Your Favorite Aircraft

[DogOnPorch]

A 7/10ths scale Stuka...nice.

[DogOnPorch]

Several old Duxford classics.

[Winnipegger]

The Dessault Rafale, built in France, is a high performance fighter jet. Fast, manoeuvrable, carries lots of ordinance, and has a carrier version. It's the highest performing carrier plane in the world. However, at €64 million per plane, it's a bit expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale

The Eurofighter Typhoon is an even higher performing aircraft. The Avro Arrow built in Canada in the 1950s was designed to be capable of supercruise, top speed greater than mach 2 (reported to be mach 2.5) but it could cruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet. The Eurofighter Typhoon is also capable of supercruise at mach 1.5. It's weapons load isn't as much as Rafale, but it's top speed is faster, supercruise is faster (Rafale can cruise at mach 1.02), and manoeuvrability is greater in every way. But it's a pure air force plane, not capable of carrier operation. At €63 million per plane it's also expensive. Both the Rafale and Typhoon are delta wing aircraft with a canard; they look like an Avro Arrow updated to 21st century technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

The HAL Tejas is a light weight fighter. It's small, and doesn't perform quite as well, but has a carrier version that can land on a carrier of the same class as the HMCS Bonaventure. It's small size makes it ideal for a carrier; small deck area and low weight permit the ship to carry many of them. It uses a "ski jump" ramp to launch, and arrester cable for landing. Not capable of vertical landing like a British Harrier. Performance specifications match a CF-18 Hornet. Cost is US$21 million for an air force version, or US$31.09 million for a carrier version, so the air force version costs less than a Hornet. The catch is it's still in development, they're having problems with the engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

[Keepitsimple]

Perhaps someone has posted this already.....but in addition to the Avro Arrow, Canada was arguably first (or very close to it) in delivering North America's first passenger jet aircraft - the C102 Jetliner.....and similar to the Arrow, the Canadian Government caused it's demise....the website has some additional interesting reading on this terrific plane.

By 1952 National Airlines had drawn up a contract with Avro for a small fleet of Jetliners. TWA were trying to get Avro to build them 30 Jetliners and the USAF had allocated funds for the purchase of 20 military Jetliners for jet bomber pilot and navigation training.

Despite this, the Canadian government ordered Avro to concentrate on the CF 100 fighter production and "move the C 102 out of any useful manufacturing space in your plant". After a number of years of flying in support of the CF 100 flight test program the only Jetliner was finally broken up for scrap in December 1956 after more than seven years of almost faultless flying and paving the way for the new generation of jet transports. Despite its premature demise the Jetliner brought respect and admiration for Canada's aviation capability and this was expressed very well by British aviation writer Bill Gunston in his book "Encyclopedia of commercial aircraft." which included this quote " The Avro Canada C 102 Jetliner was Canada's first jetliner. It remains an example of how a talented and motivated team could work together to produce a unique aircraft in record time "

Article in the Rochester Democrat and Chronical Jan 12th. 1951

"A commercial jet aircraft, built in Canada, has smashed all American speed records for aircraft of that type by flying from Chicago to New York in 1 hr and 42 minutes. Besides hurtling at 459 miles per hour, the airliner set a new altitude record for transports. This should give our nation a good healthful kick in its placidity. The fact that our massive but underpopulated good neighbour to the north has a mechanical product that licks anything of ours is just what the doctor ordered for our overdeveloped ego."

Link: http://www.avroarrow.org/Jetliner/JetlinerIntro.html

Edited February 18, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[DogOnPorch]

That's cool...sort of like a Comet only with the engines wing-mounted.

Here's two rare ones from WW2...the Mavis and the Emily. Two huge flying boats used in all theaters in the Pacific/CBI (China, Burma, India). Great shot of the IJN battleship Fuso (or Yamishiro) with its massive pagoda bridge in the Mavis clip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IJN_Fuso

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamashiro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9liCeUNpgqA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqNduio0L-I

Edited February 20, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[msdogfood]

a380

why it has incredible engineering & looks!!!.

