing for the people who worked there. Uh oh.
You wouldn't believe the number of noise complaints about the airport making too much noise for these people who had just moved to these homes, that hadn't been there a year ago- the airport had (at that point) been there for over half a century! Did you not bother looking at the map before you moved? My favorite was the polite letter demanding that flight hours be limited to the hours between 10 AM (giving people time to be awake and caffeinated before hearing airplanes overhead) and 3 PM (so the little ones don't hear them after coming home from school). Copies of that letter made their way around the school for at least a couple of years afterwards for laughs. Sure, five hours a day, anything else we can do for you?
-
When I left Vegas there was a big stink from one community over the amount of noise coming from Nellis AFB...because they all bought homes under the flight path of the airbase. So naturally the airfield has to go.
-
It goes same for the shooting ranges.
-
That's only half funny. I have a laugh about that kind of thing actually.
For those who don't know me well, I majored in aviation electronics many years ago from a now-bought-out school in Broomfield, CO. The school sat on what was at the time Jefferson County Airport, now Front Range Airport (it's no longer in Jefferson County since some creative re-drawing of the area). The airport has been there under one name or other since just after WWII.
Fine. That was the end of things until the mid-90s, when the Denver-areas expansion finally reached out into the Broomfield area and resulted in large expansions in the area, including a number of large tech companies building campuses nearby (Sun Microsystems in particular had a huge one). That prompted housing for the people who worked there. Uh oh.
You wouldn't believe the number of noise complaints about the airport making too much noise for these people who had just moved to these homes, that hadn't been there a year ago- the airport had (at that point) been there for over half a century! Did you not bother looking at the map before you moved? My favorite was the polite letter demanding that flight hours be limited to the hours between 10 AM (giving people time to be awake and caffeinated before hearing airplanes overhead) and 3 PM (so the little ones don't hear them after coming home from school). Copies of that letter made their way around the school for at least a couple of years afterwards for laughs. Sure, five hours a day, anything else we can do for you?
In my previous life, I was doing aircraft noise modelling for military airbases and the inevitable urban encroachment around them. So I hear you. My favourite bit was trying to help Defence convince the state government planning authorities to put a warning on land title deeds to warn potential buyers that the land was impacted by military aircraft noise.
This was being fought tooth and nail by the local councils (county-level government for the yanks) and the property developers because this would affect the value of the land and their ability to profit from the first-home buyers with stars in their eyes. Common tactic was to sell the land on weekends when the Air Force did not do much flying and then when the first-home buyer moves into their new house they find out the hard way that they are under a flightpath during night flying operations :'(
-
We've had people going to court to limit traffic on a railroad that's been in the same place since ~1880... At least with airports it's not obvious you'll be under the flightpath until something flies by, it's kind of hard to miss train track 20 yards from your house!
-
Not the best quality image, but any opportunity to show the absurd size of the AN-225 Mriya. ;)
(http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/uploads/2014/11/19/1416418049621.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpg)
-
Ah, the airplane with the most "dude, that's photoshopped" comments on the internet.
-
I need to find pics of the one(s) loaned by Airbus to transports their fuselage A320-340-etc... sections from one facility to another. :D
-
Guppy?
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/0/7/1557704.jpg)
-
I need to find pics of the one(s) loaned by Airbus to transports their fuselage A320-340-etc... sections from one facility to another. :D
Actually, Airbus has their own plane for that: the Beluga. They operate at least 5 of them.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Beluga_n3.jpg)
(http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/a_300b4-14a.jpg)
-
Yo dawg, I heard you like Airbuses...
-
*sniff*
The miracle of childbirth...
-
Sorry, it was for Bombardier Aero. doing work for Boeing/Airbus/others. They sometime use an An-225 to get the big stuff to their next destination.
-
*sniff*
The miracle of childbirth...
the Superfortress experimented with live birth, and return to the 'womb':
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7377/10494270225_6ab0ff478e.jpg)
-
Boeing's equivalent to the Beluga (photo taken by Hellbie himself in 2007 at the Boeing plant in Everett, WA)
-
Boeing's equivalent to the Beluga (photo taken by Hellbie himself in 2007 at the Boeing plant in Everett, WA)
Airbus will be making a beluga upgrade to the larger A330 frame. It won't be as large as the 747 Dreamlifter, but bigger then the current A300 Beluga.
-
the Superfortress experimented with live birth, and return to the 'womb':
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7377/10494270225_6ab0ff478e.jpg)
Impressive, but if you really wanted disturbing-aeronautical/reproductive-metaphor-hipster-cred, that'd be a picture of the Akron or Macon.
-
The Russians tried this trick as well... sort of.
(http://i.imgur.com/MUkUgHsl.jpg)
(http://www.ausairpower.net/VVS/Kh-20-Kangaroo-Bear-C-2S.jpg)
Meet the Kh-20, aka AS-3, NATO reporting name 'Kangaroo' To my knowledge, this is still the largest air-deployed missile to ever go into actual service anywhere. Notoriously inaccurate, but as it turns out since it was intended to carry a 3MT nuclear warhead who cares about accuracy? The weapon is 49 feet long- larger than the contemporary MiG-21 fighter!- and used a turbojet engine with a nose-spike intake like the MiG-21.
The weapon was so big that the M-4 'Bison' bomber couldn't be modified to carry it- only heavily-modified Tu-95 'Bear' bombers could do the job (Tu-95K). The weapon was retired in the late 1970s in favor of the AS-4 'Kitchen', still a big weapon but nowhere near this ridiculous.
So... maybe not a 'parasite' fighter, but only because this one is designed not to come back to the mothership...
-
You have to admit, that earlier superfortress photograph just reeks of Fallout aesthetic both in the aerodynamic style of the era and the absurdity of the idea.
-
The Goblin was designed to fit in the B-36 and should of tested it with that plane over a B-29.
-
No-one was going to risk one of their premier nuclear deterrents with something which had good chances of destroying both planes, I imagine.
Plans for the B-36 version included the ability to re-arm & re-fuel Goblins, and send them out for more missions. The "Aluminum Overcast" had more than enough load capacity, but the prospect of splashing avgas around at high altitude doesn't exactly fill me with glee.
At least it was pre-AAM days. Imagine trying to load a Sparrowhawk or Sidewinder while standing on the bomb bay doors ...
Hellbie, great catch there. IIRC, the Kangaroo was basically a MiG-17 chassis with the nuc put where the cockpit systems used to be.
-
Has this one been shown?
(http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/mcdonnell-xp67-moonbat.jpg)
-
Not showing here - blocked by work's internet filter :(
-
Moonbat!
-
Has this one been shown?
(http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/mcdonnell-xp67-moonbat.jpg)
Not that particular shot, but I did post pics of the Bat near the beginning of the first thread.
-
It's a good plane; worth a repeat.
-
You wouldn't believe the number of noise complaints about the airport making too much noise for these people who had just moved to these homes,
They were actually driven by pretty much one person organizing a small handful of her cronies all of which who were very recently pimped slapped with a court order to pay attorney fees to the tune of hundreds of dollars to the skydiving operation that they had been harassing the most.
-Jackmc
-
Orange County is like that. There's a noise ordinance that prevents aircraft from starting their engines before 7am, so all the early bird flights are towed to the runways. Then, if the wind is right and you take off towards the hills, the plane takes off steeper than usual, banks, and then when you least expect it, the engines go from full thrust to about 70 % because the sub division your flying over has a noise restriction as well. Scares the heck out of first time fliers...
That was twenty years ago anyways.
Dav
-
Planes are a lot more quieter then they were 25 years ago. There is still always be noise but so much less. The 777 is quieter then a MD80 on take off, and the 787 is even less.
-
First photo from inside the E-7A Wedgetail AEW&C that I have seen, so I thought I should share:
(http://www.militaryshop.com.au/uploads/product_images/blog_172.jpg)
Here is the nice write up that goes with it (http://www.militaryshop.com.au/blog/read/n/WHEN-THE-SHIT-GOT-REAL-FOR-AUSTRALIAS-WEDGETAIL.html). Nice to see it reaching FOC and making a difference in the sandpit.
-
I saw the two Wedgetails under construction in the USA a few years back. Handsome looking aircraft.
-
737 is a small plane, it looks larger and used correctly on that Wedgetail.
-
737 is a small plane, it looks larger and used correctly on that Wedgetail.
The older 737's were small planes, but the newer 800 and 900's are significantly bigger. When a Wedgetail taxied by a parked 747 freighter at Anchorage, it looked tiny to me, but a Alaska Air 737-900 taxied by a little later on the same taxiway and it was noticeably larger.
-
The Wedgetail is based on the 737-700 series...really the BBJ 1 series. With the extra fuel loads and structure for the increase of the fuel. The P-8 is built off the 737-800 the BBJ 2 version. The largest model is the 737-900 which is close to the size of a KC-135 body length.
-
Affirmative. The Wedgetail is a customised B737-BBJ - B737-700 with 800 wings (no winglets because they were concerned that the winglets might interfere with radar) and undercarriage plus additional fuel tanks in the lower fuselage baggage compartment.
-
This thread lacks ...
(http://i.imgur.com/JhbFKym.jpg)
sufficient retro dakka! Tail guns on a Tu-95.
-
question.. obviously the F-16 never carried the AIM-54 Phoenix because it was never fitted with the avionics to do so.
if avionics was not an issue (due to say a refit, software upgrade, whatever would be involved), could a Falcon physically carry a Phoenix? the various stores charts i've seen suggest that the inner 2 wing hardpoints have the mass capacity for it. just not sure about whether the AIM-54 (lets say the AIM-54C model) would work with the F-16's hardpoint attachments.
working on a alternate history RPG project.
and for reference and this threads enjoyment, one of the more common charts i keep finding..
(http://files.enjin.com/408176/pics/F-16%20stations.jpg)
-
Depending on era, but I would be inclined to believe the F-16 wouldn't be able to carry the AWG-9 multiscan radar (or its 1980s upgrade, the APG71).
The Falcon would have required major modifications to allow for the radar intercept operator (RIO) required to operate the radar & guide the missiles. All planes either intended to fly (F-108 and F-111B), or flew (F-14) the radar/missile weapons system were twin-seaters. Given the complexity of the multi-scan multi-target system, and the need for mid-course corrections (only active on terminal), I don't think a single-seater could manage the workload that well, nor would the large radar display have fitted well in a single-seat cockpit.
Lastly, the Phoenix/AWG-9 weapon system was designed around 'missileer' concepts - long-range, long-duration carriers. Certainly in its early days, the F-16 was not long-legged, and wouldn't have been carrying many drop tanks with a couple of Phoenixes underneath.
Now in a fictional situation, maybe you've got access to the radars & missiles, but no suitable fighters. Convert an old EW airliner into a flying command & radar post, and kludge together some sort of datalink so you can have F-16s on the ground zero-length launching on detection, and firing off their Phoenixes to be - hopefully - collected by the command post. But ... even I think it's a bit much.
OTOH, if you had old F-4 airframes sitting around ... maybe. Order lots of duct tape, though ;) Or it's worth noting the Phoenix did a lot of qualifying launches off A-3 Skywarriors ...
-
I'll add in some derriere dakka-dakka as well.
If you look just above the engines in this incredible takeoff shot of a Tu-22M 'Backfire', you'll see the last tail guns likely to ever be mounted on a bomber (one would imagine)- the twin-23mm mount looks almost like an afterthought. (And realistically, that's exactly what they are)
-
[quote author=worktroll link=topic=47376.msg1150110#msg1150110 date=1447287902
OTOH, if you had old F-4 airframes sitting around ... maybe. Order lots of duct tape, though ;) Or it's worth noting the Phoenix did a lot of qualifying launches off A-3 Skywarriors ...
[/quote]
You could always toss them in the Camera Bay of the SR71, they were orginaly designed as a missileer, as the A-12. It has the space for the Radar and the range.
-
The bigger issue with the Tomcat/AIM-54 pair was the designed purpose or intercepting high-flying attackers. It's a carrier-borne Mig-25/-31 or Su-15 (or Tu-128) looking for high, fast-flying attackers that the radar can pick out clearly against the sky. Low-level threats... severely cut into the range and effectiveness. RAF tac air would have given them fits.
As for tail guns... Some Il-76 have them too. Discourages tailgating
(http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5307/30454454.13/0_5f2af_8409fea5_XL.jpg)
-
You could always toss them in the Camera Bay of the SR71, they were orginaly designed as a missileer, as the A-12. It has the space for the Radar and the range.
actually no it wasn't. the A-12 designation was a CIA/lockheed one.. the A stood for "airframe". lockheed went through 11 redesigns before they got one that worked well enough on paper to actually build a prototype. the CIA kept the designation "A-12" because it helped hide exactly what the planes were in budgets and stuff. the planes were called "Oxcarts", after the program codename.
when the airforce adopted it they named their version the SR-71.
the A-12/SR-71 was never designed to carry weapons.
Lockheed did propose a bomber version (using air to ground missiles) and an interceptor version (using the AIM-47 Falcon at the time), but only the interceptor got any real attention (due to the YB-70 program.. it was the head general's baby) and that never got much attention either.
Lockheed did (heavily) modify some of their A-12 prototypes into the "YF-12", fitted with a missile bay and one of the first look-down-shoot-down radars, doing a few demonstrations, but that was mostly on lockheed's own dime, and the USAF just adopted the YF-12 designation when they declassified it mainly because it was easier.. the USAF had wanted to buy some but the budget got shot down due to the costs of vietnam.
the YF-12 was made public well before the A-12 recon ones were declassified.. partly the YF-12 was declassified to help hide the CIA's A-12 fleet, since the planes were not exactly the most covert.
the YF-12 did at least see the USAF buy some recon A-12's of their own, which turned into the SR-71's. (this was when they bought the U-2's/TR-1's they still use too.)
-
As for tail guns... Some Il-76 have them too. Discourages tailgating
Goes with the matching bombardier station:
(http://www.newzeal.com/antarctic/flights/Russian/IL76-FrontNose.JPG)
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/0/0/8/1940800.jpg)
IIRC, every Soviet air transport was designed with the capacity to serve airborne deployments at minimum.
Now how do I get a tailgun position like that on my sedan?
W.
-
Depending on era, but I would be inclined to believe the F-16 wouldn't be able to carry the AWG-9 multiscan radar (or its 1980s upgrade, the APG71).
The Falcon would have required major modifications to allow for the radar intercept operator (RIO) required to operate the radar & guide the missiles. All planes either intended to fly (F-108 and F-111B), or flew (F-14) the radar/missile weapons system were twin-seaters. Given the complexity of the multi-scan multi-target system, and the need for mid-course corrections (only active on terminal), I don't think a single-seater could manage the workload that well, nor would the large radar display have fitted well in a single-seat cockpit.
Lastly, the Phoenix/AWG-9 weapon system was designed around 'missileer' concepts - long-range, long-duration carriers. Certainly in its early days, the F-16 was not long-legged, and wouldn't have been carrying many drop tanks with a couple of Phoenixes underneath.
Now in a fictional situation, maybe you've got access to the radars & missiles, but no suitable fighters. Convert an old EW airliner into a flying command & radar post, and kludge together some sort of datalink so you can have F-16s on the ground zero-length launching on detection, and firing off their Phoenixes to be - hopefully - collected by the command post. But ... even I think it's a bit much.
OTOH, if you had old F-4 airframes sitting around ... maybe. Order lots of duct tape, though ;) Or it's worth noting the Phoenix did a lot of qualifying launches off A-3 Skywarriors ...
given the setting diverged in the 90's, and has some fairly scifi stuff in it (mecha, energy weapons ,etc.), i figure hardware would be resolvable. (after all , the very similar AA-9 works fine on single seat MiG-31's), i was mainly curious whether a missile that big/heavy could be carried on something like a Falcon or similar jet.
(the book i'm writing is focused more on the "background" groups with the less Scifi tech.. thus the interest in 90's period hardware)
-
Goes with the matching bombardier station:
(http://www.newzeal.com/antarctic/flights/Russian/IL76-FrontNose.JPG)
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/0/0/8/1940800.jpg)
IIRC, every Soviet air transport was designed with the capacity to serve airborne deployments at minimum.
Now how do I get a tailgun position like that on my sedan?
W.
Lots and lots of $$$
-
given the setting diverged in the 90's, and has some fairly scifi stuff in it (mecha, energy weapons ,etc.), i figure hardware would be resolvable. (after all , the very similar AA-9 works fine on single seat MiG-31's), i was mainly curious whether a missile that big/heavy could be carried on something like a Falcon or similar jet.
Hate to break it to you, but the Mig-31 is a two-seater. Specifically to carry a WSO to look after the Sazion phased array radar ...
W.
-
Now in a fictional situation, maybe you've got access to the radars & missiles, but no suitable fighters. Convert an old EW airliner into a flying command & radar post, and kludge together some sort of datalink so you can have F-16s on the ground zero-length launching on detection, and firing off their Phoenixes to be - hopefully - collected by the command post. But ... even I think it's a bit much.
Actually, in that situation what's stopping you from converting other airliners into missileers carrying a buttload of Phoenixes? O0
-
Lack of military grade fittings - power supplies, connection points, etc.
Yes it could be done, but starting with a milspec plane used to carrying additional gear, it'd be quicker.
I sort of got the impression Glitterboy's story was talking about kludging something together after the tensions had risen. Planning ahead of time, yes it'd be possible to have a multi-year project to build or adapt your own derivative airframes.
The problem with the missileer concept seems to be "if we can shoot you, you can shoot me". Except a slow, unmaeuverable, large target (the missileer) has a lower chance of dodging fire than a smaller RCS, more agile platform like the Tomcat. Another problem is what do you do once you've fired off your missiles - you're a target until you can get back to base.
-
YB-58 with a GE YJ-93 on the centerline for testing for the XB-70 project. No idea what it did for fuel economy when fired up :P
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/B58j93pod.jpg/1280px-B58j93pod.jpg)
-
Note that the engine replaced the pod which usually carried fuel ...
Meanwhile, to the north - for the ill-fated Arrow program, the USAF loaned Canadair a Boeing B-47 to help flight-test the ambitious Orenda engine:
(http://www.avroland.ca/al2-img/cl-5201.jpg)
Another shot:
(http://www.karlsaircraftart.com/aircraftart/arrow/images/HISTORIC%20-%20b47%20testbed%202.jpg)
At least the GE YJ-93 was centreline mounted ... :o
-
Lack of military grade fittings - power supplies, connection points, etc.
Yes it could be done, but starting with a milspec plane used to carrying additional gear, it'd be quicker.
I sort of got the impression Glitterboy's story was talking about kludging something together after the tensions had risen. Planning ahead of time, yes it'd be possible to have a multi-year project to build or adapt your own derivative airframes.
more or less. a "not quite WW3" in the 90's, followed by a decade long period of rapidly advancing scifi type tech, then another nuclear type war that leaves large stretches of the earth in a Dystopia/almost post-apoc condition. i'm using 90's military tech to illustrate the kind of tech the non-superpower nations of the setting are using.. salvaged/reclaimed older gear rebuilt/refit into service. not able to match the scifi gear of the super powers, but with enough punch to at least put up a fight. (which you want in an RPG)
-
more or less. a "not quite WW3" in the 90's, followed by a decade long period of rapidly advancing scifi type tech, then another nuclear type war that leaves large stretches of the earth in a Dystopia/almost post-apoc condition. i'm using 90's military tech to illustrate the kind of tech the non-superpower nations of the setting are using.. salvaged/reclaimed older gear rebuilt/refit into service. not able to match the scifi gear of the super powers, but with enough punch to at least put up a fight. (which you want in an RPG)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/declassified-us-intelligence-report-1990-192052241.html That is the closest we ever came to an actual WW3.
-
I'm fairly certain the Cuban Missile Crisis was closer to WW3 than that.
-
when i say "not quite ww3" i mean "conventional conflict that has global scale but can't quite be called a single war" (several major regional conflicts going at once around the world. )
ultimately the storyline isn't a big deal in regards to the question, since i was mainly trying to figure out technical stuff. real world info via research helps me figure out what stuff needs addressing in the book, and whether to use certain things (like the big AAM's) knowing that gamers will usually ignore inconvenient truths like notes in stats about needing special radars or such.
currently i'm considering dropping the Big AAM's entirely.. too many fiddly details that need addressing (like the need for special radars, and the need for the RWO backseater you guys pointed out), plus just too few real world examples of them.
sidewinders and AMRAAM's though... there are so many knockoffs, derivatives, and duplicate efforts for those around the world odds are there would still be plenty in use.. and places still making them.
-
I'm fairly certain the Cuban Missile Crisis was closer to WW3 than that.
This one was within my lifetime though. Even if I was 5 months old at the time...
-
You whippersnappers are making me feel old again...
-
I'd argue that this Soviet false alarm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident) was even closer. It took one brave man not to follow orders to avoid the nuclear holocaust.
W
-
actually, was there any major, potentially war triggering events that happened in the early to mid 90's that involved china? or maybe something in the late 80's where something going a different way may have led to war starting conditions?
i know this borders on rule4 so PM's would be fine too.
(one of the downsides is that the setting was originally created back when the 1990's were safely in the future.. we're now well past a lot of its fictional history, taking it from fictional future to alternate history. since the conflicts in the background are poorly defined aside from who was involved, i have some freedom to keep some real history in there. it helps that the real 90's had the major world powers fighting in a lot of regional conflicts in reality.. just not as big or bad. :) and china does get indicated as being involved, albeit indirectly.)
-
I'd argue that this Soviet false alarm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident) was even closer. It took one brave man not to follow orders to avoid the nuclear holocaust.
W
Follow the "Vasili Arkhipov" link at the bottom of that page. That individual had to actively argue with two other officers who wanted to launch a nuclear weapon in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Petrov had reported up his chain, other people may (or may not) have noticed the detections weren't consistent with an actual first strike. If Arkhipov lost the argument, a nuclear torpedo would have been launched.
-
Probably 2/3 of the images in Western media of the Tu-95 'Bear' are from the interceptors that meet them when they make their long-range pokes at other countries' air defenses. Not often we see the other side of things- two RAF Typhoons can be seen through the contra-rotating props from this Bear's cockpit.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2629736/thumbs/o-RUSSIAN-BEAR-570.jpg)
-
I'm mostly impressed that the prop blades are even visible there. Must have been one hell of a camera...
-
when i say "not quite ww3" i mean "conventional conflict that has global scale but can't quite be called a single war" (several major regional conflicts going at once around the world. )
ultimately the storyline isn't a big deal in regards to the question, since i was mainly trying to figure out technical stuff. real world info via research helps me figure out what stuff needs addressing in the book, and whether to use certain things (like the big AAM's) knowing that gamers will usually ignore inconvenient truths like notes in stats about needing special radars or such.
currently i'm considering dropping the Big AAM's entirely.. too many fiddly details that need addressing (like the need for special radars, and the need for the RWO backseater you guys pointed out), plus just too few real world examples of them.
sidewinders and AMRAAM's though... there are so many knockoffs, derivatives, and duplicate efforts for those around the world odds are there would still be plenty in use.. and places still making them.
Yes but you mention there's a nuclear type war. The link I and worktroll provided can show you how such war can come about. To summarize the 1983 War Scare; the Soviets were afraid they were losing nuclear parity with the West, they had a computer to calculate this strength parity continously. They decided they would had to launch a first strike if their strength parity ever went below 40% of the West. The soviets became paranoid that the West would be out to get them. The war exercises US and NATO were conducting in 1983 weren't helping the situation. The West Intelligence believe the Soviets believe it was merely an exercise. Whereas the Soviets believed it was an actual military build up, a prelude to First Strike against USSR. I would recommend you give both links a good read. It would give you something to think about how a nuclear war between USSR and West would come about in your setting.
-
Probably 2/3 of the images in Western media of the Tu-95 'Bear' are from the interceptors that meet them when they make their long-range pokes at other countries' air defenses. Not often we see the other side of things- two RAF Typhoons can be seen through the contra-rotating props from this Bear's cockpit.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2629736/thumbs/o-RUSSIAN-BEAR-570.jpg)
That is an amazing shot and a nice reversal of the Cold War classic
-
Would love to see some F22s looking thru the counter rotating props.
-
"We deliver hot and fresh dakka-dakka in 30 minutes or less GUARANTEED."
-
Regards the cold war gone hot scenario, here's one for you - someone pulls the trigger during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Outcome? The Americans might lose a few cities to ICBM fire, while the Soviet Union quite literally ceases to exist.
U.S. strategic forces were many times larger and more reliable than Soviet strategic forces in October and November 1962. As detailed below, a large scale attack by the United States against the Soviet Union in October 1962 would have been with over 3500 (“fully generated”) nuclear weapons, with a combined yield of approximately 6300 megatons. This was about half of the number of warheads with U.S. strategic forces, most of which were bomber weapons for long-range bombers. The total number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. Stockpile in October 1962 was approximately 26,400 and the Soviet Union approximately 3300.
The Soviet Union had approximately 42 ICBMs capable of reaching the United States, no SLBMs, and a long-range bomber force of 160 Bear and Bison bombers that would have had to face a formidable U.S. – Canadian air defense system of fighter interceptors with nuclear air-to-air missiles, BOMARC and Nike
Hercules surface-to-air missiles.
With the state of air defenses in the 1960s, including the F-104 and a massive "northern shield" to conduct battle in, Mach-2 interceptors and fighters versus subsonic jet and even propeller powered aircraft, with Genie rockets, would have annihilated the incoming aircraft. Meanwhile the Soviets would have been facing the B-58 Hustler followed by the B-52; while the BUFFs would have been just as vulnerable as the Bisons the Hustlers would likely have been very able to penetrate their targets. Strike airfields first, remove the air defense from the equation and then send the B-52s to their softer targets.
Meanwhile, in an ICBM race, the Americans ran 203 missiles in 1962 versus the above mentioned 42 of the Soviets. In this, much more of the warheads would get through, though the quality and reliability of Soviet weapons should be considered - how many of them would suffer launch or boost failure, or completely miss their targets?
If you want an AU setting, there's a hell of a thing for you to work with. Sources:
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/2012_10_24_Norris_Cuban_Missile_Crisis_Nuclear_Order_of_Battle.pdf
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab3.asp
Oh and hey look a Hustler in full afterburner.
(https://scottlocklin.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/b58108.jpg)
-
guys, keep in mind that this is for an established setting. i'm basically "filling in around the edges" some. (i've not mentioned what the setting is because i've noticed that when i do, a lot of people allow their preconceptions to bias their thinking on technical issues.. making a major uphill battle for me to correct erroneous assumptions about things like how the more scifi elements work.)
technical question. Jet Fuel is, at its base, Kerosene. with various additives.
could a modern jet engine be run on straight kerosene without the additives? or perhaps on older formula's with different additives? and how would that effect performance like range, speed, etc.?
-
That is a great photo of the B58!
-
True fact- every time you look at that B-58 photo, the plane uses five gallons of jet fuel somehow.
-
Sad part was the B-47's were considered one way trip bombers. Just fast enough to get there and drop there payloads and just slow enough to get caught in the blast.
-
Sad part was the B-47's were considered one way trip bombers. Just fast enough to get there and drop there payloads and just slow enough to get caught in the blast.
It's no joke. My grandfather on Dad's side flew the Stratojet at the end of his career (after spending time in -36s and before that -24s), and while he didn't talk a lot about those days, he did say once that he always knew he'd come back from bombing the Nazis... he knew he wouldn't if he ever had to go to Moscow.
-
guys, keep in mind that this is for an established setting. i'm basically "filling in around the edges" some. (i've not mentioned what the setting is because i've noticed that when i do, a lot of people allow their preconceptions to bias their thinking on technical issues.. making a major uphill battle for me to correct erroneous assumptions about things like how the more scifi elements work.)
Fair enough, I just had run across that particular PDF and thought it was a rather surprising read. And maybe someone else can use it!
technical question. Jet Fuel is, at its base, Kerosene. with various additives.
could a modern jet engine be run on straight kerosene without the additives? or perhaps on older formula's with different additives? and how would that effect performance like range, speed, etc.?
Generally yeah. Most modern turbine engines are multifuel and can run on damn near anything from street octane to vodka, but it's like running a tuned race engine on lower octanes. It'll work, but it won't burn clean or might run hot, and I wouldn't do it for long periods of time. That said, 'will it go' certainly.
-
YB-58 with a GE YJ-93 on the centerline for testing for the XB-70 project. No idea what it did for fuel economy when fired up :P
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/B58j93pod.jpg/1280px-B58j93pod.jpg)
Didn't the XB-70 engines use boron enriched fuel so even that test bed would have to have a separate fuel source for the test engine.
-
No, there was some experimentation with boron-enriched zip fuels which promised greater energy density (the same way diesel is more energy-dense than gasoline) , but the expense of hassle of production and handling (nasty, poisonous stuff, even for the height of the Cold War) meant the YJ93 ended up using JP-6, which the Wikipedia JP article claims was generally similar to JP-5 with additives. Presumably they just ran the whole plane on the same fuel.
-
https://i.imgur.com/ANXfpcg.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/ANXfpcg.jpg)
Too big to post here, but... worth a click. You'll never see a B-2 the same way again.
-
https://i.imgur.com/ANXfpcg.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/ANXfpcg.jpg)
Too big to post here, but... worth a click. You'll never see a B-2 the same way again.
Neat! Of course, there's an optical illusion at play there. ;)
-
I'm sad that we'll probably never see a B-2 painted up like that.
-
I'm sad that we'll probably never see a B-2 painted up like that.
Easier to get a can of matte-black paint and borrow a falcon.
-
Easier to get a can of matte-black paint and borrow a falcon.
(http://www.f-16.net/g3/var/resizes/f-16-photos/album11/album01/aae.jpg?m=1371927469)
-
https://i.imgur.com/ANXfpcg.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/ANXfpcg.jpg)
Too big to post here, but... worth a click. You'll never see a B-2 the same way again.
Actually, I posted that back in the first thread. Post 382 http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=42511.375 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=42511.375)
-
Actually, I posted that back in the first thread. Post 382 http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=42511.375 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=42511.375)
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=42511.msg1013060#msg1013060 this is the post you are looking for.
-
Ooookay, well, sorry for the repeat then.
-
Ooookay, well, sorry for the repeat then.
There are some of us that even after a couple times don't remember...
where was I going with that now???
-
And here's one more for the "how much fuel is that using?!" question!
-
More afterburners at sunset:
(http://www.lifeforcemagazine.com/may2013/index_htm_files/401.jpg)
(http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/mig-29-at-sunset-marta-holka.jpg)
(http://sites.psu.edu/gamechangers/wp-content/uploads/sites/18402/2014/10/sr71-sunset-afterburner.jpg)
(http://images8.alphacoders.com/417/417483.jpg)
-
And when things go wrong.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUkPSOQW4AA7-1z.jpg)
F-16 downing Su-24.
-
And more afterburners
(http://pre15.deviantart.net/3c96/th/pre/f/2012/152/c/0/tupolev_tu_160_blackjack_by_jamestayloranime-d51yllo.jpg)
-
F-16 downing Mig-24.
Su-24 actually. Good looking plane.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Sukhoi_Su-24_inflight_Mishin-2.jpg)
-
From the images I've seen, looked more like an Su-30 or maybe -34.
-
[copper]Please remember to keep all political discussion out of the thread. None have appeared yet but tensions out in the world are getting heated. Don't let them carry over.[copper]
-
Nice 58 photos! Also, how does the SU-24 stay in the air with such tiny wings? The wing loading on that plane must be amazingly high.
Able Archer, Cuban Crisis, Russian officers not launching were all scary as all get out... and these are the events that are declassified!
-
From the images I've seen, looked more like an Su-30 or maybe -34.
No, it was a Su-24. Some of the pictures were very clear and the profile is too different from the Su-30 and Su-34-
-
From the images I've seen, looked more like an Su-30 or maybe -34.
Couldn't tell the differences myself, I'll take your word on it though.
Also, how does the SU-24 stay in the air with such tiny wings? The wing loading on that plane must be amazingly high.
Wikipedia cites 133lb/ft2, so relatively high. The F-14 runs 113, the F-111 126, while more maneuverable birds are often well below 100. The Su-22's semi-swing-wing design only rates 90lb/ft2, while a nimble little thing like the A-4 gets down to 70. You don't need to be a small plane to have light wing loads; the F-15 is only a little higher than the A-4's rating despite being three times the mass. Even the F-104's guidance fins "wings" only go to 105lb/ft2, though it should be pointed out the Starfighter doesn't weigh too much more than the A-4.
There are a lot of benefits to high load wings, most especially you get a smoother, more stable ride at higher loading rates. A lighter wing is more willing to throw the aircraft around in tight maneuvers, so one's good for strike aircraft and interceptors while the other is good for dogfighter roles.
-
First, better pictures - definitely an Su-24.
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/russian-fighter-plane.jpg)
Second, the Su-24's wing isn't light. By definition, being a swing-wing & all. It'll be strong, and be able to support the pivot mechanics.
The wing's only extended like that at relatively low speeds, which is where it'll also be able to benefit from lift-enhancing features like flaps, drooping leading edges, etc. Then when it wants to go fast, it just retracts all that, pulls in the wing, and powers through low-level turbulence.
Worth noting on the side that the Su-24 was intended as a tactical bomber, not a strategic bomber like the F-111. It'll be entirely happy burning its fuel stores in the interests of getting off the ground & getting back safely.
W.
-
(http://weaponsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/F111DumpBurn_1.jpg)
F-111 dump and burn, the original and still the best. Beware of cheap Russian imitations (see images above) ;)
-
(http://weaponsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/F111DumpBurn_1.jpg)
F-111 dump and burn, the original and still the best. Beware of cheap Russian imitations (see images above) ;)
The F-111 was a great plane, very capable of doing things that would of required a different letter then "F"
-
but not always doing them well. like the F-111B showed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics%E2%80%93Grumman_F-111B
(http://www.usscoralsea.net/images/f-111navyeb2.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/F-111B_CVA-43_launch_July1968.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/F-111B_CVA-43_approach_July1968.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wI-DdPSXymk/TUITLexZ8LI/AAAAAAAABBE/omA3eblkPWc/s1600/F-111BTouchdownCoralSea+Cleaned+web.jpg)
-
I remember in my human factors coursework a fighter jet had a bad flap handle design such that pilots were instinctively grabbing a handful of levers around the throttle quadrant, throwing them forward, and promptly losing lift and crashing. Anyone else recall something like this better than me?
-
You don't need to be a small plane to have light wing loads. A lighter wing is more willing to throw the aircraft around in tight maneuvers, so one's good for strike aircraft and interceptors while the other is good for dogfighter roles.
Not exactly. Lighter wing loads make initiating maneuvers take less energy, but agility is more a function of higher wing loading. On identical airfoils, the foil with the higher loading is more agile but also more ground hungry and less forgiving.
-Jackmc
-
I remember in my human factors coursework a fighter jet had a bad flap handle design such that pilots were instinctively grabbing a handful of levers around the throttle quadrant, throwing them forward, and promptly losing lift and crashing. Anyone else recall something like this better than me?
Cockpit ergonomics, especially on British aircraft, were appalling for many years
I have a book by a British Fleet Air Arm pilot (1940s-1960s and ended up as a test pilot) that goes off alarmingly on that very subject.
Very sober reading, over 25% of his classmates died in accidents and it was much the same across the industry for far too many years
-
Cockpit ergonomics, especially on British aircraft, were appalling for many years
I have a book by a British Fleet Air Arm pilot (1940s-1960s and ended up as a test pilot) that goes off alarmingly on that very subject.
Very sober reading, over 25% of his classmates died in accidents and it was much the same across the industry for far too many years
I thought it was something like an F-1xx that was famed for it though. Just something in the back of my mind bugging me.
-
I have a book by a British Fleet Air Arm pilot (1940s-1960s and ended up as a test pilot) that goes off alarmingly on that very subject.
What book is that? It sounds an interesting read.
-
I'm really waiting for a true 'glass' cockpit with no buttons, levers, switches, or buttons. Just a seat, a stick, and touch screens and displays all around.
-
...and then somebody sneezes...
-
I'm really waiting for a true 'glass' cockpit with no buttons, levers, switches, or buttons. Just a seat, a stick, and touch screens and displays all around.
<winces>
I can imagine the accidents from mode confusion even now. I'm still skeptical of glass management systems and said so about Pro-Line Fusion to a Rockwell Collins manager. He said they thought they have the issues ironed out (and he should say so, confidently), but I'm still skeptical about moderate turbulence. I couldn't imagine a glass throttle quadrant in an emergency.
-
FWIW, glass cockpits have become the de facto standard up here in bush Alaska, they take a heck of a lot of cycles and punishments and keep on chugging along. Plus they enable a lot more flights than we used to could put up; though now we having to learn a lot more about risk management and finding the fine limit where the capabilities of the avionics exceed the capabilities of the airframe especially in icing conditions.
-Jackmc
-
FWIW, glass cockpits have become the de facto standard up here in bush Alaska, they take a heck of a lot of cycles and punishments and keep on chugging along. Plus they enable a lot more flights than we used to could put up; though now we having to learn a lot more about risk management and finding the fine limit where the capabilities of the avionics exceed the capabilities of the airframe especially in icing conditions.
-Jackmc
Touch glass though? I'm all about glass systems like the G1000 for many reasons. I'm an avid supporter of ADS-B In (and Out) and TIS-B as safety tools. Pro Line Fusion is touch controlled though and while they seem to have ironed out a lot of problems, I just keep seeing the potential for fat fingers hitting the wrong thing in a time sensitive crisis, especially if you're flying complex single pilot planes like a Citation or... can a King Air be flown single? King Air upgrades are one market 3-4 avionics companies are competing for.
-
I thought it was something like an F-1xx that was famed for it though. Just something in the back of my mind bugging me.
F-104s in Germany were like that, but I think most of that comes from trying to use a high-altitude mach-2-plus interceptor in the ground attack/CAS role.
-
What book is that? It sounds an interesting read.
"Up in Harm's Way-Flying with the Fleet Air Arm" by Commander R.M. "Mike" Crosley DSC and Bar
Published in 1995
The development of the Westland Wyvern in particular is eye popping
Previously wrote "They gave me a Seafire" that covers his WWII exploits
-
Touch glass though? I'm all about glass systems like the G1000 for many reasons. I'm an avid supporter of ADS-B In (and Out) and TIS-B as safety tools. Pro Line Fusion is touch controlled though and while they seem to have ironed out a lot of problems, I just keep seeing the potential for fat fingers hitting the wrong thing in a time sensitive crisis, especially if you're flying complex single pilot planes like a Citation or... can a King Air be flown single? King Air upgrades are one market 3-4 avionics companies are competing for.
Gotcha. Personally, I don't see the issue with touch except for throttles. It's just as easy to over rotate a switch if you're in a hurry and not paying attention and once the flight is underway, the only four items I see regularly handled are the stick/yoke, throttle, paperwork clipboard and lunch.
As for the KA: I've seen the older models flown by a single pilot countless times, but I have no idea about the ones with the newer avionics fits.
-Jackmc
-
the problem i see with touchscreen controls is that when flying you don't usually want to be looking all over the cockpit trying to find control. a lot of the ergonomics changes in the last few decades have been to make each control distinctive in shape and texture.. so that the pilot never has to look down (and away from the main instruments) to find and identify controls. touchscreens don't have that tactile feedback, and touching the wrong button on them can be bad.
-
A lot of nations liked the F104. Canada, Germany, Japan all flew them. The plane did have a lot of accidents.
-
the problem i see with touchscreen controls is that when flying you don't usually want to be looking all over the cockpit trying to find control. a lot of the ergonomics changes in the last few decades have been to make each control distinctive in shape and texture.. so that the pilot never has to look down (and away from the main instruments) to find and identify controls. touchscreens don't have that tactile feedback, and touching the wrong button on them can be bad.
I just don't see that in general aviation except with the controls directly involved with take off and landing. Maybe for combat aircraft, but if you are transporting anything but bombs and missiles, you've got time to look around the cockpit during normal flight. I prefer everything important to be on the main panel, but I see plenty of aircraft like the Beech 1900 or a Cessna 182 that have important controls mounted between the front seats.
