Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Shadow]

I would like to thank the previous seven posters for slamming those dusty memoires out from the back of my cluttered mind, and making a boring day totally awesome.

In return, I offer this:

https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en-GB&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=980&bih=1185&q=cobra+raven+jet&oq=cobra+raven+jet&gs_l=img.12...3894.17244.0.20526.25.19.4.2.2.0.689.5683.2j7j3j1j0j6.19.0....0...1c.1.55.img..10.15.1841.eZPLgdtIhZE

My friend that lived behind me had this. I remember being so jealous of him as he had all the cool GI Joe toy sets. It was fun being a kid in the late 80s, early 90s.

[modelglue]

My friend that lived behind me had this. I remember being so jealous of him as he had all the cool GI Joe toy sets. It was fun being a kid in the late 80s, early 90s.

I call that: "The time before Power Rangers".

Back to swing wings, I watch a documentary recently about the Panavia Tornado. In the film, they showed maintenance to the wing box, and the pivot for the swing wing. The tolerances were so tight, that they had to freeze the connecting pin in something cold and liquid for 24hrs before pressure fitting it into the wing and box to replace the wing on the aircraft. Ultimately, Swingies are my favourites of the aircraft world and naturally my love of VFs extends from this.

Would someone please create a variable Tomcat and sell it in Battroid and Fighter mode? Please?

[Nekko Basara]

I have always boggled at the Su-17 family, and how simply and successfully the Soviets were able to create a VG aircraft out of a non-VG design. It certainly didn't have the full advantage of dedicated types, but it's quite a feat nonetheless.

[David Hingtgen]

I've read enough about the Su-17 to at least partially agree with those who claim it was "basically luck" that it worked well aerodynamically to replace the outer panel with a variable-sweep section at the location of the production join of the original wing design.

Or read another way----you could have tried the same "retrofit/modification" with most any other jet, and it wouldn't have worked. It'd have needed a wholly new wing from root to tip, to function well.

[Devil 505]

I have always boggled at the Su-17 family, and how simply and successfully the Soviets were able to create a VG aircraft out of a non-VG design. It certainly didn't have the full advantage of dedicated types, but it's quite a feat nonetheless.

I've read enough about the Su-17 to at least partially agree with those who claim it was "basically luck" that it worked well aerodynamically to replace the outer panel with a variable-sweep section at the location of the production join of the original wing design.

Or read another way----you could have tried the same "retrofit/modification" with most any other jet, and it wouldn't have worked. It'd have needed a wholly new wing from root to tip, to function well.

The same principle applies to the Tu-22 Blinder's conversion to the Tu-22M Backfire.

Would someone please create a variable Tomcat and sell it in Battroid and Fighter mode? Please?

Unfortunately, the closest I can find is the YVF-14 "Tigercat," HG's answer to the VF-0 when it comes to variable fighter veritech development.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Devil 505

[Nekko Basara]

The same principal applies to the Tu-22 Blinder's conversion to the Tu-22M Backfire.

I didn't think that the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M were actually the same airframe - they certainly don't look it.

Wikipedia is a bit muddled on the subject, claiming that the Tu-22M was "derived" from the Tu-22, but then saying it was a "new aircraft" and what they had in common was the weapon system (the same could be said of the F-111B and the F-14...) Wikipedia also states that the naming was a ploy to get the program approved internally (it's not a new plane, it's a modification!) and then used to obscure its origins at the SALT II talks. Other sites I checked briefly seem to vary in their descriptions of to what degree the Tu-22M was a modification of the Tu-22 or a new design.

Maybe someone here has better info. I think it's safe to say it's at least not the Su-7/Su-17 situation of simply slapping on modified wings with minimal and largely unrelated changes elsewhere.

EDIT: I forgot that there was an Air Vectors page for the Tu22 & Tu-22M. According to Greg Goebel, the Tu-22M arose from a different company project than the Tu-22 (Samolet 145 vs Samolet 105), but "[to] enhance the notion that the Samolet 145 was a direct replacement for the Tu-22, it was assigned the service designation of 'Tu-22M'... Exactly who was to be fooled by the designation game is unclear, since the Tu-22M looked entirely different from the Tu-22. The only thing it really had in common with its predecessor, aside from a few assemblies like the bombbay doors, was the Kh-22 missile."

Edited October 13, 2014 by Nekko Basara

[SchizophrenicMC]

The same principle applies to the Tu-22 Blinder's conversion to the Tu-22M Backfire.

