Aviation Geeks unite?! Anybody else care about planes here?

[Kamen Rider Blade]

But why do other countries get the same plane but some of the features are left out, and what if those were things the other countries wanted?

Every country has different requirements based on their environment.

Some Nordic Countries need Parachute Brakes on landing, not every country needs that because they don't deal with ice very often or at all.

Some Countries need testing to deal with Jump Ski Ramps on their carriers for the B-variant, some don't care at all and go for the A variant because it's the cheapest.

Every country works with LHM and the DoD to get what they want.

Not everybody needs the exact same feature, but the basic AirFrame can support each feature.

If you're worried about weapons compatibility, UAI (Universal Armament Interface) is the new US Open 'Plug N Play' standard for all existing and future armaments.

No more hard coded firmware in the OS to deal with weapons.

Basic Driver packages will be all that's needed.

UAI is getting retrofitted into all previous and existing platforms as we speak along with legacy weapons getting updated to support UAI.

 

[StarCruiser]

That practice is actually quite common and is simply due to some features being classified by the DOD. There are export versions of the F-16, the F-15...and remember that Iran has some F-14's from right before the Shaw was deposed. Those didn't have all of the features of the then current US Navy F-14.

The F-35 program has been hobbled by the desire to create one design that can do conventional takeoff/landing - navalised conventional takeoff/landing and short takeoff/vertical landing. As I understand the current situation - the STOVL is probably the least useful of the lot still. Very limited payload and range/performance. The only significant advantages it has over the old Harrier being flat out speed and 'stealth' (which is a very temporary thing).

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

That practice is actually quite common and is simply due to some features being classified by the DOD. There are export versions of the F-16, the F-15...and remember that Iran has some F-14's from right before the Shaw was deposed. Those didn't have all of the features of the then current US Navy F-14.

The F-14 has been retired for quite a while & Iran gets no tech support for their F-14's.

The F-35 program has been hobbled by the desire to create one design that can do conventional takeoff/landing - navalised conventional takeoff/landing and short takeoff/vertical landing. As I understand the current situation - the STOVL is probably the least useful of the lot still. Very limited payload and range/performance. The only significant advantages it has over the old Harrier being flat out speed and 'stealth' (which is a very temporary thing).

Blame Congress, they're the ones who wanted all those features in one program, they didn't want to support multiple Aircraft Programs, so we got what we got because of Congress.

And the F-35B still outperforms the AV-8B Harrier II in every metric available.

Range, Payload Capability, Stealth, Speed, etc.

 

[Santaman]

That practice is actually quite common and is simply due to some features being classified by the DOD. There are export versions of the F-16, the F-15...and remember that Iran has some F-14's from right before the Shaw was deposed. Those didn't have all of the features of the then current US Navy F-14.

ding dig ding, yup that's what I'm talking about, we'll be getting an export version so it is inferior from the get go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas
Something I do find interesting, neat "little" transport aircraft.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas
Something I do find interesting, neat "little" transport aircraft.

It ain't little, it's larger than a C-17

ding dig ding, yup that's what I'm talking about, we'll be getting an export version so it is inferior from the get go

In what way is it inferior?

Nobody gets the "Source Code". The US Government doesn't get acces to it. They tell LHM what to do and LHM implements it. You don't get it when you buy "Windows" OS, you don't get it when you buy a car. You don't get it when you buy your gaming console electronics.
What makes you think you're entitled to LockHeed Martin's private "Source Code"?

Outside of that, what makes you think it's inferior?

 

[Santaman]

I'm not talking about source code, I am talking about hardware, export jets always have inferior equipment, same with helicopters, ships etc.
As for they why, really simple, you don't want to be in a fight with your own hardware, customers that are not you get stuff that is inferior to what you've got yourself, else it could mess you up really well, in case of jets ,usually different sensors, avionics and even engines, also various types of armaments, for example types of rockets, can be of a different version of that you yourself have, no one else but you gets the good stuff.
Same with the Apache helicopters we have here, we didn't get all the goodies that US versions have, we've got a watered down export version.
The Russians do the same, export versions of the Hind, Mig29, Sukhoi jets also certain types of ships, the customer won't get the top of the line stuff that you yourself get, you sell an inferior product.

Its been done for ages, even in the time of the great battleship race, customers got inferior armament and armor plate.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I'm not talking about source code, I am talking about hardware, export jets always have inferior equipment, same with helicopters, ships etc.
As for they why, really simple, you don't want to be in a fight with your own hardware, customers that are not you get stuff that is inferior to what you've got yourself, else it could mess you up really well, in case of jets ,usually different sensors, avionics and even engines, also various types of armaments, for example types of rockets, can be of a different version of that you yourself have, no one else but you gets the good stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement
The exported F-35 versions will have the same configuration as the U.S. versions, according to Brigadier-Gen. David Heinz, program executive officer in 2009

https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616?rpc=44&sp=true
“I state categorically that I am not doing a different variant of aircraft for my international partners today,” Heinz told Reuters in an interview at the Paris Air Show.

He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services.

“So for Boeing to make statements about a ‘dumbed down’ variant ... is absolutely incorrect and it is speculative and I believe, a very disappointing marketing ploy to drum up business,” Heinz added.

What is it about the "JSF (Joint Strike Fighter)" program that you don't get? It's not the US Fighter and his allies get gimped variants. There's a reason why it's called the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter).

 

[BK613]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas
Something I do find interesting, neat "little" transport aircraft.

