Aviation Pictures: A-Seven-th Thread--CorsAirin' Through Time and Airspace

[Euphonium]

"Excuse me, sir. But I'm going to have to ask you to pull over and shut off your engine. Your overheating radiator is creating an unsafe...flying...condition."


Bur, for sure, that image is mesmerizing.

So is that what a badly overheated ASF would look like in atmosphere?

[I am Belch II]

Its why stealth is so expensive, it makes a cloud.
Great for grey sky of Michigan where I live because nobody would notice 4 small clouds flying in formation, not really stealth in the cloudless skies of places with nice weather.

[Daryk]

That's an aircraft pulling some serious Gs... they don't do that ALL the time... ;D

[truetanker]

Excuse me...

I thought this was a Non-Smoking flight?

And don't call me Shurely either, or I'll get Ted Striker on you!

TT

[Failure16]

Yeah, boy...F-35I intercepts cruise missile:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1720081401721270646

[Failure16]

And, sometimes, you make the road bumpy even if it wasn't to start with:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1720357317412327729

[chanman]

And, sometimes, you make the road bumpy even if it wasn't to start with:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1720357317412327729

If the Eagle be rockin' don't come a-knockin'

[chanman]

Some WW1 crates. Armstrong Whitworth F.K.8, first flight 1916, 1650 built, 2-seat recon/bomber




Airco DH.10 Amiens heavy bomber. I think this just missed the war, entering service in November 1918. 258 made and retired by 1923


Airco DH.9A late-war light bomber, first flight March, 1918. Somewhere over 4000 made


Airco DH.4 light bomber. First flight mid-1916, entered service March 1917. About 6300 made of which 4850 in the US




Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.8. recon and light bomber. First flight June 1916. 4000ish made





Sopwith 1½ Strutter, first flight late-1915, entered service mid-1916. Almost 6000 made, over 3/4 by the French, interestingly






French Voisin VIII/LAP/LBP night bomber. Introduced late 1916, 1100 built


Voisin XI introduced 1917, 900 built


Caudron G.4, first flight 1915, 1400 made. Recon and bomber






Bréguet XIV introduced May 1917, 8000 made

[ANS Kamas P81]

Say goodbye.



https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/taiwan-is-finally-saying-goodbye-to-its-f-5-tiger-ii-fighters

[chanman]

Say goodbye.



https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/taiwan-is-finally-saying-goodbye-to-its-f-5-tiger-ii-fighters

They had an interesting guest article yesterday too from a Canadian pilot using the F-5As as an advanced fighter trainer and how hard they were to mid-air refuel with their tiny wings and engines when heavily (okay, 'heavily') loaded with draggy external stores and the need for just a bit of afterburner to stay on station (same as SR-71s, except they could leave the final link up to the boom operator)

[chanman]

How about a bunch of twin-engined WW2 fighters that never made it into production?

From the Soviets:
Tairov Ta-3


Polikarpov TIS


Mikoyan-Gurevich DIS


From the Poles, the PZL.38 Wilk


The Italian IMAM Ro.57, of which 50-75 were actually made, but not until mid-late war



The French SNCASE SE.100 which definitely has some Crimson Skies vibes going



Grumman XP-50



The related Grumman XF5F Skyrocket



Gloster F.9/37

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

What was the major reason they were rejected?

[chanman]

What was the major reason they were rejected?

Germans, mostly.

[truetanker]

Germans, mostly.

Das nitch koser...

Should be more sensitive chanman.

It was more lack of war production and scarcity of materials and workforce.

Tends to happen when one is distracted by local bombings and the need to one's self preservations during a crisis when it happens every week repeatedly.

Not harshing you personal, but just blurting out it's this or that is somewhat inconsiderate to those that created beautiful flying craft. It's a testimony that pictures or even partial remains still survive, most were reclaimed for other purposes and/or never survived past occupation.

Especially in today's light...

TT

[chanman]

Das nitch koser...

Should be more sensitive chanman.

It was more lack of war production and scarcity of materials and workforce.

Tends to happen when one is distracted by local bombings and the need to one's self preservations during a crisis when it happens every week repeatedly.

Not harshing you personal, but just blurting out it's this or that is somewhat inconsiderate to those that created beautiful flying craft. It's a testimony that pictures or even partial remains still survive, most were reclaimed for other purposes and/or never survived past occupation.

Especially in today's light...

TT

You can check the project timelines. The programs were generally overtaken by events where events happened to be war with Germany, but also the lessons come out of the fighting that largely argued against dedicated twin-engine heavy fighters.

The Soviets and British did end up with the generally excellent Pe-2, Beaufighter, and Mosquito (and you can argue the A-20 on the US side), and the Ju-88 on the German side, but most of those are or were developed from high-performance bombers into more multi-role attack aircraft than designs meant to tangle in the air the way planes like the Me110 or Westland Whirlwind originally envisioned.

[chanman]

F-16s don't usually look that small, but you can really see the difference when they're loaded up.

ROKAF F-16 with 4x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 2x drop tanks


USAF F-15Cs with 4x AIM-120, 4x AIM-9, 2x drop tanks


Spanish F/A-18 with 6x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 2x drop tanks, and a centerline sensor pod of some kind


Notably, I don't think I've ever seen F-16s using twin-rails for AIM-120 or air-to-air missiles on either the inner-wing pylons (4, 6) or fuselage side pylons (5L, 5R)

[Failure16]

Since F-15s are doing F-15ish things these days, they deserve a close-up:



Supposedly taken in Wales, so almost certainly at Mach Loop.