Unfortunately, the closest I can find is the YVF-14 "Tigercat," HG's answer to the VF-0 when it comes to variable fighter veritech development.

It looks pretty cool in fighter mode, but god that Gerwalk Guardian mode is hideous. If they were going to claim all future Macross developments outside of Japan belonged to them they really should have stolen the VF-X too.

I wonder when we're going to see aircraft that eliminate horizontal stabilizers/elevators in favor of thrust vectoring and fly-by-wire.

[David Hingtgen]

to see aircraft that eliminate horizontal stabilizers/elevators in favor of thrust vectoring and fly-by-wire.

A very long time, based on current USAF rules/requirements about how the F-22 can use its vectoring.

[modelglue]

I wonder when we're going to see aircraft that eliminate horizontal stabilizers/elevators in favor of thrust vectoring and fly-by-wire.

It seems to me that the Delta wing, canard and thrust vector are the closest things in combination to what you are asking. Fly by wire certainly plays a role in a hand full of current US jets.

Unfortunately, the closest I can find is the YVF-14 "Tigercat," HG's answer to the VF-0 when it comes to variable fighter veritech development.

Thank you for that, it was new to me. So basically, jam an F-14 onto a pair of VF-0 legs, give it a chin laser and some kites. I can do that.

I have never been a fan of Gerwalk/Guardian mode, ever. I can see the appeal from a mech' perspective, but the wings and aircraft nose ruin it. Thankfully we are no where near that in the real world. What I would like to see is a move towards Yukikaze styles, with forward sweep and canards. I thnk fly by wire and thrust vector have matured enough (in some countries) to allow this.

[renegadeleader1]

Unfortunately, the closest I can find is the YVF-14 "Tigercat," HG's answer to the VF-0 when it comes to variable fighter veritech development.

To be fair the "Tigercat" existed a good five years before Mac Zero.

[F-ZeroOne]

Technically, the "Tigercat" existed about sixty years before "Macross Zero"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F7F_Tigercat

Regards the freezing of the Tornado components - its not just modern aircraft. There was very recently a programme on UK T.V. about the rebuild of a rare Mk. I Spitfire; one of the pins used for fitting the wings had tolerances so tight that the presenter held it in his hand a for a few minutes and his body heat alone was enough to cause the metal to expand just enough that it wouldn't fit anymore - they had to leave it lying on a cold desk for a bit so that it would fit again! (David would like that rebuild, by the way - the owners of the airframe insisted it be refitted as correctly as possible, which included recreating a rear-view mirror originally from a MG car that wasn't part of the original spec but a personal modification by the pilot!).

Edited October 14, 2014 by F-ZeroOne

[modelglue]

To be fair the "Tigercat" existed a good five years before Mac Zero.

Maybe it served as inspiration? I wish the twin radial Tigercat was a bit earlier. I would love to model one in a D-Day scheme. Gloss Dark Sea Blue is pretty great too though.

So what would happen to that wing when the Spit' reached maximum altitude? Surely the cold air would shrink it. I am probably imagining that is was more of an alignment tool, rather than a fastener. That is a cool fact, about the mirror.

[SchizophrenicMC]

A very long time, based on current USAF rules/requirements about how the F-22 can use its vectoring.

Damned bureaucrats

It seems to me that the Delta wing, canard and thrust vector are the closest things in combination to what you are asking. Fly by wire certainly plays a role in a hand full of current US jets.

Thank you for that, it was new to me. So basically, jam an F-14 onto a pair of VF-0 legs, give it a chin laser and some kites. I can do that.

I have never been a fan of Gerwalk/Guardian mode, ever. I can see the appeal from a mech' perspective, but the wings and aircraft nose ruin it. Thankfully we are no where near that in the real world. What I would like to see is a move towards Yukikaze styles, with forward sweep and canards. I thnk fly by wire and thrust vector have matured enough (in some countries) to allow this.

Fly-by-wire has its role, sure, but with thrust vectoring, what role do those damn heavy elevators serve?

And come on, Gerwalk is the whole point of VFs. Otherwise they're just Transformers.

[miles316]

Damned bureaucrats

Fly-by-wire has its role, sure, but with thrust vectoring, what role do those damn heavy elevators serve?

And come on, Gerwalk is the whole point of VFs. Otherwise they're just Transformers.

