Jump to content

Recommended Posts

something I've been wondering. Would things be better or worse had they gone with the X-32 instead of the X-35?

Watched a show and did some research on that a while back. Boeing was having a bear of a time just building the two 32 prototypes because of a lack of experience with large sheets of composites and carbon fiber. The upper fuselage and upper wing skins were basically built as one piece, and that led to massive problems with applying and curing sheet after sheet of material - bubbles, extreme slow cure times, and so on.

Then, when it came time to do the flight tests, it did pretty well. However, when the V/STOVL tests were done, it was found the gaping air intake allowed too much hot exhaust to re-enter the engine, which sapped power. Boeing couldn't redesign it, so they saved weight by removing the hinged intake, the streamlined exhaust nozzle covers, and even the landing gear doors. So lightened, it could stagger into the air, vertically. The 35 could just go.

Finally, Boeing said that if the 32 was chosen, the production model would be substantially redesigned. The new 32 would ditch the delta wing in favor of swept wings of remarkable chord, in part to simplify production, and would have a conventional empennage.

With all those problems, I think we'd be in much the same boat. Besides, I think I remember reading somewhere that most of the 35's problems are in its code for the flight control computer - some 9 million lines worth. We're firmly in the age where, if the computer flying the plane is faulty, it doesn't matter how "right" the design is.

Edited by Sildani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow-up for the Spitfires birthday: a documentary from 1976 (though recorded later because I recoginise that "BBC2" logo style and, er, not many video recorders in the UK then, I guess!). The host, Raymond Baxter was a presenter of the popular BBC programme "Tomorrows World" but also flew Spitfires in World War II and nearly shot down a V2 rocket (at launch) in one! Also features an interview with Douglas Bader, who hopefully should not need much introduction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the Spitfire. it was one of the most graceful looking designs to ever take to the air. I know who Douglas Bader was, I read the book written by V.S. Tuck, Fly for your Life. He gave quite an impression of Bader in it. He even stated the Germans were intimidated by him even when he was a POW but had so much respect for him they actually allowed the RAF to fly over and drop a new set of artifical legs for him since his were wrecked in his Spitfire when he was shot down.

Here is a little something that would be a great fixer upper in a garage...oh wait a minute it is in a garage...or part of it....

12771830_587416468087633_651912126276096

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I will echo the Love for the Spitfire, and also any fan of military aviation or the Spitfire should not need an introduction to who Bader was. I had the great opportunity to finally see a Spitfire and an actual FW-190 this past year at my airport. They were fly past enrout to Virginia beach and made a fuel stop here. Got to walk out from the tower and take lots of pictures of the 2 up close without any crowds around. It was really special to me seeing these 2 great warbirds together and up close. The 190 even had the spastic a on the tail. I have some cockpit pics to if anyone is interested.

Chris

post-265-0-25234400-1457219441_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-14226700-1457219490_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-83273300-1457219546_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-96411300-1457219590_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-45537200-1457219646_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-04240600-1457219742_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-68591300-1457219817_thumb.jpeg

Edited by Dobber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spitfire in your garage! as you would of course.. lucky SOB!

The top few of my all time favorite aircraft does move about a little but the Spitfire always seems to remain at the very top of that list! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too me a second to realise thats a "P" on one of those Spitfires and not a question mark, I thought The Riddler had a previously unknown liking for classic warbirds for a second... :lol:

Edit: no, wait, it is a question mark! Thats a bit odd...

Edited by F-ZeroOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple of flyable Butcher Birds but as far as I know there is only one with an actual BMW 801 engine installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which might explain the four-bladed prop on the Würger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the pilot telling me there was something significant about the 190 when I was talking to him, maybe it being the only flying one in the states...I wish I could remember. Here are the rest of my pictures of the Butcher-bird.

post-265-0-75871700-1457276445_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-94447500-1457276741_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-02500800-1457276777_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-33608100-1457276812_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-16105900-1457276863_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-28967900-1457277006_thumb.jpeg

Some more Spitfire ;)

post-265-0-91572800-1457277303_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-84303100-1457277334_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-85497600-1457277430_thumb.jpeg

post-265-0-99317200-1457277488_thumb.jpeg

I have more but they are just slight variations of the ones already posted.