[Alta4ever]

I'll take a boeing over an airbus any day.

[Smallc]

I'll take a boeing over an airbus any day.

Why?

[DogOnPorch]

More of a Douglas fan myself...no longer in production, mind you.

[DogOnPorch]

The Mirage IV...though it looks much like the smaller fighter from the 1960s, it is actually a Mach 2 bomber similar to the old B-58 Hustler in that respect.

[Bonam]

I just recently got a private tour of the 787 assembly line in Everett. We got to walk around inside a partially completed 787, among other things. Quite some amazing stuff there! The shear scale of it and how new and advanced everything looks were very impressive.

[DogOnPorch]

I just recently got a private tour of the 787 assembly line in Everett. We got to walk around inside a partially completed 787, among other things. Quite some amazing stuff there! The shear scale of it and how new and advanced everything looks were very impressive.

Very cool. Wah...I don't get any private tours...lol. There is a nice Il-76 parked here until the Olympics end...I guess that'll have to do.

[Bonam]

Very cool. Wah...I don't get any private tours...lol. There is a nice Il-76 parked here until the Olympics end...I guess that'll have to do.

Heh, well gotta get the occasional perk for being in a phd program on aerospace engineering ;p There are certainly few enough of them and lots of hard work. As for tours, back when I was in Vancouver in my undergrad aircraft structures course we got a tour of the Cascade aerospace facility in Abbotsford, they have some pretty cool stuff to take a look at too. I think they offer tours to people wanting to organize them once in a while, I know the UBC aviation club does that for example.

[Wilber]

Why?

I'll bite. I've had limited experience with Airbus but that which I have made me think they were a little too in love with their own cleverness and tended to leave the pilot out of the loop in some areas. The experience I did have involved first generation glass cockpit aircraft, A310 vs B767. The A310 was a bit more trick at that time but I recall hearing "WTF is it doing now" more than I ever did with the 767. Perhaps it was just the learning curve but the Boeing just seemed more pilot friendly. Just ask someone who has flown both which was the easier aircraft to transition to. It was also a lot nicer to hand fly than the Bus. Don't get me wrong, Airbus builds a fine aircraft and I am only looking at it from one pilot's limited point of view, which is only one consideration when a company buys an aircraft and usualy not a very important one.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Wilber

[DogOnPorch]

Heh, well gotta get the occasional perk for being in a phd program on aerospace engineering ;p There are certainly few enough of them and lots of hard work. As for tours, back when I was in Vancouver in my undergrad aircraft structures course we got a tour of the Cascade aerospace facility in Abbotsford, they have some pretty cool stuff to take a look at too. I think they offer tours to people wanting to organize them once in a while, I know the UBC aviation club does that for example.

I flew most of the way across the Atlantic on the flight-deck of one of Air Canada's old stretch DC-8-60s as a young teen. That's as close to an airliner pilot's POV I've had. They were really gauge-lever-dial intensive as I'm sure you know. Engineer on board, as well...making it very tight up front. The things you could do back then.

Ever make it to Arlington...the EAA fly-in? Maybe I've asked before...thinking.

Edited February 26, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Bonam]

I flew most of the way across the Atlantic on the flight-deck of one of Air Canada's old stretch DC-8-60s as a young teen. That's as close to an airliner pilot's POV I've had. They were really gauge-lever-dial intensive as I'm sure you know. Engineer on board, as well...making it very tight up front. The things you could do back then.

Ever make it to Arlington...the EAA fly-in? Maybe I've asked before...thinking.

Nope never been. I was at the X-prize last few years though. I actually dunno too much about airplanes (I mean I know a good amount of the physics of aerodynamics, stability, control, structures, gas turbines, but not much in the way of trivia about specific planes). My interest has always been more in spacecraft.

[DogOnPorch]

Nope never been. I was at the X-prize last few years though. I actually dunno too much about airplanes (I mean I know a good amount of the physics of aerodynamics, stability, control, structures, gas turbines, but not much in the way of trivia about specific planes). My interest has always been more in spacecraft.

