Aircraft Vs Thread 5

[Apollo Leader]

I see Macross World's back up.

Anyway, here's all the pictures I took at the Offutt Air Show last weekend. All pictures were originally taken with my Canon Digital Rebel in a much higher resolution.

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=582816193

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=582816193

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=582816193

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=582816193

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=582816193

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=582816193

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=582816193

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=582816193

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=582816193

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=582816193

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=582816193

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=582816193

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

The irony of these agreements is that - like Concorde - they were originally created by us, in case our European cousins got cold feet and decided to spend the money on high speed train networks or weekly rubbish collections or something equally useless...

Oh, I thought it was in case That European cousin started goose-stepping into Poland.

[Warmaker]

Gaaaaaawwwwwdddd, even as "stupid TSA stories" go, this one's bad:

**snip**

This is why people who couldn't get a job at MickeyD's and don't know the SLIGHTEST thing about aviation, shouldn't be allowed to mess with multi-million-dollar aircraft. And I'm betting replacement pitot probes etc for the SAAB 340 aren't that easy to come by nowadays.

As an aircraft electrician, the pitot static system is one of our babies to work on. It can be a REAL b**ch to just hook up a test set and seeing if it will pass. Because I can take this test set onto a perfectly good plane with no issues, and if I stick to the book limitations, it will fail most of the time.

Repairs / replacements for the system usually is not that big a deal. But the troubleshooting and isolating the problem's a real pain in the rear since it takes FOREVER.

It's one of those systems that electricians like to run away from when they hear of it

[Evil Porkchop]

Envious that you got to go to Dayton! Regarding the air show you're talking about, was that an Air Force run event or something that was non military? I know there's an Air Force base south and east from St. Louis... that's where my sister and her family are at right now.

As for more Offutt air show pictures, I got about another 60+ to post online tonight then I'll be ready to do more sharing.

Scott AFB is the one you are referring to. I'm stationed there too. My unit used to do fly-overs for the STL airshow.

I have no idea of Scott is even having an airshow this year, but in all honesty unless they bring in some Raptors I have no interest in it.

[David Hingtgen]

There used to be an F-101 flight demonstration team called The Warlocks. Who knew?

Skip to 1:30 to actually get to the planes. Ahh, jets from the 60's---back when each design actually looked unique.

[hal9000]

Next Monday I get to go somewhere veeerrrryyyyy FUN.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/

[buddhafabio]

i went there earlier this year. i determined when i go back i need to spend 2 days there. one to read exhibits the other to look at the planes. also bring more money. i didnt even get to see the prez planes that are on the base. if you go only one day you need to be there at open.

Edited September 10, 2008 by buddhafabio

[vermillion01]

South Korea... i hear its chilly this time of year...

cold plane

[Warmaker]

I've been in Korea in winter. It gets d**n cold enough there

[hal9000]

i went there earlier this year. i determined when i go back i need to spend 2 days there. one to read exhibits the other to look at the planes. also bring more money. i didnt even get to see the prez planes that are on the base. if you go only one day you need to be there at open.

Yep I only get one day but its all day Sep 15. Fist find the XB-70 then the B-36 and XC-99 and what ever else I can Sucks the YF-23 is still in restoration.

[David Hingtgen]

I've gotta go to Ohio now: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheet...a.asp?fsID=7152

YF-23 #1 fully restored and put on display this week. 18 years old now, and still looks like "the next generation" of fighter jet.

[Coota0]

Skip to 1:30 to actually get to the planes. Ahh, jets from the 60's---back when each design actually looked unique.

Unless you're talking about the F-102 and F-106

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Unless you're talking about the F-102 and F-106

How about the Mig 15/17/19, the La-15 and Yak-30? And the Su-9 with the Mig-21.

edit: well, not designed in the 60s but they were around still.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[HoveringCheesecake]

Any pictures of the Tu-160s that are in Venezuela?

[F-ZeroOne]

What Boeing and Northrop-Grumman are thinking for the USAFs next medium-range bomber. Guess who won't win that one?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defen...0a-55be78ed725c

[DarkReaper]

Meh, both aren't exactly beauties and as seen with the YF-23 against the YF-22, looks don't always win against cost.

[Apollo Leader]

I've gotta go to Ohio now: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheet...a.asp?fsID=7152

YF-23 #1 fully restored and put on display this week. 18 years old now, and still looks like "the next generation" of fighter jet.

Will give an "Amen" to that! I am planning on getting to the Air Force Museum sometime next spring or summer. The last time I was there was June 1993.

