Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[David Hingtgen]

Anyone know anything about The accident at Cap Canaveral with SpaceX Falcon 9?

The only official statements so far describe a problem during the upper-stage LOX loading.

Oh no, not an 'accident' nor 'explosion'---that never happens with Space X. The official term is "rapid, unplanned disassembly".

In other news,

No comment needed nor necessary:

[Sildani]

Isn't that the next-generation all-moving tailplane? Now with yaw authority!

[David Hingtgen]

Technically, I think the change in effective sweep angle would alter the downforce of left vs right tailplanes, and thus affect roll.

[spanner]

yikes! that looks expensive! someones gonna lose their job over this for sure!

[David Hingtgen]

NASA gets all the cool planes:

[Sildani]

Yeah, I still love the F-16XL. Distinctive design that worked really well.

[spanner]

Yeah, I still love the F-16XL. Distinctive design that worked really well.

definitely my favorite F-16 configuration! shame it never went into production.. I also really liked the F-15 with those canards too!

[F-ZeroOne]

No idea if this linked image is genuine, but if it is, I think thats the weirdest missile loadout I've ever seen on a F-14...

http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/F-14-Tomcat-180.jpg

Edited September 10, 2016 by F-ZeroOne

[David Hingtgen]

That's totally valid. And CG-wise, preferred to carrying Phoenixes aft. If the aft pallets are loaded, they will be the first to empty their weapons.

It's actually about my fave combo, I do it on models when possible.

About the rarest combo is 4 Sidewinders, 2 Phoenix, 1 Sparrow. (You could actually do 3/2/2 I think, balance wouldn't be too off but have never see it so likely not a legal load----3/3/1 likely physically fits but would have lateral balance issues for sure I think)

[F-ZeroOne]

Sorry, David, slightly baffled, what do you mean "first to empty their weapons"? Why is that an issue?

[This Confuses Gamlin]

Unloading the front pallets before the rear ones will noticeably shift the center of gravity rearward, which will adversely affect stability.

[areaseven]

Do you want a YouTube Channel that gives you info on fighter jets and experimental aircraft? WELL, TOO BAD!!! Because this channel is on hiatus for the rest of the year.

[captain america]

I haven't followed aircraft development much in the last 20 years, but I did stumble onto something rather interesting recently with regards to the venerable F-14. I remember even back before it was retired that naysayers would talk-down the capabilities of the AIM-54, saying that it was really only useful for hitting large, slow bombers and that fighters could easily evade the missile. Well it seems that veteran Iranian pilots and researchers have brought some interesting information to that old debate. It certainly surprised me!

Also, I found this:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142

This part made me tingle in my special place: "Even without thrust vectoring, the aerodynamic enhancements found on the ASF-14 would allow the jet to reach over 77 degrees of sustained AoA, but thrust vectoring was also to be part of the new design which would have made it the most maneuverable fighter of all time."

[Shadow]

Alot of the issues that plagued the AIM-54 when used in actual combat were due to extended periods in storage from I've read. In testing, the missile was quite successful. If the AIM-152 AAAM had become a reality, they would have had a missile with the same range but much less weight.

[Vifam7]

Also, I found this:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142

This part made me tingle in my special place: "Even without thrust vectoring, the aerodynamic enhancements found on the ASF-14 would allow the jet to reach over 77 degrees of sustained AoA, but thrust vectoring was also to be part of the new design which would have made it the most maneuverable fighter of all time."

Mostly nonsense. F-14 fanboy fantasy talk.

[Nazareno2012]

Alot of the issues that plagued the AIM-54 when used in actual combat were due to extended periods in storage from I've read. In testing, the missile was quite successful. If the AIM-152 AAAM had become a reality, they would have had a missile with the same range but much less weight.

Why not use Meteor instead? It is basically the modern equivalent to the AIM-152 and could theoretically be integrated on the F/A-18 Hornet.

[F-ZeroOne]

This Confuses Gamlin, thanks for the explanation. Sorry, David, I saw "CG" in your reply but my brain read it as "Computer Generated" and not "Centre of Gravity" (yes, should have guessed from context)...

Meteor would obviously be an option for a long range missile requirement, and I'm sure some of the F-35 partner nations want to integrate it but might suffer from "not invented here" syndrome.

Edited September 12, 2016 by F-ZeroOne

[Nazareno2012]

Meteor would obviously be an option for a long range missile requirement, and I'm sure some of the F-35 partner nations want to integrate it but might suffer from "not invented here" syndrome.

MBDA, the manufacturer of Meteor has a US subsidiary, and Meteor could be produced in the US. In fact, it is in their US product catalog. Now producing it in the US is one thing, breaking Raytheon's dominance is another

[F-ZeroOne]

I guess Meteors best bet is that its more-or-less an "off-the-shelf" solution, possibly more so if they get that Japanese AESA seeker head thats been mooted. I'm not sure off the top of my head how it compares to a Raytehon offering, which I presume would be a variant of AMRAAM?

Edited September 14, 2016 by F-ZeroOne

[David Hingtgen]

Found it---the weird winged bomb at the USAF Armament Museum is (possibly the one and only) GBU-20:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/mgws.html

[captain america]

Mostly nonsense. F-14 fanboy fantasy talk.

Maybe, maybe not. The general airframe design was already extremely good to begin with. An all new manufacture with greater use of composites, modern flight control system, radar, F135 engines w/MATV nozzles and updated wing glove could very well produce a scary-agile fighter, not to mention a significant improvement in combat range and supercruise capability.

So many of the later designs had to make compromises to house weapons internally (weight penalty) and maintain low-observability. I remember back in the early days of the F-22, someone affiliated with the program said that the F-22 as actually LESS agile than the F-15 if not for its thrust-vectoring nozzles. The F-35 is probably in a similar situation. I can't help wondering if this current line of thinking isn't a déjà-vu of the massive blunder that was the gun-less F-4 back in the Vietnam era.

[F-ZeroOne]

David, thanks for ID' ing that bom... missil... thing?

Boeing have revealed their TX contender, immediately voted "Most Likely To Star As Enemy Aircraft In An 'Iron Eagle' Reboot":

http://www.boeing.com/features/2016/09/tx-rollout-09-16.page

[dizman]

So..... how is the Textron Scorpion doing? I doubt a smaller company will get the government contract but they will probably put a fighter in just to see what happens. I'm pretty sure they have been doing flight tests for the past few years, the T-X competition sounds right up their alley.

[F-ZeroOne]

According to Wikipedia, although they initially offered it they later pulled out due to changing requirements; apparently they would now need a clean sheet design to meet the new programme goals.

[Nazareno2012]

I personally think the KAI T-50 will most likely be chosen, as it is a proven design in service already.

[David Hingtgen]

T-50? That'd rock!

Oh, wait, THAT T-50, not PAK-FA's....

[Thom]

Maybe, maybe not. The general airframe design was already extremely good to begin with. An all new manufacture with greater use of composites, modern flight control system, radar, F135 engines w/MATV nozzles and updated wing glove could very well produce a scary-agile fighter, not to mention a significant improvement in combat range and supercruise capability.

Careful, you might give someone a great idea for a 'What-If' build!

[captain america]

Careful, you might give someone a great idea for a 'What-If' build!

Duuude! If I had time to build models I'd scratchbuild that sucker in 1/32. It should theoretically be feasible to increase the missile load from 8 to 10 or 11 as well, given the shorter fins of the AMRAAM and weight savings over the AIM-54.

[Shadow]

Maybe, maybe not. The general airframe design was already extremely good to begin with. An all new manufacture with greater use of composites, modern flight control system, radar, F135 engines w/MATV nozzles and updated wing glove could very well produce a scary-agile fighter, not to mention a significant improvement in combat range and supercruise capability.

So many of the later designs had to make compromises to house weapons internally (weight penalty) and maintain low-observability. I remember back in the early days of the F-22, someone affiliated with the program said that the F-22 as actually LESS agile than the F-15 if not for its thrust-vectoring nozzles. The F-35 is probably in a similar situation. I can't help wondering if this current line of thinking isn't a déjà-vu of the massive blunder that was the gun-less F-4 back in the Vietnam era.

I think even uprated -129 engines would have been adequate. Don't think the F-14 needed to be Flanker or Raptor agile. I think further updates to the APG-71 (AESA capability) and IRST along with an actual replacement for the AIM-54 would have made the cat a nightmare adversary for any opposing air force into the 21st century.

[Vifam7]

Maybe, maybe not. The general airframe design was already extremely good to begin with. An all new manufacture with greater use of composites, modern flight control system, radar, F135 engines w/MATV nozzles and updated wing glove could very well produce a scary-agile fighter, not to mention a significant improvement in combat range and supercruise capability.

So many of the later designs had to make compromises to house weapons internally (weight penalty) and maintain low-observability. I remember back in the early days of the F-22, someone affiliated with the program said that the F-22 as actually LESS agile than the F-15 if not for its thrust-vectoring nozzles. The F-35 is probably in a similar situation. I can't help wondering if this current line of thinking isn't a déjà-vu of the massive blunder that was the gun-less F-4 back in the Vietnam era.

I just have a hard time believing that all of those improvements can be made to fit, all while not substantially increasing size, weight, (even with greater use of composites), and cost. Especially weight - the one thing that always seems to grow in every aircraft program.

IIRC, the F-22's wings were designed for high speed flight and not particularly for low speed maneuvering hence the reason why thrust vectoring was added.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Vifam7

[captain america]

I just have a hard time believing that all of those improvements can be made to fit, all while not substantially increasing size, weight, (even with greater use of composites), and cost. Especially weight - the one thing that always seems to grow in every aircraft program.

IIRC, the F-22's wings were designed for high speed flight and not particularly for low speed maneuvering hence the reason why thrust vectoring was added.

To be fair, it would have to be an all new airframe designed with new systems in mind, utilizing the F-14's outer shape and overall aerodynamics only. I could be wrong, but I think that avionics are a little bit like operating systems in that you start off with an initial system and then as new threats/missions emerge, patches have to be implemented, and with fighters, that means more boxes and widgets which take up weight and space inside the airframe, and sometimes updates are limited because they have to be backwards-compatible with the original system. The older a system is, the more "patches" it requires. That said, if you're starting from a clean slate with all new systems, that can be a huge advantage.

I think that the Russians have/had a useful approach when designing the SU-27 in that they felt that the aerodynamic design had to be excellent to start with, and that whatever gimmicks are added (thrust-vectoring, stealth, etc) should only enhance/complement the existing design. That's my mindset, and something I think US designers have strayed away from. It doesn't mean that my ideas are necessarily better, maybe it would be a total flop. I do think the ideas are worth exploring though.

Edited September 16, 2016 by captain america

[Vifam7]

I was just thinking that had the Navy selected the navalized F-16 rather than the Hornet, what if they had also jumped on the F-16XL program and made a navalized version of that? If the Navy had a navalized XL, maybe they wouldn't have had to purchase the Super Hornet and had enough money for more F-14Ds or the NATF...

Ah~ what if....

Edited September 16, 2016 by Vifam7

[F-ZeroOne]

Considering what it took to make the YF-17 into the F/A-18 in the first place, I suspect the end result would be about the same...

[Mazinger]

https://m.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/533h7q/an_f22_raptor_pulling_so_many_gs_the_low_pressure/?utm_source=mweb_redirect&compact=true

F22's poop rainbows, much like unicorns.

[Dobber]

Cool picture!

Chris