|
Ola posted:I present the following challenge to the RC community. A fully VTOL F-35, ducted fan, tilting/swiveling nozzle and all, with computer control which can do a stable hover. This is being worked on, it is almost as hard to do as the real deal. Trying to do it as electric RC starts pushing the budget into the thousands of dollars for top grade components like batteries, power controllers, and brushless motors, just to get a theoretical 2-3 minutes of hover. The prototype models that can hover are often gas-powered to keep costs down. Changing the subject, my hat is off to this guy, who is flying his replica of the Hiller Flying Platform. I did not know someone had gotten this far with one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-4ygOrgJ4 The Flying Platform, with counter-rotating props in a ducted fan, was proposed as a project for the military by Hiller Helicopter in the 1950's, a few prototypes were built, and that was that. Inherently stable as the plane of lift was below the cg, you steered by shifting your weight, and top speed was basically limited by drag, so it was pretty hard to go wrong. Two engines could drive the props through a redundant gearbox to protect against engine failure. It could fly way out of ground effect, and was on numerous magazine covers back then. Hiller did lots of badass stuff, including a helicopter powered by ramjets on the tips of the rotor blades. Video gets  right around 00:20. The guy in the suit flying it is probably Mr. Stanley Hiller. Keep watching to 1:05 for a night engine test. Pity there's no sound, it must have been quite a racket.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj2OGZ7ecZM
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
I thought earlier posts about "flying out of the stall" were interesting, as a private pilot with experience in only smaller aircraft. Turns out the FAA is changing its position on stall recovery recommendations. Folks should now focus on reducing AoA via pitch as well as increasing power. Excerpt from the Advisory Circular: quote:a. Recovery Procedures. This AC emphasizes both recognizing a stall event and AVSIM Summary Link to FAA Advisory Circular (PDF/DOC)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
The primary reason for this is that most airliners these days have underslung engines, and slamming the throttles to get out of the stall will result in a large nose-up moment, exacerbating the situation rather than fixing it. It is also due to the fact that, for example in AF447 and THY1951, the aircraft was trimmed all the way up upon entering the stall because of misuse of the automatics. Trying to get the nose back down on a 737NG in approach config at very low speed, trimmed fully up and with the throttles firewalled is like riding a rodeo bull.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
4195, the last Raptor, rolled off the production line today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 04:46
|
|
|
Awesome and sexy as gently caress plane, but I still wish they went the F23 route.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
With the cost of the F-23, the Air Force probably would have got even less of em. It is sorta crazy to think though that the F-23 was an even BETTER fighter in a lot of ways than the F-22... which itself is the fighter so good that it will probably never be equaled (for planes with a pilot). Then again, if you ever want to see a F-23, you can always look at a T-50/PAK-FA!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
There's still hope for Canada to abandon the F-35 and go for Su-30MK derivatives. The longer range and payload would serve us better. I bet it starts right up as soon as you turn the key in the winter too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 07:09
|
|
|
Cygni posted:With the cost of the F-23, the Air Force probably would have got even less of em. It is sorta crazy to think though that the F-23 was an even BETTER fighter in a lot of ways than the F-22... which itself is the fighter so good that it will probably never be equaled (for planes with a pilot). As far as the F-22's performance...I always found this graph to be somewhat illustrative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 07:27
|
|
|
I love the projections of fighter strength where they just assign the F-22 like a random 20/1 ratio vs all other fighters because, really, maybe once in a while a pilot passes out or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 07:38
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:As far as the F-22's performance...I always found this graph to be somewhat illustrative.  Holy poo poo, that's quite impressive
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 07:40
|
|
|
Cygni posted:because, really, maybe once in a while a pilot passes out or something? Well...
