Jump to content

Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII


Recommended Posts

The snub nose on that radial engine plane is really throwing me; other than that I'd say it's almost dead on for an F4U Corsair.

It's definately got an inverted gull wing but the only aircraft I can find that had that wingplan and had that short a nose forward of the wing root is the A5M prototype which had fixed gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jaustin89 said:

The snub nose on that radial engine plane is really throwing me; other than that I'd say it's almost dead on for an F4U Corsair.

It's definately got an inverted gull wing but the only aircraft I can find that had that wingplan and had that short a nose forward of the wing root is the A5M prototype which had fixed gear.

I don't think it's an inverted gull wing. It only looks that way with how the wing root is shaped as it meets the fuselage. I think Sildani hit the nail on the head with KI-44. Everything matches from the shape of the wing, the stub nose radial engine, and the cannon emplacement.

 

Makes for interesting imagery and symbolism with planes from the big three Axis nations flying overhead while an allied plane sits on the ground looking up in defiance. 

762px-Nakajima_Ki-44-II.svg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been watching some videos on YouTube of people playing the flight combat simulator DCS, and noticed something interesting when people are flying the F-5E Tiger II - when the 20mm cannons are fired two little... hatches?... pop up in front of the cockpit. I'm presuming these are blast/gas deflectors, can anyone confirm and does any other fighter aircraft have a similar feature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaustin 89, the "hatches" are directly in front of the cockpit canopy on top of the nose. Cartridge ejectors is an interesting one, but the ejection ports would be so close to the canopy and airstream possibly blowing the spent cartridges into the intakes that I have trouble believing thats their purpose. "Hatches" is perhaps the wrong term, they're more like little "spoilers".

Ah, looking at this image:

J-3005.jpg

Theres two small pop-up hatches directly in front of the gun barrels, those may well be the ones - in the DCS videos they appear much nearer the cockpit canopy, because of the viewing angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at that I'm gonna go with pop up splitters to stabilize the airflow around the muzzles so it doesn't mess with the bullets trajectory. With the position of the guns on the nose I could easily see the airflow diverting bullets a bit without some form of correction.

Thinking about it I'm guessing that's also why most newer fighters have the gun in the wing root as the airflow is largely stable and in line with the plane's axis in that region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

What a beauty.

F14D ad.jpg

From what I've read, the APG-71 was ridiculously powerful. No radar among Naval aircraft came close to it until the Super Hornets were upgraded with the APG-79.

Edited by Shadow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2020 at 7:08 AM, F-ZeroOne said:

Jaustin 89, the "hatches" are directly in front of the cockpit canopy on top of the nose. Cartridge ejectors is an interesting one, but the ejection ports would be so close to the canopy and airstream possibly blowing the spent cartridges into the intakes that I have trouble believing thats their purpose. "Hatches" is perhaps the wrong term, they're more like little "spoilers".

Ah, looking at this image:

J-3005.jpg

Theres two small pop-up hatches directly in front of the gun barrels, those may well be the ones - in the DCS videos they appear much nearer the cockpit canopy, because of the viewing angle.

Interesting; that's something I've never seen before. It's similar to the retractable spoilers used in the B-1's bomb bays. Without them, I've been told, the bombs will 'float' in the bay rather than dropping out, such is the very streamlined airflow under the B-1's belly. I'd never given much thought to the wind's effects on bullets, especially since few modern American jets have their guns mounted in the nose, relying instead on side mounted Vulcans. Having them in the nose like that seems primo for aiming, but at the risk of having ejected casings striking the canopy. Apparently airflow over the nose is also a concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2020 at 9:08 AM, F-ZeroOne said:

Jaustin 89, the "hatches" are directly in front of the cockpit canopy on top of the nose. Cartridge ejectors is an interesting one, but the ejection ports would be so close to the canopy and airstream possibly blowing the spent cartridges into the intakes that I have trouble believing thats their purpose. "Hatches" is perhaps the wrong term, they're more like little "spoilers".

Ah, looking at this image:

J-3005.jpg

Theres two small pop-up hatches directly in front of the gun barrels, those may well be the ones - in the DCS videos they appear much nearer the cockpit canopy, because of the viewing angle.

they're not shell deflectors, they're blast deflectors, to make sure the windscreen/intakes dont get all gunsmokey.

the spent casing chutes are on the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fighter designs are always so impressive for how much stuff they pack into small areas. It makes them a royal PITA to work on, but you have to admire the folks that design and build these amazing machines. A tip o' the hat to the maintenance folks that keep them flying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virtual Burning Lake Airshow is happening on Twitch if anyone is interested:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2020 at 11:43 PM, slide said:

they're not shell deflectors, they're blast deflectors, to make sure the windscreen/intakes dont get all gunsmokey.

the spent casing chutes are on the bottom.

Came here to say this. Though I think that the idea is less to keep the gun smoke away from the canopy, and more to direct it away from the engine intakes.

 

if you’ll recall the A-10 prototypes had issues with flameouts due to gun exhaust entering the intakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2020 at 3:13 PM, Thom said:

Well, gotta say I love those tilt-rotors!

You and me both. As much maintenance is required to keep a tilt-rotor operational, that Boeing design looks nightmarish.  Bell made some improvements over the Osprey with this design as well, so they took the lessons learned and applied them to the Valor.  I hope they get the contract.

On 3/21/2020 at 6:30 PM, anime52k8 said:

The Sikorsky-boeing looks like a long lost concept design from the 1970's. kind of cool but not as sexy as the Bell.

Not in the slightest.  Other than the pusher prop, it's reminiscent of Russian helicopters, as they seem to favor the coaxial rotors design. But yeah, it kinda looks like a step backwards, technology wise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In today's dollars, and given the the costs of materials, equipment, and other resources, $10 mil is low cost, especially for govt/military projects. A little out of my budget, though. What's really disturbing to me is that that drone was developed to be a stealth target drone intended to be shot down by the AF, and that $10m is considered low cost for that purpose. 

I was watching the new season of Mega Machines last night, and they featured a 'flying car' concept in development by a British startup called Vertical Aerospace. More akin to a human-sized drone than the Spinner from Blade Runner, it's nonetheless a rather interesting aircraft that could prove revolutionary if they can bring it to a mass production stage. Anyway, the guy who started the company worked on F-1 racing cars, and applied those technologies to this project. He also recruited people from all over in the aviation industry to work for him. While it may not have the glitz of fighter aircraft, tech heads would probably be interested, as they're bringing a lot of cool technologies together to make it work. One aspect I thought was really cool was that all 12 props on their newest project are produced by a company in England that makes wooden props for older aircraft. They CAD milled the props due to their complex shape. It was pretty neat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

What's really disturbing to me is that that drone was developed to be a stealth target drone intended to be shot down by the AF, and that $10m is considered low cost for that purpose.

That's what I meant. Add another million for the AIM-120, and it's a pretty expensive fireworks from my perspective.

For comparison: An F-16 seems to start at $19m per unit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, electric indigo said:

That's what I meant. Add another million for the AIM-120, and it's a pretty expensive fireworks from my perspective.

For comparison: An F-16 seems to start at $19m per unit...

Yes, but a QF-16 won't be able to simulate a stealth threat from a peer state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...