Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[David Hingtgen]

So the official US tri-services numbering system is just completely abandoned then, it seems.

First F-35 instead of F-24, now B-21 instead of B-3. The -35 is at least an easily understood error, but they're blatantly admitting they basically picked -21 "because it was cool".

I call dibs on next fighter being F-77, 'cuz it's a cool number...

[David Hingtgen]

Stealing from NEOGaf because it's too brilliant not to use it forever:

B-2.1

[grigolosi]

Actually that is what a F-15 sounds like when it starts from a long distance away. We can hear them across 2 runways here at Al Dhafra when they crank up. That is the sound level you hear at 1-2 miles away. Even the start system on that bird is old. It uses a pull cable to actuate the start sequence on it.

Hell the US military does what ever it needs to now to keep the private sector happy. Lockheed probably made a stink about having to designate the 35 by the next military sequence number. So the DOD said ok just keep your program designation number on it if you want, just give us our shiny new toy.....Actually I bet the next one will be called the F-OU8129'er.....yes you heard a 9'er in there.....

Edited February 26, 2016 by grigolosi

[anime52k8]

So the official US tri-services numbering system is just completely abandoned then, it seems.

First F-35 instead of F-24, now B-21 instead of B-3. The -35 is at least an easily understood error, but they're blatantly admitting they basically picked -21 "because it was cool".

I call dibs on next fighter being F-77, 'cuz it's a cool number...

They're coping Macross.

[Sildani]

A recording doesn't match the real-life intensity/frequency. A lot of the effect is lost. It's way up there in my all time "bad auditory experiences in life".

Ayep. I was at an air show at RAF Mildenhall in 1994, and rather near the runway. A Harrier was performing its routine and decided to come to a dead hover about 60 feet above the deck, about 500 feet away from me.

Dear. GOD.

I have never, before or since, experienced sound as a physical force upon my body. I heard nothing but the savage white noise of the turbofan, while the vibrations passed through my entire body, the resonance making me desperately sick to my stomach.

After an eternity, it resumed forward flight. I stood there and heard nothing but a titanic ring for ten solid minutes, which was about the same time it took for my body to stop hurting.

So. Loud jets are loud.

Oh, yeah, the B-21. Call it the Wraith or the Marauder II.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Sildani

[Vifam7]

Ayep. I was at an air show at RAF Mildenhall in 1994, and rather near the runway. A Harrier was performing its routine and decided to come to a dead hover about 60 feet above the deck, about 500 feet away from me.

Dear. GOD.

I have never, before or since, experienced sound as a physical force upon my body. I heard nothing but the savage white noise of the turbofan, while the vibrations passed through my entire body, the resonance making me desperately sick to my stomach.

After an eternity, it resumed forward flight. I stood there and heard nothing but a titanic ring for ten solid minutes, which was about the same time it took for my body to stop hurting.

So. Loud jets are loud.

Reminds me of my experience of a Concorde take-off when I was working at JFK. Yep, you not only hear it, you feel it!

[David Hingtgen]

I've been fairly close to a hovering Sea Harrier but it must have been a bit further away, because I've read many accounts that NOTHING beats a hovering Harrier when it comes to noise, but my experience wasn't all that memorable, sound-wise.

[GMK]

The B-21 "Broken Arrow"?

[grigolosi]

The GE 129/132 will literally vibrate you so much at full burner that you can feel yourself moving across the hush house floor. Even with a headset on you can't hear a word the run man in the cockpit is saying. Jet noise is no joke. But oddly enough the worst I have ever heard of was the T-37 trainer the USAF used. Ground crews were told flat out that they would suffer hearing loss from working around them for too long. The shape of the intakes and the small engine inlet induced such a high pitch sound it was worse than a normal fighter engine. The Pratts are second on my list of unbearable engine noise. The intakes are smaller on Pratt powered F-16's so they are far higher pitched when they are running. You can almost imagine what dog hears with a dog whistle. I get ringing in my ears from time to time now due to the jet noise I heard everyday. My friend who worked F-111's has tinnitus so bad he has problems sleeping when it flares up.

[spanner]

never heard a harrier sadly but were I live we use to have RAAF F-111 fly overs quite regularly and they were very noisy buggers! Now its just Hornets and Super Hornets which are cool but not as bad.

There is a plane which is very loud that does occasionally fly over but later at night that is very noisy but being dark I can't identify it.. not sure what the RAAF would have that's noisy still flying around unless its something new they are intentionally keeping out of sight??

F-35A perhaps?

[David Hingtgen]

Any DC-9's or 727's still flying around there?

[spanner]

not that ive seen..

[SchizophrenicMC]

Any DC-9's or 727's still flying around there?

Ugh there's a guy who parks his 727 at the municipal airport down the street. It's not hard to tell when that guy's going somewhere.

[grigolosi]

I retired out of Eglin AFB. They fly the F-35's there but as far as i can tell by just listening they aren't really any louder than the normal 15's and 16's that fly from there. Do you see any formation lights on it when it takes off Spanner?

[Shadow]

Wouldn't be surprised if the next-gen fighter gets F-44. (Let's go Wing Commander on it.) As for the DoDs new and very expensive boomerang. I like Wraith as mentioned above, or bring back the Blackbird name.

[F-ZeroOne]

One message board I read suggested "Vampire", which I liked (leaving asides the image problems associated with todays modern shiny Vampire and the fact that. technically, it would be "Vampire II"...

My memory is that for their size Harriers are incredibly noisy, but I have heard others stating they've heard nosier aircraft.

Those of you who have had hearing problems associated with jet engine noise, you have my sympathies. I have a relative who suffers from tinnitus and although I obviously can't know directly what its like, their descriptions are enough to learn it is not something overly easy to live with.

[grigolosi]

I am lucky mine only acts up from time to time and compared to my friends it is not bad at all. It literally sounds like a synthesized tone in your ear. I wouldn't describe as a ringing as more like a constant tone you hear during a hearing test if you have ever had one.

I know one aircraft that is nosier than a lot of fighters on takeoff also is the U-2. Those SOB's are extremely loud on takeoff and you can here them clearly when they several thousand feet off the ground and climbing. The GE they use smokes like a J-79 also.

[Dobber]

IIRC, is the 35 supposed to be extremely loud too?

Chris

[SchizophrenicMC]

I retired out of Eglin AFB. They fly the F-35's there but as far as i can tell by just listening they aren't really any louder than the normal 15's and 16's that fly from there. Do you see any formation lights on it when it takes off Spanner?

Spent some time at Lockheed Ft Worth, can confirm. No louder than an F-16 from where I was standing.

Those of you who have had hearing problems associated with jet engine noise, you have my sympathies. I have a relative who suffers from tinnitus and although I obviously can't know directly what its like, their descriptions are enough to learn it is not something overly easy to live with.

Tinnitus is pretty bad. A lot of my family has mild tinnitus, but my dad is profoundly deaf and his tinnitus is so bad, it gives him vertigo, makes it hard to sleep, and causes him to lose focus a lot. It's gotten so bad, he's having surgery next month to get a brain implant we hope will help reduce his tinnitus. (As an aside, as I'm typing this, my ears are ringing at about a medium. Hooray)

[spanner]

I retired out of Eglin AFB. They fly the F-35's there but as far as i can tell by just listening they aren't really any louder than the normal 15's and 16's that fly from there. Do you see any formation lights on it when it takes off Spanner?

I had thought it could be a F-35A as Australia is getting them and when my (former) boss went to Hawaii for a holiday he saw some there and said they were mighty loud so I figured it could be a possibility it was one.

Can't really see much in the way of lighting as it must be flying up at about 3000ft (thats a guess of course) and im not so good at identifying marks or lighting. But I also just read that none of the F-35's bound for Australia are even here as yet.. so it might not even be one. I wonder what else it could be but I doubt it would be anything interesting as Australia is pretty boring when it comes to things like this..