The Thrust vectoring on the F-22 is for maintaining control at high altitudes, angles of attack, and high speed not super maneuverability

[David Hingtgen]

Regards the freezing of the Tornado components - its not just modern aircraft. There was very recently a programme on UK T.V. about the rebuild of a rare Mk. I Spitfire; one of the pins used for fitting the wings had tolerances so tight that the presenter held it in his hand a for a few minutes and his body heat alone was enough to cause the metal to expand just enough that it wouldn't fit anymore - they had to leave it lying on a cold desk for a bit so that it would fit again

The 727's wings are attached like that---one guy, wearing gloves, standing on sheets of rubber, slides the main attachment pins in. Any vibration or temp change will cause them not to fit----but when it's all set, they just slide right in. Entire factory had to pause during that operation.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The Thrust vectoring on the F-22 is for maintaining control at high altitudes, angles of attack, and high speed not super maneuverability

That's not to say it's a design impossibility. Nor is it to say thrust vectoring can't be a substitute for horizontal stabilizers on a plane where h-stabs only stabilize because the computer is constantly twitching them.

[David Hingtgen]

That's the main point--it probably COULD serve as a complete replacement, but current policies don't ALLOW it to do so.

The F-22 isn't "allowed" to perform any manuever using thrust vectoring, that it couldn't otherwise do using normal aerodynamic controls. The vectoring is only only allowed to speed up that manuever, allow that manuever to be performed directly after another energy-intensive manuever, to exit the manuever quicker, etc.

Vectoring is only to "enhance" its manuevering, not "add new ones". Which really seems to be kind of a waste.

[F-ZeroOne]

Maybe it served as inspiration? I wish the twin radial Tigercat was a bit earlier. I would love to model one in a D-Day scheme. Gloss Dark Sea Blue is pretty great too though.

So what would happen to that wing when the Spit' reached maximum altitude? Surely the cold air would shrink it. I am probably imagining that is was more of an alignment tool, rather than a fastener. That is a cool fact, about the mirror.

I would imagine that once the airframe is complete a small amount of "flex" wouldn't matter all that much as a whole. It was just in this case, the particular tolerance was incredibly precise, the pin had to fit in a hole; once its in the hole... (as speeds got higher, though, you had to worry more - the Concorde airframe actually expanded a few inches at high speeds and temperatures and had expansion sections to compensate; theres a famous story that during its testing, a technician dropped his hat in one of these spaces and when he returned to retrieve it it had been squashed as the section contracted again!).

Another thing about that Spitfire, they painted it with the original black/white recognition aid under-colouring scheme, which I haven't seen on a flying one before.

[SchizophrenicMC]

That's the main point--it probably COULD serve as a complete replacement, but current policies don't ALLOW it to do so.

The F-22 isn't "allowed" to perform any manuever using thrust vectoring, that it couldn't otherwise do using normal aerodynamic controls. The vectoring is only only allowed to speed up that manuever, allow that manuever to be performed directly after another energy-intensive manuever, to exit the manuever quicker, etc.

Vectoring is only to "enhance" its manuevering, not "add new ones". Which really seems to be kind of a waste.

Complete waste. Added weight, unit cost, development cost, maintenance cost, and no improvement in overall capability.

Damned bureaucrats.

[Nekko Basara]

The discussion of mechanically possible but operationally prohibited maneuvers reminds me of something. Going back a few pages to the Falklands, I've seen a lot of words written on the topic of "viffing" by Harrier pilots, with many authors claiming the technique was used in the Falklands war. I've long been skeptical, both because it seems more novelty than practical maneuver, and because it is a defensive (reversal) technique, and - as folks noted - the Argentinean pilots were in no position to mix it up, let alone get Harriers on the defensive. But that's just my speculation - does anyone have more info?

[F-ZeroOne]

I've read a couple of books by Falklands Harrier pilots and can't recall any mention of the technique being employed. It cropped up a lot in printed (Printed! Ha! Those were the days!) media related to the Harrier that I encountered but I've never seen it having been actually employed in a combat-related account (as opposed to a demonstration or "theoretically", we can do this neat thing!" situation).

Edited October 15, 2014 by F-ZeroOne

[Shadow]

Complete waste. Added weight, unit cost, development cost, maintenance cost, and no improvement in overall capability.

Damned bureaucrats.

Pentagon: But but, the Russians are doing it, and it makes for a great airshow demo (when we can afford the fuel)

P&W won a contract for an additional batch of F135s.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/14/united-tech-fighter-engines-idUSL2N0S92NY20141014

Are there any performance comparisons between the GE/RR F136 and the F135?

[Vifam7]

Complete waste. Added weight, unit cost, development cost, maintenance cost, and no improvement in overall capability.

Damned bureaucrats.

