Noyhauser Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 While Zvezda kits are hit-and-miss, it's really more of a "is it truly new, or a modified/copied version of a previous kit". The all-new ones are pretty much universally good. And I'm pretty sure there's no other PAK-FA kit to copy from... Was it you that really liked the 787? I'm really mulling getting one after hearing your review of it. I heard that Hasegawa is coming out with a new 1/72 Su-33 and I wouldn't be surprised if Fujimi gets to the T-50 sooner rather than later (After offering the F-35 and the F-22).
David Hingtgen Posted December 3, 2010 Posted December 3, 2010 I don't personally own one, but people I respect/trust say it's along the lines of the best airliner kit ever. Same for their 763. Of course, painting the house color scheme is quite a task...
David Hingtgen Posted December 4, 2010 Posted December 4, 2010 Qantas A380 incident report summary: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/12/03/incredible-insights-into-the-saving-of-qf32-revealed-in-the-atsb-preliminary-report/ Reminds me a LOT of the first serious 747 incident (PAA, SFO), in that there were multiple failures across all systems, a long hold off-shore to figure out what still worked and what could be done, and overall being pretty close to losing the plane if anything else had gone wrong. QF still says they'll fix it, and everyone knows Qantas will spend more than what the plane's worth to make it happen, but I still wonder if even Airbus can fix it, and if it could be recertified as fit to carry passengers again. A penetrated front spar is probably the single worst structural damage that a plane can sustain. In many planes, it's fatal. (airliners are technically required to survive it, but it's rarely proven--and half the time, despite all tests and calculations saying it can---they don't) First they have to get it fixed up enough just to fly it back to Toulouse. PS--not sure if I posted this before, but details of the damage: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/17/the-anatomy-of-the-airbus-a380-qf32-near-disaster/ The size of the A380 skews your sense of scale--the "little bulletholes" are the size of your fist, the bigger holes are the size of you.
Beltane70 Posted December 4, 2010 Posted December 4, 2010 That was a very interesting read, David. I found the fact that they couldn't get the no. 1 engine to shutdown particularly interesting. I always wonder how many people are turned off to air travel when incidents like this occur.
David Hingtgen Posted December 4, 2010 Posted December 4, 2010 Yeah, that's one heck of a weird failure--engine won't die! They're lucky it was on the same side as the failed one, and the exploded one wasn't outboard. If an outboard failed and the opposing outboard was stuck at a high setting---that is BAD, many a crash from similar situations on 4-engine airliners. (that would cause both extreme yaw and slideslip and some proverse roll)
David Hingtgen Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Rare pic: Actual Fw190A using actual BMW801 engine. Photo taken this Tuesday. I believe that takes the world-wide total of airworthy Fw190's from 0 to 1 now...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 Rare pic: Actual Fw190A using actual BMW801 engine. Photo taken this Tuesday. I believe that takes the world-wide total of airworthy Fw190's from 0 to 1 now... Ohhh, whats the story behind this one? Is it an A4/5/6/8? Frankenwulf?
HoveringCheesecake Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 For God's sake I hope that thing doesn't crash. Talk about awesome.
David Hingtgen Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 It's an A5, recovered quite intact in Russia---apparently they literally just found it sitting there in the woods some years ago. I know Paul Allen had a hand in restoring it. (unlimited money helps a lot) Here's how they found it: That was in amazingly good condition, considering.
Noyhauser Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 (edited) If its part of the flying heritage collection then its Paul Allen's gig. You'd love to see the hangar they have in Seattle David.... all the WWII are flyable and in perfect condition. I guess I'll have to make another trek down there to see this. Edit: Actually there has always been one other flyable FW-190; The Heritage Collection has a D9 in airworthy condition, but its never flown. Truth be told I wouldn't want to fly any german plane after 1943, given the poor quality of work that was put into them. Edited December 10, 2010 by Noyhauser
Ghost Train Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 Found this really sexy "concept" F-16IN - presumably based off the UAE's new shiny Block 60's: The newer falcons look so incredibly fantastic, but I'm a sucker for CFT's.
