Aircraft Identification

[Worldtraveller]

[quote=""Shake""]

I know the feeling.

If it were the Germans, they wouldn't be flying Mirage 2K. Could it have been a Eurofighter Typhoon?...It's a delta, but with canard. I understand about the 'wide open spaces', but there are places like Mach Loop in Wales, too. Given the number of military alliances the US has any more, we're starting to see sophisticated Sukhoi and MiG aircraft doing exercises in the US. It must make the Red Flag exercises real eye-openers.

Speaking of MiGs, I once got to see a MiG-15 at an airshow here in upstate NY. They were touting it as the only Western-owned MiG-15. Was nice to see it fly.[/QUOTE]
If there's only one, then I've seen it too.

I think in terms of unique aircraft I've seen at airshows, the Bleriot XI was one of the coolest. I doubt there are more than just the one, and seeing it up close, it's one of the few aircraft you couldn't get me to fly in.....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 1910_a.jpg

[Tharmas]

[quote=""Worldtraveller""]

I know the feeling.

If it were the Germans, they wouldn't be flying Mirage 2K. Could it have been a Eurofighter Typhoon?...It's a delta, but with canard. I understand about the 'wide open spaces', but there are places like Mach Loop in Wales, too. Given the number of military alliances the US has any more, we're starting to see sophisticated Sukhoi and MiG aircraft doing exercises in the US. It must make the Red Flag exercises real eye-openers.

Speaking of MiGs, I once got to see a MiG-15 at an airshow here in upstate NY. They were touting it as the only Western-owned MiG-15. Was nice to see it fly.

If there's only one, then I've seen it too.

I think in terms of unique aircraft I've seen at airshows, the Bleriot XI was one of the coolest. I doubt there are more than just the one, and seeing it up close, it's one of the few aircraft you couldn't get me to fly in.....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 1910_a.jpg[/QUOTE]

See the OP way up above for my photo of that Mig 15. They had a P-80 at the same show, but I don't know if it flew.

[Roo St. Gallus]

Here's some Mirage 2000 eye candy.

MiG 15, eh? Nice.

Around these parts, an owner couple used to hangar their Lim-6 at Tillamook Air Museum. It reputedly flies, but I've never seen it do so. A Lim-6 is a Polish equivalent of the MiG-17. They have it tricked out in the Soviet light blue on even lighter blue camo and it looks sweet.

I don't know if they moved to Madras with the Erickson Collection, or not.

[Roo St. Gallus]

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]

Around these parts, an owner couple used to hangar their Lim-6 at Tillamook Air Museum. It reputedly flies, but I've never seen it do so. A Lim-6 is a Polish equivalent of the MiG-17. They have it tricked out in the Soviet light blue on even lighter blue camo and it looks sweet.

I don't know if they moved to Madras with the Erickson Collection, or not.[/quote]

Here it is:

[Worldtraveller]

Aircraft porn is always appreciated.

[Roo St. Gallus]

[quote=""Worldtraveller""]

The Luftwaffe flies the Typhoon, and I think they still use one of my favorites, the Panavia Tornado. [/quote]

Yes, I think NATO still fields the Tornado.

I'm not a fan of the Tornado at all, as my opinion has been tainted by that of John Boyd, and when it comes to 'variable-geometry' wings, Boyd condemned them roundly for trying to make craft that 'did everything' and ruining them for much of anything. I'm likewise pretty unimpressed with other swing-wing craft. Along with the swing-wing thing, I think the Tornado has that 'slab-sided' look that the Rooskies were so good at for so long, but that's my aesthetic sensibilities...the ones which lead me to appreciate Dassault products. I mean...compare the Typhoon with the Rafale. They are pretty much the same bird, but the Typhoon looks like it's got a cheesebox strapped on its chin and the Rafale is undulating and aerodynamic looking. Of course, they both look like twin-engine versions of the smaller, more efficient, single-engine Gripen. (All truncated cranked deltas with canards - a design paradigm?) Looking at the three, it looks like the Eurofighter has the best performance numbers, but I'm still impressed by what SAAB has done and their 'market appeal'...fielding impressive 'discount' fighters.

