Knight26 Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 Well the new wing and engines will make a huge impact aerodynamically. But the fate of the Advanced 747 lies in the engines and the 787, as Boeing's president has stated that the advanced will not fly until after the 787.
buddhafabio Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 Well the new wing and engines will make a huge impact aerodynamically. But the fate of the Advanced 747 lies in the engines and the 787, as Boeing's president has stated that the advanced will not fly until after the 787. 408146[/snapback] well considering that the civil air industry is chuck full of unused air worthy 747s this is a smart move by boeing.
David Hingtgen Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 That's more than enough to make it "Advanced". The 727-200 and 727-200Adv are so similar it is UTTERLY impossible to tell them apart visually. The difference? Higher MTOW for more fuel. That's about it. Airliners often change internally far more than externally. Th 747 will be by far the most "Advanced" plane that Boeing has ever used that term for. And hey, the A350 is nothing more than an A330 with a new wing and engines, and it gets a whole new name, not just A330Adv. And really technically, the A310 is an A300 with new wings and tail. And so is the A330 and A340! The entire A300/310/330/340 line is one single nose and fuselage (in different lengths), with 2.5 wing designs and 3 tail designs. Airbus hasn't had a 100% new design asides from the 320 and 380. Boeing's no different. The 757 was the 727-300 for a long time, and until 2 weeks before the contract was signed, was nothing more than a 727 with a new wing and engines. Had a 727's nose and tail. 727 and 737 originally shared 60% of their parts. And very few people realize the front end of the 767 and 777 are identical, and that the 777 tail is little more than a scaled-up 767 tail. ::rant over::
Nied Posted June 16, 2006 Author Posted June 16, 2006 (edited) And the 717 is just an updated MD-80 which is just an updated DC-9. And the MD-11 is just a re-jiggered DC-10. And the fax machine is just a waffle iron with a telephone on it! Edited June 16, 2006 by Nied
David Hingtgen Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 Hey, the MD-80's full, official, legal name is still the DC-9-80. (unless it's an MD-88, then it's an MD-88--but the MD-87 is the DC-9-87) Either way, the 747Adv is by far the biggest change Boeing has ever done when calling a new version "Advanced" News of the day: Venezuela's getting Super Flankers. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/...s.ap/index.html
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 Are we going to see yet another variant of the Su-30? Su-30MKV?
Nied Posted June 16, 2006 Author Posted June 16, 2006 (edited) Hey, the MD-80's full, official, legal name is still the DC-9-80. (unless it's an MD-88, then it's an MD-88--but the MD-87 is the DC-9-87)Either way, the 747Adv is by far the biggest change Boeing has ever done when calling a new version "Advanced" 408325[/snapback] Arrrg! DC-9s are so confusing! At least for a fighter guy like me. Three different names for various versions of the same plane. Don't even get me started on this whole "Super 800" nonsense. Edited June 16, 2006 by Nied
kalvasflam Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 A380 delayed by at least half a year. Cites 'Industrial' problems.Must be the European workers getting too pre-occupied with the World Cup! http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060614/3/41i3f.html 407810[/snapback] Not the only problem Airbus is having... they just lost an order for 20 planes with an option for 20 more for Singapore airline to 787. There are a lot of people who are wondering what's going on with Airbus these days. While the A380 sounds cool, personally, and there are a lot of other people who are wondering how realistic is it to have such a gigantic jumbo jet. Everyone seem to think that the 787 model is the right one for the airline industry. And I also wonder just how many airports now have cleared the A380.
David Hingtgen Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 Still awaiting wake vortex tests on the A380. As I like airliners more than any other type of plane, I spend more time at those boards than anywhere else. And I'm VERY familiar with DC-9's (most pilots and ramp workers can't tell the -32 and -33 apart, but I can). I'm especially proud of my 707/720 knowledge. (trust me, 707's are among the most variation-filled-yet-the-changes-are-undocumented planes out there, and most books and drawings are just plain wrong, as are most people) One version of my 707 guide (old and incomplete by my current standards) is here: http://airlinercafe.com/page.php?id=72
Noyhauser Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 And India doesn't have enough jets.... enjoy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5094234.stm
Knight26 Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Now this I found amusing, that LOAF guy banned me a year or two ago for the same thing, lol. http://www.crius.net/zone/showthread.php?t=20290
Nied Posted June 21, 2006 Author Posted June 21, 2006 Now this I found amusing, that LOAF guy banned me a year or two ago for the same thing, lol.http://www.crius.net/zone/showthread.php?t=20290 409654[/snapback] I seem to remember a similar discussion like this occurring on F-16.net. Of course there you have a guy that actually flies an F-104 so the discussion went a little differently.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 I remember asking about this in the old thread as well. I think we all concluded that the MIG-21 might have the advantage. But both of them are known to be very fast as well, thing is would the F-104 even have a chance? The MIg-21's got it in a turn but I think the F-104 could potentially out accelerate it, dive down, split S and shoot a winder up the fishbed's tailpipe. But it would probably have a smaller window of opportunity than the fishbed since the fishbed is so much more nimbler and presumably has a higher instantaneous pitch rate. I guess its a moment of chance for the F-104 in the end. Thing is I heard it was made for air superiority, not just interception. And it faired well as a fighter bomber(limited armnament though. By today's standards it didn't carry much). I found the special edition 21st century toys 1/18 scale luftwaffe F-104 and promptly put it on layaway. I noticed the sidewinders are mounted on the belly. Is there a reason for doing so? Wouldn't the fuel tanks on the wingtips give it a lot more drag?(Thats how it is on the toy and some pics I have seen too). Wouldn't that diminish its roll rate?