-Jackmc
-
you've got time to look around the cockpit during normal flight
During normal flight, sure, but it's those abnormal moments that things really have to count. Having a touch interface can help as well, especially with something like the various laser-blinding incidents. Glass cockpit is nice, but there's something about being able to grab on blind and feel it.
(And no, I'm not a pilot, just a laptop jockey with delusions of grandeur)
-
During normal flight, sure, but it's those abnormal moments that things really have to count.
The non-normal times are when you're into your emergency procedures and those should be so rote that you don't need to look for a control. Of course some of the more spectacular incidents in the last decade have involved pilots who've failed their EP's regardless of how much assistive technology (such as stick shakers, different knobs on for port/starboard on the throttle quadrant, ect.) that they've had. This has less to do with the controls and more the mindset of aviators who've reached the highly experienced but not yet expert level experience.
-Jackmc
-
"Wow, pulled back the wrong throttle." Yeah, nothing can interrupt pilot charliefoxtrots, but I used to do some work with the gun industry and came up with a couple ideas to make physical touch more a part of the gun and not just 'holding onto it.' Long since out of the biz, but I fully approve of being able to handle things by touch or voice control, especially with the rise in lasers. Make things different enough so that even a light touch will tell you what you're holding onto, and have standard points palpable.
As far as aviation, well, how about the first seaplane?
(http://aerochris.blogs.sudouest.fr/media/02/02/378661163.2.jpg)
-
Glass cockpit is nice, but there's something about being able to grab on blind and feel it.
This is the glass cockpit from a RAAF C-130J
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Australian_airman_performing_pre-flight_checks_on_a_RAAF_C-130_Hercules.jpg)
Pretty isn't it? I like the HUD, very cool 8)
Did you notice the old style artifical horizon above the white laminated sheet near the left edge of the photo? And the combo altimeter and compass next to it?
When RAAF took delivery of the C-130J they did not have those. They were fitted after an incident during one of the test flights when the entire glass cockpit failed and the all those pretty LED screens went dark. That is why they pay test pilots and flight test engineers lots and lots of money . . .
-
Even with all the fancy doodads they needs something to fall back on. They also need to on occasion apply the KISS principle to the cockpits. Do they really need all the info overload they ask for? Nope!
-
This is the glass cockpit from a RAAF C-130J
When RAAF took delivery of the C-130J they did not have those. They were fitted after an incident during one of the test flights when the entire glass cockpit failed and the all those pretty LED screens went dark. That is why they pay test pilots and flight test engineers lots and lots of money . . .
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-squadron-shot-down-by-the-international-date-line-03087/
Maj. Gen. Don Sheppard (ret.): “…At the international date line, whoops, all systems dumped and when I say all systems, I mean all systems, their navigation, part of their communications, their fuel systems. They were — they could have been in real trouble. They were with their tankers. The tankers – they tried to reset their systems, couldn’t get them reset. The tankers brought them back to Hawaii. This could have been real serious. It certainly could have been real serious if the weather had been bad.
-
IIRC in the 90s a USN nuc cruiser SCRAMed because of a divide-by-zero error.
-
Would have had to have been early 90s; the nuclear powered surface fleet was retired by '94 or so. I did find this, however: https://gcn.com/articles/1998/07/13/software-glitches-leave-navy-smart-ship-dead-in-the-water.aspx?m=1
-
Even with all the fancy doodads they needs something to fall back on. They also need to on occasion apply the KISS principle to the cockpits. Do they really need all the info overload they ask for? Nope!
At this point? Likely not. Reliability and safety analyses keep point to glass as improvements rather than subtractions. They've got enough reversionary functionality and reliability I have no problem ejecting older mechanical and pneumatic systems. I'm digging deep into system safety analysis for work and beginning to understand how all the players including ICAO and FAA do their thing. Considered purely as machines, these things are stupid safe. It's the human-machine interface design and training that's still the extant problem. That's your second concern and you're absolutely right, but it is something people continue to agonize over in terms of where the human needs to be in the information loop and what you need to do to get the human deeper into the loop if things go pear shaped without the human screwing things up worse.
-
"Wow, pulled back the wrong throttle." Yeah, nothing can interrupt pilot charliefoxtrots, but I used to do some work with the gun industry and came up with a couple ideas to make physical touch more a part of the gun and not just 'holding onto it.' Long since out of the biz, but I fully approve of being able to handle things by touch or voice control, especially with the rise in lasers. Make things different enough so that even a light touch will tell you what you're holding onto, and have standard points palpable.
Some air craft now have different shaped knobs for the port and starboard engines. They're handy for regular operations but their use in emergency situations for most people is questionable due to how in times of acute stress, the human mind starts blocking out what it believes are unnecessary sensory inputs.
-Jackmc
-
Here is a HUD from a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. I know more and more airliners are including HUD for their planes.
-
Time for some desi planes
HAL Marut (retired) India's first indigenous combat aircraft. Designed by Kurt Tank. You may know him from the Fw190
(http://q-zon-fighterplanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/HAL-Marut.jpg)
HAL Ajeet (retired) Development of the tiny Folland Gnat
(http://www.combatreform.org/ajeet7improvedgnat.jpg)
HAL Kiran (retired) Intermediate trainer. Looks oddly proportioned to me, although parts of it do remind me of the Jet Provost. On a different note, I've never seen wing fences on a wing with so little sweep before
(http://www.zone5aviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Indian-Navy-HAL-Kiran-Web-0510.jpg)
Hal Sitara - the supposed replacement for the Kiran, but it looks like it might be in trouble
(https://vellvector.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/456bc-s3466_indian_air_force_intermediate_jet_trainer_fly_past_voyk_09022011.jpg)
HAL Tejas - about the same size and role as the original Gripen
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/5/5/1190553.jpg)
-
Do those chalk lines mean that Marut died a violent death?
-
The Ajeet was just the Folland Gnat. That was the fighter in Hot Shots.
-
Time for some desi planes
HAL Marut (retired) India's first indigenous combat aircraft. Designed by Kurt Tank. You may know him from the Fw190
HAL Ajeet (retired) Development of the tiny Folland Gnat
HAL Kiran (retired) Intermediate trainer. Looks oddly proportioned to me, although parts of it do remind me of the Jet Provost. On a different note, I've never seen wing fences on a wing with so little sweep before
Hal Sitara - the supposed replacement for the Kiran, but it looks like it might be in trouble
HAL Tejas - about the same size and role as the original Gripen
Thanks! these are cool, rarely-seen subjects!
-
The Ajeet was just the Folland Gnat. That was the fighter in Hot Shots.
Incorrect, but it is an extremely easy mistake to make as the two planes have virtually identical exteriors. The Ajeet's guts are radically different because major systems were replaced in order to fix all those inconveniently-catastrophic and usually pilot-terminating flaws in the Gnat's hydraulics and control systems.
-Jackmc
-
India has made some great planes over the years. The mix of aircraft is always interesting they have west and east equipment.
-
India has made some great planes over the years. The mix of aircraft is always interesting they have west and east equipment.
Yeah, and there's a certain pragmatism to their industrial design philosophies that I really like, and the Ajeet is a great example. I think many other countries would have tried to reengineer the Gnat to "kick it up a notch" but India looked at it as a good, but flawed design so they just engineered out the flaws. What they were left with wasn't flashy but it was incredibly rock solid.
-Jackmc
-
USAF reveals image and designation for Long Range Strike — Bomber!
(http://www.combataircraft.net/central/images/articles/9464.jpg)
-
B-21? An anagram of B-1 and B-2? :P
-
Bomber for the 21st century apparently.
-
21st century bomber.
But if they take their time, it could be B-22.
-
given how the last Bomber program turned out, and the last few fighter programs, i think i'll just start calling it the B~$10,000,000,000,000
-
B-21? An anagram of B-1 and B-2? :P
More like B-2.1 and somebody left out the "point".
-
Surely it would have to be called the B-21 iBomber S
-
Fishbed vs. Fishbed!
In this corner, the Pakistani F-7PG. Chengdu airframe, American missiles, Italian radar
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/9/8/6/2397689.jpg)
In this corner, the Indian Mig-21 Bison. Old Mig-21bis airframe, Israeli avionics. New Russian missiles
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/8/4/1429481.jpg)
More hard-working 60's light fighters:
ROKAF F-5
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/1/0/2742013.jpg)
Pakistani Mirage III/V
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/0/5/8/2380850.jpg)
-
When you want to move fast at the expense of all other concerns, sanity included.
-
When you decide that you need a passenger along...
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/2/4/2108424.jpg)
-
When it's not nearly enough.
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/SR-71-2.jpg)
-
When you want to move fast at the expense of all other concerns, sanity included.
You know the funny thing about those birds is that they were a crash program to build an anti-Valkyrie interceptor and so there wasn't time initially to iron out the bugs. It's said that on the original version. if you weren't careful with the throttle they became rocket planes rather than jet planes. Seems the engines had this quirk if you slammed them into afterburner rather than gradually advancing the throttle, they jammed wide open (evidently the vibration from running them in AB for too long would also do the same thing). It's said that the one that Israel and NATO clocked in the desert that set the "official" world airspeed record (before the SR71 was declassified enough to publically acknowledge its speed) was actually one of these runaways.
-Jackmc
-
I wouldn't doubt it, those monster Tumansky engines are a fantastic demonstration of a positive feedback loop.
-
Oh yes, the Flying Cocktail Bar. I love it! :) O0
-
It's said that the one that Israel and NATO clocked in the desert that set the "official" world airspeed record (before the SR71 was declassified enough to publically acknowledge its speed) was actually one of these runaways.
-Jackmc
It's my understanding that the "Mig-25s" supposedly overflying Israel were in fact Yastreb drones. The Tumanski engines used by the Mig-25s were originally designed for the Yastrebs, which does somewhat explain why they had such apallingly short service lives; a lot of work was one (not often successfully) to improve reliability for their use in the Foxbats.
-
So speaking purely tactically *and* technically, would we expect a design like the proposed B-21 to shrink a high-frequency long-range radar bubble or does that primarily defeat systems of different bands?
-
Well, it's all about reducing radar returns, which does effectively "shrink" radar bubbles. The approaches - scattering, and absorption - depend on the materials and geometries used. The B-21 pictured looks to just be an evolutionary development on the B-2 - hopefully things like absorptive layers that can survive raindrops, and the like.
A lot depends on what role the B-21 ends up being optimised for. The need for heavy deep penetration bombers seems to have shrunk; B-52s make better bomb trucks, and are working routinely outside the limited AA capacities of current targets. Cruise missiles also can meet deep penetration needs, with the usual provisos of lacking manned judgement, at lower costs. Being able to reach out & touch someone - anyone, anywhere, anytime - with precision and several tonnes of HE, though, still has a strong appeal, no?
W.
-
Hmm, let me back up. I was meaning in the sense of different frequencies like ku band vs C band or HF band. Will defeating geometry, baffles, paint, and other goodies work equally well on multiple bands or be particularly poor at one band over another?
Keep in mind I'm EE and only had one radar course (and only remember the radar equation from it honestly). Was hoping someone had direct experience with the concept as it applies to multiple technologies.
-
Again, no simple answer. Some materials will work well against some wavelengths - both in terms of scattering & absorption, while badly against others. Reflection strength is maximised where the reflective bits are half a wavelength or more longer - which means you probably want to make your metal bits shorter, and concentrate your coverings on the shorter wavelengths. Both issues having their own challenges.
Side note - scattering does minimise return strength against the transmitting radar, but quite possibly creates enough directed scatter to be picked up by other sites with different bearings on the target. Is this something which was used - memory hints at some use in the Balkan war, with one station pumping out the volume, and other sites correlating low-strength returns - or is this a Clancy book trying to pass itself off as reality?
-
Again, no simple answer. Some materials will work well against some wavelengths - both in terms of scattering & absorption, while badly against others. Reflection strength is maximised where the reflective bits are half a wavelength or more longer - which means you probably want to make your metal bits shorter, and concentrate your coverings on the shorter wavelengths. Both issues having their own challenges.
Side note - scattering does minimise return strength against the transmitting radar, but quite possibly creates enough directed scatter to be picked up by other sites with different bearings on the target. Is this something which was used - memory hints at some use in the Balkan war, with one station pumping out the volume, and other sites correlating low-strength returns - or is this a Clancy book trying to pass itself off as reality?
I probably have to keep it pretty short as strategic considerations get into international issues and therefore politics, but it's an interesting consideration. There might be a need to emphasize one kind of defense over another depending on what the US DoD sees as the primary, secondary, and even tertiary roles. And even then the common problem of not-being-able-to-predict-the-future.
-
Side note - scattering does minimise return strength against the transmitting radar, but quite possibly creates enough directed scatter to be picked up by other sites with different bearings on the target. Is this something which was used - memory hints at some use in the Balkan war, with one station pumping out the volume, and other sites correlating low-strength returns - or is this a Clancy book trying to pass itself off as reality?
As I recall, that's how they downed the -117 - they'd already been hit by it once, and knew its scatter signal, and when the next attack came in on the same flight path there was enough return to spot it and peg it. The fact it was coming in on a known, previously used path meant it was going to be a LOT easier to spot...at which point you have to chew out the mission planners for making it that easy.
-
Important to remember - "stealth" <> "invisible" ;)
-
Important to remember - "stealth" <> "invisible" ;)
dang, well it was in the old F19 video game...
-
That was so much fun ... I used to take scenic detours via Polyarni just to see the Typhoons sailing ;)
-
never managed to blow up the sub pens, since the FAE never seemed to work correctly, it always went off course, even if I had it locked on.
-
One of my favorite shots saved on my home computer.
-
Pretty
Horton Spirit ... shame about the ugly blotch on the left.
In other news, I've seen an unconfirmed report that the Russians may be closing Monino. Monino is this:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8vG2FgX9nnA7kPxzvZoQ6uUaHEu7o5YKjZV2Mhmztg5e3S2Rs)
To be accurate, the museum's been maintained by funding from the Gagarin Military Academy, on the same site. The Academy is definitely closing.
Story is, any airframe that can't be road-transported will be scrapped. Things like:
(http://www.rusadventures.com/images/tour28_big.jpg)
and
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRkDHYZ4ZTEMVvdki5vpqW_ri5dfwawRvOOyhN9KB3s0aoiLYgt)
and
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcqdLNW0XDas5w6bNBoPn2_fQtrGp9uOrMBKlXv6npA5LGN7X5)
and
(http://www.mivelaviation.com/zenphoto/cache/AviationMuseuns/Monino2012/copyright_00068_FULL.jpg)
and other irreplacable pieces of aviation history ...
-
NOT THE BULL!!!!! :O :(
(Yes, the other planes are cool, too, but there's a special place in my heart for the Bull. :( )
-
This is Russia, it is possible they will destroy part of their heritage because they can't be bothered or pull a common sense defying scheme to preserve it.
-
That is a great pic of all the former Russian planes.
-
In other news, I've seen an unconfirmed report that the Russians may be closing Monino.
Damn, I need to hit the lottery soon. Seeing Monino is on my bucket list.
In happier news closer to home, the fourth hanger of the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force opens June 8.
(http://media.defense.gov/2015/Nov/24/2001320721/670/394/0/151113-F-IO108-001.JPG)
-
(http://classicaircraftdisplays.com/images/images/Flexslider/2013-08-10_Spitifre_0277_2400px.jpg)
Happy birthday Supermarine Spitfire!
At 4.30pm on 5th March 1936 the prototype Supermarine Spitfire piloted by "Mutt" Summers took off on its maiden flight from Eastleigh Aerodrome, Southampton, heralding a new era in the history of the RAF and in aircraft design. The Spitfire was revolutionary for its day and it was R.J Mitchell, whose experience in high speed aircraft design through the Schneider Trophy seaplanes, who brought together all the technological advances it incorporated.
Mitchell continued to refine the aircraft's design until his untimely death in 1937, with this design evolution eventually ran to twenty four different marks powered by both the Rolls Royce Merlin and Griffon engines. Point defence interceptor, fighter bomber, high altitude unarmed reconnaissance aircraft, bomber escort and more, the Spitfire flew with over thirty six air arms from its introduction with No.19 Squadron RAF at Duxford in 1938 until its withdrawal in June 1957.
Even then it was not over as a Spitfire flew trials against the supersonic English Electric Lightning jet fighter in 1962. Gaining its legendary status during the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire flew on every continent and in combat theatres throughout Europe, Russia, The Mediterranean, China/Burma/India and the Pacific.
-
On my wall: Malta - George Cross by Robert Taylor.
(http://members.shaw.ca/letts/malta.jpg)
Signed by:
Flight Lieutenant Ken Evens DFC
Flight Lieutenant Ian Maclennan DFM
Flight Lieutenant Colin Parkinson DFC
Flight Lieutenant Jack Rae DFC and Bar
Squadron Leader Arthur Roscoe DFC
Flight Lieutenant Allan Scott DFM.
-
After considering starting a new dedicated thread, I think I would prefer to put it here instead.
So as a placeholder for further postings later tonight/on the weekend to continue the off-topic discussions that worktroll and I started in the Rotunda thread, a photo of a B-52 test launching the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/B-52_releases_the_MOP_during_a_weapons_test..jpg)
-
Thats going to leave a mark....
Dav
-
Thats going to leave a mark....
Dav
Probably like a baby underground nuke blast. Crater won't be as big but it should be impressive noneless.
-
I'm guessing that the Grand Slam just kept on going, due to the lack of visible blast damage under the roof ...
Not necessarily the case, as it was a U-boat pen that was still under construction you will probably find that it had a opening out to sea, which would have channelled most of the blast out the open (like CASE), so as per this photo that I posted in the Rotunda thread, if you have a close look, the blast has blown the doors off the tracks but left very little blast damage on the surface of the concrete inside the hardened hangar.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Alihangar1.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Alihangar1.jpg)
Well, they WERE designed to penetrate exactly that kind of roof, so... even a dud would still penetrate. Just no explosion.
...which, if that's the case, means those guys are standing above eleven tons of currently-but-not-forever-unexploded bomb, and are just flat out braver than I am. ;D
Actually Tall Boy and Grand Slam were originally designed as "earthquake" bombs. The theory was not to strike a target directly, but to impact beside it, penetrate under it, and create a 'camouflet' (large buried cavern) and deliver a shock wave through the target's foundations which would weaken the hardened structure of the target. The target then collapses into the camouflet.
The RAF found it just as effective to drop the Tall Boy/Grand Slam onto the target and penetrate the target (reinforced concrete is actually softer than some types of rock).
Grand Slam penetrated 15 ft (4.5 m) reinforced concrete to take out U-boat pen in the photo.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/British_Grand_Slam_bomb.jpg)
GBU-24 Paveway III using the BLU-109 2,000 lb penetrator can pentrate 6 ft (1.8 m) of reinforced concrete
GBU-24 Paveway III using the BLU-116 Advanced Unitary Penetrator (think the aerial equivalent of Armour Piecing Discard Sabot) can pentrate 11 ft (3.4 m) of reinforced concrete
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/GBU-24_xxl.jpg)
GBU-28 5,000lb "Bunker Buster" (originally designed and built in 28 days at the start of Desert Storm using old artillery barrels as casings) can pentrate 20 ft (6 m) of reinforced concrete
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/GBU-28_xxl.jpg)
GBU-57A/B 30,000 lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator can penetrate 60 ft (18 m) of reinforced concrete.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/USAF_MOP_test_release_crop.jpg)
These modern bunker busters have some very clever fuses too, generally located in the tail to protect them from the impact, some of them count the number of floors of reinforced concrete the bomb has penetrated before they detonate, some can detect when they get to a large open cavern before they will detonate.
Mechanical/electrical/chemical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets :-\
-
GBU-57A/B that's rather impressive, can penetrate 4 time as effective as the Grand Slam while being 8k pounds heavier with a more modern explosive filler.
-
*snip*GBU-28 5,000lb "Bunker Buster" (originally designed and built in 28 days at the start of Desert Storm using old artillery barrels as casings) can pentrate 20 ft (6 m) of reinforced concrete
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/GBU-28_xxl.jpg)
*snip*
The Watervliet Arsenal had an interesting exhibit on this when we visited there a few years ago.
-
(http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9969.0;attach=106480;image)
YB-35s waiting conversion into YB-49s
-
Broken pic link for me :(
-
Attachment
-
Awesome!
-
Sadly the USAF was never very interested in either the propeller driven YB-35 or the Jet propelled YB-49. those airframes in the picture were basically all the YB-35's ever built, and only two YB-49's were completed.
of course while he never lived to see it fly, jack Northrop had the last laugh (of a sort)..
(http://media.defense.gov/2003/Feb/10/2000030264/-1/-1/0/990406-F-4406B-502.JPG)
too bad there are no YB-49's (or YB-35's) still around. that would be one heck of a heritage flight..
-
... of course while he never lived to see it fly, jack Northrop had the last laugh (of a sort)..
And it appears he'll still be laughing ...
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/02/9464-768x384.jpg)
-
Unfortunately they didn't work particularly well, given the FCS of the time.
Another problem which was raised which I only recently saw - the YB-35 wasn't a good fit for thermonuclear weapons of the period. The B-35's bomb bays ran along either side of the crew capsule, in the wing roots, apparently, and weren't as cavernous as those of the B-36, B-47 or YB-49. This meant the large strategic bombs of the period would have been carried externally. This was a problem because
1) it ruined the aerodynamics, and
2) perhaps more importantly, the nucs of the period were only fully assembled once in the air.
I haven't cross-referenced with my copy of the US Nuclear Arsenal to be sure, but it sounds silly enough to have been real.
W.
-
Unfortunately they didn't work particularly well, given the FCS of the time.
Longitudinal stability in particular was a bitch. The flight test results, I think particularly for the spectacularly clean YB-49 was that it needed a ludicrous amount of time and space for a bomb run so that the pilot was able to try and steady out any oscillations / directional shenanigans.
-
of course while he never lived to see it fly, jack Northrop had the last laugh (of a sort)..
At least they showed him the plans for B-2 before he went, they had to get security exemption to do that.
-
This meant the large strategic bombs of the period would have been carried externally.
Considering the late 1940s meant Mk III and 4 designs, it ended up that you had to build your plane around five foot wide Fat Man-type weapons. A gun-type bomb could likely have gone into the YB-49 being less than half the diameter, but the US went the implosion route for its weapons in the end and dismantled the Little Boy series they'd put together (25 per wikipedia). The Mark 7 bomb was the first of the tacticals, and the first implosion bomb that could be made small enough - and not until 1952.
From what I've read, the airframe was inherently unstable, and needed constant (and exhausting) correction for every little thing it did. Long before fly by wire, too, so I can only imagine how hard the control had to be.
-
Considering the late 1940s meant Mk III and 4 designs, it ended up that you had to build your plane around five foot wide Fat Man-type weapons. A gun-type bomb could likely have gone into the YB-49 being less than half the diameter, but the US went the implosion route for its weapons in the end and dismantled the Little Boy series they'd put together (25 per wikipedia). The Mark 7 bomb was the first of the tacticals, and the first implosion bomb that could be made small enough - and not until 1952.
From what I've read, the airframe was inherently unstable, and needed constant (and exhausting) correction for every little thing it did. Long before fly by wire, too, so I can only imagine how hard the control had to be.
If I remember they had to put lateral fins on the jet engine pods; the propeller engine pods themselves were contributing some degree of lateral force, the jet engines were simply too streamlined. Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
If I remember they had to put lateral fins on the jet engine pods; the propeller engine pods themselves were contributing some degree of lateral force, the jet engines were simply too streamlined. Correct me if I'm wrong.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Northrop_YB-49_%28SN_42-102367%29_on_Dec._23,_1948._061025-F-1234S-021.jpg)
The jets did have vertical fins that grew out of wing fences, though they weren't very large relative to the plane. Relative to OTHER planes, yeah, it's a big bit of vertical control, but check out the size of those fences - compare it to the car in the background. I can only imagine the amount of span-wise airflow over those big wings, so prior to computer control you'd need something to handle it - not sure if that's why they went with the integrated vertical stabilizers or not. I suspect you're right, though. With the 49's short overall length, I can only imagine it'd pitch like a lunatic as soon as you got into any sort of stall condition, so you'd want the fences as well as the verticals somehow or another.
Interesting that those verticals don't go all that much higher than the aircraft itself. They really did want to keep that thing from not being any MORE huge...
-
presumably the centrifugal effects of the propellers (even counter-rotating ones like it had) helped the YB-35 overcome some of those issues.
-
Nope. Any torque effects from the propellors would have cancelled themselves out.
The propellors on the YB-35 basically acted like sea anchors - they created drag effects at the back of the wing, which tended to keep the front pointed forwards. Just it was sort of diffuse across the back of a very large, thick wing, and wasn't terribly effective, compared to (say) the ginormous vertical tails of the B-17 and B-29, or the sizeable twin tails of the B-24 (all of which were the way they were to maintain yaw stability).
The jets of the YB-49 had no such effect, hence they added the "airflow separators". Note that the raised "tailfins" are only the back end of wing fences extending forward just short of the leading edges? Again, trying to get enough resistance to yaw to be useful. But not successfully, it appears.
Now they could have just put a tail on the thing. Or some dihedral - which is usually about roll stabilisation, but might have helped. I'd have looked at a mild dihedral, plus drooping wingtip fins much like the Horta brothers often used. But it wouldn't have been a pure flying wing at that point, which seemed to be Jack Northrop's goal above all others.
-
Of note, my grandfather started on -24s in southern/eastern Europe before moving on postwar to the -36 and much later the -47 before retiring. He mentioned on a couple of occasions how much he loved the box-kite tail on the Liberator for making it so much easier to control the aircraft compared to the Peacemaker, which he pointed out handled "like a cow on roller skates" (a description I've loved ever since). He also pointed out that his Lib flew back to its airbase in Italy after a mission that saw a flak round take the starboard tail section off- the portside rudder kept the plane under control enough to get home (along with hard work, fervent prayer, and a lot of luck) The hit also damaged the rear of the fuselage, including the 'total removal' as he put it, of the tail gun mount. A B-36 losing its rudder, well... not happening- hell, a B-17 wouldn't be in good shape to make it home with that damage, though obviously some did (the Fort being made out of scrapped battleship armor or something, things just didn't die easy)
Anyway. Point is, the dual-rudder setup on the Lib and the Lancaster were beloved by at least one ex-Ploesti vet for the survivability factor, if nothing else. (One more side note, he didn't talk a lot about the war or his military service in-general for the most part, but he would GUSH about how much he loved flying the Stratojet, and to the end of his life was proud of chasing down a pair of F-100s near Boston and scoring aerial 'kills' on both while they weren't watching their six.)
-
The redundancy of the Libs tail unfortunately didn't offset the handling issues it created. At the wars end, the
Lib was transitioned to a single tail but only a handful were made.
-Jackmc
-
I like aviation, too. One of my favorites is the F-15, and I really like the JASDF version, the F-15J
(http://i484.photobucket.com/albums/rr202/TrekkieAnna/F-15J%208959%20smaller_zps7ric8pgq.jpg) (http://s484.photobucket.com/user/TrekkieAnna/media/F-15J%208959%20smaller_zps7ric8pgq.jpg.html)
They are doing an upgrade, the F-15J Kai.
(http://i484.photobucket.com/albums/rr202/TrekkieAnna/F-15J%20Kai%208928%20smaller_zpsaqtdwbyf.jpg) (http://s484.photobucket.com/user/TrekkieAnna/media/F-15J%20Kai%208928%20smaller_zpsaqtdwbyf.jpg.html)
I have the 1/48 Hasegawa kit of the Kai (it was obscenely spendy) and the above are the two schemes available in the kit. I'm still trying to decide if I want the version with the IRST Ball, it's part of a new HOBS. My Mom actually found me a Model Art book about JASDF F-15s as part of my Christmas gifts.
-
Sure they didn't sneak a couple of little lift jets under that airbrake? ;)
-
Sure they didn't sneak a couple of little lift jets under that airbrake? ;)
Have you evers seen the anime Patlabor, there was something in there, where they had F-15Js with canards and thrust vector exhausts. :)
-
i'm sure the oversized airbrakes are just a ruse to draw attention away from the giant robot alternate mode. 8)
-
So it's not a speedbrake, it's the weather hatch for the conversion gear. Gotcha!
-
Have you evers seen the anime Patlabor, there was something in there, where they had F-15Js with canards and thrust vector exhausts. :)
Patlabor's second movie, actually. It's based around a blend of the F-15 ACTIVE and YF-22, though the real world F-15 Silent Eagle (from does actually have similarly canted tails as a low-observable feature. Someone did a fantastic model of the thing, I added pics below. The F-15 ACTIVE:
(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/F-15ACTIVE/Medium/EC97-44177-15.jpg)
The art team also did the same with an F-16/F-2, though not quite as extensive a modification. Don't have any model pictures, but you can see it here.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3412280043_5f9fcf703a_o.jpg)
Anyway, tempted to see if I can ever mod an F-15 into this "F-15J Kai Super" configuration from the film:
-
Nice! Thank you for finding & posting. :) I was so tired last night.
I want to do a model of a "Kai-ACTIVE" as well, I have several F-15J and -DJs in 1/48. That F-2 Kai-ACTIVE is tempting as well, I have an F-2B here, too....
-
The redundancy of the Libs tail unfortunately didn't offset the handling issues it created. At the wars end, the
Lib was transitioned to a single tail but only a handful were made.
-Jackmc
The naval version had a single tail, yeah- we had a few that used to fly as water bombers out in Colorado during fire season, until one of them lost a wing in flight while fighting a particularly awful blaze about... what, 15 years ago now, something like that. All of the WWII-era planes got grounded from the fleet after that, not sure how many (if any) were ever put back in service. Combined with the C-130s also being grounded following a crash that same summer in Nevada, it left a handful of P-3 Orions and fervent prayer to deal with a very dry summer.
(I was in school directly across the street from where the bombers loaded up their slurry, and volunteered regularly to help get the planes turned around with fuel and loads, so I got to know the setup quite well... and got used to coming home looking like a giant Oompa Loompa, all bright orange and such. ;) )
-
I wonder if the F15se Silent Eagle will ever see the light of day. With the US not wanting to sell F22s and Japan begging for them. That might be a good fit.
-
I think the Silent Eagle would be a good fit for many operators. The sensor/systems fusion, proven abilities of an F-15, plus enhancements - it should be an excellent jet.
-
Japan's got F-X going, but they may adopt mods to the 15Js that are in the same series. I don't know about straight compatibility with -15Js and the -15SE but I could see Boing selling upgrade kits and tech support contracts at least. It'd give them an interesting three-level mix of primary air power, and would definitely be a nice modernization package for the Eagles.
-
A lot of the upgrades are sensors/electronics, stuffs like that.
I think a full-up Silent Eagle has a new airframe with more RAM and such, as well as thrust vectors, canted tails, etc.
-
A lot of the upgrades are sensors/electronics, stuffs like that.
I think a full-up Silent Eagle has a new airframe with more RAM and such, as well as thrust vectors, canted tails, etc.
I believe it used lighter-weight materials in its structure as well, but I may be mistaken on that.
-
^ I think you're correct, I'd have to look it up myself, but I think there were more composites and such, yes. :)
-
Navy and Army threads have been getting some loving lately, so Air Force should not miss out . . .
Newest aircraft in the RAAF inventory:
(http://www.airforce.gov.au/imgs/raaf-balloon-16.jpg)
Manufacturer: Cameron Balloons, Bristol, UK
Role: Promote a positive Air Force image
Identifier: VH-BZU
Height: 28 m
Breadth: 20 m
Volume: 3,398 m3
Max takeoff weight: 1088 kg
Min landing weight: 544 kg
Climb / descent: 2.54 m/s (maximum)
Payload: Varies with conditions
Speed: Prevailing wind speed
Range: Determind by wind speed and direction
Endurance: Approximately 3 hours
Ceiling: 3,048 m (higher with life support systems)
-
Here are some more photos:
(http://www.contactairlandandsea.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20160228RAAF8440875_0024-800x444.jpg)
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/7239340-1x1-700x700.jpg)
-
I've seen worse ad campaigns. O0
-
"...and thus was the only flight of an Australian F-35. Yes, just a red outline on a balloon, but as close as it ever came..."
-
I always suspected those pilots were full of hot air...
-
Using a Hot Air Ballon good way of saying "budget cuts"
-
Here are some more photos:
(http://www.contactairlandandsea.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20160228RAAF8440875_0024-800x444.jpg)
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/7239340-1x1-700x700.jpg)
nothing better then a blimp to travel around in
-
Using a Hot Air Ballon good way of saying "budget cuts"
Well that is better than "indulgent", which is what most of us thought of the Skywhale aka Micheal Boob-whale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skywhale)
(http://www.contentgroup.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/skywhale_air00002.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q1Yx5rX2SEg/UZIKuDUxk_I/AAAAAAAAIMM/DngveExdXt0/s1600/image2.jpeg)
-
Ladies and gentlemen, the world's most ****** up Pokemon.
-
Or if you play FFG's Star Wars: Armada...the Assault Frigate Mk II.
I'm really not sure what those things hanging down the side are supposed to be.
-
Or if you play FFG's Star Wars: Armada...the Assault Frigate Mk II.
I'm really not sure what those things hanging down the side are supposed to be.
She's a stripped down Dreadnought. Those things under her I think were meant to identify her with the rebel nebulon frigate.
-
She's a stripped down Dreadnought. Those things under her I think were meant to identify her with the rebel nebulon frigate.
I think you are thinking of the AF Mk I, which hasn't appeared in Armada as of yet.
-
Star Wars artists like to put wings or vanes on their ships sometimes, and more often than not they are nothing but greebles to give it a unique silhouette. The few times they do get technical about it, the wings mount reaction thrusters to boost the vessel's maneuverability.
-
Star Wars artists like to put wings or vanes on their ships sometimes, and more often than not they are nothing but greebles to give it a unique silhouette. The few times they do get technical about it, the wings mount reaction thrusters to boost the vessel's maneuverability.
Sorry to have been unclear; I was referring to the udder-like appendages on the balloon.
-
Sorry to have been unclear; I was referring to the udder-like appendages on the balloon.
They're a bit too...human you know?
-
They're a bit too...human you know?
Yup, they sure are.
-
Yup, they sure are.
The poster of the skywhale pictuers did post a link to wiki article on it. It did stated that the creator conceived these udders as gas gland/producing organs for the fictional skywhale.
-
The poster of the skywhale pictuers did post a link to wiki article on it. It did stated that the creature conceived these udders as gas gland/producing organs for the fictional skywhale.
Oh, context. Still not going to erase the image from my mind.
-
Oh, context. Still not going to erase the image from my mind.
Yeah.. and crap on crackers! I meant to say creator, not creature. She's a clever one at that.
-
Yeah.. and crap on crackers! I meant to say creator, not creature. She's a clever one at that.
I read the mistake and thought to myself, "'creature' is far more apt a description."
-
As noted in the wiki, the Skywhale was commissioned by the ACT Government as a present to celebrate the centenary of the city of Canberra. Got to love our tax dollars at work . . .
Canberra is the capital of Australia, it is home to the Australian Parliament House (and thus all our federal politicians) and the vast majority of our federal public servants. So a large creature filled with hot-air could be a fitting artistic interpretation/representation of the city of Canberra . . . :D
-
That's enough on the udderly bizarre balloon.
Yes yes its funny but back on topic.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/SM79_193.jpg)
Gobbo Maledettos, Italian air force SM.79 Sparvieros (the beloved 'damned hunchback' medium bomber), Italy's most-used WWII bomber, showing how it earned its nickname with its odd form. This is a three-engine plane, a very good one at that, and remained used well after the war ended as a bomber and torpedo plane. (Side note- also one of the rare planes, along with the He-111 and B-24, to carry its bomb load vertically in the bomb bay rather than horizontally like most bombers)
-
I wonder if dropping the bombs form the vertical was any better the standard way? From what I remember the He111 dropped them tail first when bombing.
-
I wonder if dropping the bombs form the vertical was any better the standard way? From what I remember the He111 dropped them tail first when bombing.
The airflow 'grabbing' the munitions as they leave the aircraft really forces it into a similar trajectory soon after leaving the plane, really (unless you're at really low levels, like the B-24s at Ploesti). So it has less to do with the behavior of the weapon and more in how the plane is designed to carry it.
That's not to say there's NO differences, before someone gets pissy, just that it really isn't a 'better' or 'worse' way to carry the weapon in terms of how it behaves.
-
The airflow 'grabbing' the munitions as they leave the aircraft really forces it into a similar trajectory soon after leaving the plane, really (unless you're at really low levels, like the B-24s at Ploesti). So it has less to do with the behavior of the weapon and more in how the plane is designed to carry it.
That's not to say there's NO differences, before someone gets pissy, just that it really isn't a 'better' or 'worse' way to carry the weapon in terms of how it behaves.
I can't imagine it helping accuracy at all.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1768639/he3.jpg)
-
IIRC, the dispersion was greater from the vertical storage, than from a horizontal rack. Planes built to use this couldn't then carry larger bombs that were developed as the war went on - unlike bombers like the Lancaster, Liberator or Superfortress, with long open bays.
W.
-
question for your aviation guru's.. in a pencil&Paper RPG i've joined, i have a character that will be flying a Huey. (UH-1H model)
since the setting is post-apocalyptic**, i was curious what alternatives to JP-4 fuel it could use safely. since it is unlikely that there'll be a JP-4 cache on hand every time it runs low. can the engines of one of those burn the other JP varieties? what about things like non-petrochemical options? (alcohol? veggie oils?) or things like natural gas, methane, etc?
i know that IRL there has been some research into developing bio-fuels for the US military, but those all tend to be fairly complex stuff requiring fancy industry.
**setting is a mashup of different gamelines by the same company, but the overall effect is more "the Postman" or zombie-outbreak type post-apoc.. society has collapsed and there are dangerous groups and enemies out preventing it from recovering except in isolated pockets.. but you don't have the nuclear wastelands, mutants, or freaky BDSM-bandits and such of the Roadwarrior, Fallout, or similar type settings. just a general lack of anything resembling industrial infrastructure in most places
-
I kinda figured that there would be no advantage to dropping the bombs vertical over the normal way. It just looked so odd when watching videos of bombs dropped from He111s. The videos almost swaying back and forth when they fell.
-
question for your aviation guru's.. in a pencil&Paper RPG i've joined, i have a character that will be flying a Huey. (UH-1H model)
since the setting is post-apocalyptic**, i was curious what alternatives to JP-4 fuel it could use safely. since it is unlikely that there'll be a JP-4 cache on hand every time it runs low. can the engines of one of those burn the other JP varieties? what about things like non-petrochemical options? (alcohol? veggie oils?) or things like natural gas, methane, etc?
i know that IRL there has been some research into developing bio-fuels for the US military, but those all tend to be fairly complex stuff requiring fancy industry.
**setting is a mashup of different gamelines by the same company, but the overall effect is more "the Postman" or zombie-outbreak type post-apoc.. society has collapsed and there are dangerous groups and enemies out preventing it from recovering except in isolated pockets.. but you don't have the nuclear wastelands, mutants, or freaky BDSM-bandits and such of the Roadwarrior, Fallout, or similar type settings. just a general lack of anything resembling industrial infrastructure in most places
Ok, not a proper aviation guru . . . but I dabble. Had to do some quick googling to refamiliarise myself with the various AVTURs (been over 10 years since I last project managed the construction of aircraft refuelling systems).
JP4 (which is a kerosene/gasoline mix) has been replaced by JP8 (which is a kerosene with additives) which is pretty similar in spec to the commercial-grade JET A-1. So your post-apoc Huey should be able to run JP8 and JET A-1 without major issues. Both JP8 and JET A-1 are effectively high-spec kerosene with corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives, therefore in a post-apoc situation your household kerosene should be ok for a Huey (depending on the environment you are unlikely to run into icing issues and corrosion is probably the least of your worries). I know JP8 and JET A-1 can also be used in diesel engines, whether your standard diesel fuel could be used in your Huey is beyond my technical knowledge. I know that diesel can be used in the purpose designed, multi-fuel military turbine engines (such as the M-1 Abrams, B-52 but I am not sure about the Huey) for emergency situations but the engines then usually need additional servicing/maintenance as a result.
-
Another WW2 combat vet takes to the sky. Hope to get chance to see it at Temora when it visits in future.