Just because F-15Is are always sexy. And they are definitely doing F-15ish things right about now.

[chanman]

Some old Merlin-powered warbirds taking to the skies (Hurricane, Spitfire Mk IX, P-51D)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGanW-Du1ec

[Failure16]

Das nitch koser...

Should be more sensitive chanman.

It was more lack of war production and scarcity of materials and workforce.

Tends to happen when one is distracted by local bombings and the need to one's self preservations during a crisis when it happens every week repeatedly.

Not harshing you personal, but just blurting out it's this or that is somewhat inconsiderate to those that created beautiful flying craft. It's a testimony that pictures or even partial remains still survive, most were reclaimed for other purposes and/or never survived past occupation.

Especially in today's light...

TT

Chanman is right. He who starteth a world war, reapeth the consequences...and if the consequences in this case were aircraft that never entered production, I'd say they were mild consequences indeed compared to everything else that happened from 1937-45 (let alone the preceding and following years and the avalanche of effects).

There is no need to be sensitive about it, or even to consider it insensitive. Especially in today's light.



Looove that Skyrocket. Talk about a 1930s-serial posterchild!

[Ruger]

Looove that Skyrocket. Talk about a 1930s-serial posterchild!

Not to mention the favored fighter of the Blackhawks during WW2.

Ruger

[glitterboy2098]

You can check the project timelines. The programs were generally overtaken by events where events happened to be war with Germany, but also the lessons come out of the fighting that largely argued against dedicated twin-engine heavy fighters.

The Soviets and British did end up with the generally excellent Pe-2, Beaufighter, and Mosquito (and you can argue the A-20 on the US side), and the Ju-88 on the German side, but most of those are or were developed from high-performance bombers into more multi-role attack aircraft than designs meant to tangle in the air the way planes like the Me110 or Westland Whirlwind originally envisioned.

there was a lot of interest before the war in big heavy fighters. with heavy guns and beefy high endurance engines, as a counter to bombers. it shared a lot of mental DNA with the various 'turret fighter' concepts, where they envisioned fighters as basically sub-scale bomber like craft equipped with turreted guns. "destroyers" to the bomber's "cruiser". two exampels of which that actualyl saw combat being the Boulton-Paul defiant and the Blackburn Roc. both of which proved terrible and air superiority missions and quickly saw near-retirement. a lot of the twin engine 'heavy fighter' programs started in the concept stage as turret fighters, and saw the turrets deleted early on when testing of the few that did get to prototyping got shown to be dubious at best. but the heavy fighter airframe idea had some appeal for its endurance and supposed durability. not to mention the possibility of multi-role use as a light bomber. so even as light speedy aircraft derived from racing plane technologies started dominating air to air battles in stuff like the spanish civil war, a lot of big heavy dual engined fighter concepts were still being developed.


image tax: Boulton-Paul Defiants. [The Article the images are from, if they don't load for others.]

Spanish F/A-18 with 6x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 2x drop tanks, and a centerline sensor pod of some kind


Notably, I don't think I've ever seen F-16s using twin-rails for AIM-120 or air-to-air missiles on either the inner-wing pylons (4, 6) or fuselage side pylons (5L, 5R)

do the F-16's even have the connectors for such racks?

and i believe that centerline pod is the AN/AAQ-28(V) Litening targeting pod.

[truetanker]

do the F-16's even have the connectors for such racks?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon

According to the tech, yeah. Depending on the mission.

"' Hardpoints: 2 × wing-tip air-to-air missile launch rails, 6 × under-wing, and 3 × under-fuselage pylon (2 of 3 for sensors) stations with a capacity of up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of stores "

TT

[chanman]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon

According to the tech, yeah. Depending on the mission.

"' Hardpoints: 2 × wing-tip air-to-air missile launch rails, 6 × under-wing, and 3 × under-fuselage pylon (2 of 3 for sensors) stations with a capacity of up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of stores "

TT

I think he means for the twin AMRAAM racks. I don't know how universal pylons are. It's completely possible that the wiring exists for it, but physical limitations make their use pointless - on the F-16, the mid-wing stations look like they might not have the lateral clearance from the adjacent pylons. Unlike bombs, there's an expectation that AAMs might need to be fired while maneuvering

[Fat Guy]

Just at the end of WW2 the Germans found the ideal configuration for a twin piston engine fighter with the Dornier Do 335 Pfeil. Had it not also been the dawn of the jet age, we'd probably have seen lots of fighters with this configuration.

[Fat Guy]

It's flown!

[Daryk]

Just at the end of WW2 the Germans found the ideal configuration for a twin piston engine fighter with the Dornier Do 335 Pfeil. Had it not also been the dawn of the jet age, we'd probably have seen lots of fighters with this configuration.

What does the push/pull get you over a more normal configuration?

[Fat Guy]

What does the push/pull get you over a more normal configuration?

Much less drag compared to a conventional twin engine setup.

[truetanker]

It's also super quiet when you do see one not so high in the air...

TT

[truetanker]

Though the concepts of Pogo and Salmon as early VTOL fighters come to mind, I wonder if this would have fruitation. Helicopters and the Osprey are the results of that concept.

I wonder if they'll present more in the future?

TT

[Daryk]

Much less drag compared to a conventional twin engine setup.

Ah, thanks!