Aircraft VS super thread!

[Apollo Leader]

The Pentagon's Budget isn't anywhere near it's cold war highs,

I got 401.7 billion from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html

and

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/n...40202-0301.html and it appear I'm off by about 40-50 billion of Reagan's Cold War budget.

Check http://www.defensetech.org/ to see what the Military is and isn't spending it money on.

350193[/snapback]

But have you adjusted for inflation?

[Nied]

and it appear I'm off by about 40-50 billion of Reagan's Cold War budget.

Oh is that all.

An extra 50 billlion funds the full 300 F-22s the air force wants built, 100 new KC-whatever tankers, and a couple new aircraft carriers. That's not small change.

[David Hingtgen]

Speaking of KC-whatevers, the KC-330 is up on Northrop's page: http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/kc30/index.shtml

[Apollo Leader]

Speaking of KC-whatevers, the KC-330 is up on Northrop's page: http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/kc30/index.shtml

350287[/snapback]

For a second there when I loaded that page up, I thought Northrop was offering a tanker version of the B-2.

[Apollo Leader]

***BUMP***

Decided to do some digging this afternoon, and it looks like Lockheed's original B-2 proposal, Senior Peg, was finally revealed earlier this year:

http://www.dreamlandresort.com/black_proje...senior_peg.html

I found a link to the story about it being on Aviation Week's website, but you need to be a subscribed member.  I am really surprised I haven't heard about this before.

From what I can tell, it looks like the Lockheed B-2 was quite a bit smaller then Northrop's design.  When what became the F-117 was proposed, one of Lockheed's original proposals was for a two seater, F-111 sized aircraft, but the Air Force wanted to take the safer route and go with a smaller aircraft to begin with.  Lockheed's B-2 design was clearly based off of their intermediate range attack aircraft.  Interesting that the twin V-tail is on an extended part of the fuselage.  Northrop's B-2 clearly beats this in payload and range (probably in stealth, too).  Can't wait to see what other proposals and prototypes from the 70's and 80's that are "in the dark" that are just waiting to be declassified.

Though it's in Czech or Polish, here's another very interesting site.

http://www.hitechweb.szm.sk/stealth1.htm

350118[/snapback]

[David Hingtgen]

Cool! http://www.flurl.com/attachments/2005/Nov/...257-fetched.wmv

They drive various cars behind a 747 engine at full power to see what happens. They don't make it. ~6MB

[Mislovrit]

An extra 50 billlion funds the full 300 F-22s the air force wants built,

More like 200-275 with parts, equipment, and the rest of the package which come with the deal. Doesn't the F-22 have the little problem to overcome of needing a replacement for the discontiuned chipset?

100 new KC-whatever tankers,

Have to wait until the fallout from the Boeing srewup settles before a plane and company is chosen.

and a couple new aircraft carriers. 

More carriers are on order, but have the problem of iirc only one shipyard capable of them.

If you got time and want to see where the money is going here the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

Somewhat back to topic, nobody here going to like it.

What to do with America's largest ever helicopter?, Running out of space at the museum.

Edited December 7, 2005 by Mislovrit

[Skull Leader]

*sigh* what can one expect from the Army museum?

Another piece of history physically gone from existence.

[VF-19]

Cool!  http://www.flurl.com/attachments/2005/Nov/...257-fetched.wmv

They drive various cars behind a 747 engine at full power to see what happens.  They don't make it.  ~6MB

350302[/snapback]

Gee, that's an understatement. They're litterally ripped apart by the thrust alone. Now they should have chained one down, and THEN run the engines up to full power. That would make for some extremely entertaining destruction.

BTW, according to the announcer, the engines put out 58000 lbs of thrust, and there's four of them (obviously). How much does a 747 weigh anyways?

[Skull Leader]

For great justice (current question notwithstanding), this thread...

... needs more TOMCATS!

(some of my personal favs from Torsten's kickass tomcat site)

VF-2 Bounty Hunters F-14D. Last Cruise markings

VF-11 Red Rippers F-14B, Escorting their first Superhornet back to Oceana from St. Louis

VF-32 Swordsmen F-14B, In tension, last Tomcat cruise

VF-103 Jolly Rogers F-14B, SECDEF Phoenix markings (probably my favorite photo of all time)

and for the win:

VF-114 Fighting Aardvarks F-14A, passing cloud formation

Edited December 7, 2005 by Skull Leader

[ghostryder]

VF-11 Red Rippers F-14B, Escorting their first Superhornet back to Oceana from St. Louis

Hey you forgot the important comparison shot. Beauty and the Bug.

