Jump to content
Chewey

Just cause we have a bunch of airplane lovers

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, TexasPilot71 said:

Yeah, I was more speaking of the ones in the first photo and the last.  The look more like parade floats than something that can fly without some serious electronic tech.  I know nothing about the arms trading game so I certainly can't comment intelligently about that topic.  I'm guessing we have varying levels of allies...some we will trade certain tech with and others that we don't.  I mean, Russia is an ally but we can't even have a telephone conversation with them!  :D

LOL!  Nice slide in there. :D  I know what you mean, they could be props.  The Iranians are quite notorious for doing exactly that.  As you know quite well lol, I follow military aviation much more than civil but a funny story:  you know -- and I'm sure you've heard of the Russian SAM systems the S-300, 400 and now they have developed the 500.  The number somewhat corresponds with the amount of kilometers one of those missiles can bring down an aircraft.  They also toute them as very difficult to defend against which is a huge reason why Turkey has ordered quite a few batteries of the S-400 which caused the initial rift between it and the US which ended with Congress denying Turkeyand from buying 130 F-35s!!!  Yet they're still adamant about buying the Russian system at the risk of losing a HUGE order of supposedly the greatest fighter jet out there.  I think the Turks are crazy and are playing a game of chicken with the US.

Then back in 2012, the Iranians claimed they had bought the S-300 and the funny part is that they paraded one of them, and we all laughed at them because they were clearly not the real thing and total props. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hatem said:

Then back in 2012, the Iranians claimed they had bought the S-300 and the funny part is that they paraded one of them, and we all laughed at them because they were clearly not the real thing and total props. :D

I think I remember that!  It was SO obvious.  LOL!  Speaking of military aviation, you should check out this simulator below.  They have a few free aircraft, but the A-10C and  F/A-18 are TOTALLY worth the extra coin.  Get you a good throttle and stick and check it out.  I have Oculus Rift S (Virtual Reality) and it's like you're sitting in the cockpit!

www.digitalcombatsimulator.com

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TexasPilot71 said:

I think I remember that!  It was SO obvious.  LOL!  Speaking of military aviation, you should check out this simulator below.  They have a few free aircraft, but the A-10C and  F/A-18 are TOTALLY worth the extra coin.  Get you a good throttle and stick and check it out.  I have Oculus Rift S (Virtual Reality) and it's like you're sitting in the cockpit!

www.digitalcombatsimulator.com 

I like it!  Very realistic.  I like the part where the P-51s are getting ready to take off in the video.  When you first open the page and see the French Mirage 2000 wow, one of the most beautiful aircraft ever and I could never understand the dynamics of how a delta-winged aircraft with only flaps and ailerons can be that maneuverable.  I mean once they ended the Mirage and started building the Rafale, at least that went to the delta-canard combo and the canards basically acted like the horizontal stabilizer which is a HUGE moveable surface that affects maneuverability.  But the Mirage, without any functioning canards was quite maneuverable with just its delta wings.  Granted the Rafale took maneuverability to another level, but still, amazing how the strictly delta winged Mirage was so maneuverable and that's the first one that shows up on that page in your link.

Speaking of Chinese, their response to the new 5th generation fighter jet is doing rather well.  I think they have 28 active J-20s already! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Algerian Air Force (Al Quwwat aljawwiya aljaza’eriiya) MiG-29 Fulcrum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite plane is the SAAB Draken J 35.  They were used  forever at a jet pilot training school in the California desert. Small, very nimble, little bird with very low repairs .  Very quick at 1320 mph Mach 2 at 35000 feet. Could carry 75% of the weight of a empty plane. As a ground attack mission. Take off & land on any decent 2 lane paved road. Top view it looks like Darth Vader private jet on Earth Had a 40 year active service life.  A great odd ball ahead of its time.  Much like the Avro Vulcan bomber.  Double Deltas are very good at lifting loads with modest engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2019 at 3:33 PM, SST said:

Algerian Air Force (Al Quwwat aljawwiya aljaza’eriiya) MiG-29 Fulcrum

Nice.  Can you pronounce that in Arabic? lol.  Their MiG-29 fleet is the older, earlier models like the As & Bs and I think they're retired them but kept the S models active but unfortunately those are still older models as evidenced by the nasty, black smoke those RD-33 engines produced at the time until the Russians finally figured out what the US and French and Brits were doing using "smokeless" engines.  Not the newer MiG-29s and specifically the 29M/M2 which is the lesser variant of the newest of that line in the MiG-35.

