|
I doubt it’ll be anything other than that one render.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 14:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Spaced God posted:Continuing the world's repeat of the 1960s by having more SSTs, gently caress it why not
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 15:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I doubt it’ll be anything other than that one render. Hey, don't be such a negative Nancy. There will be at least a few concept drawings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
brains posted:at last, someone can finally capture the coveted "altitude as a ticket price" market pretty sure that 60k wouldnt pay for a ticket on something like that unless you were doing a 10 minute flight
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I doubt it’ll be anything other than that one render. Despite my rhetoric I really want to see more cool new airframes. Ideally weird ones though. Like canard pushers. More canard pushers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/aCwIEgx.mp4
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Huh, the one 944 that is actually fast And quite a lot of interior room, if I'm being honest
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:Quite the interesting article about China and Jets Again with the well-worn claims that the Chinese can't do anything but copy what the West has developed. Some of their examples, mostly the older ones, are license produced Soviet aircraft, of course. The more modern examples are questionable: other than some rumors, it's not clear that the JF-17 has any more than a superficial resemblance to the IAI Lavi (which itself has little relation to the F-16, that was sort of the whole point), the J-20 is not a "clone" of the F-22 any more than any 5th generation fighter is nor is the FC-31 a copycat of the F-35. All, of course, use technology developed in the West, both publicly known and purloined. But everyone does, including the big US companies, because it would be pretty stupid to start designing a new aircraft of any type from first principles. Like, the menu of possible aircraft configurations will be on the mind of anyone who has done any amount of serious aircraft design work, no matter where they are from. But what is going to be practical often isn't known without some serious analysis and experimentation. Sometimes just knowing that someone else arrived at a particular solution can rapidly advance development because you don't have to go down so many dead ends. Like, designers aren't reevaluating the concept of an aileron every single time they design a new airplane, but that doesn't mean everything is an ersatz copy of the Curtiss June Bug. Pick up any American or British book from during the Cold War about Soviet aircraft, and it's the same story. Oh no, the USSR is stealing our ideas because they lack our ingenuity, and the Su-27 is totally a copy of the F-15! The Tu-160 is a copy of the B-1! In truth, Soviet designers demonstrated a ton of ingenuity, it just rarely made it into the English-language pop-science press. Where the Soviets were weak on things like durable high power turbine engines, they were often counterbalanced by things like more sophisticated aerodynamic design. They made designs that were well adapted to their situation and leaned into their strengths. It wasn't until the collapse of the USSR that more information about the development of their aircraft started entering the English language literature and more people began to accept that their major design decisions were support by independent analysis and engineering and not primarily driven by espionage. There's very little information available, at least in English, about the workings of China's recent development programs. All I can say is that the growth in their public-facing aerospace S&T community over the last twenty years or so has been dramatic, both in quantity and quality. They have talent now that they didn't in the last century and we're just now beginning to see the projects that were in preliminary design during the start of this period take flight. Yes, I get that the article is talking about China's bad engines, and they are still relatively bad. But I'm tired of seeing article after article claiming that other countries can't develop the sophisticated technologies we can without stealing them, fueling the idea that we need to get even "tougher" about keeping these technologies in the US and the foreigners out. Which is so self-defeating, because those policies make it harder for us to keep the world's brightest working for us and make it more expensive to do truly innovative work. Meanwhile, defense R&D has been more or less stagnant here while it is exploding in China. In fact, China is on pace to spend more on R&D than us soon, without even accounting for the fact that those dollars go further in China than they do here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
How many western airplanes get delayed or canceled because Pratt or GE or Williams or Rolls can't deliver on their promises anyways?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:Quite the interesting article about China and Jets This reads like a high school level essay, zero attribution for most of the claims made and far too many words wasted on obvious statements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 23:04
