|
My brain refuses to process that airplane as anything other than a very flat anvil. edit: GIS-ing "flying wing concept" is a loving goldmine Terrible Robot fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jan 24, 2014 |
# ? Jan 24, 2014 06:11 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 09:30 |
|
Wh… what direction is it going I can't tell.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 06:43 |
|
Oblique wings are awesome
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 06:44 |
|
Terrible Robot posted:GIS-ing "flying wing concept" is a loving goldmine Hah, I remember seeing that thing in Popular Mechanics (*), decades ago. If I remember right it was supposed to be a supersonic flying wing. The fins and engine pods are supposed to swivel so it can take off and land with the wing leading edge roughly normal to airflow, and transition to the depicted swept configuration for supersonic flight. (edit: or maybe it was just high subsonic? don't remember honestly) Insane. I also recognized your first image, which was a NASA funded engineering study conducted by MIT. Probably had some real engineering rigor behind it, though as the MIT PR makes clear, it isn't supposed to be a blueprint of something anyone should build just yet. * AKA the preferred pre-Internet method for distributing dumb tech "concepts" dreamed up by design students BobHoward fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Jan 24, 2014 |
# ? Jan 24, 2014 06:59 |
|
Slo-Tek posted:Note that Norman Bel Geddes pretty much smashed the blended wing bullshit out of the park in 1929. Yet to be exceeded. Whoa. I remember that from an episode of Tale Spin way back in the day!
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 08:11 |
|
Popular Mechanics Cover Art Chat
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 08:16 |
|
FullMetalJacket posted:If only your opinion was valid. Lifting bodies/blended wing designs offer big advantages over the conventional tube and stick. The lift coefficient and efficiency gains alone are enough reason to produce them instead of just being parasite/surface drag/dirty air factories. Unless you can show me some solidworks flow modelling or some other aerodynamic explanation for this, I'm calling bullshit. I would say pylon mounted engines have almost no effect on the boundary layer of airflow on the wings, nor do they create dirty air for the airframe (are you talking about the fuselage here?) to sort out.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 08:17 |
|
Yo linedance, were you affected by the lhr staffing changes announced yesterday? Please say no
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 08:20 |
|
Visited the National Naval Aviation Museum again yesterday, just putting in another plug for what is easily one of the top 10 aviation museums on the planet, if not the top 5. While I was poking around on their website I came across this story, which is hilarious. Putting the boat in flying boat.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 12:54 |
|
benito posted:Sky Whale! Here are some of his other ideas.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 13:29 |
|
How long would it take to disembark by junk?
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 14:09 |
|
One Eye Open posted:Here are some of his other ideas. These make the Sky Whale look pedestrian. A rocket with the diameter of a 747 launched from the top of a C5 with dildos on the wings.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 14:34 |
|
darknrgy posted:I HATE PLANES THAT STAY IN ONE PIECE What the gently caress happens to the people?
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 14:51 |
I sincerely hope they all have ejector seats just to add to the hilarity.
|
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 14:56 |
|
Breakfast All Day posted:These make the Sky Whale look pedestrian. A rocket with the diameter of a 747 launched from the top of a C5 with dildos on the wings. ProjectAces needs to hire this guy for their next game.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 15:10 |
|
One Eye Open posted:Here are some of his other ideas. Someone tell him that Kerbal Space Program is NOT a CFD program.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 15:15 |
|
I'm sorry, there is only one SkyWhale, and it already exists.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 15:34 |
|
Flying wing and/or lifting body chat is never complete without:Wiki posted:The findings of the investigation stated that the B-2 crashed after "heavy, lashing rains" caused water to enter skin-flush air-data sensors. The data from the sensors are used to calculate numerous factors including airspeed, altitude, and attitude. Because three pressure transducers had been improperly calibrated by the maintenance crew due to condensation inside devices, the flight-control computers calculated inaccurate aircraft angle of attack and airspeed. Incorrect airspeed data on cockpit displays led to the aircraft rotating 12 knots slower than indicated. After the wheels lifted from the runway, which caused the flight control system to switch to different control laws, the erroneously sensed negative angle of attack caused the computers to inject a sudden, 1.6‑g, uncommanded 30-degree pitch-up maneuver. The combination of slow lift-off speed and the extreme angle of attack (and attendant drag) resulted in an unrecoverable stall, yaw, and descent. Both crew members successfully ejected from the aircraft soon after the left wing tip started to gouge the ground alongside the runway. The aircraft impacted the ground, tumbled, and burned after its fuel ignited. Fly-by-wire/-light is cool but there is such a thing as increased risk from too much reliance on it. The F-117 would never fly without computer control, which is an inexcusable crime unless your mission involves dodging SAMs.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 15:55 |
|
F-35: still hosed.quote:A new U.S. Defense Department report warns that ongoing software, maintenance and reliability problems with Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter could delay the Marine Corps' plans to start using its F-35 jets by mid-2015. They'll get that laser in there any decade now.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 16:29 |
|
x-posted from the GBS F-35 thread what why how I don't even ed: not timg'd because this shitshow is just as broken as your tables
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 17:07 |
|
buttcrackmenace posted:x-posted from the GBS F-35 thread Counterpoint: Laser. Your move.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 17:11 |
|
At this point it almost seems like it would have been better to keep pounding away at the air-superiority F-22, then retrofit ground strike improvements to that airframe later. If only because that seemed to work for the F-15 -> F-15E and the F-16 series. Or is there something very different about the two programs I'm missing?
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 17:16 |
|
Davin Valkri posted:At this point it almost seems like it would have been better to keep pounding away at the air-superiority F-22, then retrofit ground strike improvements to that airframe later. If only because that seemed to work for the F-15 -> F-15E and the F-16 series. Or is there something very different about the two programs I'm missing? Nope. Turning a great fighter into a great bomber is a lot easier than turning an expensive fat disaster into a mediocre everything.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 17:22 |
|
Davin Valkri posted:At this point it almost seems like it would have been better to keep pounding away at the air-superiority F-22, then retrofit ground strike improvements to that airframe later. If only because that seemed to work for the F-15 -> F-15E and the F-16 series. Or is there something very different about the two programs I'm missing? The F-22 was very expensive and not really destined for export, the F-35 was meant as a cheaper light fighter. Then of course cost ballooned, the F-35 is now loving expensive to the point where it might not get exported all that much.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 17:22 |
|
Yeah if Canada ends up buying that thing I'll eat my hat because it'll be a loving political NIGHTMARE. Though the conservative government seems hell-bent in wasting as much money as possible on defence projects, like several billion dollars for a few tenders.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 17:30 |
|
MA-Horus posted:Yeah if Canada ends up buying that thing I'll eat my hat because it'll be a loving political NIGHTMARE. Though the conservative government seems hell-bent in wasting as much money as possible on defence projects, like several billion dollars for a few tenders. Don't get me started on that loving polar icebreaker. You know we're going to end up with the F-35, though. There's no way Harper's going to budge on that.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 17:38 |
|
Lord Harper demands a cool-looking plane to snort coke off of.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 18:05 |
|
buttcrackmenace posted:x-posted from the GBS F-35 thread Aerospace version of Herpes. Back to the sky whale, I really want to see it go through a high blow test. Preferably from half a mile away. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jan 24, 2014 |
# ? Jan 24, 2014 18:19 |
|
Davin Valkri posted:At this point it almost seems like it would have been better to keep pounding away at the air-superiority F-22, then retrofit ground strike improvements to that airframe later. If only because that seemed to work for the F-15 -> F-15E and the F-16 series. Or is there something very different about the two programs I'm missing? The F-22 is the night 0 kick in the door fighter. In addition to world beating air to air capability, it has (most of) the necessary air to mud capability to fill that specific role (SEAD/DEAD/Strategic Attack on night 0, basically what we used to use the F-117 for) with the recently fielded Increment 3.1...internal carriage of 8 SDBs (or 2 GBU-32s if you need something bigger), basic SAR capability, the ability to receive info via datalink for dynamic targeting, and the ability to execute on board retargeting. Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that pretty much everything that is missing here (transmit datalink capability with MADL, more advanced SAR capability, geolocation avionics) was either deleted from the spiral development program or delayed due to funding difficulties...difficulties largely resulting from the F-35. So while the Raptor isn't going to be a bomb truck in Afghanistan v3, it was never supposed to be. That's supposed to be the F-35's wicket. The question you should be asking is why we needed to put (lovely) LO capability on the aircraft that we're going to be using as a day 30 bomb truck, or put another way, why are we pretending that our bomb truck is going to be survivable on night 0? Just one of the many questions regarding the F-35. But Bob Gates is an airpower guru so clearly he made the right decision to cut Raptors in favor of more F-35s. Also lol at the idea of STOVL fighters as aerospace herpes. They really are, in so many different ways. e: That doesn't get into the point regarding export, which is valid insofar as we were never going to sell the Raptor to anyone. But it doesn't answer the question of why F-35s were necessary for our allies since they could've gotten new build Block 60s or Super Bugs or something for a fraction of the cost with the only loss being (lovely) LO...and it's not like any of them are going to need to go toe to toe with an advanced IADS unless they're just tagging along with another one of our misadventures. e2: If ALIS is anything like the F-22's IMIS (and I assume it is), it can't be anything other than a steaming pile of dog poo poo. And I'm glad to see that the Marines are still pressing for a 2015 IOC date. After all, unnecessarily killing people through the introduction of underdeveloped and not fully tested equipment is kind of Marine Aviation's thing. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jan 24, 2014 |
# ? Jan 24, 2014 18:25 |
|
SCOTLAND posted:Yo linedance, were you affected by the lhr staffing changes announced yesterday? Please say no Not affecting maintenance. Yet. I wouldn't count on the eye or Sauron ignoring us forever though. There's a lot of factors and things in play that I wouldn't really want to comment on, but the writing is pretty clearly on the wall for those paranoid enough to read it.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 18:34 |
|
FrozenVent posted:Don't get me started on that loving polar icebreaker. The CBC seems to think Dassault might have a chance. I'd expect the Rafale is one of the cheaper options along with the Super Hornet, but I imagine it's still going to run in to "Buy American!" trouble.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 18:35 |
|
St_Ides posted:The CBC seems to think Dassault might have a chance. No chance the brits would happen to have a bunch of obsolete last generation fighter jets sitting around, never been used, that we could buy for five times the price? Cause that worked out great for the navy.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 18:41 |
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Some idiots keep tossing out the idea that THE A-10 can't handle the MANPADS THREAT BRO. Which is obviously retarded as LO is designed as a radar threat defense, not IR. Slap some IR absorbant paint on an A-10 and it will handle the situation just as well as any other aircraft currently in the sky. We helicopters are down in the dirty every single day and we handle it - why do people think an A-10 is suddenly such a vulnerable shitheap? The F-35 will have the exact same problem, when it comes to anything but an early war (pre SEAD/DEAD) situation. Or am I completely misunderstanding the argument I've seen made numerous times?
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 18:42 |
|
WAR CRIME SYNDICAT posted:Some idiots keep tossing out the idea that THE A-10 can't handle the MANPADS THREAT BRO. Which is obviously retarded as LO is designed as a radar threat defense, not IR. Slap some IR absorbant paint on an A-10 and it will handle the situation just as well as any other aircraft currently in the sky. We helicopters are down in the dirty every single day and we handle it - why do people think an A-10 is suddenly such a vulnerable shitheap? Argument as I understand it isn't so much that the A-10 can't handle the MANPADS (it was pretty much exclusively designed to not be immediately murdered in a SA-9/ZSU-23 envelope, after all) as it is that these days we prefer to perform CAS in a stack from 20,000 ft more often than not because with PGMs we can perform the mission effectively with a lot less risk to the aircraft in a permissive environment (non-zero risk from small arms fire and MANPADS vs zero risk from the non-existent IADS), so there's no reason we can't use the F-35 for an A-10 replacement. The altitude thing is more or less valid (it's why pretty much everyone got restricted to medium altitude in Desert Storm after the Iraqi air defenses were taken down, and one of the reasons we spent a shitload of money on the Precision Engagement upgrade to the Hawgs so they can get out of the weeds and still employ effectively with JDAMs), but the overall argument misses the point that you can't always perform CAS from 20,000 ft and the related corollary, we can't plan for nothing but CAS in a completely permissive environment. If you're in a more contested near-peer fight, it's possible that if we haven't completely taken down the bad guys IADS the less risky option would be lower altitude. In any case, it's not like the F-35 has the ability to just hang out at 20,000 ft in a S-300s MEZ. So either it's going to be at 20,000 ft in a permissive environment (in which case why not use a legacy fighter that is just as capable of carrying a bunch of JDAMs) or it's going to be down in the weeds in a non-permissive environment (in which case, do you want the chunky plastic fighter or the one with a 30mm cannon and a titanium bathtub?)
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 19:06 |
|
iyaayas01 posted:The F-22 is the night 0 kick in the door fighter. In addition to world beating air to air capability, it has (most of) the necessary air to mud capability to fill that specific role (SEAD/DEAD/Strategic Attack on night 0, basically what we used to use the F-117 for) with the recently fielded Increment 3.1...internal carriage of 8 SDBs (or 2 GBU-32s if you need something bigger), basic SAR capability, the ability to receive info via datalink for dynamic targeting, and the ability to execute on board retargeting. Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that pretty much everything that is missing here (transmit datalink capability with MADL, more advanced SAR capability, geolocation avionics) was either deleted from the spiral development program or delayed due to funding difficulties...difficulties largely resulting from the F-35. So while the Raptor isn't going to be a bomb truck in Afghanistan v3, it was never supposed to be. That's supposed to be the F-35's wicket. Crazy thing is if we want a lower observability bomb truck the F-15SE is a thing that exists.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 19:08 |
|
iyaayas01 posted:it's going to be down in the weeds in a non-permissive environment (in which case, do you want the chunky plastic fighter or the one with a 30mm cannon and a titanium bathtub?) Or the one where the pilot is safe and sound in a fart-filled trailer in Nevada (I know we do this over and over)
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 19:10 |
|
iyaayas01 posted:And I'm glad to see that the Marines are still pressing for a 2015 IOC date. After all, unnecessarily killing people through the introduction of underdeveloped and not fully tested equipment is kind of Marine Aviation's thing. This is a service that looked at operational attrition rates from forty years of single-engine powered-lift, and said "Yes. Let's do that all over again, but with exponentially more expensive aircraft!" (They've written off fully a third of the AV-8B fleet in some thirty-odd years.) So, ten percent losses per decade, and that's before anyone starts shooting at them.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 19:11 |
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Or the one where the pilot is safe and sound in a fart-filled trailer in Nevada And boy are they fart filled. Also occasionally poo poo filled. e: But to make a legitimate point, all RPAs like the Pred and Reaper are good for is permissive environment loitering at 20,000 ft. The idea of them getting down in the weeds is hilarious to me. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 24, 2014 |
# ? Jan 24, 2014 19:11 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:Crazy thing is if we want a lower observability bomb truck the F-15SE is a thing that exists. Well, a thing that might exist for 120mil a throw. So it isn't like existing infrastructure and experience shaves off that many dollars from what a 5th-ish generation fighter appears to cost.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 19:25 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 09:30 |
|
The advantage of the Pred/Reapers isn't that they're more survivable, it's that if one does go down, and aircraft will go down, it's a fairly cheap (possibly less than an S-300 missile) loss and the pilot is safe. This is from David Axe so it's probably exaggerated, but: quote:In the 1980s the U.S. Air Force planned to deploy 68 A-10 warplanes to each of six Forward Operating Locations in West Germany in the event of war with the Soviets. The twin-engine A-10s, with their 30-millimeter guns and Maverick missiles, were NATO’s main tank-killing weapon. The closest thing to an enduring non-permissive air environment anyone's seen in ages is probably Syria, where everything from MANPADS to AAA to small arms to probably some sort of propane tank-hurling trebuchet has been used to put the hurt on Assad's helicopter fleet and score kills against fixed-wing assets. Both sides there are pretty far from US near-peers in quantity, capability or tactics, of course.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2014 19:28 |