spanner Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) more Draken coolness! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWOINzyCLL4 and some R/C magic! Edited November 2, 2015 by spanner76 Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Opponents facing F-35s may have to worry about encountering Jem'Hadar, according to British F-35 pilot: "In the F-35 I can generate a wormhole in the airspace and lead everyone through it... " http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=182 (of course, hes actually talking about the sensor capabilities... ). Quote
M'Kyuun Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 The only remaining XB-70 was towed into her new home last week at the National Air Force Museum near Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Oh. I was there a couple years ago, and unfortunately, due to budget sequestration and space limitations, a number of aircraft were not available for public viewing, including the YF-23, JFK's modified Boeing 707 Air Force One, and the XB-70. They recently completed a new hangar, and this video shows the Valkyrie being towed in. Still a majestic bird. Watching that tow team gives me a warm-fuzzy. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to return in a another year or two- definitely recommend to anyone remotely interested in aircraft, USAF history, or just aviation in general. Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Ah, Valkyrie. I imagine what could have been. Quote
spanner Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Ah, Valkyrie. I imagine what could have been. indeed! sigh.. one of the most beautiful aircraft ever made! Quote
grigolosi Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Speaking of the F-35. Here is its first aerial gun firing. The door apparently worked as advertised.....at least in level flight. Quote
grigolosi Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Pushing jets back is so much fun.....especially in tight spaces! Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Reaction Engines has received funding from the British government and purchase of a stake by BAE for development of its advanced SABRE engine, which could be used to power the proposed "Skylon" space plane.Obviously very early days (anyone else remember HOTOL?), but just maybe the UK will start taking a lead in aerospace technology again... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34694935 Quote
M'Kyuun Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 The idea of another space race is romantic, and competition does certainly motivate and incite inventiveness, but of all human endeavors, I wish space was a truly Human Endeavor...all the nations, tribes, and peoples of the world, regardless of ideologies, ethnicities, religions-regardless of the differences that have served to divide us throughout history- would come together in this single pursuit: to create a global space agency dedicated solely to research, exploration, science, and technology to the benefit, and hopefully betterment, of man as a species, and to ultimately remove our sole reliance on this one planet for the survival of our species and culture. But in the meantime, yeah, it'd be good to see the UK involved in the space venture. Grigolosi, thanks for your service. I was a bubble chaser for 15 yrs, and worked in the MOC for 5. Fun while it lasted, but I'm glad I'm done. No more hydro stains to wash out. Quote
frothymug Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Has anyone sat down and assessed the ridiculous design of the Skylon? Just from looking at it, it appears that there are some obvious points of concern: 1) Those tiny wings and canards are supposed to generate enough lift to pick up that vehicle, it's enormous fuel payload, and the several tons of payload in the bay? 2) Undersized vertical tail and rudder are supposed to provide enough yaw authority to handle unusual aerodynamic loads and high-crosswind landing conditions? 3) Despite the use of canards, I still think that the wings are going to have to produce a significant offsetting pitching moment to counter the forward-leaning CG. The Sabre engines are very interesting and I hope that they succeed on that point. However, the Skylon just looks like it will never fly in its current state. Quote
electric indigo Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 They better go with the earlier Plan B and launch from a transporter. http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault/HOTOL/HOTOL&An-225.jpg Quote
grigolosi Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 I haven's heard Bubble chaser used in quite a while M'Kyunn. i know what you mean by washing out stains though. Now I am still washing out Moly B and 7808 oil stains but over in the UAE. Thank you for your service also. On another note: Frothy you would be surprised how much lift those wings will generate. Look at the F-104, that bird had one of the smallest wingspans on a supersonic aircraft. Its wings generated enough lift to get it off the ground pretty quick. As long as the Skylon isn't required to make extreme maneuvers the wings will probably work very well. Quote
Nekko Basara Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 On another note: Frothy you would be surprised how much lift those wings will generate. Look at the F-104, that bird had one of the smallest wingspans on a supersonic aircraft. Its wings generated enough lift to get it off the ground pretty quick. As long as the Skylon isn't required to make extreme maneuvers the wings will probably work very well. Speaking of Lockheed, the Skylon concepts remind me a lot of Lockheed's Project Suntan proposal, CL-400-10. Admittedly, they are both very simple aerodynamic shapes - I'm not suggesting any shared lineage. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 Er... it'll work because it looks cool? Quote
spanner Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 They better go with the earlier Plan B and launch from a transporter. http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault/HOTOL/HOTOL&An-225.jpg meh.. that'll never work.. Quote
Shadow Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 So, does anyone have 425k to throw down on a jet? Updated avionics included. http://bringatrailer.com/2015/11/02/double-delta-airworthy-saab-j35-draken-fighter-jet/ Quote
spanner Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 If I sold my house I would snap that up in a heartbeat! Quote
Thom Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) Awesom shot at 4 min 47 sec!! What a beautiful beast. Why don't they make planes looking like this anymore..? Edited November 5, 2015 by Thom Quote
spanner Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Beautiful Lancaster bomber! The Brits sure knew how to do it eh! Probably my favorite of the WW2 bombers! Quote