|
|
|
The other point is that generally given a certain set of general constraints in leading-edge applications that are highly optimized most of the solutions end up looking the same. This is why low-wing twin underwing podded engine designs pretty well won out in airliners. edit: I don't doubt that the Chinese are trying to beg borrow and steal all manner of high tech secrets, but that doesn't mean their stuff is slavishly copied whole cloth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
I feel like a lot of Yellow Peril agitprop commits the mistake of extending the piracy trends seen in consumer goods to all aspects of indigenous industry in China.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
Starship 150m "Hop" might be happening 'soon': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59K40Ahd7yk EDIT: ~8m30s EDIT 2: Aborted pretty much right at the last second. Might be another try later. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Aug 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
Midjack posted:I feel like a lot of Yellow Peril agitprop commits the mistake of extending the piracy trends seen in consumer goods to all aspects of indigenous industry in China. It's not that gross of a mistake, given the almost routine nature of defense hacks over the past 20 years. Yes the "whole cloth" argument is nonsense, but the notion that it should just be ignored or accepted as fine that China does beg/borrow/steal western military technology for the purpose of countering western militaries is probably even dumber. "Everyone else does it" is not a reasonable ending to the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
     
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 01:22
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
I’ve seen this photograph before, and I can’t get over how good it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I doubt it’ll be anything other than that one render. Hey now, c'mon. C'mon. There will also be anime porn of it on the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 11:45
|
|
|
rscott posted:How many western airplanes get delayed or canceled because Pratt or GE or Williams or Rolls can't deliver on their promises anyways? The Safran Silvercrest was a recent flop like that, it’s failure ended up cancelling a Cessna Citation and a Dassault Falcon jet .
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 12:07
|
|
|
I really like the idea of these optionally piloted vehicles. Back in the late 00's, I worked briefly on a proof of concept project that was intended to turn a Stemme S-10 motor glider into an OPV using a lot of lower cost, largely off the shelf components. The mechanical engineer and I had it rigged up to the point where you could move all of the surfaces remotely with a bog standard Futaba radio, so (very) theoretically we could could fly it like a big R/C plane if we could have launched it. Then the company we were subcontracting for pulled out of the project and they took my cool toy away. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 14:35
|
|
|
Yeah it’s badass to have all the disadvantages of a drone and all the disadvantages of a manned platform at the same time
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Counterpoint; the K-Max is awesome
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
LibCrusher posted:Yeah it’s badass to have all the disadvantages of a drone and all the disadvantages of a manned platform at the same time There aren't that many disadvantages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
LibCrusher posted:Yeah it’s badass to have all the disadvantages of a drone and all the disadvantages of a manned platform at the same time I like the possibility of remotely hijacking a manned aircraft and letting the dead pilot take the rap when I crash it into a building.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
Midjack posted:I like the possibility of remotely hijacking a manned aircraft and letting the dead pilot take the rap when I crash it into a building. https://the-lone-gunmen.fandom.com/wiki/Pre_9/11_controversy
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There aren't that many disadvantages. Look at the frontal area on that pig and compare it with an MQ-9. Think of all the internal space given up for things like AC/heat, oxygen, two human beings sitting side by side, duplicated flight controls, etc. none of that poo poo helps it be a drone. Notice its single, piston, pusher engine, its huge tailboom which would decapitate anyone attempting to egress, and its tiny cockpit. That’s not good for a long endurance manned platform. There’s a reason manned ISR aircraft essentially bottom out on size at a U-28 or MC-12, and use turbine engines, and there’s a reason drones use skinny little fuselages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
First off, manned ISR doesn't bottom out there. We've used Cessna 150s/210s for all kinds of poo poo, including in recent years. They're great modular platforms and dirt cheap to obtain and operate. For long-term projects you're more correct, but that's because we already had the drone systems in place to reduce the need for tiny manned platforms. The limiting factor has been sensor size, not people. Yes, for many things an unmanned platform is preferable; but personally I think you're overstating the impact of the disadvantages, particularly in a "we need a jack of all trades platform for everything" era. Flexibility is useful. If we could fund dedicated platforms for mission sets, then hell yeah. Even the AF would want more drones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
