Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, anime52k8 said:

hohohohoh_small_by_hydrothrax-d7w0vjs.jp

Look like a shark opening its mouth to eat something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Knight26 said:

The design was far more suited to carrier based operations.

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

How so?

It looks more like a basking shark, it would have felt more at home in the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

How so?

Stronger undercarriage, better hook placement proposal.  More accessible weapons bays and external stores configuration.  Better pilot placement for deck handling.  The final design was also intended to be easier to maintain, especially the VTOL.

That aside, see my earlier comment about how JSF should have been handled.  Had it been a true joint project, instead of air force run, it probably would have gone that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, altermodes said:

Look like a shark opening its mouth to eat something

It is Shark Week...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always looked at the X-32 like an A-7 trying to get fit.  Or may be to be not so politically correct, the ugly girl trying to pretty itself up. 

The Navy really needs another Intruder type aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, renegadeleader1 said:

You know, removing the rollbar and adding canards to a Cutlass isn't all that impressive or all that original.

The judges were pretty critical of the design as well.

Quote

 

TR: For the 1960s timeframe chosen, the idea of a ‘Super Cutlass’ to transform a horrendously bad fighter into a decent one fits nicely into historical precedent. Super Sabre, Crusader, Phantom, Tomcat (and even up until the Super Hornet), the idea of an radical upgrade and ‘one bigger’ of a known fighter makes sense. The Super Cutlass, here with more powerful (and reliable) engines, radar-guided AAMs and canards would seem to fit that bill. Making it bigger, however might introduce new challenges for deck ops, as the wing folds will have to be outboard of the vertical fins. The canards/foreplanes while aiding manoeuvrability, also introduce a possible drawback for carrier ops – that of downward view. While a Super Cutlass is certainly plausible, one must also ask whether with the original aircraft being so terrible that the US Navy would have immediately thrown anyone suggesting a Mark II version of this aerial disaster out of the office, pronto.”  Tim Robinson nomination for Bronze (1 point)

JS: This a great looking design – but will it work? The original Cutlass was a bit of a disappointment. Based on WWII Arado research, it had a short service live, and was replaced by the Crusader. The thick wing and low power meant its maximum speed was just over 600 kt, despite having afterburning. It also had significant handling issues and a poor safety record".

With thinner wings and bigger engines, this concept should meet the Mach requirement. My concerns are around the canard, the engine intakes, landing performance and radar. I also think that this large aircraft would be expensive".

The thin wing will need a decent high lift system – the drawing shows slats, but these are a very small chord, reducing their effectiveness. There are inboard flaps, which will help, but the pitching moment from these will need to be balanced out by the canard. Positioned where it is, this is likely to adversely affect the flow into the intakes – a go around in this design could prove really challenging. There may also be adverse effects from the canard in manoeuvre".

"The intakes themselves look too large in area, possibly causing intake spill drag, and unnecessarily complex. The shock-cone intake is more suited to M ~2.0 designs like the Starfighter and Mirage, and a reduced size pitot intake would do".

"I think the radome looks a bid small in diameter and rather slender. The radar performance will strongly depend on the radar aperture; too small and the radar range will be limited. A finely tapered radome looks good, but would increase losses; a less slender design, e.g F-4-like, is likely to be better".

 

 

That said, the requirements for the 2019 contest seem to open up some more avenues for originality.

Edited by AN/ALQ128
added quotes to differentiate original authors and my own comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

While a Super Cutlass is certainly plausible, one must also ask whether with the original aircraft being so terrible that the US Navy would have immediately thrown anyone suggesting a Mark II version of this aerial disaster out of the office, pronto.

In regards to this sentiment, that is exactly what Douglas did with the disaster that was the F-3 demon when they introduced the F-4 Phantom. They expanded the airframe, added more powerful twin engines, made it a two seater, and said "Look! We fixed it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 9:44 PM, altermodes said:

Look like a shark opening its mouth to eat something

That drawing is great! :lol:  I remember early on not being very impressed with the look of that plane from any angle except straight down.  I always compared it in my mind to a bathtub with wings. Anyway, with a few years having passed and looking at it with older, hopefully slightly wiser, eyes, I can appreciate the potential utility it would have offered. 