Doug Hamilton's newly-restored Curtiss P-40N Warhawk, 42-104986.
(http://www.warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/AntiqueFlyin-6891.jpg)
On February 14th, 1944, Lieutenant Nelson Flack of the 8th Fighter Squadron, 49th Fighter Group USAAF was shot down in this P-40 during an intense aerial battle, but not beforehe downed over a Japanese Ki-61 Hien. Recovered in 2006 from the New Guinea jungle and following a 12-year rebuild, the P-40 made her first post-restoration flight recently.
Did you want to know more?
http://www.ww2aero.com/hamilton-p-40n/ (http://www.ww2aero.com/hamilton-p-40n/)
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/douglas/wrecks/flack.html (http://www.pacificwrecks.com/douglas/wrecks/flack.html)
-
Friday evening Jacky's Revenge crashed into the Hudson. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/small-plane-carrying-people-lands-hudson-river-article-1.2652690 (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/small-plane-carrying-people-lands-hudson-river-article-1.2652690)
I saw it at the Reading WWII weekend in 2013.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5578/14191062008_ea3b6258bb.jpg)
-
Deepest sympathies and thoughts to the family and friends of the pilot.
The P-47 is one of my favourite WWII fighters (sits along side the Spitfire and the Mustang), I hope that they are able to salvage it and get it back to flying condition.
-
Deepest sympathies and thoughts to the family and friends of the pilot.
The P-47 is one of my favourite WWII fighters (sits along side the Spitfire and the Mustang), I hope that they are able to salvage it and get it back to flying condition.
The article I saw showed the aircraft being salvaged. It was in one piece amazingly enough.
-
Friday evening Jacky's Revenge crashed into the Hudson. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/small-plane-carrying-people-lands-hudson-river-article-1.2652690 (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/small-plane-carrying-people-lands-hudson-river-article-1.2652690)
I saw it at the Reading WWII weekend in 2013.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5578/14191062008_ea3b6258bb.jpg)
So very sad. Seen this plane at a airshow. RIP to the pilot and plane.
-
Its a sad thing. They have pulled the plane from the river though.
Anyone going to the Reading Air Show next weekend? I plan on being there Saturday.
-
The article I saw showed the aircraft being salvaged. It was in one piece amazingly enough.
One of the main reasons for my love for the P-47 is that like it's namesake the A-10, it was built tough to survive combat damage. I remember reading stories of P-47s over Europe taking serious engine damage (ie losing whole cylinders to enemy weapons fire) and still being able to limp home.
-
Its a sad thing. They have pulled the plane from the river though.
Anyone going to the Reading Air Show next weekend? I plan on being there Saturday.
I'm headed there Sunday.
-
I remember reading stories of P-47s over Europe taking serious engine damage (ie losing whole cylinders to enemy weapons fire) and still being able to limp home.
That's not a Thud attribute, that's an attribute of radial engines. While not common, it's not unheard of to have a semi-catastrophic failure where a radial engine ejects a piston(s) and the pilot not realize it until they land and notice the hole that the departing piston punched in the engine cowling. There's a plane at Pima that had that happen on it's delivery flight to the museum.
-Jackmc
-
The P47 was a awesome plane, a great fighter but even better ground attack plane. I've seen a few fly. There is a very noticble sound when they fly buy. It was good seeing a Thunderbolt and a F4u Corsair flying together.
-
I remember reading a WW2 true story (in the book "Top Guns" by Joe Foss) about a P47 pilot that was caught as tailing Charlie and a german plane got on him and pretty much expended his ammo into the P47 and still the plane kept flying. The german pilot pulled alongside him, shook his head in disbelief and turned for home once the P47 reached the English shores.
-
The other side of the story is that Republic planes are infamous for their long takeoff runs
-
The other side of the story is that Republic planes are infamous for their long takeoff runs
So long as you aren't on a carrier....
-
Here's an AH-64 that I saw parked at the local airport back in the beginning of February. I have no idea why it was there, but it appears to have been fully armed unless those are dummy missiles on the wings.
(https://photos-5.dropbox.com/t/2/AADVdwEr5sKiFCLgh-zxA3htWiskIZu2_XNQ_G2wOoMRSA/12/570226231/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/20160202_164210.jpg/EM7KgcoEGAMgAigC/FpwrSvjFO-dOtLLobOXtq--_EPrTu1RoYtbnt1kWGks?size=1600x1200&size_mode=3)
-
Here's an AH-64 that I saw parked at the local airport back in the beginning of February. I have no idea why it was there, but it appears to have been fully armed unless those are dummy missiles on the wings.
Can't directly link to dropbox images like that. Try uploading to imgur instead. If the ordnance had blue squares/stripes on the front end then it's training rounds, usually loaded with chalk to make a temporary mark to see where it hit. If it was yellow/red/whatever, well, that's a different story.
-
That's not a Thud attribute, that's an attribute of radial engines. While not common, it's not unheard of to have a semi-catastrophic failure where a radial engine ejects a piston(s) and the pilot not realize it until they land and notice the hole that the departing piston punched in the engine cowling. There's a plane at Pima that had that happen on it's delivery flight to the museum.
-Jackmc
The radial engine is a Thud attribute which gave it that extra bit of battle toughness in comparison to other contemporary long range fighters.
-
Can't directly link to dropbox images like that. Try uploading to imgur instead. If the ordnance had blue squares/stripes on the front end then it's training rounds, usually loaded with chalk to make a temporary mark to see where it hit. If it was yellow/red/whatever, well, that's a different story.
Right, and I'll try to make it a more manageable size next time, too.
-
I remember reading a WW2 true story (in the book "Top Guns" by Joe Foss) about a P47 pilot that was caught as tailing Charlie and a german plane got on him and pretty much expended his ammo into the P47 and still the plane kept flying. The german pilot pulled alongside him, shook his head in disbelief and turned for home once the P47 reached the English shores.
My favourite P47 story was something I read many years ago - supposedly, a Polish pilot, after converting to a P47D from Spitfires in 1944, was very impressed with it's firepower and diving speed, but said that the best way to take evasive action was to get up and run round the cockpit.
-
That's what the RAF said about it.
-
There's an old story that I've never found proof of, sadly, but supposedly after the war ended a pilot doing touch-and-goes in New Jersey turned right at the end of an aborted landing attempt rather than left, and flew into the brick wall of a factory nearby... and out the other side, with severe damage to the plane and no helpful effects on the pilot (to say the least), but still intact and airworthy enough to come back around and make one more landing try. The aircraft was supposedly good for nothing but parts at that point, but the damn thing flew THROUGH A BUILDING and came out intact.
Now, true? Not really sure. But if you'd said it about a Mustang or Lightning I'd have called bullshit on the spot. That it's a Jug? ...Plausible. If any plane could do it, that's the beast for the job.
-
I remember reading a WW2 true story (in the book "Top Guns" by Joe Foss) about a P47 pilot that was caught as tailing Charlie and a german plane got on him and pretty much expended his ammo into the P47 and still the plane kept flying. The german pilot pulled alongside him, shook his head in disbelief and turned for home once the P47 reached the English shores.
That engagement was also in an episode of Dogfights on the History Channel.
-
There's an old story that I've never found proof of, sadly, but supposedly after the war ended a pilot doing touch-and-goes in New Jersey turned right at the end of an aborted landing attempt rather than left, and flew into the brick wall of a factory nearby... and out the other side, with severe damage to the plane and no helpful effects on the pilot (to say the least), but still intact and airworthy enough to come back around and make one more landing try. The aircraft was supposedly good for nothing but parts at that point, but the damn thing flew THROUGH A BUILDING and came out intact.
Now, true? Not really sure. But if you'd said it about a Mustang or Lightning I'd have called bullshit on the spot. That it's a Jug? ...Plausible. If any plane could do it, that's the beast for the job.
I heard same of a SE5a during or after WW1.
-
I'd buy the airframe surviving flying through a building, but not the propeller.
-
There's an old story that I've never found proof of,
I sincerely doubt it, but I bet it's a bastardization of a true story. In the movie It's a MAD, MAD,MAD,MAD world they flew another tough old warbird, a Beech-18 through a billboard. Even though it was just a thin veneer of paper and sytrafoam, the impact totaled the airframe out. I got this straight from two of the world's foremost experts on the 18 (both historical and technical), Matt Younkin and Jeff Gibbs who is his crew chief when Matt is on the airshow circuit doing his acrobatics routine
By way of comparison, there were a bunch of dumb punks from where I grew up that thought it'd be fun to drop fist sized rocks off on overpass over a 75 mph turnpike. Those rocks were less than a quarter the mass of a brick and even though the cars were only going 75 mph, it was enough to trash steel structural members and kill a person.
-Jackmc
-
While I'm thinking of Beech-18's, here are pics of a couples of the Beeches in my life, Matt's "Magic by Moonlight" aka Ellie, and one of my old offices, "Daddy's Girl"
(http://i.imgur.com/ZfWvGMV.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/yya00IM.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/WrMgZdy.jpg)
-Jackmc
-
I always like the twin engine planes. F7F Tigercat, P-38 Lightning, Bf/ME 110, HE 219 Uhu, Westland Whirlwind, the plane from TV series Wings, and the Sea Duck from Talespin.
edited added a picture, even if it's a fictional cartoon show, it is still a plane no?
-
I've always wondered if the Seaduck was a viable aircraft. Not capable of the stuff it did in the cartoon obviously, but as an actual utility craft.
-
probably fairly viable. after all the Germans had a very similar flying boat in WW2.
the BV138
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/34/08/ed/3408ed15bff3cba7e3329761c20029a6.jpg)
though the Sea Duck is a bit closer in appearance and role to a flying boat C-119 or C-82.
-
I've always wondered if the Seaduck was a viable aircraft. Not capable of the stuff it did in the cartoon obviously, but as an actual utility craft.
Its very close to a Sikorsky design.
-
I've always wondered if the Seaduck was a viable aircraft. Not capable of the stuff it did in the cartoon obviously, but as an actual utility craft.
Should be, the concept model is the fuselage and engines of a HU-16 mated to the twin tail booms of a C-82.
-Jackmc
-
The Seaduck could work. It would of been a interesting good utility plane.
-
Well this a pic of an F-16 that crashed after the Air Force Academy graduation. Pilot ejected safely and managed to drop the bird in a field about 1/2 mile from where I used to live.
-
That's...in surprisingly good condition.
-
Also yesterday, a few hours after the Thunderbirds F-16 crash, a Blue Angels F-18 went down just after takeoff and claimed the life of the Marine pilot.
-
That's...in surprisingly good condition.
Yeah, looks like some bumped it in traffic, not crashed
RIP Marine also
-
That's...in surprisingly good condition.
In so much that it is not in small pieces I agree, but still looks like a write off to me. Too much major structural damage and that's just to the visible portions.
-Jackmc
-
Oh, definitely. That thing looks as bad as the Cessna I trained on*. I just didn't know it was possible for a jet to crash and the term 'flaming crater' not apply to the end result.
*I didn't do it. Tornado hit the flight school. No pics, sorry.
-
Yeah, I know what you mean, the jumpship that I made my first jump out of, and that was the first plane that was "mine" as an instructor, was crunched up by a tornado a couple years back. :'(
As for the condition of the F-16, there's a lot of truth in the old adage for non-VTOL aircraft that the odds of survival are inversely proportional to the angle of arrival. Low speed and a shallow decent angle (the failure occurred slightly after take off and the pilot trimmed out the plane for max low speed glide so he could control it long enough to avoid houses) can often produce something like that. That's how a the German's managed to end up flying a few B-17's in WWII.
-Jackmc
-
Don't forget there is actually an example of a F106 that landed in a cornfield after its pilot ejected and they managed to get that airworthy again, it is now at the Air Force Museum in Dayton OH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber
-
Unfortunately it looks like the T-bird had its back broken and has severe structural damage to the wing root. It the would almost impossible to get it recertified to pull extreme g's again.
-
Unfortunately it looks like the T-bird had its back broken and has severe structural damage to the wing root. It the would almost impossible to get it recertified to pull extreme g's again.
Gate guard or museum piece?
-
probably.
...after they strip it for avionics and subsystems.
parts is parts, y'know.
-
I remember the Mirage 2000 that crashed in Afghanistan, it looked in even better condition, but they just blew off wing, dragged it to base with recovery tank and scrapped it. The general policy is to consider all parts of crashed aircraft to have exceeded their G force tolerances and scrap them, so unless there is very urgent need for spare parts, everything (officially) goes into the furnace.
-
Also yesterday, a few hours after the Thunderbirds F-16 crash, a Blue Angels F-18 went down just after takeoff and claimed the life of the Marine pilot.
Some more info on the Blue Angels pilot has come out over the weekend. Looks like the pilot purposely stuck with the aircraft (instead of ejecting) to pilot it so that the plane wouldn't hit an apartment complex.
-
Good job, then. Give the man a medal. Better one life lost than many. RIP Cpt Kuss.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/EqaxfOM.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a6/51/e7/a651e7abd92bbbe91a68a0bf5bc0ac98.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQW4gkHPN5IYlnSFrQX1ANHGbSpmXNymhtUvksaqAmc6XOnuOLD)
-
Oh those crazy Japanese
-
That makes me want to straight-up vomit.
-
That makes me want to straight-up vomit.
Like nose art isn't something new! Why if you walked among the US warplanes of WW2, you would found some of them bawdy!
-
That is a weird paint job on a attack chopper.
-
Like the ship in the other thread, it looks like Photoshop to me, especially the parts where the "paint" is on the glass.
-
I doubt that it's paint and more likely to be a vinyl wrap
-
Those indeed look like vinyl sheets like those used for visual pub/ industry naming/ bling bling deco on cars or trucks. Done right, it will stick to any surfaces at any angle and can be easily and rapidly removed when needed.
-
The flame on the nose of the first picture looks particularly like Photoshop work to me, but the others could be vinyl wraps...
-
It's real, there were some more pictures from this event (few years ago) but the hosting seems to be gone.
-
newest in stealth tech? got me a bit of a chuckle out of this....
-
newest in stealth tech? got me a bit of a chuckle out of this....
If that's not photoshopped (and it's the F-117), someone on that base got a hell of a sense of humor :)
-
If that's not photoshopped (and it's the F-117), someone on that base got a hell of a sense of humor :)
It's actually from the Arizona boneyard, from the 1990s. Pretty clever, really. (The real F-117s are kept shrink-wrapped with their wings removed at Nellis AFB... with the exception of at least one that keeps getting spotted flying around the area)
-
It's actually from the Arizona boneyard, from the 1990s. Pretty clever, really. (The real F-117s are kept shrink-wrapped with their wings removed at Nellis AFB... with the exception of at least one that keeps getting spotted flying around the area)
they actually did a press release awhile back to address that.. apparently every few months they take a different one, reassemble it, and set it up for a test flight as part of the program to keep them in readiness should they be reactivated. the jets are in Type 1000 storage, which means they are mothballed, but mothbaleld in condition that allows them to be rapidly returend to service. can't be sure of that if you don;t actually return one to service every so often.
http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/11/we-now-know-why-the-f-117-is-still-flying/
i suspect the flight do serve a double purpose in allowing the testing of anti-stealth sensors and stuff, but odds are any such efforts are a 'well if we gotta fly them around every so often anyway" thing.
-
newest in stealth tech? got me a bit of a chuckle out of this....
Reminds me of the one they staged after towing an F-22 after an especially heavy morning dew:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a1/ac/6b/a1ac6bb0af88cb4d44d0466279675292.jpg)
-
Methinks reflective belts for aircraft is going to be a necessary safety requirement now...
-
We will just go full circle back to hi-vis aircraft paint schemes:
(http://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/exhibitions/tech_hang/images/10-A79-876-restored-vampire.jpg)
which is like how the RAAF decided to get flightline crews to wear DPCUs with hi-vis vests/reflective belts ::)
(http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs.com.au.news/files/OVERSEAS%20AID_aid%20work2_140513_AAP.jpg)
(http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/global/images/thumbs/thumbnail.ashx?src=jobs/armyOperatorMovements.jpg&size=extralarge)
And a cookie to the forum-ite who can pick the mistake the last photo
-
I see one too many hats on the flight line...
Also, your first set of tags had a typo ("width" was misspelled)...
-
Cheers and typo fixed.
Well done, give that man a cookie.
-
We will just go full circle back to hi-vis aircraft paint schemes:
(http://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/exhibitions/tech_hang/images/10-A79-876-restored-vampire.jpg)
Looks like Chris Foss got a hold of that plane. ::)
-
Anyone care to pant up a Hornet in those colours?
-
If you mean the BattleTech unit, the mercenary Killer Bees use the same scheme. Given how little the Hornet really looks like an insect...well, maybe a cicada, whereas the Cicada looks like a two-legged pile of shit...I forgot where I was going with this.
-
You forgot to follow it up with a quip about FA-18s. Maybe find a way to compare their landing gear to a Cicada's legs?
-
What about the follow up to the Mosquito De Havelland made?
Honestly, such Americo-centric thinking...
-
You mean this?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/De_Havilland_Hornet_F1.jpg)
-
What a...Cicada.
-
You mean this?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/De_Havilland_Hornet_F1.jpg)
The Hornet is beautiful. It was hard to improve the Mosquito... they managed to do it.
-
I still love the Mosquito
I normally look at this and related threads on my iPad and can't work out how to sort out uploading pictures from it, hence my frequent posting but infrequent picture containing posts
-
The Hornet is beautiful. It was hard to improve the Mosquito... they managed to do it.
I have to disagree. Despite my approval for the overblown engine pods, it looks really lopsided to me. It's probably the stubby nose; I didn't even like the looks of the C-130 until it got its radar wart.
-
How do you feel about this
(https://rdontheroad.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/beau.jpg1)
or this
(http://www.aviationtrivia.org/images/WestlandWhirlwind.jpg)
then?
-
I detest broken links, but the Whirlwind looks far more balanced to my eyes.
-
Bosch likes big schnozzles and he cannot lie ;D
Not a fan of the Vampire either, I take it?
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3952/15142910063_017eb6e2b9_b.jpg)
-
It's like they took a P-61 and filed all the interesting bits off.
Edit: It reminds me of nothing so much as the old superdeformed "egg plane" Japanese model kits.
-
I assume Mr Worktroll was trying to say that you would not like the Bristol Beaufighter then:
(http://starmoz.com/images/bristol-beaufighter-6.jpg)
-
How do you feel about this
(https://rdontheroad.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/beau.jpg1)
or this
(http://www.aviationtrivia.org/images/WestlandWhirlwind.jpg)
then?
ah the Whirlwind. Pity it was so limited in production and fame, its practically the great grandfather of the A-10 Thunderbolt and 1 of the first ever dedicated ground attack aircraft.
-
Bosch likes big schnozzles and he cannot lie ;D
Not a fan of the Vampire either, I take it?
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3952/15142910063_017eb6e2b9_b.jpg)
That's a great pic of the great StarFighter
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3952/15142910063_017eb6e2b9_b.jpg)
Oddly related to this particular picture...(don't think I posted these earlier)
Side note: anyone in eastern England happen to get photos of the Hurricane and Spitfire that are beating around the skies right now? I've been watching them buzz around on ADSB Exchange.
-
And the second one (pics split because of size limit, boo)
-
And the second one (pics split because of size limit, boo)
What's that supposed to be? It looks like a De Havilland, but it's not one I recognize.
-
They look like a Starfighter and Vampire respectively, reimagined as if they were designed with modern or near-future technology.
-
Line that just came to me looking at the bee-fighter.
"PHENOMENAL ENGINE POWER.......ittty bitty wingspan."
-
You want PHENOMENAL POWER, and HUGE WINGSPAN?
(https://65.media.tumblr.com/4946cc1b50102f9a1bd1ff1709511a3f/tumblr_o9r1qzmN1X1sxm4gzo4_1280.jpg)
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/35c7d4e216d4868a442b5f3a264dfffe/tumblr_o9r1qzmN1X1sxm4gzo9_1280.jpg)
(https://67.media.tumblr.com/6a1d968ee272ad9833c5493bcf34c0ef/tumblr_o9r1qzmN1X1sxm4gzo10_1280.jpg)
(https://67.media.tumblr.com/54b998b7d8cefad862522c42d683502d/tumblr_o9r1qzmN1X1sxm4gzo5_1280.jpg)
(That engineer is right out of Girl Genius ... O0 )
-
I wish the age of flying boats had lasted longer...
-
Dornier's grandson still flies one around trying to drum up business, would be useful all over the place
-
Yep, Porco Rosso fan here too O0
(http://moviemezzanine.com/wp-content/uploads/porco_rosso_movie_image_01.jpg)
-
I wish the age of flying boats had lasted longer...
I believe it's the long twilight. Just because they're niche, doesn't mean they don't have their specialties. Unlike say... WiGEs or Zeppelins
Shin Meiwa PS-1 / US-1 (43 built)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y29Q1BFtlNc/maxresdefault.jpg)
Shin Meiwa US-2 (4 built)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/US-2_9903-2.JPG/800px-US-2_9903-2.JPG)
Harbin SH-5 (5-7 built)
(http://www.airvectors.net/avps1_5.jpg)
Canadair CL-215 (125 built)
(http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2014/8/10/442266.jpg)
Bombardier 415 (Canadair CL-415) (95 built) - note, the type certificate for this and the CL-215 was bought by Viking Air which also bought all of the type certificates for DHC designs before the Dash-8 (only the DHC-6 Twin Otter has made it back to production so far)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/I-DPCN_at_work_03_%284203528315%29.jpg/800px-I-DPCN_at_work_03_%284203528315%29.jpg)
Beriev Be-200 (9 built out of 17 ordered so far)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/MChS_Beriev_Be-200_waterbomber.jpg/800px-MChS_Beriev_Be-200_waterbomber.jpg)
Beriev Be-42 (So far prototype only)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Beriev_A-40_Gelendzhik_2Sept2004.jpg/800px-Beriev_A-40_Gelendzhik_2Sept2004.jpg)
Beriev Be-12 (a few linger in service)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Beriev_Be-12PS_%22Chayka%22_%2826695171832%29.jpg)
And AVIC is busy trying to bring a new design to the scene:
(http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/QSfI9ig.jpg)
-
Diamond DA42
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Diamond_DA42_Twin_Star_SP-NBA_--_fly-by_%283318845648%29.jpg/800px-Diamond_DA42_Twin_Star_SP-NBA_--_fly-by_%283318845648%29.jpg)
(http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2015/12/4/639974.jpg)
You don't realize the gulf between general aviation and combat aircraft until you realize that this Diamond has twin 168 hp engines (diesels, actually), while something like an early WW2 Merlin makes on the order of over a thousand hp.
-
Yep, twin-engined general aviation light aircraft - the second engine is there to you to the scene of the accident.
-
That's answered a question for me, Chanman - it is obviously worthwhile putting winglets on the end of propeller-powered airplanes.
What sort of performance improvement would you have gotten on a Spitfire, Me-109, or Mustang with winglets, I wonder?
-
given that winglets reduce drag, either a bit of extra speed or a bit of extra range, i suspect. would probably depend on a lot of factors.
-
That's answered a question for me, Chanman - it is obviously worthwhile putting winglets on the end of propeller-powered airplanes.
What sort of performance improvement would you have gotten on a Spitfire, Me-109, or Mustang with winglets, I wonder?
Different performance parameters, different compromises. Much like how airliners have long, high aspect ratio wings for minimum drag and maximum lift at cruise and use lots of high-lift devices to offset the high wing-loading when it's time for landing and take-off, but fighters tend towards cropped delta or trapezoidal wings because a) low wing-loading gives better turn performance, b) big wings mean more fuel and ordnance, c) rotational inertia will negatively affect instantaneous roll rates, etc.
-
Line that just came to me looking at the bee-fighter.
"PHENOMENAL ENGINE POWER.......ittty bitty wingspan."
an old tradition..
(http://cdn.silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Gee-Bee-Model-R2-2.jpg)
-
That's answered a question for me, Chanman - it is obviously worthwhile putting winglets on the end of propeller-powered airplanes.
What sort of performance improvement would you have gotten on a Spitfire, Me-109, or Mustang with winglets, I wonder?
To be honest they would not have really increased the performance all that much and would probably have reduced overall maneuverability.
-
If my memory serves me correctly, my non-aerospace engineering understanding is that winglets break up the vortex turbulence that form at the end of the wings, this significantly increases the efficiency of a wing - more lift and less drag. On a wing without winglets anywhere up to the last 1/3 of the wing does not generate lift due to the wingtip turbulence.
So on a long-range fighter this would be very helpful in improving the range of the fighter. However, I assume that the winglets would act like big fences on the wing and tend to try to keep the airflow coming over the wing straight and resist the aircraft performing more acrobatic maneuvers which would probably detract on their combat performance envelope.
-
an old tradition..
(http://cdn.silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Gee-Bee-Model-R2-2.jpg)
I'm given to understand Doolittle flew it. Once.
-
an old tradition..
(http://cdn.silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Gee-Bee-Model-R2-2.jpg)
Love the Gee Bee.
I wonder how fast it would of been with a 3 bladed prop.
-
I'm given to understand Doolittle flew it. Once.
According to the Quentin Reynolds biography, Doolittle flew it a couple of times to get the feel of it, the raced it once and won. He found that it cornered so badly that rather than flying a tight circuit of the triangular track, he flew a wide circle instead, and the plane was fast enough to make up for the longer route.
A second note was that Doolittle's wife was watching the race, and noticed that one reporter wasn't taking any photos. She collared him after the race and asked him why, and he admitted that his editor had sent him along for the sole purpose of capturing her reaction when her husband crashed.
-
According to the Quentin Reynolds biography, Doolittle flew it a couple of times to get the feel of it, the raced it once and won. He found that it cornered so badly that rather than flying a tight circuit of the triangular track, he flew a wide circle instead, and the plane was fast enough to make up for the longer route.
A second note was that Doolittle's wife was watching the race, and noticed that one reporter wasn't taking any photos. She collared him after the race and asked him why, and he admitted that his editor had sent him along for the sole purpose of capturing her reaction when her husband crashed.
I'd believe it. That tailplane is ridiculous, combine that with about 2/3 too much engine for a plane that size and it's a wonder anyone was willing to get in the beast. There are some legendary airplanes that I'd kill for the chance to fly- the X-15, the F-4, the B-29... I'd leave the GeeBee off my list every time.
-
According to the Quentin Reynolds biography, Doolittle flew it a couple of times to get the feel of it, the raced it once and won. He found that it cornered so badly that rather than flying a tight circuit of the triangular track, he flew a wide circle instead, and the plane was fast enough to make up for the longer route.
A second note was that Doolittle's wife was watching the race, and noticed that one reporter wasn't taking any photos. She collared him after the race and asked him why, and he admitted that his editor had sent him along for the sole purpose of capturing her reaction when her husband crashed.
Thanks!
-
There are some legendary airplanes that I'd kill for the chance to fly- the X-15, the F-4, the B-29.
My friend Matt says the B-29 is incredibly awesome to fly.
-Jackmc
-
Yep, twin-engined general aviation light aircraft - the second engine is there to you to the scene of the accident.
Not completely true, I've flown a Cessna310 that will hold at 8900 on one engine.
-
Wasn't that always the joke about the P-38? Two to get you airborne, one to get you home when the other one fails? ;D
-
B-29 "Doc" First Flight (in 60 years)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsiP5KZ04X4
EDIT: before i die I need to see a Fortress, Liberator, Superfortress, Lancaster formation ...
-
I'll settle for Doc and Fifi in formation...
-
To be honest they would not have really increased the performance all that much and would probably have reduced overall maneuverability.
Yeah, maybe a better choice would've been putting winglets on the B-17...or better yet, the B-24.
-
EX Pitch Black 2016 promo video (https://youtu.be/by1IuOi0sS8)
Why EX Pitch Black needs a youtube promo video beats me but it is pretty to watch.
-
I have seen a B-29, B-17, and a Lancaster fly together, that was a great sight.
-
Feenix, are you suggesting fighter pilots need an excuse to make a video? ;D
Speaking of which, here's a randomly cool one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0fUDymAA6I
-
Indian SU-30MKI with a very special something underslung... Brahmos.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k7lWlPOxvQc/VOL-TS6X2OI/AAAAAAAAYJc/IXFpDI9cnHE/s1600/image3%2B(1).JPG)
-
Pretty. Bad news for foreign naval sailors in the Indian ocean.
-
Should be in RAAF colours.
W
-
I love the fact that we have an Su-30 parked next to a Sea Harrier and they're both wearing the same insignia
-
I do not believe that is the case. More likely the tail that you see is a BAE Hawk 132
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Two_BAE_Systems_Hawks_of_the_Indian_Navy.jpg)
Still very interesting that the Indians have such diverse suppliers of their equipment.
Should be in RAAF colours.
W
But what happens to the supply of spare parts when our fearless leader says he will "shirtfront" their fearless leader . . . I will not say any more as I am already in the Rule 4 air defence identification zone.
-
@Feenix: let me join you in the ADZ then - thanks for the shirty backup mates, but we got the black box back all on our own :D
-
Oregon Air National Guard's 75th Anniversary paintjob
(http://d2tkkj1jfm0n25.cloudfront.net/?q=70&w=1440&url=http://d254andzyoxz3f.cloudfront.net/13950997_10210156548178076_1961940664_o2.jpg)
-
Now that there is one fine lookin' Eagle.
-
Now that there is one fine lookin' Eagle.
Even without paint, the Eagle still looks fine.
(http://static.thisdayinaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/tdia//2012/03/1800x1328xMcDonnell-Douglas-F-15A-6-MC-Streak-Eagle-72-0119.jpg.pagespeed.ic.fAwU3KfkC4.jpg)
-
It really is just a remarkably good-looking aircraft. MD hit it out of the park with that design.
And of course, its success rate over the past four decades speaks for itself.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--jUMZ7gWq--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1244237263892725606.jpg)
-
It really is just a remarkably good-looking aircraft.
Fully agreed; I do think the F-22 managed to keep that feeling.
(http://web.deu.edu.tr/atiksu/ana47/f-22-31.jpg)
But speak not to me of the Plastic Bug, or its successor here down under. >:(
-
The what? I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about, such an aircraft doesn't exist. Promise. ;)
Speaking of good looking birds... Tu-160 anyone?
-
Oregon Air National Guard's 75th Anniversary paintjob
(http://d2tkkj1jfm0n25.cloudfront.net/?q=70&w=1440&url=http://d254andzyoxz3f.cloudfront.net/13950997_10210156548178076_1961940664_o2.jpg)
This is a great looking Eagle.
-
Both the F-15 and the F-22 are beautiful looking aircraft, F-35 is like the red-haired step-brother.
I have always liked what they did with the F-15 conformal fuel tanks which, in my opinion, actually made the F-15 look better as an aircraft (gave it a bit more muscle to the fuselage). Much better than the efforts on the F-16 which have ruined the beautiful, sleek lines of the F-16
(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/f16i.jpeg)
-
Both the F-15 and the F-22 are beautiful looking aircraft, F-35 is like the red-haired step-brother.
I have always liked what they did with the F-15 conformal fuel tanks which, in my opinion, actually made the F-15 look better as an aircraft (gave it a bit more muscle to the fuselage). Much better than the efforts on the F-16 which have ruined the beautiful, sleek lines of the F-16
(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/f16i.jpeg)
You put an original late 70s F-16 next to a modern one and the differences are striking.
-
Yep, F-16I is just fugly compared to an early F-16A/C
(http://www.f-16.net/g3/var/resizes/f-16-photos/album07/album08/f-16i.jpg?m=1371927443) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/F-16_Fighting_Falcon.jpg)
-
Other nations with the Conformal Fuel Tanks on the F-16s have AESA radar , larger engine and other high tech improvements. Its almost like a Super Fighting Falcon update to the Classic Fighting Falcon
-
guess i'm the only one who likes the conformal tanks.
-
Appreciate the Super Fighting Falcon's enhanced capabilities but Super Hornet is a much better looking upgrade.
(http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/20100309raaf8540677_0012.jpg) (http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20080829raaf8165233_0621.jpg)
-
Improvise, adapt, overcome (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-12/rfds-use-flaming-toilet-rolls-to-light-up-remote-airstrip/7722858) O0
-
Oregon Air National Guard's 75th Anniversary paintjob
(http://d2tkkj1jfm0n25.cloudfront.net/?q=70&w=1440&url=http://d254andzyoxz3f.cloudfront.net/13950997_10210156548178076_1961940664_o2.jpg)
I went to school right next to that airbase. The jets would fly over my res hall so low that I could hear their landing gear lowering.
-
Appreciate the Super Fighting Falcon's enhanced capabilities but Super Hornet is a much better looking upgrade.
Rubbish, and rubbish. I told you not to speak of the Plastic Bug, Feenix ... >:(
-
Worktroll, do not talk shit on the Hornet when there are those on this forum who think the Phantom looks good... ::)
-
yes F4 is a solid looking piece of metal. it can be maintained with ball peen hammers and pipe wrenches. the F16I is so ugly it could almost pass as a helicopter...
-
Phantom is good. It's the plane Soviet designers would have killed to be able to design & build.
It's "good-ugly". The plastic bug has all the character of a Daewoo car, and none of the style. This is my opinion.
-
guess i'm the only one who likes the conformal tanks.
not the only one, anything that increase range yet does not increase drag will always get a gold star in my book.
-
It's the plane Soviet designers would have killed to be able to design & build.
Gotta agree to disagree there. It's one of the few planes the Soviets didn't try to clone or otherwise build their own analogue.
-
Phantom is good. It's the plane Soviet designers would have killed to be able to design & build.
It's "good-ugly". The plastic bug has all the character of a Daewoo car, and none of the style. This is my opinion.
Phantom is a good looking aircraft, it had style.
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Phantom-69-0304/Phantom_69_0304a.jpg)
The plastic bug might have all the character of a Daewoo car, and none of the style but that is still better than the F-16I Fugly Falcon which has all the style of a Daewoo and none of the character :P
-
Phantom is a good looking aircraft, it had style.
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Phantom-69-0304/Phantom_69_0304a.jpg)
Agreed. A Phantom comes your way, you can tell that it isn't there to play nice, and that it can walk the walk, so to speak. >:D
-
Hard for me to think of a plane that just looks flat-out meaner than the Flanker.
And nothing makes a military unit (Battletech included) look meaner than urban camo.
Thank you, Ace Combat 4. O0
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4c/34/19/4c341933cd6d0738e62cc9005c71976d.jpg)
-
i still want to paint up one of my LAM's in that scheme. just not sure which. (got 2 more Wasps and a P-hawk in need of paint.. all unseens.) i figured i'd do the whole Lance up in Ace combat schemes.. i have one wasp in Cipher's colors from Ace Combat Zero. i'm tempted to do the P-hawk up as Pixy ala the ADFX-02 Morgan version.
-
Hard for me to think of a plane that just looks flat-out meaner than the Flanker.
And nothing makes a military unit (Battletech included) look meaner than urban camo.
Thank you, Ace Combat 4. O0
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4c/34/19/4c341933cd6d0738e62cc9005c71976d.jpg)
Yeah, it almost makes you forget about the F-22 in the background
-
(http://russianplanes.net/images/to195000/194873.jpg)
(http://russianplanes.net/images/to195000/194475.jpg)
-
The vertical tail of the T-50 just look way to small.
-
The vertical tail of the T-50 just look way to small.
And what are those inlets at the base of the vertical tails? I don't think I've ever seen something like that.
Yeah, it almost makes you forget about the F-22 in the background
Speaking of F-22s and Bugs, an F-22 in Langley AFB, VA, was temporarily grounded when a swarm of flying, stinging insects decided to make it their home. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4799/f-22-raptor-grounded-by-swarm
(http://d254andzyoxz3f.cloudfront.net/2781971.jpg)
-
*checks TacOps*
Funny, there's nothing in here about Bug Storms affecting aeros in any way. Errata time! :D
(http://russianplanes.net/images/to195000/194873.jpg)
I had to stare at that for quite a while before my brain finally accepted that I want looking at a distorted picture of F-22s...
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/VFW-Fokker_VFW-614,_TAT_-_Touraine_Air_Transport_AN0670158.jpg)
-
Flies where FOD is a concern? ???
-
Maybe where they value maintainer convenience over passenger safety...
-
Fokker 614. Specifically designed to take on the (then) DC-3 dominated market in short, unprepared runways. FOD being the main reason for the overwing mounts.
Too high mounted to get any benefits from increased airflow over the wing.
-
I pity the passengers between the engines...both for the noise, and the risk of engine failure spitting turbine blades at them. #P
-
I thought that's what tail mounts were for...
-
I pity the passengers between the engines...both for the noise, and the risk of engine failure spitting turbine blades at them. #P
You mean like this?
(http://i.imgur.com/5Dr7xy1l.jpg)
Yes that is skin penetration in the split sat row where the "hw" is, though I've not heard anything saying there was any damage to the pressure hull or injuries aboard.
And no, that's not actually turbine blades, just the forward aerodynamics shroud. A photo shows visibly intact compressor blades and core, and no damage further back along the nacelle, so it wasn't a total mess.
-
That Fokker isn't alone in putting the engines up-top. The AN-72 is a very successful example of doing the same.(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8mOx0kHWOck/hqdefault.jpg)
-
The Antonov is blowing jet exhaust over the wing, getting great STOL performance at the cost of some fuel efficiency. The Fokker is just shielding the intakes.
And yes, that SouthWest plane ... WOW. Not sure what existed to explode in the intake area, but yes, the blades are clearly untouched, thank Ghu.
Weirdo, plenty of under-wing engines have shredded, and there's no reduction in the amount of fuselage in the impact disc. Perhaps some damage soaked inside the cargo compartment, but those fragments are moving fast ...
-
Talking of risk of FOD ...
(http://www.vintagewings.ca/Portals/0/Vintage_Stories/NewStories-C/Lower%20than%20a%20snake/Lowdown21.jpg)
-
One more advantage of the overwing engine design is that it improves the characteristics of the aircraft for emergency belly landings - no engine narcelles to hit the ground or water first and rip the wing off or cartwheel the aircraft.
I understand that the underwing design is the most structurally efficient and gives the greatest operating cost savings and hence why it is prevalent.
-
Talking of risk of FOD ...
(http://www.vintagewings.ca/Portals/0/Vintage_Stories/NewStories-C/Lower%20than%20a%20snake/Lowdown21.jpg)
When you're out of ordnance, there's still a way to provide CAS.
-
My understanding is that a lot of the RAF's fighter-bomber (Tornado, Jaguar, Harrier etc) crews would consider that to be rather worryingly high to be flying
I recall walking through some hills in North Wales and being at the top of one with a steep sided valley close to one side and seeing some sort of aircraft (it was in about 1996 so my recollection of which is impaired) flying below us
-
My understanding is that a lot of the RAF's fighter-bomber (Tornado, Jaguar, Harrier etc) crews would consider that to be rather worryingly high to be flying
I recall walking through some hills in North Wales and being at the top of one with a steep sided valley close to one side and seeing some sort of aircraft (it was in about 1996 so my recollection of which is impaired) flying below us
There is a training area out there called the Mach Loop. The whole point is nap of the earth and between hill flying.
-
There is a training area out there called the Mach Loop. The whole point is nap of the earth and between hill flying.
In fact, just type 'Mach Loop' in on Youtube search and settle in with a drink. When I'm having a bad day, I take ten minutes to watch those videos and it helps me feel better.
Note that American pilots aren't allowed to fly as low as RAF, so while the American planes are always fun to see (F-15s in particular), the Tornados and Typhoons are the real stars of the show. (And on a few occasions, C-130s!)
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/VFW-Fokker_VFW-614,_TAT_-_Touraine_Air_Transport_AN0670158.jpg)
The VFW-614 was one of the first idea for a Regional Jet. It carried up to 60 pax, but not a lot of sales of the plane. It was quieter.
-
T-X News
Northrop Grumman’s "clean sheet" T-X candidate flew for the first time on the 24th.
(http://www.jonbius.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/featured-northrop-grumman-t-x-1st-look.jpg)
Boeing will unveil their "clean sheet" candidate September 13th, but they've released a tease:
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-22-at-16.44.49-copy-768x360.jpg)
Lockheed Martin's T-50 is based on Korea Aerospace Industries' Golden Eagle.