Edited December 7, 2005 by ghostryder

[Skull Leader]

ahh, but there isn't a comparison

(actually VFA-11 is one of the few squadrons who's markings actually look "ok" on the superhornet)

[Nied]

Does anyone know if there's a technical reason why they don't extend the black paint around the canopy all the way to the tip of the nose on the Rhino? Is it similar to why they leave the IFF horn unpainted? It looks so good on the Tomcat and I bet it would look just as good on the Super Hornet.

[Skull Leader]

I haven't heard any rules regarding the nose... nothing like I've heard with the rudders anyway. There HAVE been instances where the Pizzabox has been painted, but I don't have any photo-doccumentation just offhand. I don't know why they're being so anal about it.

[David Hingtgen]

A 747-400 w/GE engines typically has a max weight of 875,000lbs. A modern airliner usually has a .3:1 power/weight ratio at max weight. .25 is low, .35 is high. As 747's are rarely at max weight, they usually have a quite good power/weight ratio for an airliner.

747's are not bulky nor slow--they are the fastest airliner now that the Concorde's gone, and they are as agile as airliners 1/2 their size---they are big, but very high performance---much like the F-15. Have enough thrust and wing area, and you can MOVE.

FYI, 757-200's have the highest power/weight ratio, and are well known for their acceleration and climb rate. MD-11's are close behind. A340-300's are known for their slow acceleration and godawful climb rate. "It only goes up because the Earth's surface curves down"

[Zentrandude]

I don't want to get in the way of the current discussion, but I figured I would post a small picture of the project I posted about a long time ago in this thread.

It is my fictional seaplane racer.

I ended up using floats from a Kawanishi E7K.

It is much larger than the real interwar raceplanes...but what can ya do?

I know I am not the most skilled modeller (i don't even try to weather), but with my limited skill set, I am very happy with the results.

350135[/snapback]

Its pretty good. I wonder how if the pilot could see whats infront of the plane.

[buddhafabio]

Cool!  http://www.flurl.com/attachments/2005/Nov/...257-fetched.wmv

They drive various cars behind a 747 engine at full power to see what happens.  They don't make it.   ~6MB

350302[/snapback]

Gee, that's an understatement. They're litterally ripped apart by the thrust alone. Now they should have chained one down, and THEN run the engines up to full power. That would make for some extremely entertaining destruction.

BTW, according to the announcer, the engines put out 58000 lbs of thrust, and there's four of them (obviously). How much does a 747 weigh anyways?

350363[/snapback]

the myth busters had a airliner engine attack a dodge intrepid to see if it happened once i for get the results and the engine i think it took a couple passes but it was eventually blown over.

[Nied]

I haven't heard any rules regarding the nose... nothing like I've heard with the rudders anyway. There HAVE been instances where the Pizzabox has been painted, but I don't have any photo-doccumentation just offhand. I don't know why they're being so anal about it.

350459[/snapback]

It'll be interesting to see what the Tomcaters (will they even still be called that in the SH) will do with their planes. I'm trying to imagine what a SH would look with Felix the Cat on the tails and an all black nose.

[David Hingtgen]

re: mythbusters (I love that show)------"Airliner engine" covers a wide range of thrust. Was it a JT3C running at 10,000lbs, or a GE90 running at 115,000lbs? You could probably blow a semi over with a GE90...

[Skull Leader]

It'll be interesting to see what the Tomcaters (will they even still be called that in the SH) will do with their planes.   I'm trying to imagine what a SH would look with Felix the Cat on the tails and an all black nose.

350579[/snapback]

Well, they were called the "Tomcatters" back when they were still flying F-4 Phantoms, so if history holds true, their name won't change (some squadrons DO change their name with new aircraft... VF-33 went from being the "Tarsiers" to the "Starfighters" when they switched to tomcats, and VF-24 went from "Fighting Checkertails" to "Fighting Renegades" around the same time).

Felix on the tail? I could see that. I have a harder time seeing NAVAIR allow them to have black radomes. (at least on the CAG and SqCO jets). I suppose it's possible, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I'm amazed VFA-102 Got away with that 50th anniversary scheme they've been wearing on the CAG jet of late. Then again, since they're in CVW-5 (stationed out of NAS Atsugi, Japan) they're further away from the influence of NAVAIR. Also, the CAG is FROM VF-102 I think... so he may have had some say-so in that.

