Your Favorite Aircraft

DogOnPorch · July 9, 2009

Especially that one !

Ah well...at least when Robert Mitchum did "The Hunters" the MiGs were Furys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQAVbujz9Ng

DogOnPorch · July 15, 2009

The Antonov An-225, world's biggest airplane. Only thing comparable was the Hercules H-4, which only ever flew once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225

Check out how tiny the Russian Space Shuttle looks sitting on it compared to the American one on the Boeing 747.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buran_On_Antonov225.jpg

http://pixdaus.com/single.php?id=107963&f=rs

The thing's 6 engines and enormous landing gear just make it look like a total monster.

And then there's experimental planes like the x-43. They are just cool from the point of view of an aerospace engineer, pushing the envelope further and further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43

Found a clip of the Mya-4 mated with the Buran.

DogOnPorch · July 17, 2009

Here's a cool oldie. The Vickers Wellesley (bomber)...it had unbelievable range for 1938. Saw use in the where-be-gones of WW2. Nice 5 min collection of newsreels...

DogOnPorch · July 21, 2009

Odd one...

Il-62 from East Germany's old airline Interflug lands on a grass strip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkl3jGxCKUI

Wilber · July 21, 2009

The Wellesley, then the Wellington. Interesting. Both designed by Barnes Wallace who also designed the bouncing bomb used in the Dam Busters raid, the 12,000 lb Tallboy bombs used against U Boat pens and to finaly sink the Tirpitz, as well as the 22,000 lb Grand Slam carried by modified Lancasters and still the largest conventional bomb ever used methinks.

August1991 · July 21, 2009

This seems like a good place to post this.

First, watch this landing of a Korean 747 at Kai Tak in Hong Kong with extreme crosswind. In particular, watch how many wheels have to take the weight of the 747 on initial touchdown.

The 747 has a max landing weight of about 300 tonnes and the A380 about 430 tonnes. Like the 747, the A380 has four main undercarriages of which potentially one alone must support the initial impact of landing.

When Airbus needed landing gear for its new A380 superjumbo airliner, they looked to Goodrich. At 18 ½ feet tall, a single A380 landing gear must support nearly 170 tons – the equivalent of holding up five blue whales. The Goodrich main landing gear for the A380 is comprised of four main undercarriages – two with four wheels each and two with six wheels each. Advanced materials make this huge landing gear system ruggedly reliable and remarkably lightweight.

Goodrich

Goodrich landing gear is designed and built in Ontario. (I saw a video of a landing gear test in the Goodrich lab in Ontario but I can't find it on youtube. IIRC, they spin a cylinder to the equivalent of about 100 km/h and then push the landing gear with tire on to it.)

I doubt that there is more than one or two places in the world with the knowledge and technology to build such landing gear.

I find landing gear (and plane tires) remarkable because they must support tremendous stresses but to be economical, they have to do this flight after flight with minimal maintenance. With the space shuttle, NASA can afford to overhaul the vehicle completely after each flight. A 747 or A380 can't afford that luxury.

Edited July 21, 2009 by August1991

DogOnPorch · July 21, 2009

Great video.

Re: Tires. I think the biggest aircraft tires ever were on the early B-36 Peacemakers. Their ground pressure proved to be too much even for specially reinforced runways...literally sank through the blacktop or cracked the concrete. This led to their replacement by bogie landing gear which spread the load out more. (see pic)

DogOnPorch · July 21, 2009

The Wellesley, then the Wellington. Interesting. Both designed by Barnes Wallace who also designed the bouncing bomb used in the Dam Busters raid, the 12,000 lb Tallboy bombs used against U Boat pens and to finaly sink the Tirpitz, as well as the 22,000 lb Grand Slam carried by modified Lancasters and still the largest conventional bomb ever used methinks.

The Wellington was a real unsung workhorse.

August1991 · July 22, 2009

Great video.

Huh?

Tires?

---

An A380 will one day land in Hong Kong, and put all its weight on one landing gear, designed and tested in Ontario.

Bonam · July 22, 2009

Speaking of landing gear and tires, check out this video. Pay attention to the front landing gear orientation...

Back when I was in university, my Aircraft Structures Design prof showed it to us. Now that's design for unexpected failure modes! Superb piloting as well of course.

DogOnPorch · July 22, 2009

Huh?
Tires?

---

An A380 will one day land in Hong Kong, and put all its weight on one landing gear, designed and tested in Ontario.

August1991: The 747 has a max landing weight of about 300 tonnes and the A380 about 430 tonnes. Like the 747, the A380 has four main undercarriages of which potentially one alone must support the initial impact of landing.

DogOnPorch: Re: Tires. I think the biggest aircraft tires ever were on the early B-36 Peacemakers. Their ground pressure proved to be too much even for specially reinforced runways...literally sank through the blacktop or cracked the concrete. This led to their replacement by bogie landing gear which spread the load out more.

Bonam · July 22, 2009

I like the designs of some of these planes haha..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjTu0jhqqPE...feature=related

DogOnPorch · July 22, 2009

Check out this crazy take-off in an Airbus. I bet there were a few screams.

