Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, mcfly50 said:

Apparently that was the excuse given from the upper brass to remove it immediately. ‘‘Twas a shame. 

Well, I kinda understand why.  It's like a big red bullseye on the radome...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mcfly50 said:

Apparently that was the excuse given from the upper brass to remove it immediately. ‘‘Twas a shame. 

Yeah, it is. Military aircraft with colour schemes that aren't just some variation on grey make for a nice break from the usual.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My father is into it more than I am, but Draco has been destroyed...

Luckily the only injury was a broken fingernail.

About Draco

 

And about the loss of Draco...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've got a name for the Boeing/SAAB T-X.

The new trainer plane will be called the T-7 Red Hawk, in honor of the Tuskegee Airmen.

 

boeing saab t7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 5:06 PM, mechaninac said:

^ Long sorrowful sigh... what could've been... :cray:

 

I don't mean to disparage the F-22, it's an extremely capable and wonderful looking ASF in its own right... certainly far better looking than its YF-22 prototype; but just look at the sheer beauty that is the YF-23 and imagine what a refined F-23 would be like... drool.gif?width=250&height=250&crop=1:1,smart

I know; it saddens me deeply that the -23 isn't protecting our and our allies' skies today. I've said it from the beginning, when Lockheed won, America lost.  What really always perplexed me about the decision was that stealth and speed were the highest priorities in the ATF program, and they chose the lesser performer in those two areas, as the YF-22, and F-22, by extension, had greater dogfighting skills due to its vectored thrust. Well that's wonderful at an airshow, but in real combat, the best tactic is to avoid close range fighting in favor of long range targeting, and both superior stealth and speed remain the most favored attributes of military fighters.

 

On 9/12/2019 at 6:00 PM, kajnrig said:

Um. Hey. Mods, y'all need to do something about this. I thought we weren't allowed to post porn here.

:lol:

 

On 9/12/2019 at 7:37 PM, David Hingtgen said:

Somehow, it's MORE futuristic looking now, than back then.  Did we regress with the F-35/Su-57/J-20? 

QFT!  Everything about it was ahead of its time. Too bad the decision makers weren't.

 

On 9/15/2019 at 7:35 AM, ErikElvis said:

That f23 looks damn good. 

She certainly does.:wub:

 

On 9/15/2019 at 4:43 AM, mcfly50 said:

Not sure if this ever got shared. Thought you guys might enjoy. These are real. Unfortunately, after they painted the dome like this, the higher ups got mad because “they didn’t get permission from Marvel” so they had to remove it. They did a great job. I think Marvel would have supported them.  This was from 2016.

05167751-8087-423D-81BF-C27892C42AEF.jpeg

A03480F6-3D31-4678-AC46-CB69B7BFE82A.jpeg

Typical brass- I don't know how it happened, but sometime in the mid to late nineties there seemed to be a shift in the mentality of military leadership from the top down wherein tree trunks were sharpened and thrust not-too-gingerly within the collective anuses of officers and senior non-commissioned officers alike throughout the various echelons, and all fun , all whimsy, all creativity, and all joy was stamped out and crushed asunder like so much dog sh!t under a boot heel. We lost a lot of people due to drawdowns on force size, but the number of missions increased, procedure and safety were foot-stomped ad nauseum (not that either is a bad thing, but , as in all things practical, common sense should rule the day when procedure is more of an ideal than a reality. I speak from a maintenance POV), most TDYs to anywhere not a wretched deployment site all but vanished, attitudes soured (guilty), and most military functions, which once were fun and looked forward to, became exercises in 'forced fun' that the majority of folks would rather avoid. My first eight years in the Air Force were punctuated by fun and an overall enjoyment of military life. I got out for a year and a half, and decided to re-enlist and make a career of it, which I did. But the remaining twelve seemed more of a grind, a long marathon of misery to get to the finish line. But I made it, and now I can try and look back on it more fondly than when I was in. But pics like this, along with the story, just bring back memories of my frustration and why I couldn't wait to retire.

Bad ass pic, and I salute the folks who did the paint job and the spirit in which it was done. In the larger scheme of things, it's a small thing that brings a bit of joy and patriotism to the troops, and it saddens me that leadership couldn't, wouldn't, or didn't recognize the morale value and at least make an effort to keep it. But, then again, this is why nose art is nigh but an anachronism today, and even when it is allowed, there are so many rules attached to avoid offense that most modern nose/tail art is lame compared to that of yesteryear. 

