Aircraft VS super thread!

[buddhafabio]

Hey guys, now that I am over several illnesses, trust me you don't want to know, i will start my daily bike ride around base again and will take plenty of pics.  So keep an eye out starting next week, if there are any requests please let me know.  I can already hear some of you salivating, lol.

381318[/snapback]

it looks nice and very tempting.but.............

what does anakins starfighter have to do with f-14s

on a side note david can you post a pic of just the base? it might be something to experiment with......

Edited March 17, 2006 by buddhafabio

[F-ZeroOne]

What is the current operational status of the Typhoon?

I'm kind of curious about the European defense requirements, since the Typhoon is supposed to be for both the Brits and the Germans, I wonder how many units they'll be buying eventually.

380348[/snapback]

I beilieve that the RAF has declared IOC and are wroking up squadrons right now. I think I even have a hazy memory of them declaring one squadron ready for combat even.

380467[/snapback]

Yes, I can't remember the squadron, but it's one of them stationed at RAF Coningsby. It's not just IOCed, but combat-ready.

380514[/snapback]

Just pray that we never have to defend the UK with cannon - the Typhoons are (so the story goes) fitted but the pilots aren't going to be trained nor even ammunition supplied. This is in long keeping with the UK tradition of applying Monty Python script-writing to defence spending...

(incidentally, if you are an international terrorist and are thinking of, I don't know, stealing a big aircraft and heading our way to do some mischief, please note that this means there won't be any warning shots. The first and last notice you'll get is an ASRAAM up your tailpipe. Don't say I didn't warn you... )

Edited March 17, 2006 by F-ZeroOne

[Coota0]

Diecast time again.  Forces of Valor's new VF-154 F-14A:

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ak2k-wd/f-14.html

Looks really nice, almost certainly the best diecast F-14 out there.  Panel lines are rather deeply engraved and inked though, but not nearly like earlier FoV stuff was. 

Now just to wait for Witty's VF-213 F-14D and see what they do...

381260[/snapback]

Do you know what scal it's in?

[Phyrox]

Do you know what scal it's in?

381395[/snapback]

The box has 1/72 right on it.

If that isn't enough for you, the text beneath it displaying product info ALSO says 1/72...

[Knight26]

Man I wish cameras weren't banned on the flight line, today I was out on the plane and right in a row taxied by, F-16B (TPS), an F-16D (VISTA), and an F-16D (Block 60) right in a freaking row, I could have gotten all three in frame at one point.

[Coota0]

Do you know what scal it's in?

381395[/snapback]

The box has 1/72 right on it.

If that isn't enough for you, the text beneath it displaying product info ALSO says 1/72...

381418[/snapback]

Doh!

[David Hingtgen]

This link is to the sample of Witty's Su-27, but at the bottom are several pics showing the Witty stand:

http://www.merit-intl.com/month/wty-72014.htm

If they just correct the colors on the final version, I am so buying that Flanker. But as it is the colors are far too pale. Ukranian splinter camo is rich blues and medium grey, and the stripes are royal blue and gold, not flourescent.

The real thing for comparison: http://www.epozar.com/militaria/brno/su27.html

Edited March 18, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Nied]

This link is to the sample of Witty's Su-27, but at the bottom are several pics showing the Witty stand:

http://www.epozar.com/militaria/brno/su27.html

If they just correct the colors on the final version, I am so buying that Flanker.  But as it is the colors are far too pale.  Ukranian splinter camo is rich blues and medium grey, and the stripes are royal blue and gold, not flourescent.

381468[/snapback]

Wow that thing is detailed, but I suppose that's what you get when you build in 1/1 scale.

Thing must cost a fortune though...

[David Hingtgen]

****! Wrong recent Su-27 link.

Corrected in above post.

[Nied]

Actually having looked over the (very good) pics of the real thing I gotta say that looks really sweet. You're right on the color scheme though, it does look a little pale.

[buddhafabio]

i was thinking of the top and i am hoping it would be feasible to use on other aircraft as a stand and recast it.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Not sure if you guys heard. Saudi's are buying the Eurofighter. They will get the Tranche 2 aircraft (no diff in weapons from Tranche 1, just some better software and bits) even before the RAF gets theirs it seems.

No mention on the gun though.

[David Hingtgen]

The stand inserts into the engine nozzles, I think the top part of each stand is unique to each type of plane to fit.

[Skull Leader]

Not sure if you guys heard. Saudi's are buying the Eurofighter. They will get the Tranche 2 aircraft (no diff in weapons from Tranche 1, just some better software and bits) even before the RAF gets theirs it seems.

No mention on the gun though.

381566[/snapback]

Because everyone else seems to exude more common sense on the issue than the British (no offense to any UK members here), but they'll likely go with the gun. I still cannot, for the life of me, figure out why the British don't want the gun on theirs. (then again, I can't understand why they're retiring the Harrier FRS.2 at the end of this month when they don't have anything to replace it yet.

[David Hingtgen]

They're just going to have all their ships stay real close to US battlegroups (or RAF bases on the coast) until they get JSF's.