DogOnPorch · July 23, 2009

Speaking of the Wellington, here's a good walk-around of the one at Hendon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up2Upr-dlQc

Then there were these two oddballs of Bomber Command...

Carried a Superfort-like load of bombs...just not high enough or far enough.

...death trap...but saw use early-on.

First Allied bomber over Germany...

Edited July 23, 2009 by DogOnPorch

DogOnPorch · July 25, 2009

Some rare clips of the Douglas XB-19 project. This massive aircraft never went into production, but you can sure see some of the Boeing B-29 in its lines.

bush_cheney2004 · July 29, 2009

Virgin Galactic's WhiteKnightTwo is making its debut at Oshkosh this week.....rich man's space elevator.

http://www.makli.com/whiteknighttwo/

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6a0cg_vi...-eve-the-f_tech

Bonam · July 29, 2009

Virgin Galactic's WhiteKnightTwo is making its debut at Oshkosh this week.....rich man's space elevator.
http://www.makli.com/whiteknighttwo/

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6a0cg_vi...-eve-the-f_tech

Very impressive to see them pressing ahead and succeeding. If they can actually pull off regular, commercial, manned, spaceflight at a measly price of $200,000 each, that will be quite the revolutionary feat.

Of course it won't have any big impact on space science or exploration until they get their third generation system running, which they promise will be capable of orbital flight, but that will be a while yet.

Wilber · July 29, 2009

That's one wild approach but that Korean 747 was not putting all its weight on one landing gear. The ground spoilers don't come up until there is wheel spinup from gear on both sides of the aircraft and all the weight is not transferred to the gear until the spoilers kill the lift being generated by the wing.

Normal crosswind landing technique involves cross controlling the aircraft by removing the crab angle by aligning the nose with the runway using rudder and at the same time banking the aircraft into the wind with aileron to stop the aircraft from drifting to the side. This technique always has the gear on one side of the aircraft making contact first.

This technique is not normally used by 747's in strong crosswinds because of the danger of an outboard engine making contact with the ground. The aircraft is landed with the crab still on. I believe exceeding a bank angle of 7 degrees can result in scrubbing a pod. Wouldn't be surprised if the 380 was similar.

DogOnPorch · July 29, 2009

That's one wild approach but that Korean 747 was not putting all its weight on one landing gear. The ground spoilers don't come up until there is wheel spinup from gear on both sides of the aircraft and all the weight is not transferred to the gear until the spoilers kill the lift being generated by the wing.
Normal crosswind landing technique involves cross controlling the aircraft by removing the crab angle by aligning the nose with the runway using rudder and at the same time banking the aircraft into the wind with aileron to stop the aircraft from drifting to the side. This technique always has the gear on one side of the aircraft making contact first.

This technique is not normally used by 747's in strong crosswinds because of the danger of an outboard engine making contact with the ground. The aircraft is landed with the crab still on. I believe exceeding a bank angle of 7 degrees can result in scrubbing a pod. Wouldn't be surprised if the 380 was similar.

Then there's the B-52 that can simply crab-allign its bicycle gear in heavy crosswinds.

Wilber · July 29, 2009

Then there's the B-52 that can simply crab-allign its bicycle gear in heavy crosswinds.

The B-52 has an even bigger problem with bank angle during takeoff and landing, hence the aligning gear. The 747's gear doesn't align, it is built to take the side load.

DogOnPorch · July 30, 2009

The B-52 has an even bigger problem with bank angle during takeoff and landing, hence the aligning gear. The 747's gear doesn't align, it is built to take the side load.

They take-off with about zero AoA...looks pretty weird. Slightly nose down even. Not as bad as B-58s whose massive AoA on landing was legendary. There was a small window looking down from the front cockpit floor through the nose gear to help the pilot see the runway.

Wilber · July 30, 2009

They take-off with about zero AoA...looks pretty weird. Slightly nose down even. Not as bad as B-58s whose massive AoA on landing was legendary. There was a small window looking down from the front cockpit floor through the nose gear to help the pilot see the runway.

Zero pitch angle maybe but not zero angle of attack.

DogOnPorch · July 30, 2009

Zero pitch angle maybe but not zero angle of attack.

Yes...my bad.

DogOnPorch · July 30, 2009

Yes...my bad.

Speaking of pitch angles...did you see the vid marked crazy airbus take-off or something similar?

I hope that was at an airshow...lol.

GostHacked · July 31, 2009

DoP

Years ago I attended the airshow at the Ottawa Airport. Nothing caught my eye more than that Mig 29 Fulcrum. The whole plane was roped off apart from the nose cone. My uncle who was a paratrooper was with me. I reached up and touched the nose and got chills in me. I turned to my uncle and looked at him. He seemed in a bit of awe. I told him. "Go ahead and touch it.. i know you want to" He reached out his hand, touched the nose cone and giggled a bit. He hesitated for a few seconds. It was really strange, I guess he was taking it all in.