Stop posting random links without any discussion or context. Please actually provide some content of your own.
Aviation Geeks unite?! Anybody else care about planes here?
- Thread starter { Emilia }
- Start date
Stop posting random links without any discussion or context. Please actually provide some content of your own.
must be practice time for the C-17's.
Back in Trenton for the long weekend and the -17s have been up flying around today but by the time I hear them, they're not in the position for a good photo.
Though would have been a good photo last night when there were two C-130s heading in formation heading towards the base.
Back in Trenton for the long weekend and the -17s have been up flying around today but by the time I hear them, they're not in the position for a good photo.
Though would have been a good photo last night when there were two C-130s heading in formation heading towards the base.
For today's what if, image films like Top Gun and The Final Countdown featuring F-15Ns instead of the Tomcat.
Perhaps in an alternate universe it, in ours not quite.
Following the failure of the F-111B (Seapig) program, development had begun on the F-14s thought the initial engines were an issue (Ward Carroll has mentioned this in some of his videos).
McDonald-Douglas pitched a naval varient of the F-15A which was then under development. It would have been cheaper then the Tomcat but there was one big sticking point. The F-14 was pretty much designed from the ground up for the AIM-54 Phoenix, the 15N had a more traditional load out but the Navy wanted the Phoenix because of the concerns about russian long range bombers and their stand off anti-shipping missiles and the 15-PHX tips the scales at 9000lbs more which would have impacted performance.
The Mig-23 "Flogger" is known a single engine swing wing design but that wasn't the original plan. Designated during the development as the YE-8 was design that followed on from the MiG-21 but can also has resemblance to the Typhoon had it been designed 60s.
Only 2 were built and the first was lost in an accident that an example of the dangers of everything in a design. New aircraft, new engine, new ejector seat (not designed for supersonic ejections). So when the engine suffered a compressor failure the pilot hit by shrapnel and had to eject at supersonic speed and was very luck to survive but never flew again.
Perhaps in an alternate universe it, in ours not quite.
Following the failure of the F-111B (Seapig) program, development had begun on the F-14s thought the initial engines were an issue (Ward Carroll has mentioned this in some of his videos).
McDonald-Douglas pitched a naval varient of the F-15A which was then under development. It would have been cheaper then the Tomcat but there was one big sticking point. The F-14 was pretty much designed from the ground up for the AIM-54 Phoenix, the 15N had a more traditional load out but the Navy wanted the Phoenix because of the concerns about russian long range bombers and their stand off anti-shipping missiles and the 15-PHX tips the scales at 9000lbs more which would have impacted performance.
The Mig-23 "Flogger" is known a single engine swing wing design but that wasn't the original plan. Designated during the development as the YE-8 was design that followed on from the MiG-21 but can also has resemblance to the Typhoon had it been designed 60s.
Only 2 were built and the first was lost in an accident that an example of the dangers of everything in a design. New aircraft, new engine, new ejector seat (not designed for supersonic ejections). So when the engine suffered a compressor failure the pilot hit by shrapnel and had to eject at supersonic speed and was very luck to survive but never flew again.
Last edited:
What do you have on wingless aerodynes like this?
https://projectswordtoys.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-fairchild-republic-afti-1970s.html?m=1
I seem to remember a cigar shaped one—relied of pure thrust…like the F-4
Oops
https://twitter.com/ilove_aviation/status/1669034475496300566
https://projectswordtoys.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-fairchild-republic-afti-1970s.html?m=1
I seem to remember a cigar shaped one—relied of pure thrust…like the F-4
Oops
https://twitter.com/ilove_aviation/status/1669034475496300566
Last edited:
https://projectswordtoys.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-fairchild-republic-afti-1970s.html?m=1
Those depends on Lifting Body principle.
That's just raw thrust overcoming crap lift ratioI seem to remember a cigar shaped one—relied of pure thrust…like the F-4
You know what aeronautical engineers say: With a big enough engine, you can make a barn door fly.
I've heard that one. Isn't there a similar saying regarding bricks and the amount of engines?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-f-4-phantom-old-american-fighter-jet-wont-go-away-51982
That's literally what the Phantom was, strapping a large enough engine to over-come the horrible aeronautical design decisions that went into it.
On a pure Aerodynamic engineering level, the F-4 phantom was garbage.
For Japanese Pilots, this is going to be going from old Zack Morris Brick Cell Phones to a Smart Phone.
That's how much of a jump by going from the F-4 -> F-35 is going to be for them.
Last edited:
I think the F4's popularity also had to do with how many roles it was capable of filling, even when previously the F-111 had not really lived up to the concept. It became more than it was meant to be. I only remember it was one of my first glue, not snap-tite model airplanes I built as a kid, and I had those wings loaded down with drop tanks and sidewinders.