Chris

Edited by Dobber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All but one flyable 190 are using a Shvetsov ASh-82FN engine. These are Chinese liscense built Russian engines. They have twin rows 14 cylinders and are only slightly smaller than the original BMW 801 (41.2 liters to 41.8). Here is the FHC A-5 variant with the actual BMW engine doing an engine run during its restoration. There are a fair number of flyable 190's out there. A company actually reproduced 20 of them from the ground up using the Chinese made engines. These engines were the same ones used in the Soviet built La-5's and La-7's which explains the small oval bulges on the cowling of the one you photographed Dobber. The cowl on the 190 was fit so tightly it had to have fan mounted in front directly behind the propeller hub to ensure cool air flowed around the BMW's cylinders. The small ovals are to make room for the valve/push rod covers between the cylinder heads. By the way nice pics! ;)

Edited by grigolosi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool thanks for the info ;) I was hoping the pics of the cowling area might help. Unfortunately the head on shots that would've given better pics of the engine didn't come out well due to the sun's position at the time.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having flown on 747's, 777's and 787's, I prefer the 787's. The US airline industry though makes flying in any of the 3 a grueling experience. I flew back to the states on BA back in December. The 787's they operate are beautiful aircraft. I haven't had such a comfortable flight since I flew on Asiana back in 2000. Plenty of leg space and the seats are just plain more comfortable compared to the other 2 aircraft. Flew on a 777 from Seattle to Korea in 09'. Typical of anything operated by either the US government or an American air carrier it was a cattle car and the seats were pretty worn out. The US airline industry needs to learn from other countries airlines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aircraft means means nothing, it's the seats/airline.

Comfiest flight ever? Delta 767.

Worst seats ever? United 767.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this tonight on Youtube.......I never heard of this bird until the other day. This is the first time I got to watch this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is fairly famous (especially when internet "discussions" turn to the subject of Close Air Support), I think it even turned up in an episode of "Airwolf" once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is fairly famous (especially when internet "discussions" turn to the subject of Close Air Support), I think it even turned up in an episode of "Airwolf" once.

Not sure if it was on Airwolf but it was definitely in the third Iron Eagle movie as a fictional Messerschmitt jet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love big planes. They handle cross winds like they nothing at all. It is always a trip watching B-52's land in a cross wind. People not used to seeing it freak out and think the aircraft is going to crash since its gear are crabbed and the frame is pointing into the wind! I see quite a few 124's here delivering cargo. They are always parked out on the other side of the runways by the main base area.

I now remember seeing it in that Iron Eagle movie now (Iron Eagle is blasphemy in the F-16 maintainer world). I just assumed it was some plane built for that movie. This is a highly intelligent design for a cheap mud mover. Unfortunately I took some time to read the comments on youtube and had to turn it off. Idiots trying to compare it to F-15's and F-16's. I hate people at times....especially the youtube peanut gallery....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love big planes. They handle cross winds like they nothing at all. It is always a trip watching B-52's land in a cross wind. People not used to seeing it freak out and think the aircraft is going to crash since its gear are crabbed and the frame is pointing into the wind! I see quite a few 124's here delivering cargo. They are always parked out on the other side of the runways by the main base area.

I now remember seeing it in that Iron Eagle movie now (Iron Eagle is blasphemy in the F-16 maintainer world). I just assumed it was some plane built for that movie. This is a highly intelligent design for a cheap mud mover. Unfortunately I took some time to read the comments on youtube and had to turn it off. Idiots trying to compare it to F-15's and F-16's. I hate people at times....especially the youtube peanut gallery....

Why is "Iron Eagle" Blasphemous in the F-16 Maintainer world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You may deal directly with me now...Colonel Something, Something........."AND YOU can deal with ME! -- Doug Masters! " :lol::lol::lol: . GOD I need to have some drinks tonight and watch Iron Eagle! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love big planes. They handle cross winds like they nothing at all. It is always a trip watching B-52's land in a cross wind. People not used to seeing it freak out and think the aircraft is going to crash since its gear are crabbed and the frame is pointing into the wind! I see quite a few 124's here delivering cargo. They are always parked out on the other side of the runways by the main base area.