But here's the interesting part - would a low flyby like that ever be allowed by or at any US air force base?  I remember back when the Berlin wall fell and everyone was in love with the other and the US sent a squadron of F-16s to either the Ukraine or one of the Russian states at the time and did a swapping of flying in the other's jet and one of the US Captains made a comment that the when the pilot did an inverted flight OVER the runway and the base itself, he was shocked that had that been done on a USAF airbase, the pilot might've been more than disciplined and might've even lost his wings.  Safety standards are a lot more stricter and followed in the United States and most European countries than those buying and being trained by Russia.  I thought that was pretty interesting stuff.

20 hours ago, cyclops2 said:

Double Deltas are very good at lifting loads with modest engines.

I thought the Viggen (below) had the double delta, not the Drakken?  They're both amazing and easy to confuse.

See the source image

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's gotta be doing something really cool...or something really mundane that they keep secret anyway just to mess with everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like a drone space shuttle with how small it is but what I love in that pic are the guys in the white suits doing something secret reminds me of Close Encounters of the Third Kind LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 8:04 PM, Chewey said:

It's gotta be doing something really cool...or something really mundane that they keep secret anyway just to mess with everyone.

Woooops!  A freshly delivered F-35 to the Netherlands and the Dutch were giving it the usual fire-truck water treatment but BOTH trucks accidentally had their settings on FOAM retardant!!!  You DEFINITELY don't see this every day!  Just yesterday.  I can only guess what the pilot was saying at this point.  WTF!?! :haha-7383:   They did even eventually stop and wash it off but man to they have a lot of work to do to get into every section of how far those intakes absorbed that stuff.  Water is one thing for those F-135 engines but foam retardant?  Ouch.

F35FoamParty.jpg?fit=1200%2C669&ssl=1

Typically you see most boats and even ships up to a certain size whenever they take a sharp turn, whether to port or starboard, the hull would tilt to the same side.

I've always been amazed when I watch aircraft carriers doing they're high speed turns during drills and qualifications etc. that they tilt to the opposite side.  I'm sure there is a litany of reasons with ballast tanks and hull design and I think mostly because of size.  But this is certainly an odd looking but great picture of the Gerald R. Ford doing a high speed turn. 

I know they list it's top speed as 30 knots but I think he goes a bit faster because you would think that would be classified info but it's on Wiki and other sites as well.  So why do you think it tilt to the opposite side?  Lack of heavy V bottom?  Great video in this link: https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-navy-releases-incredible-video-of-100000-tonne-ship-high-speed-turns.html

U.S. Navy releases incredible video of 100,000-tonne ship high-speed turns

Real F-18s and F-35s or mockups?  No wonder these things cost $12.5 billion!

CVN-78_Artist_Image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hatem said:

Woooops!  A freshly delivered F-35 to the Netherlands and the Dutch were giving it the usual fire-truck water treatment but BOTH trucks accidentally had their settings on FOAM retardant!!!  You DEFINITELY don't see this every day!  Just yesterday.  I can only guess what the pilot was saying at this point.  WTF!?! :haha-7383:   They did even eventually stop and wash it off but man to they have a lot of work to do to get into every section of how far those intakes absorbed that stuff.  Water is one thing for those F-135 engines but foam retardant?  Ouch.

F35FoamParty.jpg?fit=1200%2C669&ssl=1

Typically you see most boats and even ships up to a certain size whenever they take a sharp turn, whether to port or starboard, the hull would tilt to the same side.

I've always been amazed when I watch aircraft carriers doing they're high speed turns during drills and qualifications etc. that they tilt to the opposite side.  I'm sure there is a litany of reasons with ballast tanks and hull design and I think mostly because of size.  But this is certainly an odd looking but great picture of the Gerald R. Ford doing a high speed turn. 

