Administrators Eric Posted July 27, 2019 Author Administrators Share Posted July 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, Dric902 said: Well, no how about insects Insects are God’s punishment on Man. Did you ever hear of anyone being visited by a plague of kittens? That’s because kittens don’t have canard wings. Kittens don’t have wings at all, but they always manage to land on their main gear. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dric902 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, Eric said: Insects are God’s punishment on Man. Did you ever hear of anyone being visited by a plague of kittens? That’s because kittens don’t have canard wings. My God, you’re right locusts have canards. No wonder the Russians like them (the evil bastards) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tous Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 2 hours ago, Eric said: Canards need to be enormously strong and that equals a lot of extra weight. Weight you wouldn’t need if the manufacturer simply put the wings were God intended them to go. Putting canards on an aircraft is just thumbing your nose at God and he doesn’t like that! Have you ever seen canard wings on a bird? Canards are a way to make the nose of an aircraft do things that the tail doesn't know about. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dric902 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, tous said: Canards are a way to make the nose of an aircraft do things that the tail doesn't know about. Where the nose goes...hopefully the tail will follow 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Czervik Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 The Concordski just looked crude. It was a rushed, unreliable design and had to use reheat for supersonic travel. The Concorde was elegant and refined looking and could supercruise. It would have been interesting to see Boeing get their SST to market. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Al Czervik said: The Concordski just looked crude. It was a rushed, unreliable design and had to use reheat for supersonic travel. The Concorde was elegant and refined looking and could supercruise. It would have been interesting to see Boeing get their SST to market. It made no difference who could build an SST or how good it was. The continental noise restrictions banned shockwaves and sonic booms over most of the USA land mass. Claims were that studies directed at eliminating or reducing the shockwave to acceptable levels never materialized. Quite a problem. Edited July 27, 2019 by janice6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dric902 Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 Why the F-35 Just Isn’t Good Enough The F-35 (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter) is a military jet that was supposed to be able to do it all. The program was started in the 1990s with the intention that it could serve the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines and their various mission needs with only minimal changes to the initial platform. That would deliver cost savings across decades as one jet replaced (at least) three other types of planes. It seemed like a great idea in concept. https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-f-35-just-isnt-good-enough/ what do you think tous? What’s you opinion on the one size fits all airframe? . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tous Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 Not a fan. The F-4 Phantom II served across the services and missions because it turned out to be so danged adaptable, but the Phantom was one air frame, one power plant, not an Erector set like the JSF. They will eventually get it right, but after how many years and how many billions? The F/A-18E and F are still in production and have a foreseeable life span of another 50 years. The F-16 is still in production and remains a formidable platform for most Air Force missions even after 40 years. The F-15 is still in production and can still kill most anything else in the air. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwalchmai Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 Waitaminute. I thought the F-111 was the "one-size-fits-all" aircraft. What's the deal here? 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 5 minutes ago, tous said: Not a fan. The F-4 Phantom II served across the services and missions because it turned out to be so danged adaptable, but the Phantom was one air frame, one power plant, not an Erector set like the JSF. They will eventually get it right, but after how many years and how many billions? The F/A-18E and F are still in production and have a foreseeable life span of another 50 years. The F-16 is still in production and remains a formidable platform for most Air Force missions even after 40 years. The F-15 is still in production and can still kill most anything else in the air. The US Military is no different than many others in the world. A great many in the world still seek "the holy grail", the military are no different. They seek the ultimate airborne weapon. Unfortunately, you would hope that the military would have recognized that throughout history the quest for the "perfect weapon" has always come up very short. But many times the term Military Intelligence doesn't match up with reality. It is better to have a choice of superior weapons so that you have each of them tailored to the particular task, instead of one that may do the everything. Remember, all purpose, usually means a "Jack of all trades but a master of none!". 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tous Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 Even the AV8-B, though it had been out of production since 1995, still fulfills its mission and likely will for another 20 years. The British have an improved AV-8, the Super Harrier, that will be around doing the job for another 40 years. If the Marines need more, they can just buy the Limey version; after replacing the Lucas 6-volt electrics, of course. Hmmmm. 2060. Just about the time they get the F-35B to almost work right. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dric902 Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 (edited) My thoughts as well a Corsair is not a Mustang is not a Lightning is not a Thunderbolt is not a Hellcat. A plane cannot be outstanding in everything. It’s not LEGO, it’s mission specific. The F-14 has different attributes as the F-15 which is not a mission for an F-16 the F-15X and the Silent Eagle are great platforms. . Edited July 29, 2019 by Dric902 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Eric Posted July 31, 2019 Author Administrators Share Posted July 31, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tous Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) It looks like Tupelev bought all of the surplus B-17 noses for that aircraft. Edited July 31, 2019 by tous 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Eric said: Never can tell when you might need a bombardiers position in your commercial airlines. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 During the runup to WWII, the German airlines in South America had functional bombing capability. Potentially for use on North America. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deputy tom Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 tom. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dric902 Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 4 hours ago, Eric said: Lots of room for payload under the wings. Or if you needed to stack the planes to save space . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwalchmai Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 hour ago, janice6 said: During the runup to WWII, the German airlines in South America had functional bombing capability. Potentially for use on North America. Yep. As you know, the FW-200 was introduced as a thinly disguised Lutftansa transport. We won't talk about this guy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tous Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 21 hours ago, Dric902 said: Lots of room for payload under the wings. Or if you needed to stack the planes to save space . The Soviets should have measured the passenger stairs and whether they can reach the door. But, then they couldn't feature those huge, ugly contra-rotating propellers and 50-foot long nose gear. Edited August 1, 2019 by tous 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janice6 Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 7 hours ago, Dric902 said: Lots of room for payload under the wings. Or if you needed to stack the planes to save space . Looks like a likely case for vertigo before you even get into the plane. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwalchmai Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 9 hours ago, tous said: The Soviets should have measured the passenger stairs and whether they can reach the door. But, then they couldn't feature those huge, ugly counter-rotating propellers and 50-foot long nose gear. Those are contras, aren't they? Now, of course, contras are implicit counters, and can be setup explicitly so (#1 forward CW, #1 rear CCW, #4 forward CCW, #4 rear CW, etc.) Is enough to make Soviet design bureau engineer pull out eyebrows! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tous Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Yes, the propellers of the Kuznetsov turboprop engines and contra-rotating, that is, they rotate in opposite directions on the same axis. Counter-rotating refers to having propellers rotate in opposite directions on two or more engines to counter torque. Thanks for the correction, amigo. NB as ugly as it is, the Tu-114 was and still might be the fastest propeller-driver aircraft. Though I cannot imagine how noisy the cabin was. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwalchmai Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 HOW COOL IS THIS??? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Eric Posted August 1, 2019 Author Administrators Share Posted August 1, 2019 8 minutes ago, tous said: Yes, the propellers of the Kuznetsov turboprop engines and contra-rotating, that is, they rotate in opposite directions on the same axis. Counter-rotating refers to having propellers rotate in opposite directions on two or more engines to counter torque. Thanks for the correction, amigo. NB as ugly as it is, the Tu-114 was and still might be the fastest propeller-driver aircraft. Though I cannot imagine how noisy the cabin was. Ugly? You are unsane. The Bear is the second-best looking four-engine prop plane ever built, after this one: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now