Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[seti88]

*chuckles*

[Thom]

I will have to share that!

[Big s]

6 hours ago, seti88 said:

*chuckles*

That’s a good one

[Dobber]

7 hours ago, seti88 said:

*chuckles*

You win Meme Monday! Love it.

Chris

[Thom]

Bad air accident in Texas.  A collision between a P-63 and a B-17, both aircraft down hard.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/reports-of-plane-crash-during-air-show-at-dallas-executive-airport/3123720/

 

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Thom

[505thAirborne]

RIP to the crew & passengers on board the B-17 Texas Rangers & the P-63.

Edited November 12, 2022 by 505thAirborne

[renegadeleader1]

My brother just told me. I feel sick.

[Knight26]

A sad day indeed, my thoughts are with the families.

[Valkyrie Hunter D]

It was an awful tragedy, my condolences to all the families affected.

[derex3592]

I live in Fort Worth and saw one of the 17's just the other day flying over. Incredibly sad tragedy. I saw the accident video on Twitter. Horrifying. Prayers to all the families.

[electric indigo]

I wonder how this could happen, with the P-63 steering right into the B-17 in bright daylight.

[Big s]

2 hours ago, electric indigo said:

I wonder how this could happen, with the P-63 steering right into the B-17 in bright daylight.

Some commentators on the multicam YouTube video I watched were saying it may have been the way the p-63 was banking created a blind spot and may not have seen the B-17 properly or at all

Whatever the cause, it was an absolute tragedy and shock to those watching 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Big s
.

[Dobber]

The P-63 has notoriously bad visibility. A retired USAF fighter pilot summed it up well with what he believes happened. The P-63 was following his lead ahead and to his left. Since he is in a good left bank and likely watching his lead fighter (that could be seen flying by ahead of the B-17 in some of the available videos) the P-63 could not see the B-17 at all. Still there is some form of failure in planning or controlling the flyby’s as they shouldn’t have been this close in the first place. IMO a lack of situation and spatial awareness. Just wanted to point this out as many think the P-63 just flew right into the bomber without looking,  when it was actually in a total blind spot from very early on in it’s turn.

Chris

Edited November 13, 2022 by Dobber

[Big s]

1 hour ago, Dobber said:

The P-63 has notoriously bad visibility. A retired USAF fighter pilot summed it up well with what he believes happened. The P-36 was following his lead ahead and to his left. Since he is in a good left bank and likely watching his lead fighter (that could be seen flying by ahead of the B-17 in some of the available videos) the P-36 could not see the B-17 at all. Still there is some form of failure in planning or controlling the flyby’s as they shouldn’t have been this close in the first place. IMO a lack of situation and spatial awareness. Just wanted to point this out as many think the P-36 just flew right into the bomber without looking,  when it was actually in a total blind spot from very early on in it’s turn.

Chris

I didn’t want to make it sound as as if it was the P-63 pilot at fault , just pointing out what those commentators were saying about the blind spot due to the direction it was banking. It’s really hard to tell who’s at fault at this point or even if it’s pilot error, bad planning or if mechanical failure had anything to do with this or if it was just bad timing. Right now it seems mostly speculation. Sadly, no matter what it’s an absolute tragedy 

[Dobber]

35 minutes ago, Big s said:

I didn’t want to make it sound as as if it was the P-63 pilot at fault , just pointing out what those commentators were saying about the blind spot due to the direction it was banking. It’s really hard to tell who’s at fault at this point or even if it’s pilot error, bad planning or if mechanical failure had anything to do with this or if it was just bad timing. Right now it seems mostly speculation. Sadly, no matter what it’s an absolute tragedy 

Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound like I was accusing you either. Just meant it as a generalization. 

[Thom]

Looks and sounds like a bad-timing incident, which is most likely, barring a mechanical failure in the 63.

[Big s]

3 hours ago, Dobber said:

Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound like I was accusing you either. Just meant it as a generalization. 

No worries, I just wanted to add a clarification 

[electric indigo]

Dance of the Mighty Dragons

IMO the most SF looking operational plane right now.

[electric indigo]

Did Bayraktar just make an unmanned J-20?

 

[M'Kyuun]

USAF unveils B-21 Raider stealth bomber.

[Scyla]

7 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

USAF unveils B-21 Raider stealth bomber.

I think the B-2 is still the better looking aircraft. 

[Thom]

5 hours ago, Scyla said:

I think the B-2 is still the better looking aircraft. 

Have to say I also like the B-2's stylling better as well, but as stealth goes, it's all in what you can't see.

[M'Kyuun]

TBH, I find this new bomber a bit underwhelming. I was hoping they'd trot out something sleek, stealthy, and very, very fast, not a downsized B-2 2.0. Perhaps it's just me, but the idea of a plane that can evade most ground defenses by virtue of velocity and acceleration is much more frightening than another subsonic Batwing. Too, as the tech continues to progress, I wouldn't even consider creating manned aircraft going forward; from a psychological POV, it's frightening, there are no crews in need of rescue in case bailout becomes necessary or they become captured, much more internal space can be utilized for sensors or weaponry, flight characteristics are unfettered from human limitations, the plane itself can be a bomb if necessary, the design itself isn't limited by human needs. IMHO, so far as combat aircraft are concerned, unmanned should be the only option.

