Jump to content

Aircraft Vs Super Thread VI

Nied

By Nied
in Hall Of The Super Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

Noyhauser Pineapple Eater

Noyhauser

Posted
Posted

While Zvezda kits are hit-and-miss, it's really more of a "is it truly new, or a modified/copied version of a previous kit". The all-new ones are pretty much universally good. And I'm pretty sure there's no other PAK-FA kit to copy from...

Was it you that really liked the 787? I'm really mulling getting one after hearing your review of it.

I heard that Hasegawa is coming out with a new 1/72 Su-33 and I wouldn't be surprised if Fujimi gets to the T-50 sooner rather than later (After offering the F-35 and the F-22).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Hingtgen Super Dimension Member

David Hingtgen

Posted
Posted

Qantas A380 incident report summary: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/12/03/incredible-insights-into-the-saving-of-qf32-revealed-in-the-atsb-preliminary-report/

Reminds me a LOT of the first serious 747 incident (PAA, SFO), in that there were multiple failures across all systems, a long hold off-shore to figure out what still worked and what could be done, and overall being pretty close to losing the plane if anything else had gone wrong.

QF still says they'll fix it, and everyone knows Qantas will spend more than what the plane's worth to make it happen, but I still wonder if even Airbus can fix it, and if it could be recertified as fit to carry passengers again. A penetrated front spar is probably the single worst structural damage that a plane can sustain. In many planes, it's fatal. (airliners are technically required to survive it, but it's rarely proven--and half the time, despite all tests and calculations saying it can---they don't)

First they have to get it fixed up enough just to fly it back to Toulouse.

PS--not sure if I posted this before, but details of the damage: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/17/the-anatomy-of-the-airbus-a380-qf32-near-disaster/ The size of the A380 skews your sense of scale--the "little bulletholes" are the size of your fist, the bigger holes are the size of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Hingtgen Super Dimension Member

David Hingtgen

Posted
Posted

Yeah, that's one heck of a weird failure--engine won't die! They're lucky it was on the same side as the failed one, and the exploded one wasn't outboard.

If an outboard failed and the opposing outboard was stuck at a high setting---that is BAD, many a crash from similar situations on 4-engine airliners. (that would cause both extreme yaw and slideslip and some proverse roll)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Hingtgen Super Dimension Member

David Hingtgen

Posted
Posted

It's an A5, recovered quite intact in Russia---apparently they literally just found it sitting there in the woods some years ago. I know Paul Allen had a hand in restoring it. (unlimited money helps a lot)

Here's how they found it:

Fw-190.jpg

That was in amazingly good condition, considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Noyhauser Pineapple Eater

Noyhauser

Posted
Posted (edited)

If its part of the flying heritage collection then its Paul Allen's gig. You'd love to see the hangar they have in Seattle David.... all the WWII are flyable and in perfect condition.

I guess I'll have to make another trek down there to see this.

Edit: Actually there has always been one other flyable FW-190; The Heritage Collection has a D9 in airworthy condition, but its never flown. Truth be told I wouldn't want to fly any german plane after 1943, given the poor quality of work that was put into them.

Edited by Noyhauser
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Hingtgen Super Dimension Member

David Hingtgen

Posted
Posted

F-16's with CFT's are love/hate. I personally hate them. F-16 is the sleekest mass-production jet ever. This ruins that. Though that particular concept is sleeker than the current UAE and Israeli ones--fewer sensor bumps etc.

I kind of doubt the JSOW and SLAM-ER though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graham Super Dimension Member

Graham

Posted
Posted

With that big ugly intake, I've never considered standard F-16s' sleek and actually always quite disliked how they look and found them to be one of the ugliest US fighter jets ever.

However, I'm probably in the minority, here, but I actually like how F-16s' look with the CFTs. The general ugliness of the jet, combined with the lumps and bumps of the CFTs, combines to make a mean looking jet that looks all business.

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Retracting Head Ter Ter Bridge Bunny

Retracting Head Ter Ter

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am a fan of the F-16s' with CFTs and bumps and humps too. Gives a a very Macrossy FAST Pack look.

Always found the base F-16 a bit too curvy and non-muscular looking enough. Sure it was sleek, but it did not have that muscular yet graceful look of the F-15s and F-14s.

Would have thought David would have given the 'sleekest mass production' title to the F-5 though.

Back to that Fw-190 : So they found that thing just sitting there in the Russian forest? Nearly 70 years of sitting in the open and they managed to get that 801 fired up again?!?! Wow! Canopy looks like it wasn't flung off, was there a skeleton sitting in it?

I just wish they could get a pair of Jumo 004s fired up again. Always wondered how the original 262 sounded.

Edited by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VF-19 Bridge Bunny

VF-19

Posted
Posted

It's how F-16's reproduce. Eventually, that'll be another jet, and it'll split off of the original.

F-16s with CFTs are fugly. Interesting, but I like the look of a F-16 with minimal loadout. Full rounds for the guns, and a couple of missiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lynx7725 Pineapple Eater

Lynx7725

Posted
Posted

It's how F-16's reproduce. Eventually, that'll be another jet, and it'll split off of the original.