With the manned space program in the US in doubt, it'll be interesting to see if private space flight will become the rage. Sounds unregulated...lol. Space barnstormers.

Arlington was always a good place to poke one's head into some rare aircraft...or entire body if you were lucky. War birds and such. In a much more casual setting than Abbotsford. At least when I used to go...has been a while. But some of the experimental stuff is really out-there. It's not far from you so I thought you might have at some point.

[Bonam]

Yeah haven't really had the time, definitely wouldn't mind going though.

As for the space program... I guess commercial will have to become the rage, since there will be no real alternative (besides paying Russia to fly on Soyuz). I can't help but thinking that if NASA goes ahead with canceling its HSF program, it will be the end of an era. Manned orbital commercial spaceflight is still quite a while away, and meanwhile the people with expertise in HSF will retire from NASA, and the skills will not be replaced. I guess the SpaceX Falcon/Dragon system is our best hope, but I expect severe delays.

If we really cancel HSF as planned, then when we get back to flying humans in space in a decade or two, no one (in the US) will remember how to do it anymore, and it will be almost like starting from scratch (an inexperienced team sifting through dusty old documentation, however complete and extensive, is hardly better than starting from scratch). I guess maybe we'll import some project leaders and engineers from Russia's or China's space program at that point...

On the other hand, my lab might get a small cut of the new 5 billion investment in space technologies under NASA's new program. And they are bringing back the NIAC and funding the Europa-Jupiter System mission, among other things. More robotic exploration will certainly be interesting. So I suppose it's not all bad.

[DogOnPorch]

So true re: loss of know-how. That's why the US keeps making new nuclear weapons designs...to keep the ability alive rather than plans to destroy the world. The guys who designed the STS are oldies now.

[Bonam]

So true re: loss of know-how. That's why the US keeps making new nuclear weapons designs...to keep the ability alive rather than plans to destroy the world. The guys who designed the STS are oldies now.

Yeah indeed. Even with their efforts to stay up to date, I don't think the US could produce new nuclear weapons as advanced as the ones they did at the height of the Cold War now. They'd have to research stuff again for years before they'd be back up to that level. I read about one classified material that is required for advanced fusion weapons for which the only production facility was mothballed and later destroyed, and for which no sufficient documentation exists anywhere to recreate. They've been trying to rediscover it for years. If only I could remember the name and find a link, it's just on the tip of my tongue but I can't quite remember...

[DogOnPorch]

BC-2004 might know having worked around them. Maybe he'll chime in on this one.

[Bonam]

BC-2004 might know having worked around them. Maybe he'll chime in on this one.

I found it. The material codename was FOGBANK. Here's some info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOGBANK

Looks like they finally managed to reproduce it again in 2008. Just one example of technologies being "forgotten" and how much effort it takes to rediscover them once the expertise has been lost.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Bonam

[DogOnPorch]

I found it. The material codename was FOGBANK. Here's some info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOGBANK

Looks like they finally managed to reproduce it again in 2008. Just one example of technologies being "forgotten" and how much effort it takes to rediscover them once the expertise has been lost.

Ah cool...I think in the earliest H-Bombs, polystyrene/polyethylene foam much like the domestic stuff, was used to channel the X-Rays.

[bush_cheney2004]

BC-2004 might know having worked around them. Maybe he'll chime in on this one.

If I did the FBI might arrest me. But as for having or retaining smarts, the old timers didn't have access to Cray supercomputers. Some people think that arms treaties are about stockpile reductions and mothballing armageddon, when in fact they are mostly about modernization and reliability to make sure armageddon can still happen.

[DogOnPorch]

If I did the FBI might arrest me. But as for having or retaining smarts, the old timers didn't have access to Cray supercomputers. Some people think that arms treaties are about stockpile reductions and mothballing armageddon, when in fact they are mostly about modernization and reliability to make sure armageddon can still happen.

I agree, totally. Look at the size of the Mike device...then the size of weapons these days with nearly the same practical yield. Those engineers back in the 1950s would be amazed.