So...Why is it you like the Panavia Tornado?

[Worldtraveller]

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]

The Luftwaffe flies the Typhoon, and I think they still use one of my favorites, the Panavia Tornado.

Yes, I think NATO still fields the Tornado.

I'm not a fan of the Tornado at all, as my opinion has been tainted by that of John Boyd, and when it comes to 'variable-geometry' wings, Boyd condemned them roundly for trying to make craft that 'did everything' and ruining them for much of anything. I'm likewise pretty unimpressed with other swing-wing craft. Along with the swing-wing thing, I think the Tornado has that 'slab-sided' look that the Rooskies were so good at for so long, but that's my aesthetic sensibilities...the ones which lead me to appreciate Dassault products. I mean...compare the Typhoon with the Rafale. They are pretty much the same bird, but the Typhoon looks like it's got a cheesebox strapped on its chin and the Rafale is undulating and aerodynamic looking. Of course, they both look like twin-engine versions of the smaller, more efficient, single-engine Gripen. (All truncated cranked deltas with canards - a design paradigm?) Looking at the three, it looks like the Eurofighter has the best performance numbers, but I'm still impressed by what SAAB has done and their 'market appeal'...fielding impressive 'discount' fighters.[/quote]
The canard/delta combo is quite effective. The more recent russian birds are essentially the same design, although they have a conventional tail in addition to the canards, which allows them to do some very interesting maneuvers at low speeds.

So...Why is it you like the Panavia Tornado?

Not sure. I know how bad swing wings are in practice, but I like the design in general. I think I like the Tornado mostly because one of the coolest aircraft paint jobs I ever saw at an airshow was on a LW Tornado.

[Roo St. Gallus]

[quote=""Worldtraveller""]

The Luftwaffe flies the Typhoon, and I think they still use one of my favorites, the Panavia Tornado.

Yes, I think NATO still fields the Tornado.

I'm not a fan of the Tornado at all, as my opinion has been tainted by that of John Boyd, and when it comes to 'variable-geometry' wings, Boyd condemned them roundly for trying to make craft that 'did everything' and ruining them for much of anything. I'm likewise pretty unimpressed with other swing-wing craft. Along with the swing-wing thing, I think the Tornado has that 'slab-sided' look that the Rooskies were so good at for so long, but that's my aesthetic sensibilities...the ones which lead me to appreciate Dassault products. I mean...compare the Typhoon with the Rafale. They are pretty much the same bird, but the Typhoon looks like it's got a cheesebox strapped on its chin and the Rafale is undulating and aerodynamic looking. Of course, they both look like twin-engine versions of the smaller, more efficient, single-engine Gripen. (All truncated cranked deltas with canards - a design paradigm?) Looking at the three, it looks like the Eurofighter has the best performance numbers, but I'm still impressed by what SAAB has done and their 'market appeal'...fielding impressive 'discount' fighters.

The canard/delta combo is quite effective. The more recent russian birds are essentially the same design, although they have a conventional tail in addition to the canards, which allows them to do some very interesting maneuvers at low speeds. [/quote]

And the Chinese have followed suit with the Chengdu J-20.

So...Why is it you like the Panavia Tornado?

Not sure. I know how bad swing wings are in practice, but I like the design in general. I think I like the Tornado mostly because one of the coolest aircraft paint jobs I ever saw at an airshow was on a LW Tornado.

Heh...I can relate. If you follow the Tiger Meet fighters, they get pretty detailed on their specialty exterior paint jobs...



My 'favorite' fighter tends to change depending upon which piece of fighter porn I happen to be looking at, but it is Sweden's defensive concept, and their application of fighter air power within that, which appeals to me....perhaps it's just in the face of the financial debacle of the F-35 upgrade, but I'm wishing we'd (the US) invested in more Raptors, ditched the F-35s and instead bought a fleet of Gripens (or continually upgraded the Viper/Hornet pair).