17 hours ago, Knight26 said:

Stronger undercarriage, better hook placement proposal.  More accessible weapons bays and external stores configuration.  Better pilot placement for deck handling.  The final design was also intended to be easier to maintain, especially the VTOL.

That aside, see my earlier comment about how JSF should have been handled.  Had it been a true joint project, instead of air force run, it probably would have gone that direction.

I think you make some strong points, and I imagine that Naval/Marine requirements were foremost on Boeing's mind when designing it.  AF fighters are treated like Ferraris, and Navy fighters are treated like farm trucks. It's a loose analogy, but having been around fighters in both services and knowing how they're maintained, it's quite a difference. Compared to AF, Navy planes consistently take a beating, need to fold up neatly, rarely get baths, get patched up a lot, and exist in a constantly corrosive environment. My hat's off to the Navy's maintenance folks, as they're jack-of-all-trades working with limited parts and resources, especially on open seas. Air Force maintenance is consistent and highly specialized, and parts are, generally, more readily available. Unless you're working on the B-1 Lancer- logistical nightmare, that bird.

Anyway, much like my beloved YF-23, the X-32 has been relegated to just another historical aviation curiosity.

I wasn't familiar with the F-7 Cutlass until seeing the pic and comments above. It's amazing to me how many aircraft designs have been produced and, for whatever reason, fallen by the wayside to end up as museum curiosities. Speaking of which, I met an old veteran KC-135 boomer a couple weeks ago relating to me his rather unpleasant memories of trying to refuel the B-58 Hustler; apparently, maintaining a constant velocity was problematic, either for the plane, or for the pilots, when trying to connect to pass gas. I remember they had a Hustler on static at the now defunct Chanute AFB back in 1990; I'd never seen one before and I thought it a pretty impressive looking plane. Turns out it was, but it's operational life was cut short due to advances in Soviet SAMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

I wasn't familiar with the F-7 Cutlass until seeing the pic and comments above. It's amazing to me how many aircraft designs have been produced and, for whatever reason, fallen by the wayside to end up as museum curiosities. 

Yup. The forgotten designs, the one offs, the planes with brief service life , and the utter failures have started to become more and more interesting to me lately. When I visited the USAF museum in Dayton last October I think I squeed more for the interwar era planes like the last remaining intact Martin B-10 or the Douglas B-18 Bolo than I did some of the other planes like the Memphis Belle or Bockscar despite them being more famous. The B-58 they had was pretty amazing too.

 

Along those lines, this October I'm also heading to Seattle for vacation and I'm making a note to stop by McChord AFB to see the Douglas B-23 Dragon they have before going to the Seattle Museum of flight then Paine field in Everett. The dragon was a relatively obscure redesign of the B-18 Bolo, which itself was a militarized version of a DC-3. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of forgotten planes, I've long had a soft spot for the Boulton Paul Defiant. It almost always gets left out of T.V. histories of the Battle of Britain (tends to turn up in books more often though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder where that Raptor is based.  It wouldn't surprise me if this was in Hawaii.  The combination of constant exposure to the humidity and the sea air would definitely do that to the plane.  Ouch.  I wonder if it makes sense to even consider putting these planes into air conditioned hangars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, kalvasflam said:

I wonder where that Raptor is based.  It wouldn't surprise me if this was in Hawaii.  The combination of constant exposure to the humidity and the sea air would definitely do that to the plane.  Ouch.  I wonder if it makes sense to even consider putting these planes into air conditioned hangars.

Article says Langley AFB, in Virginia. Right by the Atlantic.

Then again, it is one of the Raptor demo team planes, so they probably travel all over the place.

Edited by AN/ALQ128
additional comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, renegadeleader1 said:

Yup. The forgotten designs, the one offs, the planes with brief service life , and the utter failures have started to become more and more interesting to me lately. When I visited the USAF museum in Dayton last October I think I squeed more for the interwar era planes like the last remaining intact Martin B-10 or the Douglas B-18 Bolo than I did some of the other planes like the Memphis Belle or Bockscar despite them being more famous. The B-58 they had was pretty amazing too.