I know they list it's top speed as 30 knots but I think he goes a bit faster because you would think that would be classified info but it's on Wiki and other sites as well.  So why do you think it tilt to the opposite side?  Lack of heavy V bottom?  Great video in this link: https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-navy-releases-incredible-video-of-100000-tonne-ship-high-speed-turns.html

U.S. Navy releases incredible video of 100,000-tonne ship high-speed turns

Real F-18s and F-35s or mockups?  No wonder these things cost $12.5 billion!

CVN-78_Artist_Image.jpg

Back in grad school my professor was working on some dynamic controls for fighter jets.  He was part of the certification process and had to join the manufacturer of the jet on a carrier to prove out the control system.  Anyway, the top speed that is given is very conservative.  The numbers he was designing to we at least 30% higher than the top speed that was in the current issue of Jane's reference books at the time (yes, being geeky engineers we looked it up).  And they had to prove out that design point.  He said it was an interesting experience being on something that large moving closer to 40 to 45 knots.   He also said the carrier did a reverse run for something too.  He said they go go surprisingly fast backwards, not full forward speed, but fast considering they basically have a barn door for a rear end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fire retardant probably washed off the radar reflective paint and rendered the plane useless.

My guess for the tilting of any ship is centrifugal force and top heavy all pushing in the opposite direction of the turn.

Maybe modern ships are  doing what modern railroads are doing....TILT technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 3:03 PM, Roady68 said:

Back in grad school my professor was working on some dynamic controls for fighter jets.  He was part of the certification process and had to join the manufacturer of the jet on a carrier to prove out the control system.

Unless you're in your 60's which I doubt you are, he wasn't working on the F-4 Phantom or A-4 Skyhawk since those predate that decade by quite a bit and since you didn't mention which fighter jet and given as many clues as possible, I'm thinking it was the original F/A-18 Hornet.  :)  Either way or one would've been pretty cool.

On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 3:03 PM, Roady68 said:

Anyway, the top speed that is given is very conservative.

Especially with these big ticket items.  Even things like the speed of the AIM-120 missile and things of that sort is never given their true capabilities.  Why give the enemy any advantage and when the US sells some of these sensitive equipment to allies, they make them sign a litany of guarantees not to share any information with anyone.  The CISMOA Act comes to mind.  Countries like Pakistan and Egypt and India have to sign that before any of that stuff is agreed to.  Interestingly enough, some don't and end up with neutered or castrated systems specifically for that reason. 

On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 3:03 PM, Roady68 said:

And they had to prove out that design point.  He said it was an interesting experience being on something that large moving closer to 40 to 45 knots

Ah, he gave something away there! :D 

On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 3:03 PM, Roady68 said:

 He also said the carrier did a reverse run for something too.  He said they go go surprisingly fast backwards, not full forward speed, but fast considering they basically have a barn door for a rear end.

Awesome stuff.  Yeah these carriers basically have flat transoms the size of 4 houses (or more) put together!  Even the concept that they would need to reverse at high speeds is amazing in of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 6:39 PM, Hatem said:

Unless you're in your 60's which I doubt you are, he wasn't working on the F-4 Phantom or A-4 Skyhawk since those predate that decade by quite a bit and since you didn't mention which fighter jet and given as many clues as possible, I'm thinking it was the original F/A-18 Hornet.  :)  Either way or one would've been pretty cool.

Especially with these big ticket items.  Even things like the speed of the AIM-120 missile and things of that sort is never given their true capabilities.  Why give the enemy any advantage and when the US sells some of these sensitive equipment to allies, they make them sign a litany of guarantees not to share any information with anyone.  The CISMOA Act comes to mind.  Countries like Pakistan and Egypt and India have to sign that before any of that stuff is agreed to.  Interestingly enough, some don't and end up with neutered or castrated systems specifically for that reason. 

Ah, he gave something away there! :D 

Awesome stuff.  Yeah these carriers basically have flat transoms the size of 4 houses (or more) put together!  Even the concept that they would need to reverse at high speeds is amazing in of itself.

