-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 20292)
Message
Captcha
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 686 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

PBE Felix and Deagle Boltface Patches On Sale Now!



No. 20292 ID: 9dcda2
  Northrop F5 Freedom Fighter HD

I want one.
Expand all images
>> No. 20293 ID: 9dcda2
  >>20292
It's amazing we got anything done with such shitty missiles.
>> No. 20294 ID: 06a0fb
>>20292
IF you had the money, wouldn't it be better to get an F-20, with newer avionics and capabilities for more advanced weapons?
>> No. 20299 ID: 254d85
  >>20294
Well there's the small matter that the F-20 program failed thanks to the meddling of Pierre Sprey and company.
>> No. 20301 ID: 9723b1
>>20299
The F-20 failed because northrop couldn't sell water to a man dying of thirst.
>> No. 20302 ID: 9dcda2
File 14595315652.jpg - (62.45KB , 800x533 , F-5%20Tiger%20II%20Swiss2.jpg )
20302
>>20294

In theory, yes.

> Status: Cancelled
> Number built:3

=(

> The primary design change between the earlier F-5E and the F-5G was the use of a single General Electric F404 engine that was originally designed for the F/A-18 Hornet. The new engine provided 60% more thrust compared to the combined output of the F-5E's paired General Electric J85s. This improved the aircraft's thrust-to-weight ratio to 1.13 from 1.0. The new engine gave speed of over Mach 2.0, a ceiling over 55,000 ft (16,800 m), an initial climb rate of 52,800 ft per minute (16,100m/min), and overall climb performance to 40,000 ft (12,192 m) that was decreased from 2.2 minutes to 1.1 minutes.

Ho-ly shit. That's like putting a superchaged V8 in a Miata.

>>20299
I can see the Air Force's angle, they already had a low(er) cost light(er) weight fighter with the F-16. Also the F-5/F-20 didn't carry much for ordnance or avionics, so that's less capability. The whole thing happened during the cold war, which meant that anything less than the best meant a sure victory for the commies.

But, as the mentioned in the video, the F-5E's do pretty damn well in Red Flag exercises. (And the fact that they are flown by the most experienced pilots in the USAF may have something to do with it.)
>> No. 20303 ID: 06a0fb
>>20301
>The F-20 failed because northrop couldn't sell water to a man dying of thirst.

Lol, you realize they were concurrently raking in cash for the B-2 program at a cost of $2.2 billion per plane right while they were developing the F-20 right?
>> No. 20304 ID: 360765
>>20303
>B-2 program at a cost of $2.2 billion per plane
Counting the per plane cost it's just over a billion per plane, adjusted. And though its a large cost per plane, they have built a total of 21 planes.... so a total of around 21 billion dollars, their main revenue over a huge period of time.

Meanwhile the F-22 production is around 29 billion, the F-16 around 50 billion, F-18 program has a revenue of 52 billion, the F-16 production has a revenue of a whopping 120 billion. Now if F-20 was sold by people who knew how to sell, it would partake of that 120 billion, perhaps F-20 would have brought in a revenue of 60 billion.
By the way the F-35 is going to go for 518 billion, that's just insane.

Northrop had some of the best talent and designs I've ever seen, but they've been bringing up the rear of top contractors for awhile now. They were keeping afloat doing minor jobs converting civilian airliners into AWACS aircraft.

Up until the recent B-21 hope I thought Northrop was going to go the way or Rockwell and completely disappear. I mean seriously, engineers with them were looking at offers and leaving all the time.

tl;dr for a simpler explanation look at the color of the pretty arrows on the right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing (+McDonnell Douglas)
>> No. 20305 ID: 360765
  Just look at their sales video if you don't believe they suck at sales though, it's entirely technical stuff that the average politician sent to buy planes won't care about. The first minute is just clouds and a guy talking.

It's sad, the F-20 had more potential than the F-16, the F-16 was absolute trash when it first came out in terms of agility and performance. Also it sucked in terms of avionics, the F-16 had the APG-66, while the F-20 had the APG-67.

But the F-16 people knew what to say to sell their plane.
>> No. 20306 ID: 9dcda2
  >>20305
Speaking of...

Great Planes - General Dynamics F-16 Falcon
>> No. 20307 ID: d8acd0
File 145957800892.jpg - (241.46KB , 1800x1253 , US F-5E Tiger II 1972 Northrop Freedom Fighter 2.jpg )
20307
>>20305
Reminds me of the director of Lockup in the 1983 movie Deal of the Century responding to an ad proposal trying to underplay that they are selling weapons of death: "We are in a battle to sell this plane, gentlemen. And the enemy is not Moscow. Our enemy is Rockwell, Northrop, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Grumman, and the rest of our worthy competitors, foreign and domestic."
>> No. 20308 ID: 9dcda2
  >>20307
Boeing F/A-18 Hornet Anatomy of the FA-18 Hornet Fighter Attack Airplane

The best/most/awesomest fighter! (In the navy.)
>> No. 20309 ID: d8acd0
File 145967474411.jpg - (1.44MB , 4008x2872 , US F-18 Super Hornet escorts a KC-10 Extender 1.jpg )
20309
>>20308
But all I have ever heard is people hatin' on the Hornet.
That's the trouble with multi-roles: jack of all trades, master of none. Does not have the range or carrying capacity of a dedicated bomber like the A-6 Intruder. Does not have the speed and long-range radar-guided missiles of a dedicated interceptor like the F-14 Tomcat. Not as nimble as a light fighter like the A-4 Skyhawk. The Hornet is a creature of compromise to be able to be a fighter, interceptor and strike bomber.