Thanks for sharing that E2 pic, mcfly50. It warms my heart to know that, at least for a short time, it was making folks happy and proud to serve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where I live there's an Army National Guard air field and the higher-ups are debating whether to bring F-35As there. The neighborhoods potentially affected by it are bitterly divided over whether they want them and why. Mostly it's a lot of "BOO NOISE LEVELS THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" and "THAT'S THE SOUND OF 'MURCA FREEDOM I LITERALLY crap RED WHITE AND BLUE!!!"

Meanwhile I'm over here like "i just think they're sexy and cool because i played lots of ace combat..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kajnrig said:

So where I live there's an Army National Guard air field and the higher-ups are debating whether to bring F-35As there. The neighborhoods potentially affected by it are bitterly divided over whether they want them and why. Mostly it's a lot of "BOO NOISE LEVELS THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" and "THAT'S THE SOUND OF 'MURCA FREEDOM I LITERALLY crap RED WHITE AND BLUE!!!"

Meanwhile I'm over here like "i just think they're sexy and cool because i played lots of ace combat..."

You are definitely the most chill!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2019 at 2:16 PM, M'Kyuun said:

I know; it saddens me deeply that the -23 isn't protecting our and our allies' skies today. I've said it from the beginning, when Lockheed won, America lost.  What really always perplexed me about the decision was that stealth and speed were the highest priorities in the ATF program, and they chose the lesser performer in those two areas, as the YF-22, and F-22, by extension, had greater dogfighting skills due to its vectored thrust. Well that's wonderful at an airshow, but in real combat, the best tactic is to avoid close range fighting in favor of long range targeting, and both superior stealth and speed remain the most favored attributes of military fighters.

 

I also wonder if the decision was partly made because a bunch of old brass thought the YF-23 design was too radical and they wanted to go with a safer, more familiar design.

 

Some Viper fun.

 

Edited by Shadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Indian Air Force has one of the most diverse and interesting air forces out there.  They operate not only their own, homegrown aircraft, but Russian, British, French and even American aircraft.  The interoperability of all those diverse systems is pretty amazing.  It's almost like they are looking more at the capabilities of the aircraft then on the politics of where they come from.

Share this post


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

The Indian Air Force has one of the most diverse and interesting air forces out there.  They operate not only their own, homegrown aircraft, but Russian, British, French and even American aircraft.  The interoperability of all those diverse systems is pretty amazing.  It's almost like they are looking more at the capabilities of the aircraft then on the politics of where they come from.

It almost looks like one big logistical and maintainence nightmare to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, renegadeleader1 said:

It almost looks like one big logistical and maintainence nightmare to me.

It probably is, but focusing on the individual capabilities of each aircraft purchased makes a heap of sense compared with throwing all the eggs in one multi-role platform basket.  On top of that, while the diversity makes it difficult to manage, you're also hedging your bets on which platforms are going to get upgraded over time, and which designs and manufacturers (or even governments) are going to succeed in the long-term.

Share this post


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

It probably is, but focusing on the individual capabilities of each aircraft purchased makes a heap of sense compared with throwing all the eggs in one multi-role platform basket.  On top of that, while the diversity makes it difficult to manage, you're also hedging your bets on which platforms are going to get upgraded over time, and which designs and manufacturers (or even governments) are going to succeed in the long-term.

It's probably also a big wasting of money due to inefficiency.

India could probably shave their inventory into 2 or 3 fighter aircraft types.  There's plenty of well-proven fighter jets out there with plenty of service life years ahead and extensive support. The fact that they have 7 different fighter/strike aircraft types suggests rampant corruption, lack of committment, and/or years of not having a clear plan for their air force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait until thought control is possible;

"You must think Russian..."

"no,no no, you must think French..."

"wait, wait, or is it, you must think in English..."

"Dammit, don't forget, you have to think in Hindu too..."