[F-ZeroOne]

Not sure if you guys heard. Saudi's are buying the Eurofighter. They will get the Tranche 2 aircraft (no diff in weapons from Tranche 1, just some better software and bits) even before the RAF gets theirs it seems.

No mention on the gun though.

381566[/snapback]

Because everyone else seems to exude more common sense on the issue than the British (no offense to any UK members here), but they'll likely go with the gun. I still cannot, for the life of me, figure out why the British don't want the gun on theirs.

381888[/snapback]

I thought I'd mentioned this; its one of those governement cost-saving decisions that makes no sense whatsoever, and compared to the overall cost of the Typhoon programme, is practically small change. And, as I pointed out, RAF Typhoons will have the gun, they just won't be supplied with ammunition or training.

Guess its back to chucking bundles of toilet paper out the cockpit...

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

That FOV F-14A looks AWESOME. My god...even a TARPS pod!! a TARPS POD!!!

I wonder how durable it will be. I assume since the landing gear has block insertions it will be more durable than my dragon models.

Anyone have this yet? And will target sell it? How are the Target FOV warbirds?

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I thought I'd mentioned this; its one of those governement cost-saving decisions that makes no sense whatsoever, and compared to the overall cost of the Typhoon programme, is practically small change. And, as I pointed out, RAF Typhoons will have the gun, they just won't be supplied with ammunition or training.

Guess its back to chucking bundles of toilet paper out the cockpit... 

381979[/snapback]

Is the gun hooked up to the software and the joystick though? Did they try to save a few quid more by not installing the wiring from the cockpit to the gun? Or leave out some software which controls the ammo feed or something like that?

If the stuff is all there, I can pretty much imagine some pilot or squadron will _SOMEHOW_ get their hands on some ammo.... even if its just 1 shell to prove a point. Imagine the bragging rights.

It'll be about as effective as the those Soviet officials telling the Mig-25 pilots not to go above M2.8

[F-ZeroOne]

As far as I know, the guns connected - they tried to leave it out but it upset the balance of the aircraft if they did.

The Soviets did have their reasons - my understanding is that a MiG-25 could wreck its engines going up to Mach 3.2. Impossible to intercept Yankee Capitalist Inavder of Motherland when all the MiGs are sitting on the ramp having their engines swapped...

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I read that part about the gun upsetting the balance and a lead or concrete ballast still needing the same shape and weight distribution as the original gun in order not to upset the flight software.

I am not too sure how much of that story is true though. I mean, if the removal of that sub 1000 lb gun (its sub 1000lb without the ammo IIRC) screws up the weight distribution, how does one factor in that 20000 odd lbs of fuel, ammo rounds, bombs, missiles and that yorkshire pudding plus chip butty the pilot had that come and go during a mission?

[Axelay]

So this is a somewhat off-topic bit of questioning, but I have been playing Battlefield 2 lately and the new Euro Force expansion just came out. I have been looking so forward to this because of the addition of the Eurofighter Typhoon, but I can't understand a few things about how it "flys" in the game. I know, I know, it's just a game, but I am still curious about it.

- I thought canard wings were supposed to make a plane more stable and thus could make better/sharper banking turns and have a tighter turn radius? That's not the case at ALL in BF2. I'd go so far as to say that the Typhoon is VERY poor in terms of yaw control as well.

- In reality, does the Typhoon actually carry bombs close to the outside edges of its wings...? I always thought that bombs were carried closer to the fuselage. In the game, the bombs are so far out on the wings that it is VERY difficult to be able to drop 2 of them on a target the size of a tank. I have tons of bomb kills with all of the other fighters, but the Typhoon is going to take some serious practice.

- One thing which I immediately recognized that the Typhoon does better than any other fighter is accelerate and decelerate. This is extremely advantageous in dogfighting. I couldn't bomb tanks worth a crap, but I was eating everybody else in the sky alive and was dodging missiles like I've never been able to before.

- Just as a side note, the one in the game does have the gun.

So... um... anybody else playing and can share some "real world" insight into this?

[F-ZeroOne]

Can't help with all of it, but deltas are traditionally known for being able to pitch up very quickly and lose rapid amounts of airspeed in one big hurry - Mirage IIIs are the classic example.

As for acceleration, well... Rolls-Royce have always been fond of quick engines...

[David Hingtgen]

Weight in the forward fuselage is VERY important. As I posted in another thread, the difference between an F-16 being stable or unstable can be changed with a few hundred pounds up front. Or moving the center of lift by 8 inches.

So how can planes carry thousands of pounds of bombs with no problem? Because they're right over the center of gravity. They may be spread left/right, but the plane's center of gravity remains roughly the same.

Center of lift/center of pressure/center of gravity is everything for basic plane stability. And delta-winged planes change everything. (To the point that I still don't know how a delta-winged plane controls pitch with elevons)

If anyone can explain, here's my question:

To pitch up, a delta-winged plane deflects the elevons up. That should basically be the same as a normal plane deflecting an aileron up. Trailing edge up=loss of lift. So how does this make a plane pitch up? My rough guess is that the loss of lift somehow affects the center of lift, to the point that the aircraft pitches up.