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 07:56
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What the hell is going on here. Story?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 07:57
|
|
|
The Locator posted:What the hell is going on here. Story? Jack Roush (yes, that Jack Roush) crashing another airplane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 08:08
|
|
|
Info from the AIB report on the F-22 mishap up here last year has been released. quote:The investigators instead blamed the accident on Haney, who failed to activate the EOS during the 31sec period after his normal oxygen supply became restricted. That last bit is certainly interesting given the AIB's conclusion that the mishap is solely due to pilot error. I really didn't like hearing this last bit when I first heard it unofficially a few months back... quote:Haney appeared to be conscious the entire flight. Only 3sec before the crash, Haney suddenly attempted a violent pull-up manoeuvre, but it was already too late. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 09:10
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Jack Roush (yes, that Jack Roush) crashing another airplane. Was there ever an NTSB report on his accident? lovely pilot (wouldn't surprise me) or problem with the airplane?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 09:12
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Info from the AIB report on the F-22 mishap up here last year has been released. That link didn't work for me. Was he hypoxic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
       
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
That is loving awesome!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
joat mon posted:That's awesome. And when I would BPO/PR the F-22 the EOS ring always looked like it would be hard to get to with a full kit -- I guess it is
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
That display is amazing!Mobius1B7R posted:Was there ever an NTSB report on his accident? lovely pilot (wouldn't surprise me) or problem with the airplane? http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100728X70427&key=1
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
Best Christmas decorations I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 17:49
|
|
|
Ola posted:That display is amazing! At goddamn EAA too. So embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Where is that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Haha St. Michael's, MD, not too far from Annapolis across the Bay Bridge. e: Pretty sure it's not them, but there's a Guard unit out there on the Eastern Shore that's ALWAYS having a BBQ when I drive past headed to the beach. Howdy fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Dec 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
Cygni posted:With the cost of the F-23, the Air Force probably would have got even less of em. It is sorta crazy to think though that the F-23 was an even BETTER fighter in a lot of ways than the F-22... which itself is the fighter so good that it will probably never be equaled (for planes with a pilot). Until yesterday, I had forgotten that there was another aircraft built to compete for the F-22 role. And it got me to thinking, how much did it cost to develop the YF-23? They built and flew two airframes, so they must have done the vast majority of the design and production process, even if they were demonstrators and not fully capable fighters, right? Did Northrop eat the cost of that, or did the Air Force pay for it? Lazy googling has failed me, so I turn to you goons who weren't 6 when it first flew.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
Hermsgervørden posted:Until yesterday, I had forgotten that there was another aircraft built to compete for the F-22 role. And it got me to thinking, how much did it cost to develop the YF-23? They built and flew two airframes, so they must have done the vast majority of the design and production process, even if they were demonstrators and not fully capable fighters, right? Did Northrop eat the cost of that, or did the Air Force pay for it? Lazy googling has failed me, so I turn to you goons who weren't 6 when it first flew. grover fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Dec 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
Hermsgervørden posted:Until yesterday, I had forgotten that there was another aircraft built to compete for the F-22 role. And it got me to thinking, how much did it cost to develop the YF-23? They built and flew two airframes, so they must have done the vast majority of the design and production process, even if they were demonstrators and not fully capable fighters, right? Did Northrop eat the cost of that, or did the Air Force pay for it? Lazy googling has failed me, so I turn to you goons who weren't 6 when it first flew. Usually when there is a flyoff competition, the government covers the cost of the contract. Northrop got burned a few times trying to build something first, then sell it second over the years. Most memorably with the F-5 and follow on F-20 program. Turns out, if Uncle Sam isn't buying, nobody else will either. They've got a history going all the way back to WWII of building weird sci-fi airplanes that are too expensive and that the government doesn't want. Speaking of Northrop and weird procurement, how the F-18 got bought was goddamn weird. So, time was the military was terrified of what the F-14 and F-15 were going to cost, and decided to go with a high-low force mixture, where you had a small number of super-fighters and a whole lot of light-weight daylight bomb-trucks. The competition for the Light Weight Fighter was flown between the YF-16 from General Dynamics, and the YF-17 from Northrop. The dream was that both the USAF and Navy would make a big huge purchase, and operate the same aircraft. It worked out about as well as it usually works out. The F-16 was the first aircraft to fly with a pitch-unstable wing. Without computer control the F-16 wants to tumble end over end. When they were running up to the competition, General Dynamics wasn't sure if their flight automation computers and software would be ready/effective in time, so they actually built two separate wings for the F-16, one was pitch unstable, and the other was a conventional stable wing if the unstable one didn't work out. The YF-17 Cobra had a lot in common with an embiggened F-5. The F-16 won the flyoff competition, and the Navy declined to purchase the F-16, citing concerns with operating a single-engine aircraft of a carrier, then had Northrop re-design and re-embiggen the F-17 into the F-18. They purchased the F-18, and then gave the production contract to McDonnell aircraft. So McDonnell was manufacturing a Northrop design...and Northrop wasn't.  YF16 by RReiheld, on Flickr  YF-17 by RReiheld, on Flickr Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Dec 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Hermsgervørden posted:Until yesterday, I had forgotten that there was another aircraft built to compete for the F-22 role. And it got me to thinking, how much did it cost to develop the YF-23? They built and flew two airframes, so they must have done the vast majority of the design and production process, even if they were demonstrators and not fully capable fighters, right? Did Northrop eat the cost of that, or did the Air Force pay for it? Lazy googling has failed me, so I turn to you goons who weren't 6 when it first flew. I can't get over how future-y the YF-23 looks. The Raptor at least looks like a natural progression from an F-15 but the YF-23 is something out of 70's science fiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Usually when there is a flyoff competition, the government covers the cost of the contract. Northrop got burned a few times trying to build something first, then sell it second over the years. Most memorably with the F-5 and follow on F-20 program. Turns out, if Uncle Sam isn't buying, nobody else will either. Thanks. There's half my question answered! Do we know the actual amount the YF-23 cost then? Were Northrop's development and production costs rolled into the final sticker price of the F-22? I find it simply fascinating that something as monumentally complex as the most advanced aircraft in the world is designed twice, and then one is basically forgotten. I wish they could have kept the two demonstrators and turned them into active duty aircraft anyway. Even as kluged up one off's they'd still be better than a couple of 20 year old F-15's wouldn't they?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
Yeah the -23 is pretty wild looking. Which made me think of the SR-71 and how it still looks sci-fi. It's one of a small number of reasons that I wouldn't be surprised if the government actually was lying about aliens. Some of the stuff the US has built over the years is just mind boggling. Now I sound like a kook but go stare at a -71. It just ain't right!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
The F-17 to Super Hornet family tree makes me laugh. Navy: WE REALLY NEED A SMALL FIGHTER Designer: Awesome! Here have this one Navy: Yeah thats good and all, but what if we made it TWICE AS BIG?! *forlorn designer kicks a can down a lonely alleyway*
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Yeah the -23 is pretty wild looking. Which made me think of the SR-71 and how it still looks sci-fi. The loving amazingest thing about that airplane is that the engine's from the 1950s. Car engines still took well more than a cubic inch to deliver 1 horsepower, and we built a friggin' variable-cycle ramjet capable of Mach 3+. Blows my mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The loving amazingest thing about that airplane is that the engine's from the 1950s. Car engines still took well more than a cubic inch to deliver 1 horsepower, and we built a friggin' variable-cycle ramjet capable of Mach 3+. Blows my mind. The perks of a Cold War black budget.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:The perks of a Cold War black budget. was gonna say, if you wanted to pay that much money for your car engine your car could also be fast as poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
Hermsgervørden posted:Thanks. There's half my question answered! Do we know the actual amount the YF-23 cost then? Were Northrop's development and production costs rolled into the final sticker price of the F-22? I find it simply fascinating that something as monumentally complex as the most advanced aircraft in the world is designed twice, and then one is basically forgotten. I wish they could have kept the two demonstrators and turned them into active duty aircraft anyway. Even as kluged up one off's they'd still be better than a couple of 20 year old F-15's wouldn't they?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
Holy poo poo about that F-22 AIB. That was the exact opposite of what the general thought was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
quote:Light Weight Fighter The story would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic in that you shake your head about way procurement is done. The fact that both of those airframes were made on such little money is amazing. I'm a Boyd fan mind you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
FYI, if you want to read the actual AIB report, it is publicly available now as well...summary is here, and full report is here. I highly recommend reading the full report, as it is well worth your time if you are interested in the mishap...well done, thorough, and even includes several pictures/graphics to further illustrate what the text is describing. It features a couple of good pictures of just where the EOS is located at in the cockpit.Octoduck posted:That link didn't work for me. Was he hypoxic? According to the AIB report, no...but when his OBOGS shut down, which is what caused him to attempt to pull the ring for the EOS, he was at 50,870 ft MSL, so there's that. As the AIB report states, he would not have become fully hypoxic and/or lost consciousness in the amount of time it took for him to recognize the OBOGS fail and begin a descent, but depending on his body's tolerance he could have had symptoms. You don't lose cabin pressure AND oxygen supply (both of which happened due to the bleed air malfunction that started the whole mishap chain) at 50,000+ feet and have your body be totally cool with it. While I understand that a lack of preponderance of the evidence would probably prevent them from doing so in the official report, it seems that it would be reasonable to consider the lack of oxygen as a "substantial contribution" to the mishap, especially given the fact that it would have only exacerbated the "channelized attention, breakdown in visual scan, and unrecognized spatial disorientation" that are listed as the cause of the mishap. I think what I wrote above is fairly uncontroversial...this next bit is a little bit further into speculation territory. The hypoxia/impairment incidents that have been occurring with somewhat disturbing frequency have been occurring with OBOGS that were nominally functioning. Raptor pilots have been coming back from sorties with extremely low O2 counts and/or all sorts of toxins in their blood with a still nominally functioning OBOGS, so this issue is more complex than a simple "OBOGS isn't working/pilots aren't getting oxygen." The AIB report attempts to address this by commenting that the MA's OBOGS and oxygen system were free of contamination, other than that which was put there by secondary contamination as a result of exposure to jet fuel during/after the mishap...whether that is actually the case or not depends on how much you trust the analysis done and the folks on the AIB. It also says that the MP's remains passed a toxicology screening, but it is unclear whether this was only for the "standard" substances (alcohol, drugs, etc.) or if they also tested for poo poo like CO, PAO, and other substances that have been showing up in pilot's bloodstreams; I don't know if it is even possible to test for those substances post-mortem or if there were enough remains recovered to test for them. I think bottom line is that while I think it is possible that an OBOGS type hypoxia/impairment issue contributed to the MP's disorientation while attempting to pull the EOS ring (there's just too much weird poo poo going on with that system on the Raptor right now to NOT consider that possible), I don't think there is any way to show that by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence, which is why it was left out of the AIB report. What ISN'T in dispute is that the MP was not completely incapacitated and was at least conscious enough (if not fully aware) to attempt a recovery maneuver 3 seconds prior to impact, which I know is quite a different conclusion from the one I initially formed about the mishap. Slo-Tek posted:They purchased the F-18, and then gave the production contract to McDonnell aircraft. So McDonnell was manufacturing a Northrop design...and Northrop wasn't. It's even better than that...Northrop still was supposed to be acting as a subcontractor on the naval versions, but their deal with McD was supposed to allow them to serve as the prime on any land based versions, and they actually planned on developing a lighter weight F-18L to compete with the F-16. That was all well and good until McD started marketing the naval F/A-18 version directly to foreign buyers, most of whom suspiciously didn't have any aircraft carriers and some of whom didn't even have a Navy. Northrop got royally pissed and sued McD...eventually they reached a settlement where McD would pay $50 million to Northrop and gain sole rights to the design (and any subsequent foreign sales), with no admission of wrongdoing. Hermsgervørden posted:Even as kluged up one off's they'd still be better than a couple of 20 year old F-15's wouldn't they? No. How is maintenance going to work on them? Mx on experimental jets is fine when you have the test and eval guys working on them, but when you throw said experimental jet to a line maintainer, things can get hosed up pretty quickly if you don't have the proper procedures in place. What about life cycle support as far as spare parts and stock goes? Not to mention employment...how do you develop TTPs for an aircraft that only has a few in the inventory? For that matter, why would you even bother spending the time/money if there are literally only two of them? All these issues were (to varying degrees...TTPs probably not so much) challenges with the 21 airplane B-2 program, not to mention often ridiculously expensive to solve. How do you think it is going to work with 2 tails? Cygni posted:The F-17 to Super Hornet family tree makes me laugh. To be fair, the Navy was never really interested in a truly small fighter...it was the AF that had the Light Weight Fighter boner (thanks to what the Fighter Mafia perceived as the perversion of Boyd's E-M Theory as employed by the F-15) and the LWF as originally intended wasn't even intended to be a low cost bomb truck; it was supposed to be able to carry a M61, a couple of Sidewinders, and MAYBE a very basic AI radar. That was it. That all changed when LWF got rolled into Air Combat Fighter, which was explicitly supposed to be multi-role which was when they started hanging bombs on it, then NATO jumped on board which increased the number of avionics, since Western Europe has absolutely terrible weather, and right about at the same time Congress told the Navy that their VFAX program was going to be rolled in to the ACF program as well. Seriously, all that happened in a matter of months in 1974...the LWF went from being a bare boned lightweight dogfighter to a low cost bomb truck with a halfway decent avionics suite. And even with all these additions/changes, the programs still delivered with relatively little drama. Fake edit: I just caught the bit about the Super Hornet...  . Yeah, that was pure politics...hey, Congress won't hack off on us getting a new fighter, but even though it has completely new systems and is considerably larger, as long as we make it the same basic shape we can sell it as an "upgrade" instead of a new design.HeyEng posted:Holy poo poo about that F-22 AIB. That was the exact opposite of what the general thought was. Yeah. When I first heard about it a few months ago my mind was pretty blown...I still can't get over the fact that he attempted a recovery maneuver three seconds prior to impact. Knowing you are going to hit...that just isn't a good way to go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 06:44
|
|
|
I'll read the SIB when I get back home. Wonder how they differ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
HeyEng posted:I'll read the SIB when I get back home. Wonder how they differ. I wonder indeed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 07:04
|
|