Speaking of aerodynamic bricks.. Peter Sripol does it again. This time he makes an asymmetrical plane powered by an angle grinder. Is it just a matter of time till he builds a human flying multiple angle-grinder foam biplane?
Speaking of aerodynamic bricks.. Peter Sripol does it again. This time he makes an asymmetrical plane powered by an angle grinder. Is it just a matter of time till he builds a human flying multiple angle-grinder foam biplane?
The best one is 'With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine."
F-4 looked Klingon to me---that's why I loved it. Muscular...intimidating
F-22 looks too slick.
I'm actually warming to F-35.
The underside has just a tad of the NX-01 look to it.
I like the F4 a lot I used to have lots of models of her in various paints... I just like the look
Like the F4 too and while not my favourite aircraft, I ended up having the most model kits of it.
As for the F22, I never had a kit of that, but did get the F23 (which I preferred the look of at least)
As for the F22, I never had a kit of that, but did get the F23 (which I preferred the look of at least)
The YF-23 is HIGHLY Under-Appreciated.
It really should've won the ATF Competition.
The stupid damn 'expensive to manufacture' Tile-Panels for the Stealth Exhaust + Non-Working (At the time) Rail inside Weapons Bay Launcher cost it the victory it should've had.
The People who worked on the Project and knew the actual Radar Signature Numbers from all sides knew that the YF-23 was superior in (Stealth Radar Return Values) & (Flight Range while in Stealth Configuration, that means no payload hanging off the wings).
YF-23:
Performance included a maximum speed of Mach 2.2 (Mach 1.6 on supercruise) with a range of nearly 3,000 miles and a service ceiling of 65,000 feet. Combat radius equaled 800 miles.
F-22:
The engines further provide the F-22 with a top speed of over 1,500 miles per hour (Mach 2.25) at altitude and, when on supercruise, the F-22 can hit speeds of 1,200 miles per hour (Mach 1.8). Operation range is reportedly at 2,000 miles with a combat radius of 470 miles - more so with external fuel stores in place.
That extra 1000 miles of one-way range is vital to domination in the Pacific Theater with China as a threat.
470 mi of range is puny compared to 800 mi.
That requires that many more Aerial Refueling Trips mid-flight
The thing that pushed it over was Desert Storm and the demonstration of Stealth working with the F-117.
Then there was the issue of working weapons bay where Lockheed demonstrated a working Missile Launch from the Trapeze Swing Arm.
Also it had superior "Dog Fighting" Capability, but we live in a world where missiles still reign supreme.
If you enter dog-fight range in a Stealth Fighter, you royally screwed up.
The YF-23 had "More than Adequate" Dog-Fighting Manuevering capability, met the ATF requirements, but provided a superior Stealth Signature & Combat / Service Range.
Maybe on a pure aerodynamics level, but the engineering had to meet requirements, and the requirements included high performance with a heavy external missile load while coming in with a reasonably low carrier landing speed. Compared with the century fighters, yes, the F-4's doesn't look great on paper. But its record speaks for itself.
You can blame the people in power who wrote the requirements and the competition for the F-4 at the time for what we got.
It worked, but it was "American Muscle" over elegant engineering.
Pretty Much, but it's a "Muscle Plane".
You only need to look at the F-5 Tiger, or F-18 Hornet for more "Elegant Designs".
Literally
One set an attitude record or 98,000 feet which also included breaking time to altitude records all thanks to to sheer brute power.
Didn't know the details about the records but some of the other details - such as initially not having a machine gun or canon for close in combat I did know.
And I guess DCS is the latest and greatest tool for the adding footage on aircraft to your youtube videos
I'm interested in your idea of what the requirements were, and what mid-1950s aircraft could have met them.
The F-5 was never a good all-weather option, and would not stand up to one carrier trap. The F/A-18 had 20 years of advancements over the F-4, but they had to make a second try with the Super Hornet to get it a more respectable combat radius.
I guess elegance is in the eye of the beholder. For design and engineering, the Phantom wings were a very sophisticated achievement, incredibly strong with only about a 5% ratio. The tail stabilizers, of course, are a fascinating and distinctive solution.
The Phantom did everything it was created to do well, and was so much better than its contemporaries that it was eagerly snapped up for new roles. If that's not an elegant design, I'm sure any aeronautical engineer would be happy to take credit for whatever it is.
Nice video, but like many it barely touches on the Phantom's fleet origin. At the time, the navy had a great dogfighter with the F-8. And they don't mention that the navy F-4J never had a gun, but their air-to-air record went up comparably to the USAF's as their training got better.
