Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Heres a link that will probably please a fair few people - some lovely "What Might Have Been" videos of the true ATF winner [1], the YF-23: http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/tags/yf23 Thanks to the Key Publishing forums (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=5) for the link. [1] In our hearts and minds, anyway. Damn, I got the first of the 5 parts and then they removed the whole lot! Anyone saved them or can I find them elsewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Since the good old AIM-120 was being talked about again here, I decided to do some online searching about the AMRAAM. Low and behold I discover for the first time that "Slammer" has been a popular name for the missile. But after 25+ years of the good old AIM-120 being around, the missile has never recieved an official name like Sparrow, Sidewinder, Phoenix, Falcon, etc. It's very unique in that the program accronym for the missile has been its official name. Does anyone know if there was every an effort to get a real name for the AIM-120 or was it finally decided that AMRAAM would be its true name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Since the good old AIM-120 was being talked about again here, I decided to do some online searching about the AMRAAM. Low and behold I discover for the first time that "Slammer" has been a popular name for the missile. But after 25+ years of the good old AIM-120 being around, the missile has never recieved an official name like Sparrow, Sidewinder, Phoenix, Falcon, etc. It's very unique in that the program accronym for the missile has been its official name. Does anyone know if there was every an effort to get a real name for the AIM-120 or was it finally decided that AMRAAM would be its true name? Actually it does, it is the Slammer IIRC, but it has just never been put to use as all the military honchos prefered AMRAAM as its name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 27, 2007 Author Share Posted January 27, 2007 I didn't download them, but the preview pics/descriptions of the YF-23 videos seemed to me to be nothing more than the "YF-23 revealed" DVD uploaded. Which I have a copy of. It's much better to watch the YF-23 on a big screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 in some of the aviation novels i have read the aim-120 is referred to as scorpions at least in Dale Brown books Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 In the squadrons I've been in, the US Navy & Marine Ordnancemen refer to them as the usual 'ol AMRAAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) I thought Sorpians were supposed to be a modified AMRAAM? I also thought the "Slammer" was some sort of land attack missile? Edited January 27, 2007 by Coota0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 in some of the aviation novels i have read the aim-120 is referred to as scorpions at least in Dale Brown books I'm not sure what the official name is, but techno-thriller authors have been caught out before. Brown refers in one of his books to "VF-23 Wildcats" (Northrup chose "Black Widow II" for the YF-23, which of course never entered service); Tom Clancy has used the Dark Star drone, which was cancelled, and mentions Lockheed calling the "Raptor" unofficially the "Lightning II" - some time before that name was chosen for the F-35. Of course, all authors are at the mercy of USAF chossing different names to those a company thinks best, "unofficial" names, or budget cuts (and maybe, someday, the Royal Navy will have a carrier of its very own to play with too... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrhead Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Superbug: [attachmentid=39982] Superhornet: [attachmentid=39983] There is no such thing as a "superbug" in Naval Aviation. They are called "Superhornets," "Rhino's" (on the flightdeck,) or "Echos" or "Foxtrots," depending on whether they have one or two seats... ...sorry, that just super-bugs me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 Those of us who like F-4's, really ABHOR calling anything else a Rhino though. And we Tomcat fans are still unhappy. Thus, "Super Bug". Or Shornet. coota0--- The SLAM-ER *is* a land-attack missile. But the Slammer is the AIM-120. It's the same as F-4D vs F4D. Both fighter jets, but totally different planes. Just a hyphen can make all the difference. For most anything aviation-related, "ER" means "extended range" and is pronounced "ee are", not "er" to avoid confusion. Thus SLAM-ER and Slammer sound quite different. And a 747-400ERF is not an "urf". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I work on F/A-18 A thru D models, and the Dept.of the Navy sometimes calls them "Legacy Hornets." So I call the Super versions "Super Bugs!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 Am I the only one who watches "Dogfights" on The History Channel? It's been like 2 months and I haven't seen anything about it. Best show on TV, if you like planes... (I pretty much watch that and "Heroes" nowadays) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phyrox Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Am I the only one who watches "Dogfights" on The History Channel? It's been like 2 months and I haven't seen anything about it. Best show on TV, if you like planes... (I pretty much watch that and "Heroes" nowadays) I tried to watch it once, but it took 5-minutes of information and spread it over an hour. I'd rather just grab one of my books off the shelf and get the same info in a much shorter time (and without the lame narrarator). I mean, that's pretty much par for the course for the history channel...which is why I usually avoid it altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Am I the only one who watches "Dogfights" on The History Channel? It's been like 2 months and I haven't seen anything about it. Best show on TV, if you like planes... (I pretty much watch that and "Heroes" nowadays) They showed several episodes yesterday afternoon (Saturday). Awesome show! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 If anyone has any of Osprey's books, they're basically the animated version of that. I enjoy it immensely---seeing it is quite different than reading about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalvasflam Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 (edited) Am I the only one who watches "Dogfights" on The History Channel? It's been like 2 months and I haven't seen anything about it. Best show on TV, if you like planes... (I pretty much watch that and "Heroes" nowadays) It's a fun show, but they're just doing repeats now I think. The funniest one was when I caught a commercial on History channel about the battle off Samar, and the commercials called Yamato, the Yamamoto... hilarious. But it's a very well done show. I am looking forward to new episodes, I wonder when they'll come out with the next one. There is literally tons of materials, WWII and so on. I don't recall, but they haven't done one that centered on people other than the Americans, and so far, it's pretty limited to the Asia theater of operation I think. But Battle of Britian comes easily to mind here as good fodder for the show. I'd also like to see what they have on the ostfront. That would be great. Edited January 29, 2007 by kalvasflam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 Friday's ep was new, and had the F-15... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I didn't download them, but the preview pics/descriptions of the YF-23 videos seemed to me to be nothing more than the "YF-23 revealed" DVD uploaded. Which I have a copy of. It's much better to watch the YF-23 on a big screen. I didn't know there was such a DVD. Did it reveal anything interesting about the YF-23 which was previously classified then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Friday's ep was new, and had the F-15... yep. it showed the first kills ironic they were with iaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 But Battle of Britian comes easily to mind here as good fodder for the show. "Sailor" Malan vs Werner Molders would be a good one, if you can prove that actually happened. Also, it would be pretty much "RAF guy turns into Luftwaffe guy, riddles his legs with bullets"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.V. Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I know something you don't know, damn OPSEC Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 Re: YF-23 DVD. Previously classified stuff? No. But 10x more footage than I've ever seen before, and in far higher quality than old eps of "Wings" on VCR tapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 MiG-29KUB for India recently had its first flight. Reports list "inboard slat section added near root for extra lift". Hard to tell from the pic, but I'm guessing that it's actually a double-hinged leading edge flap, not a slat replacing the standard leading flap. (you can't add a slat to a flap, and replacing the inboard part of the flap with a slat would add a LOT of complexity and weight, since there were no slats nor slat drive system to start with--can't imagine it'd be worth it, but double-hinging the existing flap would be easy) It's your standard confusion between a slat and a leading edge flap IMHO (God forbid we ever see slots again, that'll really mess people up). Also have to figure out if that's a two-seater only thing, or will all Indian production Sea Fulcrums have that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.V. Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 (edited) Also have to figure out if that's a two-seater only thing, or will all Indian production Sea Fulcrums have that? All Mig-33s (according to Airforces Monthly that's the name of the new Indian Mig-29K) will have the dual seat canopy, since it doesn't have a negative effect on drag and reduces production cost. The single seaters will have an extra fuel tank and system storage space instead of the 2nd seat and as such the weight difference between the two is marginal. Kinda like the Su-39, but with the rear canopy being preserved. So, I think, by extension, that the added flap/slat is for the entire fleet as well. I don't know if it's a slat or a double hinged flap, but I think it's a slat. The added weight is rather minimal for such a short surface area on the inboard section of the wing. I suspect a slat has a greater efficiency due to the vortex effect of the LERX, but that's just a guess. The horizontal tailplanes seem to be enlarged as well. The same goes for the intakes, but it's hard to tell. Edited January 30, 2007 by T.V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.V. Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Did I quick search but nothing came up on the subject: The J-10 has been officially revealed by the Chinese PLAAF on the 29th of december. http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10news.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 The slat itself wouldn't weight much, but the guide rails and rotary driveshaft for it would be I think---quite pointless for such a small section. (and there's the issue of room) It'd be like adding swing winglets to a fixed-wing plane---the external part itself wouldn't weight much, but the associated mechanism would---you'd have to add and support an entire system, but only a small part benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Did I quick search but nothing came up on the subject: The J-10 has been officially revealed by the Chinese PLAAF on the 29th of december. http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10news.asp Waits for the "but its just a Lavi with a red star stuck on it!!" posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Waits for the "but its just a Lavi with a red star stuck on it!!" posts. It is! I mean look at it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 The slat itself wouldn't weight much, but the guide rails and rotary driveshaft for it would be I think---quite pointless for such a small section. (and there's the issue of room) It'd be like adding swing winglets to a fixed-wing plane---the external part itself wouldn't weight much, but the associated mechanism would---you'd have to add and support an entire system, but only a small part benefits. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Mig was experimenting with a drop down section on the LERXs to help improve lift on the Mig-29KUB. Perhaps we're reading a poorly translated description of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Am I the only one who watches "Dogfights" on The History Channel? It's been like 2 months and I haven't seen anything about it. Best show on TV, if you like planes... (I pretty much watch that and "Heroes" nowadays) I had this weeks episode on my DVR and watched it last night. It's quite good but every so often they use pretty slapdash looking meshes for the airplanes. The F-15s and Mirage IIIs in the last episode looked really off (the canopies were way too big) and I've noticed that the sidewinder model they use in most episodes is atrocious. I was hoping that this would improve as time went on but it actually looks like it's getting worse (the F-15s in the last episode were losing and gaining ordinance in every shot). Also I'm getting tired of seeing naval engagements, the show is called "Dogfights" not "Naval Battles that Vaguely Involved Aircraft." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 It is! I mean look at it! ...and they're even using stock footage from Top Gun... about 2/3 of the way through the second video, you see a "MiG-28" F-5 exploding. http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10_video02.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 (the F-15s in the last episode were losing and gaining ordinance in every shot). On the F-8 episode dealing with the dogfight where one Crusader took on like four MiG-17's and two MiG-21's in a 10 minute dogfight, after that Navy pilot had used up all his Sidewinders it alternately showed the Crusader either with all four Sidewinders loaded or it would show not only the missiles gone, but the pylons gone, too! Obviously they are trying to recycle some of their CG work, but hopefully this is a detail they will pay more attention to in any future productions. Otherwise awesome show. Even cooler that one of the pilots they have had on the show, Steve Ritchie (last Air Force ace), I have met twice in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 It is! I mean look at it! The jurys still somewhat out on this one, though one thing I would like explained is the air intake - there are little struts that appear to connect the forward part of the intake to the fuselage? Or they just reinfrocement? Or some sort of aerials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 The jurys still somewhat out on this one, though one thing I would like explained is the air intake - there are little struts that appear to connect the forward part of the intake to the fuselage? Or they just reinfrocement? Or some sort of aerials? What jury? The planforms of both aircraft are nearly identical, the only real difference between the two are their size and the lack of composites on the J-10. Even it's radar is based off the EL/M-2032 that was developed for the Lavi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.V. Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 What jury? The planforms of both aircraft are nearly identical, the only real difference between the two are their size and the lack of composites on the J-10. Even it's radar is based off the EL/M-2032 that was developed for the Lavi. The structure of both aircraft is notably dissimilar. The J-10 is more likely to be inspired by the Lavi than anything else. Isreali assistance was no doubt a great benifit to the project, but the J-10 is far from a scaled up Lavi. The early J-8 is basically a scaled up twin engined J-7, but the J-10 is a whole different beast from the Lavi. Just having different materials to work with, less refined manufacturing techniques, a different engine and a different performance requirement, meant that making the J-10 into a scaled up version of the Lavi wasn't going to yield any desirable results. Instead, they put the aerodynamic knowledge of the Lavi to use to make a suitable aircraft for their own requirements and constraints. The similarities between the J-10 and Lavi programmes are more like between the F-16 and AIDC Ching-Kuo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts