 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / July 2007Bye Bye F-14
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/02/national/w000428D79.DTL > http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/02/national/w000428D79.DTL Gotta agree with the logic, only I wouldn't allow sales of parts to museums...I'd allow direct transfers or allotment only as overseen by the USN. Remove the money, remove the market, maintain the traceability.  Signature- Rufus > http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/02/national/w000428D79.DTL S'funny. I remember when a F-14 was the most modern-looking airplane model money could buy. Now a scrapyard/museum piece. (kim) > S'funny. I remember when a F-14 was the most modern-looking airplane model > money could buy. Now a scrapyard/museum piece. > Its career wasn't that long (by modern standards at least). They were supposed to be getting to be real maintenance headaches with age. It is a case though where we didn't replace it with a weapon system of greater or equal capability... we don't have any AAM in service now with the range of the Phoenix. On the other hand, the Air Force intends to keep flying the B-52 till 2040, so its service life is going to be nearly 90 years. Not bad for something that got redesigned from turboprop to jet propulsion over the weekend in a hotel room...using balsa wood and building supplies from the local hobby shop: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/b52-strat/b52_50th/design.htm No model builders = no hobby shops = no balsa wood = no B-52 = Communist domination of the world! :-) "Model builders: Scaling the heights of freedom!" Pat >> S'funny. I remember when a F-14 was the most modern-looking airplane >> model money could buy. Now a scrapyard/museum piece. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > On the other hand, the Air Force intends to keep flying the B-52 till > 2040, so its service life is going to be nearly 90 years. Yes but rather sensibly the United States didn't sell any B-52's to the so-called "Shah of Iran". (He was actually a fake but that's a whole different subject). > Not bad for something that got redesigned from turboprop to jet propulsion > over the weekend in a hotel room...using balsa wood and building supplies > from the local hobby shop: > http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/b52-strat/b52_50th/design.htm > No model builders = no hobby shops = no balsa wood = no B-52 = Communist > domination of the world! :-) I think I read in Aeromodeller's profile of the P-51 Mustang many years ago that the basic design was scribbled on the back of a cigarette packet in a London hotel, so perhaps we have the tobacco industry to thank for the defeat of Nazism and the survival of the free world? :o) (kim) >>>S'funny. I remember when a F-14 was the most modern-looking airplane >>>model money could buy. Now a scrapyard/museum piece. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > (kim) Saw a thing on PBS the other night about Nazi scientists and the race to get them out of Germany at teh end of the war. Something they souched on was the amount of technological invation that went straight from the Me 262 into the F-86, and the same for the Mig-15 on the Russian side. That when the two met in combat for the first time over Korea, pilots had a hard time telling the difference between a Sabre and a Mig-15 in a short look. If you go digging, you can find some idea from active Nazi platforms or Luft '46 designs incorporated on just about every modern aircraft currently flying - from flying wings to early warning platforms with big fuselage mounted radars. Signature- Rufus > Saw a thing on PBS the other night about Nazi scientists and the race > to get them out of Germany at teh end of the war. Something they > souched on was the amount of technological invation that went straight > from the Me 262 into the F-86, and the same for the Mig-15 on the > Russian side. They came from two different sources; we got the Messerschmidt P1101 prototype for a experimental aircraft that you could change the wing sweep on while on the ground, and had Bell build a aircraft based on it as the X-5, which could swing its wings in flight: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a-p1101.htm. The Soviets got a lot of data on other German swept wing projects, including the Focke-Wulf Ta-183: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_183 ...which played a big part in the MiG-15 design, particularly in regards to the high-mounted horizontal tail. Pat > Saw a thing on PBS the other night about Nazi scientists and the race > to get them out of Germany at teh end of the war. Something they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Korea, pilots had a hard time telling the difference between a Sabre > and a Mig-15 in a short look. > Saw a thing on PBS the other night about Nazi scientists and the race > to get them out of Germany at teh end of the war. Something they > souched on was the amount of technological invation that went straight > from the Me 262 into the F-86, and the same for the Mig-15 on the > Russian side. They came from two different sources; we got the Messerschmitt P1101 prototype for a experimental aircraft that you could change the wing sweep on while on the ground, and had Bell build a aircraft based on it as the X-5, which could swing its wings in flight: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a-p1101.htm. The Soviets got a lot of data on other German swept wing projects, including the Focke-Wulf Ta-183: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_183 ...which played a big part in the MiG-15 design, particularly in regards to the high-mounted horizontal tail. Pat >> Saw a thing on PBS the other night about Nazi scientists and the race >> to get them out of Germany at teh end of the war. Something they [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Pat Which were also features of the Me 262 - the swept wing and crucifom tail. The program focused on operational aircraft, offered the concept of the swept wing as the biggest aerodynamic inovation of the period, though. That was an aerodynmic design inovation required to counter the effects of compressibility which was not understood in the west at the time. The second major innovation offered concerned engine technologies - the axial flow turbojet of the 262, and the compact, efficient rocket engine in the Me 163. Signature- Rufus > Which were also features of the Me 262 - the swept wing and crucifom tail. On the Me-262, the wing sweep was for CG reasons, not to up maximum airspeed; the sweep angle was too low for that. Although they knew what they were doing with the tail on the Me-262, by giving it higher leading edge sweep than the wing, they increased its stall speed at high velocity over that of the wing, meaning if to did hit the critical Mach number, at least your tail surfaces would still be able to control the aircraft. The Soviets later used this approach on the Il-28 bomber. On the Me-163 Komet the sweep angle was enough to help up the critical Mach number a bit, but that wasn't why it was designed that way; it was to put the ailerons far enough behind the CG so that they could serve as elevators as well as ailerons. > The program focused on operational aircraft, offered the concept of > the swept wing as the biggest aerodynamic inovation of the period, > though. That was an aerodynmic design inovation required to counter > the effects of compressibility which was not understood in the west at > the time. The swept wing idea goes back to Dr. Adolph Busemann in 1935. But there wasn't any real need for them until jets and rocket engines came along, as piston engines couldn't get aircraft up to a speed where compressibility manifested itself except in a power dive. Strangely, the Germans did get a swept wing jet prototype flying in WW II where the wing sweep was intended to up the aircraft's speed, but with the wing swept forward, not back. This was the Ju-287 test aircraft: http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/ju287.jpg Huma made a model of one of these: http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/axis/luft/ju/287preview.htm And belive me, it's a real attention getter sitting on your shelf. The landing gear hasn't caved in on mine yet. :-) Pat >> Which were also features of the Me 262 - the swept wing and crucifom >> tail. > > On the Me-262, the wing sweep was for CG reasons, not to up maximum > airspeed; the sweep angle was too low for that. That may have just been serendipity - the wing on an F/A-18 isn't swept very much, but the effect is still the same. It was the concept, and not the reason, which was of note. > Although they knew what they were doing with the tail on the Me-262, by > giving it higher leading edge sweep than the wing, they increased its > stall speed at high velocity over that of the wing, meaning if to did > hit the critical Mach number, at least your tail surfaces would still be > able to control the aircraft. The Soviets later used this approach on > the Il-28 bomber. Leading edge sweep really isn't the issue - it's the sweep of the meanline that count aerodynamically, as is critical AOA for stall vice speed; but your point is valid. > On the Me-163 Komet the sweep angle was enough to help up the critical > Mach number a bit, but that wasn't why it was designed that way; it was > to put the ailerons far enough behind the CG so that they could serve as > elevators as well as ailerons. That is true, but it is also true that the sweep aids yaw stability to some extent, and I'd wager that the was also a prime consideration in the design of a tailless aircraft. I've also read that but for materials usd in it's construction, the Me 163 was probably the first aircraft that would have been capable of breaking the sound barrier...it's structure was not up to the task, but it's designers might also have known/realised this. >> The program focused on operational aircraft, offered the concept of >> the swept wing as the biggest aerodynamic inovation of the period, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > II where the wing sweep was intended to up the aircraft's speed, but > with the wing swept forward, not back. Ahh...we meet again, Dr. Busesman. I had to solve for the flow field on a double-wedge, supersonic biplane on an aero test once...found out later after the test that that problem was known as the "Buseman Biplane"...hate the dude almost as much as Newton for inventing the Calculus... > This was the Ju-287 test aircraft: > http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/ju287.jpg [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pat Yeah...I've been contmplating doing a conversion on the 1/32 Revell He 162A-2 to the Luft '46 He 162D forward swept wing concept. Would also be an attention getter. http://www.luft46.com/ghart/gh162d-6.jpg ...or even a C: http://www.antaresmodels.com/IMAGES/Mvc-446f.jpg Either one would be fairly easy to scratchbuild wings/stabs for...speaking of which, those tails remind me alot of the F-117... Signature- Rufus > Leading edge sweep really isn't the issue - it's the sweep of the > meanline that count aerodynamically, as is critical AOA for stall vice > speed; but your point is valid. >> On the Me-163 Komet the sweep angle was enough to help up the >> critical Mach number a bit, but that wasn't why it was designed that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > barrier...it's structure was not up to the task, but it's designers > might also have known/realised this. We discussed that once over on sci.space.history; although it did crack 1,000 kph (they think) its wing didn't have the right profile to let it go supersonic, and drag went way up as it approached Mach 1. Another problem were the effects of high-speed airflow on a pitot tube as speed went over around 500 mph, which led to the "supersonic P-47" story...which means that the super-high speed claims on the Komet were doubtful if based on airspeed indicator readings. Surprisingly, Lippisch never did get a handle on supersonic aerodynamics in regards to wing profiles. We brought the DM-1 test glider for the ramjet P-13A delta wing fighter project back to the U.S. and stuck it in a wind tunnel at Langley Aeronautical Laboratory to see how it behaved. It behaved like a brick; not only was it not going to go supersonic, it was almost going to fall out of the sky even in subsonic flight, due to its thick rounded leading edge. Lift coefficient in its original form was .6, so they went to work modifying it be extending the leading edges and giving them a sharp edge, and replacing the original giant tailfin with the pilot in it with a normal slim delta fin. By dint of effort, they finally managed to get the lift coefficient up to 1.31 in a unpiloted form, and around 1.28 in a version with a bubble canopy on it. >>> The program focused on operational aircraft, offered the concept >>> of the swept wing as the biggest aerodynamic inovation of the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Biplane"...hate the dude almost as much as Newton for inventing the > Calculus... I saw a design for that thing once; that's the one with the Sanger Antipodal Bomber-style wings with the flat bottom and two flat plates joined at the top in a shallow pyramid, isn't it? >> This was the Ju-287 test aircraft: >> http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/ju287.jpg [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://www.antaresmodels.com/IMAGES/Mvc-446f.jpg The really screw with them; besides the butterfly tail, stick the big Argus pulsejet on the back, and have it riding around on the back of the Arado E377a Mistel missile. This would be great! You get to return to base with the cheap pulsejet engine, while disposing of the two expensive BMW engines on the mission. This has Nazi logic written all over the concept. :-D > Either one would be fairly easy to scratchbuild wings/stabs > for...speaking of which, those tails remind me alot of the F-117... Also of the original Beechcraft Bonanza, which used that idea. Talk to a pilot of one of those sometime, and you'll find out why the idea never caught on big time. Pat >> Leading edge sweep really isn't the issue - it's the sweep of the >> meanline that count aerodynamically, as is critical AOA for stall vice [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the lift coefficient up to 1.31 in a unpiloted form, and around 1.28 in > a version with a bubble canopy on it. I came across an actual CFD study of the basic shape of the 163 - that study concluded the shape was truely capable of exceeding Mach. Can't recall where I read that, though. As I recall it didn't cover stability - just aero. >>>> The program focused on operational aircraft, offered the concept >>>> of the swept wing as the biggest aerodynamic inovation of the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Antipodal Bomber-style wings with the flat bottom and two flat plates > joined at the top in a shallow pyramid, isn't it? No - it's not an actual aircraft, just an exercize in supersonic aerodynamic theory, and the theory of flow field interaction. Quickie search, but I'm pretty sure this was the problem from my test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busemann's_Biplane We were to identify the specific flow regions, and write down the thermodynamic equations for the flow field in each region. Was a single problem exam... >>> This was the Ju-287 test aircraft: >>> http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/ju287.jpg [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > engine, while disposing of the two expensive BMW engines on the mission. > This has Nazi logic written all over the concept. :-D You think that's bad, you should get a look at how the airlines do maintenance...but I digress... >> Either one would be fairly easy to scratchbuild wings/stabs >> for...speaking of which, those tails remind me alot of the F-117... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pat Been there, flown one for myself...hate 'em. Gimme an F-33 Bonanza over a butterfly one any day. But I was also thinking of planform in the case of the F-117...very similar. Signature- Rufus > I came across an actual CFD study of the basic shape of the 163 - that > study concluded the shape was truely capable of exceeding Mach. Can't > recall where I read that, though. As I recall it didn't cover > stability - just aero. The De Havilland Swallow was based on it to a great extent, and it did crack Mach 1 in a shallow dive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Swallow On that 1,000 kph Me-163 flight almost all the rudder disintegrated. Considering all the designs Lippisch had for jet aircraft using Komet aerodynamics, it's really surprising that none got built: http://www.luft46.com/lippisch/lippisch.html >>>>> The program focused on operational aircraft, offered the concept >>>>> of the swept wing as the biggest aerodynamic inovation of the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busemann's_Biplane Yep, that's the thing. I saw it described as a design for a supersonic biplane in a encyclopedia when I was in Junior High School. > We were to identify the specific flow regions, and write down the > thermodynamic equations for the flow field in each region. Was a [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > You think that's bad, you should get a look at how the airlines do > maintenance...but I digress... Oh, I've seen that from the other side! I worked as a FAA weather observer for 12 years out at the tiny airport at Jamestown, N.D. We had a guy drive 100 miles to replace the white nav light on the top of a Beech 100D's tail (the aircraft has WAY too many tail fins) in the middle of the night. Ten minute repair...two hour drive to get there...two hour drive back. :-) Of course on non-passenger carrying aircraft, a somewhat more laissez-faire approach was taken to repairs. Frankly, if the air filter blew out of the engine intake on my MU-2 and flew fifteen feet through the air while starting one of the motors, I wouldn't just stick it back in there and say "it does that sometimes" and fly happily off . >>> Either one would be fairly easy to scratchbuild wings/stabs >>> for...speaking of which, those tails remind me alot of the F-117... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > over a butterfly one any day. But I was also thinking of planform in > the case of the F-117...very similar. And remember what happened when that F-117 once accidentally exceeded Mach 1 in a dive, and converted itself from a "V" tail into a single-tailed configuration. Now picture the tail made out of glued plywood at around Mach 1, instead of composites :-) Pat >> I came across an actual CFD study of the basic shape of the 163 - that >> study concluded the shape was truely capable of exceeding Mach. Can't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > aerodynamics, it's really surprising that none got built: > http://www.luft46.com/lippisch/lippisch.html Rudder "buzz"...Harrier has/had the same problem. One of the first test efforts I worked on. Solved by gluing some triangular tripper strips ahead ot the hinge line. Super Hornets have them ahead of hte ailerons, too. >> You think that's bad, you should get a look at how the airlines do >> maintenance...but I digress... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the air while starting one of the motors, I wouldn't just stick it back > in there and say "it does that sometimes" and fly happily off . Used to do engine design work for GE and we'd get field reports across our desk all the time on how such and such airline was watching cracks develop in tubine rotors on such and such engine. They wait until the last possible second to take maintenance action, as opposed to the military way of doing on-time scheduled preventive maintenance. Another reason why modern military jets in the hands of civilians isn't realy such a great idea, IMO. >>>> Either one would be fairly easy to scratchbuild wings/stabs >>>> for...speaking of which, those tails remind me alot of the F-117... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Pat Like I said - but for the materials... Yeah. I remember the one that crashed in my backyard, northwest of Edwards AFB...of course at the time we weren't really on to what it was. Only that they dug up four square miles of desert under armed guard and didn't say much. Signature- Rufus > Rudder "buzz"...Harrier has/had the same problem. One of the first > test efforts I worked on. Solved by gluing some triangular tripper > strips ahead ot the hinge line. Super Hornets have them ahead of hte > ailerons, too. On the Komet the rudder was fabric-covered, which may have not been a good idea on something designed to fly at nearly 600 mph. It would be interesting to find out if the Bonanza "V" tail was in any way related to the German research. Pat >> Rudder "buzz"...Harrier has/had the same problem. One of the first >> test efforts I worked on. Solved by gluing some triangular tripper [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Pat check out the proto 162 d. butterfly and forward swept wings. > check out the proto 162 d. butterfly and forward swept > wings. > That looked like it might work; but I never fully trusted forward-swept wings. If the start to move up or down in the airflow, they are going to get further out of true with the airflow almost instantly, and tear clean off. About the most overly-optimistic thing the Germans ever came up with in WW II was the A4b/ A9 winged V-2 missile; this was going to reenter the Atmosphere the atmosphere at around 3,000 mph, sporting wooden wings. Not surprisingly, one of the wings came off during the first test reentry. Carbon graphite is a great heat resistant material, but having the wings convert from wood to charcoal on the way down probably isn't the best approach to using carbon insulation on them. Pat >> check out the proto 162 d. butterfly and forward swept wings. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Pat FSW configs have the opposite effect of aft sweep in that they don't naturally induce a posverse snap roll with increasing yaw. In theory this could add up to and increase in ability to point the nose of a fighter latterally, although you can also solve that issue by building and mounting the right weapons. I think the wings on the X-29 were also aeroelastically tailored, but I don't recall distictly. Problem has always been structural for getting the FSW config to work, though. You could certainly build one today, but I can't really see the utility anymore. Signature- Rufus > Problem has always been structural for getting the FSW config to work, > though. You could certainly build one today, but I can't really see > the utility anymore. The Russians have one on the Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut: http://swisshornet.bleublog.ch/files/images/2006/4/480/mob197_1145738369.jpg Pat >> Problem has always been structural for getting the FSW config to work, >> though. You could certainly build one today, but I can't really see [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pat Yeah, know that one, but as far as I know nobody's bought any...including the Russians. I think there's only two of them? Signature- Rufus >>>Rudder "buzz"...Harrier has/had the same problem. One of the first >>>test efforts I worked on. Solved by gluing some triangular tripper [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > check out the proto 162 d. butterfly and forward swept > wings. Yup...thinking of scratching one from the 1/32 Revell kit. Signature- Rufus >> Rudder "buzz"...Harrier has/had the same problem. One of the first >> test efforts I worked on. Solved by gluing some triangular tripper [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Pat I'd bet so...a study in drag reduction, and you do get some speed out of the config...just don't try recovering from a spin. I've always been curious about the spin characteristics of the B-2, too... By contrast, the rudder on a Harrier is the only flying surface which isn't hydraulically boosted...same for the T-45A. Must be a Brit thing. Signature- Rufus > I'd bet so...a study in drag reduction, and you do get some speed out > of the config...just don't try recovering from a spin. I've always > been curious about the spin characteristics of the B-2, too... Hopefully it stalls better than a YB-49; one Air Force base named after a crashed flying wing pilot is quite enough. > By contrast, the rudder on a Harrier is the only flying surface which > isn't hydraulically boosted...same for the T-45A. Must be a Brit thing. Kind of like the British tank guns where you have too put in the round, then the powder bag, and then fire the thing with a separate primer. Pat >> I'd bet so...a study in drag reduction, and you do get some speed out >> of the config...just don't try recovering from a spin. I've always >> been curious about the spin characteristics of the B-2, too... > > Hopefully it stalls better than a YB-49; one Air Force base named after > a crashed flying wing pilot is quite enough. Modern flight controls act in odd ways...sometimes just by producing drag vice lift. I'm curious first if something like a B-2 even has a "traditional" spin mode, or if it just falls out of the sky. The behavior of it's flying surfaces sould be interesting - saw a movie of an F/A-22 demo recently; very interesting to watch the surfaces in conjunction with the thrust vectoring...some weird looking stuff. I'll have to look up the link... BTW - for you folk out there modeling F/A-22s, looks like from this video that when the jet is at rest (engines off), the upper nozzle flaps open skyward about 15-25 degrees, and the lower ones droop about the same amount...makes for a really odd look, but that's reality. >> By contrast, the rudder on a Harrier is the only flying surface which >> isn't hydraulically boosted...same for the T-45A. Must be a Brit thing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pat I'm betting that the rudders on most single seat sub-sonic attack jets are probably unpowered, to save weight. Signature- Rufus > Modern flight controls act in odd ways...sometimes just by producing > drag vice lift. I'm curious first if something like a B-2 even has a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > conjunction with the thrust vectoring...some weird looking stuff. > I'll have to look up the link... I used to build flying wing gliders, and they have a really terrible stall mode; instead of slowing down and then falling nose down like a conventional aircraft, they slide backwards through the air as the nose drops until they are traveling belly-first backwards and nose down, then go straight into a vertical dive. I imagine the YB-49 broke up into the three pieces (center section and the two outer wings) due to the stresses of going backwards after the stall, causing all the control surfaces to break free from the reversed airflow. On the B-2, the patented Northrop decelerons are used; the ailerons can split open into upper and lower surfaces that work like drag brakes to keep it flying straight in yaw axis, slow it down, or allow it to turn from side to side: They're open in this photo: http://www.tinker-af.org/pics/bombers_b2_0017.jpg These were a feature of a lot of his flying wing designs, and were used on the F-89 Scorpion also. Pat >> Modern flight controls act in odd ways...sometimes just by producing >> drag vice lift. I'm curious first if something like a B-2 even has a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Pat Yeah, and that's sort of what I wonder about...what would the reversed airloads do to the stucture if the flight controls opened them up at the wrong time because the air data system was being fooled, or something like that. Of course that assumes a flat and stable spin mode to begin with...can't see operating the aicraft in such a manner that the entry mode wouldn't be yawed in some manner, vice a straight ahead stall. Not to mention that after a certain number of turns the rotational inertia might surpass the control power available and no amount of surface deflection would be able to stop the rotation. Signature- Rufus Rufus typed out: > Saw a thing on PBS the other night about Nazi scientists and the race > to > get them out of Germany at teh end of the war. Something they souched > on was the amount of technological invation that went straight from > the Me 262 into the F-86, and the same for the Mig-15 on the Russian > side. > That when the two met in combat for the first time over Korea, pilots > had a hard time telling the difference between a Sabre and a Mig-15 in > a short look. Hence the yellow bands (B&W stripes first) on every Sabre in Korea. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > Hence the yellow bands (B&W stripes first) on every Sabre in Korea. > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > I imagine they got the idea from the white-and-black D-Day invasion stripes on the aircraft. Some of the late war home defense FW-190D's sported red and white stripes over their entire underside: http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/luft/cleaver32190d.htm Pat >> Hence the yellow bands (B&W stripes first) on every Sabre in Korea. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Pat I think the first Sabre stripes were black and white, weren't they? Or at least some were, like these examples: http://www.nasm.si.edu/interact/qtvr/uhc/images/F86sabre.jpg http://www2.gpmd.com/image/s/sspz1126.jpg Signature- Rufus > I think the first Sabre stripes were black and white, weren't they? > Or at least some were, like these examples: > > http://www.nasm.si.edu/interact/qtvr/uhc/images/F86sabre.jpg > > http://www2.gpmd.com/image/s/sspz1126.jpg Yeah, according to this (and like another poster mentioned): http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1405482_ITM ...they started out as black-and-white, then went to black-and-yellow: "Arriving in Korea on November 8, 1950, the new Sabres didn't take long to prove their mettle. F-86 wings and fuselages were initially painted with high-contrast black-and-white stripes (eventually changed to wide yellow bands with black borders) to prevent U.S. pilots from confusing them with the similarly shaped MiGs during combat." They sure looked sharp painted like that. There was some Korean war movie that had F-84F Thunderstreaks standing in for MiG 15's, probably due to their high-set horizontal tail. Pat >> I think the first Sabre stripes were black and white, weren't they? >> Or at least some were, like these examples: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Pat I like the look of the black and white ones better. Signature- Rufus > > I think the first Sabre stripes were black and white, weren't they? > > Or at least some were, like these examples: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Pat "The Hunters" with Robert Mitchum and Richard Egan. I spotted those on my first viewing, ca. 1964-5. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > "The Hunters" with Robert Mitchum and Richard Egan. I spotted those on > my first viewing, ca. 1964-5. > My fave is still "The Bridges At Toko-Ri" but I've been a big Grumman Panther fan since I had my Aurora kit of one as a kid. There was some movie about the RAF I saw as a kid that had Hawker Hunters in it, and that's another of my favorite planes. I had a 1/72 Airfix Hunter way, way back. It had a removable ammunition magazine for the cannons! How exciting! No cannons to look at, just that magazine. I once tried to figure out which model I had as a kid had the most working parts. The Monogram Helldiver had: 1. Folding wings. 2. Retractable landing gear. 3. Sliding canopies. 4. Swiveling rear gun. 5. Opening bomb bay doors. 6. Swing out bomb of release crutch. That may be it. Pat > > "The Hunters" with Robert Mitchum and Richard Egan. I spotted those on > > my first viewing, ca. 1964-5. > > My fave is still "The Bridges At Toko-Ri" but I've been a big Grumman > Panther fan since I had my Aurora kit of one as a kid. "Men of the Fighting Lady" is another Korean-era, Panthers off the carrier type of movie. If you've read the original story you know that the planes were Banshees there. > There was some movie about the RAF I saw as a kid that had Hawker > Hunters in it, and that's another of my favorite planes. > I had a 1/72 Airfix Hunter way, way back. It had a removable ammunition > magazine for the cannons! How exciting! > No cannons to look at, just that magazine. I stumbled into the Hunter thing back around '64. I went to Woolworth's hoping to find a Hawker Hurricane and, finding none, settled for an Airfix Hunter. Well, it was a Hawker! > I once tried to figure out which model I had as a kid had the most > working parts. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Pat I'll have to settle for the Dauntless. It had the dive brakes, bomb crutch and the rear gun raised and lowered. If the breeze was blowing correctly you could set it in the window and watch the prop turn. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > I'll have to settle for the Dauntless. It had the dive brakes, bomb > crutch and the rear gun raised and lowered. If the breeze was blowing > correctly you could set it in the window and watch the prop turn. That was slick how they got those dive brakes to work so well. I had a F-8 Crusader in 1/48 that had retracting gear, removable rear fuselage to show jet engine, movable control surfaces, and...ejecting pilot! I think it was an Aurora one. About the oddest working feature I ever saw was the Dragon Models (almost immediately renamed DML) Typhoon sub, which was their first release...retract the diving planes, and a torpedo emerged from the bow tubes...push on the torpedo, and the diving planes came out again. At the time it came out (the 1980's) that seemed like a real throw-back feature on a model... but the model also had really sharp work on the anechoic tiles and a textured exterior surface. Big things were in the future for this company, and around a decade later I was going to be driven half-mad threading photoetched seatbelt buckles onto paper seatbelts on their Go-229 model. They raised the bar for aircraft models the same way Tamiya did it for tanks a couple of decades earlier. I've got that He-111/V-1 kit they engineered for Revell-Monogram, and that canopy is a wonderment - finally a cockpit well worth superdetailing, as you have a near optical quality canopy to put over it stock with the kit. Pat That Crusader sounds more like the Lindberg kit. I don't think Aurora's was that busy - or accurate. I built a couple of DML's aircraft and I was rather disappointed in the quality of the instructions. There were too many vague directions. I did eventually sell the YF-23 but the YF-22, well, let's say it couldn't pull out of a fatal dive to the concrete floor. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > That Crusader sounds more like the Lindberg kit. I don't think > Aurora's was that busy - or accurate. > That's what I thought at first also, but for some reason I associate it with Aurora, rather than Lindberg. It may have been the one on this catalog page: http://www.majormattmason.net/aurora1959_60cata/a1959-60p08.htm That's from this website, which has a lot of their catalogs: http://www.majormattmason.net/aurora/catalogs1.htm Considering that the Gotha went for $2.00 at the time, that would be about what one would expect, and you note the painting shows the engine being exposed...this may have been one of the kits I got down at the TSC store that I mentioned had all of the Aurora kits at close-out prices; in fact, I'm pretty sure it was. It wasn't motorized, and the Lindberg one was (jet engine sound). It also had rivets all over it, and that was odd for a Lindberg jet kit. Aurora did a pretty slick 1/48 F-111 just prior to their demise, it became the basis for the Monogram kit. > I built a couple of DML's aircraft and I was rather disappointed in > the quality of the instructions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > couldn't pull out of a fatal dive to the concrete floor. > Boy, you're lucky you never got some of the more involved ones... you'd have fun sticking the photoetched parts on the He-162's BMW-003 engine. ;-) The F-22/F-23kits were turned out really fast and rough on their part to cash in on the fly-off between the two aircraft. > That's what I thought at first also, but for some reason I associate it > with Aurora, rather than Lindberg. > It may have been the one on this catalog page: > http://www.majormattmason.net/aurora1959_60cata/a1959-60p08.htm You are probably right as I don't remember many rivets on the Lindberg kit. I surely remember that F-100 in the middle of that page. That was one of my first two kits. The F-94C was the other. I bought seconds of both before they went OOP. The F-100 was an early 'A' if not a YF-100A. It had the short vertical tail that doomed a couple of the real planes. > That's from this website, which has a lot of their catalogs: > http://www.majormattmason.net/aurora/catalogs1.htm Neat site. I see I'm going to have to go back and reminisce through those catalogues. > Considering that the Gotha went for $2.00 at the time, that would be > about what one would expect, and you note the painting shows the engine [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Aurora did a pretty slick 1/48 F-111 just prior to their demise, it > became the basis for the Monogram kit. Yes, I remember helping a neighbour's child with the Aurora kit back in the '70s. > Boy, you're lucky you never got some of the more involved ones... you'd > have fun sticking the photoetched parts on the He-162's BMW-003 engine. ;-) > The F-22/F-23kits were turned out really fast and rough on their part to > cash in on the fly-off between the two aircraft. Obviously it is another case of judging a manufacturer by one of their less than prime quality kits. Both kits were built but I wasn't happy with the building. They turned me off to whatever else they issued. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > You are probably right as I don't remember many rivets on the Lindberg > kit. I surely remember that F-100 in the middle of that page. That was > one of my first two kits. The F-94C was the other. I bought seconds of > both before they went OOP. The F-100 was an early 'A' if not a YF-100A. > It had the short vertical tail that doomed a couple of the real planes. > I was amazed to find out that Lindberg may still be in business, and selling those ancient 1/48th scale aircraft kits of theirs; You can download the 2007 catalog here: http://www.lindberg-models.com/ That has their XF-88 "Voodoo" jet in it and your F-94C, as well as a odd combo of their Jurassic Park dinosaurs and those awful Pyro dinosaur kits. They also sell some Hawk kits as well as Testors ones. One of the things they have reissued is their 1/8 scale dragster double kit, which is one of the models I had the most fun making when I was a kid. It's huge and lets you pretty much design your own dragster: http://dwp.bigplanet.com/ubhobbies/displayroom/skudetail.nhtml?uid=16282 Then of course to go with the Transparent Man, Transparent Woman, and Transparent Horse, they have the Transparent Alien: http://www.lindberg-models.com/newsletter.htm and mention the Transparent Dinosaur, although it's not in the catalog. This place has what's available at the moment: http://www.ubhobbies.com/lindberg/ They're even bring back some of the old tyro full-scale gun kits. > >> That's from this website, which has a lot of their catalogs: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > those catalogues. > Wouldn't mind having a few of those Aurora Avro Arrows or F-107s in their original boxes. That Ryan Vertijet is also a pretty collectible item I'm sure. I noticed they had a model of the Q-ship Atlantis... I thought that Revell had made that one. Pat >> You are probably right as I don't remember many rivets on the Lindberg >> kit. I surely remember that F-100 in the middle of that page. That was [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >Pat i really want one of the build it yourself electric motors they had. or two. if anyone has some to sell. in my group of friends, i was the only one who's motors worked. i thought they were simple and easy from the instructions, but my friends just couldn't do it. but i wasn't the best painter in the group.... >> >>> That's from this website, which has a lot of their catalogs: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> those catalogues. >> Aha, a link to the HAWK website. I still have their 1/48 Gloster Javelin from 40 years ago that will be a conversion project to make it into a later two seat version, ogive nose, underbelly tanks and the pen nib exhausts. For some reason I remember throwing away the undercarraige, something I rarely ever do as they are useful for kit bashing. The difficult part to scratchbuild will be the the nosewheel that has a mudguard. The undercarriage doors are molded in and I will have to cut that out and fabricate thinner doors and a believable wheel well. The molded in outlines for the markings had already been sanded off. Now that I look at it again I neeed to rescribe the surface. > Aha, a link to the HAWK website. I still have their 1/48 Gloster > Javelin from 40 years ago that will be a conversion project to make > it into a later two seat version, ogive nose, underbelly tanks and the > pen nib exhausts. For some reason I remember throwing away the > undercarraige, something I rarely ever do as they are useful for kit > bashing. That's one of the few aircraft by them I never had. I did have the Supermarine Swift though. Since they are back in some form, it would be nice to see them reissue the Atlas Missile Space Station kit: http://fantastic-plastic.com/CONVAIR%20ATLAS%20MOL%20PAGE.htm > The difficult part to scratchbuild will be the the > nosewheel that has a mudguard. The undercarriage doors are molded in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rescribe the surface. > Just contact the company and suggest they re-issue it: http://www.hawkmodels.com/ When they say "no", write them back and say they should, as they don't want someone dressed as Freddy Flameout offering free Hawk "Weird-Ohs" models at local gradeschools while tell the children that sniffing model glue is good for them, and then threatening them with a blowtorch while they are holding their free "Hawk Model Company Lives!" hydrogen-filled balloons :-D Pat >> Aha, a link to the HAWK website. I still have their 1/48 Gloster >> Javelin from 40 years ago that will be a conversion project to make [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Pat that is outright cool. i got to get me one of them. > Aha, a link to the HAWK website. I still have their 1/48 Gloster > Javelin from 40 years ago that will be a conversion project to make [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bashing. > Lookie here; someone has one for sale on ebay: http://tinyurl.com/3bhzw9 Pat > >>> That's from this website, which has a lot of their catalogs: > >>> http://www.majormattmason.net/aurora/catalogs1.htm [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > already been sanded off. Now that I look at it again I neeed to > rescribe the surface. Considering that Airfix recently offered the Mk.9 and Heller had a T.3 (together you can cobble up an FAW.5) why change a perfectly good prototype model. BTW, the kit is in 1/72nd. If you do go for a Mk.5 you can use the extra gear and a few other bits on the Hawk kit. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. Yes, a gentleman bought out the moulds for Hawk and Lindberg (which include Pyro moulds) and moved the organisation to Iowa, I believe. I don't know where the actual moulding is going on but I'd hazard a guess it's on mainland China. I'm still working on my original XF-107. Al S. supplied me with patterns for the red arrows. Currently my printer is not functioning and getting anything done through my son's is like pulling teeth. IIRC, the Aurora kit is 1/107th scale. At one time I had every one of the WWI aircraft listed in that '64 Aurora catalogue. I never got the DH.10 built but I had it. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> S'funny. I remember when a F-14 was the most modern-looking airplane >> model money could buy. Now a scrapyard/museum piece. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Pat All bunk. 30 years is a VERY long lifespan indeed for a fighter aircraft (first flight 21 Dec 1970) and for a Naval aircraft at that - try slamming a B-52 onto a carrier deck for 30 years and see what happens, and your observation about them becoming a maintenance nightmare only proves that. And as far as "capable" goes, you also have to consider "necessary". In 30 years there have only ever been two AIM-54 fired in anger, and as I recall both missed...due to trying to employ the system within currently mandated and accepted ROE. Most air to air kills since the Viet Nam era have been with AIM-9 - which I also believe is the current record holder for most air to air kills, all nations considered. The remaining ones have been with either AIM-7 or AIM-120, and I'm also pretty sure that the Tom never gained the capability to fire the 120. The Tomcat never even met it's original spec thrust requirement until the installation of the GE-F110 some 15-odd years after IOC. And I won't even start on F-14 limitations for Strike warfare employment vs a more modern strikefighter...try sticking a HARM, SLAM E/R or Mk-77 on one. And that's just the short list. They were old, obsolete, and ready for the boneyard. May they rest in peace...peices. Signature- Rufus > All bunk. 30 years is a VERY long lifespan indeed for a fighter > aircraft (first flight 21 Dec 1970) and for a Naval aircraft at that - > try slamming a B-52 onto a carrier deck for 30 years and see what > happens, and your observation about them becoming a maintenance > nightmare only proves that. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0119.shtml "The initial acquisition cost of an F-14 is quoted by the US Navy at around $38 million. However, the primary disadvantage of the aircraft is not its purchase cost but maintenance expenses. As discussed previously, the life-cycle costs of operating and maintaining an aircraft far exceed the initial acquisition cost. These costs only grow as planes age and require increasingly more maintenance hours per flight hour. This trend has hit the F-14 harder than most of its contemporaries because of its complex airframe (including the variable-geometry wings) and harsh salt-air environment at sea. The F-14 is currently the most expensive aircraft to operate in the Navy inventory, requiring 40 to 60 maintenance manhours per flight hour. For comparison, the F-18 Hornet requires only 20 hours of maintenance and the latest F-18E/F Super Hornet requires just 10 to 15 hours. These high maintenance costs played a large role in the Navy's decision to move the retirement of the F-14 up from 2010 to 2006." I was comparing it to all all aircraft, not just Navy fighters. There are loads of fighters and bombers around the world that have served longer than the F-14, and as far as the Navy goes, how about the Hawkeye? That came into service at the same time as the F-14, and is scheduled to fly to 2015. > And as far as "capable" goes, you also have to consider "necessary". > In 30 years there have only ever been two AIM-54 fired in anger, and > as I recall both missed...due to trying to employ the system within > currently mandated and accepted ROE. Most air to air kills since the > Viet Nam era have been with AIM-9 - which I also believe is the > current record holder for most air to air kills, all nations considered. So there you are in your FA-18 with your AMRAAMs, and way off in the distance sits the brand new Syrian (or possibly Iranian... nobody is sure about that) MiG-31 with its Amos missiles, which are Phoenix clones, and locking its radar on you, which is superior to that of a F-14. And your AMRAAMs have a range of 35 to 45 miles, and the Foxhound's Amos' has a range of 65-75 miles. So you've got a problem here. And it gets worse, because Syria is also getting advanced MiG-35s (souped-up MiG-29s) And they could also be carrying Amos' which they interlock with the Foxhounds to use. They just launch them in the right direction and the Foxhounds, after firing their own missiles, take over their guidance updates and target tracking. The end result is that they can engage you from beyond your range to engage them. That's not a good position to be in. Pat >> All bunk. 30 years is a VERY long lifespan indeed for a fighter >> aircraft (first flight 21 Dec 1970) and for a Naval aircraft at that - [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Hawkeye? That came into service at the same time as the F-14, and is > scheduled to fly to 2015. You can't do that - it's simply not a valid comparision, and that has nothing to do with operational costs, other than to drive them. It has more to do with the effect of operations on how an aircraft ages...which even today isn't completely understood. For example, a fighter like an F-14 may spend most of it's operational life pulling 5+ G, and a Hawkeye only 2. When you consider that, an across the board comparision becomes invalid. >> And as far as "capable" goes, you also have to consider "necessary". >> In 30 years there have only ever been two AIM-54 fired in anger, and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Amos' has a range of 65-75 miles. > So you've got a problem here. Yes, you do. And the reality is that you won't be allowed to shoot ANYTHING at that bogey until you know EXACTLY what/and whom it is, so your AIM-54s are operationally useless. > And it gets worse, because Syria is also getting advanced MiG-35s > (souped-up MiG-29s) And they could also be carrying Amos' which they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pat Yes, I agree. And so you get into an opposition of philosophies on how to fight. In the current day, ROE is geared to having positive ID, producing minimal collateral damage, and furthering the achievement of political objective. You can't just "go out and fight". At least from a western perspective. The western approach has been to emphasize the advancement of sensors and focus on politics - the eastern approach has been to counter that, which is only as should be expected. So you change your tactics (on both sides), because the situation dictates it. There are a number of ways to counter a threat as you describe it, the most straight forward being not to allow it to occur in the first place - welcome Tomahawk, SLAM E/R, and a host of modern precision strike munitions. I know it's not as glamorous as a dogfight, but if you destroy an enemy's jets on the ground first before you penetrate it's airspace in numbers there is no longer a problem. The Six Day War is probably the best example of the employment of such a strategy, even without having precision munitions. And if you look more at recent events in the Gulf, that's also the way things have gone. Signature- Rufus Rats. I always wanted a 1:1 model of a F-14. SignatureJohn johnf202 at hot mail dot com > http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/02/national/w000428D79.DTL I served with VF-124, VF-24 and VF-211 back in the days when Miramar was a NAVAL, I SAID NAVAL!! Air Station, and it has been my dream to one day own one, or at least be in a joint partnership in one. Even now with twenty years gone by, all I need do is close my eyes for a moment...all my senses come to life with the memories....Thank you Grumman. > I served with VF-124, VF-24 and VF-211 back in the days when Miramar was a > NAVAL, I SAID NAVAL!! Air Station, and it has been my dream to one day own > one, or at least be in a joint partnership in one. Even now with twenty > years gone by, all I need do is close my eyes for a moment...all my senses > come to life with the memories....Thank you Grumman. I got to hang at the O-Club in Miramar back when it was an NAS and the Top Gun school was still there... ...I can close my eyes and and remember a few things I'd like to forget...I think. Thanks for the service, Disco. Signature- Rufus > I got to hang at the O-Club in Miramar back when it was an NAS and the > Top Gun school was still there... > > ...I can close my eyes and and remember a few things I'd like to > forget...I think. I'll bet Grumman would like to forget the Jaguar; here's the "joys" of flying one: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200004/ai_n8902728 Wait till you get to the part about the ejection seat. :-D You know, that was the only real flop they ever had; that's quite the record. Pat >> I got to hang at the O-Club in Miramar back when it was an NAS and the >> Top Gun school was still there... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Pat When I was working the T-45, it came out a bit too good - the stall was so subtle a rookie could miss the onset. So we had to add trippers to make the break a bit more "noticable". And it was supposed to be spinnable...but we overdid it on that too, and unless you really kno whow all the jet will do is spiral. At least that's how it was at Fleet intro. Signature- Rufus > I served with VF-124, VF-24 and VF-211 back in the days when Miramar was a > NAVAL, I SAID NAVAL!! Air Station, and it has been my dream to one day own > one, or at least be in a joint partnership in one. Even now with twenty > years gone by, all I need do is close my eyes for a moment...all my senses > come to life with the memories....Thank you Grumman. > I wonder how many F-14s will be preserved for museums or as gate guards? Pat |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.