grigolosi Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 UUUGgggg a Lysander......just give me a sheet and let me jump off the roof ( the yellow bird behind him at the beginning of the video). The tail gunner position was the worst spot for the crewman on the Lancaster. The Luftwaffe pilots would go after it on the their inital pass and since there was no armor the fatality rate was rather high. The Lancaster had very little armor compared to the American bombers also. But it could haul one hell of a load for its time because of that. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Part of the reason for that bombload is that the Lancasters fuselage was pretty much all bomb bay, which was why it could carry 12,000lb and 22,000lb bombs later in the war. The B-17, I understand, had a structural member going across and through the fuselage, which restricted the size of its bomb bay. Plus, y'know, all those .50 calibre guns and stuff... Of course, because of the Lancaster virtually no-one knows the Handley-Page Halifax... Quote
Sildani Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Or the Short Stirling. But yes, the B-17, at least from the E model onwards, was built incredibly strongly, given a large amount of armor plates, and literally bristled with.50 calibers. All that meant a reduced bomb load. But it also meant more 17s got back home to England. Quote
spanner Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 this may have already been noticed or posted but I wonder if they got the inspiration for the unspacy kite logo from these markings on these Drakens for example!? Quote
Valkyrie2008 Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 So, does anyone have 425k to throw down on a jet? Updated avionics included. http://bringatrailer.com/2015/11/02/double-delta-airworthy-saab-j35-draken-fighter-jet/ 425K yen? sweet deal, but I think the plan is ugly. Quote
spanner Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 425K yen? sweet deal, but I think the plan is ugly. if it was 425K yen would have started a fierce bidding war for sure! Ugly!?!? the Draken is boooooooooodiful! How cool would it be to have this sitting in your back yard! Quote
mickyg Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I also think they used this exact picture for reference on the new Valk - just look, even the canopy is the same. Quote
grigolosi Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Well you could use it as a really really powerful leaf blower. That is what Jeremy Clarkson told his town council when they asked why he had an old BAE Electric fighter sitting in his front yard in England. he told them it was for blowing leaves out the yard. Quote
frothymug Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 The F-104 had a much smaller fuselage that wasn't packed to the brim with propellant. The chord length is also much larger in relative size to its fuselage. The body of the Skylon just looks colossal, when compared to its lifting and control surfaces. Quote
spanner Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Some interesting GE jet engine stuffs.. more cool jet engine stuff.. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Well you could use it as a really really powerful leaf blower. That is what Jeremy Clarkson told his town council when they asked why he had an old BAE Electric fighter sitting in his front yard in England. he told them it was for blowing leaves out the yard. Just being a pedant, but English Electric Lightning. I think towards the end of its life it did become the BAE Lightning though. Quote
frothymug Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I'm trying to understand why GE is once again thinking that "bigger is better". Didn't they have airframe integration issues with the GE90-115B? You can only go so large on the fan radius before the engine risks striking the ground on takeoff or landing. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted November 7, 2015 Author Posted November 7, 2015 I believe the size of the eventual -115B was taken into account very early in the 777 design process. Quote
spanner Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) I'm trying to understand why GE is once again thinking that "bigger is better". Didn't they have airframe integration issues with the GE90-115B? You can only go so large on the fan radius before the engine risks striking the ground on takeoff or landing. maybe the core section is larger but the size of the main fan will remain the same? Or is this engine slated for the 777X which I think was meant to get a new wing design which might have changed to accommodate a slightly larger engine perhaps? all guesses of course.. well there you go.. quoted from the 777 wiki page.. as reliable as this information may be of course.. "Boeing announced the development of upgraded 777-8X and 777-9X models, collectively named 777X, featuring composite wings and GE9X engines and further technologies developed for the 787. The 777X series is planned to enter service by 2020." Edited November 8, 2015 by spanner76 Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 I'm trying to understand why GE is once again thinking that "bigger is better". Didn't they have airframe integration issues with the GE90-115B? You can only go so large on the fan radius before the engine risks striking the ground on takeoff or landing. The GE90 is the most powerful jet turbine in the world. It's also the largest. That's not likely a coincidence. Of course, based on what the man was saying, I'd believe the low-pressure fan would stay close to the same size while the high pressure sections are enlarged for various reasons. For example, the high pressure turbine and compressor have been limited in size by materials strength, but if they were larger they could make more power and achieve greater fuel efficiency. Newer, stronger materials could help in that way, and the engine would be larger, even if the high-bypass fan on the front stayed the same size. It's my understanding the GE9X is basically exclusively designed for the 777X, which has as-yet unannounced design changes which could more easily accommodate even a larger-diameter engine. Boeing has really gone whole hog on this -8 program. Yellowstone keeps going over budget and falling behind schedule, so I guess I can understand the stop-gap measures. Of course, I can't say I even want to see the 747 and 777 replaced by new aircraft anyway. It's always a little magical for me to watch one land here at D/FW, in a way that the A380 just doesn't quite match. I dunno, maybe I'm just biased from when my dad worked for Boeing. Quote
grigolosi Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Lol I know it was an Electric lightning, I just didn't feel like typing out the full name F-ZeroOne. 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.