[grigolosi]

Schizo my buddy up in Alaska has almost the same issues too. He doesn't get the vertigo fortunately. When we worked together at Red Flag Alaska he would come into work in such bad moods some mornings that everyone would just leave him alone. He finally told me one morning after about 6 months why he was so "cranky". His tinnitus was keeping him from sleeping and would flare up during work and cause him quite a bit of discomfort. He went to the AF Med group on base about it but in typical fashion they wouldn't do anything for him except give him motrin. I really hope this surgery works for your father.

Spanner I was doing some reading yesterday, I know the RAAF operates some E-7 aircraft, they are essentially a 737 equipped to do AWACS and they also operate C-17's.

Edited February 28, 2016 by grigolosi

[F-ZeroOne]

Schizo, hope that op goes well for your father. I've read about such implants and at least in some cases they're said to make things much more manageable for some sufferers.

Okay, so who else is disappointed the B-21 isn't the YF-23 reincarnated?

[SchizophrenicMC]

Schizo, hope that op goes well for your father. I've read about such implants and at least in some cases they're said to make things much more manageable for some sufferers.

Okay, so who else is disappointed the B-21 isn't the YF-23 reincarnated?

I'm disappointed every time something isn't a YF-23.

[Sildani]

The 23 was never going to be the bomber. Wouldn't have the legs.

I like the 23 a lot, but let go folks. By now it'd have to be redesigned to accommodate systems, radars, engines and weapons that didn't exist 30 years ago.

[Shadow]

As I recall, the 23 could only store 4 missiles in it's main bay with an additional bay for 2 Sidewinders. It would have, as stated above, have taken alot of modifications to make that design accommodate bombs I think. Use the YF-23 as inspiration for the 6th Gen fighter design which I think Northrop is planning to do.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Shadow

[David Hingtgen]

The 23 was never going to be the bomber. Wouldn't have the legs.

I like the 23 a lot, but let go folks. By now it'd have to be redesigned to accommodate systems, radars, engines and weapons that didn't exist 30 years ago.

There's too many F/B-23 models and drawings made by Northrop for it to have not been at least somewhat considered.

It's like the R/A-5C and YF-23 had a baby.

Also, F-23A traded area ruling/speed (and likely stealth) for more internal volume compared to YF-23. F/B-23 clearly is using that big spine for yet even more fuel.

[spanner]

that looks sweet as!

[SchizophrenicMC]

I like the 23 a lot, but let go folks. By now it'd have to be redesigned to accommodate systems, radars, engines and weapons that didn't exist 30 years ago.

There are new F-15 and F/A-18 variants that accommodate systems, radars, engines, and weapons that didn't exist 40 years ago, with small enough amounts of redesign that it was profitable to do so, even at lower prices than their competitor, the F-35. (Which is going to have to be redesigned soon to accommodate systems, radars, engines, and weapons that didn't exist 15 years ago- before it even reaches actual service) To say nothing of how boondoggled the F-22 became during its short production run.

All I'm saying is, maybe Lockheed doesn't have the capability to actually make these planes. Maybe Northrop Grumman, who have a long history of delivering on time, should have received more consideration. Maybe next time they will. Maybe the F-23 is the porkbelly military spending we really need. Or maybe it'll come down to Lockheed's lobbying dollars again, like it always seems to in recent memory.

In any case, the YF-23 is certainly the prettier plane, and it boggles my mind a bit to think that thing flew on computers available in the early 1990s. There's nothing conventional about that design, and hardly anything aerodynamically stable about it. The amount of flight computer intercession needed to keep that thing in the air has got to be pretty large.

[Sildani]

They learned a lot from the F-16 and 18, and that F-15 demonstrator whose name temporarily escapes me.

That F/B-23 looks very, very nice. It also looks like a completely different aircraft, internally, only superficially similar to the YF-23. It might have been able to do the job though.