(http://cdnph.upi.com/sv/b/i/UPI-9171469547542/2016/1/14695482619501/Lockheed-Martin-Korea-Aerospace-Industries-complete-T-50A-test-flight.jpg)
The Raytheon/Leonardo T-100 is based on the M-346, a Westernized version of the Yakovlev Yak-130.
(https://aviationvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/T-100-raytheon.jpg)
-
I'm fond of the T-50 as it can also used as a light attack craft capable of delivering 8000 lbs of ordnance in a pinch.
-
Not to be confused, of course, with the PAK T-50, which is a very different bird. (And with a set of teething problems that seems to be making the F-35 look pretty good in comparison!)
(https://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/t-50-pak-fa-920-33.jpg)
-
Not to be confused, of course, with the PAK T-50, which is a very different bird. (And with a set of teething problems that seems to be making the F-35 look pretty good in comparison!)
(https://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/t-50-pak-fa-920-33.jpg)
*blinks* She's beaaaautiful. I'd ask for her phone number, but she's way out of my league.
-
And with a set of teething problems that seems to be making the F-35 look pretty good in comparison!
Making the Su-30 and 35 look good as well, as Russia is buying a bunch of each due to the 50's problems.
-
Can you name the Grumman Cats?
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/02/quizzes_can_you_name_all_of_the_grumman_cats_110010.html
-
Can you name the Grumman Cats?
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/02/quizzes_can_you_name_all_of_the_grumman_cats_110010.html
Done in less than 60 seconds! Woulda been faster, but the notation they want is inconsistent
-
*blinks* She's beaaaautiful. I'd ask for her phone number, but she's way out of my league.
The vertical tails just seem to small to me. Still a nice looking jet.
-
Some pictures from this years airshows I was working. Some is from The Fantasy of Flight Museum, Farnborough, and RIAT.
Link to the folder http://imgur.com/a/q1pFs (http://imgur.com/a/q1pFs)
(http://i.imgur.com/LrO9sYH.jpg)
-
Murphy's Flaming Goatapults, that picture's HUGE! :o
Can you squeeze it down so we can figure out what it is, please?
-
Knocked it down to a 1920X1440. I forgot that it was a ginormus native resolution,
-
From the rules of this forum:
Material posted directly into the forums using an IMG tag should preferably be restricted to sizes of no more than 600 pixels on a side for the convenience of other users who may be on slower or bandwidth-limited connections or smaller screen sizes.
-
From the rules of this forum:
Compliance
-
Can you squeeze it down so we can figure out what it is, please?
A400M
-
It's a Airbus A400. It's one of the few turboprops with somewhat swept back wings.
-
Boeing's TX unveiled:
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Boeing_T-X_1021-696x395.jpg)
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Boeing-T-X-725.jpg)
-
Looks more than a little like the Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin demonstrator
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/04/980x490/landscape-1454015406-shinshin.jpg)
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Boeing_T-X_1021-696x395.jpg)
-
Because this belongs in this thread and not in the Armored Fighting Vehicles MK II thread.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e8/9c/4e/e89c4e9e19506258915f118a07910eb6.jpg)
(https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/20141203raaf8164101_0037-fa-18-hornet-bird-bath.jpg?w=900&h=600)
This is the clearwater wash facility that I started designing at RAAF Base Williamtown and my successor finished building. The yellow/grey/maroon building in the background on the left of the second photo is Headquarters No. 2 Squadron Royal Australian Air Force (my first born child) and the grey building in the background on the right is the AEW&C Support Centre (my step-child).
-
I like that photo of the Boeing T-X. It looks like a stealth trainer
-
That is on heck of a water works.
-
Do they let the staff run under it on hot days? :)
-
Do they let the staff run under it on hot days? :)
Air Force wet T-shirt contest: whoever is still standing wins.
-
I like that photo of the Boeing T-X. It looks like a stealth trainer
it does have a few lines in common with one of the old AVPRO artworks (hard to call them "proposals" since all they ever produced was artwork of increasingly impractical aircraft) though this one is probably their most practical.. which says a lot actually..
probably just convergent evolution due to the needs of aerodnamics.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/glitterboy2098/references/Avpro%20UK%20ltd%20artwork/AvproStealthtrainerflight_zpsf2d17bab.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/glitterboy2098/references/Avpro%20UK%20ltd%20artwork/AvproStealthTrainerdemonstratorteam_zps4a5088c5.jpg)
-
Son of Gnat ...
-
Do they let the staff run under it on hot days? :)
Unlikely, that area is considered an active taxiway/apron, so the idea of having bodies wandering around without an operational reason is frowned upon.
Much easier for staff to jump in the car and drive the 1km to Stockton Beach.
-
Here's a question that might be a bit out there...
Can anyone tell what(if any) real-world aircraft this plane is modeled after?
(http://rs565.pbsrc.com/albums/ss98/toyworldusa/Matchbox%20Sky%20Busters/SkyBusterslooseFastFreightyellow.jpg?w=480&h=480&fit=clip)
I've had one for a while, planning to paint it up and use it in Battletech as a Zugvogel, but I was just curious if it represented any real aircraft or was just a generic 'big plane'.
-
RJ 85 is the closest I can figure.
-
Sort of kinda C-5ish.
-
I'm going with C-141. Pretty classic Starlifter lines. The hump for the wing spars is a giveaway.
The use of turbofans, and the wing & tail winglets, are to my mind just mindless marketing add-ons. "But all the cool planes have'em!"
W.
-
In my opinion, the tail, rear fuselage shape and the four engine pods are C-5 Galaxy inspired.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/C5_galaxy.jpg)
The winglets are C-17 inspired.
The wingbox over the top of the centre of the fuselage is A-400M inspired.
(http://www.occar.int/media/intemplate/10_RMM_7605_jpg.jpg)
-
Most airlifters have a high wing and T-tail to get the tail out of the wing's airflow and make room for that rear ramp. And many airlifters have 4 engines. After factoring the size distortion, you could also make a case for the C-17, Il-76, Y-20, etc.
-
Can anyone tell what(if any) real-world aircraft this plane is modeled after?
(snip)
screams C-141 with winglets to me
remind me, is the Zug an aerospace small craft or an atmospheric fixed wing?
-
Fixed wing support aircraft.
Look at it this way: It's essentially a C-17 that can survive hits from anything smaller than an orbital particle cannon, 70 tons of the MTOW is omni pod space, and when fully loaded it can go from tarmac to Mach+ in forty seconds...using only cruising power. 8)
-
Mornin'.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/a9/b1/eb/a9b1eb739ae1e09e1da7d9693c3b389f.jpg)
-
Geez, talk about your wake-up call...
-
A-6 Intruder. >.> <.< I consider her the sexiest of all small jet bombers.
-
The A-7 Corsair II is also very sweet. It's amazing what can be done such a small plane.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/c6mpWtl.jpg)
-
Gotta love a good Bear shot. 8)
-
Gotta love a good Bear shot. 8)
ideally from between 5 and 7 o'clock, above and coming out of the sun...
-
The clouds are afraid of the mighty Bear!
-
Makes sense. I mean, most other things are too.
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/71/4e/40/714e406cc8419dee17bfb2adf9185902.jpg)
Acknowledge, weapons free.
Target acquired.
Target lock.
Fox Three.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Tomcat_escorts_Bear.jpg)
-
For a moment there, I thought it was the exact same Tomcat.
-
Hopefully the Tomcat crew had earplugs under their helmets.
-
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/026381.jpg)
(Carrier is USS Coral Sea)
-
Hopefully the Tomcat crew had earplugs under their helmets.
From what I hear, earplugs don't help.
-
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/bcb4e554cff6a9fe3709e1ed9b2c0cb4/tumblr_o6mpcjG6Rv1r94kvzo1_1280.jpg)
I belive the term WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW!? applies at this point.
-
That's some mashup. I'm both offended and in awe of the skill at the same time.
-
No BRRRRRRT, no interest. ;D
-
Yeah, the modeler kept the wrong parts of each craft. Now, if it was a Hind's rotors and an A-10's main gun...wow, just the thought induces some serious pucker factor.
-
Yeah, the modeler kept the wrong parts of each craft. Now, if it was a Hind's rotors and an A-10's main gun...wow, just the thought induces some serious pucker factor.
"I dub thee... "HoverBRRRRRRT"."
-
I'm trying to picture a helicopter firing that gun.
Mostly I'm picturing it losing control and crashing into the ground.
-
CHoppers need to mount it in ventral mount, pointing straight down, like the evil twin of Schrage Muzak
-
You could just mount the Oerlikon KCA or Bushmaster II. Both fire the same ammo as the Avenger. The Oerlikon fires at 1/3rd the cyclic rate of the Avenger (1350 RPM), and the Bushmaster at 200 RPM-ish (AFV gun), but the Apache's M230 chain gun only fires at 625 RPM anyway.
You might have to resort to a fixed fuselage mount like some Hind versions do with the GSh-30-2
-
(http://savasucakalari.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/6/2/20622538/3655926_orig.jpg)
Needed a dose of the real deal.
-
Finally ran out of old F-4s to shoot down. The QF-16 Full Scale Arial Target is now officially in service.
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/09/150512-F-GF899-313-768x512.jpg)
-
Umm...I think I see a pilot in there...
-
Umm...I think I see a pilot in there...
It's actually the autopilot from 'Airplane!'.
Nah, the planes can still be operated by a pilot for things like transferring between air bases and such.
-
Just saw this over at Janes. Iran develops two new UAV types from captured RQ-170 Sentinel according to footage of a production line that was aired by SimaNews as part of a wider report to showcase the latest achievements by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps' (IRGC) Aerospace Division:
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/262/64262/1684197_-_main.jpg)
Looks suspiciously like a model to me. ::)
-
...show me a flying one. Until then, yeah, they look fishy to me.
-
...show me a flying one. Until then, yeah, they look fishy to me.
After the Q-313, well, don't blame you. Me, I just figure that they've invented batarangs for giant robots.
-
(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal2/1401-1500/Gal1458-CDN-Jets-Heyes/01.jpg)
CANADAAAAH!!!
-
Not sure if real or excellent models...
-
Not sure if real or excellent models...
Models, I'm almost certain. But the point is, better ones than the previous image. ^-^
-
Yea, the Iranians certainly didn't hire ILM for that one. ;)
-
...show me a flying one. Until then, yeah, they look fishy to me.
Hey! Don't mock Iranian technological progress! Show me any other nation that has successfully performed a sex change on a monkey in space!
-
Needed a dose of the real deal.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/glitterboy2098/14333640_1308642975836040_920072615517179287_n_zpsxcdqosra.jpg)
-
One of the notifications at work today was for a flyover of Arlington Cemetery by four A-10s. Too bad my office has no windows.
-
Hey! Don't mock Iranian technological progress! Show me any other nation that has successfully performed a sex change on a monkey in space!
*sputters* wait what? :o
-
Some time ago they claimed to have launched a monkey into space. However on the pictures from before the launch and after landing were two different monkeys, of different genders.
-
One of the notifications at work today was for a flyover of Arlington Cemetery by four A-10s. Too bad my office has no windows.
I have plenty of windows, but only heard them. Didn't make it to that end of the building in time to see them. Boooooo. (Right under the southern flight path for Reagan)
-
I still hope that the USAF see sense, decide to not replace the A-10 with the F-35 and extend the life of the A-10s.
-
I still hope that the USAF see sense, decide to not replace the A-10 with the F-35 and extend the life of the A-10s.
If they want to fly into hostile environments versus triple digit SAMs they will continue to do what they're doing.
-
Do not get me wrong, there is definitely a air-to-ground role for the F-35, especially in a high threat environment. But once air-dominance has been achieved and if/when enemy air-defences have been suppressed, then there is a role for the A-10 or an aircraft like the A-10 which is cheaper to operate, can carry more ordnance and fly low+slow to do CAS properly.
-
Back to pictures and I'm going old school. SPAD S.XIII done up as Eddie Rickenbacker's plane
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/SPAD_XIII_USAF.jpg)
-
Nice looking Spad!
-
Ok, I get the message.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oqBNGn1DpK4/VLjjulU60GI/AAAAAAABFOQ/qU_VIrSeA4E/s1600/F-35A-Weapons-Carriage.jpg)
-
(http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1B91/production/_84675070_memphisbell.jpg)
"That's adorable, kid."
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oqBNGn1DpK4/VLjjulU60GI/AAAAAAABFOQ/qU_VIrSeA4E/s1600/F-35A-Weapons-Carriage.jpg)
Caption: "Pick two."
-
(http://media.defense.gov/2011/Apr/06/2000268089/-1/-1/0/110405-F-GD464-109.JPG)
(http://qnanwho.c.blog.so-net.ne.jp/_images/blog/_ddd/qnanwho/b2b-a9743.jpg?c=a71)
-
(http://www.aviation-history.com/grumman/f6f-3.jpg)
The thread needed some Hellcat.
-
Pfffft, the Corsair is more majestic than the Hellcat!
(http://www.arts-wallpapers.com/transportation/aviation-art/images/flying-aces-18-mcj9s8w68e-1024x768.jpg)
-
Spitfire says, I'm the prettiest
-
Oh dear me, i so want to replicate this.
That's some mashup. I'm both offended and in awe of the skill at the same time.
-
Spitfire says, I'm the prettiest
Thunderbolt says it's better to be ugly and tough than pretty and fragile.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Republic_P-47N_Thunderbolt_in_flight.jpg/300px-Republic_P-47N_Thunderbolt_in_flight.jpg)
-
Uglier.
(http://www.fspilotshop.com/images/A-7095.jpg)
-
Ugliest
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/x-32-c35-1781-65.jpg)
Thunderbolt says it's better to be ugly and tough than pretty and fragile.
Beat me to it O0 although I prefer the lines of the original razorback before the facelift . . .
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/P-47_Thunderbolt_42-25068_2012_%287977124689%29.jpg)
-
(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/story-of-the-wtf-blohm-and-voss-bv-141-31.jpg?quality=85&strip=info&w=920)
I mean, we can have that ugly-warplane talk if you really want...
(Blohm und Voss Bv 141)
-
But that isn't ugly! I liked the Fw. 189, and I like this one too!
-
Asymmetric does not necessarily equal ugly.
(http://rutanboomerang.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/tn_boomerang3.jpg)
Rutan 202 Boomerang
-
(http://www.geocities.ws/asymmetrics/bv141tip1.jpg)
-
"How does that monstrosity fly?!?"
"Torque."
-
(http://www.geocities.ws/asymmetrics/bv141tip1.jpg)
Is that just a B-Wing photoshopped?
Like the X-Wing falling off the Carrier edge
-
That's a awesome photoshop of a WW2 B-Wing
-
this inspired some Google Image searching...
-
ONly gripe with those X-Wing photos is that their wings are open which you wouldn't have them be when landing or taking off.
-
ONly gripe with those X-Wing photos is that their wings are open which you wouldn't have them be when landing or taking off.
but with their wings closed, could you really differentiate them from Z-95 Headhunters?
-
but with their wings closed, could you really differentiate them from Z-95 Headhunters?
Yes. four cannon placements vs 2. A longer boxy rear section vs a camel hump section. Angular cockpit vs bubble cockpit.
-
[Jaime Hyneman] "Well there's your problem."
(http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Airline_Mishap_Pictures/Aircraft_Mishap_Photos_Crash_Pics_BH.jpg)
-
Reason #2573 why Silly String is likely banned from modern warships...
-
At least the net did its job, Weirdo :P
-
Looks a lot like "two surviving pilots" to me.
-
Looks a lot like "two surviving pilots" to me.
but all 4 of the beach volleyball players they ran over were DOA
-
So in the Navy thread the Duke Class frigates of the RN came up and they have the same engines as UK Phantoms and Buccaneers so here are some photos here (duplicated in the ships thread)
-
Those DOA should gave been safe from the impact because of the inflated bags. ::)
but all 4 of the beach volleyball players they ran over were DOA
-
[Jaime Hyneman] "Well there's your problem."
(http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Airline_Mishap_Pictures/Aircraft_Mishap_Photos_Crash_Pics_BH.jpg)
That's the biggest spitting spider I've ever seen.
-
Look mum, no wheels and no net . . .
(http://www.f-111.net/index_files/hook-down.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/RmNzsIs.jpg)
(http://su-27flanker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/000181742_05_0076.jpg)
And home in time for tea and medals ^-^
(http://su-27flanker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/000181742_05_0089.jpg)
-
Fab photos of the F-111 making a no-gear landing - glad to see the crew walking away too!
The fact that the Buccaneer, Phantom and a decent sized warship can all use the same engine and that derivatives of the Merlin engine drove both Spitfires, Hurricanes, Lancasters and quite a few tanks in WW2 makes the use of things like a Vlar 300XL in such a hugely wide array of designs in BattleTech a bit more believable
-
That's the biggest spitting spider I've ever seen.
...and now half of an Arby's is staring at me. ;D
-
Look mum, no wheels and no net . . .
Also tested on aircraft carriers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Lu6LEQ0zo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Lu6LEQ0zo)
-
Also tested on aircraft carriers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Lu6LEQ0zo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Lu6LEQ0zo)
Clicked hoping to see an aircraft carrier caught in a gigantic net. Left disappointed. ;D
-
J-20 in it's likely operational scheme:
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/J20-newcamo_725.jpg)
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/j20_turn_725.jpg)
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/J20-front_725.jpg)
-
Is there a reliable, objective assessment of its capabilities? Looks like a matured, but simplified derivative of the F-22.
-
Is there a reliable, objective assessment of its capabilities? Looks like a matured, but simplified derivative of the F-22.
Looks like a Raptor and a Eurofighter had a kid. But no, it's capabilities remain a complete mystery. Given the fact China can't make a decent jet engine I'm curious as to it's performance. As for stealth, those canards are in perfect position to ruin that.
-
Great photos.
The underside reminds me of the underside of the F-35 which we know is only really optimised for stealth in the forward quarter, ie it is only semi-stealth.
-
Looks like a Raptor and a Eurofighter had a kid. But no, it's capabilities remain a complete mystery. Given the fact China can't make a decent jet engine I'm curious as to it's performance. As for stealth, those canards are in perfect position to ruin that.
Fly-by-wire planes can have flight modes that either lock canard movement or limit their movement range for reduced RCS and other modes that allow a full range of movement. I vaguely recall either the Typhoon or Rafale having just such a system for the same reason.
-
Is there a reliable, objective assessment of its capabilities? Looks like a matured, but simplified derivative of the F-22.
Popular Mechanics compared it to the F-22 as 'half the plane, half the price'. So, one on one, not a fair fight, but if every fight becomes a two (or more)-on-one for odds...
-
At the very least, it's pretty...
-
Popular Mechanics compared it to the F-22 as 'half the plane, half the price'. So, one on one, not a fair fight, but if every fight becomes a two (or more)-on-one for odds...
I thought the request was for a reliable assessment.
-
I thought the request was for a reliable assessment.
*shrug* Then go find me a better one.
-
I thought the request was for a reliable assessment.
Is such a thing possible without actually seeing it fight?
-
Popular Mechanics compared it to the F-22 as 'half the plane, half the price'. So, one on one, not a fair fight, but if every fight becomes a two (or more)-on-one for odds...
Would popular mechanics tell us if it was a better aircraft?
Would it not be to the advantage of a potential adversary to have monkey-models to have evaluated?
-
I caught part of a special on the F-22 on the history channel the part that I caught had a mock fight between them and the F-16, the F-16 beat the F-22 bad.
-
Look at it this way: in a turning dogfight an F-16 will beat an F-15 every time. However, in actual usage which plane does the Air Force use for air dominance (at least a 104-0 kill/loss ratio - the number varies depending on the source) and which is pretty much used as a bomb truck? Technology has finally reached the point that BVR is where Western powers prefer to engage. In exercises, the only time Red Force knows Raptors are in the area is when they've been notified that they just died.
The dogfight may not be dead, but for the West at least it's on life support.
-
Agree with Fat Guy, F-16 will beat F-22 and F-35 in dogfight because it is optimised for high angle of attack maneuvering. However, a pair of F-22s will splash up to 12 F-16 from beyond visual range with AMRAAMs before the F-16 have even been able to paint them with their search radar, let alone get a target lock or launch an AMRAAM in return.
Army equivalent is that the F-22 is the sniper team with the Barrett M82 in a good hidden elevated position while the F-16 is the company of Redcoats in column of march with drums beating, colours flying, and bayonets fixed that has just wandered into the killzone.
The real weakness of the F-22 is that it will go "Winchester" (run out of ordnance) and go "Bingo" (run out of fuel). So deny the F-22 it armament and/or fuel and you beat it anyway (as RAND Corp showed in its wargaming).
-
It's a bit over top comparison, F-16 would be more like a team of soldiers in ACUs with M-4s and underslung M-203s.
-
True, but I was trying for dramatic effect ^-^
-
True, but I was trying for dramatic effect ^-^
I don't know, a History Channel interview I saw had a pilot refer to an F-22 Red Flag or some such versus a variety of opponents as, "like clubbing baby seals." I suspect, like most things, it is all about playing to one's strengths within a particular envelope.
-
Just a bloody civvy's opinion, but I don't really think the F-16 can be compared with F-22, high-low mix really does get you high-low performance. Both Israel and Singapore shelled out for F-16Is and F-15Cs on this basis, and I daresay there's no 2 more pragmatic countries in the world when it comes to defence.
-
Australia wanted the F-22, we even enquired politely about procuring it. However we were told, firmly, that F-22 was not for export. So we had to settle for F-35 instead.
As the United State's best ally (we are your only ally that has never fought against you at some stage and have fought at your side in every conflict since WW1) this was a bit of a shock for our Government and RAAF hierarchy at the time. Anyway I am beginning to come close to the Forum Rule No. 4 Air Defence Identification Zone, so I will "turn and burn" and withdraw to fight another day.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2f/47/63/2f4763d5af0c652bd375c58cbbfaafd5.jpg)
-
Just a bloody civvy's opinion, but I don't really think the F-16 can be compared with F-22, high-low mix really does get you high-low performance. Both Israel and Singapore shelled out for F-16Is and F-15Cs on this basis, and I daresay there's no 2 more pragmatic countries in the world when it comes to defence.
I would add the Poles and South Koreans to that list but aside from the former none are faced with a potential triple digit SAM threat wherein the F-22 and F-35 should thrive.
Australia wanted the F-22, we even enquired politely about procuring it. However we were told, firmly, that F-22 was not for export. So we had to settle for F-35 instead.
As the United State's best ally (we are your only ally that has never fought against you at some stage and have fought at your side in every conflict since WW1) this was a bit of a shock for our Government and RAAF hierarchy at the time...
Don't disagree and it would have kept the production line open.
Mental picture time. My new job is located about a mile from the end of Quantico's runway so I can occasionally see an Osprey breaking out over the Potomac out my window. Hooray for windows...used to work in a vault.
-
aha. Working at MCU, then?
I loved working there.
-
aha. Working at MCU, then?
I loved working there.
Why yes I am. When were you there?
Another mental picture, to escape my last office I would wander down the hall to a couch by a large picture window to concentrate. On occasion, I would catch a C-17 leaving the airfield likely with or having dropped off part of HMX-1 from a POTUS trip. Never did see one land from there...from other places on base and usually directly below the plane.
-
I was at MCU as network admin until mid 2013.
I've watched the heavies land there.
Huge cargo plane just seems to hover, barely moving, until suddenly:
it's down.
shoot me a PM for more MCU details.
-
It's genuinely amazing how fast a C-17 can come to a total stop on the runway- and how fast it can leave again. When they said 'STOL transport', they weren't kidding. Something that big needing that little space for operations is something just shy of witchcraft.
-
It's genuinely amazing how fast a C-17 can come to a total stop on the runway- and how fast it can leave again. When they said 'STOL transport', they weren't kidding. Something that big needing that little space for operations is something just shy of witchcraft.
Or a lot of engine power!
-
When they said 'STOL transport', they weren't kidding. Something that big needing that little space for operations is something just shy of witchcraft.
You kids and your catapults and arrestors.[url]
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84)
-
There must have been some clenched butts on the carrier, the Herky-bird, AND on the destroyer playing plane-guard aft of the carrier... those guys must have been ready for disaster.
-
imagine how the C-130 pilots in the Iran rescue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Credible_Sport) might have felt had it actually happened.. flying a C-130 refitted with 30 JATO type rockets to let it take off and land within a 300ft field inside a soccer stadium. video with some footage of the plane and tests.. wish i could have found one with less annoying narration. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKCl3lfAx1Q&feature=related) STOL performance so extreme it's almost VTOL.
the narrator says the crash cancelled the mission.. actually they had 2 more planes, but it got cancelled due to timing.. they had to wait until the nation had picked a new commander in chief. and the situation was resolved before that was over.
-
Yeah, having the rockets burn the nose of the plane clean off is a mild troubleshooting problem, to be sure. ;D
(Hard not to look at this project and its failure, along with the incident that prompted it to begin with, and not see the impetus that became the Osprey though. So it wasn't a total failure, in that regard.)
-
The "Credible Sport" Hercules is one of my favorite things. It was a marvel of brute-force engineering, and the single accident during testing in no way invalidated the concept. The co-pilot simply thought they were on the ground already, and fired one of the banks of rockets too early. Even the spectacular "failure mode" (which the crew survived, by the way) gave some good data.
-
It is awesome. And with seventies technology and computers, no less.
-
I have seen some footage of a C-17 test dirt strip landing. Dirt being the operative word when the footage also showed that the HMMV down it its axles in the bulldust that was pretending to be a prepared airstrip. Seriously impressive stuff. However I understand that the C-17 has to do a servicing after each dirt strip landing/take-off so it is not a mode of operation that you want to be doing regularly.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/34/0c/f2/340cf2708266d2e8c885f0fc56f42ef5.jpg)
-
If you own Boeing stock, today is a pretty good day. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has posted two announcements on its website that acknowledge the approval of up to 72 Boeing F-15QA Advanced Eagles for Qatar and 40 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for Kuwait.
The deals are valued at USD21.1 billion and USD10.1 billion respectively.
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/10/CA-Dec-6-Pic-10-768x512.jpg)
-
If you own Boeing stock, today is a pretty good day. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has posted two announcements on its website that acknowledge the approval of up to 72 Boeing F-15QA Advanced Eagles for Qatar and 40 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for Kuwait.
The deals are valued at USD21.1 billion and USD10.1 billion respectively.
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/10/CA-Dec-6-Pic-10-768x512.jpg)
Expensive.
-
I assume those costings are the WOL (whole-of-life) costings including training, spares, engineering and logistical support.
-
Yeah. 250-300 million for Bugs and Eagles is definitely lifetime costs - and probably a hell of a lot more accurate than more modern aircraft, simply because we've had enough of them go through their lifetimes already and can figure out the tricky spots. I doubt it'd cover ordnance, but sounds right for upgrades and servicing contracts. I hope they're not frontloading the cash in the deal, because that will be a big boon early on but lead to some expensive dry years.
Also hope they don't forget the Eagle's airframe strengthening behind the cockpit; having an F-15 do its best Starscream transformation again is really gonna suck.
-
I'm sure that price tag for the Eagles and Hornets also included some weapons, testing, and other goodies that came with the deal. The price per plane is almost double to triple the cost.
-
I assume those costings are the WOL (whole-of-life) costings including training, spares, engineering and logistical support.
At that price they better get some range time out west too.
-
Defense News has some detail
The State Department approved two potential high-profile fighter jet sales of up to 40 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to Kuwait and 72 F-15QA planes to Qatar.
The sale would be a major coup for Boeing, which manufactures both planes and has banked on foreign sales to extend the life of its fighter jet lines into the 2020s.
The Kuwaiti deal is worth approximately $10.1 billion for 32 E-model Super Hornets, 8 F-models, their associated F414-GE-400 engines and spares, 41 AN/APG active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars and a slew of weapon systems, including 20mm guns, 240 guided missile launchers, 45 AN/ALR-67(V)3 radar warning receivers, 12 AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER advanced targeting pods, 48 Link-16 systems, eight conformal fuel tanks among others. The sale also includes associated support and logistics services.
The agreement with Qatar would bring in approximately $21.1 billion for the aircraft and their associated weapons systems, US-based training, maintenance support equipment, and logistics support, among other items. The country is considering splitting the 72-jet purchase between Boeing’s F-15 and the Eurofighter Typhoon.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency informed Congress of both potential sales on Nov. 17, according to State Department news releases. The executive branch must notify Congress 30 days ahead of proceeding with a foreign military sale. Should Congress disapprove of the potential purchase, it would have to pass legislation blocking or modifying the FMS case. However, because informal notification of Congress has already occurred, it is unlikely that lawmakers would pose a barrier for the deal moving forward.
I wonder if ordnance is included. The article doesn't say, and sometimes they are indeed bought in a separate contract. Missiles are expensive.
-
In normal Western Alliance aerospace ILS (Integrated Logistics Support), ordnance is not usually included in the WOL. They are usually seen as a separate procurement activity with a separate WOL costing. Many of the the middle eastern militaries use lots of ex-Brits/Aussie/Canadian/American ILS specialists in their aerospace logistics and engineering organisations so their costings are actually pretty consistent with how we do it in the west.
-
I wonder if ordnance is included. The article doesn't say, and sometimes they are indeed bought in a separate contract. Missiles are expensive.
It wouldn't be. The Kuwaitis are running an order of Typhoons as well, so it's open as to just what they'll be loading them with. I imagine they'll put in a proper order once this is finalized; anyone know what they currently use? I wouldn't be surprised if it's AIM9/AIM120 frankly, but the Brits put out some damn good AA missiles as well.
I wonder why the Saudis didn't go for Silent Eagle, I know Boeing was hinting to them pretty hard a few years ago with it.
-
doing some quick research online, looks like they currently use AIM-9's, AIM-7,'s and AIM-120's. not surprising, since they fly the F/A-18 primarily. (they just recently ordered super hornets and Typhoons..)
-
Planes (along with some submarines and AFVs) reimagined as biomechanical monsters. (http://mechanized-monsters.com/personal-work)
-
The submarine ones are definitely interesting!
-
Reminds me of Transformers: Beast Wars.
-
I do like the crazy skyshark Backfire
-
Just because the armoured and naval threads have been getting a bit of loving lately and the aviation thread has been a bit quiet:
(http://www.warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/Gavin-Conroy_Heritage-Fight.jpg)
-
(http://russianplanes.net/images/to187000/186156.jpg)
(http://russianplanes.net/images/to182000/181481.jpg)
(http://russianplanes.net/images/to133000/132878.jpg)
(http://russianplanes.net/images/to113000/112816.jpg)
Imagine the noise from the Bear.
-
(http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-22A_Fort_Worth_Air_Show_LMCO_lg.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/B-2_Spirit_original.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/bc/06/7b/bc067b42fa9f452503c1d8337be01898.jpg)
(https://img.rt.com/files/news/3f/29/90/00/38.jpg)
-
Going old school with the DH-4
(http://s17.postimage.org/tkclmzf9r/2012_5_21_19_59_28.jpg)
-
Some nice pictures.
-
(https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/160515/57386e99b25bd_b88146153z.1_20160515203419_000_g0ei6r36.1_1-1bjgrkp.jpg)
Let's go big. Mriya big.
-
That's a great comparison driving by the Fokkers 70 and 100s.
-
That's a great comparison driving by the Fokkers 70 and 100s.
My thoughts exactly. It's one thing to look at raw numbers, but with average-sized planes for scale, even I was shocked.
-
C-5 eating a Herc.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--hWeVeO2C--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/1410336682623849105.jpg)
-
(https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/160515/57386e99b25bd_b88146153z.1_20160515203419_000_g0ei6r36.1_1-1bjgrkp.jpg)
Let's go big. Mriya big.
That just really says it all right there and then. There's big and then there's that
-
Snoopy hates this plane:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Fokker_Dr1_on_the_ground.jpg)
-
Let's go big. Mriya big.
It's like an aircraft, only bigger! >:D
-
Snoopy likes this plane:
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/aircraft/images/3/3d/Sopwith-camel-625x450.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120604213144)
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/3169181185_44f431a80a.jpg)
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/3169181185_44f431a80a.jpg)
That is awesome
-
That is awesome
Extremely Awesome! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak4JgrNPwIc) ^-^
-
A look at a rarity, the Bristol Brabazon ended up never achieving much in terms of sales, and ended up a footnote to history. That said, it's hard to find a more elegant airplane than this one.
(http://www.2blowhards.com/Bristol%20Brabazon.jpg)
-
And like the Spruce Goose, which it resembled in size, this was one of the few WW2-and-later airplanes you could punch through the skin of!
The Brabazon, not unlike myself, was considerably overweight, leading to excessively thin skin & frames. Not always a good thing ...
-
Personally, I preferred the look of the de Havilland Comet, the world's first jet airliner that also had it inception from the same Brabazon Committee that gave birth to the Bristol Brabazon.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c9/18/a1/c918a1affd1a274b6c22c38dd349aba7.jpg)
The Comet also played an important role in aerospace engineering, after 3 catastropic in flight accidents that were the result of metal fatigue in the airframes associated with notch failures in the structure and skin of the aircraft originating from the sharp corners of the rectangular windows. Next time you fly in a modern airliner and you look out the window with well rounded corners, they are the result of the lessons learnt from the catastrophic mid-air losses of those 3 Comet airliners.
-
Question because someone in this thread might know:
I was reading a novel where a rich bleep of a bleep had an Osprey VTOL that he'd purchased and retrofitted so that it had a luxury interior with a separate galley, like a custom built luxury jet would have.
Does the thing actually have that kind of interior space, because my impression of it was that it did not.
-
Here's the interior of the smaller AW609/BA609, o I think they could do something similar in a MV-22
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/BA609_cabin.jpg/399px-BA609_cabin.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/BA609_02.jpg)
-
Question because someone in this thread might know:
I was reading a novel where a rich bleep of a bleep had an Osprey VTOL that he'd purchased and retrofitted so that it had a luxury interior with a separate galley, like a custom built luxury jet would have.
Does the thing actually have that kind of interior space, because my impression of it was that it did not.
The MV-22 has a good sized interior. The problem is downdraft and engine exhaust tend to overwhelm the surrounding environment
-
The cost per hour on the V22 in fuel alone would make that almost too expensive. It takes a lot of gas to use.
-
Boeing's T-X makes it's first flight and releases a 360 in cockpit video.
https://youtu.be/p01yyPA1DdI
-
Handley Page Victor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor)
Why have I never seen this magnificent beauty before?
-
Those were neat planes, for sure. Side note, after their bomber careers ended they were used extensively as tankers- including during the Falklands campaign, helping Vulcans get to their targets and back.
-
Some would argue that the Victor was the best of the V-Bombers.
-
and some would be right ;)
-
Some would argue that the Victor was the best of the V-Bombers.
and some would be right ;)
they aren't quite B-52 good but the long long life they managed as tankers after the RAF was removed as the preferred nuclear deterrent arm for the UK suggests they were better than the Vulcan or Valiant
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad0dsgy32jc
Pretty cool to watch one of the people who work on restoring vintage planes, at least a part of them. :)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVjupsdJEXo
#6, man!
-
and some would be right ;)
Still I prefer the Vulcan, when it comes down to it. More of a workhorse, compared to the Victor's thoroughbred, but the benefits of its design translated into a longer combat life, particularly once in the low-level role.
I would have loved to see the Victor's originally planned pod-ejection mechanism in action, though - totally Gerry Anderson ;)
W.
-
In my opinion, both the Vulcan and the Victor are beautiful aircraft. Tragically they led to the dead-end of the British bomber design that was the BAC TSR.2
(https://hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hush_tsr-2001.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/58/c1/e0/58c1e0e5c1eee16660aea89c4f1a28cf.jpg)
A potential and potent rival to the F-111 that was killed off due to politics that pretty much resulted the British aerospace industry losing its leadership position.
-
The wings on the TSR-1, look to small to fly, but it did and great.
-
Just a different solution to the same problem that the F-111 swing wing was developed to solve (supersonic/near-supersonic nap of earth terrain following flight).
The second picture reminds me of how beautiful brute force can be . . . Exhibit A - the English Electric Lightning:
(http://www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/8/5/4/0647458.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6a/67/f2/6a67f2d6cd54e46c71bfd55beda71ea5.jpg)
-
If the F4 Phantom was a triumph of thrust over aerodynamics, the TRS-2 was a marriage of the two.
Probably would have had a problematic introduction to service, but it wouldn't have been the only plane to experience that.
The Sandys report is (justifiably) blamed, but Sandys wasn't the only person in that period who ascribed a near-magical power to missiles, after all. And a nearly bankrupt Britain saw, in the shadow of nuclear oblivion, a possibly viable change of direction.
BBC documentary "Cold war, hot jets" highly recommended.
-
Some video from the Mach-loop in Wales that is on my list of places to visit.
https://youtu.be/JultKcPcKjk
https://youtu.be/lA4OZdzC-BY
-
The Lighting I think is one of the few planes that have engines on top of each other like that. Very weird but it worked and was one of the best performing aircraft still. From what I understand it had better acceleration than a F-15 and a F-16.
-
The Lighting I think is one of the few planes that have engines on top of each other like that. Very weird but it worked and was one of the best performing aircraft still. From what I understand it had better acceleration than a F-15 and a F-16.
It did, at least over the F-16, though it's worth pointing out that the two have very different jobs. The Lightning was intended to be an interceptor- take off, gain altitude fast, get off shots at incoming bombers, land to get ready for the next wave. As such it could climb well and accelerate well- but had a fairly small payload and range (with the latter being mitigated by in-flight refueling).
By comparison, the F-16's job has become 'carry all the things, carry them as far as possible, do all the things when you get there'. ;D
-
EE Lightning could also supercruise, and was the first jet aircraft able to do so IIRC.
-
Interesting side note to the Lightning- it remains to this day the only all-British-designed production aircraft to be able to hit Mach 2 in level flight. It seems like there should be more, but all of the other entries either never went into production or were designed with other nations involved (Typhoon, Tornado, Concorde, etc.)
-
'carry all the things, carry them as far as possible, do all the things when you get there'
...cheaply."
-
To continue the theme of the last military aircraft produced by a national aerospace industry:
Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/CF-105_Arrow.jpg)
(http://casmuseum.techno-science.ca/img/gallery/casm/aircraft_avroarrow_2.jpg)
-
And Australia's last indigenous (I think) design, the CAC-15 Kangaroo.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/CA-15.jpg)
-
The CF-105 Arrow was one of the great aircraft that should of been given a chance. It was well beyond any plane flying, in terms of performance.
-
One more
-
And Australia's last indigenous (I think) design, the CAC-15 Kangaroo.
Yep that was our last fighter aircraft design. It did not get past one flying prototype. Our last military aircraft design was the GAF Nomad which is still flying in very limited numbers.
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/4/7/2240745.jpg?v=v40)
Government Aircraft Factory (GAF) was the Aus Government owned aircraft factory that was later to become Aerospace Technologies of Australia (ASTA) and finally Boeing Australia. The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) along with Hawker de Haviland (HdH) were the three aircraft manufacturers here in Aus during WWII, CAC was bought by HdH in 1985 before HdH was bought by Boeing Australia in 2000.
-
the F-4 Phantom has flown its last flight in US service.
(http://www.warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/F-4-Phantom-Final-FLight_Phantom-Pharewell_Photo-by-Jay-Beckman2.jpg)
SOURCE: http://www.warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/pharewell-phantom.html
:( :( :-\
the Defenders & Heros of my childhood are all retiring.
-
here is hoping the Pima Air Museum picks one of those last ones up. i think they already have an F-4 on display, but the signed one really should be put inside one of the hangers as a special display.
-
F-4 Phantom II is much loved in Australia too. We leased 24 F-4Es from the USAF while the RAAF waited for the F-111C to be delivered.
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Phantom-69-7209/Phantom_69_7209.sized.jpg)
There is an ex-USAF F-4E (not one of the ones that served with the RAAF, I believe most of the 23 returned to the USAF were turned into Wild Weasels, 24th was lost in an accident) on display at the RAAF Museum at RAAF Point Cook, Victoria.
(http://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/exhibitions/tech_hang/images/Tech-Hangar-Phantom.jpg)
The RAAF wanted to keep the F-4Es even after accepting the F-111Cs into service (that would have given us a fleet of Mirage III-O, F-4E and F-111C at the time) but the bean-counters at Treasury killed the idea.