Also, I know the Concorde messes with its center of gravity for takeoff, to force the elevons to deflect downwards like flaps to compensate, for extra lift---but then wouldn't deflecting them up at rotation cause that lift to be lost, defeating the purpose at the most needed point? The Concorde has a reflexed airfoil, which as I understand changes the relationship betweeen center of pressure and center of lift compared to other wings---is that part of it?

(I tend to want to truly understand how planes fly, in most every aspect)

[ghostryder]

If anyone can explain, here's my question:

To pitch up, a delta-winged plane deflects the elevons up.  That should basically be the same as a normal plane deflecting an aileron up.  Trailing edge up=loss of lift.  So how does this make a plane pitch up?  My rough guess is that the loss of lift somehow affects the center of lift, to the point that the aircraft pitches up. 

I think that only pitching the elevons up changes the momentum/impuse of the air upwards once it has passed over the wing, imparting an equal but downward impuse to the rear of the plane and pushing the tail down. It's not like you're inverting the airfoil-- I think the leading edge flaps have to also work in concert to do that. So, maybe there's not much loss of overall lift by only pitching the elevons up??

As for the Concorde, I'm not sure if what I've said applies since you lost me on the takeoff sequence..

[David Hingtgen]

From what I understand, for takeoff, a Concorde pumps fuel aft so that it's tail heavy. The elevons compensate by giving a nose-down command. This positions them trailing edge down a bit, acting like normal flaps. But it (presumably) must raise them to pitch up to actually takeoff, so that extra lift would be lost the moment it actually takes off.

Edited March 21, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[ghostryder]

From what I understand, for takeoff, a Concorde pumps fuel aft so that it's tail heavy.  The elevons compensate by giving a nose-down command.  This positions them trailing edge down a bit, acting like normal flaps.   But it (presumably) must raise them to pitch up to actually takeoff, so that extra lift would be lost the moment it actually takes off.

382433[/snapback]

Here's a video stream of a Concorde takeoff - It may be that pumping the fuel back makes it so tail-heavy that only the slightest nose-up on the stick will be enough to point the plane up, at which point, the jets give enough upward thrust component to get the bird in the air. This is all speculation on my part, but I thought the footage was cool.

concorde takeoff

edit: Here's another site that talks about the significance of the Concorde's wing shape in generating vortex lift at high AOAs (like during takeoff). This may be what compensates for the loss of lift if the elevons need to pitch up momentarily to nose-up during take-off.

vortex lift

Edited March 21, 2006 by ghostryder

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Nice.

I never knew the Concorde engines had such dirty looking exhausts though.

[David Hingtgen]

Even by modern standards, the Concorde's wing is complex, advanced, and unique. It's a delta, but far different than any other delta AFAIK. What other plane can supercruise at Mach 2 for hours on end? (Well, the SR-71, but that's REALLY high-tech---the Concorde can be serviced and maintained like any other plane, and doesn't need a literal army of people to prep it) I'm going to have to go re-read my Concorde book now...

[Phalanx]

Hey guys, I was wondering this good quick question about the F-14 Tomcat. I don't know if somebody discussed this earlier but I wanted to know is possible for one perosn to fly the F-14 by himself? Can somebody please fill me in on this?

[Nied]

Hey guys, I was wondering this good quick question about the F-14 Tomcat. I don't know if somebody discussed this earlier but I wanted to know is possible for one perosn to fly the F-14 by himself? Can somebody please fill me in on this?

382581[/snapback]

Looks like this guy did fine:

[Knight26]

Fly yes, use the BVR weapons like the Phoenix, no.

[kalvasflam]

Hey guys, I was wondering this good quick question about the F-14 Tomcat. I don't know if somebody discussed this earlier but I wanted to know is possible for one perosn to fly the F-14 by himself? Can somebody please fill me in on this?

382581[/snapback]

Looks like this guy did fine:

382606[/snapback]

Dumb question, where is the rest of his cockpit?

Never mind, I understand, he punched out his RIO....

Edited March 21, 2006 by kalvasflam

[Zentrandude]

Even by modern standards, the Concorde's wing is complex, advanced, and unique.  It's a delta, but far different than any other delta AFAIK.  What other plane can supercruise at Mach 2 for hours on end?  (Well, the SR-71, but that's REALLY high-tech---the Concorde can be serviced and maintained like any other plane, and doesn't need a literal army of people to prep it)  I'm going to have to go re-read my Concorde book now...

382482[/snapback]

plus I like interviews of concord pilots talk about how smooth it flies that they can use a thumb to move the flight stick at mach 2.

[Nied]

Dumb question, where is the rest of his cockpit?

Never mind, I understand, he punched out his RIO....

382620[/snapback]

Sort of, apparently they were taking some sailor up on an incentive ride, and during some negative G he thought he should hold on to something. Unfortunetly the handle he held on to was yellow with black stripes.

[Coota0]

Saw this on another site, figured ya'll would like it....Click Here