Seems to have worked out well and the Advanced Super Hornet (ASH) upgrade may indeed be a better choice than the F-35.

- After an aerial refueling, a Naval F-18 Super Hornet from the USS Reagan escorts a Travis KC-10 Extender March 24, 2014, in the joint-service advanced combat operations training. Moments later, the F-18 will have to ward off other fighters acting as adversaries for the training.
>> No. 20310 ID: d8acd0
File 145967494346.jpg - (1.80MB , 3207x1954 , US F-18E-F Advanced Super Hornet 4.jpg )
20310
Boeing’s new tricked-out Advanced Super Hornet (2013)
http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2013/09/boeings-new-tricked-out-advanced-super-hornet/

- Showing off its new conformal fuel tanks and the enclosed weapons pod, the Advanced Super Hornet prototype soars over Lambert-St. Louis airport.
>> No. 20312 ID: 9dcda2
File 145969138997.jpg - (430.01KB , 2000x1339 , F18-SuperHornet-Landing.jpg )
20312
>>20309
I know a lot of guys who work on F-18's for the Navy and Marines, and they don't complain (about the jets) much. No complains about the engines. Rave reviews from guys who previously worked on the Harrier. Two of the pilots I talked to said that it was kind of boring.

One of my instructors described flying airplanes as: Hours of bordem punctuated by moments of sheer terror.

I agree that the "one size fits all" approach isn't ideal, but I think the F-18 is a good jet for what the Navy needs it to do. It's pretty decent at everything.

The Super Hornet is a great upgrade. The ASH sounds excellent. Every plane should have Conformal Fuel Tanks these days. When have you seen a plane go up without extra tanks? (Fucking never.)

> A-4 Skyhawk

Ha! One of my instructors flew Skyhawks in 'Nam, called it the lead-sled. "It's not fast, but it sure is slow!" He said you'd put the throttles to 100% and leave them there until you were back on the carrier.

Thinking about F-18's reminds me of the 2008 crash in San Diego...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_San_Diego_F/A-18_crash
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2009/mar/04/1n4crash00531-shoddy-maintenance-human-error-led-c
>> No. 20313 ID: 9dcda2
  CNN Presents: Carrier at War (2002)

Carrier ops boner engaged.
>> No. 20314 ID: 071465
File 145969407061.jpg - (109.19KB , 600x450 , posing-with-children_jpeg.jpg )
20314
>>20309
Problem with the F-18 is that it's a meh plane outperformed by aircraft a generation previous. It's purpose is to take off from a carrier and be a bomb truck, that's it, and it is really really GOOD at that.

Calling it a fighter or interceptor is fucking ludicrous.

>>20312
>When have you seen a plane go up without extra tanks?
The problem with CFTs can be if engine power is not stepped up with their mass, if people add droppable fuel tanks in addition to CFTs, and if CFTs have poorly designed fuel-dump systems.

I'd actually like to see a non-CFT, land-based F-18 (30% less empty weight due to less reinforcing), being brought up too ASH standards. That might be an interesting aircraft for the smaller countries like Finland, that don't need fucking 1000+km of range.
>> No. 20315 ID: 9dcda2
File 145970076534.jpg - (894.55KB , 2638x1830 , F-15E_CFT.jpg )
20315
> Problem with the F-18 is that it's a meh plane outperformed by aircraft a generation previous.

If you're talking about the Tomcat, yes, it was a beast. But a Bombcat is an even bigger waste of an airframe than using a Hornet to blow up Toyota pickups.

> Calling it a fighter or interceptor is fucking ludicrous.

It's the missiles that do the fighting and intercepting. AARAAM's have the range, and AIM-9X's have thrust vectoring rocket motors and 180' seeker heads.

I would almost say the days of dogfighting are over... but I wouldn't get rid of the gun just yet...

I can imagine that radar may become useless in some situations. Say new fighters are so low-observable that you can't pick up the 600 mph seagull until you're withing spitting distance. Or with active countermeasures, a radar guided missile just can't track. Infrared missiles will always find some exhaust to track, but it might be close to something you don't want to destroy. So that's when it's time for guns.

Or maybe you just want to strafe some asshole in a Cessna.

> The problem with CFTs can be if engine power is not stepped up with their mass...

The main benefit of the CFTs is the reduced drag and radar cross-section vs drop tanks (that never get dropped.) The tanks themseleves don't weight much. I recall reading the CFTs for a F-15 were like 900 lbs. The weight penalty is much less than the drag penalty of drop tanks.

> I'd actually like to see a non-CFT, land-based F-18 (30% less empty weight due to less reinforcing), being brought up too ASH standards. That might be an interesting aircraft for the smaller countries like Finland, that don't need fucking 1000+km of range.

That would be the F-16 or the Gripen. (The Gripen sounds like a sweet ride.)
>> No. 20316 ID: 7c90e8
>>20315

F-18: Top speed Mach 1.8, ceiling 15km

F-8: Mach 1.8, 17km
F-104: Mach 2, 15km
A-5: Mach 2, 15km
F-4: Mach 2.2, 18km
CL-1200: Mach 2.5, 18km
F-5: Mach 1.6, 15km
F-20: Mach 2, 17km
F-111: Mach 2.5, 20km

And that's just domestic aircraft, the Saab Drakken blows it out of the water, it first flew in 1955.

There is zero wow-factor with the F-18. Unless they were just starting their careers, every pilot which flew the F-18 probably flew a more performance intensive aircraft beforehand.

In terms of raw performance F-18 is the minivan mom-mobile of the skies.

>It's the missiles that do the fighting and intercepting.

All other things being equal if one side of the engagement is a whole mach number faster PLUS five clicks above the other his missiles will have WAY more range and room to maneuver.

For example the Turkish and Greek F-4 Phantoms have the same radar and the same medium range missile, and because of their kinematic advantage can probably eat F-18s for lunch in BVR.

Besides what kind of a philosophy is "missiles do the intercepting"? Just forget the concept of a fighter and put a Patriot on an AWACS then.
>> No. 20317 ID: 9dcda2
>>20316
So you're saying that the only thing that matters to fighter aircraft is speed?

You'd take a F-4 phantom over a F-18?
>> No. 20319 ID: 7c90e8
>>20317
Those are the things that impress pilots.

>You'd take a F-4 phantom over a F-18?
If it could use the same weapons and had the same avionics, of COURSE!
>> No. 20320 ID: 83d63c
File 145973214321.jpg - (1.05MB , 2850x1880 , US F-4G Phantom & F-16C Falcon over Spangdahle.jpg )
20320
>>20319
Remember the poor performance of the F-4 Phantom in the Vietnam War forced a rethinking of aircraft design and fighter pilot training. The fast but lumbering missile truck that could carry lots of missiles and bombs, but had no gun and had poor dogfighting characteristics, was replaced by more nimble fighters.

- US F-4G Phantom & F-16C Falcon over Spangdahlem AB 1989.
>> No. 20321 ID: 83d63c
File 145973243051.jpg - (1.05MB , 2850x1920 , US F-4E McDonnell Douglas Phantom II in 1986.jpg )
20321
The Phantom sure could carry a lot of bombs, though. Something like twice the standard bomb load of a WW2 B-17 bomber.

- US McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II in 1986.
>> No. 20322 ID: 9dcda2
  >>20319
> same weapons and had the same avionics

I'd stick with the Hornet. Airframe to airframe, it's more maneuverable, but as I mentioned earlier, it's the missiles that do the work. The F-4 concept would probably work great now, with missiles that don't suck ass. In a gun fight the F-18's low speed capability would destroy the F-4. (Supposedly the F-18's low speed, high angle of attack capability is right up there with the best.)

Even still, each new generation of fighter has improvements over the old.

Ok, so you've got a new fire control radar that can feed data to the AMRAAM and a Helmet Mounted Cueing System. Well you've still got manual hydraulic flight controls, which means the pilot and the natural stability of the airframe to keep you shiny side up. That natural stability makes the plane less maneuverable and as a result, a turning radius measured in light years. You've still got the smokey J79's with mechanical fuel governors. New engines? Still got an airframe designed in the 50s that requires lots man-hours to maintain and some bad aerodynamic habits. Ok, changes to the airframe. Well now you've basically got a new airplane.

Everything is so hard-wired that replacing the flight control system isn't really feasible without redoing everything. It's not like you can just plug everything in with USB. Every gauge has wires running to the sender. Every switch has wires that run to the device. The stick is connected to hydraulic valves.

But it's fair enough to look at what could have been. The Super Phantom, F-20 Tigershark, F-16XL, Super Tomcat, F-15 Active, could have all been amazing... but they would all be obsolete vs 5th gen fighters.

Until you get to 5th gen fighters, with low-observable shapes and thrust vectoring, it's pretty similar between the 3rd and 4th gen fighters. Engines and avionics improved, but they were incremental improvements. Stealth is the game changer. From now on there's regular airplanes and there's stealth airplanes. It's like the leap between propeller airplanes and jets. As soon as jets hit the scene, props were done. (Except for mofo's like the Skyraider.)

The prospect of planes that are hard to detect on radar is probably why the F-35 is putting so much work into the electro-optical systems.
>> No. 20323 ID: 9dcda2
>>20320
Well you know what they say about the Phantom,

> "If you put a big enough motor on it, even a brick will fly. And the F-4 needed TWO!"
>> No. 20324 ID: 83d63c
File 145974395852.jpg - (119.55KB , 1680x1050 , Russian MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor 2.jpg )
20324
>>20323
Flying brick, y'all!
>> No. 20325 ID: 83d63c
File 145974399297.jpg - (152.18KB , 1920x1200 , Russian MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor 1.jpg )
20325
>> No. 20326 ID: 83d63c
File 145974421048.jpg - (799.77KB , 3072x2048 , Russian MiG-31 Foxhound 1975 interceptor 5.jpg )
20326
>> No. 20330 ID: 9723b1
File 145979332598.jpg - (35.57KB , 405x221 , F-4_shoulder_canards.jpg )
20330
>F-4X
>Proposed high-performance reconnaissance version with HIAC-1 LOROP camera for Israel developed under the Peace Jack program in conjunction with General Dynamics.
>Water injection was projected to give the aircraft a top speed in excess of Mach 3 (over 2,000 mph (3,200 km/h) at high altitudes). The water would be contained in a pair of 2,500 US gal (9,600 l) conformal tanks on the sides of the fuselage spine. The US State Department became worried about developing an aircraft with performance similar to the SR-71 Blackbird and offensive capability beyond anything in domestic inventory for a foreign customer and forbade its export.