 

Along those lines, this October I'm also heading to Seattle for vacation and I'm making a note to stop by McChord AFB to see the Douglas B-23 Dragon they have before going to the Seattle Museum of flight then Paine field in Everett. The dragon was a relatively obscure redesign of the B-18 Bolo, which itself was a militarized version of a DC-3. :)

I'll be visiting the AF Museum towards the latter half of August; I was there a few years ago, but govt sequestration meant that a number of aircraft, like the XB-70, the YF-23, and Kennedy's 707 Air Force One, were unavailable for viewing. they were still raising funds to build an additional hangar for those planes, a project that was completed about two years ago. Anyway, I'm looking forward to finally seeing the planes I missed out on the first time, especially the YF-23, which has remained my all time favorite real world fighter design since the 90's. I still lament it's having lost the competition.

I'll be in Seattle in early October as well for BrickCon; I doubt I'll get the opportunity to see any planes, though. One of these years, I'm going to do the Boeing tour and check out the Museum of Flight. It's on my to-do list, but likely won't happen this trip. Good luck on your trip, Renegadeleader1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there normally so many... rivet? fastener?... holes on a Raptor? Do they normally "fill" them in if its an operational warbird?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

I'll be visiting the AF Museum towards the latter half of August; I was there a few years ago, but govt sequestration meant that a number of aircraft, like the XB-70, the YF-23, and Kennedy's 707 Air Force One, were unavailable for viewing. they were still raising funds to build an additional hangar for those planes, a project that was completed about two years ago. Anyway, I'm looking forward to finally seeing the planes I missed out on the first time, especially the YF-23, which has remained my all time favorite real world fighter design since the 90's. I still lament it's having lost the competition.

I'll be in Seattle in early October as well for BrickCon; I doubt I'll get the opportunity to see any planes, though. One of these years, I'm going to do the Boeing tour and check out the Museum of Flight. It's on my to-do list, but likely won't happen this trip. Good luck on your trip, Renegadeleader1.

I know what you guys mean.  Now that I am back in Tucson, the Pima Air Museum is my favorite place to go.  When you walk down the 50-60s fighter rows it is crazy how many short service life and test planes there were, and that they have in their collection.  So many also have such a cool sci-fi aesthetic to them that just makes them feel futuristic, even though they are now so outclassed by anything flying today.

@renegadeleader1the air museums around Seattle are nice, I used to live out there, definitely check them out.  The nice things in the Seattle Museum of Flight are the one offs in their collections, especially on the civil side.  Plus they also have the F-1 engine off of Apollo-11 that Bezo recovered on display now.  The Everett field museum is not as extensive, and is more of a learning center, but still cool.  The plant tour is crazy when you see how big it is, and that is not Boeing's only plant out there.  I spent many hours wandering around the plant when I was FAA up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The early designs produced at the opening of the Cold War make that era my absolute favorite in aviation history.  Everything was streamlined to heaven and back because jet engine technology wasn't at the point where we could just overpower draggy designs, and some truly beautiful planes saw their day in the limelight.

There were multiple reasons that we had everyone and his brother popping new designs off the assembly lines every couple of years, but I think the biggest was just that aircraft design and material technology advancement was running at a breakneck pace.  Everyone was competing for speed and altitude records, because they expected to have to intercept nuclear bombers at a moment's notice, and only the best and most advanced designs would do.

The Air Force went through dozens of designs for interceptor aircraft, a good chunk of which fell into the Century Series planes, ending with the F-106, and eventually leading up to the F-4, which I believe was originally designated the F-110.  The F-107 Ultra Saber never quite made it, and the F-108 Rapier never made it past the mock-up stage after the B-70 was cancelled, but that all happened for similar reasons as the short service life of the B-58 Hustler: ICBMs made interceptor aircraft less of a viable defense mechanism.

Far as the JSF goes though.. it's interesting to consider the history of joint-service aircraft.  Historically speaking, the Navy doesn't take Air Force jets; the Air Force uses Navy designs, because the Navy requirements in terms of structure and capability are more stringent.  Not all aircraft can land on a carrier, but the ones that can will always be able to land on a runway.

The Air Force adapted the A-7, which was an offshoot of the F-8, and the F-4, but the last time the Navy was pressured into adopting an Air Force design, we got the TFX program, and the F-111B, which the Navy essentially railroaded off a cliff because they didn't want it, and we got the F-14 instead.  I think the last successful Navy adoption of an Air Force design was all the way back in the 1950s, when the Navy adapted a version of the F-86 as the FJ-2/3/4 Fury.

Actually read a really interesting article about the TFX program recently, and in hindsight, the Navy may have been better off purchasing a limited number of the F-111B to supplement the fleet, while the F-14 had the bugs worked out.  That seems to be the approach they're taking with the JSF, since the Navy is buying a very small number of the aircraft, relative to the Air Force, and rumblings of a true F-14 replacement have been going for a while now.

What actually baffles me about the F-35 is that I have no idea how they expect an aircraft stored at sea to remain stealthy.  If the outer coatings and maintenance procedures for stealth aircraft are that sensitive to environmental effects and corrosion, I have to wonder what sort of maintenance nightmare the F-35 is going to cause aboard a ship in the long term.

Edited by Chronocidal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The RAM materials are made as mats, so you strip mats off and install and smooth the new ones. Much easier than on the Raptor. 

The mats are also not required for normal combat performance, so after the first week of a campaign, when the US has (supposedly) achieved air superiority and has knocked out the enemy’s AA defenses, you can load the Lightnings with their external pylons and not worry about the RAM maintenance too much. 

Edited by Sildani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sildani said:

The RAM materials are made as mats, so you strip mats off and install and smooth the new ones. Much easier than on the Raptor. 

The mats are also not required for normal combat performance, so after the first week of a campaign, when the US has (supposedly) achieved air superiority and has knocked out the enemy’s AA defenses, you can load the Lightnings with their external pylons and not worry about the RAM maintenance too much. 

I doubt if Chrono meant from the campaign point of view.  Because there is going to be just peace time operation for 99% of the life of the aircraft.   You can't just let the stealth coating degrade during that period.  Then if you suddenly get called to action (because it is not a given that the US will always dictate the pace or the initiation of the conflict), then what, you can't ask the action to hold off for a few hours while the maintenance crew are busy slapping on pieces of RAM material or recoating the aircraft.

As for the beast mode concept, I think that is dreamed up by some desk jockey as a means of offsetting the fact that the F-35 load in stealth mode sucks.  Because no one in their right mind would assume that anti-air will be forever suppressed after the first week in a campaign, sure if you're hitting Afghanistan again, may be, against mother Russia, not so much.  Then suppressing air defenses become a more grinding affair that occurs over the time of the campaign, and beast mode F-35 might not be sensible, so rather than having F-35s come back, just get some F-15s or F-18s to come in behind the F-35 with time on target hits.  This would of course relegate the F-35 to the role of a SEAD aircraft, for which the volumes become suitably less.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kalvasflam said:

I doubt if Chrono meant from the campaign point of view.  Because there is going to be just peace time operation for 99% of the life of the aircraft.   You can't just let the stealth coating degrade during that period.  Then if you suddenly get called to action (because it is not a given that the US will always dictate the pace or the initiation of the conflict), then what, you can't ask the action to hold off for a few hours while the maintenance crew are busy slapping on pieces of RAM material or recoating the aircraft.

As for the beast mode concept, I think that is dreamed up by some desk jockey as a means of offsetting the fact that the F-35 load in stealth mode sucks.  Because no one in their right mind would assume that anti-air will be forever suppressed after the first week in a campaign, sure if you're hitting Afghanistan again, may be, against mother Russia, not so much.  Then suppressing air defenses become a more grinding affair that occurs over the time of the campaign, and beast mode F-35 might not be sensible, so rather than having F-35s come back, just get some F-15s or F-18s to come in behind the F-35 with time on target hits.  This would of course relegate the F-35 to the role of a SEAD aircraft, for which the volumes become suitably less.

 

I wouldn't say the stealth load for the F-35 sucks. 5,000lbs of munitions carried internally is nothing to sneeze at, especially when you compare it to something like an F-16 which needs to carry everything (bombs, drop tanks, SNIPER/LANTIRN pods) on external hard points, thus inducing drag penalties and of course, the increase of RCS.

Even if the RAM is degraded during a protracted air war, the inherent LO shaping should mean better stealth than legacy airframes, which is always a benefit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AN/ALQ128 said:

I wouldn't say the stealth load for the F-35 sucks. 5,000lbs of munitions carried internally is nothing to sneeze at, especially when you compare it to something like an F-16 which needs to carry everything (bombs, drop tanks, SNIPER/LANTIRN pods) on external hard points, thus inducing drag penalties and of course, the increase of RCS.

Even if the RAM is degraded during a protracted air war, the inherent LO shaping should mean better stealth than legacy airframes, which is always a benefit. 

I think it comes down somewhat to economics, stealth is there for a particular reason, improved survivability against air defenses and enemy fighters.  That said, the alternative to stealth is SEAD.  You have to create a temporary situation where non-stealth aircraft can survive.  

So, two possible scenarios here.  One in favor of the F-35, and another slightly open.

For the Air Force, a beast mode F-35 is supposed to carry something like 18K lbs of weapons, where as the F-15E would be able to handle about 23K lbs, so the question then becomes what is the RCS of the F-35 beast mode relative to the F-15E.   

However, for the Navy, if you compare the same F-35 to an F-18 E/F, then the choice is more clear cut, the F-18 carries just under 18K lb of ordinance.  SO, there might not be that much of a difference in terms of performance, and then the F-35 will likely be superior when it comes to RCS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kalvasflam said:

I think it comes down somewhat to economics, stealth is there for a particular reason, improved survivability against air defenses and enemy fighters.  That said, the alternative to stealth is SEAD.  You have to create a temporary situation where non-stealth aircraft can survive.  

So, two possible scenarios here.  One in favor of the F-35, and another slightly open.

For the Air Force, a beast mode F-35 is supposed to carry something like 18K lbs of weapons, where as the F-15E would be able to handle about 23K lbs, so the question then becomes what is the RCS of the F-35 beast mode relative to the F-15E.   

However, for the Navy, if you compare the same F-35 to an F-18 E/F, then the choice is more clear cut, the F-18 carries just under 18K lb of ordinance.  SO, there might not be that much of a difference in terms of performance, and then the F-35 will likely be superior when it comes to RCS.

Yes, I've heard that one of the strategies F-35 pilots are working on with their colleagues still flying 4th gen aircraft is to basically act as forward spotters, marking out targets and sending the data back to Strike Eagles, Falcons, B-1B's, etc so those aircraft that are capable of carrying a larger array of weaponry can take shots just outside of the enemy's air defence network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing working in the F-35C's favor in that role is loiter time.  I don't quite know how much, but the enlarged wing on the C-model gives it a heckuva lot more fuel to work with, and I think it has a decently longer range than a Superhornet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Chronocidal said:

Another thing working in the F-35C's favor in that role is loiter time.  I don't quite know how much, but the enlarged wing on the C-model gives it a heckuva lot more fuel to work with, and I think it has a decently longer range than a Superhornet.

Yeah, the F-18E/F have really pathetically short legs, to extend out their range, they practically need to have another Rhino providing tanker support because the KS-3A and the KA-6D were withdrawn from service years ago.  Ha, what they could really use is a bomb truck like the old A-6, but equip it with longer range precision guided munitions, the Intruders carried about the same amount of munitions as the F-35, but something like an extra 200 nm of range when fully loaded.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, kalvasflam said:

Yeah, the F-18E/F have really pathetically short legs, to extend out their range, they practically need to have another Rhino providing tanker support because the KS-3A and the KA-6D were withdrawn from service years ago.  Ha, what they could really use is a bomb truck like the old A-6, but equip it with longer range precision guided munitions, the Intruders carried about the same amount of munitions as the F-35, but something like an extra 200 nm of range when fully loaded.  

 

The Super Hornet deputy program manager believed differently.

https://yarchive.net/mil/fa18_vs_a6.html

 

With regards to the tanker role, both the Super Hornet and KA-6D carry about same amount of fuel that they can buddy transfer.  Approximately 16,000lbs. The advantage with the Super Hornet tanker is that it can keep up speed-wise with a strike package and perhaps go along all the way and back.

Edited by Vifam7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I read that, it is implied the F-18 E/F can actually carry heavier ordinance load while flying off the deck of a carrier, but I note that he didn't mention anything specific about range on the aircraft.  Does that seem about right?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the issue is that the Superhornets are draggy gas-guzzling bricks, aerodynamically speaking.  The aerodynamic sacrifices they've made to give that plane good structural and flying qualities mean you almost never see them taking off without at least one or two external tanks, which also eats into their deliverable payload.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chronocidal said:

Part of the issue is that the Superhornets are draggy gas-guzzling bricks, aerodynamically speaking.  The aerodynamic sacrifices they've made to give that plane good structural and flying qualities mean you almost never see them taking off without at least one or two external tanks, which also eats into their deliverable payload.