[Apollo Leader]

What Boeing and Northrop-Grumman are thinking for the USAFs next medium-range bomber. Guess who won't win that one?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defen...0a-55be78ed725c

CG of the Northrop design has been out for a while. I'm trying to figure out still if it's only a two engine design (if they're using 30,000+ lbs thrust turbofans) or if there's four in there somewhere. I can't remember if Boeing's design has been shown before or not.

Either way, it's quite clear how far ahead of its time the B-2 really was. It will probably continue to influence concepts and designs for decades to come.

[Noyhauser]

CG of the Northrop design has been out for a while. I'm trying to figure out still if it's only a two engine design (if they're using 30,000+ lbs thrust turbofans) or if there's four in there somewhere. I can't remember if Boeing's design has been shown before or not.

Either way, it's quite clear how far ahead of its time the B-2 really was. It will probably continue to influence concepts and designs for decades to come.

Maybe you or someone else can speak to this, but Boeing's contribution seems to be an outgrowth of its blended wing study (X-48B). Certainly how the wings operate seem to suggest this lineage.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Noyhauser

[David Hingtgen]

UK seems *very* close to pulling out of the JSF program completely. Budget reasons, mostly.

Of course, having ALEADY GOTTEN RID OF the Sea Harriers, there is going to be a slight problem with their naval aviation force in the future...

[dizman]

Money is more powerful than aircraft I suppose. Also I doubt the UK will get in any major wars which require aircraft carriers for awhile.

[Awacs]

Well, if we do pull out there have been a couple of ideas for a back-up plan bandied around. Given that the only major design difference that is planned between our new carriers and the one that is planned for the French Navy is that the latter is going to have catapults it wouldn't be to hard for ours to be built able to operate conventional aircraft. So there has been muttering about producing a navalised version of the Typhoon, and even some wild speculation about buying the naval Rafale. The latter would have the advantage of being an off-the-shelf purchase,but I'm not sure how politically acceptable buying a French aircraft would be. The former sounds viable in theory, but given the slippage in the dates for delivery of some of the RAF Typhoons I'm not sure how viable taking it to production would be in the short-term.

We might have to get a bit longer out of our GR9's than we were anticipating.

Karl

[F-ZeroOne]

Theres probably more flying Spitfires out there we could fit with arrestor hooks now.

[Apollo Leader]

Maybe you or someone else can speak to this, but Boeing's contribution seems to be an outgrowth of its blended wing study (X-48B). Certainly how the wings operate seem to suggest this lineage.

It's definitely obvious that Northrop and Boeing are basing their NGB designs off of their UAV attack aircraft from the last few years (kind of like how the X-45A was based on Boeing/McDonnell Douglas' Bird of Prey). I was looking through the NGB thread at Secret Projects and found that CG of Boeing's design has been out for a while, it's just that I had forgot about it.

[Coota0]

Well, if we do pull out there have been a couple of ideas for a back-up plan bandied around. Given that the only major design difference that is planned between our new carriers and the one that is planned for the French Navy is that the latter is going to have catapults it wouldn't be to hard for ours to be built able to operate conventional aircraft. So there has been muttering about producing a navalised version of the Typhoon, and even some wild speculation about buying the naval Rafale. The latter would have the advantage of being an off-the-shelf purchase,but I'm not sure how politically acceptable buying a French aircraft would be. The former sounds viable in theory, but given the slippage in the dates for delivery of some of the RAF Typhoons I'm not sure how viable taking it to production would be in the short-term.

We might have to get a bit longer out of our GR9's than we were anticipating.

Karl

Are the F-35C and Super Hornets an option?

If ya'll went with the F-35C after pulling out of the F-35B program that would be one hell of an irony.

[Vifam7]

What do you guys think of the whole F-35 controversy? http://www.military.com/news/article/criti...l=1186032320397

This was latest article criticising the F-35.

[F-ZeroOne]

Proposed alternatives to the JSF have included the aforementioned Naval Typhoon, F-18E/Fs, and - and you can imagine the reaction the following would cause - Rafales.

Options apparently considered but not making the current short list are paper darts, getting the phone number of that guy in South Africa who still has a couple of Buccaneers, and second-hand Jaguars. [1]

[1] "All we know is... that hes called The Stig... "

Edit: ah, sorry Awacs, missed you mentioning the Rafale already.

Edited September 29, 2008 by F-ZeroOne

[Coota0]

The problem with the Sprey-Wheeler analysis, Burbage said, is that the nature of air warfare has changed. The air-to-air, close-quarters dogfight, he says, has been made obsolete by long-range radar and precise guided missiles.

That's from the article that Vifam7 posted. Sounds an awful lot like the stuff said between the Korean and Vietnam conflicts here in the states. We got our asses handed to us until our pilots learned tactics to fight up close and personal instead of fighting their aircraft as missile platforms. As someone flying under the USAF's Air superiority I really don't want to see that happen agian.