-
Too bad when the Brits put the RR Spey engines in the F4 Phantom II it turned into a less performance plane. The J79 engine was a awesome engine.
-
Too bad when the Brits put the RR Spey engines in the F4 Phantom II it turned into a less performance plane. The J79 engine was a awesome engine.
I got to run one on a testbed in school, and it felt like the whole facility was going to come apart. Loud, smoky, inefficient, and absolutely magnificent. (There's still nothing quite like the sound of a Phantom making a low pass)
-
I had heard that the J79 technically had no maximum thrust; it'd tear itself apart while still accelerating.
-
I once heard the J79 engined Kifirs described as 'shoving a V8 touring care engine into a Mini Minor'
-
I once heard the J79 engined Kifirs described as 'shoving a V8 touring care engine into a Mini Minor'
I've heard the same basic description- same for the F-104 actually. Lightweight airframe with a ridiculous monstrosity of a powerplant shoved up its ass = wild ride.
Actually, let's talk about that for a moment.
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/douglas_x-3_1.jpg)
See that? Good lookin' bird, right? That's the Douglas X-3, and the idea was to make a test plane fly really, really fast to test how well a plane would operate over the speed of sound for extended periods of time. That's because the two J46 engines it was supposed to get (in a sawed-off rear fuselage reminiscent of what the Phantom got a few years later, funny how that worked out) would have put out about 11600 lbs. of thrust as a pair (with afterburners)- instead, due to the J46's failure to be readied for the program, they settled for far less powerful engines that did around 9700 lbs. together instead. You'll note a small difference there. The X-3 could only break Mach 1 in a dive, was a total failure of a test program, and was cancelled soon after it's flights started. (The only airframe completed is now on display at Wright-Patterson AFB)
Why do I bring this up? Let's go back to those J79s from the Phantom and Starfighter. Cram two of those in the X-3. EACH J79 puts out 17800 lbs. of thrust. EACH OF THEM. And it was readied only a few years after the X-3 was retired. What the F-104 could do with one J79? Now try that with a similar airframe- narrow, sleek, small-winged- and twice the power. (Note that Lockheed's F-104 design borrowed heavily from Douglas' X-3, a fact that no doubt resulted in forehead marks on desks at Douglas.)
What might have been, indeed.
-
or a YJ-39 ... only problem, where would you keep enough fuel? ;)
-
the F-4X "Super Phantom" was basically an effort to do that. meant for israeli export, it added water injection cooling to boost the power of those J79's even further (the water stored in 2,500 gallon conformal tanks along it's back) and had modified intakes to function at higher altitudes and speeds, greatly lightened the airframe and systems, and crammed in as much extra fuel as possible. in order to get a Phantom up to Mach 3+ for a fair bit of time. there were plans for both an unarmed Recon version, the RF-4X, and a combat version. with speeds comparable to the SR-71 (though with less endurance) it would have been a beast.. but the idea of this plane being available for export, and it's potential to dethrone the still-in-development F-15 for the USAF fighter fleet, meant the program got cancelled. (much like how the F-20 would die a few years later)
-
in order to get a Phantom up to Mach 3+ for a fair bit of time.
Methinks this was just after the Yastreb and Mig-25Rs started overflights?
-
Following on from JH's post,
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Mirage-III-A3-73/Mirage_all_squadrons.sized.jpg)
RAAF acquired the Dassault Mirage III-O, assembled in Australia by GAF with a SNECMA Atar 09C afterburning turbojet engine licence-built by CAC in Australia. SNECMA Atar generated 41.97 kN (9,440 lbf) thrust dry, 60.8 kN (13,700 lbf) with afterburner. However, in RAAF experience, the SNECMA Atar had a tendency to fail in-flight and turn the Mirage III into a giant lawn dart. The 1 Star who was my commander had ejected from a Mirage when he was an instructor and celebrated the 20th anniversary of his ejection (the other 1 Star on base was the student pilot who had been in the front seat and ejected with him at the time). In fact, the running joke was that a pre-requisite for promotion to 1 Star in the Air Force was a successful ejection from an aircraft.
It was the genesis of why the RAAF acquired the F/A-18 Hornet instead of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the pilots refused to accept a Mirage replacement that did not have two engines. This has lasted over a generation of pilots, who now are being forced to accept the single engine F-35 Lightning II because they do not have a two engine alternative (another reason why the RAAF was pushing hard to try to get access to the F-22).
-
Same thing with Canada, they like the twins but yet got the F35 as of right now.
-
Methinks this was just after the Yastreb and Mig-25Rs started overflights?
early to mid 70's, i believe. if i got the right incidents in my quick search, i'd say yeah, probably in response to those. since the regular F-4's just couldn't stop them.
the F-4X was originally meant as an interceptor, but they switched it to recon after pressure over the export and F-15 issues came up. the fact it retained all the hardpoints and just had a few extra camera's was probably a bit of subterfuge to address the original design need while placating the politics.
between it and the Y-12/"SR-71 attack/bomber" concepts, i sometimes wonder what air combat would look like today had they gone into use, rather then being cancelled. since all of those were already reliant on the long range intercept via missile being emphasized today, plus had blinding speed to get into position.
-
early to mid 70's, i believe. if i got the right incidents in my quick search, i'd say yeah, probably in response to those. since the regular F-4's just couldn't stop them.
the F-4X was originally meant as an interceptor, but they switched it to recon after pressure over the export and F-15 issues came up. the fact it retained all the hardpoints and just had a few extra camera's was probably a bit of subterfuge to address the original design need while placating the politics.
between it and the Y-12/"SR-71 attack/bomber" concepts, i sometimes wonder what air combat would look like today had they gone into use, rather then being cancelled. since all of those were already reliant on the long range intercept via missile being emphasized today, plus had blinding speed to get into position.
I think military aviation would be a lot thirstier, a lot more expensive per mile flown and a lot of black smoke would streak across the sky...
-
RAAF acquired the Dassault Mirage III-O, assembled in Australia by GAF with a SNECMA Atar 09C afterburning turbojet engine licence-built by CAC in Australia. SNECMA Atar generated 41.97 kN (9,440 lbf) thrust dry, 60.8 kN (13,700 lbf) with afterburner. However, in RAAF experience, the SNECMA Atar had a tendency to fail in-flight and turn the Mirage III into a giant lawn dart. The 1 Star who was my commander had ejected from a Mirage when he was an instructor and celebrated the 20th anniversary of his ejection (the other 1 Star on base was the student pilot who had been in the front seat and ejected with him at the time). In fact, the running joke was that a pre-requisite for promotion to 1 Star in the Air Force was a successful ejection from an aircraft.
Was our Mirage III loss rate abnormally high? From my (admittedly limited) understanding the plane was normally considered to be rather reliable, whereas our experience seems to have been the opposite.
Then again, back in the day, we were also offered the F-104 Starfighter as an option. Talk about lawn darts...
-
F-104 was a great high altitude interceptor. it just made a really crappy low altitude fighter-bomber. all the groups that had the lawn dart problems were the ones using a fighter designed to go mach2 at 10,000ft+ to try and fly treetop skimming close air support.
-
between it and the Y-12/"SR-71 attack/bomber" concepts, i sometimes wonder what air combat would look like today had they gone into use, rather then being cancelled. since all of those were already reliant on the long range intercept via missile being emphasized today, plus had blinding speed to get into position.
YF-12A was, to the best of my knowledge, a fairly transparent ploy to get more funding for the Blackbird program.
Think about it - okay, you've got a Mach 3 point defence interceptor. Which runs on exotic fuels which leak from the fuel tank when standing on the ground, so you can't keep it ready-five. Which then needs to be tanked up once it does get into the air. Tu-95s really didn't need that much; Canadian Voodoos and US Delta Darts were more than sufficient against those threats, and the Soviets never had a credible long-range high-speed strategic bomber threat against CONUS (Tu-22s and -22Ms were mainly anti-carrier platforms, and the Tu-4 simply woudn't have had the range to do much else). And let's not consider a YF-12A in a dogfight ...
(Now a YB-12B carrying nuc-tipped SRAMs, for that ultimate "personal touch", perhaps. But I suspect the B-52 pilots were at that point more than capable of doing the same missions down in the dirt with similar success rates.)
Still got my "Atomic Air War" game idea floating around though, full of "what-ifs" had the ICBM not ruined all the good designs ...
W.
-
And just because of my love for Soviet engineering aesthetics ...
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bpla/tu123/tu123-1.jpg)
(http://www.testpilots.ru/tp/russia/tupolev/123/images/tu123-5.jpg)
Tupelov Tu-123 Yastreb high-speed recon drone. The R15 engines used in the Foxbat were derived from the versions built for the drone, which probably explains a lot of the service life issues the Foxbat had with its engines. Overflights of Israel by Yastreb drones were attributed to Mig-25R flights, because it made the Foxbats more impressive. At the end of its flight, the Yastreb ejected its payload and crashed.
(http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/sirius_2delta/19741366/15453/15453_800.jpg)
Tu-139 Yastreb II, an improved version designed for a landing recovery, which never entered service because they got some of the bugs out of the Mig-25R. I believe it's auto-lander worked well enough.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcxDvLHJQ_eQRDc1dN3Dao3qqhcVIHLGkzlxt4edBR9dAFeswFsQ)
Tu-141 Strizh medium-range tactical drone. Apparently the Ukraine has used some recently. Not re-usable.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--rTA8R3B3--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/bldj72gwvmybow64zbzt.jpg)
Tu-143 Reys long-range recon drone. The Tu-141 is actually a cut-down version of the -143. Also available in more recent versions as the Tu-243 and Tu-300. I love this picture, as it looks like it's launching from Thomas the Tank Engine.
(http://allaircraft.ru/uploads/posts/2012-04/1335239143_tupolev_tu144_13.jpg)
And finally, the Tu-144, which would have been lucky if all the passengers heard was a drone ...
W.
-
Was our Mirage III loss rate abnormally high? From my (admittedly limited) understanding the plane was normally considered to be rather reliable, whereas our experience seems to have been the opposite.
Then again, back in the day, we were also offered the F-104 Starfighter as an option. Talk about lawn darts...
Without having all the data, I believe our loss rate was higher than other operators.
F-104 was a great high altitude interceptor. it just made a really crappy low altitude fighter-bomber. all the groups that had the lawn dart problems were the ones using a fighter designed to go mach2 at 10,000ft+ to try and fly treetop skimming close air support.
Our Mirage III-O were all fitted out as multi-role fighter/attack aircraft (with different squadrons focusing on different roles but still training to be able to do other roles with different levels of competency). I know the RAAF used to do a lot of circuit training (in the day before modern flight simulators) and many of the Mirage III-O engine problems did occur at low-level so that could be a significant contributing factor.
-
I fear a future in which saying 'drone strike' conjures up an image not unlike this:
(http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2013/03/F130305DG05.jpg)
Whelp! Anyone watch 60 minutes?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-autonomous-drones-set-to-revolutionize-military-technology/
(http://www.technewsworld.com/article_images/story_graphics_xlarge/xl-2017-perdix-drone-1.jpg)
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/perdix-drone-swarm/
-
I am waiting for the autonomous drones to act like the replicators from SG1.
-
Speaking of drones, here's a Boeing Hummingbird drone,
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Boeing_A160_Hummingbird_VTOL-UAS.jpg)
-
Lockheed Martin X-47B UCAV flying near USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77).
(http://mattcegelske.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/X-47-UCAS-GHWB-Carrier-Launch.jpg)
-
This would be a great place to go. The only place in the world with the Concorde and the TU-144.
I read that the TU-144 was so loud in flight that you couldn't have a conversation with the passenger sitting next to you. You had to write notes to them.
-
This would be a great place to go. The only place in the world with the Concorde and the TU-144.
I read that the TU-144 was so loud in flight that you couldn't have a conversation with the passenger sitting next to you. You had to write notes to them.
I've heard that as well, that the aircraft wasn't really soundproofed at all. Fine for a fighter, but not so much for an airliner. Must have been fun.
(Long ago, during a discussion about supersonic transports in college, a fellow student had an idea. Aeroflot was both the Soviet national airline and military transport service, right? Why not have paratroopers deploy deep behind NATO lines via Tu-144 in wartime? It's so fast that it could be over the target and gone by the time anyone can react to the troops, right?
...I'll let you think about all the things wrong with this idea. Go nuts. ;) )
-
(Long ago, during a discussion about supersonic transports in college, a fellow student had an idea. Aeroflot was both the Soviet national airline and military transport service, right? Why not have paratroopers deploy deep behind NATO lines via Tu-144 in wartime? It's so fast that it could be over the target and gone by the time anyone can react to the troops, right?
...I'll let you think about all the things wrong with this idea. Go nuts. ;) )
Shades of Storm Force in that argument
-
A super-sonic paratrooper transport?
Nope, can't possibly see how that could go wrong. ::)
-
All the things that could go wrong with jumping out off a supersonic airplane?
(http://emotibot.net/pix/8015.gif)
-
Tupolev did try and sell the 144 to Frontal Aviation as a supersonic bomber ... I think even Dmitry Ustinov saw through that one.
Love this (taken from Wiki, but read elsewhere: on a passenger-carrying flight
"With the accumulated failures, an alarm siren went off immediately after takeoff, with sound and volume similar to that of a civil defence warning. The crew could not figure a way to switch it off so the siren stayed on throughout the remaining 75 minutes of the flight. Eventually, the captain ordered the navigator to borrow a pillow from the passengers and stuff it inside the siren's horn."
Soviet adaptability!
-
Is that also how they deal with unruly children?
-
Is that also how they deal with unruly children?
Yes, Aeroflot stuffs unruly children into siren horns.
-
Same thing with Canada, they like the twins but yet got the F35 as of right now.
Have they gotten even one? (the contract's not firm until the supplier DELIVERS.)
-
I thought that the new Canadian Liberal Government cancelled the CF-35 after their election in 2015 . . .
-
I thought that the new Canadian Liberal Government cancelled the CF-35 after their election in 2015 . . .
They did. They're planning on replacing the CF-18, but will need to hold a new 'competition' first.
-
Our contract is firm, we have our first two (Serial Nos. A35-001 and A35-002)
(https://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/cache/5003/DefenceImagery/2014/S20142930/20141001DMO0000_0002.t56ce1e9f.m400.x2fe62330.jpg)
(https://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/cache/5003/DefenceImagery/2014/S20142930/20141001DMO0000_0003.t56ce1e9f.m400.x502fb8a3.jpg)
-
Our contract is firm, we have our first two (Serial Nos. A35-001 and A35-002)
(https://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/cache/5003/DefenceImagery/2014/S20142930/20141001DMO0000_0002.t56ce1e9f.m400.x2fe62330.jpg)
(https://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/cache/5003/DefenceImagery/2014/S20142930/20141001DMO0000_0003.t56ce1e9f.m400.x502fb8a3.jpg)
The designations are interesting, "A35...", potentially indicating someone realizes the plane isn't a dog fighter.
-
Doesn't the "A" in this case stand for "Australia"?
-
Doesn't the "A" in this case stand for "Australia"?
no, obviously you have never visited Canada eh.
-
The TU-144 was no where near a sucess and only made like 55 passenger flights. I guess proof of concept and to say ha ha we did it first. It did fly before the Concorde.
-
Doesn't the "A" in this case stand for "Australia"?
Actually its "Australia Attack" but everyone in the know knows that the "Australia" is silent in this case.
-
Now that's a good one... ^-^
-
The designations are interesting, "A35...", potentially indicating someone realizes the plane isn't a dog fighter.
It is an Australian Defence Force serial number. So all our Air Force and Army aircraft serial numbers start with an A for Alpha, whereas our Navy aircraft serial numbers start an N for November. The Air Force orginally started as the Australian Flying Corps of the Australian Army during WWI before become the Royal Australian Air Force in March 1921, so hence why we still share serial numbers. The A35 for the F-35A is just some cleverclog at Defence HQ being clever.
The aircraft project that I worked on was the E-7A Wedgetail AEW&C (Boeing 737) aircraft that have the serial numbers A30-001, A30-002, A30-003, A30-004, A30-005 and A30-006. Whereas the Boeing 737 BBJ VIP aircraft that the RAAF operates for VIP transport are A36-001 and A36-002, while the P-8A Poseidon (also bases on the Boeing 737) are A47-001 to A47-015. So all three are B737 aircraft but with three different series of A numbers ??? Also we procured the BBJ VIP transports well before the E-7A or the P-8A but it has a later A series number that the E-7A ???
Edit - fixed bold coding
-
Thanks for the clarification!
-
The TU-144 was no where near a sucess and only made like 55 passenger flights. I guess proof of concept and to say ha ha we did it first. It did fly before the Concorde.
It's engines also had hideous fuel efficiency to the point they even asked western companies for help to increase it. Seeing how the same engines also powered the Tu-22M Backfire, there were no takers. ;)
-
And the Q is silent as in "never ask the final pricetag ..."
-
Speaking of the P-8A Poseidon
(http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/20160605BOEING0000000_002.jpg)
-
This could probably go here or in the naval thread . . .
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-23/dubai-launches-jetpacks-for-firefighting/8202994 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-23/dubai-launches-jetpacks-for-firefighting/8202994)
-
WTF!?! They're using Corvettes as fire fighting vehicles. Only in Dubai, when you have so much you don't have to make sense.
-
I find it...amusing...that there was likely at least three times the water flow coming out of each one of those two water jets holding the guy up as the fire hose its self. He could have put it out much faster if he just hovered over the truck. and ignored the fire hose.
...And yeah, the firefighting corvette: I guess if all you care about is response time then it does have a pretty good top-speed-to-trunk-space ratio. Otherwise...WTF Dubai?
-
Otherwise...WTF Dubai?
LAPD has a Gallardo, and they also tried pony cars for pursuits (Mustangs, Camaros). I remember back in the 80s the California Highway Patrol had at least one Countach. That's not including the random European police agencies and departments that end up with high end and exotic cars in their stables.
-
Well, when you confiscate a drug dealer's car, gotta do something with it? And there's only so many episodes of "Top Gear" to use them up.
BTW, saw a program about restoring a Spitfire that had crashed around D-day. TO demonstrate the effectiveness of the Spitfire's Brownings against Messerchmidts, they got an infantry version & shot up a car.
What make? A BMW ...
(waits for pennies to drop :) )
-
Well, when you confiscate a drug dealer's car, gotta do something with it? And there's only so many episodes of "Top Gear" to use them up.
BTW, saw a program about restoring a Spitfire that had crashed around D-day. TO demonstrate the effectiveness of the Spitfire's Brownings against Messerchmidts, they got an infantry version & shot up a car.
What make? A BMW ...
(waits for pennies to drop :) )
You mean it was made by Bayern Motor Werks?
-
Exactamundo - although it was Bayern Flugzeugwerk at the time ;)
-
There is a BMW 5 series station wagon running around Canberra that is vinyl wrapped to with a WWII Bf109 camo scheme on it. I was driving in the opposite direction when I spotted it so could not snap a picture of it. Sort of similiar to this:
(http://klasyknaglebie.pl/upload/20160513183054uid2.jpeg)
LAPD has a Gallardo, and they also tried pony cars for pursuits (Mustangs, Camaros). I remember back in the 80s the California Highway Patrol had at least one Countach. That's not including the random European police agencies and departments that end up with high end and exotic cars in their stables.
NSW Police have trialed a Ford Mustang for highway patrol duties but it was handed back to Ford in limp home model after it could not complete the testing.
(http://eftm.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/IMG_3243-e1456440844570-1920x1080.jpg)
And to make this post relevant to the thread:
(http://www.aircraftaces.com/photos/bf-109-3.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Commonwealth_Aircraft_Corporation_CA-18_Mustang_(VH-JUC)_in_No._3_Squadron_RAAF_(KH677)_colours.jpg)
-
I remember back in the 80s the California Highway Patrol had at least one Countach.
Stationed out in Palm Springs, because of the speeds you can get up to in the long flat freeways out there. Nice and /very/ straight.
Back on topic, the T-X program has some news. They're down to four probable bidders, Lockheed-Martin teaming up with Korean Aerospace to bring over the T-50A...
(http://nationalinterest.org/files/main_images/27565842045_c131897b70_b.jpg)
...three fresh designs, from Boeing/Saab, Northrup-Grumman/BAE, and Sierra Nevada Corp. teaming up with TAI...
...and Textron AirLand likely to bring in the Scorpion, but they haven't officially entered the running.
(http://www.scorpionjet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/TAL-HERO-Media3.jpg)
T-50 looks like a weird infant mix of an F-18 and F-16...mostly the latter, but still.
Edit: Corrected for misread news; Textron isn't in the competition yet while Boeing Boeing Boeing and Saab are teaming up for a new design.
-
So the Boeing submission did not make the shortlist ???
-
Sorry, my bad. Corrected.
-
The T-50 should be the runaway winner in that comnpetition as it is already in production in Korea and delivered to several other countries. I'd like to see the Scorpion make it due its very low cost and it's rather nifty look.
-
The problem with the Scorpion is that it is twin engine design which has may pros but also means that it is heavier and more costly to maintain than the single engine competitors. The last I heard was that Textron was look at designing a single engine variant of the Scorpion to compete for the T-X contract. The problem for Textron will be their drawing board aircraft would be competing against flying designs like the T-50A and the Boeing T-X design (admittedly the Boeing T-X is only two flying production prototypes).
-
T-50 looks like a weird infant mix of an F-18 and F-16...mostly the latter, but still.
not surprising, it is basically a heavily modified F-16. it is basically what happens when you squeeze an F-16 into a T-38 shaped hole. KAI built a version of the F-16 and teamed up with Lockheed (who now owns the F-16) to develop the T-50.
also, if this one wins, between the T-50 designation and the T-X program designation, anyone want to bet the final plane gets nicknamed "the Terminator"?
Edit: Corrected for misread news; Textron isn't in the competition yet while Boeing Boeing Boeing and Saab are teaming up for a new design.
i'm curious to see what they create. Boeing hasn't really done a fighter in awhile, but SAAB is best known for them. i'm wondering if they'll end up offering an 'americanized' JAS-39F Gripen, built in America by Boeing.
if so this could be an interesting fly off, since both planes are very good, and very capable.
-
i'm curious to see what they create. Boeing hasn't really done a fighter in awhile, but SAAB is best known for them. i'm wondering if they'll end up offering an 'americanized' JAS-39F Gripen, built in America by Boeing.
Boeing's entry has been public for awhile.
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/37/980x490/landscape-1473790324-boeing-t-x-reveal-public-image1.jpg)
-
Also Northrop:
(http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/imagecache/large_img/uploads/2016/08/ngtx.jpg)
And Raytheon/Leonardo:
(http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/02/raytheont-100.jpg)
-
Boeing's entry has been public for awhile.
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/37/980x490/landscape-1473790324-boeing-t-x-reveal-public-image1.jpg)
There is also an official 360 deg YouTube clip of its first flight: https://youtu.be/p01yyPA1DdI (https://youtu.be/p01yyPA1DdI)
-
I like the look of the Boeing design. It looks like a good 5th gen fighter shape.
-
One problem I've seen debated in other forums ... all of these designs aren't capable of eating 20mm rounds.
The A-10 may not be perfect, may lack avionics and all-weather capacity, may lack a second crewman, but it was capable of absorbing massive damage.
I've got to wonder, heretic that I can be, whether a long-duration drone represents a better investment for CAS. Especially as the GAU-8 is no longer relevant (albeit no less impressive) without Fulda Gap in mind.
W.
-
Raytheon pulled out of the TX competition.
http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/01/25/Raytheon-Leonardo-team-withdraws-from-T-X-competition/7321485372272/ (http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/01/25/Raytheon-Leonardo-team-withdraws-from-T-X-competition/7321485372272/)
-
One problem I've seen debated in other forums ... all of these designs aren't capable of eating 20mm rounds.
The A-10 may not be perfect, may lack avionics and all-weather capacity, may lack a second crewman, but it was capable of absorbing massive damage.
I've got to wonder, heretic that I can be, whether a long-duration drone represents a better investment for CAS. Especially as the GAU-8 is no longer relevant (albeit no less impressive) without Fulda Gap in mind.
W.
well the T-X program is for a next-gen Flight Trainer to replace the T-38's. the Airforce, stuck with a budget crunch, has mandated they be able to perform light fighter duty as well, allowing them to do combat training, as well as supplement the frontline forces in a pinch.
so meeting the durability and firepower of an A-10 isn't really a goal.
-
so meeting the durability and firepower of an A-10 isn't really a goal.
Not having the firepower, check. No problems there.
Not having the durability for a CAS job ... not so check for the crew. Unless you're taking a Soviet-style approach, where you save on the "Dear sir/madam I regret to inform you ..." letters by assuming they're expendable.
Drones, now. Drones are expendable.
-
UCAV - you are preaching to the choir here. The Air Force would be an even better organisation if we did not have pilots and/or pilots were less like Maverick playing beach volleyball in tight gym shorts and dogtags, instead are more like a nerdy gamer.
(https://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/predator-firing-missile4.jpg)
-
Maybe they could fit a clear dome at the front, and install Otto the autopilot ...
-
H
Not having the firepower, check. No problems there.
Not having the durability for a CAS job ... not so check for the crew. Unless you're taking a Soviet-style approach, where you save on the "Dear sir/madam I regret to inform you ..." letters by assuming they're expendable.
Drones, now. Drones are expendable.
The Hawker/BAe Hawk has CAS/light fighter capability while also being a veteran trainer
UAVs are a different approach for less permissive air environments
The A-10 is awesome and I'm sad it will probably go without real replacement but it can only stave off the scythe for so long
-
The Hawker/BAe Hawk has CAS/light fighter capability while also being a veteran trainer
Unless it can swallow 20mm/30mm rounds, or take a Stinger-equivalent up one tailpipe & fly home, I'd not want to sent crew into the likely CAS environment. That armoured bathtub, and clever design, has always been the key feature of the A-10, above and beyond the GAU-8.
To paraphrase, "Mig-23s get sent to the target. A-10s come back."
-
Not having the firepower, check. No problems there.
Not having the durability for a CAS job ... not so check for the crew. Unless you're taking a Soviet-style approach, where you save on the "Dear sir/madam I regret to inform you ..." letters by assuming they're expendable.
Drones, now. Drones are expendable.
IT"S NOT DOING CAS. IT"S DOING FLIGHT TRAINING AND (MAYBE) AIR TO AIR COMBAT.
shouting because you evidently didn't read my actual post.
the Air Force is pursuing a different aircraft for the CAS role, it has decided putting that into the T-X program is a mission too far.
the T-X is replacing the T-38 Talon, this lovely (and unarmed) little plane.
(http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/northrop-t38-talon.jpg)
they are not requiring combat capability at all in the specs, but have inquired about optional combat ability or models, for combat trainign and possible export.
you know, like how the T-38 was turned into the F-5 Freedom Fighter (later known as the F-5 Tiger II)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6e/af/ac/6eafacc612c2dd4e108675a508aefdff.jpg)
they haven't officially announced the CAS program yet, but the press releases so far indicate that they are looking for a durable, high loiter time aircraft with the ability to carry lots of munitions. they have also suggested that a Turboprop might even be a requirement. suggesting that what they are wanting for CAS is basically a new A-1 Skyraider..
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eU7iN3aR6l0/TdrLyf20-nI/AAAAAAAACBA/L8eIzrvbTRk/s1600/A-1H%252C+56th+SOW%252C+SEA%252C+Anita+Michelle%252C+G.+Merritt.jpg)
-
At this stage of the game I think the A-10 is a glorified COIN aircraft. They would be torn to pieces against a modern enemy. The future is with aircraft that wont get hit period - or aircraft you don't care if they get hit (drones).
There's a reason the A-10 was pulled back and out of the tougher fights in the first Gulf War - just too vulnerable.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/27/b2/62/27b2628ced9499bb717a82a918ed0c18.jpg)
-
IT"S NOT DOING CAS. IT"S DOING FLIGHT TRAINING AND (MAYBE) AIR TO AIR COMBAT.
Odds are, if they put it into combat, some idiot will get the bright idea that it will work for CAS.
-
actually, per the Generals involved, during the gulf war orders were sent out preventing ANY aircraft from doing low level attack runs. this was because the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 pilots kept trying to go low and slow on their strikes, and were taking heavier damage from enemy fire and sand ingestion. only the A-10's were managing to do low level strikes without issue. however since they didn't have the ability to give exceptions to a coalition wide strategy change, the A-10 pilots also got relegated to high altitude bomb truck alongside all the fast movers.
-
Nice shot of the vampire.
-
they haven't officially announced the CAS program yet, but the press releases so far indicate that they are looking for a durable, high loiter time aircraft with the ability to carry lots of munitions. they have also suggested that a Turboprop might even be a requirement. suggesting that what they are wanting for CAS is basically a new A-1 Skyraider
Actually an American built variant of the EMB 314 / A-29 Super Tucano.
(http://militaryedge.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/A-29.jpg)
In 2011 the A-29 Super Tucano was declared the winner of the US Light Air Support (LAS) contract competition over the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6B Texan II. The contract was canceled in 2012 citing concerns with the procurement process, but re-won in 2013. Twenty of these light attack aircraft were purchased for the Afghan Air Force. The Pentagon purchased the Super Tucanos in a $427 million contract with Sierra Nevada Corporation and Embraer, with the aircraft produced at Embraer's facility in Jacksonville, Florida.
The USAF is taking a very serious look at using these to replace the A-10. ::)
-
actually, per the Generals involved, during the gulf war orders were sent out preventing ANY aircraft from doing low level attack runs. this was because the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 pilots kept trying to go low and slow on their strikes, and were taking heavier damage from enemy fire and sand ingestion. only the A-10's were managing to do low level strikes without issue. however since they didn't have the ability to give exceptions to a coalition wide strategy change, the A-10 pilots also got relegated to high altitude bomb truck alongside all the fast movers.
The F-15 and F-16 were designed as air superiority fighters. Then somebody decided they needed to be multi-role. The same will happen to ANY fighter that is put into a combat role. It will never remain solely an air superiority fighter.
-
The F-15 and F-16 were designed as air superiority fighters. Then somebody decided they needed to be multi-role. The same will happen to ANY fighter that is put into a combat role. It will never remain solely an air superiority fighter.
There's just not enough dollars to go around to support an airplane that can only fight other airplanes.
-
How upgraded are the A-10s' ECM? Even, hmm, 'non-state actors' these days tote Iglas around
-
There's just not enough dollars to go around to support an airplane that can only fight other airplanes.
Or train 3x the pilots needed for each to have a specialized role.
-
actually, per the Generals involved, during the gulf war orders were sent out preventing ANY aircraft from doing low level attack runs. this was because the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 pilots kept trying to go low and slow on their strikes, and were taking heavier damage from enemy fire and sand ingestion. only the A-10's were managing to do low level strikes without issue. however since they didn't have the ability to give exceptions to a coalition wide strategy change, the A-10 pilots also got relegated to high altitude bomb truck alongside all the fast movers.
I was going off the words of (then) Lieutenant General Charles A. Horner, Central Air Forces commander
Here's a relevant bit from an interview, June 1991:
Q: Did the war have any effect on the Air Force's view of the A-10?
A: No. People misread that. People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn't work in the desert, that you didn't need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that.
Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We're finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It's infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That's what we're finding in the airplanes.
Those people ... were always championing the A-10. As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle--and it's approaching that now--it's time to replace it, just like we replace every airplane, including, right now, some early versions of the F-16.
Since the line was discontinued, (the A-10's champions) want to build another A-10 of some kind. The point we were making was that we have F-16s that do the same job.
Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don't necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun's an excellent weapon, but you'll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.
Q: This conflict has shown that?
A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-10. The Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.
The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's (less formidable) front-line units. That's fine if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.
Q: At what point did you do that?
A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day, and I said, "I've had enough of this." It was when we really started to go after the Republican Guard.
Full link here: http://mackenzieproductions.com/Gen._Horner.html (http://mackenzieproductions.com/Gen._Horner.html)
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/531fdb48e4b0e8fbe6259952/t/5770c9743e00bed84f111868/1467009402291/)
-
Regards the T-X program, only the T-50A is coming in as a full design. All the other entrants are starting over fresh with clean-sheet designs, as of the current bidding entrant listings.
A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day, and I said, "I've had enough of this." It was when we really started to go after the Republican Guard.[/color]
There were only 53 fixed-wing aircraft lost in the entire war, seven of which were A-10s while thirteen others were damaged in some form.
Date Time Type Unit Cause
2/2 0925Z A-10A 23 TFW IR-SAM
2/5 1500L A-10A 354 TFW AAA
2/15 1335Z A-10A 354 TFW SA-13, 60nm NW Kuw. City
2/15 1335Z A-10A 354 TFW SA-13, 60nm NW Kuw. City
2/19 0622L OA-10A 23 TASS IR-SAM, 62nm NW Kuw. City
2/22 1500L A-10A 23 TFW IR-SAM
2/27 0932Z OA-10A 23 TASS IR-SAM, KKMC
Obviously the date mentioned above is the 15th, though it should be pointed out that the other major attack jets, the Tornado GR.1s, suffered a far more horrible fate. Of the ten accounted for in the list, only one was listed as damaged - the other nine were all shot down, primarily by SAM activity. I admit the data set is small, but '1/3 of those hit by ground fire were lost' for the A-10s versus '9/10s of those hit by ground fire were lost' for the Tornados says a hell of a lot about being survivable. The AV-8B, with a similar mission profile, also shows heavy losses compared to survivals; two reported as damaged with five lost. I'll give major kudos to the Plastic Bugs as well, only losing three aircraft out of a total of ten hit.
Data source: http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aaloss/
-
If we are talking turbo-prop CAS platforms then "say hello to my little friend"
(https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/img_9606-1024x683.jpg)
(https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130-dll.jpg)
-
(https://deanoinamerica.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/il-2-fhc-12-a.jpg)
"American is of younger vintage. Soviet Air Force rolls old-school. Da?"
-
"Erhalten Sie einige Zeit herauf Kamerad"
(http://pds25.egloos.com/pds/201403/03/62/a0017462_531460b9c2474.jpg)
(apologies to all the german speaking forumite, I used Google translate so it is probably butchered German)
-
"American is of younger vintage. Soviet Air Force rolls old-school. Da?"
The OG single-engine, low-and-slow, ground-attack deathtrap ...
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1768639/battle.jpg)
-
The OG single-engine, low-and-slow, ground-attack deathtrap ...
Though I guess there's always the PZL.23
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1768639/pzl.jpg)
-
The OG single-engine, low-and-slow, ground-attack deathtrap ...
If you'll allow surface-attack rather than ground attack, lets go lower and slower again. I read somewhere that top speed with torpedo loaded was 85mph...
-
It worked against Bismarck.
-
Talking of which, most of us know the TSR-2.
(http://www.aviationarchive.org.uk/eimages/G2262.jpg)
But who remembers the TSR-1?
Answer: http://collectair.org/images/swordf1.jpg
-
Noting that TSR-2 designation stood for Tactical Strike Reconnaissance Mach 2 and that the TSR-2 was scrapped in favour of the F-111K which was then scrapped due to cost blow-outs. Also noting that the F-111K was ultimately replaced by the Blackburn/Hawker Siddley Buccaneer (which originally had lost out to the TSR-2 as the Canberra bomber replacement), the TSR-1 should probably look like this:
(http://atomictoasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Buccaneer-runway.jpg)
-
Noting that TSR-2 designation stood for Tactical Strike Reconnaissance Mach 2 and that the TSR-2 was scrapped in favour of the F-111K which was then scrapped due to cost blow-outs. Also noting that the F-111K was ultimately replaced by the Blackburn/Hawker Siddley Buccaneer (which originally had lost out to the TSR-2 as the Canberra bomber replacement), the TSR-1 should probably look like this:
(http://atomictoasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Buccaneer-runway.jpg)
The Buccaneer was such a great aircraft.
-
I'm sure posted a pic of this bird in the other thread, but I don't think it was this one. Ladies and Gentlemen, I present the SEPECAT Jaguar:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/4d/c1/49/4dc149df4f55696fe03e490c12d5cff2.jpg)
-
those distinctive over-wing hardpoints ::) always made me look twice
-
Jaguars were wonderful birds, but that Buc... T-tails are one of my favorite features in an aircraft. Throw in that crazy split tailcone airbrake, and I'm a big fan.
-
The Jaguars were very different planes with the overwing hardpoints. Im surprised not other designs tried that free up space under the wing.
-
Overwing bomb racks!
-
The Buccaneer was such a great aircraft.
Agreed. Designed from the word go for low-level strike, they were enormously strong - the joke being Blackburn didn't build them, they carved them out of a block of steel. It owed its sexy curves to a generous application of area ruling. And one of the few RN/RAF planes which got the two-tone camo paint put on the underside, as there weren't nothing flying lower than they were to see them against the sky.
Often wonder what you'd get mating a Buccaneer and a F-4 Phantom ...
-
I don't think we have enough bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#/media/File:B-52H_static_display_arms_06.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#/media/File:B-52H_static_display_arms_06.jpg)
-
Still not the 108 750-pounders a B-52D with the big belly conversion could loft
-
I love seeing the "weapon load" photos of planes.
-
Are the ALCMs with white tips practice shots? Thought they were blue.
-
I love seeing the "weapon load" photos of planes.
Agreed!
-
Are the ALCMs with white tips practice shots? Thought they were blue.
Inert/dummy/practice rounds are usually painted blue. The white tips could be white plastic covers that have not been removed.
-
I was going off the words of (then) Lieutenant General Charles A. Horner, Central Air Forces commander
Here's a relevant bit from an interview, June 1991:
Q: Did the war have any effect on the Air Force's view of the A-10?
A: No. People misread that. People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn't work in the desert, that you didn't need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that.
Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We're finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It's infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That's what we're finding in the airplanes.
Those people ... were always championing the A-10. As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle--and it's approaching that now--it's time to replace it, just like we replace every airplane, including, right now, some early versions of the F-16.
Since the line was discontinued, (the A-10's champions) want to build another A-10 of some kind. The point we were making was that we have F-16s that do the same job.
Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don't necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun's an excellent weapon, but you'll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.
Q: This conflict has shown that?
A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-10. The Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.
The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's (less formidable) front-line units. That's fine if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.
Q: At what point did you do that?
A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day, and I said, "I've had enough of this." It was when we really started to go after the Republican Guard.
Full link here: http://mackenzieproductions.com/Gen._Horner.html (http://mackenzieproductions.com/Gen._Horner.html)
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/531fdb48e4b0e8fbe6259952/t/5770c9743e00bed84f111868/1467009402291/)
Horner's comments show something else-that the USAF brass are almost completely uninterested in providing CAS to ground forces when, and where, said ground forces actually need it.
What he misses, is that yes, he had airframes damaged-because those airframes were actually close enough to support the men they're supposed to be supporting, long enough to actually support them. Not boom-zoom-bingo-fuel-wait-an-hour and the ordinance had to be pickled off the runway.
what he fails to understand, is that the A-10's tank-killer mission is secondary to it's PRIMARY mission-providing air-support to soldiers and marines in close contact, not idling along at 70,000 feet dropping bombs on targets predesignated three day ago.
-
The fighter pilots (and the generals that come from that background) know and understand CAS. They just are not interested in it, air-to-air is just so much more sexy.
-
The fighter pilots (and the generals that come from that background) know and understand CAS. They just are not interested in it, air-to-air is just so much more sexy.
and when was the last air-to-air engagement? CAS is the only mission for most pilots and it's giving way to more drone strikes.
-
CAS is not the only role for aircraft attacking the ground; there are other missions. As for air to air combat, the last time the Americans did it was in the Iraq War (see prior table for an F-18 getting downed by a MiG-29); if you want more recent there were air battles over Turkey with two a/c shot down as recently as the coup.
-
If I was an Air Force general then UCAVs would be fully embraced as the near future. This future means that ace fighter pilots would more resemble a computer gamer than Maverick in his gym shorts playing beach volleyball - which is what scares the fighter pilots the most. Signing up to the F-35 program (most likely be the last manned fighter aircraft) is one way to try to keep the UCAV future as distant as humanly possible.