Skull Leader Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 The very shape of the F-104 lends itself very poorly to an Air-Superiority role, but perfect for the high-speed interceptor role. Having never seen an F-104 fly (even airshow demos from the german ones), I couldn't say for sure, but just from looking at the wings, I'd hate to be in one when it came down to a turning fight.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 The very shape of the F-104 lends itself very poorly to an Air-Superiority role, but perfect for the high-speed interceptor role.Having never seen an F-104 fly (even airshow demos from the german ones), I couldn't say for sure, but just from looking at the wings, I'd hate to be in one when it came down to a turning fight. 409692[/snapback] In the sims I played it accelerates faster than the phantom and fishbed, but hell the phantom can outturn that thing given common conditions. When pulling a 7g turn the radius is VERY wide. That thing sure is a rocket with wings though!
Nied Posted June 21, 2006 Author Posted June 21, 2006 I remember asking about this in the old thread as well. I think we all concluded that the MIG-21 might have the advantage.But both of them are known to be very fast as well, thing is would the F-104 even have a chance? The MIg-21's got it in a turn but I think the F-104 could potentially out accelerate it, dive down, split S and shoot a winder up the fishbed's tailpipe. But it would probably have a smaller window of opportunity than the fishbed since the fishbed is so much more nimbler and presumably has a higher instantaneous pitch rate. I guess its a moment of chance for the F-104 in the end. Thing is I heard it was made for air superiority, not just interception. And it faired well as a fighter bomber(limited armnament though. By today's standards it didn't carry much). I found the special edition 21st century toys 1/18 scale luftwaffe F-104 and promptly put it on layaway. I noticed the sidewinders are mounted on the belly. Is there a reason for doing so? Wouldn't the fuel tanks on the wingtips give it a lot more drag?(Thats how it is on the toy and some pics I have seen too). Wouldn't that diminish its roll rate? 409691[/snapback] I don't think the belly mounts could take the weight of the bigger fuel tanks. That and I think the shockwaves coming off of them at high speeds could cause problems that close to the fuselage.
David Hingtgen Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Perhaps a drag issue? Aren't 104 wingtip tanks area-ruled? They'd also act as winglets I'd think to reduce induced drag (much the same way that wingtip missiles do). Droptank drag is critical---there are aircraft that actually have range DECREASED when carrying drop tanks on the belly, due to the drop tank's drag more than cancelling out the increased fuel available.
Apollo Leader Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 The very shape of the F-104 lends itself very poorly to an Air-Superiority role, but perfect for the high-speed interceptor role.Having never seen an F-104 fly (even airshow demos from the german ones), I couldn't say for sure, but just from looking at the wings, I'd hate to be in one when it came down to a turning fight. 409692[/snapback] I did see two F-104's perform at the 1999 Offutt air show. Very good thrust-to-weight ratio for an aircraft of that era (the F-104 held numerous time-to-climb and altitude records), but with those stuby little wings, not too agile.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 When I first saw pics of an F-104 (think I was a kid looking at a Hasegawa Catalog), I couldn't figure out how the thing could fly. The wing area looked impossibly small. I mean, it looked like it could fly but only with a stall speed of like 400 kts or something.
David Hingtgen Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 That's pretty much exactly how it DOES fly. Only plane in the world that can stall at 250kts in a gentle turn...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Fins! Thats what they are. Not wings but fins. Like in rockets and missiles.