[Firefox21]

As much as I'd like another supersonic bomber, think XB-70, B-58 and the unborn FB-12, it is the turtle that win the bomber race, the B-52 and Tu-95. I guess we are not going to see any supersonic bomber anytime soon if at all. The latest and probably the last is Tu-160, unless the Chinese comes up with some surprise.

[Thom]

It's all stealth over speed, esp when we're coming into the era of hypersonic missiles. Staying undetected is safer.

[M'Kyuun]

9 hours ago, Firefox21 said:

As much as I'd like another supersonic bomber, think XB-70, B-58 and the unborn FB-12, it is the turtle that win the bomber race, the B-52 and Tu-95. I guess we are not going to see any supersonic bomber anytime soon if at all. The latest and probably the last is Tu-160, unless the Chinese comes up with some surprise.

Don't forget the B-1B Lancer, which is still operational.

[M'Kyuun]

So, the pilot couldn't just turn off the engine after touching ground? Cut fuel? Throttle down?  Real heroes, these guys. Glad none of the folks just driving along were affected. 

[Valkyrie Hunter D]

That almost looks real. DCS?

[kalvasflam]

4 hours ago, Thom said:

It's all stealth over speed, esp when we're coming into the era of hypersonic missiles. Staying undetected is safer.

It's also a bit redundant at this point, think about when and why stealth was conceived.  In this day and age, you are better off with just a bomb truck, like what they were doing with the Rapid Dragon, except, even that concept is a waste of time, just get a dozen 747, convert them with rotary bay and strap some missiles on them.  The concept was around in the early 80s, and it's perfectly viable, and you can go one better by automating the cockpit so that its a UCAV missile truck.  Just stealth up the missiles a bit, and make sure it has an extended range.  Even the original ALCM had 1000 miles plus range. 

Penetrating air defenses sounds good until you realize that stealth isn't quite as good any more against more modern air defenses, and as pointed out, with hypersonic missiles, you hardly need that penetration any more unless you have to have a man in the loop making last minute targeting decisions.

 

 

[Thom]

1 hour ago, kalvasflam said:

It's also a bit redundant at this point, think about when and why stealth was conceived.  In this day and age, you are better off with just a bomb truck, like what they were doing with the Rapid Dragon, except, even that concept is a waste of time, just get a dozen 747, convert them with rotary bay and strap some missiles on them.  The concept was around in the early 80s, and it's perfectly viable, and you can go one better by automating the cockpit so that its a UCAV missile truck.  Just stealth up the missiles a bit, and make sure it has an extended range.  Even the original ALCM had 1000 miles plus range. 

Penetrating air defenses sounds good until you realize that stealth isn't quite as good any more against more modern air defenses, and as pointed out, with hypersonic missiles, you hardly need that penetration any more unless you have to have a man in the loop making last minute targeting decisions.

 

 

Well, there was talk a while ago about turning the B-1 into a into a bomb truck, B-1R. Love the acronym, Boner.

[Knight26]

6 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

It's also a bit redundant at this point, think about when and why stealth was conceived.  In this day and age, you are better off with just a bomb truck, like what they were doing with the Rapid Dragon, except, even that concept is a waste of time, just get a dozen 747, convert them with rotary bay and strap some missiles on them.  The concept was around in the early 80s, and it's perfectly viable, and you can go one better by automating the cockpit so that its a UCAV missile truck.  Just stealth up the missiles a bit, and make sure it has an extended range.  Even the original ALCM had 1000 miles plus range. 

Penetrating air defenses sounds good until you realize that stealth isn't quite as good any more against more modern air defenses, and as pointed out, with hypersonic missiles, you hardly need that penetration any more unless you have to have a man in the loop making last minute targeting decisions.

 

 

The problem with turning a 747 into a bomb/cruise missile truck is that you have now turned every airliner out there into a potential threat in an enemies eyes.  That was one of the reasons why the concept was ultimately killed.  Boeing and the Navy even had long discussions about that with the P-8, which is a sub hunting 737.  In that case however, since it is considered a "defensive" aircraft the decision was made to move forward, and its operational profile does not look like an airliner.  The Cruise Missile Carrying 747 would have been a purely offensive aircraft and its operational envelope would have made it disappear into typical air traffic, which was the point, but doing so paints a giant target on every airliner out there.

[kajnrig]

In other news, not sure if this was already mentioned or not, but the NTSB recently released an initial report on the Dallas airshow midair collision. I'll be honest, I didn't look too deeply into the initial incident, and seeing raw footage of it like you'll do here was a bit... jarring. Forewarned.

 

[AN/ALQ128]

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/12/5/bell-tiltrotor-wins-billion-dollar-helo-contract

Blackhawk replacement got chosen. Defiant-X was apparently running into a lot more teething issues than the Valour.

[Firefox21]

Nice, the tilt rotor looks a lot more bad-ass than the co-axial design. But this decision is not final, it can be challenged and who knows.

[Dobber]

On 12/4/2022 at 5:09 AM, Scyla said:

I think the B-2 is still the better looking aircraft. 

That was actually the B-2’s original configuration. After it was finalized and worked out by Northrop the Air Force changed it’s requirements for the B-2’s mission. IIRC it now need to be more low level…so where the air is thicker it needed a different shape to optimize performance. Costing a lot of money to redesign the wing to optimize performance again and work out all the “kinks”

Chris

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Dobber