Also...Fabricating some half-breed Lightning 'jump jet' to replace the A-10 on the modern battlefield seems misguided to the extreme. Is it a lightweight interceptor fighter or a ground support platform? Does 'stealth' matter in ground support?

[Roo St. Gallus]

A Gripen, two Rafales, a Typhoon, and an aged Tornado.

Takin' the new boys out to introduce them to the 'hood.

[Roo St. Gallus]

So...With variable wing military craft, do the hard points on the movable portion of the wing swivel so that the attached loads are always aligned with the air flow created by the forward movement of the aircraft?

It seems common to suspend ordnance, extra fuel, and electronic tools under the wings. At first, I'd assumed that doing such on the movable portion of a swing wing would be out of the question, but that seems not to be the case.







So...The hard points swivel on the movable portion of the wing?

[Worldtraveller]

First is not an F-14, it's a tornado. And I was going to say that the tornado is the only NATO fighter that I know of that has hardpoints on the swing part, but the F-111 does too.

I think in both those cases, the hardpoints pivot. I don't know about Russian aircraft. I couldn't find anything definitive though.

On the F-14, the hardpoints are all inboard of the swing wing.

[Roo St. Gallus]

[quote=""Worldtraveller""]First is not an F-14, it's a tornado. And I was going to say that the tornado is the only NATO fighter that I know of that has hardpoints on the swing part, but the F-111 does too.

I think in both those cases, the hardpoints pivot. I don't know about Russian aircraft. I couldn't find anything definitive though.

On the F-14, the hardpoints are all inboard of the swing wing.[/quote]

Ah...Gotchya. Searching 'F-14 hardpoints' confirms all hardpoints inboard.



I did find it difficult to find pix of MiG-27 Flogger with outboard loads. It looks like its predecessor, the MiG-23 and contemporary, the Su-24 Fencer, all had one hardpoint outboard on each wing. It looks like they did suspend loads, but not shiploads, like that Aardvark. I'll assume they pivot. It looks like the Su-17, 20, & 22 Fitters had no outboard hardpoints either, as the movable portion was not particularly large (it did not sweep back in to a delta configuration).

[Roo St. Gallus]

Then, I stumbled across this: F-16XL



An arrowhead delta...just add canards and step it on up to the club.

[Shake]

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]I did find it difficult to find pix of MiG-27 Flogger with outboard loads. It looks like its predecessor, the MiG-23 and contemporary, the Su-24 Fencer, all had one hardpoint outboard on each wing. It looks like they did suspend loads, but not shiploads, like that Aardvark. I'll assume they pivot. It looks like the Su-17, 20, & 22 Fitters had no outboard hardpoints either, as the movable portion was not particularly large (it did not sweep back in to a delta configuration).[/quote]

This shot:

Shows a MiG-27 with hardpoints mounted inside of the moving portion of the wing. Yet in this other one:

Those fuel tanks appear to be on the moving portion, so I would also assume they pivot, but that's the only image like that I could find. All others only showing the 2 fixed points.

[Worldtraveller]

I had a very nice time at the Pensacola Naval Aviation museum over thanksgiving weekend. Some unique (in that many aren't in any other museums) aircraft there, and a number of interesting displays, like cutaways of structure, engines, etc.

There are actually two aircraft in that museum that I have had the pleasure of flying in. (Not the actual aircraft, but those models.) Same can be said for my dad, who went with me, although one of the two aircraft was different.

[Roo St. Gallus]

[quote=""Worldtraveller""]I had a very nice time at the Pensacola Naval Aviation museum over thanksgiving weekend. Some unique (in that many aren't in any other museums) aircraft there, and a number of interesting displays, like cutaways of structure, engines, etc.

There are actually two aircraft in that museum that I have had the pleasure of flying in. (Not the actual aircraft, but those models.) Same can be said for my dad, who went with me, although one of the two aircraft was different.[/quote]

Oo oo oo...a guessing game?

The interesting thing about naval aircraft is the requirement for so many of them to be able to take off and land on the most abbreviated air fields in the world.

So, you and your father went and viewed a collection of naval aircraft and you each saw two aircraft types in which you had flown, one of which you shared?

First of all...envy. Pensacola is on my list. Seaplanes!?

Second. I expect pix, dammit.

I am going to guess that the shared craft was an S2F....or, wait, the C-130.

Did either or both serve time in the Navy, or were your flights just fortuitous happenstance, perhaps in non-Navy craft?

[Worldtraveller]

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]

I had a very nice time at the Pensacola Naval Aviation museum over thanksgiving weekend. Some unique (in that many aren't in any other museums) aircraft there, and a number of interesting displays, like cutaways of structure, engines, etc.

There are actually two aircraft in that museum that I have had the pleasure of flying in. (Not the actual aircraft, but those models.) Same can be said for my dad, who went with me, although one of the two aircraft was different.

Oo oo oo...a guessing game?

The interesting thing about naval aircraft is the requirement for so many of them to be able to take off and land on the most abbreviated air fields in the world.

So, you and your father went and viewed a collection of naval aircraft and you each saw two aircraft types in which you had flown, one of which you shared?

First of all...envy. Pensacola is on my list. Seaplanes!?

Second. I expect pix, dammit.

I am going to guess that the shared craft was an S2F....or, wait, the C-130.

Did either or both serve time in the Navy, or were your flights just fortuitous happenstance, perhaps in non-Navy craft?[/QUOTE]
The pics are currently posted to FB, so I need to find a different way to host them.

In the case of the shared aircraft, it's the T-34A. Dad's actually flown a couple of them (he's had his private pilot license since he was ~28). I've flown back seat many times, and he even flew back seat so I could ride in front at least once or twice.

The second plane for him: He's flown in an F-4 (G-model I believe). That's envy.....

I was surprised by my second one, since I never knew there was a Navy version: The Beech Staggerwing. The model I rode in was built in 1946.

Does this link work?: https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5A93E16F

[Roo St. Gallus]

[quote=""Worldtraveller""]

I had a very nice time at the Pensacola Naval Aviation museum over thanksgiving weekend. Some unique (in that many aren't in any other museums) aircraft there, and a number of interesting displays, like cutaways of structure, engines, etc.

There are actually two aircraft in that museum that I have had the pleasure of flying in. (Not the actual aircraft, but those models.) Same can be said for my dad, who went with me, although one of the two aircraft was different.

Oo oo oo...a guessing game?

The interesting thing about naval aircraft is the requirement for so many of them to be able to take off and land on the most abbreviated air fields in the world.

So, you and your father went and viewed a collection of naval aircraft and you each saw two aircraft types in which you had flown, one of which you shared?

Does this link work?: https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5A93E16F

First of all...envy. Pensacola is on my list. Seaplanes!?

Second. I expect pix, dammit.

I am going to guess that the shared craft was an S2F....or, wait, the C-130.

Did either or both serve time in the Navy, or were your flights just fortuitous happenstance, perhaps in non-Navy craft?

The pics are currently posted to FB, so I need to find a different way to host them. [/quote]

I know that pain. I lost my hosting when Photofukit went haywire. I still have yet to find an adequate alternative. If you find something, clue me in.

In the case of the shared aircraft, it's the T-34A. Dad's actually flown a couple of them (he's had his private pilot license since he was ~28). I've flown back seat many times, and he even flew back seat so I could ride in front at least once or twice.

In private service? He didn't fly it in his service?

The second plane for him: He's flown in an F-4 (G-model I believe). That's envy.....

