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

[Fat Guy]

More:

[Daryk]

What's it towing?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Selfie camera.

[chanman]

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

Pros:
- Less drag
- More benign engine-out performance (no asymmetric thrust)

Cons:
- All of the normal pusher prop issues - cooling the rear engine, harder bail outs, more dangerous crash landings, less efficient propulsion (rear prop is getting thoroughly disturbed air), engine accessibility issues, pitch/take off limits to avoid prop strikes
- Fuel feeds need to run both fore and aft
- Potential center-of-gravity or airframe structure issues since you've got heavy items at both ends with your lift in the middle
- Engines are going to limit where you can place control surfaces and how you connect the flight controls to them
- One of the usual benefits of twin-engine prop planes is that it frees up the nose for radar or a heavy armament or both, and potentially room in the rear for a big fuel tank. The push/pull layout kinda gets in the way of that

There's a reason it's such an uncommon configuration. But we do have the Cessna 337 Skymaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epGK08BD5lE

[Fat Guy]

What's it towing?

Static cone.

[Fat Guy]

[Daryk]

Static cone.

Thanks again!

[Sabelkatten]

Much less drag compared to a conventional twin engine setup.

Also eliminates torque problems of single-engine setup, without the roll rate disadvantage of wing-mounted engines.

Push-pull suffers from rather bad efficiency thought. IIRC losses are around 20-30%.

[glitterboy2098]

i'd guess the static cone is meant as a radar target, since the aircraft itself is so stealthy. fitting it with a bunch of reflectors would change the aerodynamics and flight profile more than a towed bit of plastic. and first flights are generally done to see what sort of tweaks need doing to the aerodynamics and flight performance.

[Daryk]

That would make sense...

[chanman]

i'd guess the static cone is meant as a radar target, since the aircraft itself is so stealthy. fitting it with a bunch of reflectors would change the aerodynamics and flight profile more than a towed bit of plastic. and first flights are generally done to see what sort of tweaks need doing to the aerodynamics and flight performance.

I don't think that'd be an issue while flying with the pitot probe and gear doors among others open (there's something open up top as well).

Pretty sure it's one of these: https://simpleflying.com/test-plane-shuttlecock/

[Daryk]

That's what Fat Guy said, isn't it? ???

[chanman]

That's what Fat Guy said, isn't it? ???

Yeah, but I was replying to glitterboy who mentioned it as a radar target.

[Daryk]

Roger! :)

[Failure16]

I suppose if you put Skibinski's Salvage, Battle Magic, and Hell's Black Aces in a blender with a dash of Crimson Skies, you would get something like this:

[ANS Kamas P81]

Makes me wonder how good the Mainstay is, with its combo AWACS and tanker capabilities.

[Failure16]

And cargo, and personnel...

EDIT: I numbly thought you were referring to the pictured KDC-10 for some reason. Eh. I'm sure Beriev would say the A-50 can do all those things simultaneously if asked...

[chanman]

Makes me wonder how good the Mainstay is, with its combo AWACS and tanker capabilities.

Fuel is dense. KC-10s, and probably the KC-135s with their anemic original engines maxed out on fuel long before running out of volume, so you could probably pack on the AWACS stuff on there as long as it wasn't too heavy.

It's probably a reflection of limited Russian resources though. An AWACS that can tank its escorts kind of makes sense? But an air force usually needs far fewer AWACS and their mission profile maximizes endurance (China seems to have gone all-in on turboprops, and a number of countries operate or operated the E-2 as a land-based aircraft).

Tankers, meanwhile, need to be able to go fast enough to tank heavily laden tactical aircraft, which need to be moving fairly fast to generate enough lift to stay in the air (see https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/getting-a-grip-on-refueling-the-underpowered-cf-5-freedom-fighter for an example).

Also, while tankers do orbit to refuel other aircraft, they also need to cycle off and on to load more fuel, especially when gassing up a big strike package or a particularly large aircraft.

[glitterboy2098]

I suppose if you put Skibinski's Salvage, Battle Magic, and Hell's Black Aces in a blender with a dash of Crimson Skies, you would get something like this:

ACZero Theme intensifies.

[Failure16]

Or Area 88.

[chanman]

B-21 and B-2 both in the same area. Ol' Jack has his day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAWr6BC_A4w

[truetanker]

B-21 and B-2 both in the same area. Ol' Jack has his day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAWr6BC_A4w

Someone's gonna squeal real good...

TT

[I am Belch II]

The B-21 looks like a discount version of the B-2, but I guess it's what is needed for future needs.

[Failure16]

All of our warfighting gear needs to be cheaper in a fiscal sense. War is disastrous for everything, but most assuredly for equipment, and aircraft absolutely so. There hasn't been a major war amongst peer adversaries yet where combat aircraft have not ultimately been fungible line items.

[truetanker]

So what are you implying Failure?

That we Invade Mars or someone else?

TT

[chanman]

The B-21 looks like a discount version of the B-2, but I guess it's what is needed for future needs.

The B-21 is closer to what the B-2 would have looked like until it was decided that it needed the capability to fly lower level missions as well - IIRC, the extra set of sawtooth notches in the B-2 trailing edge are an aerodynamic concession to that requirement.

[chanman]

All of our warfighting gear needs to be cheaper in a fiscal sense. War is disastrous for everything, but most assuredly for equipment, and aircraft absolutely so. There hasn't been a major war amongst peer adversaries yet where combat aircraft have not ultimately been fungible line items.

Helos especially, but as Ukraine demonstrates, it's the entire replacement pipeline - from flight school to regular rotation of experienced units (and retiring your best pilots from direct action to teach before they're killed or burned completely out) and hot production lines and caches of parts and munitions.

[Failure16]

So what are you implying Failure?

That we Invade Mars or someone else?

TT

I imply nothing. I state that the West's (and especially the United States's) insistence on overly expensive gear that eventually--edging more towards "quickly"--goes out of production will be detrimental in the event of a major conflict. And there will be a major conflict one day.

Put another way, could the US DoD be able to withstand the usage rate of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or even the mid-Cold War with today's combat aircraft, ships, and AFVs?

Chanman really does have the ultimate right of it--trained personnel and the underlying infrastructure for continued growth or at least station-keeping--but that departs from my original thesis.


But, you know, TT, invading Mars might not be a bad option. We need to expand to increase our long-term options as a species and part of an planetary ecosystem. We will likely have to recalibrate all these aircraft we are building, though.

[glitterboy2098]

bordering on a rule 4 issue there, perhaps take it to PM's if you feel you have to hash it out?

[chanman]

So what are you implying Failure?

That we Invade Mars or someone else?

TT

He's implying that the ultimate purpose of warfighting gear is for fighting war, in order to both deter anyone else from starting a war and aid towards the successful prosecution of such if it occurs, regardless of who starts it or why.

That is a set of criteria that may or may not match up nicely to the criteria under which equipment is actually designed and procured, and no set of interests stands alone - they all trade off and interact with each other in many ways.

Plus, you know, affordable replacement costs and a hot production line help in case things happen. Accidents occur, weather happens, things malfunction, maintenance crews screw up, birds get in the way...