David Hingtgen Posted September 4, 2016 Author Share Posted September 4, 2016 Anyone know anything about The accident at Cap Canaveral with SpaceX Falcon 9? The only official statements so far describe a problem during the upper-stage LOX loading. Oh no, not an 'accident' nor 'explosion'---that never happens with Space X. The official term is "rapid, unplanned disassembly". In other news, No comment needed nor necessary: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sildani Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Isn't that the next-generation all-moving tailplane? Now with yaw authority! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted September 5, 2016 Author Share Posted September 5, 2016 Technically, I think the change in effective sweep angle would alter the downforce of left vs right tailplanes, and thus affect roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanner Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 yikes! that looks expensive! someones gonna lose their job over this for sure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted September 5, 2016 Author Share Posted September 5, 2016 NASA gets all the cool planes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sildani Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Yeah, I still love the F-16XL. Distinctive design that worked really well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanner Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Yeah, I still love the F-16XL. Distinctive design that worked really well. definitely my favorite F-16 configuration! shame it never went into production.. I also really liked the F-15 with those canards too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 (edited) No idea if this linked image is genuine, but if it is, I think thats the weirdest missile loadout I've ever seen on a F-14... http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/F-14-Tomcat-180.jpg Edited September 10, 2016 by F-ZeroOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted September 10, 2016 Author Share Posted September 10, 2016 That's totally valid. And CG-wise, preferred to carrying Phoenixes aft. If the aft pallets are loaded, they will be the first to empty their weapons. It's actually about my fave combo, I do it on models when possible. About the rarest combo is 4 Sidewinders, 2 Phoenix, 1 Sparrow. (You could actually do 3/2/2 I think, balance wouldn't be too off but have never see it so likely not a legal load----3/3/1 likely physically fits but would have lateral balance issues for sure I think) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Sorry, David, slightly baffled, what do you mean "first to empty their weapons"? Why is that an issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Confuses Gamlin Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Unloading the front pallets before the rear ones will noticeably shift the center of gravity rearward, which will adversely affect stability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areaseven Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Do you want a YouTube Channel that gives you info on fighter jets and experimental aircraft? WELL, TOO BAD!!! Because this channel is on hiatus for the rest of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain america Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 I haven't followed aircraft development much in the last 20 years, but I did stumble onto something rather interesting recently with regards to the venerable F-14. I remember even back before it was retired that naysayers would talk-down the capabilities of the AIM-54, saying that it was really only useful for hitting large, slow bombers and that fighters could easily evade the missile. Well it seems that veteran Iranian pilots and researchers have brought some interesting information to that old debate. It certainly surprised me! Also, I found this: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142 This part made me tingle in my special place: "Even without thrust vectoring, the aerodynamic enhancements found on the ASF-14 would allow the jet to reach over 77 degrees of sustained AoA, but thrust vectoring was also to be part of the new design which would have made it the most maneuverable fighter of all time." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Alot of the issues that plagued the AIM-54 when used in actual combat were due to extended periods in storage from I've read. In testing, the missile was quite successful. If the AIM-152 AAAM had become a reality, they would have had a missile with the same range but much less weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vifam7 Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Also, I found this: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142 This part made me tingle in my special place: "Even without thrust vectoring, the aerodynamic enhancements found on the ASF-14 would allow the jet to reach over 77 degrees of sustained AoA, but thrust vectoring was also to be part of the new design which would have made it the most maneuverable fighter of all time." Mostly nonsense. F-14 fanboy fantasy talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nazareno2012 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Alot of the issues that plagued the AIM-54 when used in actual combat were due to extended periods in storage from I've read. In testing, the missile was quite successful. If the AIM-152 AAAM had become a reality, they would have had a missile with the same range but much less weight. Why not use Meteor instead? It is basically the modern equivalent to the AIM-152 and could theoretically be integrated on the F/A-18 Hornet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) This Confuses Gamlin, thanks for the explanation. Sorry, David, I saw "CG" in your reply but my brain read it as "Computer Generated" and not "Centre of Gravity" (yes, should have guessed from context)... Meteor would obviously be an option for a long range missile requirement, and I'm sure some of the F-35 partner nations want to integrate it but might suffer from "not invented here" syndrome. Edited September 12, 2016 by F-ZeroOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nazareno2012 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Meteor would obviously be an option for a long range missile requirement, and I'm sure some of the F-35 partner nations want to integrate it but might suffer from "not invented here" syndrome. MBDA, the manufacturer of Meteor has a US subsidiary, and Meteor could be produced in the US. In fact, it is in their US product catalog. Now producing it in the US is one thing, breaking Raytheon's dominance is another Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) I guess Meteors best bet is that its more-or-less an "off-the-shelf" solution, possibly more so if they get that Japanese AESA seeker head thats been mooted. I'm not sure off the top of my head how it compares to a Raytehon offering, which I presume would be a variant of AMRAAM? Edited September 14, 2016 by F-ZeroOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted September 15, 2016 Author Share Posted September 15, 2016 Found it---the weird winged bomb at the USAF Armament Museum is (possibly the one and only) GBU-20: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/mgws.