It's the CAGs that are determining how squadrons in the airwings handle their paintschemes. The new CAG for CVW-7 has declared that VFA-103 will go to cruise with the Boeing-applied markings and nothing else (which sucks for the linejets, they look like ass). Knowing that, it should come as no surprise that the CAG is from VFA-143 (103's new sister squadron). The two squadrons have been rivals for a long time. The VFA-143 Pukin' Dogs have already gone as far as to threaten 103 that they would sell the bones of ENS Jack Ernie on ebay! Jack's been VERY closely guarded ever since...

Another note of interest for CVW-7, it appears that VFA-11 Red Rippers may be RETURNING to that airwing. Rumors have started flying that CVW-17 (which VFA-11 traded spots with VFA-103 for) will be disestablished. This would retire the famous "AA" tailcode (often seen with a lightning bolt through it). If this were true, it would mean that CVW-7 (tailcode "AG") would be the first airwing to feature two F/A-18F Squadrons AND a F/A-18E squadron all on the carrier at once. The VFA-81 Sunliners would also be CVW-7 bound apparently. Bear in mind, these are just rumors and there are obviously a lot of loose ends that don't make any sense, but airwings on BOTH coasts are going to be shaken up on a regular basis until all NAVAIR units have switched over to the Superhornet.

(edit: bear in mind, the USMC did NOT invest in the Superhornet. They will continue to fly F/A-18C/Ds until their replacements come online... and I hope the F-35 tanks before that day arrives)

Edited December 8, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Nied]

One of these days I'm going to have to download the excellent F/A-18F that a group made for MS flight simulator and re-paint it in some proper VFA-103 colors. Hell if someone could find me a good sized side view of an F model SH I could do it right now (those are a little easier).

Re: marine F-35s. I recently had an epiphany about the F-35: it's not an F-16/F/A-18/AV-8 replacement it's an A-7 replacement. It's just been delayed by 30 years after the services got suckered into making lightweight fighters their prime strike platforms.

Edited December 8, 2005 by Nied

[Skull Leader]

I remember downloading the F/A-18E shortly after it was first released... the model needed some serious fine-tuning still. Getting to vary the loads on the wings was pretty cool (even if you couldn't do anything with them)

Well, I rather thought the F/A-18 was designed as a replacement for the A-7 (maybe I'm mistaken?)... byt I really have to wonder who would be getting the more raw end of the deal. The VFA Squadrons flying Super Hornets? or the VMFA squdrons flying the F-35...

(in case you can't tell, I'm not a real fan of either aircraft, althought the SH is aesthetically starting to grow on me... even if it can't outperform a Tomcat)

Edited December 9, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Nied]

I remember downloading the F/A-18E shortly after it was first released... the model needed some serious fine-tuning still. Getting to vary the loads on the wings was pretty cool (even if you couldn't do anything with them)

IIRC they eventually did do some fine tuning on the E model and re-released it, and then rolled that fine tuning into the F model (which in the end needed some further fine tuning and another re-release).

Well, I rather thought the F/A-18 was designed as a replacement for the A-7 (maybe I'm mistaken?)... byt I really have to wonder who would be getting the more raw end of the deal. The VFA Squadrons flying Super Hornets? or the VMFA squdrons flying the F-35...

Designated but not really purposefully designed. I think it's a testament to the guys at GD and MacDac that the Hornet and Viper have been as successful as they are at ground pounding. The F-35 seems to have been built from the ground up as an attack plane with secondary A-A ability, the F/A-18 and F-16 were the other way around.

[Skull Leader]

Designated but not really purposefully designed.  I think it's a testament to the guys at GD and MacDac that the Hornet and Viper have been as successful as they are at ground pounding.  The F-35 seems to have been built from the ground up as an attack plane with secondary A-A ability, the F/A-18 and F-16 were the other way around.

350868[/snapback]

I guess we'll see how that pans out. History has proven that most Air-superiority fighters adapted for the strike role far outperform Strike aircraft trying to be the other way around.

[Nied]

I guess we'll see how that pans out. History has proven that most Air-superiority fighters adapted for the strike role far outperform Strike aircraft trying to be the other way around.