Well, yes, it was an F-18 Hornet. :D I can probably share a bit more because some of this stuff is common knowledge, but planes that are fly by wire, can sometimes have software installed that make them act like another plane.  The control systems we worked on had to do with the control of the elevators.  The F-18 was set up to mimic another, to be developed, plane. This plane is actually out now.  Its been about 26 years since Grad school (puts me in very early 50s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2019 at 3:03 PM, Roady68 said:

Back in grad school my professor was working on some dynamic controls for fighter jets.  He was part of the certification process and had to join the manufacturer of the jet on a carrier to prove out the control system.  Anyway, the top speed that is given is very conservative.  The numbers he was designing to we at least 30% higher than the top speed that was in the current issue of Jane's reference books at the time (yes, being geeky engineers we looked it up).  And they had to prove out that design point.  He said it was an interesting experience being on something that large moving closer to 40 to 45 knots.   He also said the carrier did a reverse run for something too.  He said they go go surprisingly fast backwards, not full forward speed, but fast considering they basically have a barn door for a rear end.

My nephew was on The Enterprise which I'm sure you know was the first Nuclear carrier, which was commissioned with 4 reactors. The fleet could not keep pace so during the first retrofit, they removed 2 or the 4. Maybe they would take us water skiing. All 5,000 of us.  W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 3:09 PM, SST said:

The fire retardant probably washed off the radar reflective paint and rendered the plane useless.

Did you watch the video?  It was kinda funny because the pilot just stopped right as soon as his windshield was covered with foam and he couldn't see anymore lol.  Very strange mistake by the two fire trucks, though.

On 11/2/2019 at 3:09 PM, SST said:

My guess for the tilting of any ship is centrifugal force and top heavy all pushing in the opposite direction of the turn.

I would say your answer is probably spot on.  Even though the deck is a flat platform, they sill are top-heavy boats.  That deck also cantilevers quite a bit which probably adds to all that physics.  BTW, I aced geometry but sucked bad with Algebra! :D I did enjoy physics but had average scores since there was quite a bit of algebraic applications.  Geometry was my strength.

On 11/2/2019 at 3:09 PM, SST said:

Maybe modern ships are  doing what modern railroads are doing....TILT technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_train

It looks like they're trying to counter that concept here with these leaning trains.  Obviously there's less of a chance the train will tip over at high speeds tilting to the inside of the turn than the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 8:23 AM, Roady68 said:

Well, yes, it was an F-18 Hornet. :D

I knew it! :D 

On 11/4/2019 at 8:23 AM, Roady68 said:

I can probably share a bit more because some of this stuff is common knowledge, but planes that are fly by wire, can sometimes have software installed that make them act like another plane.  The control systems we worked on had to do with the control of the elevators.  The F-18 was set up to mimic another, to be developed, plane. This plane is actually out now.

F-22 or F-35?  Too bad production stopped on the former because they wanted to concentrate on large numbers of the latter, but their expectations were too high IMO as to which jets it would end up replacing entirely, such as the F-16, the workhorse of the AF.  Or even the F-15 never mind the A-10.  But it's really too bad that they were so selective as to who they would sell the F-15 to.  They didn't feel the same way about the F-16 which is probably the most popular aircraft in the world. 

But I do find it interesting how the Chinese are touting their J-20 to be far superior to the F-22, claiming much of the avionics suite and technology in the J-20 is so modern compared to the Raptor which was supposed to get an upgrade to bring all its electronics up to F-35 standards.  Not sure if that has happened yet.

Interesting what you said about working on elevators (I usually call them horizontal stabilizers) but the Chinese have taken their version and created it out of a delta/canard-winged platform and used the full canted horizontal stabs to function as a single moving surface, much like the original YF-23 design and not portions used as rudders like both, the F-22 and the F-35. Not sure there is much benefit to that but definitely an interesting difference.  I just don't think many people are aware of what these other powerful countries are doing.  They just think of how much the US spends on its military and they see all the innovations and creations and leading the world, there is no question about that.  But there are 2 others trailing closely.