David Hingtgen Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 (edited) Photo(s) of the week: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35949 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35952 B-2's AND carriers? What could be cooler? PS---sheer coincidence that a USAF strategic stealth bomber group met up with 3 carrier battle groups (half the Pacific fleet) near North Korea this week. Edited June 21, 2006 by David Hingtgen
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 B-2's AND carriers? What could be cooler? F/A-23s on carriers? Btw, I can't tell, in those photos, which carrier is the Kitty Hawk?
VF-19 Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Photo(s) of the week:http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35949 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35952 B-2's AND carriers? What could be cooler? PS---sheer coincidence that a USAF strategic stealth bomber group met up with 3 carrier battle groups (half the Pacific fleet) near North Korea this week. 409762[/snapback] Super Tomcats in place of every Hornet and super Hornet in that photo.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 THe Kittyhawk is in the middle, number 63 409777[/snapback] "Download Hi-Res" read numbers. *smack forehead*. Thanks. Always wanted to compare supercarrier sizes across the classes. But the perspective might distort the relative size. Is it a camera effect or is there another reason why the carrier on the port side of the formation has much darker decks? Under a cloud?
buddhafabio Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 i heard ta few b-2s have been parked at Anderson afb for a while now.
buddhafabio Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 (edited) i have a few vs to talk about. after listening to the wingman series (even i see a lot of bull in these books) it got me thinking with good pilots in all aircraft. how would dog fights go between a av-8b+ and f-101 voodoo f-104 starfighter f-105 thud thunderchief f-106 delta dart and f-4s on a 1 on one basis would the radar in the harrier make a differance from the lack of speed in the harriers part? and would hover ability make any differance in a dog fight? Edited June 21, 2006 by buddhafabio
F-ZeroOne Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 i have a few vs to talk about. after listening to the wingman series (even i see a lot of bull in these books) it got me thinking with good pilots in all aircraft. how would dog fights go between a av-8b+ and f-101 voodoo f-104 starfighter f-105 thud thunderchief f-106 delta dart and f-4s on a 1 on one basis would the radar in the harrier make a differance from the lack of speed in the harriers part? and would hover ability make any differance in a dog fight? 409801[/snapback] I gues sit would depend what you were trying to do. The Harrier already has a proven close-combat record from the Falklands, though its often forgetten their opponents were operating at a long distance from their bases and weren't carrying long-range AA missiles. All of the above would probably be able to use the option to get out of Dodge at supersonic speed (not sure about the Voodoo, though), and the F-106 and F-4 could engage at long range. In a close combat fight, the F-104, F-106 and F-104 would probably be Harrier toast if they fail to keep their speed up.
F-ZeroOne Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Photo(s) of the week:http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35949 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35952 B-2's AND carriers? What could be cooler? PS---sheer coincidence that a USAF strategic stealth bomber group met up with 3 carrier battle groups (half the Pacific fleet) near North Korea this week. 409762[/snapback] Will it matter? They're fighting the next war in Cyberspace, apparently!
Nied Posted June 21, 2006 Author Posted June 21, 2006 THe Kittyhawk is in the middle, number 63 409777[/snapback] "Download Hi-Res" read numbers. *smack forehead*. Thanks. Always wanted to compare supercarrier sizes across the classes. But the perspective might distort the relative size. Is it a camera effect or is there another reason why the carrier on the port side of the formation has much darker decks? Under a cloud? 409790[/snapback] The one on the right is the USS Reagan, it's the newest carrier in the fleet so it's deck hasn't had time to fade in the sun like the Lincoln and the Kitty Hawk.
Nied Posted June 21, 2006 Author Posted June 21, 2006 Photo(s) of the week:http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35949 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35952 B-2's AND carriers? What could be cooler? PS---sheer coincidence that a USAF strategic stealth bomber group met up with 3 carrier battle groups (half the Pacific fleet) near North Korea this week. 409762[/snapback] B-2s, Hornets (both super and baby) Strike Eagles, Vipers and carriers? (You can see all of them in that picture although one of the Vipers seems to be having trouble keeping formation.)
David Hingtgen Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 There's more pics, if you want to see the ships themselves in formation and doing manuevers: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35951 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35945 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35946 Fact: The Navy has the best website photos of the armed forces by far.
Zentrandude Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Photo(s) of the week:http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35949 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35952 B-2's AND carriers? What could be cooler? PS---sheer coincidence that a USAF strategic stealth bomber group met up with 3 carrier battle groups (half the Pacific fleet) near North Korea this week. 409762[/snapback] Will it matter? They're fighting the next war in Cyberspace, apparently! 409815[/snapback] look out they are using an aimbot and wall hacks
Knight26 Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Also the Reagan's deck is dirty it is coming back from deployment, another reason it looks darker.
Recommended Posts