But it does improve capability. If I'm reading David correctly, it makes all regular manuevers better. It just doesn't make all new ones - which I'm guessing isn't really needed or required to defeat any potential enemy.

Also, I'm guessing it's just a limitation they put in so that pilots don't wear out or abuse the limited number of airframes they have.

[David Hingtgen]

Only diagram I've seen actually showing a VIFF move, was to vector the nozzles forward to the fully downwards position while at the top of a loop---being inverted at that point, that would actually force the plane downwards. (I believe most ideas on VIFFing are very a "Top Gun" inspired "putting the brakes on")

[SchizophrenicMC]

Having seen an F-22 demonstrator perform aerobatics, I can say it will do maneuvers that aren't possible from, say, an F-15, thanks to thrust vectoring. This is especially true at low airspeed, where the added capability makes the F-22 appear to defy gravity. However, the same technology could allow it to perform the same maneuvers, without the need for a large elevator structure. For everyone that likes to talk about all-aspect stealth, *ahem*.

For that matter, the F-22 is still considered a hyper-maneuverability aircraft. Its performance actually requires the use of computer-implemented limiters to prevent over-g effects on pilots and the airframe. (Which does carry a higher g-rating than most pilots)

As I understand it, the requirements are in effect as a redundancy factor, and for similar reasons that the FAA bans cell phones on aircraft. (You can't prove it can't be dangerous) Even still, for people who claim that military spending drives technological innovation, it is kind of strange. NASA has built several prototype aircraft that use fly-by-wire thrust vectoring in place of various control surfaces, to great effect. Even the B-2 lacks v-stabs.

I'm just looking at all of this from an economics perspective: if you're going to give the aircraft thrust vectoring, why not extract the maximum advantage from it?

[Nekko Basara]

Only diagram I've seen actually showing a VIFF move, was to vector the nozzles forward to the fully downwards position while at the top of a loop---being inverted at that point, that would actually force the plane downwards. (I believe most ideas on VIFFing are very a "Top Gun" inspired "putting the brakes on")

I've never seen it diagrammed, but from vague descriptions I imagined it just like your second description, as a way to dump speed rapidly while ascending, forcing a pursuer to overshoot (I understand that the nozzles on the Harrier rotate a bit past straight down, so they can apply some of their thrust vector to braking). It's a move I consider a bit dubious, in Top Gun or otherwise, because while it gives the pursuer only a brief and difficult shot before they overshoot and are in front of the maneuvering craft, the latter is left in a very low energy state - meaning if they aren't successful with a snap shot, they're in a very bad spot for any follow-up maneuvers.

Incidentally, I've heard that an unusual disadvantage of the F-14 in a dogfight is that the automatically-controlled wings let an opponent gauge its energy state at a glance. That may be something an experienced aggressor pilot can use to their advantage, but I wonder if any real-world opponent would have that skill.

EDIT: On second reading, I don't mean to imply that potential opponents are unskilled, only that they would not have a specific skill that could only be acquired by hours of dogfighting against real F-14s. Which, I guess, is largely a moot point, nowadays.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Nekko Basara

[SchizophrenicMC]

Fun fact: the F-14's wings could be manually swept, within certain parameters, and the aircraft was extensively tested with one wing swept back during flight, including several full-sweep landings.

[skullmilitia]

Alright guys, who is ready for real life Valks..

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/lockheed-breakthrough-nuclear-fusion-energy?CMP=fb_gu

CN: Lockheed is now going to make Fusion reactors with-in a decade.

Edited October 16, 2014 by skullmilitia

[SchizophrenicMC]

I'm still hesitant to believe anyone's claims of an energy-positive fusion reactor "in 10 years". They said that 10 years ago, and 10 years before that, and 30 years before that.

[mechaninac]

Nuclear researchers have been claiming that practical Fusion reactors are 50 years away since the 1950's. So yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.

[Phyrox]

The discussion of mechanically possible but operationally prohibited maneuvers reminds me of something. Going back a few pages to the Falklands, I've seen a lot of words written on the topic of "viffing" by Harrier pilots, with many authors claiming the technique was used in the Falklands war. I've long been skeptical, both because it seems more novelty than practical maneuver, and because it is a defensive (reversal) technique, and - as folks noted - the Argentinean pilots were in no position to mix it up, let alone get Harriers on the defensive. But that's just my speculation - does anyone have more info?

The Harrier Story states flatly that these maneuvers were not used in air combat during the Falklands. What little mention there is of the technique in the section on that conflict can be summarized:

A possible evasion tactic to be used by GR.3 pilots faced with aggressive fighter opposition was to roll inverted (not loop) and move nozzles to "hover" to drop like a stone.

