F-ZeroOne Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Just a historical note about the T-4 - theres a famous story, possibly more of a legend, that Stalin mandated that it had to be an exact copy - to the extent that the airframe included copies of holes that had been drilled by mistake in the original... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekko Basara Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Just a historical note about the T-4 - theres a famous story, possibly more of a legend, that Stalin mandated that it had to be an exact copy - to the extent that the airframe included copies of holes that had been drilled by mistake in the original... I also heard that the rudder pedals, which were cast pieces, still included the Boeing logo. Of course, when you think about it, it would actually have taken more work to modify a mold taken from the original piece in order to remove the logo than to simply leave it intact, so maybe that's not just a case of slavish replication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 The story I heard about the Tu-4 was that the design was such an exacting copy of the B-29, it had jury-rigged repairs of some battle damage, built into the design, including some holes that were punched into it from AA fire that were deemed to not be structural liabilities when the plane was being fixed between missions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 The Tu-4 is the basis for the "russian copies" myth. Yes the Tu-4 was an unabashed copy of the, then, most advanced airframe in the world, the B-29 and it put the russians on an almost equal footing with the west technologically, but like with all things, the tech diverged and took its own path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electric indigo Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 We're still waiting for the chinese YF-23... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 We're still waiting for the chinese YF-23... Not going to happen, pre-internet design, and all the design files are locked up. THey would need to get physical access. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vifam7 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I'm more interested about what Japan might be developing as the F-3. http://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-prepares-designs-its-next-fighter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 Should have just sold them the F-22 years ago. Far better to give our allies stealth, than have China just steal it from us... Anyways----I'm getting a YF-30 vibe from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I hate to burst any bubbles, but the reason we never sold the F-22 to other nations, beyond security, we knew it was flawed from the get go and didn't want that getting out. The F-22 is a marvelous piece of tech and an innovative stealth design, but has some serious fundamental flaws that are just now reaching public attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electric indigo Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 So instead of an overpriced F-16 derivate the JSDF will develop an overpriced F-22 derivate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I hate to burst any bubbles, but the reason we never sold the F-22 to other nations, beyond security, we knew it was flawed from the get go and didn't want that getting out. The F-22 is a marvelous piece of tech and an innovative stealth design, but has some serious fundamental flaws that are just now reaching public attention. Are we talking about the avionics? Because those were fairly apparent early on, but the issues with the design, and lack of gov't spending have really killed a proper fix. I also believe that this is why the F-22 production was capped; it would require an expensive redesign to build additional avionics sets. Given this and the other issues, I wouldn't be surprised if the F-22 fails to reach its planned life and is retired early (like in 15 years). I hope I'm wrong but as someone who has been keenly interested in the file for the last decade, I don't hold out much hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted November 27, 2014 Author Share Posted November 27, 2014 All the more reason to have just picked the -23 in the first place... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 What is wrong with the F-22? Or at least what are the ones that are coming to public attention now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I'm more interested about what Japan might be developing as the F-3. http://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-prepares-designs-its-next-fighter Needed: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 All the more reason to have just picked the -23 in the first place... Wouldn't that have had the same issue, though? I recall reading somewhere that one reason the -22 was picked over the -23 is that the YF-23s avionics were more "off-the-shelf" (as it was a prototype) whereas the YF-22s were more representative of a production example. Not sure how accurate that is though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electric indigo Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Needed: Did you mean: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 While I'm sure the YF-23 would have had its own issues, I think in the long run, it's simpler design (lack of vector nozzles) would have been more cost-effective. I also think it could have accomadated a larger weapons loudout as opposed to the 22 which we know had to have compartments made for the AIM-9. The YF120 engines would have been perfect for an F-23. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Did you mean: Think Wikipedia buddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 All the more reason to have just picked the -23 in the first place... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole issue with the F-22's avionics the fact that it runs on antiquated late-1980's computer hardware and software. If so, why would a hypothetical F-23 in 2014 not suffer from a similar problem given that it was also developed in the 1980's and would have used similar computer tech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electric indigo Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Ladies and Gentlemen, have some Vulcan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekko Basara Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 i can't quite make out the pilot's ears. Are you sure he's Vulcan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raptormesh Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 She always looks like some sci-fi jet which is part of the charm for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 A slightly shorter nose and she'd practically be a flying wing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 To be honest, I've always been more partial to the Victor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 A production YF-23 would has suffered similar issues as the F-22, due to it being the front running 5th gen fighter, but with some important differences. There area fundamental design problems with the F-22 due to its overall configuration. If you ever meet an F-22 pilot ask them how loud it gets when they open the sidewinder bay. F-22s have always flown with a tight leash as well in regards to using thrust vectoring or demoing the aircraft's maneuverability, there are reasons for this. Let's not even get into the oxygen system issues. Northrup, on the whole, is more willing to implement design changes based on obsolesce than Lockheed, especially to Avionics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobber Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember from the YF-23 video that is on the web that they said it was designed to be easily update-able in regards to avionics ect. Sorry, just don't feel like watching the hr long video again to confirm. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley424 Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) So a couple weeks ago, some Russian Bears did a little orbit of Guam's airspace. Then a couple days later a couple F-22s came out to do intercept training. Coincidence, I think not. We were tracking the Bears on radar the whole time and knew they were coming our direction beforehand. Seeing a flight of F22s do an unrestricted climb to FL280 is a sight to behold. They reach that about 10 miles off the departure end. An interesting week at ZUA. Edited December 1, 2014 by Smiley424 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Crazy Turks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltane70 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I bet some people were thinking, "Holy crap, he's going to land on me!!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electric indigo Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) That was a member of the Soloturk acrobatic team. Here's another take: Pretty nifty paintjob, btw: Edited December 2, 2014 by electric indigo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 That SOB should be grounded for pulling a stunt like that, much lower and he would have killed someone, assuming he didn't crash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miles316 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Does anyone know how a degrading paint scheme on a military aircraft affects the flying characteristics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scyla Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Does anyone know how a degrading paint scheme on a military aircraft affects the flying characteristics? Red 'uns go faster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 3, 2014 Author Share Posted December 3, 2014 Does anyone know how a degrading paint scheme on a military aircraft affects the flying characteristics? Not enough to be concerned about much. Concorde is supposed to be kept glossy/smooth, but that's about all I've ever heard. XB-70 had horrible paint problems, but never directly affected it AFAIK. Sure looked bad, but that's about it I think. Some airliners that switched from metal skin to composite skin for some areas for weight savings----the airlines requested that the composite areas be puttied over, for a smoother appearance! (as the "weave" in the composite was visible through the paint). So surface imperfections that small didn't seem to matter aerodynamically, as otherwise the manufacturers wouldn't have made the change. I presume mainly due to boundary-layer effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Not enough to be concerned about much. Concorde is supposed to be kept glossy/smooth, but that's about all I've ever heard. XB-70 had horrible paint problems, but never directly affected it AFAIK. Sure looked bad, but that's about it I think. Some airliners that switched from metal skin to composite skin for some areas for weight savings----the airlines requested that the composite areas be puttied over, for a smoother appearance! (as the "weave" in the composite was visible through the paint). So surface imperfections that small didn't seem to matter aerodynamically, as otherwise the manufacturers wouldn't have made the change. I presume mainly due to boundary-layer effects. Coming from automotive, this is pretty much how it works. While a smoother finish theoretically should be slipperier through air, drag coefficient doesn't really change based on paint condition. Boundary layer stuff happens, especially at higher speeds, and that takes care of smaller surface area aberrations. Looking at fighter aircraft, they seem to react just fine to rough matte finishes that gloss over in areas due to friction, and that's the rough pinnacle of flight characteristics. So I'd assume it's similar to automotive in this regard. Aero is not that sensitive in practice, I suppose. Coming back around to the Israeli stunt pilot, I don't think he should be punished for flying low on the glide slope. As if this kind of landing stunt doesn't happen all the time. 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.