Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Military / Re: Blur between fighters and bombers
« Last post by DrRansom on Today at 08:13:15 am »
It is definitely the case that smart bombs and avionics have blurred the lines between fighters and bombers. However, this shift should also be understood as occurring in a relatively low-threat environment. A low-threat environment reduces the need for specialized training, which in turn lets fighter planes act as bombers.

As we are moving back into a high-threat environment, I think that specialization will cause a shift in the opposite direction.

Manned lightweight fighters are likely to be totally replaced by lightweight unmanned aircraft, which will fulfill roughtly the same roles, light BAI and defensive counter-air.
Military / Re: Blur between fighters and bombers
« Last post by Jeb on Today at 07:56:57 am »
looking for expert views on why F-14D failed to live up to its promise though in the 1980s .

Did it? What part of its mission did it fail at?

Cost to operate was always a big factor but also there were certainly political complications that had nothing to do with the airframe itself that doomed it to lack of further development. And you have to think that even if it wasn't being publicly acknowledged, there was the factor of "stealth is coming and we need aircraft that fit the bill" that played into Navy decisions (although the Navy was TERRIBLE at requisitioning/developing stealthy platforms).
Aerospace / Re: MH-139 to replace USAF UH-1Ns
« Last post by totoro on Today at 07:39:15 am »
Patrol and VIP transport are missions that really are best suited to helicopter like AW139. It can't lift as much as UH60, but it's got a fairly roomy cabin for its weight class. And it's made to be as cheap to operate as possible, being a commercial helicopter. Given the number of people needed to patrol or transport in VIP configuration, it can do pretty much all that's required from it, and do it cheaper than any UH60 variant. Would have thought UH-1Y can do it as well, cheaper than UH-60, but there you go... Bell thought otherwise for some reason.
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Flying Flapjacks
« Last post by AeroFranz on Today at 07:00:25 am »
Amen, brother. I'm sure there were some interesting lessons to be had from flying a novel configuration...although to be fair, they had tunnel-tested and flown the V-173.
I checked the references i have on the XF5U. The props were supposed to be Hamilton Standard four bladed teetering, especially designed for the vehicle. They weren't ready by the time the prototype was rolled out, so it was equipped with F4U Hydromatic units. Turns out it was a very poor match and they couldn't fly it like that. While waiting for the props, Zimmerman did some redesign based on lessons learned while ground testing. the cockpit was redesigned, and he added a trailing edge surface between the verticals.
Aerospace / Re: MH-139 to replace USAF UH-1Ns
« Last post by TomS on Today at 06:50:48 am »
Considering that the MH-139 is a bit smaller than the UH-60 did Bell make a mistake when they decided not to submit a UH-1Y variant for the competition?

As noted above, Bell did look at bidding the UH-1Y and decided that the modifications required were just too expensive. The Yankee is a pricey aircraft, it seems. The MH-139, on the other hand, seems to have been much cheaper than either the H-60 or (probably) the UH-1Y. 

Possibly worth mentioning that while this is being pitched as a missile field security helicopter, a sizable portion of the Air Force's UH-1N inventory (about 1/3) are actually VIP/Continuity of Government transports in the DC area.  I'd expect the same for the replacement program.


a very good article is on Le Fana 10/2018 about Northrop MX-324,MX-334 & XP-79B.
Space Projects / Re: Japanese future space projects
« Last post by Grey Havoc on Today at 06:29:51 am »

A Japanese start-up is to send spacecraft to the moon in a deal signed with Elon Musk's SpaceX, the Tokyo-based firm said Wednesday.

Private lunar exploration company ispace said it would blast a lander and rovers towards the moon on a SpaceX rocket on two separate missions.

The spaceware will first orbit the moon in mid-2020, followed by a moon landing attempt set for mid-2021.

It comes a week after SpaceX confirmed Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa will be the first man to fly around the moon on a SpaceX rocket as early as 2023.

"We share the vision with SpaceX of enabling humans to live in space, so we're very glad they will join us in this first step of our journey," ispace CEO Takeshi Hakamada said in a statement.

Hakamada also told reporters the company chose SpaceX as it is "highly credible" and "capable".

SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said in a statement that the company is "proud to have been selected by ispace to launch their first lunar missions".

Hakamada said he could not reveal costs for lunar programmes.

The company has already collected nearly $95 million from investors.

ispace, which now has more than 60 employees, competed as one of five finalists in the Google Lunar XPrize, which offered $30 million in prizes but ended with no winner.
Not perhaps..the RG41 should have been the Ratel replacement, carrying forth Denels initial investment in Project Hoefyster.
We all now know the political and other "aspects" to the Patria selection, and the shenanigans regarding the sudden changes in the selection processes and times.
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Rolls Royce hypothetical aircraft
« Last post by hesham on Today at 06:19:56 am »
From Air International 7/1987,

here is the future hypothetical airliner aircraft with Rolls Royce RB-529 ContraFan engines.


Feel free to move the topic to any place.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10