raptormesh Posted September 4, 2013 Posted September 4, 2013 Papa Harrier showing them how it's done. Hahaha, awesome reply. Sure looks like it. The F-35s are really growing on me. Love the C model the most. Quote
LOW_ALT Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 I saw this on tumblr today. Anybody know anything about it? Quote
raptormesh Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 You're asking us if we know anything about an obscure photoshop? (I'm an internet hermit, so i might be wrong. About how obscure it is) Quote
Phyrox Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 Between the shadow on the center tail, the anachronistic (B-25?) horizontal stabilizer acting as the forward connector, and the absolute pointlessness of the design...it screams photoshop about as loudly as it can. Can't tell you anything else about it though. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 I'm guessing inspired by designs like the He. 111Z or Twin Mustang... Quote
David Hingtgen Posted September 10, 2013 Author Posted September 10, 2013 I believe the "canard-connector" is mostly cloned from the rear fuselage---just with the tailcone itself removed. Quote
VF5SS Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 http://flight-highschool.tumblr.com/post/60286414845/flight-school-13-1-3-household-debt-more F-14 please stop eating so much Quote
David Hingtgen Posted September 10, 2013 Author Posted September 10, 2013 "If you have to explain the joke then there IS no joke"----The Joker. Even *I* don't get most of those comics the first time... Quote
VF5SS Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Turn in your airplane badge. I want you off the force. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted September 10, 2013 Author Posted September 10, 2013 Maybe it's lost in translation... Really, I have issue with that being a "Northrop-Grumman" group. That's like taking a P-51, F-4, and DC-3, and saying it's a Boeing group. Quote
Phyrox Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 The problem with the "jokes" in that comic are they are mostly a bit of a stretch to make fit even with the requisite knowledge, and none of them funny. The concept could be good, as certain planes could easily be turned into believable characters, but the execution on this one seems, to me at least, mostly a mess. Quote
Knight26 Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 DH the B-2 is a step sister, look at the hair color. Quote
rotorhead Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 I saw this on tumblr today. Anybody know anything about it? In case there was any doubt: 100% photoshop. Looks like a YF-12 that's been mirrored and had something a bit... ridiculous... done in the middle. **Always** check the shadows The vertical stabilizer on the right, as viewed, does not have the same light source as the other two stabilizers. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted September 12, 2013 Author Posted September 12, 2013 Never knew the NACA duct was originally intended as a jet intake------YF-93: (NACA ducting doesn't work very well for jets apparently, thus why you never see it as such) Quote
electric indigo Posted September 15, 2013 Posted September 15, 2013 We may finally get a good 1/48 kit of the mighty Viggen from swedish kit makers Tarangus. A CAD preview can be found here: http://www.themodellingnews.com/2013/08/attention-viggen-lovers-we-have-latest.html HLJ has it for preorder with an Ocotber release date. http://www.tarangus.se/ Quote
David Hingtgen Posted September 16, 2013 Author Posted September 16, 2013 Anybody want a used Tornado? Awww man, those look like ADV versions, too. Anyways: We may finally get a good 1/48 kit of the mighty Viggen from swedish kit makers Tarangus. A CAD preview can be found here: http://www.themodellingnews.com/2013/08/attention-viggen-lovers-we-have-latest.html HLJ has it for preorder with an Ocotber release date. http://www.tarangus.se/ The CAD looks wrong for a JA37. The JA is the stretch, and that CAD looks to have the original fuselage length. While the stretch wasn't very big, it's obvious if you know where to look due to its location and alignment with the wing/canard junction. An "ultimate" Viggen kit by a Swedish company should do it right, and not "genericize" the two versions to use the same fuselage. Quote
electric indigo Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 Isn't the stretch already present at the purple line in the side view? Quote
David Hingtgen Posted September 16, 2013 Author Posted September 16, 2013 I swear that pic looks different than the one I saw. Let me check the site again. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted September 17, 2013 Author Posted September 17, 2013 Up-close PAK-FA pics: http://age.lenta.ru/maks_2013/photo/2013/09/02/tfifty/#0 Quote
LOW_ALT Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 That sure doesn't look very radar absorbant Quote
Model-Junkie Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Radar absorbancy is dependent on coatings and possibly construction materials, it has little to do with looks. I believe you are referring to Radar Cross-Section (RCS) and even then it is mute to argue how 'stealthy' an aircraft is. All stealth aircraft can be detected one way or another, it all depends on the tradeoffs you want. Quote
LOW_ALT Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 I was referring directly to radar-absorbent surface coatings, which this plane completely lacks. Quote
Knight26 Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 I was referring directly to radar-absorbent surface coatings, which this plane completely lacks. You also have to remember that 051 is a strictly flight test bird for testing the flight dynamics of the aircraft. Russians work in an itterative process with each prototype testing another aspect of the design and eventually incorporating all of them. Quote
reddsun1 Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Anybody want a used Tornado? There's just gotta be a sci-fi film production somewhere that ougtha be able to pick one or two of those up, use 'em as basis for some kickass 1:1 scale "space fighter" sets/props... Quote
the white drew carey Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Some cool photos in this post over at EnglishRussia:http://englishrussia.com/2013/09/17/shooting-planes-from-the-ramp-of-an-12/ Quote
miles316 Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 I was referring directly to radar-absorbent surface coatings, which this plane completely lacks. Many claim the Russians have been developing a system since the late 80's for generating a layer of Ionised gas over the airframe that is supposedly able to absorbed RADAR waves without the need for Finicky RAM coatings. Quote
JELEINEN Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 Do you think the Air Force would actually go for this: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/tech/innovation/new-scorpion-attack-jet/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 ? Quote
David Hingtgen Posted September 18, 2013 Author Posted September 18, 2013 3000lb load. With the proliferation of sub-500lb weapons, that's actually quite a useful warload nowadays. Heck, look at most real Super Hornet patrol loads---it's about 1500lbs per wing, excluding the fuel tanks. Quote
electric indigo Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 Do you think the Air Force would actually go for this: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/tech/innovation/new-scorpion-attack-jet/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 ? They might as well buy some Yak-130s. Quote
Knight26 Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 It is an interesting plane to be sure, and would make a nice economic boost. Thing is, since it is a two seater I could see it as a trainer as well, something of a T-37 replacement. It is not fast enough for a T-38 replacement. Though a new wing and afterburning engines might make it a viable replacement for the T-38 as well. Quote
Chronocidal Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 I half wonder why they don't just build back up assembly lines for the T-38, and keep making it. The financial side of things can get tricky though, so who knows. If they had to reverse engineer everything to make the tooling for more of them, that might wind up being more costly than designing a new aircraft from scratch with current manufacturing techniques in mind. Though, even if they have to start over, it seems like they could save some time and effort by using the same base design. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted September 18, 2013 Author Posted September 18, 2013 The F-20 could have made a kick-ass "super-advanced" trainer to succeed the T-38... Quote
skullmilitia Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 I'm shocked they want to kill the A-10. Now they are saying the AF is going to axe KC-10's, F-15C's, and CSAR Helo's as well. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.