# Weird planes



## HAL9000 (Feb 28, 2015)

Russia bomber thread has become a weird planes thread, so I thought I would  start a thread just for this niche 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/russian-long-range-bombers-disrupt-uk-airspace.331716/

Round the world plane







Six million dollar plane (*M2-F2r - *might become a useful space lifeboat)


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 28, 2015)

Russians were good at this!

Lun-class ekranoplan






Bartini Beriev VVA-14 vertical take-off amphibious aircraft:


----------



## HAL9000 (Feb 28, 2015)

This aircraft has appeared in an earlier thread

*XB-70 Valkyrie*


----------



## Bungle73 (Feb 28, 2015)

Aero Spacelines Super Guppy











http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 1, 2015)

I presume that once they realised the war was lost, Jerry aircraft designers just started pissing about, having a laugh, etc.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 1, 2015)

Is that a BV 141 or similar? I was about to post that. There's more where that came from, I think.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 1, 2015)

B&V's other works:


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 1, 2015)

DownwardDog - in your expert opinion, was there any aerodynamic or military rationale for these examples of aircraft weirdness from the last days of the Reich?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 1, 2015)

HAL9000 said:


> Round the world plane





That's gorgeous, where can I get one?


----------



## gosub (Mar 1, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's gorgeous, where can I get one?


Smithsonian


----------



## Tankus (Mar 1, 2015)

Supposedly an all weather interceptor and many other things


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 1, 2015)

Tankus said:


> Supposedly an all weather interceptor and many other things




"Now pay attention 007 - it looks like a fighter jet, but it's actually a giant toilet for flushing trillions of dollars (American) down".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 1, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> "Now pay attention 007 - it looks like a fighter jet, but it's actually a giant toilet for flushing trillions of dollars (American) down".



Not just US dollars, we're gonna be buying them too 

Even though we're still using the tornado GR4 because nobody remembered to put any weapons on the Typhoon.


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 1, 2015)

This flies over our house every day...









It's funny as fuck when we have visitors and they see it for the first time. WTF


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 1, 2015)

friedaweed said:


> This flies over our house every day...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 1, 2015)

And WTF is this:


----------



## HAL9000 (Mar 1, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's gorgeous, where can I get one?



You could get yourself one of these






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_A500

But only 7 were built, so you're probably better off getting this company to build a plane for you....  

http://www.scaled.com/

(word of warning, the round the world plane is an awful plane to fly

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/Features/rutan_recalls.html



> "I got to really hate this airplane. I felt not only was it not going to work, but I would probably die in it," Rutan said of the Voyager, the aircraft his brother Burt Rutan designed. "Yes, it had terrible flying qualities, but it had to make it around the world. Burt knew that it must have major compromises to make it around the world."



)


----------



## weltweit (Mar 1, 2015)

I bet none of those planes could do this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55143939@N03/11250933385/


----------



## Sirena (Mar 1, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I bet none of those planes could do this:
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/55143939@N03/11250933385/



This comes close


----------



## mauvais (Mar 1, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> DownwardDog - in your expert opinion, was there any aerodynamic or military rationale for these examples of aircraft weirdness from the last days of the Reich?


I'm not an expert but it seems that the Germans were often onto something in their avant-garde designs: first jet fighter, a flying wing concept and even the forward swept wing, all of which made it into later and even contemporary aircraft. That would mirror their much more advanced rocket programme which of course was used to, ahem, accelerate the American one via Von Braun et al.


----------



## pogofish (Mar 1, 2015)

The Convair F-2Y Sea Dart:






With retractable Hydro-Skis!

The Goodyear Inflato-plane:






Yes, a rubber, blow-up plane!


Leduc Ramjet:






With an all-glass cockpit!



The Vought V.173 Flying Flapjack:







The NASA AD-1:






This almost made it into a real airliner project!


The Convair XFY-1 POGO:


----------



## eatmorecheese (Mar 2, 2015)

Planned completion in 2018. Huge.


----------



## HAL9000 (Mar 2, 2015)

It was designed for Apollo to simulate the lunar lander


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 2, 2015)

Tons of pictures of the rotting hulk of the bulbous ekranoplan here:

http://igor113.livejournal.com/51213.html


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 2, 2015)

HAL9000 said:


> It was designed for Apollo to simulate the lunar lander



Here's a video of Neil Armstrong nearly getting killed while testing it - look how late he left it to eject...


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 2, 2015)

HAL9000 said:


> It was designed for Apollo to simulate the lunar lander


Reminds me of this:


----------



## pogofish (Mar 2, 2015)

Is that the test rig that eventually became the Harrier?


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 2, 2015)

pogofish said:


> Is that the test rig that eventually became the Harrier?


I believe so.

Edit: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/F/flying_bedstead.html


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 2, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I bet none of those planes could do this:
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/55143939@N03/11250933385/


Fantastic set of photos


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 2, 2015)

pogofish said:


> Is that the test rig that eventually became the Harrier?



No. The Flying Bedstead was a Rolls-Royce project whereas what eventually became the Harrier's propulsion unit started life at Bristol aero engines. The FBB did use bleed air for reaction control in a similar manner to the Harrier but that was hardly new or unique in the mid 50s.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 2, 2015)

Here's a perfect storm of bad ideas: the Shorts P17D.







A 56 engined vertical lift platform intended to complement the TSR.2.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 3, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> "Now pay attention 007 - it looks like a fighter jet, but it's actually a giant toilet for flushing trillions of dollars (American) down".



You have to look at more than just the platform cost. Eg.. To learn how to hover the Harrier used to be 13 simulator sessions followed by 13 instructed flights in the T-bird - which was so underpowered we could only fly them at 4:30am during the baking heat of the East Anglian summer. Learning how to hover the F-35B is one simulator session and one qualification flight.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 3, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> You have to look at more than just the platform cost. Eg.. To learn how to hover the Harrier used to be 13 simulator sessions followed by 13 instructed flights in the T-bird - which was so underpowered we could only fly them at 4:30am during the baking heat of the East Anglian summer. Learning how to hover the F-35B is one simulator session and one qualification flight.


Well normally I'd defer to your expert knowledge, but I find it improbable that these alleged savings on training can balance the amounts that have already been pissed away on this "F35".


----------



## 2hats (Mar 3, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> "Now pay attention 007 - it looks like a fighter jet, but it's actually a giant toilet for flushing trillions of dollars (American) down".



It has just been admitted that the F35B internal bomb bay is too small for the some of the munitions it was supposed to carry. Redesign ahoy.

Maybe someone got their metric and imperial confused. Again.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 3, 2015)

2hats said:


> It has just been admitted that the F35B internal bomb bay is too small for the some of the munitions it was supposed to carry. Redesign ahoy.
> 
> Maybe someone got their metric and imperial confused. Again.



The SDB II wasn't designed until 2007 so how could the F-35B (designed in 1996-2000) possibly have anticipated what the packaging requirements in the bay would be?


----------



## 2hats (Mar 3, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> The SDB II wasn't designed until 2007 so how could the F-35B (designed in 1996-2000) possibly have anticipated what the packaging requirements in the bay would be?



The SDB I (programme officially started August 2001) is wider (and longer) than the II and is also supposed (intended) to be carried by the F35B (and A, C). I guess they can always shove them on external pylons though obviously that'll affect flight performance and increase the RCS. If you wanted to give the aircraft a decent lifetime/tempt 'customers' I'd have thought planning for handling the dimensions of contemporaneous weapons systems would at the very least provide for an advantageous range of future options (both from operational and sales perspectives)...

e2a: doubtless they'll find a way to lash on whatever is needed/asked for.


----------



## Chz (Mar 4, 2015)




----------



## Crispy (Mar 4, 2015)

re: F35 - quite why anyone thinks a plane like this has a use in a future that will be dominated by drones, I don't know. ofc, I'd rather no death machines were built at all but hey.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 5, 2015)

2hats said:


> The SDB I (programme officially started August 2001) is wider (and longer) than the II and is also supposed (intended) to be carried by the F35B (and A, C).



SBD I and SDB II are completely different products - one Raytheon and the other Boeing. The fault, if there is any, probably lies with the SDB II program not being fully aware of the B's bay geometry. However, it's entirely possible they knew and someone took a view that it was cheaper/less risk to move the hydraulic hose in the B bay rather than design SDB II around it.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 5, 2015)

Crispy said:


> re: F35 - quite why anyone thinks a plane like this has a use in a future that will be dominated by drones, I don't know. ofc, I'd rather no death machines were built at all but hey.



There is no current UAS that can do strike/CAS missions in contested airspace nor any immediate prospect of one. The JSF program is now almost 20 years old and was conceived before the rise of the drone...


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 5, 2015)

While we're promised weirdness in the title, I'm not sure if this really counts as  a "weird plane". But this story of America's first jet bomber, which started life as a rather unusual proppelor driven bomber, is interesting nonetheless:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/xb-43-jetmaster-the-weird-history-of-americas-first-je-1689351498


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 5, 2015)

Then there's this thing, which was powered not by a true jet engine, but by something called a "motorjet", a sort of transitional technology that was quickly rendered obsolete:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Campini_N.1

History of the motorjet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorjet


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 5, 2015)

Crispy said:


> re: F35 - quite why anyone thinks a plane like this has a use in a future that will be dominated by drones, I don't know. ofc, I'd rather no death machines were built at all but hey.


http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/11553/air-force-drone-pilot-problem/


----------



## Crispy (Mar 5, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/11553/air-force-drone-pilot-problem/


Very interesting read


----------



## mauvais (Mar 5, 2015)

Crispy said:


> re: F35 - quite why anyone thinks a plane like this has a use in a future that will be dominated by drones, I don't know. ofc, I'd rather no death machines were built at all but hey.


If you think about it in the highest level terms, successful military aircraft projects have taken a very long time to reach maturity, and then remained in service for a very long time; so for instance Tornado had its roots in the mid to late 60s, and that's to say nothing of the B-52 which might eventually - and ironically - outlive pretty much every single person alive at its inception.

So, why should that pattern change dramatically just because you've potentially simplified some of the requirements, i.e. no need to lug a meat sack about the place any more? That is, bringing a drone-piloted JSF equivalent to properly useful operational service will take a very long time, and isn't automatically supplanted by anything else, like consumer kit is.

Hence you generally keep on plodding on with whatever you were previously doing, in this case something from the late 90s, in spite of it being apparently somewhat stupid, because the alternatives are bigger delays and a bigger waste of money.

All that said, I think JSF is crap.

Also, the real future would appear to be _autonomous _drones, so why would you invest heavily in _piloted _drones when etc etc?


----------



## 2hats (Mar 5, 2015)

mauvais said:


> So, why should that pattern change dramatically just because you've potentially simplified some of the requirements, i.e. no need to lug a meat sack about the place any more? That is, bringing a drone-piloted JSF equivalent to properly useful operational service will take a very long time, and isn't automatically supplanted by anything else, like consumer kit is.



I would hazard a guess that that depends on how fast the Chinese 'innovate' in this particular field


----------



## A380 (Mar 11, 2015)

Goblin parasite fighter...


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 11, 2015)

Really cute


----------



## A380 (Mar 11, 2015)

Would these have been so cool it would have been worth everyone in a city being deaf?


----------



## A380 (Mar 11, 2015)

Blue Gemini. USAF not NASA. Never flew in space but would have come back on a paraglider.


----------



## A380 (Mar 11, 2015)

Biggest Helicopter






Smallest Helicopter (how much do I want one of these?)


----------



## HAL9000 (Mar 11, 2015)

ugly ugly ugly  (almost as ugly as the X3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_X3 )



A380 said:


> Would these have been so cool it would have been worth everyone in a city being deaf?



This is a cool helicopter

Sikorsky's X2


----------



## gosub (Mar 12, 2015)

A380 said:


> Would these have been so cool it would have been worth everyone in a city being deaf?


My brother did a S92 charter out of Battersea the other year, you could hear it coming 5miles away


----------



## A380 (Mar 13, 2015)

This actually got about 60' off the water before crashing.(Caproni)


----------



## HAL9000 (Mar 20, 2015)

Short-Haul Research Aircraft (QSRA), developed by Boeing and NASA Ames in the 1980s, which mounted its engines on top of its wings to convert engine exhaust into lift:

The QSRA operated with about 10% of the length of runway that a typical airliner would use, and could get airborne at a speed of just 80 mph, only about 50% of the takeoff speed of an aircraft of its size. The top-mounted engines also had the pleasant side-effect of making the aircraft 90% quieter than similar transports.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/...ewest-xplane-will-fly-with-18-electric-motors


----------



## gosub (Mar 23, 2015)

Russians have done a few with over wing engines meant they could operate on very rough strips.   

Iirc Honda jet has weird placed engines, and while I can't remember now what they said the reason was, remember I wasn't convinced


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 23, 2015)

gosub said:


> Russians have done a few with over wing engines meant they could operate on very rough strips.



The An-72 (basically a Boeing C-14 copy) engine placement is to develop lift via the Coanda effect rather than obviate the probability of FOD. It does have good rough strip perfomance though due to its agricultural main gear.


----------



## A380 (Apr 3, 2015)

Foot launched glider. I'd love to have a go:


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 3, 2015)

2hats said:


> I would hazard a guess that that depends on how fast the Chinese 'innovate' in this particular field



This.

Drones may cause their operators several issues for offensive purposes, but for defensive?  It's really only the USA that has to worry about the psychological scarring of its drone operatiors when projecting force on a country half a world away.  All manner of issues (particularly latency) disappear if you think about fairly local, defensive usage.


----------



## zippyRN (Apr 4, 2015)

gosub said:


> My brother did a S92 charter out of Battersea the other year, you could hear it coming 5miles away



helicopters are inherently noisy 

 what did for the rotodyne was the fact it used tip jets to power the rotor when operating as a helicopter meaning it was ridiculously painfully loud


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 4, 2015)

A380 said:


> Foot launched glider. I'd love to have a go:




Pixels. 
Please be pixels...


----------



## pogofish (Apr 4, 2015)

From my New Year Trip - All sorts of aero weirdness here:


----------



## spitfire (Apr 4, 2015)

That has to be Germany. Whereabouts is the museum?


----------



## pogofish (Apr 4, 2015)

Its the Deutsches Museum, Munich.  The aviation, engineering and technology halls are outstanding!


----------



## spitfire (Apr 4, 2015)

Looks brilliant. I had a couple of days to kill in Munich a few years ago and I didn't know that was there, missed opportunity. Ah well, next time.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 4, 2015)

Not quite a plane, more a cruise missile with severe personal hygiene problems. Definitely bonkers though. Project Pluto.











> Pluto's namesake was Roman mythology's ruler of the underworld -- seemingly an apt inspiration for a locomotive-size missile that would travel at near-treetop level at three times the speed of sound, tossing out hydrogen bombs as it roared overhead. Pluto's designers calculated that its shock wave alone might kill people on the ground. Then there was the problem of fallout. In addition to gamma and neutron radiation from the unshielded reactor, Pluto's nuclear ramjet would spew fission fragments out in its exhaust as it flew by.



http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html


They actually tested the fission ramjet engine a bit before being given thorazine and jackets with nice long arms to wear ...


----------



## souljacker (Apr 4, 2015)

pogofish said:


> Its the Deutsches Museum, Munich.  The aviation, engineering and technology halls are outstanding!



I've been a few times. Its a fantastic place on an island in the middle of the Isar. I went once when they had a big Porsche exhibition and another time when they had a VW thing going on. Karmann Ghias and camper vans everywhere. It was fantastic.


----------



## spitfire (Apr 4, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> /snip
> 
> http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html
> 
> ...



That is batshit crazy.


----------



## pogofish (Apr 4, 2015)

spitfire said:


> Looks brilliant. I had a couple of days to kill in Munich a few years ago and I didn't know that was there, missed opportunity. Ah well, next time.



It is! - You would need a few days to get round the whole place - Its huge, sits on an island in the Isar, just east of the old city.

And the museum has a secondary aviation collection/restoration unit at Schleissheim, not far from the Airport with much more interesting stuff. Notably the Dornier Do 31 prototype VTOL transport plane!






Where I'll be heading on my next visit!  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Museum_Flugwerft_Schleissheim


----------



## spitfire (Apr 4, 2015)

Nice one thanks pogofish. I have Munich on my list as a must revisit and will factor those in for next time.


----------



## pogofish (Apr 4, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> They actually tested the fission ramjet engine a bit before being given thorazine and jackets with nice long arms to wear ...



IIRC the US got a lot further down the road with nuclear aircraft engines than anyone with any sense would want.  The TAN ground-based tests stopped just short of building a flyable model.

And more recently I recall reading that the rise of drones has brought the research interest in nuke engines right back because they can be flown more or less round the clock, with no crews to irradiate.


----------



## A380 (Apr 5, 2015)

pogofish said:


> Its the Deutsches Museum, Munich.  The aviation, engineering and technology halls are outstanding!


I last went 23 years ago. Do they still have the entire sailing ship in one of the halls?

Edited: scratch that, I think the ship is in the Milan Science Museum. But I now need to go back to Munich.


----------



## A380 (Apr 5, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Pixels.
> Please be pixels...


Happily (?) not. There's a whole range...:


----------



## A380 (Apr 5, 2015)

it gets better, there are powered versions too:


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Apr 5, 2015)

spitfire said:


> Looks brilliant. I had a couple of days to kill in Munich a few years ago and I didn't know that was there, missed opportunity. Ah well, next time.


I was there two weeks back and was bored off my skull. Why didn't someone tell me!?


----------



## pogofish (Apr 5, 2015)

A380 said:


> I last went 23 years ago. Do they still have the entire sailing ship in one of the halls?



Sailing ship, tugboat, salvage from ships of the Hamburg Amerika Line. Higher-up -Bleriot Monoplane, bits of Zeppelin:






Then you turn round and find the first U-Boat sticking through the floor:






The rest is in the basement - didn't make it down there.

Also a Lockheed Constellation at the airport itself - entry a whopping one Euro!

And a fair bit of Aviation interest at the BMW Museum plus loads of other stuff I hardly scratched the surface of - And they can fairly party!


----------



## A380 (Apr 5, 2015)

Easyjet £36 one way...


----------



## pogofish (Apr 5, 2015)

Best currywurst I've yet found in Germany!  

Urban outing forming?


----------



## snadge (Apr 5, 2015)

Not a wierd plane in the sense of some of the abominations that have been posted already but just for the technology and when it was designed and still being faster than most fighter jets being built today, it also looks awesome.


----------



## pogofish (Apr 6, 2015)

I've seen the one in New York - well, the A12 - the "unofficial", faster, possibly higher flying, CIA-operated predecessor to the SR-71:


----------



## pogofish (Apr 6, 2015)

Also a load of stuff related to Convair/General Dynamics R&D, for aircraft and missiles in the archive collection of the San Diego Air and Space Museum - well worth a rummage.  

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 6, 2015)

pogofish said:


> I've seen the one in New York - well, the A12 - the "unofficial", faster, possibly higher flying, CIA-operated predecessor to the SR-71:



The intrepid is fucking brilliant.  Went to see it in January, and my five year old son was permanently gobsmacked for the 4 hours we were there.  The USS Growler walkthrough was a definite highlight.


----------



## pogofish (Apr 6, 2015)

Lemon Eddy said:


> The intrepid is fucking brilliant.  Went to see it in January, and my five year old son was permanently gobsmacked for the 4 hours we were there.  The USS Growler walkthrough was a definite highlight.



Yes - same here.  I'd only ever read about the Greybacks, never expected to see one or a Reglus missile!











Did you go to the Queens Museum of Science? - Its a bit off the beaten track but very child-friendly and also well worth the effort - Plus it has Atlas and Titan missiles:


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 6, 2015)

pogofish said:


> Yes - same here.  I'd only ever read about the Greybacks, never expected to see one or a Reglus missile!
> 
> 
> Did you go to the Queens Museum of Science? - Its a bit off the beaten track but very child-friendly and also well worth the effort - Plus it has Atlas and Titan missiles:


Unfortunately no, didn't have the time this trip. I'll be sure to try to fit it in if we get back to New York.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 7, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Not quite a plane, more a cruise missile with severe personal hygiene problems. Definitely bonkers though. Project Pluto.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Worse than that:


> Project Pluto was a nuclear-powered ramjet, intended for use in a cruise missile. Rather than combusting fuel as in regular jet engines, air was heated using a high-temperature, unshielded nuclear reactor. The ramjet was predicted to be able to fly for months at supersonic speeds (Mach 3 at tree-top height). However, there was *no obvious way to stop it once it had taken off*


----------



## Cid (Apr 7, 2015)

Last time I was visiting my nan in Cardiff was the NATO thing (yes, a slightly irresponsibly long time ago) and there were Boeing V-22s going overhead. Obviously seen many pics etc, but in real life was oddly striking. A bit dystopian, elements of Terminator or something. It helped that they were (I think) the CV-22 USAF variant and therefore dark and ominous.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 8, 2015)

Have we had 'Snoopy' yet? A Hercules W.2:


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 8, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Have we had 'Snoopy' yet? A Hercules W.2:



After her stormchasing duties ended XV208 became the flying testbed for the A400M's engine.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 8, 2015)

I knew they did that, but never realised they ran it with just one of the engines.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 8, 2015)

Lockheed-Martin CATBird


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 8, 2015)

mauvais said:


> I knew they did that, but never realised they ran it with just one of the engines.



The TP400 has over double the power of the C130 engines. Fitting all four would have pulled the wings off.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 8, 2015)

Talking of weird engine configurations, I only became aware recently of the practice of carrying spare engines on commercial flights.


----------



## 2hats (Apr 8, 2015)

A set of space related airframes - two modified 747's - the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and SOFIA observatory:







and then the Myasishchev VM-T and the An-225 both used for transporting the Soviet space shuttle and  rocket components:


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 8, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Lockheed-Martin CATBird





Got a Pfteven face


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 8, 2015)

Westland P.12. I'm sure somebody thought it was a good idea.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 8, 2015)

Latécoère 521. I would have liked to have to done the Brest-Miami flight in this. 31 hours, but you got a sleeping compartment.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 8, 2015)

F-4E in "Chico the Gunfighter" fit with quadruple SUU-23 20mm gatlings. That would wreck your shit.


----------



## spitfire (Apr 8, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Westland P.12. I'm sure somebody thought it was a good idea.



That's just a Lysander with no arse isn't it?


----------



## 2hats (Apr 8, 2015)

The Reichenberg (Fieseler Fi 103R) 'suicide' version of the V-1:





Dornier Aerodyne :





Nemuth Parasol:


----------



## 2hats (Apr 8, 2015)

HZ-1 Aerocycle:


----------



## Crispy (Apr 8, 2015)

2hats said:


> HZ-1 Aerocycle:


 

Brave guy


----------



## 2hats (Apr 8, 2015)

Nimbus EosXi metaplane (both aerodynamic and aerostatic lift):





and the Goodyear Inflatoplane:





Finally (moving even further from an airplane, but it's fun), an aerojelly:


----------



## A380 (Apr 8, 2015)

*Piasecki PA-97 Helistat*


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 9, 2015)

He-111Z. I wonder what its roll rate was.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 9, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Westland P.12. I'm sure somebody thought it was a good idea.



Hang on, this was real?

I presume there was meant to be a cannon mounted in the rear turret?


----------



## pogofish (Apr 9, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Hang on, this was real?
> 
> I presume there was meant to be a cannon mounted in the rear turret?



The idea never went past the prototype/flying mockup stage, so the intended four cannons were ever fitted but but yes that was the idea.

Another Lysander variant was more successfully fitted-out with cannons attached to its undercarrage fairings - the idea was that its low speed/low level performance meant it would be the ideal aircraft to strafe German troops with if they ever landed on our shores - also most lysander pilots were used to difficult/low level operation due to its main task of close work with ground troops and infiltrating agents into enimy territory.  Only one was ever fully prepared and tested for this role though.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 10, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> He-111Z. I wonder what it's roll rate was.



"Go home HE111Z, you are drunk".


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 10, 2015)

This one used to take off from Shannon, if memory serves:


----------



## T & P (Apr 10, 2015)

This is probably a very daft question... But why haven't we seen jet engined seaplanes? Take-off speed too high for water perhaps? Imagine all the airport congestion problems it would solve...


----------



## 2hats (Apr 10, 2015)

P6M Seamaster





e2a: also the Beriev Be-10





Both difficult to control at take off.


----------



## A380 (Apr 10, 2015)

T & P said:


> This is probably a very daft question... But why haven't we seen jet engined seaplanes? Take-off speed too high for water perhaps? Imagine all the airport congestion problems it would solve...


I think that the salt water and turbine blades don't really mix well. There were a few after the second world war but by then there were runways almost everywhere:

But there were some cool efforts:










SR1 A

How much would you want to have one of these?


----------



## gosub (Apr 10, 2015)

The runways everywhere of ww2 meant people switched with sea planes going from mainstream to niche


----------



## agricola (Apr 10, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Westland P.12. I'm sure somebody thought it was a good idea.



The whole turret fighter concept is infuriating now, so it must have been absolutely maddening at the time.


----------



## pogofish (Apr 11, 2015)

agricola said:


> The whole turret fighter concept is infuriating now, so it must have been absolutely maddening at the time.



IIRC some of the USSR's most successful aircraft in WW2 were turret fighters but they were facing a very different kind of air war - The whole concept depended on bombers being relatively slow and vulnerable compared to fighters - However as WW2 went-on and particularly after, into the cold wwar, bomber design advanced to the point that they became redundant because the speeds and operational ceilings increased so much.


----------



## pogofish (Apr 11, 2015)

T & P said:


> This is probably a very daft question... But why haven't we seen jet engined seaplanes? Take-off speed too high for water perhaps? Imagine all the airport congestion problems it would solve...



Quite a few turboprop seaplanes as well - but again, the problems inherent with jet engines and seawater did make things difficult.

Also, in the UK's case, the whole landscape of long distance air travel was transformed by the number of land-based bombers that could be transformed into land-based passenger planes on the cheap and the political double dealing/land-grab that foisted Heathrow on us as the UK's primary transatlantic civil airport.

Seaplanes retained a much more important position in the colonies - particularly the Far East but often with ex-US seaplanes and other countries like Russia and Canada made a lot more use of them internally.


----------



## superfly101 (Apr 11, 2015)

pogofish said:


> Seaplanes retained a much more important position in the colonies - particularly the Far East but often with ex-US seaplanes and other countries like Russia and Canada made a lot more use of them internally.



*Tales of the Gold Monkey*

*



*


----------



## A380 (Apr 11, 2015)

Sea Bee/Teal.Off to meet Lord Summerisle.


----------



## Chz (Apr 12, 2015)

You'd never really be able to take advantage of a jet powered seaplane. The slow takeoff speeds necessitate a wing design that's not well adapted to high speeds. So you'd never get any of the advantages of a jet, and all of its disadvantages. The P6M in the photo (American 4-engine one) was probably the only 20th century project that ever delivered something usable, but it cost billions in 21st century dollars to develop.

The Russians have one that they've just come up with, but there doesn't really seem to be any advantage to it using jets over props beyond cool factor.


----------



## A380 (Apr 12, 2015)

Chz said:


> You'd never really be able to take advantage of a jet powered seaplane. The slow takeoff speeds necessitate a wing design that's not well adapted to high speeds. So you'd never get any of the advantages of a jet, and all of its disadvantages. The P6M in the photo (American 4-engine one) was probably the only 20th century project that ever delivered something usable, but it cost billions in 21st century dollars to develop.
> 
> The Russians have one that they've just come up with, but there doesn't really seem to be any advantage to it using jets over props beyond cool factor.


Not pixels...


----------



## Crispy (Apr 12, 2015)

A380 said:


> Not pixels...


 Seriously?!


----------



## Tankus (Apr 12, 2015)

Beriev  be200


----------



## pogofish (Apr 12, 2015)

The Stipa-Caprioni "Flying Barrel" was an interesting diversion from a a manufacturer with a fine rep for seaplanes:






Which eventually led to the modern turbofan engine, which uses many of Stipa's principles and of course it also led to the Bell X-22, which appeared to have jets and fans:


----------



## A380 (Apr 15, 2015)

Piaggio Starship:


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 16, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Have we had 'Snoopy' yet? A Hercules W.2:



Cut up for scrap this week.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 16, 2015)

Boeing NT-43A


----------



## 2hats (Apr 16, 2015)

SNECMA Coléoptère:





The Piasecki Airgeep:


----------



## mauvais (Apr 16, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Cut up for scrap this week.


Indeed. It should have gone in a museum, but I guess its Marshalls refit (and the fact that noone gives a shit any more) meant that would never happen.


----------



## ffsear (Apr 16, 2015)

Its mad to see BA 747-400's now being scrapped

http://news.sky.com/gallery/1466004/unwanted-jumbo-jets-gather-dust


----------



## mauvais (Apr 16, 2015)

ffsear said:


> Its mad to see BA 747-400's now being scrapped
> 
> http://news.sky.com/gallery/1466004/unwanted-jumbo-jets-gather-dust


Work out the lifetime cost of fuel on a 747. Then work out what a single digit percentage fuel efficiency gain would save you. And that's why your old plane is junk.


----------



## pogofish (Apr 16, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Boeing NT-43A



Isn't that the plane that was for some reason nicknamed "Bill Clinton" by its crews?


----------



## superfly101 (Apr 22, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> He-111Z. I wonder what its roll rate was.



Designed to pull this glider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_321






It's covered and some more aircraft in *The World's Weirdest Weapons Ep 4 on Yesterday atm *


----------



## Grace Johnson (Apr 24, 2015)

only got to the end of the first page but this is already my favourite thread ever


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 24, 2015)

N757A. The F-22 avionics testbed.


----------



## HAL9000 (Apr 24, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> N757A. The F-22 avionics testbed.



I can't find the report.  Flight international reported that when the F22 first flew the software was very buggy, key systems were resetting 2 to 3 times an hour.  

This story from 2007, international date line caused a bit of a problem



> As the Raptors reached the International Date
> Line, the navigation computers locked up, so the aircraft returned to
> Hickam until a software patch was readied



http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.58.html#subj1


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 26, 2015)

I can't believe we haven't had the (in)famous AEW.3 yet.





600m quid spent (back when 600m was a reasonable amount of money) and all we ended up with is a cockpit on trailer in a car park at Carlisle airport.


----------



## HAL9000 (Apr 26, 2015)

*Ryan AQM-91 Firefly*

Late 60's drone






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_AQM-91_Firefly

This website seem to have lots of odd aircraft

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/cancelled.htm
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/main.htm


----------



## A380 (Apr 26, 2015)




----------



## rr22 (Apr 27, 2015)

The website for that is pretty interesting,

http://www.planeboats.com/index.html 

owned by Howard Hughes,interior  fit out advice by Rita Hayworth.

Think it looks a bit daft though


----------



## iamwithnail (Apr 27, 2015)

BEST THREAD.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 27, 2015)

RC-135S COBRA BALL (All BIG SAFARI birds get capitalised names)






The black starboard wing is to prevent reflections that would interfere with the IR/optical sensors used for its MASINT mission.

The RC-135 is the black belt test of a/c id drills. Only the select few can distinguish an RC-135S NANCY RAE from an RC-135U COMBAT SENT from an RC-135X COBRA EYE.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 27, 2015)

A380 said:


> Not pixels...



There's been a few DC-3 float conversions.


----------



## HAL9000 (May 2, 2015)

Northrop Grumman’s YB-35 was the world’s first tailless, blended-wing aircraft


----------



## iamwithnail (May 2, 2015)

Huh, pusher propellers, you don't see many of them.


----------



## Chz (May 2, 2015)

HAL9000 said:


> Northrop Grumman’s YB-35 was the world’s first tailless, blended-wing aircraft



The Horton prototypes did fly (powered, even!), even if the final version never did.

But then before that, Northrop had some powered prototypes as well.


----------



## A380 (May 2, 2015)

Still around:


----------



## iamwithnail (May 2, 2015)

Shit, what's that last one called?  I want one!


----------



## A380 (May 3, 2015)

iamwithnail said:


> Shit, what's that last one called?  I want one!


Horton PUL 10 -
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/...ody_pul-10_nurflugel_brief.shtml#Introduction

Its built from plans. Would only take us about 12 years to get one one flying.


----------



## A380 (May 3, 2015)

And inflatable flying wings:












 \




But I really wish this was real....


----------



## DownwardDog (May 7, 2015)

Yak-40 M602. The original Codling was a product of communism and therefore axiomatically shit. However, I can't believe it was improved by nailing a fourth engine on the front.


----------



## Sirena (May 8, 2015)

http://www.warhistoryonline.com/mil...ng-horten-ho-229-hitlers-stealth-fighter.html


----------



## Sirena (May 8, 2015)




----------



## Opera Buffa (May 9, 2015)

I _love _that hand-drawn art style for depicting aircraft. Takes me back to my youth! When I was young my local library had a series of Sampson Low Guides to Aircraft, full of pictures like that, everything a growing eight-year-old needs 

I found one by chance in a charity shop once, remembered how much I loved them, and had a big online splurge for the rest of the nostalgia fest, fortunately they are not rare or valuable!


----------



## A380 (May 9, 2015)

Opera Buffa said:


> I _love _that hand-drawn art style for depicting aircraft. Takes me back to my youth! When I was young my local library had a series of Sampson Low Guides to Aircraft, full of pictures like that, everything a growing eight-year-old needs
> 
> I found one by chance in a charity shop once, remembered how much I loved them, and had a big online splurge for the rest of the nostalgia fest, fortunately they are not rare or valuable!


I'd never thought of that! £13.97 later....


----------



## DownwardDog (May 10, 2015)

Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor. One persistent problem with early trans-sonic designs was that of wing tip stalls in turns. Republic tried to solve this issue by reversing the normal spanwise gradient of taper and chord so the widest and thickest part of the wing (and hence the most lift) was at the tip. This gave the visual impression that the wings had been attached the wrong way round and on the wrong sides.


----------



## Pingu (May 10, 2015)

at first I was like "pixels" but apparently, although there are clearly pixels involved in some of the pics, not as many as I first thought

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinin_K-7


----------



## Dogsauce (May 11, 2015)

Pingu said:


> at first I was like "pixels" but apparently, although there are clearly pixels involved in some of the pics, not as many as I first thought
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinin_K-7
> View attachment 71330



I'm pretty sure they used time travel and stole that design from something I drew when I was about nine, though I might have had a few more guns and engines on my version.


----------



## ffsear (May 11, 2015)

Shame the Lancaster didn't make it to VE day.   Aparently she had an engine fire and had to turn back.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 13, 2015)

ffsear said:


> Shame the Lancaster didn't make it to VE day.   Aparently she had an engine fire and had to turn back.



They should have used the 5 engined Lancaster IV Mamba test a/c.






The Lancaster that is now with the BBMF also used to be a test a/c and, at one point, had a third wing stuck on it by the Aeronautical College at Cranditz to research boundary layers.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (May 13, 2015)

OK, so a glider rather than a plane, but the Antonov A-40


----------



## a_chap (May 15, 2015)

Can't believe no-one's mentioned this fine example of an actual-every-day-runabout wierd plane yet...






No, honestly. It exists. Trust me.

http://www.moller.com/skycar400.html


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2015)

a_chap said:


> Can't believe no-one's mentioned this fine example of an actual-every-day-runabout wierd plane yet...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It exists but it's never flown.


----------



## Chz (May 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It exists but it's never flown.


It's hovered, at least. Off the ground is a lot better than most crazy projects ever get.


----------



## pogofish (May 17, 2015)

a_chap said:


> Can't believe no-one's mentioned this fine example of an actual-every-day-runabout wierd plane yet...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think every aspect of its design has been up on this thread already though!


----------



## A380 (May 17, 2015)

It has flown:


----------



## A380 (May 17, 2015)

But there has only been one 'practical' flying car, or roadable (horrible word) aeroplane:


----------



## Idris2002 (May 18, 2015)

The Potez 75

Apparently this was a proposed post-WW2 French tankbuster, repurposed for counterinsurgency work in the Algerian war.

https://elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/potez-75-the-ugly-ducklings-bad-luck/

Thon blog has plenty of weird aircraft, and more besides, so good hunting.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 21, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Yak-40 M602. The original Codling was a product of communism and therefore axiomatically shit. However, I can't believe it was improved by nailing a fourth engine on the front.



Genuine question: have you ever actually flown a Sov-bloc aircraft? If so, what was it like?


----------



## T & P (May 21, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> The Potez 75
> 
> Apparently this was a proposed post-WW2 French tankbuster, repurposed for counterinsurgency work in the Algerian war.
> 
> ...


That seems like a lot of plane for just one engine.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 21, 2015)

T & P said:


> That seems like a lot of plane for just one engine.


Maybe they had small, underfed underweight pilots?


----------



## DownwardDog (May 27, 2015)

HESA Saeqeh





An amazingly bad Iranian modification of the F-5E that actually made it substantially worse. They added twin vertical stabs, squared off intakes, a spine snapping Russian ejection seat and, for reasons accessible only to Allah and his representatives on Earth, an upside down F-5B radome. To achieve these modifications required the removal of TACAN and fire control systems meaning it's almost useless as a weapons platform. They then finished it off with a Blue Angels paint job. They then built another 12.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 27, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Genuine question: have you ever actually flown a Sov-bloc aircraft? If so, what was it like?



Yes, I've flown a Yak-52 which was good fun but very crude. A friend and I once attempted to fly his from Liege to Tallin. The weather turned bad over Poland and we put it down in a field behind a petrol station near Gdansk. Where, as far as I know, it still remains.






I've (briefly) flown an An-12 in the cruise which felt like driving a submarine. It did seem like it would be very strong when it (inevitably) crashed.






I've been in the back seat of a Polish MiG-29U but was instructed not to touch anything if I didn't want to die. It reminded me very much of the EE Lightning. Very fast, short legs, cockpit designed at random and archaic avionics. I recall it had an audible warning system called 'Natasha' which went off a lot with various cryptic messages that either meant nothing to worry about or an engine was on fire. She wasn't really clear.






I've also done many hours in the cockpits of Il-76s as an uncomfortable and bored passenger.

The MiG-21 is the one I would have loved to try.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 4, 2015)

"I forgot how to plane"


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 4, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Yes, I've flown a Yak-52 which was good fun but very crude. A friend and I once attempted to fly his from Liege to Tallin. The weather turned bad over Poland and we put it down in a field behind a petrol station near Gdansk. Where, as far as I know, it still remains.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting stuff, thanks for that. What would you say accounts for the eerie similarities between the Mig-29 and the EE Lightning, given the rather different circumstances from which they emerged?


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 5, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Interesting stuff, thanks for that. What would you say accounts for the eerie similarities between the Mig-29 and the EE Lightning, given the rather different circumstances from which they emerged?



The Fulcrum and the Frightening both ended up with similar deficiencies by very different routes. The Lightning was developed from the P.1 research aircraft in which fuel capacity was never a consideration. The P.1 somehow survived the cull of the Sandys report and was therefore the only game in town for the RAF when it came to a Javelin replacement. Although I'm sure nobody ever imagined they would be operating it for 30 years! The MiG-29's endurance issues stem mainly from its horribly ineffecient engines. The design and construction of these engines were constrained by the relatively poor level of Soviet expertise in materials science and mass production.

The shared deficiencies of cockpit ergonomics and systems integration are because the Soviets and British paid very little attention to such matters. They were both obsessed with airframe performance to the exclusion of all other considerations.


----------



## likesfish (Jun 5, 2015)

http://www.raptoraviation.com/aircraft spec pages/Mig29.html
 If you win the lottery tonight you could buy one sensibly the CAA wont give you a licence .
  But i'm sure the french or Belgiums would and its not like Crab air could catch you.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 7, 2015)

likesfish said:


> But i'm sure the french or Belgiums would and its not like Crab air could catch you.



You're going to need to plan this very carefully: the Fulcrum has about 8,000lbs of internal fuel. You'll need ~1,000lb for taxi and take off, say ~2,000lb for a diversion and it necks well over 1,000lb/minute in full AB...

Also, there are no, and I'll wager never will be any, civil reg. reheat a/c in Europe.


----------



## likesfish (Jun 7, 2015)

Curses  foiled again

Oh well base it in estonia buy and hire a tanker crew and op piss off biggles is back on 
Its only another $20 million
Low level pass over chequers with typhoons in hot pursuit should througly ruin camerons afternoon 
 Though a mig 31 might be more suitable and affordable


----------



## A380 (Jun 7, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> You're going to need to plan this very carefully: the Fulcrum has about 8,000lbs of internal fuel. You'll need ~1,000lb for taxi and take off, say ~2,000lb for a diversion and it necks well over 1,000lb/minute in full AB...
> 
> Also, there are no, and I'll wager never will be any, civil reg. reheat a/c in Europe.



Sadly I think you are right, although there used to be some...


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 8, 2015)

MiG-21PD. Does that door look familiar?






It had to be landed in full burner which made it a bit hairy even for the Sovs who didn't give a shit how many TPs they killed.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 8, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> It had to be landed in full burner


What?! 

Also, inverted with the hydraulics off?
Blindfold?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 10, 2015)

You just know the lad in overalls was kicking the tires a moment previously.


----------



## pogofish (Jun 15, 2015)

likesfish said:


> http://www.raptoraviation.com/aircraft spec pages/Mig29.html
> If you win the lottery tonight you could buy one sensibly the CAA wont give you a licence .
> But i'm sure the french or Belgiums would and its not like Crab air could catch you.



Saw one of those at Leuchars a few years back.  Polish IIRC and a showstopper of a display - One of, if not the loudest plane I have ever heard - and that includes the Vulcan, at least in its current flight limitations.  I may have heard louder back in the 70s but that was three or four on excercise in close formation.

eta - here it is.  The only time it was moving slow enough to get a photo!


----------



## Chz (Jun 16, 2015)

Reminds me that the most whisper-quiet military aircraft I've ever seen fly past was the Warthog. You would never hear it until it was already on top of you! Could impressively turn inside nearly anything, too.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 16, 2015)

Chz said:


> Reminds me that the most whisper-quiet military aircraft I've ever seen fly past was the Warthog. You would never hear it until it was already on top of you!


Cos it uses turbofans and they're mounted over the wings.


----------



## 2hats (Jun 16, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Cos it uses turbofans and they're mounted over the wings.



High bypass turbofans being a key - these are quieter than low bypass engines used on most fighters as the exhaust gas (and the associated noise from the combustion chamber) are muffled by the bypass air. (There have been various proposals to quieten commercial jets further by mounting the engines over the wings eg blended wing bodies).

However A10's tend to make a very distinctive whine when (eg) diving to fire on a target as the tips of the turbofan blades go supersonic. The characteristic 'brrrt' and farting sound seconds after firing are of course, quite something else altogether.

Noisiest plane I've been treated to was, perhaps, a B1 a little over 500 feet above my head, afterburners lit, flight crew (semi-apologetically?) waving, as they started a run in to display at RIAT.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 16, 2015)

IIRC, there's a friendly fire accident with an A10 in "Generation Kill". Absolutely terrifying. Just a rain of lead out of nowhere, followed a few seconds later by BRRRRRT.


----------



## Callie (Jun 19, 2015)

Does anyone know why a big fat helicopter (non military looking eg not green ) would have a flat, rectangular tummy and a small black tail attached to its bigger tail but at right angles?

Its much bigger than other helicopters I see and Ive seen it twice this week flying sort of from ?London centre towards ?Epsom or ?Gatwick.

Im not really sure what terms to google but its a funny looking thing. Big and looks slow too!


----------



## 2hats (Jun 19, 2015)

Black Hawk perchance?





e2a: Michelle Obama was in the country Monday-Thursday this week so quite possibly related to support for that.


----------



## Callie (Jun 19, 2015)

The rectangular tummy looked more like it was stuck on - corners pointing out. Twas indeed odd. I might be misremembering though. Im not far from Biggin Hill and defintely on a helicopter flight path as we see them daily going north to south (ish).

It was mainly white in colour i think not that that matters much?


----------



## 2hats (Jun 19, 2015)

Might have been a naval variant eg Seahawk which happens to be carrying some other kit (ASW, SAR or other).


----------



## Callie (Jun 19, 2015)

can you retrospectively search flightradar24 for a particular area?


----------



## 2hats (Jun 19, 2015)

Callie said:


> can you retrospectively search flightradar24 for a particular area?



Yes, but it doesn't display all traffic (some is missed, some is withheld on request, some simply don't transmit signals which are picked up by equipment readily available to the public), plus coverage of low flying craft will be patchy in places due to the radio signal being blocked by the horizon and the urban environment (radio horizon limited).


----------



## gosub (Jun 19, 2015)

Air Harrods S92   old photo, probably had a respray


----------



## Callie (Jun 19, 2015)

might be this one - think it just went over again ?from battersea - showing on flightradar24 






maybe its not as big as i thought!


----------



## 2hats (Jun 19, 2015)

Gulf Air - should tell you everything you need to know. Shuttling punters around to/from Ascot, I would guess.


----------



## gosub (Jun 19, 2015)

they don't come much bigger.	is a LONG way from home though, Qatar. 

  Gulf helicopers , different AOC to Gulf Air


----------



## 2hats (Jun 19, 2015)

gosub said:


> Gulf helicopers , different AOC to Gulf Air



Sorry, brain fart. Was definitely flying around earlier (looked like it was routing from Battersea around to Ascot within the last hour having flown in from Stansted).
 

Don't think Air Harrods operate that S92 anymore? That dark blue livery above is the latest for it after being sold on (Starspeed).


----------



## pogofish (Jul 2, 2015)

Just been reading about this beaut!






The German experiments in "Zero Length Launch" - For when you are so impatient to be hurtled to your death that you can't even wait for your Starfighter to trundle down the runway!


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 2, 2015)

These not only look weird they sound odd as well piaggio_p180_avanti.


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2015)

pogofish said:


> Just been reading about this beaut!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As with everything mindlessly suicidal, the British were there first.... except we did
it with a Grand National winner.


----------



## HAL9000 (Jul 5, 2015)

This is the plane the British used to fight the Germans over Norway at the start of world war 2.   
*Gloster Gladiator*

Maximum speed: 253 mph
Cruise speed: 210 mph


----------



## gosub (Jul 7, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> These not only look weird they sound odd as well piaggio_p180_avanti.


Had one come over the house out of Farnborough this week, didn't think there were any still operating


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 7, 2015)

gosub said:


> Had one come over the house out of Farnborough this week, didn't think there were any still operating


probably the the same one i saw. We were learning how to drive through rivers somewhere round aldershot we all stoped to look at it as it came over.


----------



## HAL9000 (Jul 7, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> probably the the same one i saw. We were learning how to drive through rivers somewhere round aldershot we all stoped to look at it as it came over.




According to farnborough spotter website these were the aircraft that flew over (http://www.farnboroughspotters.co.uk/july-2015.html)

https://www.flyvictor.com/aircraft-operators/AirGo/piaggio-avanti-ii-d-inky

or

https://www.flyvictor.com/aircraft-operators/AirGo/piaggio-avanti-ii-d-ivin


The company has 4 piaggio planes

https://www.flyvictor.com/aircraft-operators/AirGo


----------



## HAL9000 (Jul 7, 2015)

I just spotted another piaggio on that spotters page which flew out of farnborough

http://www.airframes.org/reg/lxjfp


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 8, 2015)

According to the site I got that from, "This is designed by Belarus aeronautical engineers. At first glance, you may think that this is just a weird thing without any utilitarian value. However, it is pretty useful. In addition to make the plane more sustainable, the air vortexes on the sides of the wings can increase its power by about 30%."


----------



## 2hats (Jul 8, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> In addition to make the plane more sustainable, the air vortexes on the sides of the wings can increase its power by about 30%."



The closed, annular wing (virtually) eliminates vortex shedding (improves energy efficiency in flight) since there are no wingtips.
(should have been "the lack of air vortices on the sides of the wings", I think).

e2a: see also here.


----------



## darwinlarfin (Jul 14, 2015)

HAL9000 said:


> This aircraft has appeared in an earlier thread
> 
> *XB-70 Valkyrie*


Looks like the mig from the movie firefox


----------



## iamwithnail (Jul 16, 2015)

Love the new 'designed with a potato' Airbus. 
http://www.damngeeky.com/2015/07/08...-patent-for-a-new-double-decker-airplane.html




So that's a high mount wing, double fuselage and is that another lifting surface at the bottom?  Just above the 20a bit, or is it an internal.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 16, 2015)

iamwithnail said:


> Love the new 'designed with a potato' Airbus.
> http://www.damngeeky.com/2015/07/08...-patent-for-a-new-double-decker-airplane.html
> 
> 
> ...



It'll be the bulge in the fuselage that holds the undercarriage


----------



## iamwithnail (Jul 16, 2015)

Ahhhhh.


----------



## HAL9000 (Jul 18, 2015)

*philfire *posted a vid of a basketball being thrown off a damn, I had a hunt around and I found this

Magnus effect







vid of a remote controlled aircraft using this method of lift


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 5, 2015)

I am reminded of this other classic of Italian design:


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 6, 2015)

More comedy from Iran: the Qaher 313 stealth fighter aka the "Conqueror".






I think the wings were made by cutting up bits of a MiG-17. I've never been in an F-22 cockpit but I don't think the ejection seat in that is secured by a bit of garden gate hardware from B&Q.


----------



## T & P (Sep 6, 2015)

That does look like it was put together by a 10-year-old airplane model enthusiast.


----------



## A380 (Sep 13, 2015)

Russian crop spraying jet powered bi-plane. PZL M 15 Belfegor. (Curtesy of the 'Pilot as Fuck' Facebook page. I haven't linked to it but worth a look if you don't know it).






Supposed to be the slowest Jet aircraft in production. Wikipedia also says its the only jet powered bi-plane, but a quick google came up with this, which is more cool than weird:




(or fucking mad, one of the two.)


----------



## Opera Buffa (Sep 13, 2015)

Wight Quadruplane
















Only one built, before rather poignantly crashing into a cemetery, ending the project.


I raise you four wings


----------



## mauvais (Sep 13, 2015)

Opera Buffa said:


> Only one built, before rather poignantly crashing into a cemetery, ending the project.


Several hundred victims and rising?


----------



## A380 (Sep 13, 2015)

Opera Buffa said:


> Wight Quadruplane
> 
> 
> I raise you four wings


I'll see your four wings...


----------



## Crispy (Sep 13, 2015)

A380 said:


> I'll see your four wings...


I'm not sure they've realised how wings work


----------



## T & P (Sep 14, 2015)

A380 said:


> I'll see your four wings...


*takes blinds off window and attaches to bicycle*


----------



## A380 (Oct 29, 2015)

Volocopter. Take my money.


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 9, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Tons of pictures of the rotting hulk of the bulbous ekranoplan here:
> 
> Экраноплан "Лунь" проект 903



here's one in action


----------



## HAL9000 (Nov 10, 2015)

*Blohm & Voss BV 141, a World War II German tactical reconnaissance aircraft, notable for its uncommon structural asymmetry.*

25 Bizarre Aircraft That Don't Look Like They Should Fly


----------



## spitfire (Nov 10, 2015)

Mighty Planes on Quest + 1 about the Super Guppy starting in a few minutes (10/11/15, 10pm).


----------



## Lancman (Nov 13, 2015)

A Dagling, the first aircraft that I flew as a 15 year old ATC cadet.


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 15, 2015)

HAL9000 said:


> *Blohm & Voss BV 141, a World War II German tactical reconnaissance aircraft, notable for its uncommon structural asymmetry.*
> 
> 25 Bizarre Aircraft That Don't Look Like They Should Fly



Pay attention, 007. We had the BV-141 on page 1.


----------



## 2hats (Nov 15, 2015)

Really more unusual than weird but the Antonov An-225 was at Doncaster a couple of days ago:


----------



## HAL9000 (Nov 15, 2015)

2hats said:


> Really more unusual than weird but the Antonov An-225 was at Doncaster a couple of days ago:




it did appear to take off at a very low speed.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 15, 2015)

2hats said:


> Really more unusual than weird but the Antonov An-225 was at Doncaster a couple of days ago:




That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Why on Earth does Doncaster have an airport?


----------



## existentialist (Nov 15, 2015)

HAL9000 said:


> it did appear to take off at a very low speed.


I asked someone at Dubai airport why all the Russian airliners needed so much more of the runway to take off than the others.

I wondered if it was some particularly second-rate aspect of the planes, but was assured that it was the vast amounts of baggage, mostly items bought for their hard cash value back home, that the things had to fly with.

Perhaps the Antonov was full to the eyebrows with Pontefract cakes, Wensleydale, and equestrian wear?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 15, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Perhaps the Antonov was full to the eyebrows with Pontefract cakes, Wensleydale, and equestrian wear?



And whippets.


----------



## A380 (Nov 17, 2015)

Some kind of weird autogyro.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 18, 2015)

All autogyros are weird by default

EDIT: also not planes


----------



## T & P (Nov 18, 2015)

HAL9000 said:


> it did appear to take off at a very low speed.


There are quite a few clips on YouTube about Russian cargo planes using up every available inch of the runway before managing to rotate. This here is a prime example. I would not have liked being in the cockpit...


----------



## HAL9000 (Nov 18, 2015)

T & P said:


> There are quite a few clips on YouTube about Russian cargo planes using up every available inch of the runway before managing to rotate. This here is a prime example. I would not have liked being in the cockpit...


----------



## mauvais (Nov 18, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Perhaps the Antonov was full to the eyebrows with Pontefract cakes, *Wensleydale*, and equestrian wear?


Only if it's flown by a shady black marketeer - EU cheese is banned from import into Russia


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 19, 2015)

I've thought of a couple more...

Blackburn B.20. Yes, retractable hull flying boats were a thing.






General Aircraft Fleet Shadower. Definitely falls into the 'I'm not going up in that fucking thing' category.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 19, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> I've thought of a couple more...
> 
> Blackburn B.20. Yes, retractable hull flying boats were a thing.
> 
> ...


38 knots!


----------



## pogofish (Nov 19, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why on Earth does Doncaster have an airport?



Doncaster actually had one of the very first airports on earth - 1908/9 IIRC!

The current airport is the former RAF Finningley - Closed in the 1990s/post Cold-War drawdown IIRC and taken over by a private concern.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 19, 2015)

A Stuka with what is apparently a wing-mounted compartment for dropping agents behind enemy lines, or transporting wounded:


----------



## T & P (Nov 23, 2015)

I was reading earlier today on Wiki about the Su-47 technology demonstrator. It seems its design has more advantages than drawbacks. I'm surprised no country has ever brought a forward-swept fighter into production


----------



## Crispy (Nov 23, 2015)

BAD
ASS

Seriously. Reagan doesn't stand a chance.


----------



## T & P (Nov 23, 2015)

It does look quite impressive doesn't it. One feels it could hold its own in a battle between x-wing and TIE fighters- within the atmosphere of a planet at least.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 23, 2015)

It looks like something out of an 80s cartoon. I should be able to go to toys r us and get a big plastic toy of it, full of missiles and badly-articulated pilots.

Also, what's going on with those white things behind the tail fins? One is longer than the other?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Also, what's going on with those white things behind the tail fins? One is longer than the other?





> Interestingly, the Su-47 has two tailbooms of unequal length outboard of the exhaust nozzles. The shorter boom, on the left-hand side, houses rear-facing radar, while the longer boom houses a brake parachute.


----------



## T & P (Nov 23, 2015)

One of them is a backward-facing radar casing, the other houses the parachute.
ETA- beaten to it

It has recently been upgraded to an internal weapons bay to make it stealthier, and thrust-vectoring engines for even more ludicrous agility. Apparently the PAK-FA programme owes a great deal to this little bird.


----------



## 2hats (Nov 23, 2015)

NASA/Grumman X-29 program(me) from the 80's:

But long before that - the Junkers Ju 287:


----------



## pogofish (Nov 27, 2015)

Not exactly a weird plane but:


----------



## A380 (Nov 27, 2015)

pogofish said:


> Not exactly a weird plane but:


A bit like:


----------



## Sweet FA (Dec 10, 2015)

Liars


----------



## existentialist (Dec 10, 2015)

Sweet FA said:


> Liars
> 
> View attachment 80705


I suspect a little Photoshoppery may have taken place...


----------



## Sweet FA (Dec 10, 2015)

I think they wanted me to watch that video so much, they lied about what was in it 

(It worked )


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 4, 2016)

this is odd:






convair pogo

lands on its arse!


----------



## High Voltage (Jan 4, 2016)

OK - so it's not that weird - but it is pretty neat


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 16, 2016)




----------



## T & P (Jan 16, 2016)

Fez909 said:


>


"Your mum's new dildo has arrived".


----------



## A380 (Jan 22, 2016)

I want one of these:


----------



## HAL9000 (Jan 23, 2016)

A380 said:


> I want one of these:



interesting, but


that undercarriage looks weedy
what about regulating the speed on approach .  
or

Is it x plane style ,wait for the fuel to run out and hope you can glide to a runway?


----------



## A380 (Jan 23, 2016)

HAL9000 said:


> interesting, but
> 
> 
> that undercarriage looks weedy
> ...


The mains look OK but you probably wouldn't want to lower the nose early.

I thinks it's a hybrid motor, rubber with an throttle controlled  oxidiser.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 7, 2016)

Once again, British engineering leads the way.



Spoiler



*Westland WG.33, 1977, 2 seat light reconnaissance helicopter *


----------



## A380 (Apr 7, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Once again, British engineering leads the way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shut up and take my money.


----------



## Enviro (Apr 7, 2016)

A380 said:


> A bit like:



I've been there!


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 7, 2016)

T & P said:


> I was reading earlier today on Wiki about the Su-47 technology demonstrator. It seems its design has more advantages than drawbacks. I'm surprised no country has ever brought a forward-swept fighter into production



  Better missles say no need for it


----------



## NoXion (Apr 7, 2016)

Fez909 said:


>



External liquid fuel tank for the Buran?


----------



## A380 (Apr 7, 2016)

NoXion said:


> External liquid fuel tank for the Buran?


Think so, but its the top of an Enegia rocket. The Buran orbiter didn't have the main engines built in like the shuttle, they were in the main stack that I think this picture was part of.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 8, 2016)

T & P said:


> I was reading earlier today on Wiki about the Su-47 technology demonstrator. It seems its design has more advantages than drawbacks. I'm surprised no country has ever brought a forward-swept fighter into production



Horribly unstable in yaw and the wing stalls from the aft of the quarter chord first so it's almost impossible to recover. It might be possible to engineer these deficiencies out with modern FBW systems, although Russia is about as well placed as Burkina Faso to achieve this. The putative advantages just aren't worth discarding 70 years worth of progress and knowledge on normally swept wings.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 9, 2016)




----------



## mauvais (Apr 11, 2016)

I saw a Beluga taking off from Toulouse today - probably empty as it did a pretty mean climb out. I have a properly terrible picture somewhere.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 11, 2016)

Obvs I took that with a calculator after a pint of absinthe.


----------



## ffsear (Apr 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> I saw a Beluga taking off from Toulouse today - probably empty as it did a pretty mean climb out. I have a properly terrible picture somewhere.




check out Tolouse airport on Google earth.  They got a few old relics parked about the place.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 11, 2016)

ffsear said:


> check out Tolouse airport on Google earth.  They got a few old relics parked about the place.
> 
> View attachment 85671


I can see some of it with my actual eyes although I could do with a pair of binocs or something.


----------



## ffsear (Apr 11, 2016)

Didnt realise,  its actually a museum

Aviation museum adjacent to Airbus factory - Ailes Anciennes Toulouse, Blagnac Traveller Reviews - TripAdvisor


----------



## A380 (Apr 11, 2016)

You used to be able to go in to a museum and then go onto a gallery and watch the A380 being assembled.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 11, 2016)

ffsear said:


> check out Tolouse airport on Google earth.  They got a few old relics parked about the place.
> 
> [snip]


You revealing an email address there, ffsear ?


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Obvs I took that with a calculator after a pint of absinthe.


That's not flying. You just glued its nose to the side of a building


----------



## existentialist (Apr 11, 2016)

fishfinger said:


> That's not flying. You just glued its nose to the side of a building


I'll have some of that glue. The sole keeps coming off one of my boots.


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I'll have some of that glue. The sole keeps coming off one of my boots.


He probably used aeroplane glue.


----------



## 2hats (Apr 26, 2016)

DARPA phase 2 VTOL x-plane:

and sub-scale test model:


----------



## HAL9000 (Apr 27, 2016)

2hats said:


> DARPA phase 2 VTOL x-plane:
> 
> and sub-scale test model:



 with so many fans, I wonder if this practical in terms of cost and maintenance


----------



## A380 (Jun 28, 2016)

Filper Beta 200 helicopter - development history, photos, technical data


----------



## A380 (Jul 3, 2016)

Tacit Blue


----------



## HAL9000 (Jul 4, 2016)

A380 said:


> Tacit Blue


 
have blue is better looking


----------



## fishfinger (Jul 16, 2016)

Home made octo-copter:



Flying starts at ~4:30


----------



## A380 (Jul 16, 2016)

fishfinger said:


> Home made octo-copter:
> 
> 
> 
> Flying starts at ~4:30



Shut up and take my money.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 26, 2016)

Transporting an engine.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 26, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Transporting an engine.


Someone once told me they'd flown on one of these, and I thought it sounded like a right load of bollocks. Some Googling did eventually show it up as real though.

The climb rate on that thing must be even worse than usual.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 26, 2016)

I reckon it also looks far too close to the tip of the wing for comfort.

I'd be very nervous watching that bounce up and down in turbulence if I were a passenger.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 26, 2016)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 26, 2016)




----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 26, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Transporting an engine.



That's a Photoshop, the A340 has no fifth nacelle capability.

E2A: and it obviously wouldn't be carried outboard if it did.


----------



## Chz (Jul 26, 2016)

Modern engines being powerful as they are, they ferry them by flying on three. No need for a 5th pod. It was most common on the Tristars and DC-10 derivatives, though the early 747s were underpowered enough to need a spare pod as well.

The A340 that did the engine testing for A380 looks all kinds of wrong, though.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 26, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> That's a Photoshop, the A340 has no fifth nacelle capability.
> 
> E2A: and it obviously wouldn't be carried outboard if it did.


Ahhh, cheers.

It does look dodgy now you say that. I'd expect that wing tip to be on the ground.

Weird thing to Photoshop though.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 26, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ahhh, cheers.
> 
> It does look dodgy now you say that. I'd expect that wing tip to be on the ground.
> 
> Weird thing to Photoshop though.




A real conspiracy solved by a missing shadow!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 26, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> A real conspiracy solved my a missing shadow!
> 
> View attachment 89966


Well spotted Miss Marple.


----------



## A380 (Jul 26, 2016)

That's like the story about a US fighter pilot being told to go around because a B52 had called mayday for an engine failure. "Oh no, not  the dreaded seven engine landing."


----------



## 2hats (Aug 5, 2016)

More engines - Pratt and Whitney's modified 747SP stub winged engine testbed:


----------



## pogofish (Aug 5, 2016)

A380 said:


> Tacit Blue


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 9, 2016)

Handley Page Manx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2016)

interesting that that POS killed a few people. I wonder how many people these abominations have racked up between them? Has to be in the 1000s I'd have thought


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 9, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Westland P.12. I'm sure somebody thought it was a good idea.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 9, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> interesting that that POS killed a few people. I wonder how many people these abominations have racked up between them? Has to be in the 1000s I'd have thought



I think the Gloster Meteor would have to be the #1 pilot killer of all time. Right through the 50s and 60s the RAF crashed one a week on average. Norman Tebbit almost died flying one and had to batter his way through the jammed canopy of a burning Meteor with his hands.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> orman Tebbit almost died


so close! the reaaper must vote right, he's spared tebbit and farage. Must have been his day off when airey neave got exploded


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 9, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> I think the Gloster Meteor would have to be the #1 pilot killer of all time. Right through the 50s and 60s the RAF crashed one a week on average. Norman Tebbit almost died flying one and had to batter his way through the jammed canopy of a burning Meteor with his hands.


Maybe he should have stuck to biking.


----------



## 2hats (Aug 18, 2016)

The Airlander 10 'Flying Bum', largest current flying aircraft, was out and about on a test flight from Cardington yesterday (more here):








Technically a hybrid so just qualifies for the thread. Broadcasting ADS-B so shows up on tracking websites.

e2a: better image to highlight the nickname...


----------



## mauvais (Aug 18, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> I think the Gloster Meteor would have to be the #1 pilot killer of all time. Right through the 50s and 60s the RAF crashed one a week on average. Norman Tebbit almost died flying one and had to batter his way through the jammed canopy of a burning Meteor with his hands.


That does seem to be spectacular.

Meteor Accident Statistics - PPRuNe Forums



> 1. 150 total losses in 1952
> 2. 68 lost after running out of fuel
> 3. 23 lost doing official low level aeros displays
> 4. 890 lost in total
> 5. 436 fatal accidents between 1944 and 1986.


They only built 4,000!

Although it looks like the Starfighter - which I would have guessed as the worst - might still eclipse that, percentage wise. Canada lost 46% of theirs.


----------



## Chz (Aug 18, 2016)

The difference being that I don't believe the Meteor was being unfairly abused outside of its designed role.

The F-104 was designed as a pure interceptor. So Canada and Germany decided to turn them into low-level attack aircraft instead. It wasn't entirely surprising how many of them ended up as lawn darts.

I've seen some evidence that suggests the F-84 (in both its guises) was the most dangerous military aircraft. In the West, at least.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 18, 2016)

Chz said:


> The difference being that I don't believe the Meteor was being unfairly abused outside of its designed role.
> 
> The F-104 was designed as a pure interceptor. So Canada and Germany decided to turn them into low-level attack aircraft instead. It wasn't entirely surprising how many of them ended up as lawn darts.
> 
> I've seen some evidence that suggests the F-84 (in both its guises) was the most dangerous military aircraft. In the West, at least.


In German, they were "ground nails"


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 25, 2016)

WTF was this?


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 25, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> WTF was this?



Payen PA-20


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 25, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Payen PA-20


And did it 'Payen' off for Goering and Shicklegruber?


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 25, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> And did it 'Payen' off for Goering and Shicklegruber?



It was French but captured by the Germans hence the Balkankreuzen on it. It paid off for the designer, M. Payen, who is considered the father of the delta wing.


----------



## oneflewover (Aug 25, 2016)

Saw two of these fly over York yesterday afternoon. Definitely 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 weird planes


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 1, 2016)

2hats said:


> Really more unusual than weird but the Antonov An-225 was at Doncaster a couple of days ago:




225 production is restarting with Chinese money. With this and the Saudi An-132 order the Ukranian civil aircraft industry is somehow doing better than the Russians.

China and Ukraine agree to restart An-225 production | IHS Jane's 360


----------



## gosub (Sep 1, 2016)

Odd.  Air freight is not in the best of health at the mo


----------



## hot air baboon (Sep 1, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


>



...not so much how did that get off the drawing board as how did it get on there in the first place...?


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 1, 2016)

gosub said:


> Odd.  Air freight is not in the best of health at the mo



I think it's a vanity project to some extent. The An-124 is pointless now that the 747-8F can lift up to 140t on a fraction of the fuel but how big is the 150t+ market? Not very I would say...


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 1, 2016)

German jet bomber with forward swept wings;


----------



## A380 (Sep 3, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> ...not so much how did that get off the drawing board as how did it get on there in the first place...?


Ultra STOL. The normal Lysander didn't need much space to take off. I bet this could have hovered in a stiff breeze. But probably had a top speed about the same as a horse?


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 5, 2016)

A Spitfire, adapted for the purpose of transporting beer to the troops at the front in Normandy.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 5, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> A Spitfire, adapted for the purpose of transporting beer to the troops at the front in Normandy.


What did they do, drop it on them?


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 5, 2016)

existentialist said:


> What did they do, drop it on them?


"Mouths open, lads, he's circling back for another run".


----------



## spitfire (Sep 5, 2016)

Beer Bombs: Britain's Keg-Carrying Spitfires of World War Two - Urban Ghosts Media

According to the Spitfire Site: “the Heneger and Constable brewery donated free beer to the troops. After D-Day… there was no room in the logistics chain for such luxuries as beer or other types of refreshments. Some men, often called “sourcers”, were able to get wine or other niceties “from the land” or rather from the locals. RAF Spitfire pilots came up with an even better idea.”

Pylons mounted beneath the wings of Spitfire Mk IX fighters, designed to carry fuel tanks or bombs, could be modified to carry kegs of beer. In some cases, an adapted version of a long range fuel tank was also used for ale carriage and even received an official designation, Mod. XXX. Spitfire Site reports how aircraft equipped with the necessary beer keg mountings or Mod. XXX often had to return to the UK for “maintenance” or “liaison duties”, only to arrive back in Normandy carrying vital supplies for the war effort – chilled to perfection at 2,000 feet.

It wasn’t long, however, before Britain’s HM Customs and Excise caught on and warned the brewery that it was violating the law by exporting beer without paying tax. And as Spitfire Site reports: “It seems that Mod. XXX was terminated then, but various squadrons found different ways to refurbish their stocks. Most often, this was done with the unofficial approval of higher echelons.”


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 5, 2016)

Yak-38U. A very low stress flying experience as the pilot had to remember not to roll it past 60deg from vertical or they would get automatically ejected.


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 5, 2016)

oneflewover said:


> Saw two of these fly over York yesterday afternoon. Definitely
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You've just reminded me that I saw those two, too. Wondered what was going on!


----------



## HAL9000 (Sep 5, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Yak-38U. A very low stress flying experience as the pilot had to remember not to roll it past 60deg from vertical or they would get automatically ejected.



Forger

I read some where that the soviets lost a large number of these planes compared to the number built.	 Quick look around on the internet, automatic ejector seat being one cause.


----------



## Lancman (Sep 5, 2016)

I remember watching the carrier operations of these aircraft from a Nimrod in the Mediterranean sometime in the '70s. Odd looking things.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 5, 2016)

B 36 6 piston driven pusher engines and 4 jet engines.





The wings were so thick at the root a man could stand up inside them. Its empty weight was 75 tonnes.

The victory bomber was a very serious project by Barnes Wallis





But the performance of the Merlin engine meant that Lancasters could do a similar job as it was designed for.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 5, 2016)

The OTRAG rocket was a german scientist's (Lutz Kayser) very odd plans with very odd countries to build a rocket. 






Terrible mass fraction but mass producing loads of a little stages and bundling them together with the aim of a very cheap rocket.


----------



## steveo87 (Sep 9, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


>


When you balls up on an Airfix kit and think 'fuck it' and carry on regardless.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 9, 2016)

steveo87 said:


> When you balls up on an Airfix kit and think 'fuck it' and carry on regardless.


"It's funny because it's true".


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 9, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> B 36 6 piston driven pusher engines and 4 jet engines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And for comparative purposes, here's the B36 with it's older brother, the B29:


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 9, 2016)

Republic Rainbow. The last hurrah of big multi-engine, piston engined military aviation and what a beauty she was.






400 mph for 4,000 miles at 40,000 feet.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 9, 2016)

I love those conformal cockpit windows. Like Dan Dare's rocketship


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 9, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Republic Rainbow. The last hurrah of big multi-engine, piston engined military aviation and what a beauty she was.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even on the ground she's like 'bitch, I'll steal your man':






I'd never heard of this, though:

"For night reconnaissance missions, the XF-12 had a large hold in the belly which accommodated 18 high-intensity photo-flash bombs; these were ejected over the target area."

But I suppose it makes sense, that you couldn't wait for a bright moon or the like.

Republic XF-12 Rainbow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## coley (Sep 10, 2016)

spitfire said:


> Beer Bombs: Britain's Keg-Carrying Spitfires of World War Two - Urban Ghosts Media
> 
> According to the Spitfire Site: “the Heneger and Constable brewery donated free beer to the troops. After D-Day… there was no room in the logistics chain for such luxuries as beer or other types of refreshments. Some men, often called “sourcers”, were able to get wine or other niceties “from the land” or rather from the locals. RAF Spitfire pilots came up with an even better idea.”
> 
> ...



In the middle of the war and HM customs found time to interfere!?Hope that bit was 'tongue in cheek'


----------



## coley (Sep 10, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


>


Looks like some bugger has mated a Lysander with the arse end of a Lancaster?


----------



## coley (Sep 10, 2016)

A380 said:


> You used to be able to go in to a museum and then go onto a gallery and watch the A380 being assembled.


Bout time Quantas started disassembling  theirs!


----------



## coley (Sep 10, 2016)

A380 said:


> Tacit Blue



Wtf is it?


----------



## A380 (Sep 10, 2016)

Technology demonstrator for the stealth fighter.


----------



## coley (Sep 10, 2016)

T & P said:


> There are quite a few clips on YouTube about Russian cargo planes using up every available inch of the runway before managing to rotate. This here is a prime example. I would not have liked being in the cockpit...




We have 'Smirnoff'


----------



## coley (Sep 10, 2016)

Fez909 said:


>


Wtf is going on there? Air ship/ balloon  lifting assistance?


----------



## A380 (Sep 10, 2016)




----------



## mauvais (Sep 10, 2016)

coley said:


> Wtf is going on there? Air ship/ balloon  lifting assistance?



Russian rocket stage carrier. Like a precursor to Airbus' Guppy/Beluga or the 747-based shuttle lifter.

This, I think:

Myasishchev VM-T - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## coley (Sep 10, 2016)

mrs quoad said:


> You've just reminded me that I saw those two, too. Wondered what was going on!


What are they?


----------



## coley (Sep 10, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Russian rocket stage carrier. Like a precursor to Airbus' Guppy/Beluga or the 747-based shuttle lifter.
> 
> This, I think:
> 
> Myasishchev VM-T - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ta, always found it weird how aircraft can seemingly 'piggy back' loads  bigger than the actual aircraft!?


----------



## mauvais (Sep 11, 2016)

coley said:


> Ta, always found it weird how aircraft can seemingly 'piggy back' loads  bigger than the actual aircraft!?


Big but proportionately lightweight (often empty & hollow) things, that's why - doesn't change the CoG enough to be a problem.


----------



## coley (Sep 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Big but proportionately lightweight (often empty & hollow) things, that's why - doesn't change the CoG enough to be a problem.


Again Ta, urban, quality answers for technobiffs


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 11, 2016)




----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


>



A jet version would be cool as fuck


----------



## A380 (Sep 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


>


Shut up and take my money.


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2016)

A380 said:


> Shut up and take my money.



Would make the same orrible noise as the Piaggio Avanti


opps no, its not even a turboprop.  US $700,000


----------



## HAL9000 (Sep 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


>



There are some similarities with the cirrus jet






Cirrus Aircraft | Vision Jet

It looks like a jet could be added, may have to change the shape a bit to move the center of gravity to the correct position.


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2016)

HAL9000 said:


> There are some similarities with the cirrus jet
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that is a massive type variation


----------



## HAL9000 (Sep 11, 2016)

gosub said:


> that is a massive type variation


 
Notice I used the word ' some'


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2016)

HAL9000 said:


> Notice I used the word ' some'



I was talking about fitting a jet.  Its a massive headache just getting a different make of engine type approved let alone an entirely different type of propulsion, then you've got the differing speeds affect on control surfaces and stall speed.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2016)

While certain posters would have us believe that aeronautical stupidity was the sole preserve of the dear old USSR, there are some peculiar things going on on American shores as well.

Take this 'convertiplane' thing, for example:

Why the U.S. Air Force scuttled the deadly 'convertiplane'


----------



## HAL9000 (Sep 12, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> While certain posters would have us believe that aeronautical stupidity was the sole preserve of the dear old USSR, there are some peculiar things going on on American shores as well.
> 
> Take this 'convertiplane' thing, for example:
> 
> Why the U.S. Air Force scuttled the deadly 'convertiplane'



Like some of the planes in this thread it was trying achieve something that couldn't be done with the technology available.   With more powerful engines, lighter materials and fly by wire we have, the f35.   Which has a door that opens up in the fuselage and a lift fan to provide extra lift.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 12, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Why the U.S. Air Force scuttled the deadly 'convertiplane'





> During World War II, Allied forces bombarded Nazi Germany's air bases and limited the Luftwaffe's ability to fight back.


Thats an interesting interperation. Most history of the defeat of the Luftwaffe focuses on the US going after the fuel and aircraft factories in February 44 when they pretty much annihilated the fighter squadrons over a couple of weeks starting with Big Week.

The Allies only really unleashed the fighters on the airfields after Jagdwaffe had been pretty much destroyed.

And knowing things like this is why people call me a nerd.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 19, 2016)

Now this is interesting. The return of the airship has been just around the corner for as long as I can remember, but this one might actually be a goer:






"The ALERT military airship is designed to carry out long-range patrols, and transport men and machines over the vast Canadian arctic. The idea behind the concept is to provide assistance along the recently opened Northwest Passage, a trade route which is almost completely devoid of infrastructure. The ALERT could carry out critical missions and provide search and rescue capabilities along this increasingly important route."

ALERT Military Airship concept - Diseno-art

It's the increasing importance of the route it would patrol that makes it intriguing as a candidate for actual future construction.

Though mind you, this piece from the Globe and Mail  of Toronto - Alert: A military airship concept for Arctic missions - notes that the ALERT is the brainchild of an Indian (from India) firm called Lunatic Koncepts. Which is perhaps not a good omen.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2016)

well we had the flying arse the other day but they stacked it


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 19, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> well we had the flying arse the other day but they stacked it


Looks more like the "flying Babs Windsor" from that angle, tbf.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 19, 2016)

"any landing you can walk away from" and all that
got to be preferable to crashing a plane of similar capacity.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2016)

first flight as well, I'm sure they will learn to handle it/tweak cargo positioning and all that jazz. I like the flying arse, steampunk is here


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 24, 2016)

I am going to have a bit of a ramble on a pet bugbear.

This is one of the few late war Nazi aircraft that seemed to have real potential.






Dornier 335. Pusher puller that has some pretty reduced frontal drag by putting everything in one line. Now the ranty bit


Spoiler



There is a persistent myth of German\Nazi science and equipment of this era being uber technology and wunderwaffe that almost made it into service. Here is an example of on the History (sic) Channel, a recent Netflix show based on A Man in a High Castle also play with this with Supersonic travel in the 50s. Its a common meme. Germany started the war with one "best in world" aircraft, the 109. Through the war they produced two other aircraft in numbers greater than 1000 unit produced that could be argued as "best in class of aircraft for that time" the FW 190 (short range single engine fighter) and the revolutionary Me262. They did spoil the 262 with a dog of a gun and its engine life of only 20 hours meant it was lethal to fly in training let alone combat.

The problem is that in the time between the 190 and the 262 the Anglo Americans alone introduced (not first flight) the Halifax, Lancaster, Mosquito, Tempest, Typhoon, P38 Lightning, P51 Mustang, P47 Thunderbolt, F6F Hellcat, Corsair, C 54 Skymaster, A26 Invader, B25 Mitchell and a host of others. You can throw in the He129 and Me 410 as useful,  mid war German aircraft.

Their problem was that from late 1942 onwards they were completely outclassed in both power and power to weight ratio engines. A bit of a fluke or great planning meant the Merlin engine had a superbly designed super charger from near birth (actually a two stage supercharger) that meant it had far more oxygen available to burn in the engine at altitude. Part of it was bureaucratic planning, the Nazis wanted an engine to last 20 000 hours between over hauls. Britain and the US was more like 7-900 hours. Less concerned with engine life meant they could built them lighter. But simple great design mean the Allies  were cranking out multiple different designs of better engines. The Germans finished the war seeking a reliable 1500kW\2000hp engine, the British had them in the Napier Sabre and Bristol Centaurus, Rolls Royce Griffen while the the US the Pratt and Whitney R-2800,  Wright R3350 all of which hit the 1500kW\2000hp even from as early as 1942. They were buried not by numbers but by quality.

This is where the Do 335 comes in. It was a desperate attempt to aerodynamically create a competitive twin engine heavy fighter that could match the likes of the P38 and Mosquito. It was innovative and in some ways represents an apotheosis of piston engined fighters. But it was about as fast as the De Havilland Hornet that was less innovative but had the brute power of 1500kW Merlin engines.

The Nazi's were way ahead in liquid rocket technology. But what did that actually achieve. The Allies produced far, far better piston engines and massively larger quantities, significantly more reliable jet engines, far better RADAR, had "super weapons" like proximity fuses that made ack ack and artillery 4 times more effective, had early computers to break codes, much better predictors like the Kerrison for AA and the Norden for bombing,  the applied mathematical and economic sciences to the air war with Operations Research and had critically better chemistry for its fuel (first 100 Octane fuel then going all the way up to 150 Octane).

Nazi technological superiority in the air war is mostly propaganda, confusing prototypes for actual useful weapons and wild eyes "what ifs".

/rant over.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 24, 2016)

Unless of course ... 

The Nazi UFO Mythos. 00 Introduction. Kevin McClure | MAGONIA


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 25, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> I am going to have a bit of a ramble on a pet bugbear.
> 
> This is one of the few late war Nazi aircraft that seemed to have real potential.
> 
> ...



"Why do the facts hate Nazi Germany?"


----------



## spitfire (Sep 25, 2016)

Good rant!


----------



## spitfire (Sep 25, 2016)

*wrong thread*


----------



## steveo87 (Sep 29, 2016)

Not a wired plane, but nomination for stupid question of the day:

Do want to have a look round a B-29?

Boeing B-29 Superfortress


----------



## T & P (Sep 30, 2016)

steveo87 said:


> Not a wired plane, but nomination for stupid question of the day:
> 
> Do want to have a look round a B-29?
> 
> Boeing B-29 Superfortress



Very cool indeed.

Would I be wrong to assume Lucasfilm took inspiration from the B-29 cockpit when it designed the Millennium Falcon?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 30, 2016)

Westland Pterodactyl, 1928. An attempt to make an aircraft that had much safer stall characteristics.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 30, 2016)

Ames Dryden AD1






Tested flight characteristics at oblique wing angles


----------



## ffsear (Mar 8, 2017)

Not a plane but...







Soviet jet train!

The strange & now sadly abandoned Soviet Jet Train from the 1970s


----------



## A380 (Mar 8, 2017)

On a similar note, we had a flying train that never was in the fens in the 60s. Ok it only flew about 1cm above the track...


----------



## oneflewover (Mar 8, 2017)

A380 said:


> On a similar note, we had a flying train that never was in the fens in the 60s. Ok it only flew about 1cm above the track...
> 
> View attachment 101785



opportunity gone


----------



## 2hats (Mar 16, 2017)

How about weird airports… banked circular runways anyone? (thread finally takes off, etc):

For crosswind handling, fuel efficiency, noise redistribution, higher throughput, improved taxi times.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 16, 2017)

2hats said:


> For crosswind handling, fuel efficiency, noise redistribution, higher throughput, improved taxi times


you missed FUN, which is of course the most important factor


----------



## A380 (Mar 17, 2017)

2hats said:


> How about weird airports… banked circular runways anyone? (thread finally takes off, etc):
> 
> For crosswind handling, fuel efficiency, noise redistribution, higher throughput, improved taxi times.



I can see that being ok for take offs but not sure I'd fancy the landings, especially if the surface was damp or wet.


----------



## 2hats (Jun 1, 2017)

Paul Allen’s Stratolaunch air launch platform (the ‘Roc’) has been wheeled out of the shed - at 117m the largest wingspan aircraft ever built (even exceeds the length of a Saturn V):












First flight still some months away and first satellite launch test planned in 2019.
Insert joke about which driver is in control here (actually the cockpit is in the starboard nose - the port fuselage has none).
More here.


----------



## A380 (Jun 1, 2017)

50th Birthday trip to Munich for the museums. Flugwerft Schleissheim goday, as a direct result of a post on here. Saw things I've only read about:


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 29, 2017)

Our old mates and thread perennials the Iranians are back with a new Scrapheap Challenge creation called the Kowsar 88. It's mostly an RF-5A turned into a LIFT but I'm sure I can see bits of Frogfoot in the mix.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 30, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Our old mates and thread perennials the Iranians are back with a new Scrapheap Challenge creation called the Kowsar 88. It's mostly an RF-5A turned into a LIFT but I'm sure I can see bits of Frogfoot in the mix.


That looks like it's made out of wood.


----------



## likesfish (Jun 30, 2017)

A380 said:


> 50th Birthday trip to Munich for the museums. Flugwerft Schleissheim goday, as a direct result of a post on here. Saw things I've only read about:
> 
> View attachment 108142 View attachment 108143 View attachment 108144 View attachment 108145 View attachment 108146 View attachment 108147




The weird brown glider thing are school had one of those we launched it by bungees till the RAF realised we still had it and took it away as unairworthy.


----------



## A380 (Jun 30, 2017)

likesfish said:


> The weird brown glider thing are school had one of those we launched it by bungees till the RAF realised we still had it and took it away as unairworthy.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 1, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> That looks like it's made out of wood.



It probably is - they 'demonstrated' a fighter recently where the cockpit was too small for the ejection seat to leave the aircraft.

If it wasn't for the culture, you'd assume the Iranian aviation industry was the product of a shed and a dozen pissed-up dad's having a giggle...


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 1, 2017)

kebabking said:


> It probably is - they 'demonstrated' a fighter recently where the cockpit was too small for the ejection seat to leave the aircraft.
> 
> If it wasn't for the culture, you'd assume the Iranian aviation industry was the product of a shed and a dozen pissed-up dad's having a giggle...



The Iranians had over 120 F-5s at point. I wonder how many they've used by doing cut and shuts into aircraft which aren't as good as an F-5.


----------



## A380 (Jul 1, 2017)

It was the Iranian F14s that were impressive. They were definitely still flying some in 2015. Does anyone know if they still have airworthy Tomcats ?


----------



## kebabking (Jul 1, 2017)

A380 said:


> It was the Iranian F14s that were impressive. They were definitely still flying some in 2015. Does anyone know if they still have airworthy Tomcats ?



Dunno - but I think the Iranians are demonstrating to the world that the difference between reverse engineering components and systems to keep an existing airframe in operation and designing and building a new type from fag-packet to test flight is not one of degrees...


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 1, 2017)

A380 said:


> It was the Iranian F14s that were impressive. They were definitely still flying some in 2015. Does anyone know if they still have airworthy Tomcats ?



Two ship fly by at the 2016 Military Day shenanigans. No show this year. They've officially got 14 a/c on charge so they could maybe generate 4-6 for ops.

I once flew a 2 vs 2 in the GR7 against USN F-14Ds. It was embarrassing but not for them.


----------



## 2hats (Jul 1, 2017)

A380 said:


> It was the Iranian F14s that were impressive. They were definitely still flying some in 2015. Does anyone know if they still have airworthy Tomcats ?


I read somewhere (within the last year) an estimate of something like 12 operational F-14AM (locally _upgraded_ model), primarily based at Mehrabad. All the retired US F-14’s at the boneyard were supposed to have been shredded to stop parts finding their way to Iran.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 3, 2017)

A weird helicopter: two seater foldable chopper by Hummel.


----------



## 2hats (Jul 14, 2017)

The 921-V with Magnus effect Flettner rotors for wings (reportedly made one flight before it crashed):




KFC bucket based RC model:


----------



## Crispy (Jul 14, 2017)

Call me old fashioned but I like my lifting surfaces to be passive.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 17, 2017)

Crispy said:


> Call me old fashioned but I like my lifting surfaces to be passive.


If the good Lord had meant Man to utilise the Magnus effect, he would have given us rotating drums instead of arms.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 24, 2017)




----------



## Spymaster (Jul 24, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>


They need to sack their carpet fitters.


----------



## A380 (Jul 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> They need to sack their carpet fitters.


747 front end? With a 70s or 80s fit? was going to say is it in a museum?  but the David Clarkes suggest some kind of test or training flights. Or, given the thread is at a cabin from something never launched? But again why the headsets?


----------



## spitfire (Jul 24, 2017)

Just noticed the embossing on the blue bulkhead cover. It's the space shuttle jumbo.


----------



## ffsear (Jul 24, 2017)

Nasa's old 747 Shuttle Carrier


----------



## ffsear (Jul 24, 2017)

Now boarding: Inside NASA's Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft | collectSPACE


----------



## A380 (Jul 24, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>


Pretty cool.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 26, 2017)

Empty 767


----------



## fishfinger (Jul 26, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Empty 767


Plenty of leg room


----------



## T & P (Jul 27, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Empty 767


Ignoring the lack of seats and concentrating on the lighting & ceiling design, it's disappointing how time after time what Boeing and Airbus showcase for their models is nowhere to be seen in the working frames operated by airlines. Haven't flown it yet but been told real life experiences of the much hyped 787 "Dreamliner" are a world apart from the PR photos.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 28, 2017)

T & P said:


> Ignoring the lack of seats and concentrating on the lighting & ceiling design, it's disappointing how time after time what Boeing and Airbus showcase for their models is nowhere to be seen in the working frames operated by airlines. Haven't flown it yet but been told real life experiences of the much hyped 787 "Dreamliner" are a world apart from the PR photos.




That's cos you sit in the wrong seat.



Spoiler: BA747 right seats












Stops people jacking up.


----------



## A380 (Jul 28, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That's cos you sit in the wrong seat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I was paying to sit there I'd expect my own personal vein technician.


----------



## 1927 (Jul 29, 2017)

ffsear said:


> Nasa's old 747 Shuttle Carrier


I have a vague recollection of seeing it flying somewhere near Cardiff back on the 80s think it had been to LIAT!


----------



## 1927 (Jul 29, 2017)

1927 said:


> I have a vague recollection of seeing it flying somewhere near Cardiff back on the 80s think it had been to LIAT!


Also remember watching Double Eagle 2 as it crossed over Devon prior to landing in France.


----------



## 2hats (Jul 29, 2017)

1927 said:


> Also remember watching Double Eagle 2 as it crossed over Devon prior to landing in France.


1983 Paris air show. They took the Enterprise ALT vehicle to display. They did a low fly past over Birmingham on the way home.


----------



## mx wcfc (Jul 29, 2017)

I'm not sure whether this is one of those false memories, but I saw that fly over London.  I was on a demo.  We started chanting "what shall we do with Ronald Reagan...... come the revolution - stick him in a shuttle and take the tiles off".  Did that actually happen?


----------



## 1927 (Jul 29, 2017)

mx wcfc said:


> I'm not sure whether this is one of those false memories, but I saw that fly over London.  I was on a demo.  We started chanting "what shall we do with Ronald Reagan...... come the revolution - stick him in a shuttle and take the tiles off".  Did that actually happen?


The timeline wouldn't be right in my opinion. The problem with the tiles wasn't known til 1986!


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jul 29, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Empty 767



Cool pic. Judging by the windows and cabin ceiling, isn't is a 787 though?  /pedant


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 29, 2017)

eatmorecheese said:


> Cool pic. Judging by the windows and cabin ceiling, isn't is a 787 though?  /pedant



Could well be, the windows are quite large. Was labelled 767, but reckon you're right.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 1, 2017)

World's most extreme helicopter...


----------



## A380 (Aug 1, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> World's most extreme helicopter...
> 
> View attachment 112584


What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## 2hats (Aug 1, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> World's most extreme helicopter...


Mis-identified Gulfstream private jet.


----------



## A380 (Aug 10, 2017)

Aeroscopia Toulouse. Next to Airbus. A Super Guppy and two Concordes. Just for starters.


----------



## A380 (Aug 10, 2017)

Fancy a four seat fighter/ private jet? 
Or home build Routan twin jet VariVigan?

   

Or the A400 M transport?


----------



## A380 (Aug 10, 2017)

And over the road a bunch of happily mad french blokes trying to keep loads of Cold War airframes from rotting away.


----------



## A380 (Aug 10, 2017)

And the world's best shed!


----------



## T & P (Aug 10, 2017)




----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 15, 2017)

Ex-WW2 C-47B that was used as the radar testbed for the Nimrod MRA.4 project.It also had a massive APU and its attendant fuel tank built into the fuselage to provide sufficient electrical power.






They would probably have been better off leaving the radar on the Dakota and using that for maritime patrol.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 16, 2017)

HP.115. RAE deathtrap dreamed up to research narrow deltas. It did lead to some breakthroughs on configurations that hit VZRC (zero rate of climb speed) before VS (stall speed) which was a crucial contribution to the design of Concorde.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 16, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> HP.115. RAE deathtrap dreamed up to research narrow deltas. It did lead to some breakthroughs on configurations that hit VZRC (zero rate of climb speed) before VS (stall speed) which was a crucial contribution to the design of Concorde.


That engine looks like something they borrowed off a V-1


----------



## pogofish (Aug 16, 2017)

existentialist said:


> That engine looks like something they borrowed off a V-1



Much of the science behind that plane was based on the work of "borrowed" Germans TBH.  Notably Dietrich Küchemann, who had spent the years since about 1930 working under the aerodynamicist and Nazi "ambassador" Ludwig Prandtl - who unequivocally blamed England for causing WW2!

Another curosity about the P.115 was that amongst the test pilots selected to fly it was one Neil Armstrong from the US.  However, NASA refused permission to fly, so he didn't get a chance until after he'd done his Astronaut duties.


----------



## nuffsaid (Aug 23, 2017)

T & P said:


>



Reminds me of


----------



## 2hats (Mar 2, 2018)

2hats said:


> Paul Allen’s Stratolaunch air launch platform (the ‘Roc’) has been wheeled out of the shed - at 117m the largest wingspan aircraft ever built (even exceeds the length of a Saturn V).


Now been for a gentle roll down the runway…


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 29, 2018)




----------



## T & P (Jun 30, 2018)

Is the beluga 'face' going to be a permanent feature, I wonder? Makes the plane almost pleasing to the eye.

On a recent visit to Madrid I saw one (the older model obvs) on final approach to Getafe. Impressive bird, even if ugly as sin from some angles.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Jun 30, 2018)

eatmorecheese said:


> Cool pic. Judging by the windows and cabin ceiling, isn't is a 787 though?  /pedant



Yep

Boeing Images - Search Result


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 30, 2018)

A380 said:


> Fancy a four seat fighter/ private jet?



The Swedish (and maybe the Austrian, I forget) air force did this with the SK60D trainer by taking the ejection seats out and replacing them with four GA seats.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 30, 2018)

T & P said:


> Is the beluga 'face' going to be a permanent feature, I wonder? Makes the plane almost pleasing to the eye.



Yeah it’s the XL version which will fly for the first time in August. I think they designed the face on to it, quite cute in its own way.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 17, 2018)

Another ridiculous looking mockup of an aircraft that will never be produced, let alone fly, for the salving of nationalist sentiment and distraction from internal woes. Only this time, it's not Iran!



This is honestly one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen perpetrated by the MoD/BAE.


----------



## A380 (Jul 17, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Another ridiculous looking mockup of an aircraft that will never be produced, let alone fly, for the salving of nationalist sentiment and distraction from internal woes. Only this time, it's not Iran!
> 
> View attachment 141432
> 
> This is honestly one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen perpetrated by the MoD/BAE.


The Tempest- fitted for, but not with, existence.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 17, 2018)

its the starting point for the currently on-going UK-Japan conversation about producing a 6th gen (sorry..) aircraft for the 2035/40 timeline - its quite possible/probable that it will end up being consumed in something else, quite possibly something American, but thats what its designed for (in project terms). the obvious example of which being the UK work on both V/STOL and Low Observable which was the UK ticket into the deepest depths of the JSF/F-35 programme - being the only Tier 1 partner wasn't just about stumping up development money, it was about having experience and tech that was wanted, the physical manifestation of which (ish) was the BAE _Replica, _what was part of the Future Offensive Air System project, this development work was traded in with the US for a Teir 1 place on what became the JSF/F-35.

no is actually suggesting that the UK is going to build, on its own, a 6th gen LO air dominance fighter and buy 100 of them - not least because they'd touch £1bn a copy - whats being suggested is that dome development work is being done, informed by the UK experience of working on the F-35 build, to offer to other interested parties (Japan, probably the US, possibly, but less likely France, and Sweden) to see what the reaction is.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 17, 2018)

kebabking said:


> the physical manifestation of which (ish) was the BAE _Replica, _what was part of the Future Offensive Air System project, this development work was traded in with the US for a Teir 1 place on what became the JSF/F-35.



That _thing_ behind Alan Partridge is one of the 90s vintage Replica mockups from the RCS study. It's been given a Halfords rattle can paint job and been put on a set of Tornado landing gear. It's an utterly laughable PR stunt. The FOD guards are a nice touch.

Japan hasn't acquired anything but a US combat aircraft for 75 years. The idea that they are going to weaken their most important military and strategic partnership to get in on the Airfix led Tempest consortium isn't credible.


----------



## 2hats (Jul 17, 2018)

Cockpit will make a great tarantula terrarium.


----------



## A380 (Jul 18, 2018)

2hats said:


> Cockpit will make a great tarantula terrarium.


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Another ridiculous looking mockup of an aircraft that will never be produced, let alone fly, for the salving of nationalist sentiment and distraction from internal woes. Only this time, it's not Iran!
> 
> View attachment 141432
> 
> This is honestly one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen perpetrated by the MoD/BAE.



... and thats a high standard of ridiculous things


----------



## T & P (Jul 23, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Another ridiculous looking mockup of an aircraft that will never be produced, let alone fly, for the salving of nationalist sentiment and distraction from internal woes. Only this time, it's not Iran!
> 
> View attachment 141432
> 
> This is honestly one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen perpetrated by the MoD/BAE.


That looks like a shameless copy of a plane in a recent blockbuster sci-fi. Which one was it? Pacific Rim? The Independence Day sequel? I definitely have seen something very similar in the silver screen.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 27, 2018)

kebabking said:


> its the starting point for the currently on-going UK-Japan conversation about producing a 6th gen (sorry..) aircraft for the 2035/40 timeline - its quite possible/probable that it will end up being consumed in something else, quite possibly something American, but thats what its designed for (in project terms). the obvious example of which being the UK work on both V/STOL and Low Observable which was the UK ticket into the deepest depths of the JSF/F-35 programme - being the only Tier 1 partner wasn't just about stumping up development money, it was about having experience and tech that was wanted, the physical manifestation of which (ish) was the BAE _Replica, _what was part of the Future Offensive Air System project, this development work was traded in with the US for a Teir 1 place on what became the JSF/F-35.
> 
> no is actually suggesting that the UK is going to build, on its own, a 6th gen LO air dominance fighter and buy 100 of them - not least because they'd touch £1bn a copy - whats being suggested is that dome development work is being done, informed by the UK experience of working on the F-35 build, to offer to other interested parties (Japan, probably the US, possibly, but less likely France, and Sweden) to see what the reaction is.





DownwardDog said:


> That _thing_ behind Alan Partridge is one of the 90s vintage Replica mockups from the RCS study. It's been given a Halfords rattle can paint job and been put on a set of Tornado landing gear. It's an utterly laughable PR stunt. The FOD guards are a nice touch.
> 
> Japan hasn't acquired anything but a US combat aircraft for 75 years. The idea that they are going to weaken their most important military and strategic partnership to get in on the Airfix led Tempest consortium isn't credible.



While you're here lads. . . what protocols are involved in future planning in this area? I mean, apart from Senator Hiram Q. Butterworth making sure that the good ol' boys get their pork barrel. When bureaucrats, engineers, etc., try to look into the future in cases like this what exactly do they do? SWOT tests? Something else? What?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 27, 2018)

T & P said:


> That looks like a shameless copy of a plane in a recent blockbuster sci-fi. Which one was it? Pacific Rim? The Independence Day sequel? I definitely have seen something very similar in the silver screen.


Probably a YF-23
Northrop YF-23 - Wikipedia


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 27, 2018)

They aren't really similar as a) the YF-23 had a trapezoidal wing and the Tempest has a cranked arrow and b) the YF-23 was a real aircraft.

The YF-23 outperformed the YF-22 in parts the ATF fly offs but the DoD selected the F-22 as they felt Lockmart were less like to make an expensive fuck up of the program management than Northrop/McDD.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 31, 2018)

DownwardDog, was this ever a feasible proposition, or just some RR engineer getting high on the kerosene fumes?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 31, 2018)

All sorts of crazy shit from the 60s like that. Here's a research paper on the topic (dated 4 years later than that image):

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/655459.pdf



> An analysis suggests that that heat addition beneath the rearward-facing surface of a simple inverted triangular section (ERJ) in the form of a normal-plane flame zone stabilized behind a normal shock wave would produce net thrust



Hypersonic combustion engines are really hard. You have to inject, mix and ignite the fuel/air in the <1 millisecond it takes to pass through the engine. This idea would do all the combustion in the sub-sonic shockwave "shadow" of the aircraft. The shockwave would then form one side of a "virtual nozzle" (the other half being the underside of the aircraft).

It's not an outrageous idea. It might be buildable.

They've cracked hypersonic combustion now though:

NASA X-43 - Wikipedia


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 1, 2018)

Idris2002 said:


> DownwardDog, was this ever a feasible proposition, or just some RR engineer getting high on the kerosene fumes?



I don't know. I suspect that that it would not have been possible to find a compromise between between an airframe design that would form an effective external engine and one that could be safely flown to M5+.

It's interesting that two years before this chiaroscuro fantasy was produced Maj. Pete Knight had actually flown a real aircraft to M6.7 (4,500mph!).


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 1, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> It's interesting that two years before this chiaroscuro fantasy was produced Maj. Pete Knight had actually flown a real aircraft to M6.7 (4,500mph!).



Huh, so he did, how about that.

47 Years Ago Today: The Fastest Manned Aircraft Flight Ever.


----------



## StoneRoad (Aug 2, 2018)

fyi UnderAnOpenSky 
Not a plane, but a car ...

Rally car goes flying down zip wire

nicely cut clips !

which possibly explains something I heard on the Ffestiniog grapevine recently.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 3, 2018)

Idris2002 said:


> While you're here lads. . . what protocols are involved in future planning in this area? I mean, apart from Senator Hiram Q. Butterworth making sure that the good ol' boys get their pork barrel. When bureaucrats, engineers, etc., try to look into the future in cases like this what exactly do they do? SWOT tests? Something else? What?



For the most of the post WW2 period the RAF and the Air Ministry would come up with either an Operational (OR) or Exprimental (ER) Requirement. This would then be turned into a specification against which companies could propose designs. This all changed after various governments rationalised and restructured the companies out of existence. From that point multinational coalitions were the only possible to way to produce combat aircraft. Aircraft produced from these programs are still notionally evaluated against an RAF requirement but whether or not it actually does what the service needs comes a long way down the list of priorities after political considerations such as work share.

The British government is very fond of long running programs and studies which are often renamed, merged and cancelled across a decades without ever actually producing anything. Future Offensive Air (FOA) started in the early 90s to produce a Tornado replacement. It became Future Offensive Air System (FOAS) then Deep and Persistent Offensive Capability (DPOC) then Future Combat System (FCS) before being cancelled in 2015 without producing anything other than existential despair for everyone involved in it.

The US still, more or less, uses the Cold War model. The USAF/USN produce a requirement and the DoD turns into a specification against which companies can propose aircraft. Most of the pork barrelling happens after award with suppliers. They are also willing to spend a lot of money on speculative projects via DARPA, Skunkworks, Phantom Works, etc. that may or may not turn into anything useful.

The reason why the Tempest lash up is such a joke is that it masquerades as a complete aircraft where no such requirements or specifications have been yet been decided. The Typhoon project took more than 10 years to end up with the final airframe and systems design from the start of the program. Tempest is a Potemkin project designed for the consumption of the Mail Online comments section.


----------



## StoneRoad (Aug 22, 2018)

OK, that was weird - I thought I could hear a wokka, but it wasn't !
Just seen an Osprey ...
(not the feathered sort !)


----------



## A380 (Aug 22, 2018)

Not weird planes, but a weird scenario.


----------



## StoneRoad (Aug 22, 2018)

That looks as crowded as a gliding club hanger !


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 22, 2018)

Iran unveils 'first domestically manufactured' fighter jet - CNN

Except it isn’t new


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 27, 2018)

A380 said:


> Not weird planes, but a weird scenario.
> 
> View attachment 144698


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 11, 2019)

General Electric have their own 747 for testing new engines, this badboy will go on the 777x...


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 11, 2019)

Won't it just fly in circles?

I see the front wheels are turned to compensate


----------



## Don Troooomp (Jan 12, 2019)

not-bono-ever said:


> Iran unveils 'first domestically manufactured' fighter jet - CNN
> 
> Except it isn’t new



New to them, and they've probably upgrade the systems with Chinese stuff. Regardless of the pinched design, I love the lines of the thing - have done since I first saw one at an airshow years ago.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Jan 12, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> General Electric have their own 747 for testing new engines, this badboy will go on the 777x...
> 
> View attachment 158371



They claim 90 miles per gallon per passenger, less than you'd use in a car doing the same distance.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Jan 12, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> Another ridiculous looking mockup of an aircraft that will never be produced, let alone fly, for the salving of nationalist sentiment and distraction from internal woes. Only this time, it's not Iran!
> 
> View attachment 141432
> 
> This is honestly one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen perpetrated by the MoD/BAE.



Potentially unmanned and swarm technology - Time will tell if it's a Harrier or an F35


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 12, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Potentially unmanned and swarm technology - Time will tell if it's a Harrier or an F35



Harrier: Experimental aircraft that accidentally became an successful operational one after everything else was cancelled. 

F-35: Massive commercial success. 355 built out of 3,500 planned by 12 (or 13 or 14 depending on Canada and Singapore) countries.

Tempest will be neither of those things.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 12, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> New to them, and they've probably upgrade the systems with Chinese stuff. Regardless of the pinched design, I love the lines of the thing - have done since I first saw one at an airshow years ago.



It's not new to them. Iran has had F-5B/F-5F since the mid 70s and have been gradually destroying them by remanufacturing them into less useful local variations ever since.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Jan 12, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> It's not new to them. Iran has had F-5B/F-5F since the mid 70s and have been gradually destroying them by remanufacturing them into less useful local variations ever since.



Home grown new to them. I know they bought a load from America and those are all about buggered by now, but these are a new trick, even if they are a stolen one. I'd love to know how the spec compares to the original and what they've done with the electronics.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Jan 12, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> Harrier: Experimental aircraft that accidentally became an successful operational one after everything else was cancelled.
> 
> F-35: Massive commercial success. 355 built out of 3,500 planned by 12 (or 13 or 14 depending on Canada and Singapore) countries.
> 
> Tempest will be neither of those things.



Harrier - massively successful and sold to the States - not something that happens often
F35 - Full of bugs (maybe not too shocking as it's so new, but it's bloody expensive)


----------



## Don Troooomp (Jan 12, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> Tempest will be neither of those things.



Prophetic or embarrassing words?


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 12, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Harrier - massively successful and sold to the States - not something that happens often



The Harrier wasn't "sold to" the US in the normal sense. They paid for most of its development and, from the beginning, it was a shared project between the UK, US and West Germany (who bailed on it). All of the US Harriers (bar the first two I think) were built in the US.

The US saved the platform from obsolescence by getting McDonnell-Douglas to design a new supercritical composite wing to replace the original that was famously "drawn not designed" by Hawker. This gave us the AV-8B, GR5/7/9 Harriers which were the best of the breed.

F-35A LRIP 10 cost is $89m. So it's "bloody expensive" compared to what?


----------



## Chz (Jan 14, 2019)

It's true - both the production costs and running costs of an F-35 have dropped below that of a Typhoon. It's probably as least as capable as the EuroFighter in an AA role, and quite a lot better than it in strike. Yes, it's been a massive black hole of a project, but the money sunk into it was to ensure that it ended up this way. It's still a few years from its goal of being cheap enough to derail F-16 sales, but I reckon it will get there.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 14, 2019)

The F-35 cost was never close to the Typhoon. The UK tax payer has lashed out 40bn quid for 160 Typhoons but they've already scrapped 16 leaving 144. Don't do the maths, it's too upsetting.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 14, 2019)

the overwhelming majority of that £40bn has been in development costs, and it costs what it costs to develop it, it doesn't matter whether, or how many anyone buys it - unit costs are, at least in part, heavily influenced by how many are produced, and Typhoon was unlucky in its birth co-inciding with the 1990's. defence budgets went into freefall, and the perceived need for a very capable fighter/interceptor (that was always planned to be a capable strike aircraft) fell into the black hole into which the USSR fell.

there's always an intelligent argument to be made that we would have been better off buying US - F-15's were available from the late 1970's, and no one would argue with a straight face that the UK's Lightning/F-4/Tornado F2/3 Air Defence force provided better, or even approaching equal capability to that which the F-15's could produce. whether the UK's involvement with Tornado would have continued - probably, because the F-111 was still shit at the time, and the only other option was to continue with the F-4 Phantom - is debatable, but with the introduction of the F-15E in the early 1990's, its probable that the Tornado GR1 would have been scrapped to pave the way from an F-15C fighter force and an F-15E strike force. the savings would have been significant, and the F-15's have a huge advantage over the Tornados in that either variant can, to some extent, undertake the role of the other. its even possible that a brave government would have gone for an all F-15E force, and just stripped off the externals from some of them to provide the fighters...

the downsides of course are there for all to see - a petulant US president who can stall or cancel any defence sale he doesn't like based on a twitter spat...


----------



## LDC (Jan 14, 2019)

A Soviet Polikarpov I-153. Hold onto your googles Biggles, it's a biplane with jets!


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> the overwhelming majority of that £40bn has been in development costs, and it costs what it costs to develop it, it doesn't matter whether, or how many anyone buys it - unit costs are, at least in part, heavily influenced by how many are produced, and Typhoon was unlucky in its birth co-inciding with the 1990's. defence budgets went into freefall, and the perceived need for a very capable fighter/interceptor (that was always planned to be a capable strike aircraft) fell into the black hole into which the USSR fell.
> 
> there's always an intelligent argument to be made that we would have been better off buying US - F-15's were available from the late 1970's, and no one would argue with a straight face that the UK's Lightning/F-4/Tornado F2/3 Air Defence force provided better, or even approaching equal capability to that which the F-15's could produce. whether the UK's involvement with Tornado would have continued - probably, because the F-111 was still shit at the time, and the only other option was to continue with the F-4 Phantom - is debatable, but with the introduction of the F-15E in the early 1990's, its probable that the Tornado GR1 would have been scrapped to pave the way from an F-15C fighter force and an F-15E strike force. the savings would have been significant, and the F-15's have a huge advantage over the Tornados in that either variant can, to some extent, undertake the role of the other. its even possible that a brave government would have gone for an all F-15E force, and just stripped off the externals from some of them to provide the fighters...
> 
> the downsides of course are there for all to see - a petulant US president who can stall or cancel any defence sale he doesn't like based on a twitter spat...



If the UK's combat aircraft procurement strategy were to provide the most capability for the least money you'd end up with a 100% F-15E fast jet fleet. It's already a great A2A platform straight off the showroom floor as it has AESA radar with the digital APG-79 backend processor from the Super Hornet - this is a whole generation beyond the mechanically scanned radar in the Typhoon. The only cost disadvantage compared to Typhoon is that you've got to crew it at 2:1 and keep a WSO track open but it would still be a small fraction of the cost. A2A squadrons would just put a junior pilot in the back seat as the French do in the Rafale-B.

The South Korean "Slam Eagle" spec. would do nicely...


----------



## T & P (Oct 1, 2019)

I wouldn't call this weird, but we do not have a thread for modern military aviation news so i guess this is the best home for it.

Russia has recently had the first flight of its new unarmed combat drone. Nothing unconventional about that. But if some reports are to believed, this UCAV might have been conceived as flying companion to the SU-57 stealth fighter. A kind of K-9 unit for fighter pilots to assist in combat missions. If if true, it'd be cool as fuck, as well as quite innovative (I am not aware of similar projects in existence or development).





Russia's new stealthy 'Hunter' drone just took flight for the first time with the country's most advanced fighter


----------



## Don Troooomp (Oct 1, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> F-35A LRIP 10 cost is $89m. So it's "bloody expensive" compared to what?



Free cataract surgery for millions?


----------



## 1927 (Oct 1, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> They claim 90 miles per gallon per passenger, less than you'd use in a car doing the same distance.


Hardly.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 1, 2019)

T & P said:


> I wouldn't call this weird, but we do not have a thread for modern military aviation news so i guess this is the best home for it.
> 
> Russia has recently had the first flight of its new unarmed combat drone. Nothing unconventional about that. But if some reports are to believed, this UCAV might have been conceived as flying companion to the SU-57 stealth fighter. A kind of K-9 unit for fighter pilots to assist in combat missions. If if true, it'd be cool as fuck, as well as quite innovative (I am not aware of similar projects in existence or development).
> 
> ...



Of what use is an unarmed combat drone though, how does it engage in combat without weaponry? Does it ram stuff or act as a shield?


----------



## kebabking (Oct 1, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Of what use is an unarmed combat drone though, how does it engage in combat without weaponry? Does it ram stuff or act as a shield?



The article lays out what the Russians claim it does - it flies well ahead/off to the side of the manned fighters, uses radar (which gives away it's position), transmits the data to the manned fighters, which fire their missiles at targets illuminated by the UCAV's without using their own radars and giving themselves away, as well as being an unpleasant surprise for the illuminated targets.

Western fighters already do it, and the wingman drone idea isn't new, or an unexplored concept in the west...

You could use the wingmen drones to provide jamming support, or targeting, or SEAD - it's a clever idea, because however expensive a drone is, it's not going to be as expensive as a fighter+crew, and the infrastructure ready to rescue them if they get into trouble.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 2, 2019)

T & P said:


> If if true, it'd be cool as fuck, as well as quite innovative (I am not aware of similar projects in existence or development).



Boeing have been working on the concept with the XQ-58A Valkyrie and the 'Loyal Wingman' program with the RAAF.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 2, 2019)

Along similar - ish - lines is the recent announcement of an MOD contract with MBDA to produce a 'stand in jammer' variant of MBDA's SPEAR CAP 3 missile - instead of a warhead, the EW variant will carry a jammer (or, in the future, possibly a radar linked to the F-35 that fired it...). It's a single shot job, rather than a reusable UAV, but it shows the direction of travel of the manned/unmanned mix.


----------



## Tankus (Nov 9, 2020)

Dunno why  ,  but  I thought  that   ekranoplans  were difficult to  stall 


Fair play  to  the  Russians  pushing  the  envelope


----------



## A380 (Nov 9, 2020)

Tankus said:


> Dunno why  ,  but  I thought  that   ekranoplans  were difficult to  stall
> 
> 
> Fair play  to  the  Russians  pushing  the  envelope




He (or she) didn’t bottle it. More power  Ivan/Ivanka. Da.


----------



## spitfire (Nov 29, 2020)

"Hey guys, I've had a great idea! Why don't we...."


----------



## spitfire (Dec 30, 2020)

New one on me.

Made as a scale flyable mock up for a larger version.









						Miles M.30 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## A380 (Dec 30, 2020)




----------



## spitfire (Dec 30, 2020)

chonky


----------



## T & P (Dec 30, 2020)

The military aviation equivalent of a 6' 5" rugby player accusing you of looking at his bird in the pub and asking you to step outside.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 30, 2020)

T & P said:


> The military aviation equivalent of a 6' 5" rugby player accusing you of looking at his bird in the pub and asking you to step outside.


"Eh no, I wasn't looking at your "bird"". . . 

"Why not? Is there something. . . _wrong with her _is that what you're saying?"


----------



## 2hats (Feb 19, 2021)

2hats said:


> SOFIA observatory:


SOFIA is currently in Europe, based at CGN, and has been doing circuits the past week. Will be here for the next three weeks.





						OC8H | SOFIA Science Center
					

OC8H Planned Flight Series Information Instrument: GREATDate: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 to Fri, Mar 12, 2021Flights: 20




					www.sofia.usra.edu


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 10, 2022)

DownwardDog said:


> That _thing_ behind Alan Partridge is one of the 90s vintage Replica mockups from the RCS study. It's been given a Halfords rattle can paint job and been put on a set of Tornado landing gear. It's an utterly laughable PR stunt. The FOD guards are a nice touch.
> 
> Japan hasn't acquired anything but a US combat aircraft for 75 years. The idea that they are going to weaken their most important military and strategic partnership to get in on the Airfix led Tempest consortium isn't credible.



Wow, I was wrong about his. Chapeau, kebabking

Sweden are out of Tempest and Japan are in and it's now called the Global Air Combat Program.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 10, 2022)

I'm surprised that Sweden are out...

Gripen looks to be on a shakier nail than a couple of years ago - it's lost out to F-35 in any number of sales completions, including the most important one, Finland - I'm just not sure I see it having the longevity it once looked like having. Tempest at least looked like having some workshare for Saab.

The French/German thing (FCAS?) may or may not have room for Saab, so it's either that, go it alone (astronomical price), or buy whatever the US is selling in 2035/40 and watch Saab go to the wall...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 10, 2022)

Surprised Italy are involved, sure it'll look great but it'll need to come with an AA membership.


----------



## spitfire (Dec 10, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Surprised Italy are involved, sure it'll look great but it'll need to come with an AA membership.



They’re doing the flightsuits.


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 10, 2022)

kebabking said:


> I'm surprised that Sweden are out...
> 
> Gripen looks to be on a shakier nail than a couple of years ago - it's lost out to F-35 in any number of sales completions, including the most important one, Finland - I'm just not sure I see it having the longevity it once looked like having. Tempest at least looked like having some workshare for Saab.
> 
> The French/German thing (FCAS?) may or may not have room for Saab, so it's either that, go it alone (astronomical price), or buy whatever the US is selling in 2035/40 and watch Saab go to the wall...



Gripen hasn't won an export order since Brazil in 2014. The first problem it has is the F-16s released into the market by F-35 operators like Norway. The second problem is Dassault's sales team who know how to close a deal by any means necessary.

The French are trying to get the Saudis into FCAS which makes some sort of sense.


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 10, 2022)

I still see problems ahead for Tempest/GCAP. The 'partnership of equals' between UK and Japan will be hard to manage and the schedule is ludicrous. The last great British/Japanese engineering collaboration gave us the Triumph Acclaim...


----------



## clusterfarce (Dec 12, 2022)

HZ1 Aerocycle. Over literal chopper?


----------



## MrCurry (Dec 12, 2022)

Haven’t heard much about the Fan wing project lately. Would be cool to see it fly at full size though. I think a few RC models have been made:

Images from FanWing website. It boasts a STOL capability and fuel efficient properties. Low top speed though, obviously. I don’t know how well it would cope with bird strike, either.


----------



## MrCurry (Dec 12, 2022)

clusterfarce said:


> HZ1 Aerocycle. Over literal chopper?



You wouldn’t want to lose your balance and drop into the blades.


----------



## a_chap (Dec 12, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> I don’t know how well it would cope with bird strike, either.



Probably copes a lot better than the poor bird


----------



## T & P (Dec 12, 2022)

Looks like two giant Dyson upright vacuum cleaners stuck together with a few alerons slapped on


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> Looks like two giant Dyson upright vacuum cleaners stuck together with a few alerons slapped on


Hopefully with better build quality, otherwise they’re seriously fucked.


----------



## MrCurry (Dec 13, 2022)

I’m tempted to make an RC model fanwing, they look so cool!  Finding the right balance point for the centre of gravity might be fraught with issues though.


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 13, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> Haven’t heard much about the Fan wing project lately. Would be cool to see it fly at full size though. I think a few RC models have been made:
> 
> Images from FanWing website. It boasts a STOL capability and fuel efficient properties. Low top speed though, obviously. I don’t know how well it would cope with bird strike, either.
> 
> ...



It's a Shorts Skyvan fuselage with Mi-17 engines on it.


----------



## MrCurry (Dec 13, 2022)

DownwardDog said:


> It's a Shorts Skyvan fuselage with Mi-17 engines on it.


Yeah.. just a visualisation of course, so I suppose they cobbled it together which whatever seemed to fit nicely. The actual concept of the aircraft could be realised with any number of different fuselage / engine configurations, but I suspect the fact it’s yet to get off the ground means it has some fatal flaws, or at least serious drawbacks. 

Perhaps the cruising speed is simply too low to make it commercially viable.


----------

