Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[M'Kyuun]

17 hours ago, Knight26 said:

Despite external appearances from a single angle render, there actually are quite a few changes to the aircraft, especially "under the hood."  Also, when it comes to larger aircraft, like bombers, you generally don't see a ton of design innovation from one generation to the next.  Look at the older bombers of the late 40s to mid-50s, they all followed roughly the same design layout.  There was more innovation in there in the 60s as the desire for supersonic bombers came about, but most of the projects were short lived.  Then again in the 70s with the B-1, which was really an outgrowth of the XB-70 in many ways.  That the B-21 is largely of similar design, yet refined, from the B-2 is to be expected for the next heavy bomber, why change what works?

Also, there are significant differences, the large intakes are gone from over the wing, and replaced with a far more flush design.  The planform also has some changes as well as the bomb bay configuration.  Though based on the RFP the biggest improvments will be for the crew and cockpit, making the fact that it flies 24+hr missions easier on the crew.

My remarks were in regards to the aesthetics, as I've no doubt a lot has changed beneath the skin, given three decades worth of advancements since the first one rolled out, and a lot of experience in real world combat to inform the design. I hadn't even noticed that the intakes were missing from the wings; I always liked the look of those, but the new intakes are barely discernable in that pic, so I imagine the effect is similar for radar. Appreciate the drawing, AN/ALQ 128. 

I just did some reading (that drawing was attached to the article), but there was no mention of how many bomb bays this thing will have. I was hoping the next one would have three, like the B-1, but given that it's smaller than the B-2, which has two bays, I'm wondering if they were able to cram two bays into this thing. I assume they'll want to reuse existing rotary launchers, which are capable of carrying eight MK- 84 2000 lb bombs, with or without JDAM, as it's probably the most oft employed munition in our arsenal. Those launchers are universal, so it makes sense to design around them, and they take up a lot of space when fully loaded.  This is a B-1 with what look like MK-84s to my eye.

Anyway, it's cool to see a new aircraft, although the purpose of it is dismaying. It's perhaps overly cynical, but peace is an impossibility with our species, hostilities will always exist, and war is a lucrative business, for industry and government. 

[electric indigo]

3 hours ago, Sildani said:

Yep, 40,000 pounds of freedom. It’s no B-52, but it’s still a lot. 

According to Northrop Grumman, the B-1 packs even more than the B-52

The biggest task for the B21 is to come in under the 2.000.000.000/piece of it's predecessor...

[slide]

I didn't realize the B-1B is the Heavyweight Champeen of Air Warfare...

At a whopping 125,000 lbs [75K internal+50K external] of hate and discontent....

Tu-160 tops-out at ~99,000 lbs [internal only]

[M'Kyuun]

When I worked on the B-1, from '99 to '02, we never used the hardpoints, as they were never installed for START compliance. Often, on long missions, the aft bay, IIRC, was fitted with an internal removable fuel tank, while the forward bays carried ordnance. Still, sixteen 2000 lb bombs can do an astounding amount of damage, especially when they can do precision strikes with the JDAM. I got to see 'guncam' footage of some of those strikes. In one, we watched as they brought the entire face of a cliffside crumbling down to block a cave entrance believed to be used by Al Qaeda. We also saw pics of runways on Afghan airports that had had bombs dropped dead center every couple hundred yards to prevent them from using air power against us. Its both awesome and frightening what we can do with our weapons systems today, and god knows what we're holding back in secret 'just in case'.

[slide]

I always heard that they didn't use the external pylons so as to maintain the radar cross-section of the Bone... why would non-nukes on the pylons be limited by START?

[anime52k8]

1 hour ago, slide said:

I always heard that they didn't use the external pylons so as to maintain the radar cross-section of the Bone... why would non-nukes on the pylons be limited by START?

START put a cap on the total number of ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers capable of carrying long range nuclear cruise missiles. For B-1Bs to not count towards this total they had to be configured so that they couldn't carry said cruise missiles by dividing the main bomb bay with a bulkhead and welding over the external pylon attachment points.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160203221234/http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/start1/other/letters_bear_b1.htm

 

[slide]

9 hours ago, anime52k8 said:

START put a cap on the total number of ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers capable of carrying long range nuclear cruise missiles. For B-1Bs to not count towards this total they had to be configured so that they couldn't carry said cruise missiles by dividing the main bomb bay with a bulkhead and welding over the external pylon attachment points.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160203221234/http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/start1/other/letters_bear_b1.htm

 

interesting... what convoluted fenangling that is...  and it all basically ammounts to "we promise not to stuff these as full of long-range nukes as is theoretically possible... HONEST!"

... is it just me or are the nuclear-arms control treaties starting to remind anyone else of the Washington Naval Treaties?

 

Also: So a refit with 'conventional payload only' capability would, in theory, be 100% kosher... as the entire language of that link is focused on "B-1 heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments other than long-range nuclear ALCMs"...

 

guess that really is proof nobody wants to Nuke eachother:

USSR: The B-1 can sling too many nukes!

USAF: We'll weld over the external pylons

USSR: You... You have Angle-Grinders in America, yes?

USAF: Yea...

USSR: .................................................

USAF: We Promise!!

USSR: *Glares at USAF as they sign the treaty*

[electric indigo]

With fighter design being bound to the stepped-on-shoebox look for the next generations, at least we get some interesting perspectives for airliners from Airbus.

The configuration is currently tested with a 2 meter demonstrator (which also demonstrates that someone in the art department at Airbus is into anime).

[M'Kyuun]

Reminds me of my favorite version of Scourge.  Leagues better than his 'flying boat' alt.

Beautiful plane; commercial aircraft haven't seen much innovation, fuselage-wise, since the ill-fated Concorde, in terms of basic geometry. Lots of improvements in materials, manufacturing techniques, and all the stuff under the hood, so to speak, but most just boil down to being tubes with wings. A lifting body design is interesting, both for its shape, but also for its potential flight characteristics. According to the Wiki, they are "inefficient at low speeds", which beggars the question of whether this is intended to be a supersonic aircraft. I hope so. With the current state of tech, subsonic commercial carriers should be an anachronism.

Looking at the pics, however, those look like high bypass turbine engines, similar to those on most subsonic planes, so I'm thinking no. It's a lovely bird, regardless, and I hope they find success with it. 

I always thought some of the 50's commercial flying wing ideas were pretty cool, where passengers were seated throughout the wings as well as the central fuselage. With all the research and practical application we have now, I'm surprised the idea hasn't resurfaced in a more ambitious form. It'd be an interesting entry into the commercial realm for Northrop, and perhaps spark similar innovation from Boeing. My hat's off to Airbus for at least going this far with a 'new' concept.

 

This Flying V concept is currently undergoing testing. It's beautiful.

More about it here.

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by M'Kyuun

[electric indigo]

That's a nice backdrop you got there

[renegadeleader1]

Avro Vulcan?

 

EDIT: wait nevermind, it's a Victor. I always confuse Britian's "V" planes in my head.

Edited February 24, 2020 by renegadeleader1

[kalvasflam]

On 2/11/2020 at 5:45 AM, electric indigo said:

With fighter design being bound to the stepped-on-shoebox look for the next generations, at least we get some interesting perspectives for airliners from Airbus.

The configuration is currently tested with a 2 meter demonstrator (which also demonstrates that someone in the art department at Airbus is into anime).

I am curious, with a blended wing design like this, why are the engines on the outside?  It seems somewhat counterintuitive, wouldn't that just create drag?

[AN/ALQ128]

1 hour ago, kalvasflam said:

I am curious, with a blended wing design like this, why are the engines on the outside?  It seems somewhat counterintuitive, wouldn't that just create drag?

The benefits of over wing/fuselage podded engines is that it minimizes FOD and provides easier maintenance access. They're also less likely to damage crucial systems in the rare event of an engine blowing itself up. Who knows if Airbus will keep that engine configuration though, it is just a small scale demonstrator.

[M'Kyuun]

10 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

The benefits of over wing/fuselage podded engines is that it minimizes FOD and provides easier maintenance access. They're also less likely to damage crucial systems in the rare event of an engine blowing itself up. Who knows if Airbus will keep that engine configuration though, it is just a small scale demonstrator.

Good points. Moreover, I'm willing to bet those engines can rotate for yaw maneuvering. She's a lovely bird, and I hope it proves practical enough for production. I'd love to take a flight in it, if it's not cost prohibitive.

If they could hinge those wings to fold up, they could fit a lot of these things at airports. But, more moving parts means more stress, more maintenance, and greater risk of failure over time. It's always a tradeoff.

Ooh, the Victor's a pretty neat looking aircraft. I wasn't familiar with it, so did a little searching. For a 1950's era bomber, it has a futuristic look to it, very forward thinking.  It'd be a cool candidate for Kawamori to turn into something variable. But then, so would the new Airbus demonstrator.  (we need an enthusiastic drooling emoji)

Edited February 25, 2020 by M'Kyuun

[Thom]

I recall those lifting body demonstrators from a while back. Though I think then, what killed it was the cost of rebuilding most existing airports to fit the unique shape. (?) They are currently designed to handle lean body shapes.

