Cool planes 1/2
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
18 comments displayed.
#1
-
anon (12/20/2015) [-]
The first is a Berkut, they are beautiful but extremely difficult to fly, a true **** hot pilot is needed because of the severe lack of stability.
#3 to #2
-
anonymousmkiii (12/21/2015) [-] Well the german one was conventional straight-wing 1930-40s design, created for reconnaissance. The Su-47, however, was designed as the prototype for a next gen fighter that was supposed to be inherently unstable.
TL;DR you're comparing a minivan to a kawasaki ninja.
TL;DR you're comparing a minivan to a kawasaki ninja.
#4 to #3
-
trostell ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-] Except the German aircraft is a decidedly unconventional design. Conventional wisdom put the fuselage either centerline, or used multiple symmetrical "booms", like on the P-38 Lightning and F-82 Twin Mustang. The designer was an aeronautical savant that designed absurd, but completely functional designs that were just too outlandish to use compared to the more traditional ones. The ones that were purchased were flown in combat, and found to be extremely capable, although unusual to fly due to the offset "pod" as the cockpit was called.
#5 to #4
-
anonymousmkiii (12/21/2015) [-] Asymmetry is unconventional, admittedly, but not as much as you think. Yes, there's 2 fuselages, and yes, they're unequal in weight, but if you look closely, the BV-141 isn't exactly THAT asymmetrical. The 141 has that heavy, barely offset central fuselage, and the observation/manned pod further out on the right side of the wing. And the aerodynamics? the asymmetrical drag is also countered out by that tail, which only splays out on the left side of the aircraft, and anything else is conuntered by the rudder. So in other words, it really isn't terribly asymmetrical, its just somewhat because of that crew pod on the wing. The parts are all there, an elevator, a fuselage, the wings, are all there, nothing there is too experimental. They're just in a different arrangement because of the cockpit.
#6 to #5
-
trostell ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-] Except the Su-47 isn't even that experimental. It's testing a wing-angle that was already shuffled off the civilian market for being lackluster for the price. An unstable aircraft is not a good thing, you want it to be able to maintain stable flight. It's why the B-2 Spirit isn't being built anymore, and why the F-117 is a bomber. Unstable airframes lead to random performance depending on the surrounding air, and that's no bueno in a fight. At least the German one tried something new at the time, and made it work.
#7 to #6
-
anonymousmkiii (12/21/2015) [-] i wasn't getting to the su-47 because it didn't seem you were talking about them. But since you've asked:
The FSW you're talking about on the civilian market is very slight, to the point that you could still use a single spar in the wings without a deep bend. At the shallow angles of those wings, they don't affect the stability that much.
The su-47 on the other hand, features a very steep forward sweep that makes it extremely unstable. On the contrary to what you said, you want fighter aircraft to be unstable, and that's what we see on many current generation fighters, like the f-16 and harrier. They trade off stability for maneuverability, which in the case of a fighter aircraft, you really want. However, the issue with the forward swept wing is aeroelasticity, the wing causing the tips of the wings to rise, creating lift and tightening turns when you really don't want to, and yaw tenancies.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-swept_wing
I don't consider wikipedia a great source, but in this reguard, its good enough.
As for the two aircraft you mentioned, the B-2 isn't being built anymore because of the ******* cold war. Originally, when the project went into production in 1987, there were going to be 132 b-2 bombers, capable of hitting deep in the soviet union in case of nuclear armageddon. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992, there really wasn't a need for that many stealth bombers at $730 million a pop. So only 21 were made (20 and a converted prototype). So far one has crashed, only because of the avionics. With that fly-by-wire system, the b-2 is more than stable enough, and reliable enough, to perform its mission. If it was too unstable, it would not be flying, not just "not in production". By that standard of "its not in production because its not good", the f-22 sucks dick. Well hey, its not stable either, and its not in production, right?
As for the f-117 (should be called A or B-117), surprisingly it was replaced by the F-22. The reasoning is sound, the F-117 was something of an oddity, with most fighter aircraft being able to carry more weapons at the cost of being seen (the f-117 had 2 hardpoints), and while the f-22 can't carry the heavy payloads (2000lb or nuclear), it can still carry 2 1000lb weapons, maneuver far better than the 117, has twice the range (2000nm as opposed to the 117's 970) can carry weapons on external hardpoints when stealth isn't required, and engage in air-to-air combat. In general its a better aircraft, and that's why it replaced the f-117.