-
and when was the last air-to-air engagement? CAS is the only mission for most pilots and it's giving way to more drone strikes.
That's fighting the last war. Future wars (or, more politely/likely, 'face-offs') may well require much more emphasis on air-to-air engagements. Also, whether any shots are fired in anger doesn't matter, the capability still needs to be retained and honed.
If I was an Air Force general then UCAVs would be fully embraced as the near future. This future means that ace fighter pilots would more resemble a computer gamer than Maverick in his gym shorts playing beach volleyball - which is what scares the fighter pilots the most. Signing up to the F-35 program (most likely be the last manned fighter aircraft) is one way to try to keep the UCAV future as distant as humanly possible.
The F-35 is criticised for being too far a developmental leap. Jumping headfirst into UCAVs would seem to be similar folly, no?
-
We already have a battle-proven first gen UCAV
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/MQ-9_Reaper_taxis.jpg)
The next steps are air-to-air combat and securing comms in a sophisticated ECM environment.
-
The F-35 is criticised for being too far a developmental leap. Jumping headfirst into UCAVs would seem to be similar folly, no?
Doesn't a large part of the F-35's criticism revolve around its price tag? Drones ought to be cheaper and smaller so there's less emphasis on trying to make them all do-everythings.
-
Doesn't a large part of the F-35's criticism revolve around its price tag? Drones ought to be cheaper and smaller so there's less emphasis on trying to make them all do-everythings.
I know a lot of the criticism is the fact that the price is so huge.
My problems with the plane its got 1 engine....should have 2.
They want it to do everything, but like the best swiss army knife there are better knifes.
I don't like the lift fan on the B model because when not in use its a dead weight like the Yak-38 and Yak-141
It seems like a lot of nations is they have invested so much money and time on the plane that there is no fall back plan.
-
Another ground-attack aircraft, 1 of the more obscure fighters of WW2 and yet almost the most heavily armed with four nose 20mm cannon, the Westland Whirlwind.
(http://www.whirlwindfighterproject.org/FA_18181s-website.jpg)
We already have a battle-proven first gen UCAV
The next steps are air-to-air combat and securing comms in a sophisticated ECM environment.
We also have battle-proven stealth fighters ie F-22s.
-
Here's her more famous cousin
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jjxoZRogbRQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
Another ground-attack aircraft, 1 of the more obscure fighters of WW2 and yet almost the most heavily armed with four nose 20mm cannon, the Westland Whirlwind.
(http://www.whirlwindfighterproject.org/FA_18181s-website.jpg)
Shame the higher ups never allocated merlin engines to her. With those engines, they would had one of the most superlative twin engine fighters of the war.
-
Guys? Saying this in big letters so people remember this time.
PLEASE DO NOT POST GIANT IMAGES. RESIZE THEM OR LINK TO THEM.
I will not be happy if this gets locked because people don't think before posting.
-
Shame the higher ups never allocated merlin engines to her. With those engines, they would had one of the most superlative twin engine fighters of the war.
Won't fit. The Whirlwind was tightly built around the smaller Peregrines, so when production was consolidated on the Merlin, then Griffon, the Whirlwind's days were numbered.
-
Guys? Saying this in big letters so people remember this time.
PLEASE DO NOT POST GIANT IMAGES. RESIZE THEM OR LINK TO THEM.
I will not be happy if this gets locked because people don't think before posting.
I swear, that picture was like half the size on the page I found it on. It's been changed to a link.
-
Not as pretty as the Mosquito and the Whirlwind but did a sterling job in the Pacific Theatre
DAP (Bristol) Beaufighter
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/47/c0/a4/47c0a43d9b303cae6dc217ec0c5ae0b7.jpg)
DAP (Bristol) Beaufort
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Beaufort/Bristol-Beaufort/images/Bristol-Beaufort-MkVI-A9-66-and-MkVII-A9-102-RAAF-OTU-based-East-Sale-Victoria-1943.jpg)
-
Not as pretty as the Mosquito and the Whirlwind but did a sterling job in the Pacific Theatre
DAP (Bristol) Beaufighter
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/47/c0/a4/47c0a43d9b303cae6dc217ec0c5ae0b7.jpg)
Probably the most successful example of the twin-engined 'heavy fighter' concept. Can you beat 4 cannon, 6 machine guns AND rockets?
-
Won't fit. The Whirlwind was tightly built around the smaller Peregrines, so when production was consolidated on the Merlin, then Griffon, the Whirlwind's days were numbered.
....and you're saying they couldn't redesign the engine pods on the wings to take the merlin?
-
Also Northrop:
(http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/imagecache/large_img/uploads/2016/08/ngtx.jpg)
Not anymore, NorG/BAE dropped out of the running. Boeing and LockMart are the only ones officially left. Interesting, because they've got a flying prototype but the rumor mill says there's something about the requirement list that Northrup Grumman's aircraft can't meet without heavy rework. With Sierra Nevada and Textron both being coy about submissions, it's down to the T-50 versus whatever sexy new hotness Boeing develops...
...and frankly that'll have to be a real barn-burner, to compete with a program that's already developed, matured, and has an economy of scale already built in to keep prices low.
-
....and you're saying they couldn't redesign the engine pods on the wings to take the merlin?
I think it was less that they couldn't redesign the pods, and more that with improving availability of other aircraft and production streamlining, modifying the Whirlwind design was more hassle than it was worth.
-
I think it was less that they couldn't redesign the pods, and more that with improving availability of other aircraft and production streamlining, modifying the Whirlwind design was more hassle than it was worth.
Not having Merlin was the biggest let down for Whirlwind because it would have boost her performance at higher altitude. The original engines on her were not up to snuff above low altitude, these planes spent the rest of their days doing low-level strikes.
Also they have re-engined planes before.
-
....and you're saying they couldn't redesign the engine pods on the wings to take the merlin?
... and 800 to a 1000 pounds of extra weight. There are twin-Merlin fighters. They're the Mosquito and Sea Hornet.
And retiring the Whirlwind let them reduce more logistical strain again by removing the need to train mechanics on and supply parts for yet another low-production design.
-
I think it was less that they couldn't redesign the pods, and more that with improving availability of other aircraft and production streamlining, modifying the Whirlwind design was more hassle than it was worth.
Actually, it was that redesiging for Merlins altered the balance, aerodynamic properties, etc etc. The Whirlwind was not a forgiving design like the Beaufighter - it was a precisely tuned greyhound built specifically around the Peregrines.
While it wasn't impossible to devote the necessary resources & time to do such a re-engine, there just didn't seem to be the pressing need, also given the existing demands on Merlin engine production. So the Brits didn't do so.
The Whirlwind has a special place in my heart, next to the Cutlass, as beautiful smart designs betrayed by their engines.
-
As much of a thoroughbred as the Spitfire is described as, it had an absolutely ridiculous amount of scope for expansion and further development
-
But no dual 40-mm anti-tank guns!
(http://members.shaw.ca/letts/iid.jpg)
-
As much of a thoroughbred as the Spitfire is described as, it had an absolutely ridiculous amount of scope for expansion and further development
Partially due to the many resources made available to keep it competitive.
(http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/spitfire_sides.gif)
These are almost not the same plane; a very talented team was continually employed in tweaking, refining, and reinventing it.
(If anyone can find a similar one showing changes in wing profile over time, it's even more marked).
"This is the axe of my grandfather ... Sure, over the years we've replaced the handle seven times, and three times we had to replace the head. But it's still the same axe."
-
This is a good webpage discussing the evolution of the Spitfire wing: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html (http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html)
-
Shame the higher ups never allocated merlin engines to her. With those engines, they would had one of the most superlative twin engine fighters of the war.
Could argue that the Hornet was the logical end of the single pilot, two piston engine fighters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet
-
One out, one in, Stavatti Aerospace is throwing the Javelin into the ring for the T-X program. Nice to see another extant airframe rather than starting fresh.
(http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/imagecache/medium_img/uploads/2017/02/stavatti-javelin-roll-out-sw.jpg)
It's a little babby F-18! Looks like a nimble little thing, honestly; certainly a lot more conventional design than their Machete concepts. I imagine if they get the T-X contract, the Machete platform would stand a good chance of being built. If not...well, lots of neat drawings.
http://www.stavatti.com/
-
One out, one in, Stavatti Aerospace is throwing the Javelin into the ring for the T-X program. Nice to see another extant airframe rather than starting fresh.
(http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/imagecache/medium_img/uploads/2017/02/stavatti-javelin-roll-out-sw.jpg)
It's a little babby F-18! Looks like a nimble little thing, honestly; certainly a lot more conventional design than their Machete concepts. I imagine if they get the T-X contract, the Machete platform would stand a good chance of being built. If not...well, lots of neat drawings.
http://www.stavatti.com/
'Nimble??" look at how short those wings are again. "FAST" maybe, not hardly nimble.
-
I dunno. Those wings aren't that large, no, but with the size of the tail and elevator surfaces as well as the extremely small airframe, I can't imagine the wing-loading as being super high in the end.
https://youtu.be/2GE-oYSlhgw
And yes, she is a tiny little thing. Though take a look at those engine exhausts; there's a lip on the bottom that reminds me of the YF-23's engines a little. It looks like it's there to block direct view of the engines from below, giving it a bit of protection from IR based ground defenses.
Wonder if something like that could be retrofitted to the F/A-18; it's not a dissimilar shape with the rear end of the jet.
-
The wings on that thing look so small, I almost have to wonder if it relies on the fuselage to generate some of its lift...
-
I dunno. Those wings aren't that large, no, but with the size of the tail and elevator surfaces as well as the extremely small airframe, I can't imagine the wing-loading as being super high in the end.
https://youtu.be/2GE-oYSlhgw
And yes, she is a tiny little thing. Though take a look at those engine exhausts; there's a lip on the bottom that reminds me of the YF-23's engines a little. It looks like it's there to block direct view of the engines from below, giving it a bit of protection from IR based ground defenses.
Wonder if something like that could be retrofitted to the F/A-18; it's not a dissimilar shape with the rear end of the jet.
relative to the size of the airframe ANS. that and the shape isn't a lifting body. "Nimble" ain't what I'd call it. the shape and size indicate more 'straight line fast with average turning', and it probably (Proportionally) burns a lot of gas during normal flight ops. Note: Fuselage is area-ruled, and hte configuration looks inspired by F-5, but with less wing surface proportional to the rest of it.
-
In the admittedly short period of time I've paid attention to them, Stavatti has stuck me as a company that is really good at making pretty drawings and spec sheets, and somewhat less good at ever showing up with a tangible and functioning product. I get the impression that much of the aviation world would look on a Stavatti purchase as a much riskier buy than something from the traditional contractors, even if those guys were just peddling designs as well.
-
The plane the Luftwaffe needed, but not what they got.
(http://images.klassiker-der-luftfahrt.de/sixcms/media.php/11/thumbnails/Heinkel%20-%20He%20177%20B5%204-mot.jpg.3021836.jpg)
The He 177 Greif ended up a disaster, mainly due to the insistence it perform as a dive-bomber. This meant a conventional four-engine layout was not possible; too much drag. Reinforcing the plane to take the strain added weight, reducing speed and payload. But the decision to "pod" two engines per wing was the worst aspect - given the second engine was mounted upside-down, leading to oil and fuel leaks dripping onto hot engine surfaces, that really put the plane into 'grief' territory.
Henschell pushed as hard as they could for a conventional four-engine level bomber, as per above. Was knocked back, repeatedly. Had the above gone into production, minus the prolonged development cycle of the actual Greif, Germany would have had something capable of hitting Soviet factories.
-
See also the Messerschmitt Me 264. Major performance problems and the need to concentrate on fighter production killed the program in autumn 1944.
(http://i.imgur.com/BvZ2B2Y.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1995-042-37%2C_Schwerer_Bomber_Messerschmitt_Me_264_V1.jpg)
-
The plane the Luftwaffe needed, but not what they got.
(http://images.klassiker-der-luftfahrt.de/sixcms/media.php/11/thumbnails/Heinkel%20-%20He%20177%20B5%204-mot.jpg.3021836.jpg)
The He 177 Greif ended up a disaster, mainly due to the insistence it perform as a dive-bomber. This meant a conventional four-engine layout was not possible; too much drag. Reinforcing the plane to take the strain added weight, reducing speed and payload. But the decision to "pod" two engines per wing was the worst aspect - given the second engine was mounted upside-down, leading to oil and fuel leaks dripping onto hot engine surfaces, that really put the plane into 'grief' territory.
Henschell pushed as hard as they could for a conventional four-engine level bomber, as per above. Was knocked back, repeatedly. Had the above gone into production, minus the prolonged development cycle of the actual Greif, Germany would have had something capable of hitting Soviet factories.
And not just factories. Perhaps just as important, Greifs based out of Norwegian airstrips could have made life hell on the Arctic port of Murmansk, where the convoys full of Lend-Lease supplies were being sent to primarily. That would have been huge- Murmansk itself stayed relatively safe during the war, and the ships were in danger on the way there (and back, to a much lesser extent). Being under constant risk of bombing while unloading though? Not being able to use the port for at least basic repairs without being under threat? It would have made Murmansk considerably less useful- and with the Baltic obviously not an option, Black Sea ports also not really viable (taking convoys past Italy was dangerous as it was!), and Vladivostok meaning going through Japan's navy first... it could have meant the end, or at least severely curtailed, the support the Soviets desperately needed.
Pure what-if territory, of course, but an interesting what-if indeed.
-
Why did they put two of the engines in upside-down in the He 177?
-
To enable it to meet the dive-bomber requirement.
Dive bombers need relatively small frontal area in order to dive fast enough to avoid ground fire. Propellors actually make enormous drag if you're diving faster than the speed they'd provide. So having only two propellors was the issue. They podded the engines, one above the other, turning a common crankshaft - hence the need for the top one in each pod to be upside-down relative to the other.
The dive bombing requirement also meant the wings, spars, & generally everything to be heavier to cope with the stress of pulling out of the dive, which made it slower and less capable of carrying bombload, on top of the whole 'explode into flames' thing. The whole "a camel is a horse designed by a committee" thing, to some extent, with a dose of Nazi blindsightedness.
And JHB - good point! The Condor had pathetic bombload for good range, and also had the whole "tail breaks off on landing" thing going as well.
Fat Guy, I'm having a vague memory of some design having the He-117 body with Me-264 wings, or vice versa - do you remember something like this?
W.
-
Ah, the classic Hitler approach of "let's take this perfectly good design and keep tweaking it until it's an unusable mess."
-
Pure what-if territory, of course, but an interesting what-if indeed.
That can be a fun exercise, trying to map out what-ifs forward a ways into the future.
-
Here's a much better Heinkel aircraft, a workhorse for the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o--BCw9lr8Q/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
Here's a much better Heinkel aircraft, a workhorse for the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o--BCw9lr8Q/maxresdefault.jpg)
And they pulled a "Twin Mustang" on it. Apparently, they only used that version to haul the....Me 321.
-
Fat Guy, I'm having a vague memory of some design having the He-117 body with Me-264 wings, or vice versa - do you remember something like this?
The He 177B-5 was supposed to have a new wing and engines, but never made it off paper. That may be what you're thinking of.
Why did they put two of the engines in upside-down in the He 177?
(http://s10.postimg.org/s3t5cvtux/He_177_title.png)
That's why. A four engine bomber with two propellers. ???
-
My understanding is that the point of dive bombing was to minimize exposure to ground fire, and to make the most of your bomb load with pinpoint accuracy. What the hell did they plan to dive that much HE onto, warships?
-
Goering had a thing for dive bombing.
-
Goering had a thing for dive bombing.
(http://th1180.photobucket.com/albums/x418/zenax2/My%20Little%20Pony/th_131043454880.gif)
That's it? Really?
I'm as happy as the next sane guy that the Nazi high command had all the strategic skills of a meth-addled dodo, but...that hurts me in my thinky score.
-
hey they tried to turn the ME-262 into a dive bomber too. thankfully that meant the paradigm changing jet fighter got delayed in deployment until it was too late to make much of an impact on the war, but.. ye gods, how idiotic do you have to be to see a hyper-fast jet Interceptor and think "gee, this should be diving towards the ground to drop bombs"
had Hitler not insisted on turning it into a light bomber, it would have deployed in 1943 .. and even with the reliability issues with the engines (which it never overcame IRL either) would have absolutely gutted the Allied bombing campaigns in 1944. as it was, it still gutted the bombers.. it's just the main damage was already done strategically by 1945.
-
(http://th1180.photobucket.com/albums/x418/zenax2/My%20Little%20Pony/th_131043454880.gif)
That's it? Really?
I'm as happy as the next sane guy that the Nazi high command had all the strategic skills of a meth-addled dodo, but...that hurts me in my thinky score.
Ju-88 was the same way. The first variant had dive brakes and moved some of the bombs to racks (small bomb bay doesn't help, does it?).
-
The Germans had an obsession with the dive bomber after success in the Spanish Civil War and early WW2 with the Stuka
They failed to realise that "the way of the future" (1940s style) was bigger bomb loads on bigger planes, often at night, and at long ranges
There was a similar failure to foresee how the navy would be best used for the Germans as they got wrapped up in trying to have a Big Fleet to challenge the Royal and French Navies which meant that, apparently, for the entire duration of the Battle of Britain they could only have at sea a handful of U-Boats and E-Boats to try to starve Britain and stop the coastal convoys moving things around Britain
-
The Germans had an obsession with the dive bomber after success in the Spanish Civil War and early WW2 with the Stuka
They failed to realise that "the way of the future" (1940s style) was bigger bomb loads on bigger planes, often at night, and at long ranges
There was a similar failure to foresee how the navy would be best used for the Germans as they got wrapped up in trying to have a Big Fleet to challenge the Royal and French Navies which meant that, apparently, for the entire duration of the Battle of Britain they could only have at sea a handful of U-Boats and E-Boats to try to starve Britain and stop the coastal convoys moving things around Britain
Doesn't help when your naval building programs depend on there being no war until 1945 or so. With hindsight, they would have focused everything on the U-Boat building program and had the number to strangled Britain into surrender before the ASW technology and tactics caught up.
-
Doesn't help when your naval building programs depend on there being no war until 1945 or so. With hindsight, they would have focused everything on the U-Boat building program and had the number to strangled Britain into surrender before the ASW technology and tactics caught up.
Their aviation strategy does not seem to have considered fighting Britain at all ???
-
Their aviation strategy does not seem to have considered fighting Britain at all ???
As I understand it, it probably didn't - once France was beaten Britain was supposed to be neutralized by the navy while the army and air force went after Russia. I think the fantastic success in France made them throw out the plans and go after Britain, which as we know didn't work all that well given what they had (invading England using river barges? Really?).
-
As I understand it, it probably didn't - once France was beaten Britain was supposed to be neutralized by the navy while the army and air force went after Russia. I think the fantastic success in France made them throw out the plans and go after Britain, which as we know didn't work all that well given what they had (invading England using river barges? Really?).
Considering they never planned for an amphibious operation at all at that point, they didn't have any proper 'boat' for it. They probably would had better luck just parachuting troops in, seize the airfields for the rest of the army by air. Only because they have planes for that and they don't have the boats to pull it off, not taking in account of the freaking Royal Air Force!
-
had Hitler not insisted on turning it into a light bomber, it would have deployed in 1943
What good is fighter that is almost certain to blow up it's engine during the flight? You might take out some bombers, but at the cost of your best fighter pilots. Until the engine troubles got solved, it had no place in production and engine troubles weren't solved before the interference was gone.
-
I think he meant the Me-262, not the He-177.
After all, Hitler firmly believed that fighters were (spit) defensive, whereas only bombers were (cheer!) offensive weapons.
Galland's "The first and the last" is a good read on this, from a Luftwaffe fighter pilot's POV.
W.
-
I think he meant the Me-262, not the He-177.
After all, Hitler firmly believed that fighters were (spit) defensive, whereas only bombers were (cheer!) offensive weapons.
Galland's "The first and the last" is a good read on this, from a Luftwaffe fighter pilot's POV.
W.
Early turbojets weren't much better
-
Early turbojets weren't much better
Doesn't help that they used "forced" labor. What a wonderful way to build your delicate machinery. ::)
-
I think he meant the Me-262, not the He-177.
After all, Hitler firmly believed that fighters were (spit) defensive, whereas only bombers were (cheer!) offensive weapons.
Galland's "The first and the last" is a good read on this, from a Luftwaffe fighter pilot's POV.
W.
the ME-262 and other early jets having such short ranges should have made it clear it was a defensive aircraft. i think that in 1942-1943 the Nazi's wanted some sort of offensive 'wonder weapon' to deal with England's refusal to give up and the mess that was the Russian Front, and didn't want to admit that they might need better defenses. after all, in 1943, the russian front had suffered a big set back in Stalingrad and Leningrad but hadn't really collapsed yet, the allies hadn't started their big bombing campaigns yet (and the Luftwaffe was doing OK against the smaller campaigns), and the Mediterranean theatre wasn't totally lost yet.
-
Doesn't help that they used "forced" labor. What a wonderful way to build your delicate machinery. ::)
Inferior metals didn't help either.
-
Big huge bombers mostly help when you have control of the air. Germany had that in the beginning when there was no need for a big bomber.
-
Big huge bombers mostly help when you have control of the air. Germany had that in the beginning when there was no need for a big bomber.
True enough. Note how effective those B-29 raids were in 1945 over Japan, when there was no major threat to them. (And how much they struggled only a few years later over Korea when a threat- the MiG-15- showed up.)
-
http://imgur.com/a/szKI8
GIF. Applicable since it's a flying drone yeah? But the point is look at what they just did to it!
-
I wonder how many drones they went through before settling on that design...
-
F-20 Tigershark
Gorgeous little plane, but the emphasis is on 'little'. I don't see how it could have ever been seen as comparable to an F-16 just in terms of payload.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8535/8644118495_f709be5cda_b.jpg)
I could see the plane getting larger with time, it wouldn't be a F16E. The F16 engine went from 24k of thrust to over 31k of thrust. So the F16 4.5 gen is a much larger plane then the first production F-16s
-
GIF. Applicable since it's a flying drone yeah? But the point is look at what they just did to it!
Here is the traditional way to do it: https://youtu.be/FGoaXZwFlJ4 (https://youtu.be/FGoaXZwFlJ4)
Balls, large, titanium balls. The skill of the pilots to fly the helicopters with such precision, the teamwork and trust between the pilot and the linesman O0
-
Yeah,
You cant afford to have a bad day in that job!
-
I could see the plane getting larger with time, it wouldn't be a F16E. The F16 engine went from 24k of thrust to over 31k of thrust. So the F16 4.5 gen is a much larger plane then the first production F-16s
F-20 actually used the same engine as the F-18. (the F404, at 17,000lbs thrust)
the main concern wasn't "the F-20 is as good as the F-16", because it wasn't. but it was reasonably comparable in the primary air-to-air mission to the F-16's of that decade, and was much cheaper. it was meant for export only, since the F=-16 wasn't available for that, but the Air Force was basically worried that the budget committees would decide "why should we spend so much on new advanced F-16's when we can save money buying F-20's?" and General Dynamics of course was arguing at the time that allowing the F-16A/B to be exported would drive down costs on those new F-16's (the C's/D's) the Airforce was buying (and of course, unsaid was that it would get them way more profits..)
thus why other manufacturers undermined the efforts to market the F-20, and the eventual clearance for the F-16 to be sold for export. most of those interested in the F-20 wound up being able to get the F-16A's/B's they'd wanted in the first place for a lot less by buying used and refurbished USAF planes.
honestly, i keep expecting to hear that Iran has developed a Tigershark like derivative of their Saeqeh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Saeqeh) fighter. perhaps using a RD-33 clone for the engine.
the Saeqeh
(http://militaryedge.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Saegheh-2.jpg)
-
This video has adult language but is very funny - Top Gun meets Hot Fuzz would be my best description
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FAeroSedifer%2Fvideos%2Fvb.189776124490685%2F905877682880522%2F%3Ftype%3D3&show_text=0&width=560 (https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FAeroSedifer%2Fvideos%2Fvb.189776124490685%2F905877682880522%2F%3Ftype%3D3&show_text=0&width=560)" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>
EDIT - link seems to sort of work but looks ugly
-
This video has adult language but is very funny - Top Gun meets Hot Fuzz would be my best description
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FAeroSedifer%2Fvideos%2Fvb.189776124490685%2F905877682880522%2F%3Ftype%3D3&show_text=0&width=560 (https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FAeroSedifer%2Fvideos%2Fvb.189776124490685%2F905877682880522%2F%3Ftype%3D3&show_text=0&width=560)" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>
EDIT - link seems to sort of work but looks ugly
How absolutely inane. Somebody please send Simon Pegg the link.
-
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watch-german-typhoons-intercept-a-boeing-777-that-lost-1792530997 (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watch-german-typhoons-intercept-a-boeing-777-that-lost-1792530997)
Understandably, Foxtrot Alpha's articles usually are political-based, so they can't be used here. This one though is a nice exception.
Everyone was fine, fortunately, the 787 landed safely, but... knock knock, Luftwaffe calling!
-
At least they didn't get warning shots fired by heat-seaking missiles, KAL007-style. IIRC, the Su-15s in use were the D version with extended wingtips, not the F with optional gunpods.
-
The plane was a Boeing 777-300er that Jet Airways. They haven't got the 787 Dreamliner not until late 2017
-
Everyone was fine, fortunately, the 787 landed safely, but... knock knock, Luftwaffe calling!
Not the first time the the Luftwaffe had to intercept a Boeing product.
Everyone should bring their own escort. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV3AHjenV14 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV3AHjenV14) Courtesy of Omega Air Refueling http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/ (http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/)
-
Not the first time the the Luftwaffe had to intercept a Boeing product.
Everyone should bring their own escort. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV3AHjenV14 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV3AHjenV14) Courtesy of Omega Air Refueling http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/ (http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/)
No fair, posting your own videos. ;) You've got a subscriber; I love the footage of the F-35. You made the boondoggle look good!
-
No fair, posting your own videos. ;) You've got a subscriber; I love the footage of the F-35. You made the boondoggle look good!
I didn't mean to. I absolutely abhor the F-35B. (Objective me says its cool to watch it hover) My inner maintenance guy says "There's too many gear boxes, and making running engagements to a lift fan is a bad idea" I liken it to being able to swallow and then regurgitate a billiard ball. It's a neat trick and a marvel to behold, but it's not a good idea to do it many times a day.
-
I didn't mean to. I absolutely abhor the F-35B. (Objective me says its cool to watch it hover) My inner maintenance guy says "There's too many gear boxes, and making running engagements to a lift fan is a bad idea" I liken it to being able to swallow and then regurgitate a billiard ball. It's a neat trick and a marvel to behold, but it's not a good idea to do it many times a day.
I agree 100%. But it does look neat in hover mode.
-
Personally the only thing I find really "wrong" about the F-35 is... Size! Sure the VTOL system is complex, but is there really a good way to avoid that?
The internal weapon bays are certainly nice, but I don't really think they're worth the cost. Especially since at least attack aircraft often end up loaded to the metaphorical roofracks anyway... ;)
-
The lift fan on the F35B is a really dumb idea because its a dead weight when it isn't in operation. I wish they could of figured out something like the Harrier lift system for the F35B
On a separate note here is the video of Harrison Fords landing on the Taxiway really close to a American Airlines 737-800 with 110 people on board.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/02/22/video-shows-harrison-ford-flying-over-airliner.html
-
the X-32 used a harrier style system. at the time the X-35's lift fan was seen as a 'more capable' option with 'higher performance'. the fact the X-32's version had some exhaust self-ingestion issues in low altitude hover probably contributed.
of course, then the fighter's weight bloated heavily between the X-35 and F-35 models, and pretty much all of that superior performance was lost. which is something the Yakolev Engineers should have been able to tell Lockheed about when they bought the Yak-38 and Yak-141 plans and data, but either Lockheed overlooked it, or just outright ignored it.
(given the huge development problems the Yak-38 and Yak-141 had, that their direct (if sideways) successor the F-35 is having tons of birthing problems doesn't seem all that surprising. so far it's problems have basically been "all the issues the Yak-141 had, plus the extra headache of stealth")
-
From what I've read about the different systems I think a Harrier-style system would have been even worse at the F-35's size... But that just goes back to the size problem.
-
A friend in the RAF was saying that an added problem with the F-35B is going to stopping it killing the pilots...
If/when the lift fan fails the nose will drop very very quickly and the pilot will not have time to manually eject and so they are devising an autoeject but at the moment even without the added weight of a huge helmet with helmet mounted HUD it will break their neck. Then add the weight of the helmet.
Is it still too late for the RAF/FAA to switch to the F-35C (if they must have the F-35) and rebuild HMS Queen Elizabeth?
-
So in attempting to make a plane that can do everything they've given it tons of extra problems, many of which were the result of trying to fix previous problems? I'm absolutely shocked.
-
So in attempting to make a plane that can do everything they've given it tons of extra problems, many of which were the result of trying to fix previous problems? I'm absolutely shocked.
and I wonder if it will ever be used in a low observability mode? I suspect that most if not all of it's life will be spent with plenty of external ordnance hung off it
-
Is it still too late for the RAF/FAA to switch to the F-35C (if they must have the F-35) and rebuild HMS Queen Elizabeth?
God, lets not go there again, didn't you chaps lose something like a billion pounds the first time round dithering over cats and traps already?
The F-35 is the F-35, take it as it is and wait for the next F-XX or Taranis or whatever... its not like the Harrier was a stellar piece of tech, and yet it was made to work.
-
God, lets not go there again, didn't you chaps lose something like a billion pounds the first time round dithering over cats and traps already?
The F-35 is the F-35, take it as it is and wait for the next F-XX or Taranis or whatever... its not like the Harrier was a stellar piece of tech, and yet it was made to work.
About that much
I think the Harrier has had a higher than normal loss rate both for the RAF/FAA and USMC but had some benefit from being less computerised as I think part of the problem with the F-35 has been the computer systems and trying to manage the inherently unstable and awkward aircraft has not helped - coupled with the problems like lift fans and having a single huge engine to move around carriers
-
Personally the only thing I find really "wrong" about the F-35 is... Size! Sure the VTOL system is complex, but is there really a good way to avoid that?
The internal weapon bays are certainly nice, but I don't really think they're worth the cost. Especially since at least attack aircraft often end up loaded to the metaphorical roofracks anyway... ;)
The philosophy I have read is that F-35 internal weapons bays are so that it can be stealthy during the first 48-72 hrs of the air campaign when it will be tasked to take out the opposition air defence systems. Once air superiority/dominance has been achieved by the F-22s and the air defence systems have been degraded/neutralised then the F-35 becomes a bomb truck with the underwing hardpoints loaded up as much as the airframe structure can handle. Thus the F-35 is meant to replace the F-117 (during the first 48-72 hrs) and then F-15E, F-16, F/A-18 and A-10 (72 hrs+) which seems great in theory as you get much more efficiency from a lesser number of airframes. However, if it is a jack of all trades and master of none then it will be interesting to see how effective it actually is in its first real operation.
-
No doubt in the past the program performed quite poorly, but I think recently, there's a lot goes on we don't know about. The Danish went and picked F-35A, the Israelis are happy with their F-35I, and their best buddies the Singaporeans suddenly turned around and showed interest, after backing out coolly from 1st-tier partnership during the Troubles. So it looks like something has been proven or demonstrated to their satisfaction... and no country in the world takes defence more seriously than the latter 2.
Plus the other big defence players are also pursuing their own stealth options - China, Korea, Japan, India. Look at naval shipbuilding, people used to say the Burkes were ugly and stealth would never catch on but now every man and his dog is building "low obs" shaped warships.
In BT terms external carriage probably downgrades from +3 stealth THN to +1 :D but there'll be stealthyish external weapons carriage coming later right?
-
Stealthy ordnance and weapons pods/hardpoints will be a nice to have but at the end of the day stealthy F-35s will be tasked with precision strikes against opposition air defence systems in the first 48-72 hrs. They do not necessarily need lots of ordnance to do successfully fulfil that role, one or two precision bombs or missiles usually does the trick. Once you have take out the air defence C3, radars and some of the major SAM sites and the F-22 have achieve air dominance/superiority then it really does not matter if you are not stealthy because there will be no opposition radars to "light you up". During this second phase you want to haul as much ordnance as you can so that you can hit as many targets as you can in the strike and CAS roles.
Here in Aus, while there are rumblings about the price and some concerns about the lack of range when compared to the F-111. Nobody is complaining about having jumped on the program earlier. This has resulted in Australian defence contractors/industry involved in building components and late last year Australia was announced as the F-35 program Asia-Pacific logistic/maintenance hub (repair, overhaul and upgrade services for F-35 components including avionics, aircraft structures, electrics, landing gear and pilot life support as well as engine repairs and the repair of airframes for the southern Pacific region).
-
Boeing has completed production of its second BTX-1, pictured here alongside the first aircraft.
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/02/Screen-Shot-2017-02-23-at-07.49.36-768x504.png)
-
Those LEXs (leading edge extensions), rhombus air intakes and twin tails remind me of the Super Hornet in that photo.
-
It's a super-deformed F-18 - all big head, dwarf body, no?
(https://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/9/0/2/1/9/t2845419-131-thumb-SD%20VF-1A.png?d=1256847095)
-
considering that Boeing now owns and produces the F/A-18, having bought up McDonnell Douglas in the late 90's, i'm not surprised. they have spent a lot of time and effort recently reworking the F/A-18 super hornets for more modern market demands.
the the YF-17 prototype they offered to the Light Weight Fighter program, that eventually turned into the original F/A-18's? was heavily based off Northrop's F-5 and T-38, which had been McDD's partner in the LWF, and later the marine equivalent.
so it makes sense that a T-38 (and F-5) replacement from Boeing would end up with a lot of Super Hornet in it's genes..
unrelated question.. i've been trying to find a name for a specific fighter unit, but it is looking like the British Royal Air Force doesn't give its squadrons or flights official names the way america does. the Wikipedia pages list a few unofficial names for some, but not for the one i'm curious about.
does anyone know what the No. 1435 Flight down in the Falklands is called name wise?
-
The Commonwealth air forces generally do not follow the US military tradition of naming flying squadrons. So the last flying squadron I worked with was No. 2 Squadron Royal Australian Air Force.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/No._2_Squadron_RAAF_Crest.png)
In correspondence, it was shortened as 2SQN and everybody referred to them as "2 Squadron". 2SQN's motto is Consilio et manu
("To Advise and to Strike") and the badge features a magpie (a native Australian bird that is famous for its swooping attacks on any who venture too close to their nest during breeding season) and the fleur-de-lis (2SQN was originally raised as No. 2 Squadron Australian Flying Corp of the Australian Imperial Force during WW1 and served in France). 2SQN callsigns include:
Magpie (for the magpie that is on the 2SQN badge)
Wedgetail (for the E-7A Wedgetail)
Eagle (for the wedgetail eagle which is E-7A Wedgetail is named after)
Mitchell (for the B-25 Mitchell bomber that 2SQN operated during WW2)
However we never referred to 2SQN as "The Magpies".
-
Just in defence of magpies - we've had several generations brooding in a tree on our property. Never anything but the best polite behaviour from all concerned. I love their music, and seeing the gawky grey-backed adolescents learning to cope with the world, and how to intimidate cats ;)
We now return you to your normal programming.
-
the X-32 used a harrier style system. at the time the X-35's lift fan was seen as a 'more capable' option with 'higher performance'. the fact the X-32's version had some exhaust self-ingestion issues in low altitude hover probably contributed.
of course, then the fighter's weight bloated heavily between the X-35 and F-35 models, and pretty much all of that superior performance was lost. which is something the Yakolev Engineers should have been able to tell Lockheed about when they bought the Yak-38 and Yak-141 plans and data, but either Lockheed overlooked it, or just outright ignored it.
(given the huge development problems the Yak-38 and Yak-141 had, that their direct (if sideways) successor the F-35 is having tons of birthing problems doesn't seem all that surprising. so far it's problems have basically been "all the issues the Yak-141 had, plus the extra headache of stealth")
the whole program suffered from bloat and feature-creep as it's ground endlessly onward without fielding a working unit.
The original JSF request for proposal was for a plane in the A-4's size range, with a similar mission profile, but with V/STOL and light air-to-air capability. aka a quicker Harrier with fashionable 'stealth' features.
That's the plane that won the first round for both Lockheed and Boeing, but they changed the requirement to include interception (F-16/18 territory) and the various services couldn't agree on a single set of specs, resulting in mulitple models being needed and size increase (which Lockheed did for the fly-off, but Boeing did not).
from the conclusion of the fly-off when Lockheed got the contract, the mission bloat's only gotten WORSE. and a plane that was supposed to be a cheaper, more tightly focused companion to the F-22 is now supposed to fill every role the F-16 and 18 fill, along with the A-10 and F-22.
haven't seen a mess like this since the development programme of the F-111, a plane that took over a decade in service to find a niche where it worked and to have a better than 25% readiness rate. (early model Aardvarks were deathtraps)
Now I'm not sure how well that underwing hardpoint's going to work-the visuals show an aircraft with an ABSURD wing-loading running clean. (not as absurd as the 104, mind you), and that's a problem if you're mainly hauling bombs. the 117 showed that stealth ISN'T everything in that first run strike mission either. They lost one to ground fire in Bosnia in the nineties-not missiles, but guns.
which doesn't speak well for the 35's survivability in the close air support role it's taking from the A-10. The stealth works GREAT if your focused on forty million dollar missiles, but it might not be so clever against 40mm guns.
-
No, the F-117 lost over Kosovo was to SAMs. archaic SA-3s, IIRC. The F-117's stealth is optimized against newer short-wavelength radar, and the obsolete longer wavelength radars could barely see them well enough to get at least one missile close enough to do the job. With a 60-70 kilo warhead, 'close' doesn't have to be THAT close.
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html (http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html)
-
Wasn't part of the reason that F-117 got shot down because they were using extremely regular and predictable attack patterns and times?
-
Wasn't part of the reason that F-117 got shot down because they were using extremely regular and predictable attack patterns and times?
And it had just released a weapon.
-
Yeah, that made it more visible on radar, but I remember hearing something about how the airstrikes were predictable enough that they'd figured out when and where to look before it fired.
-
Yeah, that made it more visible on radar, but I remember hearing something about how the airstrikes were predictable enough that they'd figured out when and where to look before it fired.
Stealth is a first-strike capability at best. the problem with trying to use it for CAS, or sustained interdiction, was demonstrated in Yugoslavia.
What is that?
well, it gives the enemy time to analyze and develop a counter-strategy. Whether it's an obselete SAM or an eyeball guided cannon, the value of 'Stealth' assets degrades as they're used.
Going back to what triggered this whole thing, the F-35 gives up a significant amount of mission payload space to have 'stealthy' features, and accepts an absurd wing-loading as well. (toss a REvell or Monogram kit in a homemade wind-tunnel and you can see it for yourself.) what this means is, barring fast-reacting vectored thrust, this plane's not very manueverable and adding drag centers on the wings makes it LESS manueverable.
The area taken up by engines subtracted from the area of the fuselage and wings, tells you about how much gas it can carry. (NOT a lot), esp. if you consider teh need to have the internal weapons bays, mechanisms for the forward lift fan, various doors )and thus, required structural reinforcements since your fuselage envelope has these gaps in it's structural rigidity), power feeds for avionics, avionics bays...
minus some kind near-fantasy efficiencies in the powerplant/engines, you've got a plane that has short legs, a weak back, can't dogfight and has a severely limited bomb and war load.
all for a combo of 'stealth' and V/Stol.
and finally, in a straight line?
it's slow for a supersonic fighter.
The F-4 overcame aerodynamic shortcomings through raw engine power-but it didn't sacrifice the gas tank to do it, hte F-35 does.
and then...there's the cost.
as in "More per copy than an F-22."
if anyone remembers, F-22 was cancelled for being too expensive. per airframe F-35 costs more.
-
Feature bloat at its finest.
-
Less verbiage, more pictures!
