|
StandardVC10 posted:God drat the F7U-3 is cool. It's kind of interesting how the competitor to the F-4 Phantom had a similar brutalist aesthetic going on. XF8U-3 -- the F7U is ... less awesome.
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
ehnus posted:XF8U-3 -- the F7U is ... less awesome. poo poo, you're totally right. Gonna fix that.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
An225 landed in Perth today. Because it was delayed it landed on 21 instead of 03 and I didn't get to see it.  
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:An225 landed in Perth today. Because it was delayed it landed on 21 instead of 03 and I didn't get to see it. Would have flown over my house if they'd come in from the south like originally planned, but since it came from the north we saw nothing. Had to laugh, cause we ate lunch with the kids at the Jandakot Airport viewing area like we usually do on the weekend, and there were about 2 dozen people there to see the "big plane". The ones that were hoping to catch a view of it lining up on Perth Intl hadn't checked the news in the morning to see the route had changed, and I'm fairly certain a few people thought it was actually landing there.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:An225 landed in Perth today. Because it was delayed it landed on 21 instead of 03 and I didn't get to see it. If you can make it for the departure it's well worth it. I've seen it a couple of times here at Finningley and it's seriously impressive. It looks like it's hardly moving forward at rotation and considering the size of it the noise levels aren't that large.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow posted:intakes like that always make me think of What I don't get is that they even entered that thing into the "competition". I mean, I assume they half-assed everything as much as they could given that it was a foregone conclusion what they'd pick, but seriously? Why even expend the effort to pretend with that thing? I wouldn't have chosen that even if it was the only entry.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:What I don't get is that they even entered that thing into the "competition". I mean, I assume they half-assed everything as much as they could given that it was a foregone conclusion what they'd pick, but seriously? Why even expend the effort to pretend with that thing? I wouldn't have chosen that even if it was the only entry. It was, at one point, a serious entry. But, it was too much "firsts" going on to let it succeed. It was Boeing's first fighter after fully integrating MD's design team, which meant lots of inexperienced Boeing people trying to run the show. Lots of trying to push technology forward, which is commendable, but delicate manufacturing procedures bogged down an already delayed project. The manufacturing issues were enough to warrant a full scale redesign of the platform, but by then the first two prototypes were already built. And those started showing unforeseen problems in their fight capabilities. One of those airplanes which flew better on paper. Otherwise, yeah, AF generals and their want for pretty airplanes.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:What I don't get is that they even entered that thing into the "competition". I mean, I assume they half-assed everything as much as they could given that it was a foregone conclusion what they'd pick, but seriously? Why even expend the effort to pretend with that thing? I wouldn't have chosen that even if it was the only entry.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:An225 landed in Perth today. Because it was delayed it landed on 21 instead of 03 and I didn't get to see it. First time it has visited Australia.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Rumor is F-117 may be coming back.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:And yet according to someone in the airpower thread it outclassed the LockMart entry (aka the current F35) in almost every single category. I think you are confusing the xf-23/xf-22. I thought the X-32 failed the whole stupid vtol/stol stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Flikken posted:I think you are confusing the xf-23/xf-22. It had the hover performance of a Harrier, which is to say; poo poo. The F-35B is a really impressive airplane, when you just look at what's sitting on the ramp. It's the program behind it that is a gilded-frame eighteen-foot by twenty-six foot oil-on-canvas portrait of a dumpster fire.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:It had the hover performance of a Harrier, which is to say; poo poo. When the Pentagon is on the record as saying "we totally screwed this up and we're never doing it this way again" you know it's bad.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Rumor is F-117 may be coming back.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Rumor is F-117 may be coming back. May?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
slidebite posted:What can the 117 do that the 22 can't? Nothing, but we need more flying airframes.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
In an alternate universe, a goatee'd David Axe declares that the X-35 would have been the superior choice over the now massively overbudget F-32 program. "America needs a stealth A-7, not a stealth AV-8B!" he types on his blog.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
slidebite posted:What can the 117 do that the 22 can't? Carry a nuke.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
^There are basically zero missions that call for a first-generation stealth bomber with relatively short legs to deliver a small nuclear payload.CommieGIR posted:Rumor is F-117 may be coming back. At least part of the fleet never stopped flying.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
slidebite posted:What can the 117 do that the 22 can't? Brood in the darkness