The FSW you're talking about on the civilian market is very slight, to the point that you could still use a single spar in the wings without a deep bend. At the shallow angles of those wings, they don't affect the stability that much.
The su-47 on the other hand, features a very steep forward sweep that makes it extremely unstable. On the contrary to what you said, you want fighter aircraft to be unstable, and that's what we see on many current generation fighters, like the f-16 and harrier. They trade off stability for maneuverability, which in the case of a fighter aircraft, you really want. However, the issue with the forward swept wing is aeroelasticity, the wing causing the tips of the wings to rise, creating lift and tightening turns when you really don't want to, and yaw tenancies.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-swept_wing
I don't consider wikipedia a great source, but in this reguard, its good enough.
As for the two aircraft you mentioned, the B-2 isn't being built anymore because of the ******* cold war. Originally, when the project went into production in 1987, there were going to be 132 b-2 bombers, capable of hitting deep in the soviet union in case of nuclear armageddon. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992, there really wasn't a need for that many stealth bombers at $730 million a pop. So only 21 were made (20 and a converted prototype). So far one has crashed, only because of the avionics. With that fly-by-wire system, the b-2 is more than stable enough, and reliable enough, to perform its mission. If it was too unstable, it would not be flying, not just "not in production". By that standard of "its not in production because its not good", the f-22 sucks dick. Well hey, its not stable either, and its not in production, right?
As for the f-117 (should be called A or B-117), surprisingly it was replaced by the F-22. The reasoning is sound, the F-117 was something of an oddity, with most fighter aircraft being able to carry more weapons at the cost of being seen (the f-117 had 2 hardpoints), and while the f-22 can't carry the heavy payloads (2000lb or nuclear), it can still carry 2 1000lb weapons, maneuver far better than the 117, has twice the range (2000nm as opposed to the 117's 970) can carry weapons on external hardpoints when stealth isn't required, and engage in air-to-air combat. In general its a better aircraft, and that's why it replaced the f-117.
#9 to #8
-
anonymousmkiii (12/21/2015) [-] **anonymousmkiii used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymousmkiii rolled image** Congrats, you got one. Here's your prize
**anonymousmkiii rolled image** Congrats, you got one. Here's your prize
#11 to #10
-
anonymousmkiii (12/21/2015) [-] looks a lot like the IL-2. but completely useless. who thought it was a good idea to get rid of the wing guns?
#12 to #11
-
trostell ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-] Considering the close resemblance to the Hawker Hurricane, it could be used as a nasty surprise, but it's really not all that great. To be fair, the IL-2 wasn't that great for its job either, but it had big cannons and could stand taking hits from 88mm guns once or maybe twice, so it was good enough. It was no Typhoon or P-47, but it worked.
#13 to #12
-
anonymousmkiii (12/21/2015) [-] huh...yeah, i'm semi well versed in modern and ww2, though some stuff throws me off like that atl-98 in the comp. Weird bugger
#15 to #14
-
anonymousmkiii (12/21/2015) [-] Yeah, that seems ***** to me as well. But i guess people needed to move big **** fast, and when they did, thats what you call. I don't know of many planes that can move 5 cars around without modification that aren't military or exceptionally cost prohibitive.
The biggest issue i've heard from pusher props is the turbulence from the wing ******* up the airflow to the props, but it can't be that big of an issue, considering the aircraft that fly on a regular basis like the p-180 avanti. Personally, i'm kinda bummed that some of these large flying wing concepts haven't gotten airborne, primarily because of **** like "i don't like not having a window to look out while i stare at my ipad on a redeye".
The biggest issue i've heard from pusher props is the turbulence from the wing ******* up the airflow to the props, but it can't be that big of an issue, considering the aircraft that fly on a regular basis like the p-180 avanti. Personally, i'm kinda bummed that some of these large flying wing concepts haven't gotten airborne, primarily because of **** like "i don't like not having a window to look out while i stare at my ipad on a redeye".
#16 to #15
-
trostell ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-] Considering how airlines are now, I figure it's more because they can't fit as many people on a flying wing as they can a massive metal tube. Back around the 50's I think people would have enjoyed the novelty of the flying wing, when flying was considered luxurious. And with it's huge wing-area, it would use less fuel, making trans-oceanic flights cheaper.