[David Hingtgen]

If the dogfight wasn't important and only radar power and long-range missiles mattered, the F-14 and MiG-31 would be the best fighters in the world at the moment, and the F-22 wouldn't have been designed to be the most agile US plane ever and thrust vectoring would have been omitted.

[VF-19]

Theres probably more flying Spitfires out there we could fit with arrestor hooks now.

Of course there are! They're called Seafires.

Hey, sidewinder armed spitfires/Seafires... ...Blows my mind.

[F-ZeroOne]

I know of Seafires, but the first naval Spitfires pretty much were just that - Spitfires with arrestor hook. Eric "Winkle" Brown relates a number of alarming accounts of landing mishaps on carriers with the prototypes...

And during the 60s, the RAF did dogfight a Spitfire with an English Electric Lightning - it seems that while the Lightning could always choose to engage and disengage at its usual warp speed, the Spitfire did quite well. Maybe fitting a couple of ASRAAMs wouldn't be too bad an idea...

It would be nice to see Naval Typhoons, and it would seem to be the best way to spread some of the costs involved around if the UK JSF doesn't happen.

[Awacs]

And during the 60s, the RAF did dogfight a Spitfire with an English Electric Lightning - it seems that while the Lightning could always choose to engage and disengage at its usual warp speed, the Spitfire did quite well. Maybe fitting a couple of ASRAAMs wouldn't be too bad an idea...

I can see that making for an interesting engagement actually - the Spit was designed with the dogfight in mind, whereas the Lightning was.....not so much for the turning. A bit of a mismatch actually, and the sort of extreme case likely to give odd results.

It would be nice to see Naval Typhoons, and it would seem to be the best way to spread some of the costs involved around if the UK JSF doesn't happen.

The thing is though, I'm not sure whether there has been any real work done on the baseline stuff for navalising a Typhoon - like undercarriage loading, corrosion resistance issues. It may well be that it would be a case of having to start from scratch, and it is anyones guess if we are going to be able to afford that in the near future. With the Rafale or the S'Hornet all of that work is already done. On the other hand the tabloid press would be jumping up and down screaming if we bought a French aircraft.... which almost makes me want it to happen just for the hilarity of watching the reaction.....

Karl

[Vifam7]

I can see that making for an interesting engagement actually - the Spit was designed with the dogfight in mind, whereas the Lightning was.....not so much for the turning. A bit of a mismatch actually, and the sort of extreme case likely to give odd results.

I remember reading somewhere that the Top Gun training program also included some DACT involving F4U Corsairs.

Btw the Lightning was a very agile jet fighter.

The thing is though, I'm not sure whether there has been any real work done on the baseline stuff for navalising a Typhoon - like undercarriage loading, corrosion resistance issues. It may well be that it would be a case of having to start from scratch, and it is anyones guess if we are going to be able to afford that in the near future. With the Rafale or the S'Hornet all of that work is already done. On the other hand the tabloid press would be jumping up and down screaming if we bought a French aircraft.... which almost makes me want it to happen just for the hilarity of watching the reaction.....

Supposedly a study was done to see if navalizing a Typhoon was do-able. What jet aircraft that was designed as a land based aircraft ever converted for carrier use? I can only think of one - the British Hawk - which became the T-45 Goshawk.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Vifam7

[Awacs]

Supposedly a study was done to see if navalizing a Typhoon was do-able. What jet aircraft that was designed as a land based aircraft ever converted for carrier use? I can only think of one - the British Hawk - which became the T-45 Goshawk.

Well, the Harrier spawned the Sea Harrier and AV-8* series, although those were significant enough redesigns that it is questionable whether they were "converted" as such. The VF-17 did spawn the F-18. I can't think of much off-hand that has gone straight from land onto ship in terms of long-term service. There are some that have gone the other way though - the Bucaneer adapted very happily to land-based service once the RN had packed away the last of our large carriers.

Karl

[F-ZeroOne]

The Lightning/Spitfire dogfight was because the RAF was about to potentially get involved in an overseas operation where the opposition might be using P-51s, so they wanted to see if such dissimilar combat would cause problems.

There was a study looking into navalising the Typhoon, but I don't know how comprehensive it was. Going by how often its suggested as an alternative to JSF, I'm guessing it decided that it was feasible.

The general rule seems to be that aircraft designed for naval use generally translate well to land use (F-18, F-4, Buccaneer etc) but rarely the other way round. The Harrier did have the advantage of generally eliminating the main reason why naval aircraft have to be built like bricks...