Just out of curiosity - Airplane Guys

Merry Christmas airplane guys!
image20.jpg

29-072120-sao_paulo_santa_steals_a_helicopter.jpg

santa1.jpg

Piasecki_HUP_Christmas_helicopter_with_Santa_Claus_and_elves_at_Naval_Air_Station_Oakland%2C_23_December_1956_(K-21585).jpg

OIP.rrzIS1KE_AMOFiQiKCnXQAHaE7

OIP.A_TyXk9QFpikNnKLBtX1eQHaFA

Hornet-santa.jpg
 
Boy.... tough crowd....
"but it never really went toe to toe with a peer opponent."....
"Good thing it never had to fight the Russians".....
"It's the missile not the plane".....

Name another airplane that's stood frontline duty for almost 48 yrs (and still is) and never lost an aerial engagement?
I'll wait right here.
Anyone? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The NASA/Lockheed Martin X-59 : What is its military objective? Perhaps to fly supersonic for quick deployment then drop out to subsonic without audible detection at its target area??
 
The NASA/Lockheed Martin X-59 : What is its military objective? Perhaps to fly supersonic for quick deployment then drop out to subsonic without audible detection at its target area??
All of the initial funding for quiet sonic booms was from DARPA.... so there's no doubt there's a military weapons tie in there somewhere. As this thing just reduces the "boom" to a 75db "thump," it won't really be stealthy enough to go undetected. So I don't really know what the military objective would be. :shrug:
Here's a better rendering from NASA.

Low-Boom_Flight_Demonstrator.jpg
 
The NASA/Lockheed Martin X-59, built in the "Skunk Works," was just approved for final assembly. There might yet be a Concorde replacement in our future. Link.

View attachment 181599

I don't know about flying but at the picture the Cock Pit is a real Pit -- pilot is down in the hole
Jets of this type usually needs to have the nose pointing upwards at landing
To the side the wing is impairing visibility
forward to the side is the canard wing.
Can anyone land such a plane --and walk away
 
I don't know about flying but at the picture the Cock Pit is a real Pit -- pilot is down in the hole
Jets of this type usually needs to have the nose pointing upwards at landing
To the side the wing is impairing visibility
forward to the side is the canard wing.
Can anyone land such a plane --and walk away
Airliners have been doing zero visibility (CATIII) landings for the better part of 50 yrs now, so that's not really a problem. I suspect the pilot will watch the outside world on displays during approach and landing.
 
Last edited:
Re: The B24.

If my reading (and memory) is accurate, the Liberator is the un-sung hero of WWII, having flown MANY more missions than the famous B-17. Pretty much all the movies and printing fiction laud the Flying Fortress. Not to take anything away from the Fort, it was a hell of a plane.
 
The Mosquito was another unsung hero. Probably because it didn't have a name like Flaming Wildcat of Death or something. An unsung anti-hero is the JU-88. Good performance and looks really cool and period Germanic
 
Re: The B24.

If my reading (and memory) is accurate, the Liberator is the un-sung hero of WWII, having flown MANY more missions than the famous B-17. Pretty much all the movies and printing fiction laud the Flying Fortress. Not to take anything away from the Fort, it was a hell of a plane.
Yes, the B-24 was more prolific than the -17... about 18,000 built over the -17's 12,000. So yeah, that equates to more bombs delivered. The 24 was the faster of the 2 and range and load were about equal. So that would give the 24 the edge in numbers. The B-17 on the other hand was easier to fly with an engine out... which was a common occurrence in wartime, and was more likely to make it home when damaged. That alone made it the favorite of the crews who had flown both. My take is both were valuable to the effort.

The Mosquito was another unsung hero.
Unsung? Just off the top of my head I can think of 3 movies made about the Mossie...

Mosquito_Squadron.jpg
 
Yes, the B-24 was more prolific than the -17... about 18,000 built over the -17's 12,000. So yeah, that equates to more bombs delivered. The 24 was the faster of the 2 and range and load were about equal. So that would give the 24 the edge in numbers. The B-17 on the other hand was easier to fly with an engine out... which was a common occurrence in wartime, and was more likely to make it home when damaged. That alone made it the favorite of the crews who had flown both. My take is both were valuable to the effort.
If I'm not mistaken, the B-17 could operate at higher altitude than the B-24. I think the difference was about 5,000 feet. That could be an advantage when defenders are shooting at you.
 
Back
Top