Godholio posted:First off, manned ISR doesn't bottom out there. We've used Cessna 150s/210s for all kinds of poo poo, including in recent years. They're great modular platforms and dirt cheap to obtain and operate. For long-term projects you're more correct, but that's because we already had the drone systems in place to reduce the need for tiny manned platforms. The limiting factor has been sensor size, not people. Yes, for many things an unmanned platform is preferable; but personally I think you're overstating the impact of the disadvantages, particularly in a "we need a jack of all trades platform for everything" era. Flexibility is useful. If we could fund dedicated platforms for mission sets, then hell yeah. Even the AF would want more drones. I think this is a good point. You could put a pair of gasbags in the seats for unmanned ISR and get your long loiter that way. You'd use the same platform manned if you're doing short-leg COIN with weapons on the wings when you want an easily-identifiable person to hold accountable. One platform, two different missions. You're not running hellfires on drones, and you're not sending meatbags up in a glorified Piper to run racetracks while the camera does its thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 13:22
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:You could put a pair of gasbags in the seats for unmanned ISR and get your long loiter that way. Replace all ballast with gas bags.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 14:39
|
|
|
Godholio posted:First off, manned ISR doesn't bottom out there. We've used Cessna 150s/210s for all kinds of poo poo, including in recent years. They're great modular platforms and dirt cheap to obtain and operate. For long-term projects you're more correct, but that's because we already had the drone systems in place to reduce the need for tiny manned platforms. The limiting factor has been sensor size, not people. Yes, for many things an unmanned platform is preferable; but personally I think you're overstating the impact of the disadvantages, particularly in a "we need a jack of all trades platform for everything" era. Flexibility is useful. If we could fund dedicated platforms for mission sets, then hell yeah. Even the AF would want more drones. Show me evidence of a single engine piston used in any of our coin efforts in the past decade and I’ll concede
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
LibCrusher posted:Show me evidence of a single engine piston used in any of our coin efforts in the past decade and I’ll concede Even better, the RQ-7 uses a wankel. If you’re not satisfied with a wankel, the MQ-1C Gray Eagle is powered by a piston engine and in service now. Its bigger, longer range successor uses a diesel piston engine with a bit more power. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Aug 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
A gas bag is what I am after I have taco bell on an overnight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Even better, the RQ-7 uses a wankel. I’m obviously talking about manned ISR. The guy I was responding to said Cessna 152s are capable ISR aircraft which is loving laughable. Drones can get away with piston engines because when they blow a turbo and piss out all their oil and slam into a mountain, nobody dies. Manned aircraft can’t say the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
LibCrusher posted:I’m obviously talking about manned ISR. The guy I was responding to said Cessna 152s are capable ISR aircraft which is loving laughable. Whats capable mean here? Capable of operating in high threat environments, no. Capable of carting around useful surveillance systems? Yes.  EDIT: you said manned piston engine planes used in COIN efforts, not sure on that one yet
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
*bursts through door, panting* The Pilatus porter has a failed military variant used/tested for COIN missions, Turns out it's a useless piece of junk for the role but it does exist 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
The FBI and DHS have been lofting Cessna 206s above Minneapolis / Portland / San Fransisco / New York a good bit lately in what could arguably be considered COIN missions, based on the demeanor of the DHS people on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
Jestery posted:*bursts through door, panting* Turbine
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
***stares in O-2 Skymaster***
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Safety Dance posted:The FBI and DHS have been lofting Cessna 206s above Minneapolis / Portland / San Fransisco / New York a good bit lately in what could arguably be considered COIN missions, based on the demeanor of the DHS people on the ground. Hell, the CHP has been flying their 206s over every protest in the bay area and they're (essentially) the same organization that's doing all the black people murder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 00:38
|
|