David Hingtgen Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 F-16's with CFT's are love/hate. I personally hate them. F-16 is the sleekest mass-production jet ever. This ruins that. Though that particular concept is sleeker than the current UAE and Israeli ones--fewer sensor bumps etc. I kind of doubt the JSOW and SLAM-ER though.
Graham Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 With that big ugly intake, I've never considered standard F-16s' sleek and actually always quite disliked how they look and found them to be one of the ugliest US fighter jets ever. However, I'm probably in the minority, here, but I actually like how F-16s' look with the CFTs. The general ugliness of the jet, combined with the lumps and bumps of the CFTs, combines to make a mean looking jet that looks all business. Graham
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 (edited) I am a fan of the F-16s' with CFTs and bumps and humps too. Gives a a very Macrossy FAST Pack look. Always found the base F-16 a bit too curvy and non-muscular looking enough. Sure it was sleek, but it did not have that muscular yet graceful look of the F-15s and F-14s. Would have thought David would have given the 'sleekest mass production' title to the F-5 though. Back to that Fw-190 : So they found that thing just sitting there in the Russian forest? Nearly 70 years of sitting in the open and they managed to get that 801 fired up again?!?! Wow! Canopy looks like it wasn't flung off, was there a skeleton sitting in it? I just wish they could get a pair of Jumo 004s fired up again. Always wondered how the original 262 sounded. Edited December 10, 2010 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Lynx7725 Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 Don't mind the '16, but that tail base just seems to grow bigger every time I see a new variant...
VF-19 Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 It's how F-16's reproduce. Eventually, that'll be another jet, and it'll split off of the original. F-16s with CFTs are fugly. Interesting, but I like the look of a F-16 with minimal loadout. Full rounds for the guns, and a couple of missiles.
Lynx7725 Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 It's how F-16's reproduce. Eventually, that'll be another jet, and it'll split off of the original. Yeah, but just before the splitting, it'll look like 2 F16 stacked on top of each other? Ewww. F16, to me is usually functional. It's a point-defense aircraft, but over the years it just kept getting bigger and bigger. It's quite an amazing aircraft, you got to admit... outlasted most of its compatriots.
VF-19 Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 (edited) Why not? The Thunderbirds practiaclly stack them in mid-air... Mind you, the image of a F-16 with a pacifier in the intake, a rattler on a missile rail, and a bonnet atop it's canopy does bring a big smile to my face. Edited December 10, 2010 by VF-19
Warmaker Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 (edited) It's an A5, recovered quite intact in Russia---apparently they literally just found it sitting there in the woods some years ago. I know Paul Allen had a hand in restoring it. (unlimited money helps a lot) Here's how they found it: *snip picture* That was in amazingly good condition, considering. The pilot for that '190 was still listed as missing. Sad, but that's just the way it is and there was many more with that same fate. 2 places in WWII you didn't want to be downed aircrew: Eastern Front, because we know how brutal things were between the Germans and Russians, and in the Pacific for the same reasons... with the added bonus of all that ocean to be stranded in. Edited December 11, 2010 by Warmaker
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 The pilot for that '190 was still listed as missing. Sad, but that's just the way it is and there was many more with that same fate. 2 places in WWII you didn't want to be downed aircrew: Eastern Front, because we know how brutal things were between the Germans and Russians, and in the Pacific for the same reasons... with the added bonus of all that ocean to be stranded in. So they did not find his remains in the cockpit then? Looking at the pic, the canopy appears to be in the closed position, so I assume he crashed landed, and bothered to slide the canopy shut before going off?
Vic Mancini Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 Found this really sexy "concept" F-16IN - presumably based off the UAE's new shiny Block 60's: The newer falcons look so incredibly fantastic, but I'm a sucker for CFT's. Holy crap that's awesome. F-16s are my favorite fighter jet ever.
Uxi Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 This F-16 would be pretty cool... but they need to do something about the intake... kinda like the evolution in the F-18 changes to the Super-Bug
Bowen Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 This F-16 would be pretty cool... but they need to do something about the intake... kinda like the evolution in the F-18 changes to the Super-Bug Maybe something like the Divertless Inlet testbed?
David Hingtgen Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 The F-16 is already on its second intake design (unless it's got PW engines, when it still uses the original). It's pretty darn-near perfect as it is--as the later, improved one is nigh-identical to the original. The F-16 was designed from the start with a modular intake assembly to allow for changes etc--that's why it was so easy to change to the 2nd (MCID) design. If anything newer was that much better, you can bet they would have upgraded it by now. Intakes are over-rated in their effect on power/speed. Look at the Super Crusader---can easily outrun many planes with 'fancier' 'optimized' inlets with just a J75 for power.
Vifam7 Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 Rather than a new intake, couldn't the F-16 use a new larger wing? With increasing number of things hanging and now CFTs on the back, it can't help wing loading. Dunno how difficult it'd be for LM to bring back the Agile Falcon or F-16XL though.
David Hingtgen Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 The F-16XL was an amazing plane, its load/range capabilities were insanely better than a stock F-16. Not sure exactly how it'd perform vs an F-15E though--IIRC they were quite close. The F-16XL would cost less to buy per plane, as it's smaller with just one engine---but the F-15E would cost a lot less to initially develop. And you could imagine how much stuff a current F-16XL would have tacked on by now, it'd make the Block 60 look sleek... NASA has both of the XL's, I know at least one still flies fairly often. PS--the production version would have been F-16E and F-16F. Much like the F-101, I think the 2-seat version of the F-16 looks cooler. PPS---an F-16 with a bigger wing is basically an F-2. 25% larger IIRC.
David Hingtgen Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 Can you stretch an airliner too much? Yes, yes you can. I'd love to know the climb performance/TTW ratio... http://qa.airliners.net/photo/Bombardier-Aerospace/Canadair-CL-600-2E25-Regional/1525641/L/
the white drew carey Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 It is like a little cigarette! Seriously, don't those engines look a little small? Maybe they are, like, really good engines.
electric indigo Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 It is like a little cigarette! You only get the impression because of the Dreamlifter in the background.
the white drew carey Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 You only get the impression because of the Dreamlifter in the background. Hmmm... good point.
reddsun1 Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 Found this really sexy "concept" F-16IN - presumably based off the UAE's new shiny Block 60's: The newer falcons look so incredibly fantastic, but I'm a sucker for CFT's. Meh, looks like it's developed tumorous growths...
kalvasflam Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 (edited) Can you stretch an airliner too much? Yes, yes you can. I'd love to know the climb performance/TTW ratio... http://qa.airliners.net/photo/Bombardier-Aerospace/Canadair-CL-600-2E25-Regional/1525641/L/ Interesting, I wonder how many pax that thing is designed for. If they stretch this just a bit more, wouldn't it be a gigantic step backward? I agree perfectly with the DC-9 comment there With that big ugly intake, I've never considered standard F-16s' sleek and actually always quite disliked how they look and found them to be one of the ugliest US fighter jets ever. However, I'm probably in the minority, here, but I actually like how F-16s' look with the CFTs. The general ugliness of the jet, combined with the lumps and bumps of the CFTs, combines to make a mean looking jet that looks all business. Graham If only one could enlarge the CFT a little more and slap a recessed missile bay on each side with an AMRAAM, that would do the trick. We can have a Silent Falcon, or should that be a Silent Viper? Edited December 15, 2010 by kalvasflam
David Hingtgen Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 The CRJ1000 is a 100-seater. It is directly replacing the Fokker 100 with its first deliveries. (which itself replaced many a DC-9). Soon it will be nothing but RJ's, except for over-water flights it seems. Dear airlines: there is nothing "regional" about a Dallas-New York flight... (which according to my latest Delta timetable, is all they offer---that would have gotten you an L-1011 some years ago)
electric indigo Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 I took a closer look at the new material on the Zvezda HP. I think the cockpit is far too large There's also an alternative kit from Pit-Road in 1/144, but it brings it's own issues: http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10135288
kalvasflam Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 Speaking of CFTs, I think that the Super Hornets could benefit significantly from CFTs. Not sure how they would set it up, but if they can do it for a single engined F-16, they should be able to do it for the Super Hornets. I think it would fit best on top. Again, may be with a recessed bay for an AMRAAM on each tank.
Recommended Posts