(http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/ProjectPluto-1.jpg)
Okay, this never got built. Thank Ghu ... But they did make, and test, the engine for 5 minutes:
(http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/zaq19/imgs/7/7/775dab44.jpg?blog_id=1514656)
-
What is it? It looks like an upscaled one of these:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Bloodhound_SAM_at_the_RAF_Museum.jpg/1200px-Bloodhound_SAM_at_the_RAF_Museum.jpg)
The area taken up by engines subtracted from the area of the fuselage and wings, tells you about how much gas it can carry. (NOT a lot), esp. if you consider teh need to have the internal weapons bays, mechanisms for the forward lift fan, various doors )and thus, required structural reinforcements since your fuselage envelope has these gaps in it's structural rigidity), power feeds for avionics, avionics bays...
Don't forget that the lift fan and gearbox for it only appear in F-35B, the F-35A and F-35C use the space where the lift fan goes for more fuel.
-
Project SLAM. Supersonic Low Altitude Missile. craziest concept ever.
-
Project SLAM. Supersonic Low Altitude Missile. craziest concept ever.
Nuclear power at its finest!
-
Thanks gents, that is just M.A.D-ness.
-
Let's build an air-breathing nuclear thermal ramjet that uses air as a neutron moderator as well, thereby pissing parts of the reactor as it flies along for a few months at mach 3+ over enemy territory while breathing out an exhaust that's just this side of Godzilla's atomic breath, and then on top of this flying radiation atrocity let's also give it a few nukes because the lilies deserve some gold whydontcha.
Seriously, if we ever made a single thing describable as 'wiping out most all life on this planet' then that little bastard would have been it. Pluto/SLAM was one insanely elegant and perfect weapon system, no doubt about it. Hell, even the Air Force decided it was literally too pure a weapon to be used in the 1960s/1970s anti-Soviet nuclear triad, and that's from a time we shared a good 50-60,000 warheads between us and them!
-
SLAM robotic radiation killer. Great way to sterilize planets.
-
What a downright horrific weapon.
But talking about the F-35, maybe in the end it'll be a great airplane and will fly for the best part of a century. Like this fellow:
(https://cnet3.cbsistatic.com/img/EiQVrOIiIvzBmBrLn6-iwEFrzbs=/1170x0/2016/04/05/61af312f-66f1-4e50-b107-e2ed25f361a5/cnet-b52-in-sky.jpg)
-
Project SLAM. Supersonic Low Altitude Missile. craziest concept ever.
Folks, do your selves a favour and read this freely available short story:
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm
-
I don't think I could do the whole thing... present tense writing in stories gets on my nerves for no good reason.
-
Let's build an air-breathing nuclear thermal ramjet that uses air as a neutron moderator as well, thereby pissing parts of the reactor as it flies along for a few months at mach 3+ over enemy territory while breathing out an exhaust that's just this side of Godzilla's atomic breath, and then on top of this flying radiation atrocity let's also give it a few nukes because the lilies deserve some gold whydontcha.
What I like is the idea that the nuclear thermal ramjet will spew the engine exhaust over enemy territory leaving a trail of radioactive nastiness in it wake. Did these people not understand the idea of fallout drifting with the prevailing wind? I also note that the thing is on a railway sled (that I assume would also double as a launcher) so that it would have to be launched from friendly territory first and flyover friendly and neutral territory before it reaches enemy territory . . .
-
What I like is the idea that the nuclear thermal ramjet will spew the engine exhaust over enemy territory leaving a trail of radioactive nastiness in it wake. Did these people not understand the idea of fallout drifting with the prevailing wind?
Considering it was supposed to be fitted with terrain-following gear and do mach-3 at 50 feet AGL to play overpressure games with things on the ground, wind fallout wasn't too much of an issue compared to high-altitude flight.
-
Remember, the idea was launch under rocket boost, engage the reactor at altitude, before crossing the Pacific and going NOE over Soviet Russia.
The biggest obstacle to Pluto-SLAM was testing the engine in flight. They seriously began looking into tethering the test device to a pole, and letting it circle, until the question of "where?" came up ...
W.
-
And why didn't WOB use these things?!?!?
-
Apollyon diverted the R&D budget for it into ... "personal enhancement" technologies?
-
Even the Word found them to have a horrible return on investment. I don't think fission plants are a major R&D concern in the Inner Sphere.
-
to be fair, a Fission powered Conventional in BT would have more in common with the Indirect Cycle Nuclear Jet Tubines conceptualized IRL. sadly only the direct cycle concept got tested.. Indirect cycle, while much safer, was just way to heavy at the time. (still are really.. the reactor can be built much much lighter now, but the shielding is still the main weight problem.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion#Indirect_Air_Cycle
http://www.megazone.org/ANP/tech.shtml
http://mentalfloss.com/article/53184/brief-history-nuclear-airplanes
diagram of an Indirect cycle Nuclear Jet Turbine.
(http://www.aviation-history.com/articles/anp-ic-2.jpg)
-
Remember, the idea was launch under rocket boost, engage the reactor at altitude, before crossing the Pacific and going NOE over Soviet Russia.
The biggest obstacle to Pluto-SLAM was testing the engine in flight. They seriously began looking into tethering the test device to a pole, and letting it circle, until the question of "where?" came up ...
W.
"...it's sure spinning fast... the eye can barely follow. Wait... why did we put a cockpit on it? We weren't going to do a manned version, why is... is that Bob in there?"
"Yep... seemed funny. Plus he owed me $20."
-
How viable do you gentlemen think the J-20 actually is?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-mHGNVEwIx10/VnoX_CIkdxI/AAAAAAAAH1g/yrvlL38JHCI/s0-Ic42/180244gb2k70k2z2w30nyv.jpg)
Folks, do your selves a favour and read this freely available short story:
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm
Charles Stross. I might have guessed ::) I love his story concepts but the man's prose itself has something mind-warping about it.
-
Considering it was supposed to be fitted with terrain-following gear and do mach-3 at 50 feet AGL to play overpressure games with things on the ground, wind fallout wasn't too much of an issue compared to high-altitude flight.
No, it would be launched from Germany
I've tried some of Charles Schloss' work and am not a huge fan of the detail although the concepts are great (I also find them rather too bleak -if I want bleak I go to work)
-
Let's try not to justify the SLAM. It was an atrocity - literally - in missile form.
How viable do you gentlemen think the J-20 actually is?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-mHGNVEwIx10/VnoX_CIkdxI/AAAAAAAAH1g/yrvlL38JHCI/s0-Ic42/180244gb2k70k2z2w30nyv.jpg)
She's very pretty. Unlike Russia, China isn't interested in genitalia-measuring contests. They just want a good new bird, and I suspect they've got one here.
I think the test yellow better shows her layout.
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/j20_2021_lrip1021.jpg)
-
From my reading, it's reasonably stealthy in a closing engagement. I've seen pics with four droptanks, so it's got legs to beat the Su-27 family.
(http://i.imgur.com/S81jBux.png)
(http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab35/bobro15/camo_zpsqh91v4em.jpg~original)
(http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15609.0;attach=566253;image)
You know, it strikes me as a cross between an F-35 and a fighter jet ...
W.
-
The thing's got good forward- and side-aspect stealth, with the extra fins blocking the radar return from those round engines, but top/bottom and rear-aspect is going to give it some fits. Not sure she'd make a high-end dogfighter with the amount of wing surface it has, but a standoff interceptor seems quite right up its alley.
-
I'm assuming dogteeth in those leading edge flaps, and moderately RAM with better structural strength than that of the B2.
The fully maneuverable canards are going to do something positive for performance.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZdCa8Lq.jpg)
(http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15609.0;attach=569279;image)
-
One thing to remember is that it's intended engine, the WS-15, doesn't actually exist yet and it's currently using domestic knockoffs of the Saturn AL-31.
And for everything that China can do well, the one thing they can't seem to do worth a damn is jet engines.
-
Here's a couple of articles on a likely strategy for using the J-20
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5606/chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-will-likely-look-like-this-at-its-air-show-debut?iid=sr-link2
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7806/chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-photographed-toting-massive-external-fuel-tanks
-
You know, the old doctrine for the MiG-21 in Vietnam was as a one-shot wonder - it'd show up at high speed, unload all four missiles, then turn and bug out hard. With the push for "extremely long range" AAMs that are far too large for internal bays, I wonder if the Chinese doctrine is to give up on the stealth until the first exchange of missiles, using the range advantage to fire before it'd get spotted, then go slick and turn & burn back home just like the old days. Don't go for the merge, don't join into a dogfight, just lob missiles and pull back like old-style musket lines.
-
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/F-35-takeoff-RF-17-1.jpg)
Don't believe all of the click-bait hit pieces on the F-35. I think it's going to be just fine.
https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/28/red-flag-confirmed-f-35-dominance-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/
“I flew a mission where our four-ship formation of F-35A’s destroyed five surface-to-air threats in a 15-minute period without being targeted once."
"After almost every mission, we shake our heads and smile, saying ‘We can’t believe we just did that’"
"After taking out the ground threats the multirole F-35A is able to pitch back into the fight with air-to-air missiles, taking out aircraft that don’t even know we’re there.”
-
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/F-35-takeoff-RF-17-1.jpg)
Don't believe all of the click-bait hit pieces on the F-35. I think it's going to be just fine.
https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/28/red-flag-confirmed-f-35-dominance-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/
“I flew a mission where our four-ship formation of F-35A’s destroyed five surface-to-air threats in a 15-minute period without being targeted once."
"After almost every mission, we shake our heads and smile, saying ‘We can’t believe we just did that’"
"After taking out the ground threats the multirole F-35A is able to pitch back into the fight with air-to-air missiles, taking out aircraft that don’t even know we’re there.”
but were those targets actually radiating? were they manned? what were the RoE involved here? The USAF isn't above altering exercises to preserve careers (they've done it in the past with other testing scenarios that didn't work out in real-time.)
which doctrine was the OpFor using for Red Flag this year? (recall, the frikking Serbs using 50 year old equipment at the time, shot down an 'invisible' plane.)
and finally, was air superiority assumed in the exercise? what happens if the opfor/enemy has backups? what was the criteria for 'destroyed'? is it mission kill, hard kill, near miss?
the 105, 4, and 111 all did the same 'wild weasel' mission and performed it perfectly (or nearly perfectly) for decades at a fraction of hte price, and in real-world conflicts. The F-18 airframe (G) does it for a fraction of the price with a significantly larger payload and longer range. all the Red Flag resuls show, is that under ideal conditions the F-35 can do a portion of the mission profile it's slated to take over-and do it as well as 20, 30, or even 40 year older designs.
-
Is it ironic that the F-35 Lightning II is not yet cleared to fly in lightning? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-05/joint-strike-fighter-jets-grounded-over-lightning-concerns/8326560 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-05/joint-strike-fighter-jets-grounded-over-lightning-concerns/8326560) :D
-
Most planes shouldn't fly in lighting.
-
Is it ironic that the F-35 Lightning II is not yet cleared to fly in lightning? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-05/joint-strike-fighter-jets-grounded-over-lightning-concerns/8326560 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-05/joint-strike-fighter-jets-grounded-over-lightning-concerns/8326560) :D
I understand its not a good idea to fly the Typhoon or the Tornado through their namesakes either. Now, the Falcon, Eagle, Hornet and Raptor* probably can fly through their namesakes, but the SPCA may have issues with testing and certifying that capability...
*the Raptor can't fly through hornets though apparently ::)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/12/21/3728B9E400000578-3736944-image-a-33_1471033389694.jpg)
-
I understand its not a good idea to fly the Typhoon or the Tornado through their namesakes either. Now, the Falcon, Eagle, Hornet and Raptor* probably can fly through their namesakes, but the SPCA may have issues with testing and certifying that capability...
*the Raptor can't fly through hornets though apparently ::)
I'd have thought that the danger of birdstrike would mean the American warplanes probably shouldn't either
The Warthog might survive being hit by a ballistic namesake though
-
The A10 could fly through both its names, a hog and a thunderbolt!
-
It could even go through a warthog that was hit by a thunderbolt.
-
Well, going to be a fun day for the USAF crew assigned to find and fly through a fortress...
-
Well, going to be a fun day for the USAF crew assigned to find and fly through a fortress...
A flying fortress. So first you're going to need a very large trebuchet...
-
I'm not really sure I want to see the results of an F-111 hitting an aardvark. I don't think anyone's going to come out of that looking pretty.
-
Pretty sure a Mosquito could survive hitting a mosquito
-
Now I feel sorry for Tu-95 drivers; that's gotta be a rough test!
-
On the other hand the JAS-39 pilots and the old J-35 pilots are immune to the test.. At least until genetic engineering reaches the 'Lego genetics' level. ;D
-
So what do they do about the B-52's test?
-
Run the B52 into a Big Ugly Fat Fellow (edited for radio).
-
Hey! I resemble that comment!
-
B-52 - it just has to be flown into a fortress in the straosphere . . .
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/6/6a/Cloud_City.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080131144129)
-
Spitfire test pilots 'only' needed to win a dogfight against their mothers-in-law ::)
-
Mustang wouldn't be pretty.
-
I understand its not a good idea to fly the Typhoon or the Tornado through their namesakes either. Now, the Falcon, Eagle, Hornet and Raptor* probably can fly through their namesakes, but the SPCA may have issues with testing and certifying that capability...
*the Raptor can't fly through hornets though apparently ::)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/12/21/3728B9E400000578-3736944-image-a-33_1471033389694.jpg)
I'm having a Rocky and Bullwinkle moment here. Is that picture...
"USAF stealth coating revealed to be made of Honey"
Or...
"How did you repair damage to the honeycomb structure under the carbon fiber? Oh god! Not like that!"
-
On the other hand the JAS-39 pilots and the old J-35 pilots are immune to the test.. At least until genetic engineering reaches the 'Lego genetics' level. ;D
Well, the J-35 pilots could do it safely... "Draken" means either "the dragon" or "the kite" - and the second is quite manageable. ^-^
-
That depends on whether you mean kite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite_(bird)), kite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite_shield), kite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite), or Kite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kite_(AMS-22)). I suspect that at least one of them may prove problematic.
-
OK, the last one might cause some problems... :D
-
End of an era here in Canberra, Australia.
The Southcare Bell 412 rescue helicopter (operated by CHC) is being retired after 19 years and 6,800 missions.
(http://www.mygungahlin.com.au/images/SnowyHydroSouthCare/IMG_9814.JPG)
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/3751106-4x3-940x705.jpg)
It will be replaced by AW139 helicopters (operated by Toll Helicopters).
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/8353998-3x2-700x467.jpg)
-
interesting little discussion from over in the Naval Thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=55683.660)
Blue's a training/testing round, right?
Correct, typically they've got an inert payload that masses the same as the real explosives. Those that don't are kind of garbage, since their ballistics don't match the real deal, but they do happen.
led to a bit of serendipity with the CRV7, the Canadian made equivalent of the Hydra-70 rockets. during test firings with the more powerful motor the CRV7 series used over the hydra, they noticed that the inert practice warheads (basically just chunks of steel) were punching right through the armor on the old tanks they were using as targets. led to the development of a light anti-tank rocket using kinetic penetrators (basically tungsten darts) which thanks to commonality of parts with the hydra-70's, can now be made laser guided thanks to the various upgrade kits developed.
i suspect that a Cobra, Apache, or other 70mm rocket equipped vehicle could use that warhead/motor combo to do a number on warships. modern tanks tend to be much better armored than a warship's hull and superstructure.
Yow, the idea of outfitting a warship with appropriate amounts of Chobham II makes even my wallet scream.
Cheaper to gold-plate the bastard, I'd bet.
Literally.
'you want how many thousand tons of /WHAT/
'Once more I weep at what might have been with a navalized A-10 making strafing runs on warships. Granted, very likely "dead A-10s" but the thought of those 30mm DU penetrators going hellbent for leather to the bottom hull plates...how the hell do you stop "minor flooding" in every compartment?
The compartments essentially act as spaced armor.
At worst cases, it's counter flood to stabilize, and start working your way through the various compartments to seal the holes. And if it's above the waterline, it's not an urgent problem.
Taking fire like that means a lot of people just really messed up in a war zone anyhow.
I'd be concerned about potential internal fires. Those holes aren't just in the hull, and warships these days are full of 'splodey goodness.
Discussion of the all-weather A-10 - which could have been navalised - unfortunately belongs elsewhere.
-
When was the last time the US actually engaged hostile warships in battle?
-
When was the last time the US actually engaged hostile warships in battle?
Previously? Gulf War 1, I think.
Potentially? Any time.
-
And here's the one experimental YA-10B:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/14/4d/90/144d90b75d9b440d457c3c8af6d505cf.jpg)
In order to meet perceived (Army) requirements for all-weather/night attack versions of the Warthog, , the most obvious change was the 2nd seat for an Electronic Warfare officer. As well as updated avionics, it got low-light TV, FLIR, inertial navigation and terrain-following radar in those underwing pods visible (no-one wanted to mount them near the GAU for obvious reasons).
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5079/1902/400/A-10%205.1.jpg)
Very attractive looking aircraft. There isn't an obvious reason why the project never went anywhere; one has to assume the army felt CAS and adverse weather conditions weren't a great mix.
-
I would have thought that the problem would be that while the US Army might want the YA-10B the US Air Force would have had to cut the number of super-sexy F-15s, F-16s or even B-1s or something to buy something slow, ugly and only for the benefit of those in green suits
I think it is something of a tragedy that this was never built in numbers as the ability to offer superior FAC and sensor capabilities with a good payload pre-UAV availability would have only made the A-10 more useful
-
Very attractive looking aircraft. There isn't an obvious reason why the project never went anywhere; one has to assume the army felt CAS and adverse weather conditions weren't a great mix.
A-10 is a very all weather aircraft. that wouldn't be an issue.
what killed it was the Air Force insisting the Army stick to rotary wing aircraft only, in accordance with The agreement of 1966 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of_1966)
this agreement has been the bone of contention every time the Army has tried to develop anything that even resembles integral CAS, airlift, or observational capability. (usually in response to the Air Force not developing said ability in a fashion that benefits the Army)
I would have thought that the problem would be that while the US Army might want the YA-10B the US Air Force would have had to cut the number of super-sexy F-15s, F-16s or even B-1s or something to buy something slow, ugly and only for the benefit of those in green suits
Bingo. every plane in the low and slow CAS or Forward Observation role is a plane that can't support the Air to Air or strategic bombing roles the airforc has fixated on. one of the reasons they keep try to replace aircraft like the A-10 with fast moving fighters like the F-16 or fast moving light bombers like the F-35.
and they don't want the Army to develop its own fixed wing forces, because the Air Force has institutional memory of being the "army air force" and doesn't want a rival service to develop. (though the fear the Army will take over the CAS role and show the Air Force talking heads didn't know what the hell they are talking about is probably also a fear)
sadly to discuss it more brings in a lot of politics..
-
sadly to discuss it more brings in a lot of politics..
Most of my friends in the RN or British Army don't really see the point of the RAF and would happily break it back down to RNAS / FAA and RFC
[/size]
-
The Key West Agreement of 1948 forbids the Army from operating armed fixed wing aircraft. The helicopter gunship exists solely because of this.
-
The Key West Agreement of 1948 forbids the Army from operating armed fixed wing aircraft. The helicopter gunship exists solely because of this.
One wonders what might have been had that's gone a different path
-
Most of my friends in the RN or British Army don't really see the point of the RAF and would happily break it back down to RNAS / FAA and RFC
[/size]
Just remind them of these words:
"The gratitude of every home in our island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the world war by their prowess and by their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill
However as a non-aircrew Air Force Officer, I recognise that it is a major problem in all the western alliance air forces - the fighter pilots are fixated on air-to-air combat ("knights of the sky" fashion) while the hardwork and grind of CAS or airlift in support of ground forces is not sexy.
-
(http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/mikoyangurevich-mig144-flatpack.jpg)
A likely dead design (at least in its original form), but the last in a long and distinguished designs from Mikoyan-Gurevich was the 'Flat Pack', Project 1.44- the last MiG. Rejected by the Russians in favor of the more recent Flanker series, it DOES look remarkably similar to the J-10 next door, doesn't it?
-
And it's contemporary: the Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut. Not intended as a production design, it was primarily a technology demonstrator for future Russian fighters.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-A6eZtNIqrCQ/T7F5ntYSvEI/AAAAAAAAAoQ/Oh9uV-BIeXw/s1600/s37-1.jpg)
-
Yet another smoking hot and sexy Sukhoi.
-
Tell me anyone here looked at that and didn't immediately think, "F-90 Stingray"?!?!
-
Tell me anyone here looked at that and didn't immediately think, "F-90 Stingray"?!?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X-29 She came first in 1984. Your Berkut came in 1992
-
Tell me anyone here looked at that and didn't immediately think, "F-90 Stingray"?!?!
not exactly (http://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/86/conquest/)
-
Even earlier...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f9/6d/16/f96d16181d4d3bd1269c7d2236460dc8.jpg)
-
And it's contemporary: the Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut. Not intended as a production design, it was primarily a technology demonstrator for future Russian fighters.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-A6eZtNIqrCQ/T7F5ntYSvEI/AAAAAAAAAoQ/Oh9uV-BIeXw/s1600/s37-1.jpg)
I always loved the Su-47 it's a different but neat fighter.
-
Fun thing to the Berkut. See how there's two tail cones? One is a search radar system tied to the main one in the nose. The other one though was early on intended to be a targeting radar- there were plans (never carried out) to test carrying and launching radar-guided missiles backwards on the wings, engaging targets CHASING the big Russian. My guess is someone realized that while that sounds neat, radar-guided missiles tend to be medium/long range weapons, and you're likely not going to fire at someone pursuing you 50 miles back. Carrying an infrared-seeker (think Sidewinder-ski) to tell that Typhoon or Raptor to get off your ass is probably a much more useful idea- that said, that no one has ever really done it up to now suggests that it's not feasible.
(Side note, since the targeting radar was never put in, the longer of the two cones houses a brake chute)
One other note to the Berkut- it's big. Like, REALLY big. How big?
Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut:
Length: 74 ft
Wingspan: 55 ft
Weight (unloaded): 36,100 lbs.
Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress:
Length: 74 ft
Wingspan: 104 ft
Weight (unloaded): 36,135 lbs.
The WWII heavy bomber and modern test fighter are almost exactly the same length and weight. Funny, huh?
-
Wouldn't an infrared-seeker firing backwards have issues? When chasing another aircraft, you have that big infrared plume of their engine exhaust pointed right at the missile's seeker. Firing backwards, not only does the missile not have a great view of the enemy's exhaust, it's got a much better view of your own exhaust. And if it doesn't lock on to your own exhaust, I can see it at least making it harder to pick up the enemy. If you're dedicated to rear-mounted weaponry, wouldn't a gun be better?
-
actually most IR guided short range missile designs since the 90's are high agility designs with data-links controlling them for a good chunk of their flight. it allows helmet sights and sensors places to cover the sides and aft to lock on and guide the missile to a target pretty much anywhere around a plane.
so no, they were not going to carrying a missile facing aft and trying to lock on, they were going to fire a forward facing missile, which would then curve/flip around to hit behind the plane, guided by a computer link to that aft facing radar.
the F-22 was originally supposed to have wing mounted radar systems that would allow it to do similar, punching an AIM-9X to pretty much anywhere but directly aft. the F-35 does have IR sensors that are supposed to allow it, they just currently have issues using the helmet sight needed to aim the things.
-
Yeah, if we're talking old AIM-9Bs or something, it's a wretchedly bad idea. The modern stuff like AIM-9X (and I'm sticking with American here because I don't know how capable modern Russian-made stuff really is) can pull immensely high-G turns, react in a split-second, and are smart enough that not only do they not get fooled by the sun anymore like the old ones... they can identify heat sources on an aircraft to target properly. Engines are nice, but if your missile can identify a lump of 98-degree meat in the front and try to explode near that... O0
-
current russian stuff like the K-73M/AA-11 Archer (and the reduced carriage K-73M2) is pretty much on par with the Block II, Block III AIM-9X, the problem is mainly the same America is having.. they are expensive enough that not many are stockpiled yet. the slightly older R-74 model is on par with the earlier Block I AIM-9X, but it too has stockpile issues.
Russia, like america has been making do with older missiles. the AIM-9L/M for the US, and the Russians with early model R-73/AA-11's for the frontline, and the older R-60/AA-8 Aphids for their reserve units.
-
Don't the Aim-9x have fins in the exhust to make the missile turn tighter?
-
Don't the Aim-9x have fins in the exhust to make the missile turn tighter?
(https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/aim9x_023ca8a5c6-a5b9-49cb-a91a-e21b1d1ea3f3original.jpg)
See the tailpipe? Vectored-thrust nozzle, similar in a way to the variable-direction nozzles of the F-22 in a way. Trick is, an F-22 can't turn too tight or you risk damage to the critical squishy component in the cockpit.. Sidewinder? No pilot. So 30G maneuvers are theoretically possible here. Outturn THAT, random-bad-guy!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA
AIM-9X in action, including something that might not have been entirely considered. Notice precisely where that last shot hits, right on that pod on the wing - as if the classified (and censored) thermal imaging was picking a very special target with remarkable clarity. (Hey, if they're gonna make it that obvious...) Also keep an eye on just how hard that damn thing turns on some of those shots. I also notice those are skin-skin kills, not proximity detonations with a continuous-rod or fragmentation warhead. My description in the last thread of "suicidal killbots with a hug fetish" is more and more accurate...
-
I liked the "escort" scenario. First, it showed the maneuverability of the missile. Second, it showed that even when being "respectful," you can splash a bogey.
-
The Aim-9X is supposed to be a little smaller so that 2 can fit in the side bays of the F22 and the F35 instead of 1.
-
I thought the development of amazing "over the shoulder" shots with modern generations of AAMs would have been what killed the rear-firing option
I do wonder what the outcome of air to air combat between modern fighters would actually look like, if they weren't nerfed by either Rules of Engagement or an F-22 launching at long range based on radar information from a not-so-nearby AWACS
-
Getting a drop on someone give you advantage (surprise). Getting in the first strike help with tipping the balances toward you.
-
So it used to be that dropping flares was a standard defense against IR seeking missiles like the Sidewinder series. Have they gotten smart enough to avoid being fooled?
-
So it used to be that dropping flares was a standard defense against IR seeking missiles like the Sidewinder series. Have they gotten smart enough to avoid being fooled?
I think that would depend on who you ask - the missile manufacturers would probably claim they are smart enough, those being fired at will probably still pop flares while evading
-
So it used to be that dropping flares was a standard defense against IR seeking missiles like the Sidewinder series. Have they gotten smart enough to avoid being fooled?
Watch the video I posted. One engagement test has the F-4 practically pissing flares and the AIM-9X goes honeybadger on it.
-
Flares are less reliable than they used to be against IR missiles, but seekers vs countermeasures has been a fairly constant evolutionary battle.
the advent of datalinks allowing the launching fighter (or in the most recent ones, any datalink equipped fighter within range of a handoff) to augment the missile's own guidance with data derived from radar, IRST, and the like, makes it tougher still.
-
Going back to the Naval A-10 - I don't think the A-10 actually has the thrust to get off the dang boat (even with the catapult) with anything resembling their usual warload (ditto bringback capacity). Lack of thrust has been a consistent complaint about the platform. (Seriously, at the speeds it flies at, I'm surprised it wasn't a turboprop, but there might have been some anti-prop bias in the USAF specs from the start)
-
Looked like the AIM9X was 'following' the flare stream to source in that last shot.
-
Agree. Interesting.
It highlights the importance of stealth and a beyond visual range shoot down capability. If the enemy does not know that you are there or see you then they cannot engage you. You can then engage and shoot them down without them even being able to lock onto you - there first warn being when their missile launch warning indicator goes nuts and then they are too busy scrambling to avoid the missile to be able to easily locate, track and engage you.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PVkqrkA8KnU/maxresdefault.jpg)
F-35A testing firing an AMRAAM, plus promo video.
https://youtu.be/5EnttHIgx8s (https://youtu.be/5EnttHIgx8s)
-
Going back to the Naval A-10 - I don't think the A-10 actually has the thrust to get off the dang boat (even with the catapult) with anything resembling their usual warload (ditto bringback capacity). Lack of thrust has been a consistent complaint about the platform. (Seriously, at the speeds it flies at, I'm surprised it wasn't a turboprop, but there might have been some anti-prop bias in the USAF specs from the start)
I think the A10 would have no problem getting the air from a carrier. The thrust on the plane was a higher % then the S-3 Viking at max. The large wing would of helped with the low speed handling. I think the larger problem with the A10 is the whole tail plane would need to be redesigned because the tail plane on all carrier planes was mostly one piece and would move to help get the nose up and the thrust down.
-
to be honest wasn't thinking of the idea of operating A-10's from a carrier so much as using land based A-10's against naval targets.
-
Should not be too hard for the A-10 to do naval anti-shipping operations. A-10 can carry AGM-65 Maverick missiles, the AGM-65F is specifically designed as an anti-shipping version of the Maverick.
AGM-65F is for the USN so there would probably need to be some software integration and test firing to be done before it would be certified for use on the A-10. With a range of 25km and a fire and forget capability much safer for the A-10 to use a Maverick instead of the GAU-8 against a combat ship that can throw stuff back at it.
-
Agree. Interesting.
It highlights the importance of stealth and a beyond visual range shoot down capability.
There's also the question of IRST - The thermal imaging and recognition on an AIM-9X is clearly good enough to do all that and make sandwiches as well. What about a larger, even more sensitive and more capable system aboard an aircraft searching for the same kinds of heat signatures? The Russians have really been working on IRST, and its potential as a stealth neutralizer is interesting - no matter how invisible your airplane is to radar, it's still putting out heat plumes from the engines. That's as unavoidable as it gets. Can radar and radar stealth be yesterday's news, with better IR?
-
Water do a number on IR, unfortunately. The latest Gripen version will get an IR system specifically design to find stealth aircraft, but the air force is still unhappy about its performance in bad weather (heavy clouds/rain).
-
F-35 has the http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/F-35LightningIIEOTS.html (http://EOTS) and the J-20 appears to have the Chinese version of EOTS too. However, none of the systems (including Mk1 eyeball) are perfect, so it then becomes a game of who sees who first and who can maneuver into an optimal firing position without being seen. Stealth technology and datalinks (which allow you "knowledge fusion" of all data/information in the "battlespace") help give you that fractional edge in that game.
-
Water do a number on IR, unfortunately. The latest Gripen version will get an IR system specifically design to find stealth aircraft, but the air force is still unhappy about its performance in bad weather (heavy clouds/rain).
Doesn't water also do a number on stealth, as well?
-
Doesn't water also do a number on stealth, as well?
I have no idea what gets hurt more - the stealth capability, or the radar trying to see through it... :-\
-
Well, there is the issue that the B-2's RAM doesn't deal with flying through heavy rain, and comes off. The F-117's RAM is presumably harder stuff, as I've never seen any stories about problems with it & rain, but it's also pretty slab-sided, not smoothly curved like many B-2 surfaces.
Multi-spectral radar should have no problem with rain - just go to different wavelengths. "Rain radars" are specifically tuned to pick up water droplets, which is mucho useful for commercial aviation, but military radars (I believe) can work on other frequencies.
-
F--117 didn't have humidity issues that i know of, but it did have issues with maintenance.. it had two types, sheets over most of the surface, and a putty like material for filling in seams, over screws, etc. if you failed to use the putty after sealing up post-maintenance, or failed to screw in a screw till it was flush, etc, it compromised the stealth by quite a lot.
the B-2, IIRC, has most of its problems because the RAM Lockheed used was (and still is IIRC) made using a secret formula they didn't share**, and Northrop's version had issues.
IIRC the F-22 and F-35 are using newer generation materials with slightly less stringent requirements. probably helps that those two were not trying for thesame extreme level of stealth the F-117 was.
** since lockheed got into the stealth competition with no government funding to start, they retained all rights to the specific tech they invented for it. kept the USAF from being able to redistribute it to other companies.. which at the time was a commonplace procedure they used to undercut prices.
-
It was announced recently that the F-22s are going to have their coating replaced with the same one the F-35 uses as it's slightly better.
-
For all that the F-22 has suddenly become the bee's knees to those with 20/20 hindsight vision, it has to be remembered that its still a fighter dating from before the iPhone. Technology has come a looooooong way since then.
-
Not sure you can call hindsight there, I'm pretty sure people were saying it was a terrible idea to cancel the F-22 to replace it with a less-capable, allegedly cheaper, still under development, multi-role airframe since they announced it.
I suppose one couldn't have predicted the cost overruns taking away the price point advantage, but the 'one size fits all' airframe was questionable from the start.
-
One thing the F-22 does not have is the EOTS that the F-35 carries - the F-22 does not have enough room to install it.
(https://fightersweep.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/F-35_EOTS.jpeg)
-
it was originally Spec'd to have something similar, but that got dropped early in the development to save budget, and now it would require a minor redesign to fit one.
-
What do yall think of the Rafale F3R? Sexy looking yes but some writeups make it sound quantifiably weaker than the Eurofighter Typhoon. How does MICA perform versus ASRAAM and AIM9X?
(http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/19/1431159617-rafale1.jpg)
-
Not sure you can call hindsight there, I'm pretty sure people were saying it was a terrible idea to cancel the F-22 to replace it with a less-capable, allegedly cheaper, still under development, multi-role airframe since they announced it.
I suppose one couldn't have predicted the cost overruns taking away the price point advantage, but the 'one size fits all' airframe was questionable from the start.
Remember when the same plan was made for the Air Force to get a low-level strike bomber and the Navy would get a long-range interceptor from the same airframe? Apparently no one at Lockheed remembered it.
(http://www.f-111.net/index_files/hook-down.jpg)
(I'll take any opportunity to look up images of the war pig though)
Look, the F-111 ended up being a fantastic plane for the Air Force for a very long time. And it's interesting to wonder what might have been with the naval version, had it continued in development. (The official excuse for cancelling it was that it was 'too big and heavy' for carrier use- luckily the eventual F-14 was even heavier...? Grumman pulled one over on that whole business). Is the F-35 going to eventually prove successful? No idea. But the struggles to get both services to use the same plane in wildly different jobs in the 1960s sure seems familiar now, watching Lockheed struggle with this bird.
-
I always understood weight to be a relative thing on carrier aircraft. Does it have enough thrust & lift to keep it airborne after it gets shot off the front of the ship.
Taking a quick look at wikipedia, it says the first run of F-14s were lighter than the F-111B in it's developmental stage. I think later Tomcats might have been heavier than the F-111B, but had better engines to compensate.
-
I think the F35 will work out and be a great plane, it will just take time. Its problem is that they want a Swiss Army Knife airplane where the plane can do everything at any given time, which looks good on paper, but really hard to achieve.
The F111B was a bad design of the F111. It was shorter so it would fit better on the ships, but the F111 wasn't a fighter in its own right. It was better for the Navy to go with the F14.
-
Oh don't get me wrong, F-111B wasn't a good plane, and the F-14 was a much better solution- I just wish the Navy had been up front about that instead of claiming weight was the problem. (Early Tomcats were indeed a little lighter- when empty.)
But the F-111B proves my point- trying to get one airframe to perform two extremely different jobs ended up with a plane that could do one of them extremely well, and one that just... didn't. I'm increasingly worried we're seeing history repeat itself.
(And make no mistake, the F-111 was an excellent low-level strike platform. It got that job right and did it for a very long time. Nothing but love for the Pig.)
-
IIRC the F-111's real problem was control.. it had somewhat poor low speed handling (never good for a carrier plane) and it's landing gear was far forward and very narrow, which made it really tricky to land on a carrier deck. it also had a fairly high takeoff speed, Catapult launches barely worked.
they also had some armament issues.. the internal bay couldn't hold Sidewinders, and only 2 AIM-54's. the other 4 AIM-54's it was expected to carry had to mounted on the wing hardpoints.. which were a real maintenance pain because they had to be articulated to adjust for the sweep of the wing.. and filling them with Phoenix's meant it had no defensive armaments. and while it could mount AIm-7 Sparrow's, it had to devote its wing hardpoints to them, seriously limiting its ability to perform its interdiction role with AIM-54's.
so in short it was plane that had a high chance of being rendered inoperative during regular Carrier operations, and had almost no flexibility in its main role.
the F-14 took the good aspects (the swing wings, the AIM-54+AWG-9 combo) and put it on a platform better suited to what the navy needed.. wide spaced landing gear for easier carrier ops, better low speed control, and hard points set up to allow it to carry a useful load of AIM-54's and a useful load of defensive AIM-9's and AIM-7's.
the F-14 did have some issues with weight (both initially and the upgrades), which it dealt with its whole service life. (they never did upgrade the engines like originally planned.. the ones it got gave it a good thrust to weight ratio, but the original planned upgrade would have almost doubled that..)
-
Well, don't forget, sometimes you get an all-services aircraft that actually does pretty well.
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/49/cf/b7/49cfb7e24d3566da7430d520a3ab5757.jpg)
Granted, not always, and I daresay the Double Ugly's success was simply based around it being 'good enough' in each field and then simply adapting doctrine to work around the aircraft's capabilities. Now, I suppose we have the mindset that doctrine must be perfect, and only make the aircraft fit exactly - which doesn't help much when said doctrines change mid-development...
(edit: found an even better picture)
Shame there wasn't an Army variant..
-
Which is true. There was never any intention for the Phantom to be a bomb truck, have a gun, become a radar-hunting plane, fly from a land base at all, or any of the other umpteen jobs they came up with for the airframe- it was just supposed to use the newly developed AAMs to kill enemy planes, from a carrier, enough said. The needs were filled by seeing if the plane could do the job.
-
Well, don't forget, sometimes you get an all-services aircraft that actually does pretty well.
>picutre snip<
Granted, not always, and I daresay the Double Ugly's success was simply based around it being 'good enough' in each field and then simply adapting doctrine to work around the aircraft's capabilities. Now, I suppose we have the mindset that doctrine must be perfect, and only make the aircraft fit exactly - which doesn't help much when said doctrines change mid-development...
(edit: found an even better picture)
Shame there wasn't an Army variant..
It's simple: Let the Navy come up with the basic airframe, and tell the Air Force to suck it up. >:D
-
It's simple: Let the Navy come up with the basic airframe, and tell the Air Force to suck it up. >:D
A CatoBar fighter will be over engineered and too strong for the needs of land based (Air Force) fighters but those elements can be removed to lighten the craft but are a nightmare to put in
-
Or you leave them in and have a very rugged, long-lifespan aircraft that can operate from dispersed low-quality fields and take a ton of punishment.
-
Or you leave them in and have a very rugged, long-lifespan aircraft that can operate from dispersed low-quality fields and take a ton of punishment.
Nah, the Air Force types will think "faster, slicker, better" and probably try to remove the ability to drop bombs or fire ground attack missiles too
-
There is a reason why the F-111C that the RAAF operated combining the F-111A fuselage with longer F-111B wings and strengthened FB-111A landing gear.
(http://www.flyinginthespirit.cuttys.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/F-111Cburners.jpg)
We followed this up by choosing the F/A-18A/Bs over the F-16A/Bs because the F/A-18 was "navalised" with strengthened undercarriage, better corrosion protection and the redundancy of two engines instead of one.
(http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/hornet20tyrkb_3.jpg)
-
Speaking of two engines over one, the USAF is now considering starting to retire the F-15C/D models come 2020 and after. No word on the E, but the initial thought is replacement with Vipers. Makes me think back a few years or more ago when the Eagles were having multiple fleetwide groundings because of repeated airframe structural failures. How bad off is the rest of the F-15s, now, and what's that mean for the Strike Eagle?
-
A certain cynical part of me suggests we'll still be seeing B-52s escorted by F-15Es in 2030 ....
-
Speaking of two engines over one, the USAF is now considering starting to retire the F-15C/D models come 2020 and after. No word on the E, but the initial thought is replacement with Vipers. Makes me think back a few years or more ago when the Eagles were having multiple fleetwide groundings because of repeated airframe structural failures. How bad off is the rest of the F-15s, now, and what's that mean for the Strike Eagle?
Perfect opportunity for Boeing to pitch some off the shelf upgraded F-15's to replace them. I really don't want to see the air force pull a navy and drop down to one generalized airframe.
-
the E's are a lot newer and have had a few more rounds of upgrades than the Fighter only models, so i suspect they'll keep the E's.
as for pitching F-15's.. IIRC Boeing is already proposing a rework of their F-15SA version they recent delivered to Saudia Arabia.. basically is an F-15E with all the avionics upgrades that spawned from the F-22 and F-35 programs (fly by wire, AESA radar, digital, revised cockpit displays, IRST) plus minor refitting of the hardpoints to let it carry an ungodly amount of munitions
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--JqLT_ceq--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1330203475913488556.jpg)
(8 each AMRAAM and Sidewinder.)
and in ground combat loadout:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--dhcoODIx--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1330203475631175084.jpg)
2x AIM-120AMRAAMs, 2x AIM-9X Sidewinders, 2x AGM-84 SLAM-ERs, 2x AGM-88 HARMs, 6x GBU-54/B Laser JDAMs, and 8x GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs.
-
Speaking of two engines over one, the USAF is now considering starting to retire the F-15C/D models come 2020 and after. No word on the E, but the initial thought is replacement with Vipers. Makes me think back a few years or more ago when the Eagles were having multiple fleetwide groundings because of repeated airframe structural failures. How bad off is the rest of the F-15s, now, and what's that mean for the Strike Eagle?
Actually, it's the Air National Guard and Reserves who want to replace the F-15C with Vipers. The Viper would be cheaper to upgrade and can do all the homeland security missions the Guard does.
There are only 3 F-15C squadrons remaining in the active force, and now that the Lightning is maturing and proving it actually does have a robust air to air capability, I unfortunately don't see Boeing's Eagle 2040 upgrade program going anywhere.
-
Probably find that the Vipers (with the one engine) are significantly cheaper to operate per a flying hour than F-15C/D.
-
My rapid google-fu found this http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/ (http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/), which gives the figures as $41,921 per flying hour for a F-15C Eagle and $22,514 per flying hour for a F-16C Viper back in 2013.
-
Or you leave them in and have a very rugged, long-lifespan aircraft that can operate from dispersed low-quality fields and take a ton of punishment.
O HAI!!!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Va-37_A-7_Corsair.jpg)
-
My rapid google-fu found this http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/ (http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/), which gives the figures as $41,921 per flying hour for a F-15C Eagle and $22,514 per flying hour for a F-16C Viper back in 2013.
I have seen this list before. I find it odd that a C130 costs less to operate then a V22
-
I'm not surprised, Ospreys probably need oodles of maintenance after every flight, while Herkybirds are the flying equivalent of an old pickup truck that has another thirty years of life in it if you just change the oil I've every fifty thousand miles.
-
It probably helps that while the Osprey's logistics is probably still very reliant on the factory producing parts as-needed, there's no shortage of easily-obtained Herky-bird parts out there. Over half a century of operations means the logistics tree is VERY solid by now.
-
O HAI!!!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Va-37_A-7_Corsair.jpg)
isn't it funny how everytime the Air Force bought a design developed for the Navy, it has proven to be a very reliable workhorse, loved by its pilots but loathed by the upper command ranks?
-
isn't it funny how everytime the Air Force bought a design developed for the Navy, it has proven to be a very reliable workhorse, loved by its pilots but loathed by the upper command ranks?
To be fair, that's the only two that come to mind, the A-7 and F-4. If there are others, I can't think of them. (Well, and the F-35, I suppose)
Oh, and the Canberra, which the Air Force was utterly mortified by having to use- not only a design used by another service, but not even AMERICAN! Someone summon a fainting couch! ;D
(Side note on that Corsair, chalk-filled practice bombs, the little blue things on the side- drop like you would if you were dropping a Mk.82, leave a little white cloud where the bomb lands. Adorable!)
-
To be fair, that's the only two that come to mind, the A-7 and F-4. If there are others, I can't think of them. (Well, and the F-35, I suppose)
Oh, and the Canberra, which the Air Force was utterly mortified by having to use- not only a design used by another service, but not even AMERICAN! Someone summon a fainting couch! ;D
(Side note on that Corsair, chalk-filled practice bombs, the little blue things on the side- drop like you would if you were dropping a Mk.82, leave a little white cloud where the bomb lands. Adorable!)
well the F-35C is still pretty new, and hasn't had nearly the press of the A and B models, but it seems to have had somewhat fewer problems than it's Air Force and marine brothers.. personally i suspect the larger wing and more controlled conditions of the carrier means that some of the issues are less problematic.
-
As of now the -35C is a potential pilot-killer on takeoff because they pooched the design of the nose landing gear and it'll probably take 2 years to fix. No really; the thing builds up a harmonic rhythm as it goes down the catapult and is putting enough shock that smaller pilots are at risk of head and neck trauma. The heavy helmet system isn't helping much...
-
well the F-35C is still pretty new, and hasn't had nearly the press of the A and B models, but it seems to have had somewhat fewer problems than it's Air Force and marine brothers.. personally i suspect the larger wing and more controlled conditions of the carrier means that some of the issues are less problematic.
Fewer but bigger is my understanding, the C has been plagued with delays getting the airframe ready for carrier landings. The C has one big problem preventing it from joining the troubleshooting efforts of the A and B while still receiving fixes from those efforts.
-
The
As of now the -35C is a potential pilot-killer on takeoff because they pooched the design of the nose landing gear and it'll probably take 2 years to fix. No really; the thing builds up a harmonic rhythm as it goes down the catapult and is putting enough shock that smaller pilots are at risk of head and neck trauma. The heavy helmet system isn't helping much...
When (rather than if) the fan breaks on the F-35B it will probably be unsurvivable for the plane and the pilot
-
O HAI!!!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Va-37_A-7_Corsair.jpg)
Shame the air force hated it so much. It was kinda forced on them but just because it started life as a Navy aircraft doesn't make it a bad aircraft. Oh wait, subsonic, NM.
-
Here is an article with some details of the takeoff bounce problem the F-35C is having including some video showing the problem:
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/us-navy-plans-to-fix-the-f-35s-most-troubling-problem-2017-3?r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com.au/us-navy-plans-to-fix-the-f-35s-most-troubling-problem-2017-3?r=US&IR=T)
-
I wonder how much combat ordnance and fuel loads would change that dynamic; more inertia to dampen the initial results or more to throw the plane around?
-
I guess the aeronautical engineers do not believe it will make enough of a difference for them to tell the pilots to accept it.
-
while most motorcyclists are just wondering why they don't adjust the preload and/or rebound on the front strut.
-
It is aeronautical engineering, therefore it take 2 years of modelling and testing to get the adjustment to the preload and rebound on the front strut certified for airworthiness >:D
-
It is aeronautical engineering, therefore it take 2 years of modelling and testing to get the adjustment to the preload and rebound on the front strut certified for airworthiness >:D
Actually, yeah.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a24633/navy-f35-landing-gear/
Longer term options include modifications to the aircraft carriers themselves or a redesign of the F-35C's landing gear, which would take one to three years to complete.
-
Birthday attire.
(https://i.imgur.com/rrrhXWF.jpg)
-
Such a awesome paint job for Canada's 150th birthday.
-
Beautiful paint job O0
-
https://xkcd.com/1824/ (https://xkcd.com/1824/)
-
https://xkcd.com/1824/ (https://xkcd.com/1824/)
Beat me to it, but only because I was having trouble with the site earlier. ;D
-
Now, which one of them is actually a mimic octopus?
-
Now, which one of them is actually a mimic octopus?
Yes.
-
A Gratuitous Beaver Shot.
http://imgur.com/Rvq5rlf
She is still in service at USNTPS, The mighty DeHavilland beaver, designated the NU-1B in service, but we just called her, "The NUBB"
-
A beautiful aircraft, while we are on the DeHavilland aircraft, most aircraft enthusiasts may know the DeHavilland DH.60 Gypsy Moth trainer
(http://www.canadianflight.org/files/dh60.jpg)
and are usually familiar with the de Havilland DH.82 Tiger Moth which was developed from the DH.60 and became the main primary flight trainer for most Commonwealth countries during WWII.
(http://www.aviationwa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/20160126_flight_VH-BTP_A17-744_Tiger_Moth_David_Eyre-59.jpg)
However, you may not be familiar with the de Havilland DH.94 Moth Minor which was developed to replace the bi-plane Moth series
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Moth_Minor_A21-42_Benalla_2012-06-03.jpg)
-
Not sure if the US-based forumite can watch the video at the start of the article but if you can worth the time for a co-pilot's eye view.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-22/ww1-replica-rare-planes-display-caboolture/8462562 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-22/ww1-replica-rare-planes-display-caboolture/8462562)
-
Okay, so Thursday I drove past Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada and saw a huge jet. At first I thought it was a B-52 but once I got closer I realized the engine configuration was wrong- it only had four large engines and lacked the under-wing pylons for missiles. Also, it had a different tail- the horizontal fins were mounted on top of the vertical fin. Due to the size it was obviously some sort of heavy cargo plane. Can someone help me identify it?
-
Okay, so Thursday I drove past Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada and saw a huge jet. At first I thought it was a B-52 but once I got closer I realized the engine configuration was wrong- it only had four large engines and lacked the under-wing pylons for missiles. Also, it had a different tail- the horizontal fins were mounted on top of the vertical fin. Due to the size it was obviously some sort of heavy cargo plane. Can someone help me identify it?
probably a C-17, with that tail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III
i suspect you'd have noticed the sheer size if it was a C-5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy
-
If the shape was similar to a B-52 (both the C-17 and C-5 are wider body aircraft than the B-52) then it could also have been a C-141 Starlifter. However, the C-141 has been retired for a decade, so if you saw it at Nellis was it on a stick?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5f/e6/6f/5fe66fca76909ee6479d2e76881bbd01.jpg)
-
If the shape was similar to a B-52 (both the C-17 and C-5 are wider body aircraft than the B-52) then it could also have been a C-141 Starlifter. However, the C-141 has been retired for a decade, so if you saw it at Nellis was it on a stick?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5f/e6/6f/5fe66fca76909ee6479d2e76881bbd01.jpg)
I believe there's still a very small number used for odd jobs- NASA used to own a couple, not sure if they still use them or not. So it's possible to have seen one, at least- certainly the B-52-esque slender-body look makes it more likely to mistake than a C-17 or C-5 would be (despite those being more likely to be seen in modern American skies- just saw a C-5 passing over northern Virginia this morning on the way to work, in fact, likely headed back to Delaware)
EDIT: Research before posting reveals NASA's bird is retired (and has been for a while, which is weird), it appears all others have finally been put to rest as well and NO C-141s remain flying. So while it's possible Ogre saw a retired bird at rest, more likely it was a -17 or -5.
-
The C-141 and the C-5 used to be regulars for the Travis-Hickham-RAAF Base Richmond-Alice Springs and return run in the late-90s. In the late 2000s, this had changed to KC-10s and C-17s. I was lucky enough to get personal tours through both the C-5 and the C-17. In the C-5 you can actually climb up through the inside of the vertical tailplane and stand onto of the horizontal stabiliser. The view from up there is nice.
We need an equivalent of a C-5 in the Battletech Universe, so that TPTB can use it to throw nuclear-tipped ICBMs around.
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130807114000-c5-galaxy-minuteman-demonstration-story-top.jpg)
Yes, that is a Minuteman ICBM being launched from a C-5 Galaxy, makes the MOAB look like nothing more than a hand grenade. Want to know more? (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/09/travel/c5-galaxy-dover-museum-minuteman-missile/index.html)
-
FB-335 Longhaul from TRO: Vehicle Annex doesn't LOOK much like a modern cargo bird, but seems to serve the same basic role. (So does the King Karnov, trading some cargo room for the ability to take off Osprey-style)
-
Yep, I need to get a copy of TRO: Vehicle Annex as soon as they fix Catalyst Shop and get me my download of TRO: 3060 :'(
-
If the shape was similar to a B-52 (both the C-17 and C-5 are wider body aircraft than the B-52) then it could also have been a C-141 Starlifter.
Well, keep in mind that I've never seen any of those planes in person before and have no clue what the relative body widths are. Based on the pictures posted I'm pretty sure it was a C-17, the tail fin looks correct. Anyway, thanks for the help.
I also saw a bunch of drones (had the same profile as a Predator, but I don't know if that's what they actually were) that were busy landing while I was driving past- looked like there was an exercise that was wrapping up.
-
The Longhul from TRO:VA looks kinda like the Boeing Blending Wing project but with more of a fuselage and canards, the engines are even on top. The Boeing plane has another test flight a couple of weeks ago.
-
stealth fighter lineup from Business Insider (too lazy to post the link, sorry chaps)
Incidentally that F-35B is taking off from USS America
(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/58347531ba6eb6b1018b5c1a-1200/the-f-35-lightning-ii.jpg)
(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/50b60d8c69beddad75000000-1200/the-chengdu-j-20.jpg)
(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/578913304321f102278b8673-1200/the-j-31.jpg)
(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/50b811406bb3f7c862000015-1200/the-pak-fat-50.jpg)
-
John Travolta is donating his Boeing 707-138B (registration N707JT) to the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society (HARS) which is based out of Wollongong Airport (about 3 hours drive from where I live).
(http://www.airlinehubbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Boeing_707-138B_Qantas_John_Travolta_AN0272552.jpg)
It is one of 13 Boeing 707-138Bs that were unique to Qantas (they were slightly shorter than the normal Boeing 707-100s but had extended range). This aircraft was originally delivered to Qantas in 1964, as "City of Launceston" (registeration VH-EBM).
It will join the Super Constellation and the Qantas donated Boeing 747-438 "City of Canberra" (VH-OJA) in the HARS collection.
(http://www.aussieairliners.org/l-1049/vh-eag(2)/1802.220l.jpg)
(http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/VH-OJA-arrival6.jpg)
-
A whole lotta pain:
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/A10_elephantwalk_1021.jpg)
-
The first Japanese-assembled F-35A has rolled out of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries:
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/06/IMG_0015-768x398.jpg)
-
I'll be more impressed when it achieves operational service
At the risk of sparking yet another debate about the F-35, I still do not understand entirely the rationale for having two very different "conventional" F-35s between the CATOBAR F-35C and the "straight" F-35A rather than just taking the tailhook off those for the USAF
-
Nice job Japan building the F35
-
I'll be more impressed when it achieves operational service
At the risk of sparking yet another debate about the F-35, I still do not understand entirely the rationale for having two very different "conventional" F-35s between the CATOBAR F-35C and the "straight" F-35A rather than just taking the tailhook off those for the USAF
As I understand, there's a lot more than just the tailhook when it comes to mapping the F-35 tough enough for carrier ops, not the least of which are heavily reinforced landing gear, and possibly a strengthened game as well. All that stuff takes up mass and space, so the non-naval -35s have more capacity for fuel and ordnance(and possibly more speed).
I'd be fine with standardization myself, but evidently the folks that decide these things decided that the boost in performance was worth the cost of the additional variant.
-
At the risk of sparking yet another debate about the F-35, I still do not understand entirely the rationale for having two very different "conventional" F-35s between the CATOBAR F-35C and the "straight" F-35A rather than just taking the tailhook off those for the USAF
The C is much more than an A with a tailhook. It has bigger, folding wings and tailplane. A much more robust structure and landing gear. And to help offset all that extra weight, no internal gun.
-
My thought was more, remove tail hook from a C and tell the USAF it's their lovely new exclusive-use fighter
-
My thought was more, remove tail hook from a C and tell the USAF it's their lovely new exclusive-use fighter
In a word, cost. The F-35A is the cheapest of the three. Also note lack of cannon.
-
The C is much more than an A with a tailhook. It has bigger, folding wings and tailplane. A much more robust structure and landing gear. And to help offset all that extra weight, no internal gun.
Plus the Air Force uses a different aerial refueling system than the Navy/Marine Corps. For lack of knowing the official terminology, AF aircraft are "innies" and Navy/MC aircraft are "outties".
The AF one has the internal gun and bigger ammo bin than the B/C gun pod has.
-
I forgot that USAF fetish for refuelling fighters as if they were B-52s and I guess if the A is cheaper it sort of makes sense except they could have removed the cost of developing the A entirely
Anyway, as a Brit I'm just bitter we're stuck with the F-35B Lemon (you can't have all three aircraft actually called Lightning in practice as per calling the Super Hornet Rhino, I feel Lemon would work for the B)
-
I forgot that USAF fetish for refuelling fighters as if they were B-52s and I guess if the A is cheaper it sort of makes sense except they could have removed the cost of developing the A entirely
The A variant is almost USD 30 million cheaper than the C, that's not small beans.
Per wiki, planned orders are 2,319 units of F-35A, 508 units of B, and 340 units of C - so it is really the C's existence which is called into major question here.
Anyway, as a Brit I'm just bitter we're stuck with the F-35B Lemon (you can't have all three aircraft actually called Lightning in practice as per calling the Super Hornet Rhino, I feel Lemon would work for the B)
F-35 Bitter Lemon... sounds like a cocktail :D
Aye well, cheer up, you Brits are restoring naval aviation capability, you can big it up over the Frogs on that at least ;D
-
actually the Airforce using the boom and receptacle system for fighters as well as bombers has a few advantages. the boom system transfers fuel faster, which is why they need it for bombers, but requiring the fighters use it too means they only have to operate a single type of refueling system, which means less logistical headaches. and the boom system can be fitted with a drogue hose to allow it to refuel Navy and marine aircraft, or aircraft from other nations (most of which go for the probe and drogue system because that variety is cheaper.. and if you don't have big bombers to refuel, you don't have much need of the boom based system. the exception is mostly those nations buying USAF hand-me-downs.)
IIRC japan is one of the handful of other nations using the boom system.. since their aircraft have largely been customized USAF types like the F-4, F-15, and the F-16 derived F-2.
F-35 Bitter Lemon... sounds like a cocktail :D
Aye well, cheer up, you Brits are restoring naval aviation capability, you can big it up over the Frogs on that at least ;D
and hey, if the F-35 proves to be a big hassle, maybe it'll encourage you guys to design a new VTOL aircraft of your own design. i'm sure BAE has a few plans lying around for that eventuality. (if nothing else, they could restart their design from the early days of the JSF program. i always thought it looked like a better design. certainly much stealthier)
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/jsf/jast_mdd_ng_bae_03.jpg)
-
F-35A is a more efficient aircraft than the F-35C. It is cheaper to procure, it has a lighter structure which is sufficient for operations from prepared airfields as opposed to the heavier structure (tailhook, landing gear and airframe structure) required to support carrier operations. If my memory serves me correctly, the larger folding wing of the F-35C is required to allow for carrier take-offs and landings. I assume it would provide greater fuel storage capacity. The larger wing and heavier structure all make the aircraft less maneuverable which is not ideal for dogfighting even if your plan is that your aircraft is mainly a bomb-truck and kills enemy aircraft at beyond visual range.
Refuelling systems between USAF (boom and receptacle) vs USN (drogue and probe) can be worked around - not that long ago RAAF was operating F-111s with receptacles and F/A-18A/Bs with probes, RAAF currently operate F/A-18A/B/Fs with probes and C-17s/E-7As/P-8A/KC-30A with receptacles, RAAF KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport has a boom and two below wing mounted drogues.
(http://www.contactairlandandsea.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/mrtt-800x445.jpg)
(http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20140927RAAFXXXXXXX_0015-960x640.jpg)
(https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/16280/15j00474usaf_23_large__main.jpg)
edit - added photos (it is an aviation picture thread)
-
Nice pics of the RAAF in action. Seeing the 737 Wedgetail is pretty neat.
-
Yep, love seeing the Wedgetail flying and pulling operational duties in the sandpit. There were few hiccup with the Wedgetail when it first flew that had some people seriously worried that it would never become operational.
Hopefully soon the USAF will get its KC-46 Pegasus delivered from Boeing and operational.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Pegasus_refuels_Globemaster_%282%29.jpg)
The KC-X project has been decades in the making and almost a textbook case study in how not to procure an aircraft. Hopefully in 2018, the USAF will finally take delivery of its first KC-46 and retire some of the KC-135 Stratotankers that entered service in 1957.
-
Hopefully the F-35J doesn't run into the problem the As are having. Behold the jet that takes your breath away!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/F-35A_flight_%28cropped%29.jpg/300px-F-35A_flight_%28cropped%29.jpg)
And, no I mean that literally, in the last few weeks there's been five hypoxia issues with -35s at Luke AFB and the airframe is grounded at the airfield. So far no reports from any other airbase, which suggests a local problem - possibly maintenance - but is definitely concerning.
-
There have been similar reports with the F-22 as well in the past. They both use an oxygen generator instead of the more traditional bottled oxygen in "classic" military aircraft. So teething problems are not unexpected (its called "bleeding edge" technology for a reason).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DC0Cjw1UIAAkyXq.jpg)
-
Good one, though I do have to wonder as to why a character who's got the ability to fly also has a jet.
-
Good one, though I do have to wonder as to why a character who's got the ability to fly also has a jet.
Keeps the bugs out of her teeth.
-
[accidental duplicate post, ignore]
-
Good one, though I do have to wonder as to why a character who's got the ability to fly also has a jet.
originally she wasn't able to fly, and used the jet to get around. much like the early superman comics, she could jump very high though and fall safely from great heights. (she was originally just a super-athlete with the lasso and bulletproof bracers) more recent comics have given her flight (since the jet was kinda silly) but the jet keeps rearing its head anyway.
like most of the older DC heroes, her original version saw a lot of changes during the 'golden age', as writers would append new powers or abilities to the characters in order to make stories more diverse in an age of the comics code (when what was allowed storywise by the company executives was heavily controlled and fairly simplistic)
that was one of the reasons DC did the crisis on infinite earths.. when the stories were allowed to become more complex, trying to stay in continuity with the older stuff (and all the 'alternate earths' that failing to do so forced them to invent to explain it) that they decided to clean house and reboot.. but decided it would be better to make an event out of it all so readers wouldn't be as confused.
it didn't help really, in the long term (the continuity problems continued to happen) but it made for entertaining reading.
-
originally she wasn't able to fly, and used the jet to get around. much like the early superman comics, she could jump very high though and fall safely from great heights. (she was originally just a super-athlete with the lasso and bulletproof bracers) more recent comics have given her flight (since the jet was kinda silly) but the jet keeps rearing its head anyway.
I know that. I just wonder why the writers keep bringing the jet into things.
-
I know that. I just wonder why the writers keep bringing the jet into things.
Invisible jets are cool?
(https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/marvelcinematicuniverse/images/2/29/Quinjet_Cloaking_-_Shadows.png)
I know they don't really work as designed, but are relatively close to functional (compared to other things). And they look pretty spiff, plus do a decent job of being an gunship-transport rather than a fighter.
-
Seems that Syrian Fitter shot down the other day spoofed an AIM-9X. :o
http://www.combataircraft.net/2017/06/23/how-did-a-30-year-old-su-22-defeat-a-modern-aim-9x/ (http://www.combataircraft.net/2017/06/23/how-did-a-30-year-old-su-22-defeat-a-modern-aim-9x/)
-
Seems that Syrian Fitter shot down the other day spoofed an AIM-9X. :o
http://www.combataircraft.net/2017/06/23/how-did-a-30-year-old-su-22-defeat-a-modern-aim-9x/ (http://www.combataircraft.net/2017/06/23/how-did-a-30-year-old-su-22-defeat-a-modern-aim-9x/)
Very interesting, potentially explosive news.
I didn't hear of this engagement. Wow, the Fighter Mafia must be celebrating, they're relevant for the first time in almost 2 decades ::)
-
Very interesting, potentially explosive news.
I didn't hear of this engagement. Wow, the Fighter Mafia must be celebrating, they're relevant for the first time in almost 2 decades ::)
When were they irrelevant?
-
When were they irrelevant?
never
-
Well, first time they've had more to do than patrol or drop a bomb here or there. Interesting about the AIM-9X, says a lot about what kind of flares the Syrians have - and it may not have been the flare; there's always a possibility of hardware malfunction. Data set of one unit, after all, so can't rule out anything yet.
-
I'm pretty sure the Pk for AIM-9X was less than 100% before this engagement, so I'm going with the SU-22 got lucky...
-
It is why the flyboys keep insisting on installing guns/cannons on fighter aircraft even those they are pretty much an obsolete weapon system - while you can evade bullets/shells you cannot spoof them.
-
I took a few pictures on a little jaunt to Virginia Beach and Europe.
Folder------>http://imgur.com/a/c8Ajv
-
to be fair, the main advantage the AIM-9X has over the older AIM-9M (and the navy's AIM-9R) is the more compact size for use on stealth planes, and the higher offbore aiming it can do.. which given the helmet mounted sights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display#Joint_Helmet-Mounted_Cueing_System_.28JHMCS.29) that allow the plane to actually make use of this capability are not standard deployments, really doesn't offer much advantage.
it is also worth noting that the Syrian Su-22's haven't seen an update since (at latest) the 1980's, if not the 1970's.. it may well be that their spoofing systems were just so old that they do things no modern system would do, which means the modern weapons no longer know to ignore it.
-
I took a few pictures on a little jaunt to Virginia Beach and Europe.
Folder------>http://imgur.com/a/c8Ajv
Ooo, a Pibby!
-
Ooo, a Pibby!
If I ever win Powerball, I don't want a huge house, a Ferrari, any of that... but a PBY? Yeah... yeah, that's happening.
(That and water landing training, because I've never tried that... seems relevant to having a PBY)
-
Great photos JarheadEd O0
Yes the Catalinas are a graceful bird - in the same way a pelican is a graceful bird :)
HARS has one in flying condition:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8396/8673921311_be385e613c_b.jpg)
-
Oh man, I love those Cats. They're my favorite flying boat.
-
The Germans had some interesting flying boats as well- this is a Blohm und Voss BV-138, with an unusual tri-engine configuration, awaiting its next mission in Norway.
(http://www.aircraftaces.com/photos/bv-138-1.jpg)
-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/dc/75/77/dc7577a68059576aee942e6ed6e5d744.jpg
I loved the idea of converting old PBYs into a luxury personal transport.
-
When PBY's were airliners, flights of over 24 hours were not uncommon.
Think about that....pay top dollar, for a loud unconfortable flight, with no entertainment, or really the ability to walk around in the plane even.
-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/dc/75/77/dc7577a68059576aee942e6ed6e5d744.jpg
I loved the idea of converting old PBYs into a luxury personal transport.
That would be great for Pacific Islands incursions.
-
When PBY's were airliners, flights of over 24 hours were not uncommon.
Think about that....pay top dollar, for a loud unconfortable flight, with no entertainment, or really the ability to walk around in the plane even.
Still kinda cool if goofy. Another island hopper I like:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Britten-Norman_BN-2A-26_Islander%2C_Winair_-_Windward_Islands_Airways_JP5823246.jpg/800px-Britten-Norman_BN-2A-26_Islander%2C_Winair_-_Windward_Islands_Airways_JP5823246.jpg)
An excellent utility truck that's slowly getting supplanted by Otters and Caravans.
-
If I ever win Powerball, I don't want a huge house, a Ferrari, any of that... but a PBY? Yeah... yeah, that's happening.
THAT! ;)
-
When PBY's were airliners, flights of over 24 hours were not uncommon.
Think about that....pay top dollar, for a loud unconfortable flight, with no entertainment, or really the ability to walk around in the plane even.
So what's the difference between a PBY and a modern airliner? :)
-
So what's the difference between a PBY and a modern airliner? :)
One can land and take off from stretches of water, the other can only use specific runaways depending on what model it is. ;D
-
... flights of over 24 hours were not uncommon.
With an economical cruise speed of 118 mph you're gunna need those 24 hours to get anywhere ...
(http://www.warbirddepot.com/dbimages/22/22-a-1280.jpg)
Canso (Canadian Catalina) painted up like David Hornell's 'Victoria Cross' aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ernest_Hornell
-
Hell, I wouldn't be doing more than puttering up and down the American eastern seaboard, so it's still faster and easier than using a car. Not only do I get to travel in style and avoid I-95, I can even pop open one of the waist 'fishbowls' and do some fishing when I arrive. 8)
(Well, eventually. Safe bet that landing a flying boat spooks the fish for a while.)
-
The excitement lasts until you see your first fuel receipt.
-
Hell, I wouldn't be doing more than puttering up and down the American eastern seaboard, so it's still faster and easier than using a car. Not only do I get to travel in style and avoid I-95, I can even pop open one of the waist 'fishbowls' and do some fishing when I arrive. 8)
(Well, eventually. Safe bet that landing a flying boat spooks the fish for a while.)
I'd be more worried about the stuff that isn't spooked by a Catalina plopping down...
-
I'd be more worried about the stuff that isn't spooked by a Catalina plopping down...
There was no highway system also back then. So going from the north to the south would of not faster option. It was the train.
When the DC3 was first launched it was called the Douglas Sleeper Transport and had bunks in it for the really long flights.
There was even combo flights with planes flying the day parts and trains taking over for the night travel. Still took long to go form west to east or north to south.
15 hours eastbound with 3 stops, and 17+ westbound against the wind.
-
i can't help but think "flying amphibious RV"
i also wonder how much you could improve the fuel efficiency if you swapped in more modern engines.
-
i can't help but think "flying amphibious RV"
i also wonder how much you could improve the fuel efficiency if you swapped in more modern engines.
Some of the Grumman waterfowl are getting modern engines. It helps a bit if you can spend the coin.
-
And this is why aviation standards try to keep people clear of the jet blast (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-14/nz-tourist-killed-by-jet-blast-at-caribbean-beach-airport/8707942)
Someone needs to nominate her for a Darwin Award.
-
If it's too dangerous to be next to the fence, the fence should be moved.
-
That's part of the allure, its been a tourist attraction for a long time.
-
And this is why aviation standards try to keep people clear of the jet blast (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-14/nz-tourist-killed-by-jet-blast-at-caribbean-beach-airport/8707942)
Someone needs to nominate her for a Darwin Award.
I know I fell no pity/sorrow for her. Her family? Yes. Her? Not in the slightest.
-
If it's too dangerous to be next to the fence, the fence should be moved.
From the photos I've seen, it looks as if the fence-posts are mounted in what might be the last possible bit of solid ground before it's just beach. Although there are also apparently signs saying (and I paraphrase), "Don't stand here, it's stupid."
-
From the photos I've seen, it looks as if the fence-posts are mounted in what might be the last possible bit of solid ground before it's just beach. Although there are also apparently signs saying (and I paraphrase), "Don't stand here, it's stupid."
PLenty of Danger and Warning signs and apparently the walkway is between the fence facing airpit AND a concrete barrier facing the ocean. This barrier is what she was thrown into.
-
Wow. Someone doesn't know how strong jet blast can be, ignores a seemingly-stupid warning sign, and gets killed, and everyone is falling over themselves to say how little they respect the dead person. Think of the warning signs you all have ignored. Do you think YOU deserved to die for it?
Disgusting. Learn some ****** compassion.
-
Wow. Someone doesn't know how strong jet blast can be, ignores a seemingly-stupid warning sign, and gets killed, and everyone is falling over themselves to say how little they respect the dead person. Think of the warning signs you all have ignored. Do you think YOU deserved to die for it?
Disgusting. Learn some ****** compassion.
My bolding. There is a good chance I would be fired depending on what I ignored, and depending on the signage, killed. But that's at work and they pay me to read the signs.
In this instance, it's a popular well known spot that is very risky with lots of signage so it's kind of at your own risk type of thing. And honestly, it was bound to happen sooner or later.
-
I have fence ride at SXM. It is dangerous and people dont understand it. The cars even drive by like nothing going on also.
-
Wow. Someone doesn't know how strong jet blast can be, ignores a seemingly-stupid warning sign, and gets killed, and everyone is falling over themselves to say how little they respect the dead person. Think of the warning signs you all have ignored. Do you think YOU deserved to die for it?
Disgusting. Learn some ****** compassion.
Honestly? If there was a good chance I would get blown away, I would have done it where there's nothing hard directly behind me like the concrete barrier or people. I am sorry for her family, but it was not a very smart action.
-
They're just launching flares but imagine, in Battletech a battle would look something like this with hordes of LRMs and SRMs flying all over...!
(https://s24.postimg.org/ta3o6mq05/photo35.jpg)
-
I always love the sound of the Merlin V12 and this is a nice story about one of the last surviving pilots from Czechoslovakia that served in the RAF during the Second World War has taken to the skies once again in a Spitfire:
https://youtu.be/UhxFoH4JQ7w (https://youtu.be/UhxFoH4JQ7w)
-
Speaking of WW2 and getting back to that Cat' discussion;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOjE-_cI-K8
-
Speaking of WW2 and getting back to that Cat' discussion;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOjE-_cI-K8
Wow. Very snug inside, those Cats.
-
They're just launching flares but imagine, in Battletech a battle would look something like this with hordes of LRMs and SRMs flying all over...!
(https://s24.postimg.org/ta3o6mq05/photo35.jpg)
See, I was thinking a Robotech Alpha fighter launching a shoulder pod against some conventional airplanes. Maybe a Cyclone.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV-CBm7YkDg
Interior view of that four-engined Notalina posted earlier. Definitely turned it into an RV of sorts, though it doesn't seem to have actual sleeping accommodations.
Looking at the first link, the walkthrough, yeah...it's got bunks, BUT they're pretty small and has the bulkhead with the crane linkage right there. Not a lot you can do to open up room, really.
-
Couple of Bones dropping flares.
(http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/07/1-1-768x526.jpg)
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Javelin_64Sqn_NAN3_60.jpg)
"Jenkins, I've bloody well told you before ..."
-
"Jenkins Flash, I've bloody well told you before ..."
He's taking a break, flying invisible-side up.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41APZ8AWGNL.jpg)
-
Eye-watering camo scheme:
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/48e17bc2d42c94a0ddcc86c4c14bef26/tumblr_ojdmud3FgY1reg6u1o1_500.jpg)
The USN ground servicing personnel in NWU blends in nicely (harder for the boss to realise that you are slacking off if he/she can't see you ;) )
Reminds me of a camo scheme from a century ago:
(https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/img_7419-1024x683-pfalz-d-xii-awm.jpg?w=1024&h=400&crop=1)
-
Are you sure that's a camo scheme and not just a result of the plane hitting ludicrous speed?
-
It is a Super Hornet (aka Plastic Bug), it cannot reach Ludicrous Speed ^-^
-
Eye-watering camo scheme:
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/48e17bc2d42c94a0ddcc86c4c14bef26/tumblr_ojdmud3FgY1reg6u1o1_500.jpg)
The USN ground servicing personnel in NWU blends in nicely (harder for the boss to realise that you are slacking off if he/she can't see you ;) )
Reminds me of a camo scheme from a century ago:
(https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/img_7419-1024x683-pfalz-d-xii-awm.jpg?w=1024&h=400&crop=1)
Had to look hard for the crewman, but did notice her after a bit.
-
Eye-watering camo scheme:
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/48e17bc2d42c94a0ddcc86c4c14bef26/tumblr_ojdmud3FgY1reg6u1o1_500.jpg)
Does it really help? Reminds me of certain MW4 camo schemes...
-
Does not really "help"
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8d/2c/1f/8d2c1fb6c1e99bc00c28e31a04e19504.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/4e/ca/a8/4ecaa8ca11310123ab8a14b88b662e52.jpg)
I understand it was done as a one-off on aircraft NJ-100 of VFA-122 "Flying Eagles" to celebrate the centenary of the USN aviation.
-
Anyway, whatever Navy can do
(http://www.navy.mil/navydata/images/hornetsb.jpg)
Air Force can do better (ie. with more ordnance over a greater distance)
(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/B-1_pensacola_show.jpg)
-
I wonder what it would do for the plane's radar return if some of those patches were radar absorbent paint... :)
(I know the answer is probably "Not much" but the idea of it driving a radar computer insane makes me giggle.)
-
The Russians actually got two T-50s airworthy at the same time! :o
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/T50_duo.jpg)
-
Those Sukhois look huge.
-
Those Sukhois look huge.
Looking at the specs on Wikipedia, about the same size as an F-22 or F-15.
-
I wonder what it would do for the plane's radar return if some of those patches were radar absorbent paint... :)
(I know the answer is probably "Not much" but the idea of it driving a radar computer insane makes me giggle.)
i'd wondered if maybe the paints had different IR reflectiveness, and acted like dazzle-camo against FLIR/IRST systems..
-
i'd wondered if maybe the paints had different IR reflectiveness, and acted like dazzle-camo against FLIR/IRST systems..
Maybe it works by making the incoming missile go cross-eyed? :D #P
-
The Russians actually got two T-50s airworthy at the same time! :o
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/T50_duo.jpg)
"Iz photoshop. Plane is on ground, delete landing gear and add pretty trees. Then add second plane. Iz easy!"
-
Anyway, whatever Navy can do
...
Air Force can do better (ie. with more ordnance over a greater distance)
...
Except operate from an aircraft carrier, of course...
-
USS Diego Garcia ^-^
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/diego_garcia-400x209.jpg)
-
The Russians actually got two T-50s airworthy at the same time! :o
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/T50_duo.jpg)
The small vertical fins make the T-50 look very odd.
-
The T-50 doesn't look odd. It looks like the lovechild of a Raptor and Flanker.
And just for comparison, these pictures are to scale :
(http://i.imgur.com/Nre1HWU.jpg)
-
Except operate from an aircraft carrier, of course...
Almost forgot this . . . Air Force operating a B-25B Mitchell bomber from USS Hornet
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/B-25B_taking_off_USS_Hornet_18Apr1942.jpeg)
-
Almost forgot this . . . Air Force Army Air Corps operating a B-25B Mitchell bomber from USS Hornet
FTFY to correct usage for the period.
-
Thanks Sharpnel... also note those B-25s didn't land on the carrier either.
-
FTFY to correct usage for the period.
The Doolittle Raid occurred on 18th April 1942.
On 20 June 1941, the War Department revised the army regulation governing the organization of Army aviation, AR 95-5. General of the Army Henry H. Arnold assumed the title of Chief of the Army Air Forces. What was formerly called GHQ Air Force was renamed Air Force Combat Command (AFCC) in the new organization. So while it was an Army Air Corps prior to 20 June 1941, it officially became an Army Air Force after that date (even if it was unofficially an air force before). Even this move by the War Department was really just a ploy to avoid binding legislation from Congress which may have forced the formation of a truly independent air force in the mold of the R.A.F. or Luftwaffe.
Thanks Sharpnel... also note those B-25s didn't land on the carrier either.
Jimmy Doolittle may have been a barnstorming, go-getter of a test pilot (he received two Distinguished Flying Crosses) but he was also an aeronautical engineer (with a Masters and a Doctorate from MIT). He was smart enough to come up with the crazy idea of flying B-25s from an aircraft carrier to bomb Japan but he was also smart enough to know that trying to land B-25s on an aircraft carrier was a crazy idea. This also meant that as soon as the USS Hornet launched the B-25s after the Task Force was discovered by a Japanese patrol boat, she could turn around and bug the hell out of dodge, thus she was not hunted down by the IJN and was able to participate in the Battle of Midway.
Speaking of USS Hornet and the Battle of Midway:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Vt8tbd-t16-4june1942_waldron.jpg)
A Douglas TBD Devastator of VT-8 taking off from USS Hornet. VT-8 received a Presidential Unit Citation for its actions at Midway where all 15 TBDs were shot down during their unescorted torpedo attack on Japanese aircraft carriers. The squadron failed to damage any Japanese carriers or destroy enemy aircraft.
-
And now for some british humour . . . https://youtu.be/YCoQwZ9BQ9Q (https://youtu.be/YCoQwZ9BQ9Q)
Really weird listening to Gillian Anderson with a british accent.
-
Now for some flare angels
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e2/a3/eb/e2a3eb9cce38507a57acc9f422cddfdb--flare-angel.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xGa9vtkTvX4/hqdefault.jpg)
(http://static.snopes.com/app/uploads/2017/05/angel-flight.jpg)
(https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0608/smokeangel_usaf_big.jpg)
-
Pictures #2 and #4 are AWESOME!
-
And now for some british humour . . . https://youtu.be/YCoQwZ9BQ9Q (https://youtu.be/YCoQwZ9BQ9Q)
Really weird listening to Gillian Anderson with a british accent.
American-born, British-raised apparently. I love her accent, one can get a full dose of it in Johnny English Reborn.
-
I will get around to seeing that some time in the future (wife not a Rowan Aitkenson fan). Gillian will always be Dana Scully to me {>{>
-
And we are...
done. Head for the exciting adventures of aviation pictures, the third, right here (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=58151.0).