It ain't little, it's larger than a C-17

Nope, the C-17 is larger than the Airbus 400m Atlas. The latter is larger than a C-130 and c-130J though.

Spoiler: Airbus 400m Size

Length: 45.1 m (148 ft 0 in)
Wingspan: 42.4 m (139 ft 1 in)
Height: 14.7 m (48 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 225.1 m2 (2,384 sq ft)
Empty weight: 76,500 kg (168,654 lb)

Spoiler: C-17 Size

Length: 53 m (174 ft)
Wingspan: 51.755 m (169 ft 9.6 in)
Height: 16.79 m (55 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 350 m2 (3,800 sq ft)
Empty weight: 128,140 kg (282,500 lb)

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Nope, the C-17 is larger than the Airbus 400m Atlas. The latter is larger than a C-130 and c-130J though.

You're right, I got the pics of the two planes confused.

I do love the Contra Rotating Propeller sets. It's a brilliant idea that I wish more propeller planes would implement.

 

[Marc]

I do love the Contra Rotating Propeller sets. It's a brilliant idea that I wish more propeller planes would implement.

Other than the Atlas, the first aircraft that comes to mind for contra-rotating propellors was the Avro Shackleton but wiki tells me there were more but not many that were in large scale use.

The russians developed the NK-12 turbo-prop which was used (in either original or derative form) in 3 different aircraft (Tu-95 bomber, AN-22 cargo and couple of martime patrol aircraft). Was even used in one of their ekronplans.

 

[Santaman]

^^That is one heck of an engine, 14.795 horsepower, and the Europrop TP400, used on the Atlas with 11.000 horsepower, also not bad.

 

[Marc]

^^That is one heck of an engine, 14.795 horsepower, and the Europrop TP400, used on the Atlas with 11.000 horsepower, also not bad.

I wonder it would have gone with if Airbus had developed a maritime patrol aircraft using the TP400. It's good performance and would probably burn less fuel than a jet.

Such an aircraft could have made a good replacement for the P3Cs which could spend 12 hours on station but are being replaced by P-8 Poseidons which can only spent 4 hours (for a jet, even the old HS Nimrods had a better range).

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

^^That is one heck of an engine, 14.795 horsepower, and the Europrop TP400, used on the Atlas with 11.000 horsepower, also not bad.

I gotta keep reminding myself that you're using a different form of "Decimal Seperator" than us Westerners.

 

[Santaman]

^^ Bad habit on my part, I have NO idea why I am using that since the Dutch use the , as seperator.. might be because I had computers with strange keyboards and using the . was just the lazy or easiest option.

As for a patrol aircraft, this one is also interesting, it has a double bubble hull.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_Atlantic

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

^^ Bad habit on my part, I have NO idea why I am using that since the Dutch use the , as seperator.. might be because I had computers with strange keyboards and using the . was just the lazy or easiest option.

We need to standardize on more things internationally if its practical to do so.

The issue goes beyond just Metric vs Imperial vs US Customary units.

The Decimal-Point vs Decimal-Comma is one of those things we should figure out sooner than later.

The Decimal vs Binary form of Computer Data Size Unit Measurement needs to be further enforced and clarified.
(1 kB = 1 kilobyte = 1000 bytes) vs (1 kiB = 1 kibibyte = 1024 bytes)

We have similar issues with global Electrical Voltage standards along with which Electrical Socket style to use.

Then there's Left-Hand vs Right-Hand drive compatibility in the entire Automotive world.

EV Electrical Socket Standardization issues.

We don't even have Universal Paper Sizes.
The ISO standard Paper sizes have so many country specific variations:
German
Swedish
Japanese
Chinese
Soviet

That's on top of Traditional Paper Sizes for:
North American
British
French

As for a patrol aircraft, this one is also interesting, it has a double bubble hull.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_Atlantic

The double bubble is just a precursor form of seperating the Pressurized Passenger area and the cargo area.

The Boeing P-8 Poseidon just uses a modified 737-800ERX which has the same feature without the odd shaping of the fuselage.

 

[Santaman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-62
Interesting aircraft... it was not designed to land on a grass field of only 900 meters long but one did so succesfully, think this is a pretty sturdy aircraft.

 

[Marc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-62
Interesting aircraft... it was not designed to land on a grass field of only 900 meters long but one did so succesfully, think this is a pretty sturdy aircraft.

The things that are done to get aircraft in to museums.

There's a former Air Canada DC-9 at the air museum in Ottawa which was flown in. As the runway there is well short of the normal length for the aircraft they stripped everything out and loaded the bare minimum of the fuel and made to land the sucker in a very short distance (something like 900m).

 

[Santaman]

I guess that back in the day these old birds had a large safety margin built in.

 

[Non Sync]

The things that are done to get aircraft in to museums.

There's a former Air Canada DC-9 at the air museum in Ottawa which was flown in. As the runway there is well short of the normal length for the aircraft they stripped everything out and loaded the bare minimum of the fuel and made to land the sucker in a very short distance (something like 900m).

They did something similar with a Boeing 727 at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry when they landed at nearby Meigs Field (closed in 2003). The sole runway was 3,900 ft/1,189m. It was then moved by barge to the museum.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

(Note: the reporter, Jim Tilllman, recently passed away. He was one of the first African-American pilots and was also a meteorologist later on in his career.)

 

[MANT!]

Favorite aircraft of the "Century Series"