[Knight26]

15 hours ago, Thom said:

I recall those lifting body demonstrators from a while back. Though I think then, what killed it was the cost of rebuilding most existing airports to fit the unique shape. (?) They are currently designed to handle lean body shapes.

Actually moreso it is passenger comfort.  Most of the lifting body airline concepts have the same wingspan as existing planes, and jetways are surprisingly adaptable.  The issue is having passengers further out from centerline, any banking maneuver will result in some minor, but noticeable, G-forces, so flying would have to involve a largely flat turns instead of banking turns, which on approach and landing gets far trickier with current airport placements.

[slide]

the biggest problem is going to be when they seat all the passengers center-line, place all the cargo out to the sides, and have NO WINDOWS for me to look out of!

[Knight26]

45 minutes ago, slide said:

the biggest problem is going to be when they seat all the passengers center-line, place all the cargo out to the sides, and have NO WINDOWS for me to look out of!

The window's thing was another issue, was passenger escape routes.  Other than the front, and maybe rear doors, any mid-fuselage exits would have to be through hatches on the top of bottom of the aircraft.

[Thom]

Ejection seats!

[AN/ALQ128]

Its always a good idea to advertise your Kawamori designed smartwatches with some flashy scifi fighter jets.

I appreciate the authentic IR seeker growl too, as well as the detailed animation of the flap and nozzle check at the start.

Edited February 27, 2020 by AN/ALQ128
additional thoughts

[electric indigo]

The planes look a lot nicer than the watches IMO.

[Knight26]

Awesome looking planes and a nice looking watch, bit too much flash without enough functionality for me though.

[F-ZeroOne]

So, with these I really will be able to tell the TEARS OF TIME?

(sorry, wrong franchise, I know!).

[renegadeleader1]

A bit of aircraft humor.

[kalvasflam]

1 hour ago, renegadeleader1 said:

A bit of aircraft humor.

ha ha... too funny.

[Valkyrie Hunter D]

2 hours ago, renegadeleader1 said:

A bit of aircraft humor.

I was disappointed to learn it wasn't designated as a P-102.

[renegadeleader1]

New airplane anime announced from the people that made Girls Und Panzer, Highschool Fleet, Magnificent Kotobuki, and RE:Zero among other things.

 

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2020-02-29/re-zero-writer-tappei-nagatsuki-nanoha-vivid-artist-takuya-fujima-girls-and-panzer-adviser-takaaki-suzuki-make-warlords-of-sigrdrifa-anime/.156984

Looks like it will feature a Gloster Gladiator. Not sure what the other three planes are, maybe a BF-109, and FW-190? Not sure about the float plane.

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by renegadeleader1

[Sildani]

Hum. Looks like a Heinkel He-100, a Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki, and a... Aichi M6A Seiran?

And yes, she’s in front of a Gladiator, but no “Gladiator nose” for her just yet...

[electric indigo]

Leaked pic of the F-35F

[AN/ALQ128]

12 hours ago, Sildani said:

Hum. Looks like a Heinkel He-100, a Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki, and a... Aichi M6A Seiran?

And yes, she’s in front of a Gladiator, but no “Gladiator nose” for her just yet...

The plane with the floats is a Macchi M.C.72.

Its already winning points over Kotobuki for not limiting itself to Japanese planes only.

[renegadeleader1]

54 minutes ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

The plane with the floats is a Macchi M.C.72.

Its already winning points over Kotobuki for not limiting itself to Japanese planes only.

I think you might be right about that. The M6A Seiran lacks the wires the drawing has and the struts attached to the floats don't match either plus you can kind of see the distinctive fish tail the Macchi had. Here's a closer look at the three fighters.

[Thom]

12 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

The plane with the floats is a Macchi M.C.72.

Its already winning points over Kotobuki for not limiting itself to Japanese planes only.

I didn't think so at first, but yeah me thinks that is right. Not only the fishtail under the rudder but also the straight wings and the contra-props.

[F-ZeroOne]

The middle radial engine one - CAC Boomerang?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Boomerang

Bet they don't have a Defiant in it. They'll have every bloody thing else.

Edit: Hmm, don't think it is a Bommerang because the tailplane probably isn't big enough.

Edited March 3, 2020 by F-ZeroOne

[F-ZeroOne]

Middle one could actually be a Nakajima Ki-43, aka "Oscar":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-43

Fuselage looks a bit too short in the promotional picture, but that could just be the angle.

[F-ZeroOne]

Another beautiful theory probably shot down, theres an extension to the tail section which doesn't seem to appear on Ki-43s.