Well, yeah. Men of certain age and experience in the US.... I have a first cousin, a couple years younger than myself. He spent his time in the Navy as an F-4 mechanic attached to the USS Independence (CV-62). It was immediately post 'Nam. He called the Spook the "The Iron Sled". "A triumph of thrust over aerodynamics." And despite becoming the poster child for ill-prepared defence, it retired with an honored career, touting itself as "The World's Leading Distributor of MiG Parts". If your old man flew Phantom IIs, then I tip my hat to him.

I was surprised by my second one, since I never knew there was a Navy version: The Beech Staggerwing. The model I rode in was built in 1946.

Ooooo...nice. Yeah, Staggerwings had a pretty broad service record. They were generally known as Travellers, UC-43, if they'd been purpose built for military service, and the differences are so minor as to be unnoticed. Staggerwings were also 'impressed' in to military service. They not only did service with the US Army Air Corps and the US Navy, they also served with the RAF and the Royal Navy FAA.

[Michel]

As a newcomer to this Secular Café, I see this thread about aviation. I happen to own and fly often a Kitfox light aircraft, here in Norway. If anybody wants to see how it is to fly here, this is a video I made some years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOmgc1OBG5A

Here is another one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx5vm6MFMz4

[Roo St. Gallus]

Thanks, Michel!

Such beautiful country! Are you limited in your flight time by weather conditions?

Norway looks like the kind of country where owning a light flying boat, like the Dornier Seastar, would make a lot of sense.

[Worldtraveller]

Very nice videos, Michel. I have a friend who lives in Hamburg and has a cottage in Denmark with its own grass strip, right on the beach. He flies an Aeronca Champ, which is a fun little plane too.

That countyside is quite impressive from the air.

[Michel]

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]Are you limited in your flight time by weather conditions? [/quote]
Yes, Roo St Gallus. I own and fly a Kitfox that is registered as an ultralight. It means: only VFR daytime flying. Mind you, when in Bodø, I flew through the night because ... it was north of the polar circle and I had the midnight sun (well, barely on the horizon). But weather can be dangerous here. As I teach meteorology to aviators at my club, the danger of entering a fjord / valley with cloudy top and not able to may a U-turn to get out of it is ... scary.

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]Norway looks like the kind of country where owning a light flying boat, like the Dornier Seastar, would make a lot of sense.[/quote]
Oh yes! flying boats are popular here! The Super Petrel is popular, then we have our own Norwegian built craft, the Omsider. I have been flying both.
http://www.super-petrel.eu/en/aircraft
http://www.atecaircraft.eu/en/planes/omsider-amphibian/

The nice side of these is that, if you fly in the winter over the central plateau, and have engine trouble, you can land safely with a amphibious craft on the snow.

[Michel]

[quote=""Worldtraveller""] He flies an Aeronca Champ, which is a fun little plane too.[/quote]

Of course, a nice aircraft and with the "correct" taildragger configuration! Amongst aviators, the discussion is always tricycle vs. tailwheel. I prefer the latter as I also like grass airfields but then ... being an old hippie, ... far out, can you dig it man? (okay, I'll shut up!)

[Worldtraveller]

[quote=""Michel""]

He flies an Aeronca Champ, which is a fun little plane too.

Of course, a nice aircraft and with the "correct" taildragger configuration! Amongst aviators, the discussion is always tricycle vs. tailwheel. I prefer the latter as I also like grass airfields but then ... being an old hippie, ... far out, can you dig it man? (okay, I'll shut up!) [/QUOTE]
You probably haven't seen it, because it's on the third page now, but here's the most fun I ever had.

https://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=38854

So what other aircraft have you flown? I'm not a private pilot (yet), but I've flown quite a bit, between my dad being a pilot, flying search and rescue, and just flying with friends/clients.

[Worldtraveller]

I wish I had a better lens, but these were taken with my new camera (Nikon D3300 with the standard lens). The planes have been literally flying right over my house, but I haven't been able to catch them with the camera until now. I just got up on the roof and waited for them to come by.

https://postimg.org/gallery/15abuv4sm/