The 15 and 16 have been updated because, in part, they have already been built in their hundreds and thousands. It was more cost effective to modify them to new technology than for their operators to buy new aircraft. And let us not forget that those aircraft weren't unchanged when they were done - witness the difference between the F-16A and one of the current blocks, with its CFTs, blisters, enlarged spines, and other various protrusions. You can't expand "outward" like that on a stealth aircraft.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Which is a typical weakness of stealth aircraft. Changes to the aircraft profile are difficult to validate, making future revision much more challenging and expensive, when it's even possible.

However, the F-22A is a wildly different aircraft to the YF-22. So too would the F-23 have been to the YF-23. Even between the prototypes, there were more than a handful of changes to support the GE YF-120 engine over the P/W YF-119.

I've heard it opined that the YF-22 only won out because their demonstration was flashier, involving irrelevant but fun to watch single-point demonstrations, while the YF-23 demonstration showed the aircraft in much more typical modes of flight for its operating requirements. Of course the YF-22's 9G turn was impressive to watch. But neither plane was ever going to be a dogfighter, and Northrop Grumman didn't show that off as much, as such. Of course, it's also likely that the YF-23 was passed over because the B-2 had significant cost overruns. Then again, the F-22 had even greater cost and timeline overruns and we only made a handful before giving up.

Of course, the way I really feel is, what's the point of any of this? Why spend all this money on air power we don't need? I only care about the YF-23 because of all the flight science it represented. All the possibilities we decided to give a miss when we went with the more conventional F-22.

And you're probably thinking of the F-15ACTIVE or F-15S/MTD.

[Shadow]

I loved the potential the YF-23 showed, especially with more innovative engines like the GE YF-120s. I also wonder if a design like the 23 will be taken more seriously in the future with advances in air defense technology like S-400.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The YF-120 is probably the biggest loss from the YF-23 scrub. I wonder what that engine could have done as an F110 replacement. They're very nearly the same size, but the YF-120 was supposed to be a 35,000lb thrust engine, and the YF-23 supercruised at mach 1.6. Imagine what that could have done for the F-14. Could have had a super-cruising 1:1+ F-14.

The YF-23 makes me sad, but the F-14 absolutely crushes me.

[grigolosi]

Schizo you are correct about the YF-22's demo being flashy. They actually launched an AIM-9 during the flyoff which the YF-23 was not ready to do since Northrop was told there would be no weapons demonstrated during the flyoff. The folks i talked to at Eddies dueing my time there told me that the 23 was the better aircraft of the 2. The YF-23 was flying sorties a day after it arrived with minimum set up and continued flying with no major issues during the flyoff. The frontal profile of the aircraft was far harder to see at distance.....to the point that most people didn't see it on approach until it s gear were down and the landing light was on. I love this next feature...it had NO SAFETY WIRE on it. It was intended to use on self locking nuts on its components. The flyoff was won by politics not actual capability as Schizo pointed out.

Tomcats as good as they were also had a bad rep as a maintenance hog. I had an assistant crew chief on my jet at Eddies who had been a plane captain on both Tomcats and Hornets in the Navy before he got out and came in the AF. He said Tomcats were a hydraulic nightmare. They averaged at least 1-2 IFE's a week for hydraulic failure. When they flew they were great aircraft but the maintenance man hours to flying hours started getting expensive. I do believe they could have looked at upgrading the frames completely but who knows how much that would have cost.

[Vifam7]

The YF-120 is probably the biggest loss from the YF-23 scrub. I wonder what that engine could have done as an F110 replacement. They're very nearly the same size, but the YF-120 was supposed to be a 35,000lb thrust engine, and the YF-23 supercruised at mach 1.6. Imagine what that could have done for the F-14. Could have had a super-cruising 1:1+ F-14.

The YF-23 makes me sad, but the F-14 absolutely crushes me.

Even if the YF-23 had won the competition, I doubt a YF120 engined Tomcat would've ever happened. The Navy had already wasted its time and money on the A-12.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Even if the YF-23 had won the competition, I doubt a YF120 engined Tomcat would've ever happened. The Navy had already wasted its time and money on the A-12.

A boy has the right to dream.