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Nothing, but we need more flying airframes. I want the AeroGavin guy to start proposing the F-117 as a CAS aircraft
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:Brood in the darkness Oh my god, F117, your parents were killed by an S-125 in eastern Europe WE GET IT ALREADY 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Godholio posted:^There are basically zero missions that call for a first-generation stealth bomber with relatively short legs to deliver a small nuclear payload. Nobody asked for "useful." 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Oh my god, F117, your parents were killed by an S-125 in eastern Europe WE GET IT ALREADY I'm Nighthawk
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
spotted Friday, I guess
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:When the Pentagon is on the record as saying "we totally screwed this up and we're never doing it this way again" you know it's bad. Whoa. Have they said this? Does "this way" apply to the Navy as well? Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Whoa. Have they said this? Does "this way" apply to the Navy as well? Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease I hate to be that guy, but I know I'm read the latter part come out of the mouth of a pentagon spokesman.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
New SDASM!! https://youtu.be/CI8Hl9REDqw Old YC-14
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Godholio posted:At least part of the fleet never stopped flying. Yeah they're not coming back operationally, that'd be stupid for a whole bunch of reasons. But they've never stopped flying on the NTTR doing various things, there's been multiple photos of them flying uprange since the official "retirement" And yeah the X-32 failed miserably on the performance side of JSF. X-35 passed on performance (although really thin weight margins from a STOVL perspective), it's been LM/JPO's program management that has been terrible. Although a big part of that loops back around to the fact that the F-35B was significantly overweight compared to the X-35 (reference those thin weight margins) and the SWAT effort to try and get overall weight down to a manageable number for the -B's STOVL performance is what has caused a lot of the big picture issues with the program as a whole.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:X-35 passed on performance (although really thin weight margins from a STOVL perspective), it's been LM/JPO's program management that has been terrible. Although a big part of that loops back around to the fact that the F-35B was significantly overweight compared to the X-35 (reference those thin weight margins) and the SWAT effort to try and get overall weight down to a manageable number for the -B's STOVL performance is what has caused a lot of the big picture issues with the program as a whole. Was STOVL ever a worthwhile idea? As as ratio of RnD effort, STOVL seems to have been aviation's equivilent of better 3"5 floppy disks. Odd ducks:  And this. I think the flags on the back are American and Malaysian? 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Was STOVL ever a worthwhile idea? Well, heavily loaded helicopters and the osprey are technically STOVL.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Was STOVL ever a worthwhile idea? As as ratio of RnD effort, STOVL seems to have been aviation's equivilent of better 3"5 floppy disks. Nope, STOVL is loving stupid. Doubly so on fighter aircraft. Triply so on supersonic stealthy fighter aircraft. Pretend I posted the VTOL wheel of misery
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
I remember on the PBS JSF show the big failing of the X-32 was hot air ingestion when hovering, which is ironic since usually pentagon projects are more guilty of spewing the hot air  I still love the X-32 though, the derpy fucker. Something cool about such an ungainly fighter. Of course one of my other fav fighters of all time is the English Electric Lightning.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
priznat posted:I remember on the PBS JSF show the big failing of the X-32 was hot air ingestion when hovering, which is ironic since usually pentagon projects are more guilty of spewing the hot air 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
You know how every time someone makes a car also be a boat it's a loving horrible idea because you end up with a kinda lovely car and a kinda lovely boat rolled up into one super expensive high maintenance turd? Same with making a plane also be like a helicopter. Now, making a plane be a boat, somehow that works out quite nicely.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:You know how every time someone makes a car also be a boat it's a loving horrible idea because you end up with a kinda lovely car and a kinda lovely boat rolled up into one super expensive high maintenance turd? You get a kinda lovely airplane and a really lovely boat?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:You get a kinda lovely airplane and a really lovely boat? You get PBY Catalinas and Short Sunderlands.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
priznat posted:I remember on the PBS JSF show the big failing of the X-32 was hot air ingestion when hovering, which is ironic since usually pentagon projects are more guilty of spewing the hot air The biggest problem with the X-32 was that Boeing found out a fair ways into the design phase that it was going to be a total dog, so the submitted production design ended up being dramatically different to the X-32 by the time of the flyoff, whereas the X-35 was seen as the safe, conservative choice, if you can believe it.  
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Was STOVL ever a worthwhile idea? As as ratio of RnD effort, STOVL seems to have been aviation's equivilent of better 3"5 floppy disks. STOVL is a Soviet plot to sabotage NATO aviation. It’s the only thing that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:02
|
|