"Or if the aircraft happened to be build in China, or Japan, then Chinese and Japanese."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

India seems to be the closest thing to an Ace Combat air force in that they have alittle of everything. I've read prior stories calling into question the reliability of the Su-30MKI, particularly the engines. I wonder if these issues carry across to the Su-30SM as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question for all of you aviation enthusiasts, at what point do you think a plane ceases to be a restoration amd becomes a replica?

 

The reason I ask is because I was at the Flying Heritage museum in Everett Washington and they had the JU-87 Stuka they are in the middle of restoring and it seemed like a good chunk(something like 90%) of the airframe is brand new fabrication.

They still had most of the original airframe, but it was so corroded and mangled I'm not sure they could use it even if they wanted to.

 

What do you guys think?

20190926_161933.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theseus' dive bomber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Virtually all - probably all - vintage warplanes flying today are not made entirely of 100% authentic parts. I have a Haynes [1] manual lying around somewhere for the Spitfire and IIRC the criteria is more or less as long as theres something in there thats authentic, then its counted as a "genuine" aircraft even if the other 95% of the aircraft is recreated parts.

[1] I think you get these in the States - detailed technical manuals, originally for car repairs but now covering a wide range of topics from aircraft, military, space and fictional vehicles.

Edited by F-ZeroOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, with remarkable timing theres just been a documentary on the BBC4 channel here about the Spitfire and it actually featured one that the current owner claimed was "98% original parts" - largely because it had never been used in combat! (the aircraft had also been "signed" by Mary Ellis, a wartime Womens Air Transport Auxiliary pilot, when she first flew it and she gets to sign it again at the age of 100...!).

I know that one problem with "original parts" on Spitfires is that apparently the wartime magnesium screws they used actually corrode the airframe over time, so these usually have to be replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any plane "recovered from a lake" doesn't count, as there's usually little more than a spar and a few fuselage frames that are useable. 

I want to say, 50% original parts required, to be "original"?   You can use dozens of sources and make a Frankenstein of many different serial numbers, and that's fine.  But if you take a canopy hinge and the left aileron trim-tab, then make the rest at a workshop--"that ain't a restoration, that's a new-build plane".  

*scews/nuts/bolts/wires don't count.  I'm talking "airframe" pieces.  Any frame/spar/rib/hoop/stringer/fairing, and probably skin panels (though skin panels are often replaced).  

Share this post


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

I have a question for all of you aviation enthusiasts, at what point do you think a plane ceases to be a restoration amd becomes a replica?

 

The reason I ask is because I was at the Flying Heritage museum in Everett Washington and they had the JU-87 Stuka they are in the middle of restoring and it seemed like a good chunk(something like 90%) of the airframe is brand new fabrication.

They still had most of the original airframe, but it was so corroded and mangled I'm not sure they could use it even if they wanted to.

 

What do you guys think?

20190926_161933.jpg

depends on which parts are original, I suppose...

if you've got a large wing-section or a cockpit, then I'd be willing to strectch... but to paraphrase @David Hingtgen : a trim-tab and a rudder-bar do NOT an original aircraft make...

Edited by slide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, a fully-recreated "vintage" plane using modern parts/tooling would be its own kind of awesome.

Share this post


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

On the other hand, a fully-recreated "vintage" plane using modern parts/tooling would be its own kind of awesome.

Such as the Me-262 Project. New built Swallows that just lack the Jumo engines.

me262twin1.jpg

 

The Romantic in me wants to say any plane built from historical parts is then considered historical and 'original.' But there must be a point which the line is crossed between rebuild and recreation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That museum I went to, the Flying Heritage one is working on a vintage ME262 with Jumo engine made to original specifications, but with modern longer lasting materials that supposedly prevent the engine from burning out after 6 hours.

 

I really hope this doesn't end up like the N9M flying wing. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it run on jet fuel, too?  (IIRC, the original Jumo ran on gasoline) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just struck me... is that JU-87 actual size? It might just be the camera angle, but it looks tiny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a true restoration. Not just a “vintage” Mustang rebuilt and repainted as different aircraft. This is a WWII combat flown aircraft with confirmed kills, including a 262, to the airframe. RESTORED to her wartime colors. 

49E173D4-F5AF-44B4-BB81-0A16A746DCC3.jpeg.eaa9ed5497fd56933469c067c6e89d6d.jpeg

https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/p-51/44-72364.html

Chris

Edited by Dobber

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...