The Chinese J-20s and their all-moving canted horizontal stabs.  Hopefully all the pics show up.  Thing looks crazy!

ggrere.png

img-db456eb95f37176e5da8bca861df2932.jpg

img-589e4604e7868d7b13caf9f72a9ced16.jpg

And they're building them and testing them at an unprecedented rate.

img-9bb1448c80f1eebac781ab82abbcdc06.jpg

img-03a6c7421ae8f80acabebb1234781a6e.jpg

Oh and  BTW, their side door missile bays are designed so that the door opens, missile comes out and door closes to limit the exposure of the open door that might cause radar return.  So some pretty neat little features like that which makes it somewhat formidable.

img-23fa040f8b4627de0843c9a0bd0920fe.jpg

I would say besides the difference in a delta canard style Gen 5 stealth platform, you can just see how much they've copied from what essentially the US has created from scratch.  Even the smoky grey color.

img-9c1a65b32790dc40103234feb7064f4a.jpg

Here's a great pic that shows the example of the side missile bay door closing after the missile has been protruded.  I'm actually not convinced of how much benefit that gives the aircraft as far as keeping it to a maximum low observable platform since those are mostly air to air and once dog fighting, do you need to be stealthy since your enemy is probably at close proximity and can see you?  Or maybe it's more to do with staying stealthy against ground to air threats during dogfights?  Some pretty fascinating stuff, at least for me. :D

aaa11133.jpg?quality=85

And the Russian version Su-57 PAK-FA.  Now this is much closer to the F-22, design-wise.

250871.jpg

But notice how sleek and slender it is compared to either of the US aircraft, especially the flying truck in the F-35.

[IMG]

Definitely see the overall influence of the F-22.

[IMG]

 

WTF where are the pics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of heavy metal I like!  I screen captured this off a live streaming video of Atlanta airport. I could watch this 747 all day!

KE-747-8i-ATL.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about 1 plane design replacing all others ????????????    How quickly we want to let 1 company be the military air force..   The Phantom was another " Can do anything. But do nothing better than other planes. "

Relax only foolish countries will invest in PILOTED aircraft. If a war is started again ?   Stealth night flying missiles that use terrain following guidance will rule easily.  Very difficult to jam on short notice of a air raid. Millisecond pulse of ground directed radar keeps it on perfect track. Just like my radar on a car does excellent navigation.  

Small cheap & stealthy with a deadly blast.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2019 at 2:14 PM, SST said:

This is the kind of heavy metal I like!  I screen captured this off a live streaming video of Atlanta airport. I could watch this 747 all day!

KE-747-8i-ATL.png

Korean 747 looks like it has the new engines and you captured the plane as the reverse thrusters were engaged.  Amazing how those things work.  There's a great video on YT from a guy who just plants himself and all his camera equipment and takes tons of landings and takeoffs and he has one that is just concentrating on the reverse thrusters which is really cool.  I'll try to look for it and post it because the ones that are done while it's heavily raining are terrific to watch all that water go crazy as the pilot engages the reverse thrusters and the cowl opens up like in your picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the new 747-8i.  The screen capture takes better pictures than my iPhone assuming the plane will roll in front of the streaming camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, precision. 

Raytheon releases new impressive video of guided Carl Gustaf munition test

I like this photo, too.  The Expeditionary Fast Transport Newport being christened by the US Navy and look what's following it, probably the craziest looking boat ever, the Zimwalt.

EIwgwUhWoAAUc8k.jpg

This has been interesting to me the last week or so, the B-52 has been making paces over certain areas (including the king's palace) in Saudi Arabia escorted by 4 Saudi F-15C Eagles.  Show of force to a certain neighbor?  B-52 looks so cool, those huge wings and H-stabs.  But talk about longevity.

U.S. Air Force bomber conducts low pass over Saudi air base

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 9:00 PM, Hatem said:

lol, precision. 

Raytheon releases new impressive video of guided Carl Gustaf munition test 

I like this photo, too.  The Expeditionary Fast Transport Newport being christened by the US Navy and look what's following it, probably the craziest looking boat ever, the Zimwalt.

EIwgwUhWoAAUc8k.jpg

This has been interesting to me the last week or so, the B-52 has been making paces over certain areas (including the king's palace) in Saudi Arabia escorted by 4 Saudi F-15C Eagles.  Show of force to a certain neighbor?  B-52 looks so cool, those huge wings and H-stabs.  But talk about longevity.

U.S. Air Force bomber conducts low pass over Saudi air base

That video is awesome. I dig the slow-mo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×