... in your travels, did you ever see the one and only An-225 in action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No never saw the An-225, wish I had though. To answer your question Miles, there are so many mistakes made in the film that it is impossible for us F-16 crew chiefs to watch it. To start with there is no display in the cockpit that states "turbine failure" ( the closest thing is the MFD and that displays MFL's and PFL's by number). The first indication is 0 rpm's, oil pressure, hyd pressure, and a standby generator light and the loud sound of shrieking metal as the blades come apart due to either missile or bullet damage. The F-16's changed configurations in flight so often you can barely count them (one tank then 2 tanks then one tank etc...). The gun only carries 550 rnds total, the usual load is 510, that being said the gun will empty the gun drum in less than a minute. No one on the line wears baseball caps since the intake can ingest them very easily. The fuel load they were carrying was, well a pilots dream. B, D and F model F-16's carry 15% less fuel due to the F-1 fuel cell (a bladder style tank) being reduced in size to make room for the back seat. Plus the AF does not transfer any aircraft with live munitions loaded. Someone requesting a live load out for a "transfer" would have gotten the attention of the Production Super who would have called Ops to ask who requested this and if they were smoking something. This is in reference to the original Iron Eagle.

The idiots I was referring to were trying to compare the Ares to F-15's and F-16's loaded out with AMMRAAM's.......again idiots....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to crabbing, B-52's have such an extreme wing incidence, that they can fly level, while nose-down. Even climb like that I think, if light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL actually F-zero ironically enough they do take Ipods and MP-3's with them on long flights, usually transoceanic crossings where they are flying 5-8 hrs. They also used to take Walkman style players also. The phase dock at Misawa found an Eagle's CD under the seat after it was removed for the inspection. The aircraft had taken part in a TDY to Australia several months before and the pilot dropped it and didn't say anything to anyone since they weren't supposed to have that stuff with them in the cockpit.

David you are correct on the Buff. it can climb and descend in some crazy looking positions due to the wing design. But from what I have seen they primarily use it for take off and landing. After they are fully airborne they fly it like any other aircraft.

Edited by grigolosi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking of the B-52, apparently Dale Brown was right... :)

http://www.defensetech.org/2016/03/11/pentagon-arsenal-plane-may-take-the-form-of-a-modified-b-52/

grigolosi, having taken several long-distance flights I can sympathize with the fighter pilots needing something to pass the time; its bad enough in an airliner with all its passenger "comforts", what its like in an F-16 I can't imagine...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking of the B-52, apparently Dale Brown was right... :)

http://www.defensetech.org/2016/03/11/pentagon-arsenal-plane-may-take-the-form-of-a-modified-b-52/

grigolosi, having taken several long-distance flights I can sympathize with the fighter pilots needing something to pass the time; its bad enough in an airliner with all its passenger "comforts", what its like in an F-16 I can't imagine...

At least the F-16 is a fast jet and has a semi-reclined seat. Must be utter hell for A-10 pilots in their uber-slow jets to go across the pond (ie. cross the Atlantic). A-10s cruise significantly slower than the average widebody...

Edited by Vifam7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading about the OV-10 being used last week. From what I read they used 2 of them for evaluation purposes. The aircraft are back in North Carolina while the combat data is crunched and analyzed. They were attached to mostly Spec Ops operations so a whole lot is classified. Not much info on the actual missions they were flying other than the stated "CAS" mission.

The problem with the B-1 is its avionics package or actually more precisely its maintenance download system. After every flight the aircraft is downloaded and the system looks for any thing that is broken or what it calculates as getting ready to break. So After flight when the system download is performed they end up with a list of all sorts of maintenance issues. This ranges from system code 2's to codes 3's. That is why they are such manpower extensive aircraft and their operations cost are high. They are constantly replacing parts that may not necessarily be bad just because the computer "believes" a part is about to fail. I do like the idea of the B-1R but a literal flying missile platform based on a B-52 would be a sight to see considering its payload capability. Talk about missile massacres.... :o

Edited by grigolosi

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...