Super Hornets are getting conformal fuel tanks with the upcoming Block 3 upgrade, which should help with range nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One of the perks Tomcat pilots spoke of during their last years in service was the advantage they had over Super Hornet and especially the Legacy Hornets to loiter since they could practically glide over a target area with their wings fully extended plus the amount of lift that airframe generated .

Quote

Super Hornets are getting conformal fuel tanks with the upcoming Block 3 upgrade, which should help with range nicely.

They're also getting the upgraded F414s which will no doubt help.

On a sad note. The Rhino pilot from the recent crash around the Star Wars canyon didn't survive. Was part of VFA 151. :(

https://news.usni.org/2019/08/02/navy-identifies-pilot-killed-in-death-valley-super-hornet-crash

Edited by Shadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this was ever posted, but if not, you've GOT to hear this ex Tomcat pilot. Straight talk, no BS, not politically correct. I was really surprised with what he had to say about the "troublesome" F-14A engines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2019 at 10:06 AM, Knight26 said:

the air museums around Seattle are nice, I used to live out there, definitely check them out.  The nice things in the Seattle Museum of Flight are the one offs in their collections, especially on the civil side.  Plus they also have the F-1 engine off of Apollo-11 that Bezo recovered on display now.  The Everett field museum is not as extensive, and is more of a learning center, but still cool.  The plant tour is crazy when you see how big it is, and that is not Boeing's only plant out there.  I spent many hours wandering around the plant when I was FAA up there

From what I understand Paine Field in addition to the factory tour and small museum dedicated to the field's history there's also two other museums, Paul G. Allen's Combat Armor & flight museum, and the Heritage Flight Foundation. The former has a Panzer IV that was originally supposed to come east with the rest of the collection it was a part of, but the people in charge of it accidently put it up for auction and Allen bought it. The later is a small place basically a vintage aircraft flying club, but it has some unique aircraft like a F7F Tigercat and F8F Bearcat that the tour guides let you actually get up close to.

 

Since you're familiar with the area do you have any recommendations on other places I should visit? Any good import toy stores?

On 7/31/2019 at 9:46 AM, F-ZeroOne said:

On the subject of forgotten planes, I've long had a soft spot for the Boulton Paul Defiant. It almost always gets left out of T.V. histories of the Battle of Britain (tends to turn up in books more often though).

Big problem with the Defiant is it's entire design was based around a flawed concept. A defensive turret makes sense on a bomber where it's manuverability is limited by it's size and payload. Adding a turret to a fighter negates its advantages of speed and maneuverability. Compound that with the fact there were zero forward firing guns it shouldn't be any surprise that within a year of being introduced the RAF had lost every example that had been delivered to them. It's biggest success was as a night fighter which is kind of humorous as they were essentially flying blind without search radar that would be common to the planes that succeeded it.

 

On 7/31/2019 at 6:51 PM, M'Kyuun said:

I'll be visiting the AF Museum towards the latter half of August; I was there a few years ago, but govt sequestration meant that a number of aircraft, like the XB-70, the YF-23, and Kennedy's 707 Air Force One, were unavailable for viewing. they were still raising funds to build an additional hangar for those planes, a project that was completed about two years ago. Anyway, I'm looking forward to finally seeing the planes I missed out on the first time, especially the YF-23, which has remained my all time favorite real world fighter design since the 90's. I still lament it's having lost the competition.

You'll love the new hangar. On one side is the prototypes, one offs, oddities, and experimentals like the Goblin parasite fighter, SR-71, YF-23, Kestrel vtol, and the RCAF's attempt at building a working flying saucer the VZ-9 Avrocar.

 

The other side is the Presidential wing with all the various Airforce One's and the couple of planes that predate the designation. My brother who is in his late 30's was giddy as a schoolboy finally getting to go inside them. I felt bad for him though when he got to the back of Kennedy's plane and realized where he was standing. I've never seen a smile disappear from someone's face as quickly as I did when he was in the middle of reading the plaque. :(

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw what I’m assuming was an F-2 flying overhead near Enoshima today. I was a bit disappointed that it wasn’t flying lower so I could get a better look at it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...