350870[/snapback]

Well that's my point, it's a strike plane not an air superiority fighter. An A-7 instead of an F-16, but considering how little the F-16 (or F/A-18 for that matter) has done air superiority work, that's not such a big deal.

Conversely that's also why I think trading orders of F/A-22s for F-35s is such a horrible idea. It would be like MacNamara saying that since the A-7 was such a great strike plane we should buy more of them and cut orders of the more expensive F-15. They're two different planes optimised for two different roles, just because they have an overlap in capabilities doesn't make them able to do each others job.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Nied

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

From what I understand the YF-17 and YF-16 were built for daylight A2A. It wasn't until later that the multirole stuff was tacked on. But since the YF-17 wasn't too suitable for carrier ops, a total redesign was needed, and the F/A-18 is a totally different yet visually similar plane. And the F/A-18 was designed at the time the decision was already made to make it a multiroler.

So if anything the hornet was a multiroler from the outset were as the F-16 took on the role gradually.(performance wise the YF-17 had some better specs than the F/A-18 in A2A). Just another tidbit.

Nied its funny you brought up the F-35/A-7 scenario. I always thought the X-32 looked similar to the A-7, being big, rather bulbouse, and that huge fat intake.

And I definitely agree with what you said concerning F-22s/F-35.

[David Hingtgen]

My theory is that someone from Vought now is fairly high up at Boeing, due to the LTV acquisition. Every Boeing proposal since has had a distinctly Vought look, especially the intake. Now, the F-8 is awesome, but all the later stuff looks like the A-7.

[F-ZeroOne]

re: mythbusters (I love that show)------"Airliner engine" covers a wide range of thrust.  Was it a JT3C running at 10,000lbs, or a GE90 running at 115,000lbs?  You could probably blow a semi over with a GE90...

350617[/snapback]

The UK motoring programme "Top Gear" (known for its outlandish stunts, which have included a Range Rover vs a Challenger II tank and an Apache gunship against a Lotus Elise sports car) did this too. I'm afraid I don't know the specific type of 747, but it was a Virgin airlines one (sorry, David!). It completely blew over a Ford Mondeo (mid-range saloon car) and absolutely demolished a 2CV... *

* Do you have those in the US? Looks like an upturned pram, similiar to the car Clarisse is driving in the opening of The Castle of Cagliostro?

Edited December 9, 2005 by F-ZeroOne

[David Hingtgen]

That would be the exact program I provided a link to.

In other news, my Gripen book from SAAB came today. Totally didn't expect a package from Sweden in the mail. It's about 5in by 9in, hardcover, full color, and 130 pages. All about the Gripen, and totally free. Get one here:

http://www.saab.se/node4466.asp Seriously, you'd pay at least 20 bucks for this if it was in stores. Be sure to check the English version box (unless you read Swedish). It'll take a few weeks, or months, but it'll come.

[Skull Leader]

I'm so getting one. How long back did you order yours, David?

[David Hingtgen]

I'm guessing around 2 months.

[Knight26]

Man sometimes I get too distracted at this base. Let me explain today on my bike ride I rode past the mini-boneyard and was so enthralled by what I saw, an A-9 fuselage, scale B-1, and B-2 aerodynamic drop models, multiple X-15 nose and cockpits, F-15 CFTs, and various other bits of aviation history that I wrecked my bike, ugh. Now I have to go get it fixed, and possibly replace a wheel, but man seeing that A-9 was just, wow, especially since I can see the NA/AW A-10B everyday when I go outside my building, it's sitting out on the flightline just past the CV-22s. Oh and today I saw both 22 flying together, the F-22 and CV-22, don't worry once I get a new camera I will snap plenty of pictures, of the unclass stuff at least. Oh and check out the new avatar, it's a Hank Caruso Aerocature of a Flight Test Engineer, I like it. You know I am thinking, if DH is a New Edwards Test Pilot in rank, shouldn't I be a "New Edwards FTE?" LOL Oh and get this an old buddy of mine from college is at TPS right now to be a test pilot and will stay on afterwards with the 419th as a test pilot there on his old mount the B-1.

Edited December 10, 2005 by Knight26

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

No F-15STMD or YF-23?

[Beltane70]

Whatever happened to Top Gear, anyway? Is it still on Discovery Channel in some ridiculous time slot, or did they do away with it completely?

[Zentrandude]

here you go DH what you think about this?

link