The book explains that this use of ViFF was "seldom" used in the conflict, but then goes on to say no GR.3s encountered any fixed wing EA.

As others have mentioned the Sea Harriers were nearly always on the offensive in their engagements and ViFF was never called for.

[modelglue]

I had the thought that Harrier Pilots might use compressed air to track laterally (sideways) to avoid ground fire, but it appears Phyrox has given us our answer. I don't know about you guys, but I always trust people with classic Pontiacs.

The 7 x 10' nuclear reactor didn't sound like a healthy choice until I read the fuel specs and the "Zero radioactive waste" part of that article. Convair had that B-36 converted to the Nuclear Bomber but the problem with propulsion in one of the concepts was that it spewed radioactive hot air into the atmosphere, all flight long. So, with a small enough reactor perhaps this could be viable if the timeline stays on track.

[Devil 505]

I had the thought that Harrier Pilots might use compressed air to track laterally (sideways) to avoid ground fire, but it appears Phyrox has given us our answer. I don't know about you guys, but I always trust people with classic Pontiacs.

The 7 x 10' nuclear reactor didn't sound like a healthy choice until I read the fuel specs and the "Zero radioactive waste" part of that article. Convair had that B-36 converted to the Nuclear Bomber but the problem with propulsion in one of the concepts was that it spewed radioactive hot air into the atmosphere, all flight long. So, with a small enough reactor perhaps this could be viable if the timeline stays on track.

I guess the key term is classic Pontiac, since I've had a few bad experiences with my mother's Aztek, but I digress.

The thing to note here is that the NB-36H used for the nuclear-powered bomber tests used a traditional fission reactor, which will always leave radioactive waste, as opposed to the proposed fusion reactor.

[modelglue]

I guess the key term is classic Pontiac, since I've had a few bad experiences with my mother's Aztek, but I digress.

Ha, I was referring to Phyrox's Avatar. I think eventually all cars experience reliability issues, except the static ones. Walter White popularized the Aztec. I would say "re-popularized" but I don't think it was ever popular. I too digress.

The thing to note here is that the NB-36H used for the nuclear-powered bomber tests used a traditional fission reactor, which will always leave radioactive waste, as opposed to the proposed fusion reactor.

I had thought there existed two variants on the propulsion concept. One was contained and boiled water the old fashioned way to create turbine energy which powered electric motors to drive the props.

The other created hot radioactive air which was blown out of ducts acting as engines and would be largely responsible for destroying the Earth in lieu of actual nuclear strikes.

I could be remembering it wrong, It has been a few years since looking at the source material during my time with General Dynamics.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Fusion doesn't produce much in the way of radioactive byproducts or ionizing radiation. It does, however, require very high input energy to maintain the necessary pressure and thermal state for atoms to overcome nuclear repulsion and fuse. It's also prone to neutron bombardment, where free neutrons, which aren't magnetically charged, slam into the inner wall of the reactor, deteriorating it and potentially making it radioactive (albeit with a very short half-life).

(H + H -> He + neutrons)

Fission, on the other hand, is the use of neutron bombardment to cause an unstable radioactive isotope to undergo rapid nuclear decay, which produces a ton of heat, is self-sustaining, and produces lots of radioactive byproducts, including the half-baked waste of its fuel, which has a long half-life, in spite of a high activity level. It's very dirty, but it's very easy to do by today's standards. It's actually not all that dangerous, given modern design and safety protocols. But it's not suitable for small applications, or applications where protocol cannot be strictly administered. There have only been four nuclear plant failures in about 60 years of nuclear power, but each has been significant enough to drive policy and the development of protocol.

While fission is a self-sustaining process, fusion actually isn't. Atoms really don't want to bump into each other, so you need tons of force to make them. Ignoring all of the material concerns of the reactor wall, the input energy is so massive that reactors haven't historically been able to even match it, let alone surpass it meaningfully. The only reason stars can feed fusion reactions is because they weigh so much. Stars shrink when they die because their mass finally overcomes the energy of the fusing atoms pushing back outward, trying to escape each other. And the sun is so heavy, its gravity drags along objects farther out than Pluto. So that's the kind of energy you're looking at putting in to make a fusion reactor work.

Which is why I'm skeptical about anyone's claims of a practical fusion reactor in the foreseeable future. Eventually, somebody will figure out how to make one work, and from there, somebody will make them affordable and scale them. But I don't think it's going to be any time soon. It's just not all there yet.