Yeah, but just before the splitting, it'll look like 2 F16 stacked on top of each other? Ewww. :)

F16, to me is usually functional. It's a point-defense aircraft, but over the years it just kept getting bigger and bigger. It's quite an amazing aircraft, you got to admit... outlasted most of its compatriots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VF-19 Bridge Bunny

VF-19

Posted
Posted (edited)

Why not? The Thunderbirds practiaclly stack them in mid-air...

Mind you, the image of a F-16 with a pacifier in the intake, a rattler on a missile rail, and a bonnet atop it's canopy does bring a big smile to my face.

Edited by VF-19
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warmaker Pineapple Eater

Warmaker

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's an A5, recovered quite intact in Russia---apparently they literally just found it sitting there in the woods some years ago. I know Paul Allen had a hand in restoring it. (unlimited money helps a lot)

Here's how they found it:

*snip picture*

That was in amazingly good condition, considering.

The pilot for that '190 was still listed as missing. Sad, but that's just the way it is and there was many more with that same fate. 2 places in WWII you didn't want to be downed aircrew: Eastern Front, because we know how brutal things were between the Germans and Russians, and in the Pacific for the same reasons... with the added bonus of all that ocean to be stranded in.

Edited by Warmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Retracting Head Ter Ter Bridge Bunny

Retracting Head Ter Ter

Posted
Posted

The pilot for that '190 was still listed as missing. Sad, but that's just the way it is and there was many more with that same fate. 2 places in WWII you didn't want to be downed aircrew: Eastern Front, because we know how brutal things were between the Germans and Russians, and in the Pacific for the same reasons... with the added bonus of all that ocean to be stranded in.

So they did not find his remains in the cockpit then? Looking at the pic, the canopy appears to be in the closed position, so I assume he crashed landed, and bothered to slide the canopy shut before going off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uxi SMS Squadron Leader

Uxi

Posted
Posted

This F-16 would be pretty cool... but they need to do something about the intake... kinda like the evolution in the F-18 changes to the Super-Bug

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Hingtgen Super Dimension Member

David Hingtgen

Posted
Posted

The F-16 is already on its second intake design (unless it's got PW engines, when it still uses the original). It's pretty darn-near perfect as it is--as the later, improved one is nigh-identical to the original. The F-16 was designed from the start with a modular intake assembly to allow for changes etc--that's why it was so easy to change to the 2nd (MCID) design. If anything newer was that much better, you can bet they would have upgraded it by now.

Intakes are over-rated in their effect on power/speed. Look at the Super Crusader---can easily outrun many planes with 'fancier' 'optimized' inlets with just a J75 for power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vifam7 New Edwards Test Pilot

Vifam7

Posted
Posted

Rather than a new intake, couldn't the F-16 use a new larger wing? With increasing number of things hanging and now CFTs on the back, it can't help wing loading. Dunno how difficult it'd be for LM to bring back the Agile Falcon or F-16XL though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Hingtgen Super Dimension Member

David Hingtgen

Posted
Posted

The F-16XL was an amazing plane, its load/range capabilities were insanely better than a stock F-16. Not sure exactly how it'd perform vs an F-15E though--IIRC they were quite close. The F-16XL would cost less to buy per plane, as it's smaller with just one engine---but the F-15E would cost a lot less to initially develop.

And you could imagine how much stuff a current F-16XL would have tacked on by now, it'd make the Block 60 look sleek...

NASA has both of the XL's, I know at least one still flies fairly often.

PS--the production version would have been F-16E and F-16F. Much like the F-101, I think the 2-seat version of the F-16 looks cooler.

PPS---an F-16 with a bigger wing is basically an F-2. 25% larger IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kalvasflam New Edwards Test Pilot

kalvasflam

Posted
Posted (edited)

Can you stretch an airliner too much? Yes, yes you can. I'd love to know the climb performance/TTW ratio...

http://qa.airliners.net/photo/Bombardier-Aerospace/Canadair-CL-600-2E25-Regional/1525641/L/

Interesting, I wonder how many pax that thing is designed for. If they stretch this just a bit more, wouldn't it be a gigantic step backward? I agree perfectly with the DC-9 comment there

With that big ugly intake, I've never considered standard F-16s' sleek and actually always quite disliked how they look and found them to be one of the ugliest US fighter jets ever.

However, I'm probably in the minority, here, but I actually like how F-16s' look with the CFTs. The general ugliness of the jet, combined with the lumps and bumps of the CFTs, combines to make a mean looking jet that looks all business.

Graham

If only one could enlarge the CFT a little more and slap a recessed missile bay on each side with an AMRAAM, that would do the trick. We can have a Silent Falcon, or should that be a Silent Viper?

Edited by kalvasflam
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Hingtgen Super Dimension Member

David Hingtgen

Posted
Posted

The CRJ1000 is a 100-seater. It is directly replacing the Fokker 100 with its first deliveries. (which itself replaced many a DC-9).

Soon it will be nothing but RJ's, except for over-water flights it seems.

Dear airlines: there is nothing "regional" about a Dallas-New York flight... (which according to my latest Delta timetable, is all they offer---that would have gotten you an L-1011 some years ago)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kalvasflam New Edwards Test Pilot

kalvasflam

Posted
Posted

Speaking of CFTs, I think that the Super Hornets could benefit significantly from CFTs. Not sure how they would set it up, but if they can do it for a single engined F-16, they should be able to do it for the Super Hornets. I think it would fit best on top. Again, may be with a recessed bay for an AMRAAM on each tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...