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain america Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 Mostly nonsense. F-14 fanboy fantasy talk. Maybe, maybe not. The general airframe design was already extremely good to begin with. An all new manufacture with greater use of composites, modern flight control system, radar, F135 engines w/MATV nozzles and updated wing glove could very well produce a scary-agile fighter, not to mention a significant improvement in combat range and supercruise capability. So many of the later designs had to make compromises to house weapons internally (weight penalty) and maintain low-observability. I remember back in the early days of the F-22, someone affiliated with the program said that the F-22 as actually LESS agile than the F-15 if not for its thrust-vectoring nozzles. The F-35 is probably in a similar situation. I can't help wondering if this current line of thinking isn't a déjà -vu of the massive blunder that was the gun-less F-4 back in the Vietnam era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 David, thanks for ID' ing that bom... missil... thing? Boeing have revealed their TX contender, immediately voted "Most Likely To Star As Enemy Aircraft In An 'Iron Eagle' Reboot": http://www.boeing.com/features/2016/09/tx-rollout-09-16.page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizman Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 So..... how is the Textron Scorpion doing? I doubt a smaller company will get the government contract but they will probably put a fighter in just to see what happens. I'm pretty sure they have been doing flight tests for the past few years, the T-X competition sounds right up their alley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 According to Wikipedia, although they initially offered it they later pulled out due to changing requirements; apparently they would now need a clean sheet design to meet the new programme goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nazareno2012 Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 I personally think the KAI T-50 will most likely be chosen, as it is a proven design in service already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted September 15, 2016 Author Share Posted September 15, 2016 T-50? That'd rock! Oh, wait, THAT T-50, not PAK-FA's.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thom Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 Maybe, maybe not. The general airframe design was already extremely good to begin with. An all new manufacture with greater use of composites, modern flight control system, radar, F135 engines w/MATV nozzles and updated wing glove could very well produce a scary-agile fighter, not to mention a significant improvement in combat range and supercruise capability. Careful, you might give someone a great idea for a 'What-If' build! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain america Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Careful, you might give someone a great idea for a 'What-If' build! Duuude! If I had time to build models I'd scratchbuild that sucker in 1/32. It should theoretically be feasible to increase the missile load from 8 to 10 or 11 as well, given the shorter fins of the AMRAAM and weight savings over the AIM-54. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Maybe, maybe not. The general airframe design was already extremely good to begin with. An all new manufacture with greater use of composites, modern flight control system, radar, F135 engines w/MATV nozzles and updated wing glove could very well produce a scary-agile fighter, not to mention a significant improvement in combat range and supercruise capability. So many of the later designs had to make compromises to house weapons internally (weight penalty) and maintain low-observability. I remember back in the early days of the F-22, someone affiliated with the program said that the F-22 as actually LESS agile than the F-15 if not for its thrust-vectoring nozzles. The F-35 is probably in a similar situation. I can't help wondering if this current line of thinking isn't a déjà -vu of the massive blunder that was the gun-less F-4 back in the Vietnam era. I think even uprated -129 engines would have been adequate. Don't think the F-14 needed to be Flanker or Raptor agile. I think further updates to the APG-71 (AESA capability) and IRST along with an actual replacement for the AIM-54 would have made the cat a nightmare adversary for any opposing air force into the 21st century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vifam7 Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 (edited) Maybe, maybe not. The general airframe design was already extremely good to begin with. An all new manufacture with greater use of composites, modern flight control system, radar, F135 engines w/MATV nozzles and updated wing glove could very well produce a scary-agile fighter, not to mention a significant improvement in combat range and supercruise capability. So many of the later designs had to make compromises to house weapons internally (weight penalty) and maintain low-observability. I remember back in the early days of the F-22, someone affiliated with the program said that the F-22 as actually LESS agile than the F-15 if not for its thrust-vectoring nozzles. The F-35 is probably in a similar situation. I can't help wondering if this current line of thinking isn't a déjà -vu of the massive blunder that was the gun-less F-4 back in the Vietnam era. I just have a hard time believing that all of those improvements can be made to fit, all while not substantially increasing size, weight, (even with greater use of composites), and cost. Especially weight - the one thing that always seems to grow in every aircraft program. IIRC, the F-22's wings were designed for high speed flight and not particularly for low speed maneuvering hence the reason why thrust vectoring was added. Edited September 16, 2016 by Vifam7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain america Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 (edited) I just have a hard time believing that all of those improvements can be made to fit, all while not substantially increasing size, weight, (even with greater use of composites), and cost. Especially weight - the one thing that always seems to grow in every aircraft program. IIRC, the F-22's wings were designed for high speed flight and not particularly for low speed maneuvering hence the reason why thrust vectoring was added. To be fair, it would have to be an all new airframe designed with new systems in mind, utilizing the F-14's outer shape and overall aerodynamics only. I could be wrong, but I think that avionics are a little bit like operating systems in that you start off with an initial system and then as new threats/missions emerge, patches have to be implemented, and with fighters, that means more boxes and widgets which take up weight and space inside the airframe, and sometimes updates are limited because they have to be backwards-compatible with the original system. The older a system is, the more "patches" it requires. That said, if you're starting from a clean slate with all new systems, that can be a huge advantage. I think that the Russians have/had a useful approach when designing the SU-27 in that they felt that the aerodynamic design had to be excellent to start with, and that whatever gimmicks are added (thrust-vectoring, stealth, etc) should only enhance/complement the existing design. That's my mindset, and something I think US designers have strayed away from. It doesn't mean that my ideas are necessarily better, maybe it would be a total flop. I do think the ideas are worth exploring though. Edited September 16, 2016 by captain america Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vifam7 Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 (edited) I was just thinking that had the Navy selected the navalized F-16 rather than the Hornet, what if they had also jumped on the F-16XL program and made a navalized version of that? If the Navy had a navalized XL, maybe they wouldn't have had to purchase the Super Hornet and had enough money for more F-14Ds or the NATF... Ah~ what if.... Edited September 16, 2016 by Vifam7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Considering what it took to make the YF-17 into the F/A-18 in the first place, I suspect the end result would be about the same... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazinger Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 https://m.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/533h7q/an_f22_raptor_pulling_so_many_gs_the_low_pressure/?utm_source=mweb_redirect&compact=true F22's poop rainbows, much like unicorns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobber Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 Cool picture! Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.