>IAI Super Phantom
>A separate Israel Aircraft Industries project was proposed for a PW1120-powered Phantom,[20] and one prototype built.[21] IAI's F-4 "Super Phantom" or F-4-2000, which could exceed Mach 1 without afterburners, was displayed at the 1987 Paris Air Show. McDonnell Douglas scuttled the F-4-2000's development because it equaled the F/A-18C/D in performance and could endanger future F/A-18 sales.

lol this is ridiculous.
>> No. 20334 ID: 254d85
File 145980776270.jpg - (53.09KB , 798x464 , F-15S-MTD.jpg )
20334
>>20330
And the F-15 STOL/ACTIVE:
>demonstrated vectored takeoffs with rotation at speeds as low as 42 mph (68 km/h)
>a 25-percent reduction in takeoff roll
>landing on just 1,650 ft (500 m) of runway compared to 7,500 ft (2,300 m) for the standard F-15
>thrust reversal in flight to produce rapid decelerations
>controlled flight at angles of attack up to about 85 degrees
>> No. 20335 ID: 06a0fb
File 145981266435.jpg - (1.02MB , 3000x2252 , v37387_DN-SN-86-03127.jpg )
20335
>>20324
>>20325
Foxbats make my pants fit funny.
>> No. 20336 ID: 7c90e8
File 145982384345.jpg - (97.40KB , 900x675 , mig_41s___firefly___by_abiator-d33ho66.jpg )
20336
>>20335
There's an update coming in the form of MiG-41, the MiG-31BM is only until 2028.
Very little info so far but it seems to be three crew, mach 3-4.3 at a maximum, some stealth shaping, 400+km targeting, 400+km missiles, and able to control sensor drones.
It's gonna be hyuuuuuuuge.

Pic unrelated lel.
>> No. 20337 ID: 83d63c
File 145987152155.jpg - (670.58KB , 2408x1636 , Russian MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor 3.jpg )
20337
>>20330
>Water injection was projected to give the aircraft a top speed in excess of Mach 3 (over 2,000 mph (3,200 km/h) at high altitudes). The water would be contained in a pair of 2,500 US gal (9,600 l) conformal tanks on the sides of the fuselage spine. The US State Department became worried about developing an aircraft with performance similar to the SR-71 Blackbird and offensive capability beyond anything in domestic inventory for a foreign customer and forbade its export.
Yeah, that would be a good idea for the US to develop, a method for a fighter-sized aircraft to perform like an SR-71 by just injecting water in the engines.
- More shots of the Russian MiG-25 Foxbat, designed as a high altitude interceptor of the US B-70 Valkyrie Mach 3 nuclear bomber that was cancelled (high altitude bombers were being replaced by ICBMs).
>> No. 20338 ID: 83d63c
File 145987247713.jpg - (195.96KB , 1800x1200 , Russian MiG-31 Foxhound 1975 interceptor 6.jpg )
20338
And the Russian MiG-31 Foxhound 1975 interceptor.
The Foxbat and Foxhound were used successfully as high altitude reconnaissance planes.
>> No. 20339 ID: 83d63c
File 145987249892.jpg - (211.82KB , 1920x1200 , Russian MiG-31 Foxhound 1975 interceptor 7.jpg )
20339
>> No. 20340 ID: 83d63c
File 145987257961.jpg - (121.42KB , 1800x1200 , Russian MiG-31 Foxhound 1975 interceptor 8.jpg )
20340
>> No. 20341 ID: 83d63c
File 14598727839.jpg - (171.96KB , 1799x1293 , US B-70 Valkyrie landing at Edwards AFB after its .jpg )
20341
Pic of the XB-70 Valkyrie landing at Edwards Air Force Base after its first flight on 21 September 1964. A rescue helicopter can be seen hovering nearby.
>> No. 20342 ID: 83d63c
File 145987309157.jpg - (191.41KB , 1500x1200 , US B-70, North American XB-70A Valkyrie 1964 high .jpg )
20342
US North American XB-70A Valkyrie 1964 high altitude Mach 3 bomber.
The wings fold down down to compress the thin air to achieve the high altitude and speed she needs. Other experiments in space planes and high altitude recon aircraft have been toying with riding shockwaves and such.
>> No. 20343 ID: 83d63c
File 14598735541.jpg - (417.43KB , 2818x1895 , US B-70, North American XB-70A Valkyrie 1964 high .jpg )
20343
It was too susceptible to SAM's so it had no future. After one of the two prototype planes crashed in 1966 in a freak accident the project was eventually abandoned. It occurred during a photo op mission for aircraft powered by General Electric engines. An F-104 got sucked into a wingtip vortex and smashed into the rear. Both disintegrated. https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/3623b5/xb70_with_dropped_wingtips_at_high_speed/
Longest flight: 3:40 hours (1/12/66)
Fastest speed: 2,020 mph (3,250 km/h) (Mach 3.08 ) (on 1/12/66)
Highest altitude: 74,000 ft (23,000 m) (3/19/66)
Length: 189 ft 0 in (57.6 m)
Wingspan: 105 ft 0 in (32 m)
Height: 30 ft 0 in (9.1 m)
Wing area: 6,297 ft² (585 m²) - this is five times the size of my condo in Boston.
Weight: 253,600 lb - Max. takeoff weight: 542,000 lb
Dry thrust: 19,900 lb per each of 6 engines. With afterburner: 28,800 lbf each.
Range: 3,725 nmi (4,288 mi, 6,900 km) on combat mission
>> No. 20344 ID: 83d63c
File 145987394860.jpg - (2.27MB , 3600x2400 , US B-70, North American XB-70 Valkyrie cockpit 1.jpg )
20344
North American XB-70 cockpit at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force.
>> No. 20345 ID: 83d63c
File 145987406776.jpg - (503.52KB , 1800x1333 , US B-70, North American XB-70 Valkyrie cockpit 2.jpg )
20345
The futuristic XB-70A was originally conceived in the 1950s as a high-altitude, nuclear strike bomber that could fly at Mach 3 (three times the speed of sound) -- any potential enemy would have been unable to defend against such a bomber.

By the early 1960s, however, new Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) threatened the survivability of high-speed, high-altitude bombers. Less costly, nuclear-armed ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) were also entering service. As a result, in 1961, the expensive B-70 bomber program was canceled before any Valkyries had been completed or flown.

Even so, the USAF bought two XB-70As to test aerodynamics, propulsion and other characteristics of large supersonic aircraft. The first XB-70A, on display here, flew in September 1964, and it achieved Mach 3 flight in October 1965. The second Valkyrie first flew in July 1965, but in June 1966, it was destroyed following an accidental mid-air collision. The third Valkyrie was not completed.

The first XB-70A airplane continued to fly and generate valuable test data in the research program until it came to the museum in 1969. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/195767/north-american-xb-70-valkyrie.aspx
>> No. 20346 ID: 83d63c
File 145987413828.jpg - (3.12MB , 2100x1500 , US B-70, North American XB-70 Valkyrie cockpit 3.jpg )
20346
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Engines: Six General Electric YJ93s of 30,000 lbs. thrust each with afterburner
Maximum speed: 2,056 mph (Mach 3.1) at 73,000 feet
Range: 4,288 miles
Service ceiling: 77,350 feet
Length: 185 feet, 10 inches
Height: 30 feet, 9 inches
Weight: 534,700 lbs. loaded
>> No. 20347 ID: 83d63c
File 145987422257.jpg - (1.41MB , 2100x1500 , US B-70, North American XB-70 Valkyrie cockpit 4.jpg )
20347
>> No. 20348 ID: 83d63c
File 14598742659.jpg - (2.75MB , 2100x1500 , US B-70, North American XB-70 Valkyrie cockpit 5.jpg )
20348
>> No. 20349 ID: 83d63c
File 145987438665.jpg - (382.61KB , 2100x1500 , US B-70, North American XB-70A Valkyrie 1964 high .jpg )
20349
Restoration staff move the North American XB-70 Valkyrie into the new fourth building at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force on Oct. 27, 2015.
>> No. 20350 ID: 83d63c
File 145987448044.jpg - (233.39KB , 1491x1162 , US B-70, North American XB-70A Valkyrie 1964 high .jpg )
20350
The sleek Valkyrie took advantage of "compression lift," where the shock wave generated by the airframe at supersonic speed supports part of the airplane's weight. The XB-70A could also droop its wingtips as much as 65 degrees for additional stability at high speeds.
>> No. 20351 ID: 83d63c
File 145987452991.jpg - (410.93KB , 1800x1430 , US B-70, North American XB-70A Valkyrie 1964 high .jpg )
20351
>> No. 20352 ID: 83d63c
File 145987464048.jpg - (418.30KB , 1800x1440 , US B-70 Valkyrie 6 turbojet engines 180,000 pounds.jpg )
20352
The Valkyrie’s six large turbojet engines together provided an impressive 180,000 pounds of thrust.
>> No. 20353 ID: 83d63c
File 14598752355.png - (698.45KB , 977x693 , US XF-108 Rapier Mach-3 interceptor B-70 Valkyrie .png )
20353
And here's a design of the Valkyrie's engines used in an interceptor.
The North American XF-108 Rapier was a proposed long-range, high-speed interceptor aircraft designed by North American Aviation intended to defend the United States from supersonic Soviet strategic bombers. The aircraft would have cruised at speeds around Mach 3 (2,300 mph; 3,700 km/h) with an unrefueled combat radius over 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km; 1,200 mi), and was equipped with radar and missiles offering engagement ranges up to 100 miles (160 km) against bomber-sized targets.

To limit development costs, the program shared engine development with the North American XB-70 Valkyrie strategic bomber program, and used a number of elements of earlier interceptor projects. The program had progressed only as far as the construction of a single wooden mockup when it was cancelled in 1959, due to a shortage of funds and the Soviets' adoption of ballistic missiles as their primary means of nuclear attack. Had it flown, the F-108 would have been the heaviest fighter of its era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XF-108_Rapier
>> No. 20354 ID: 83d63c
  North American XF-108 Rapier https://youtu.be/XqOF7ssWHCY
The North American XF-108 Rapier was a proposed American design for a long-range, high-speed interceptor aircraft to defend the United States and Canada from supersonic Soviet bombers.

The F-108 had a very large "cranked" delta wing, with a 58° sweep angle at the leading edge and wingtip extensions of about 40°, with a 4° anhedral. There were fixed ventral stabilizers on the wings, mounted at mid-span, and a tall all-moving vertical tailfin, supplemented by two ventral stabilizers that extended when the landing gear retracted. Although some earlier versions of the design had had separate tailplanes and later forward canards, both were abandoned in the final design. There were two General Electric J93 turbojet engines, also used in North American's XB-70 Valkyrie bomber, in the fuselage; USAF requests for an alternate installation of the Pratt & Whitney J58 later used in the SR-71 came to naught. The engines were fed by side-mounted intakes with a shape very similar to the later North American A-5 Vigilante.

The large fuselage and wing had nine tanks for a total of 7,109 gallons (26,911 liters) of JP-6 fuel, giving an estimated combat radius of some 1,271 mi (2,033 km), which could be extended by in-flight refueling. Top speed was estimated at 1,980 mph (3,190 km/h), about Mach 3, at 72,800 ft (22,200 m). It was stressed for +5.33/-3.00 g.

The aircraft had a crew of two, a pilot and a weapon systems officer (WSO), in a tandem cockpit arrangement. Each crewman had an escape capsule designed to permitting safe ejection even at extreme speeds and altitudes. The weapon systems operator in the rear seat had no flight controls.

The F-108 was intended to carry the Hughes AN/ASG-18 radar, the U.S.'s first pulse doppler radar set. It was to have look-down/shoot-down capability, but could only track one target at a time. It was a massive 2,100 lb (950 kg) installation filling most of the long nose. The radar was paired with an infrared search and track (IRST) system on the wing leading edges.
>> No. 20355 ID: 83d63c
File 145987970361.jpg - (36.58KB , 1024x699 , US XF-108 Rapier Mach-3 interceptor B-70 Valkyrie .jpg )
20355
During the first half of the Cold War, a supposed “bomber gap” existed between the Soviet Union and the U.S., which prompted a long line of interceptor aircraft for the USAF’s ADC (Air Defense Command) including the F-102 Delta Dagger, the F-101B Voodoo, the F-104 Starfighter, the F-106 Delta Dart, and lastly the proposed but never built North American F-108 Rapier. North American planned to build the Rapier in conjunction with their supersonic bomber project, the XB-70 Valkyrie for SAC (Strategic Air Command).

When it became evidently clear that a bomber gap did not exist, the F-108 was cancelled. The practice of promulgating supposed threats via the media is known as policy by press release, and was used several times throughout the cold war to attain large amounts of funding and resources for a project that was built on a threat that was either exaggerated or did not exist.

It is not hard to see the practice of policy by press release being employed on topics outside of defense projects today. http://flytofight.tumblr.com/post/129804062007/during-the-first-half-of-the-cold-war-a-supposed
>> No. 20356 ID: 83d63c
File 145987984019.jpg - (53.88KB , 1023x777 , US XF-108 Rapier Mach-3 interceptor B-70 Valkyrie .jpg )
20356
>> No. 20357 ID: 83d63c
File 145988022683.jpg - (376.86KB , 1400x937 , US XF-108 Rapier Mach-3 interceptor B-70 Valkyrie .jpg )
20357
>> No. 20358 ID: 83d63c
File 145988070470.jpg - (207.85KB , 920x1247 , US XF-108 Rapier GAR-9 (Hughes AIM-47 Falcon) in m.jpg )
20358
US XF-108 Rapier mock-up showing GAR-9 (Hughes AIM-47 Falcon) missiles in the missile bay.
The Falcon was a large active radar homing air-to-air missile with ranges out to 100 miles and could pack a .25 kiloton nuclear warhead. This developed into the F-14 Tomcat's AIM-54 Phoenix missiles.
>> No. 20365 ID: 83d63c
  XB-70 VALKYRIE BOMBARDERO NUCLEAR SILENCIOSO!! - GTA 5 Mod STUNT MONTAGE - Tramcaman https://youtu.be/oqpk_QIpo4Q
Should use the sprawling city maps of the GTA games with the aircraft and mechanics of Ace Combat.
>> No. 20366 ID: 83d63c
  But since this is an aircraft documentaries thread...
Great Planes | North American XB-70 Valkyrie | Documentary https://youtu.be/FrYhiNhp-L0
Ahead of its time - the XB-70 Valkyrie could travel at three times the speed of sound. Over more than a half century after its first flight, the XB-70 is still one of aviation's most interesting achievements.
>> No. 20397 ID: 7c90e8
File 145997292475.jpg - (358.57KB , 1520x1022 , Canadair_CF-116A_Freedom_Fighter_01_April_1987_jpe.jpg )
20397
CF-5 is interesting, 240 of the original 847 F-5 Freedom fighters were CF-5s.

Some changes were:
- A complex pneumatic landing gear which allowed the CF-5 to boost themselves off the airfield quicker.
- A midair refueling probe because of large Canadian airspaces.
- Much better navigation systems, also because of large patrol airspaces.
- Engines which were less powerful but more capable of handling FOD.

As a result of the weaker engines it could just barely exit the transonic flight regime.
>> No. 20440 ID: 9dcda2
  >>20292
Something a little different:
Air Crash Confidential S01E01 Pilot Error
>> No. 21152 ID: 088449
  >>20292

Ooo, this one's really good. It includes a section on the J79 engine development. Apparently, the first fighter engine to include variable stators. (Stay-tors)

So smokey.
>> No. 21188 ID: 9dcda2
  >>21152
Discovery Channel Wings F 105 Thunderchief

This one's alright. More about the struggle for survival the pilots had to go through.
>> No. 21234 ID: e222c7
>>20292
There was a small shitstorm in the news here in Norway a couple of years ago when the air force sold off two fully operational F5's to Ross Perot Jr. for 120,000 NOK (roughly $20k) a piece.

That's so affordable even I could have bought one.
>> No. 21236 ID: 8effed
File 147233369174.jpg - (381.21KB , 1280x838 , US F-5A Norwegian Freedom Fighter & F-4D Phant.jpg )
21236
>>21234
$20,000 for a Northrop F-5? Get a car loan and pick that up!
Reminds me of hearing some executive talking about buying a used Ferrari for cheap, but the maintenance was more expensive than an airplane.
- A U.S. Air Force McDonnell Douglas F-4D Phantom II aircraft of the New Jersey Air National Guard flying in close formation with a Royal Norwegian Air Force Northrop F-5A "Freedom Fighter" aircraft during exercise Coronet Rawhide on 1 September 1982.
>> No. 21373 ID: 9dcda2
  >>20292
I didn't know the Vietnam war was so fun and wholesome.
>> No. 21376 ID: cce514
File 147572922839.jpg - (130.01KB , 1181x787 , 1*onXE1-sIduWVC2_XvMpKcw_jpeg.jpg )
21376
Ethiopian F-5s vs Somali MiG-21s.
https://warisboring.com/which-is-better-the-f-5e-tiger-ii-or-the-mig-21-e92e5c5a1ef3
>> No. 21400 ID: cd5ece
  Some slav shit. Pretty cool, actually. A different perspective from what we're used to.
>> No. 21508 ID: 9dcda2
  >>20292
Badass Pilot Buys Own Fighter Jet | AARP

Art Nalls has had a life long dedication to flying. His addiction to the sky has lead him to an honorable military career and an even more adventurous retirement. Nalls has had the unique opportunity to purchase his own British Harrier Jump Jet. Find out how this retired Lt. Col test pilot uses his passion for flight to help preserve military history with the maintenance and upkeep of the last three remaining Sea Harriers.
>> No. 21540 ID: 9dcda2
  >>20292
Great Planes | Martin B-57 Canberra | Documentary

A plane I knew very little about, that's more interesting than I expected.
>> No. 21541 ID: e188a9
File 148607341486.jpg - (39.12KB , 473x453 , 1369176589_asher_snir.jpg )
21541
>>21376
More Soviet trash getting trounced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20
>Russians send their best and brightest air defense pilots to Egypt
>16 Israelis face off against 24 new MiG-21s
>3 minutes later the Russians flee, loosing 5 aircraft and 4 pilots (including the Squadron CO) in exchange for 1 Mirage damaged
>"The Egyptians themselves reacted with ill-concealed delight at the outcome of the engagement. They had previously suffered intense criticism of their own performance and boasts of superior Soviet skills, when in fact the Soviets had fallen for tactics the Egyptians were already familiar with."

"we warned u dogg, we told u!"
>> No. 21542 ID: 334c17
>>21541
>How do I know there are Russian pilots in Egypt? Very simply because we had shot down four Soviet planes that were flown by Soviet pilots.
Seems legit.
>> No. 21543 ID: 9723b1
>>21542
>How do I know there are Russian pilots in Egypt? Very simply because we had shot down four Soviet planes and we heard the pilots accent as they ejected.
INFA 100%
>> No. 21599 ID: 9dcda2
  Great Planes | Lockheed F-104 Starfighter | Documentary

The missile with a man in it.
>> No. 21603 ID: 9dcda2
  Discovery Channel - Great Planes - Consolidated B-24 Liberator

The Fortresses get all the press, but the Liberator did its fair share of fighting.
>> No. 21604 ID: c94531
File 149058121219.jpg - (823.46KB , 4256x1692 , US WW2 B-24 Consolidated Liberator bomber 2.jpg )
21604
>>21603
The Consolidated B-24 Liberator was one of the most famous bombers of World War 2. More than 18,400 of this type were built, making it the most produced American wartime aircraft. It gained a distinguished war record with operations in the European, Pacific, African and Middle Eastern theaters. It followed in the footsteps of the other great American WW2 bomber, the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, but it did have its critics. The B-24 Liberator was designed with the high aspect-ratio Davis Wing that had drawbacks as far as durability was concerned, but it increased fuel efficiency and gave the B-24 a longer range than the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Its flying characteristics were not as refined as the B-17 despite the Liberator having a higher top speed, heavier bomb load, and tricycle landing gear. http://www.aviation-history.com/consolidated/b24.html
>> No. 21605 ID: c94531
File 149058228730.jpg - (574.48KB , 3615x2912 , US WW2 B-24L Liberator hit over Lugo, Italy, 10 Ap.jpg )
21605
B-24L 'Stevonovitch II' of the of the 464th Bomber Group hit by German anti-aircraft fire over Lugo, Italy, 10 Apr 1945; only 1 out of the crew of 10 survived.
>> No. 21606 ID: c94531
File 149058295291.jpg - (1.86MB , 2048x1360 , US WW2 B-24 Consolidated Liberator Ford assembly l.jpg )
21606
Ford promised—and delivered—one B-24 Liberator every hour by the end of the war.
Ford used two nine-hour shifts to build the B-24 as the pilot and crew slept on cots waiting for delivery.

Designed by famed Detroit architect Albert Kahn, Willow Run was a monument to the mechanized world. The building featured 3.5 million square feet of assembly space, employed 35,000 to 42,000 people, built 8,600 B-24 Liberators during World War II, and had a mile-long assembly line with 28 stations. A special forge at the plant could crank out 5 million rivets a day. http://www.motortrend.com/news/detroits-production-battle-to-win-world-war-ii/
>> No. 21607 ID: c94531
File 149058326488.jpg - (2.81MB , 2952x2363 , US WW2 B-24D Liberator Tunnel Machine Gun 1.jpg )
21607
United States Army Air Force gunner Sgt. William Watts of Alexandria, Louisiana, demonstrates the tunnel-mounted Browning .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun of the Consolidated B-24D/LB-30 Liberator. This photo appeared in the LB-30 Erection and Maintenance Instruction manual (TO 01-5ED-2) in 1942. This could have been a staged photo by Consolidated. It is not clear if he is engaged in combat, as he is not wearing an oxygen mask and the machine gun is not exhibiting recoil. Note spent .50 caliber casings caught in the gunner's window. The waist gunner is visible behind him. Originally introduced in the B-24C model, which did not see combat, the tunnel gun had a limited field of fire and was difficult to operate in combat. As result 287 B-24Ds were equipped with Bendix power turrets that could be retracted into the aircraft for takeoff and landings. The Bendix turret induced nausea and disorientation in the ball turret gunners, and soon the turret was deleted and replaced with the tunnel gun again. It was not until the successful Sperry turret was installed (like the one used on the B-17E/F, only it could be retracted into the fuselage) that the B-24 had a workable belly gun defense. Eventually a nose turret like the tail turret was also added, bringing the total number of .50 caliber machine guns to over thirteen. The B-24 never upgraded its engines, resulting in diminished performance since the extra turrets added significant weight. The first B-24D combat mission was on October 9, 1942 by the 93rd Bomb Group of the 8th Air Force against locomotive manufacturing in Lille, France. Out of twenty-four aircraft, one was shot down. http://worldwar2database.com/gallery/wwii0005
>> No. 21608 ID: c94531
File 149058352144.jpg - (882.22KB , 1855x1071 , US WW2 B-24 Consolidated Liberator bomber 3.jpg )
21608
Agony Wagon: The Consolidated B-24 Liberator, WWII’s Unsung Heavyweight
This article was first published in the April 1972 Wings magazine http://airwingmedia.com/articles/2016/agony-wagon-the-consolidated-b-24-liberator-wwiis-unsung-heavyweight/
The B-24 was no stranger to the barbed epithet. More than any other bomber of WW II, it was the target of criticism. Even its own pilots couldn’t agree on its qualities, exemplalry or dubious. Yet practically any bomber pilot would agree that the Boeing B-17 was a timeless classic. But what about the B-24? Even today, the aircraft remains an enigma. More of them were built for States and its Allies than any other American aircraft, bomber or fighter. The Liberator served in more roles than any other aircraft on Air Force inventory. Even its detractors admit it was versatile. Nevertheless, it disappeared, almost overnight, by the end of 1945.
Faster, capable of carrying heavier loads for longer distances than the legendary Flying Fortress, the B-24 Liberator is still referred to as the B-17’s bastard half brother. Among the slurs cast at the hardworking, but unglamorous B-24 was the label “crate” … “the crate, the B-17 came in.” It was the unkindest cut of all. The Liberator could live down the others: Thundermug, Big Ass Bird, Agony Wagon, Twin Tailed Timebomb, but “a crate for the B-17,” that was way off base.
Sitting on the taxi way’ like a boxcar attempting to fly, its brakes hissing like a Greyhound bus, the B·24 looked dumpy. When heavily loaded, she had to be handled gingerly on take off. Airspeed was highly critical in the Liberator, particularly at low altitudes where any increase in drag guaranteed disaster. In formation, the pilot was constantly on the throttles. The B-24 did not fly well at high altitude and its best performance was invariably turned in at speed, otherwise the aircraft just hung in the sky, its engines struggling to keep the high-lift Davis Wing in the air.
>> No. 21609 ID: c94531
File 149058374926.jpg - (419.08KB , 1920x1080 , US WW2 B-24 Consolidated Liberator bomber 4.jpg )
21609
Unlike the B-17, the B-24 was designed to carry cargo, any cargo, but preferably bombs. It was not designed as a flying machine, but rather a flying receptacle. Perpendicular to the long, nearly straignt wing, a cavernous oblong box was attached, with two huge rudders to give it directional control. This was the B-24’s fuselage. Lose power on the wing’s engines and it became difficult to direct the 32 ton gross-loaded air frei er. One engine out was trouble, but trl and auto-pilot would hold the big bomber steady. Two out on one side … prepare for a wake. Both pilots with their feet jammed down on the rudder pedals, holding against the turning impulse, going downhill all the time, was often not enough. To hold a 8-24 with two out, one had to have the strength of a Frankenstein monster, and then some.
Nevertheless, the aircraft continued to serve and perform. As a patrol craft, long range transport and a bomber, it was probably the Air Force’s most versatile bird. Toward the end of WW II, when the later Liberators came out with ball bearing controls, the wheel and rudders turned feather light. Experience was also a great teacher and a good 8-24 pilot was the best. Maligned, short· changed and sold short, the “24” was still a tough old bird. She took punish· ment as well or better than her glamorous Boeing stablemate. Yet time ran out on the 8-24.
They make movies about the B-17. For the 8-24 there are only epitaphs, like that of the Lady Be Good, a luckless Liberator which went down in the Libyan Desert, with her crew, yet remained virtually intact, their tomb for over 16 years. Somewhere in that dusty saga lies the message and the truth about the “crate the 8-17 came in!” Over 18,000 Consolidated Liberators rolled off five production lines to become the most extensively produced aircraft in the history of the American aviation industry. The airplane bearing this unique claim readily metamorphosed throughout the Second World War, a fact which made its continued production feasible from 1939 to 1945·. In other words, a lot of jobs were found for the B-24, but its active life was a short one, and its employment was swiftly terminated.
>> No. 21610 ID: c94531
File 149058451998.jpg - (4.60MB , 4422x2952 , US WW2 B-24 Consolidated Liberator 'Diamond L.jpg )
21610
>> No. 21611 ID: c94531
File 149058455134.jpg - (284.92KB , 1600x1200 , US WW2 B-24 Consolidated Liberator 'All Ameri.jpg )
21611
>> No. 21612 ID: c94531
File 149058464738.jpg - (4.05MB , 3000x2400 , US WW2 B-24 Consolidated Liberator & B-17 bomb.jpg )
21612
>> No. 21613 ID: c94531
File 149058539847.jpg - (2.47MB , 3000x2400 , US WW2 B-24 Consolidated Liberator & B-17 bomb.jpg )
21613
>> No. 21689 ID: 9dcda2
  Harrier - 1988 Documentary
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason