F-22 Raptor swallows pilot

[quagmire]

But the Nazi's did it in WWII without computers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

It still had the same danger with the wing design. They probably didn't push it to its limits and didn't create a stall situation. But, the U.S tests how planes act under stall. And when the test pilot brought the jet powered version XB-35( since the XB-35 was prop powered) into a stall, it went into a spin. He was very lucky when he brought back into control.

 

[Kingsly]

It was the F-15 Eagle. As the F-22 is replacing the F-15 as the next gen air superiority fighter. The Air Force wanted to see how effective the Raptor can be against its predecessor. You're right on the 2nd part. The F-22 virtually shot down all F-15's without the pilots even knowing where it was. The F-35 in the Navy variant will be replacing the now retired( as of February) F-14 Tomcat( RIP). In the Marine variant, the Harrier, and in the Air Force variant the F-16. I hope the F-35 is put against its predecessors as was the F-22 was. That would mean a F-14 equipped with the Phoenix long range missile. So if the F-35's stealth capabilities work, the F-14 won't be able to see it before it is too late.

Northrop Grumman knows how to make planes as much as Lockheed does. Many say part of the reason why the Lockheed F-22 was chosen over the YF-23 was because Lockheed promised to employ more then Northrop was saying. But, both planes were awesome and my bias towards Northrop Grumman says the YF-23 should of been chosen over the Raptor. The B-2 is marvel of technology. Northrop hit the nail on the head with this bomber. The wing design was impossible back in the Post-WWII era when a similar looking bomber to the B-2 was developed by Grumman as the wing design posed many dangers. An example of this is that if the plane stalled, the bomber would go into a unrecoverable spin. Which led to the planes cancellation. What makes the wing design possible now is that the B-2 has ton of computers that will not allow the pilot to bring the B-2 to a stall situation.

Will you be my friend?

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

But the Nazi's did it in WWII without computers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

Its pretty cool to think this was made in the 40s, IL2 a PC flight simulator has this aircraft in it and you can fly it. It is pretty sweet but not as sweet as the old work horse of WWII the P40 Warhawk which by the way can out turn any modern jet

 

[Jesus]

It still had the same danger with the wing design. They probably didn't push it to its limits and didn't create a stall situation. But, the U.S tests how planes act under stall. And when the test pilot brought the jet powered version XB-35( since the

to quote from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

Reichsmarschall Göring believed in the design and ordered the aircraft into production at Gotha with the RLM designation of Ho 229 before it had taken to the air under jet power. Flight testing of the Ho IX/Ho 229 prototypes began in December 1944, and the aircraft proved to be even better than expected. There were a number of minor handling problems but otherwise the performance was outstanding.

The US military initiated "Operation Paperclip" which was an effort by the U.S. Army in the last weeks of the war to capture as much advanced German weapons research as possible, and also to deny that research to advancing Soviet troops. A Horten glider and the Ho-229 number V3 were secured and sent to Northrop Aviation in the United States for evaluation. Northrop was chosen because of their experience with flying wings. Inspired by the Horten brothers' record-setting glider, Jack Northrop had been building flying wings since the 1939 N-1M, and during WWII had progressed to the large XB-35 bomber. Northrop's small one-man prototype (N9M-B) and a Horten wing-only glider are located in the Chino Air Museum in Southern California.

SO here we have a (current) US defense contractor who based a whole series of planes on WWII tech, culminating in the B2 Spirit, which relies heavily on computer control (like, I will conceed, most planes), but the Nazi's coulds do it 60 years ago.

Personally think that this post by you is not correct.

The B-2 is marvel of technology. Northrop hit the nail on the head with this bomber. The wing design was impossible back in the Post-WWII era when a similar looking bomber to the B-2 was developed by Grumman as the wing design posed many dangers. An example of this is that if the plane stalled, the bomber would go into a unrecoverable spin. Which led to the planes cancellation. What makes the wing design possible now is that the B-2 has ton of computers that will not allow the pilot to bring the B-2 to a stall situation.

The flying wing design was made by the Horten brothers. AND, it seems it was possible to make a flying wing donkeys years ago with no computers.

 

[quagmire]

to quote from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229



SO here we have a (current) US defense contractor who based a whole series of planes on WWII tech, culminating in the B2 Spirit, which relies heavily on computer control (like, I will conceed, most planes), but the Nazi's coulds do it 60 years ago.

Personally think that this post by you is not correct.



The flying wing design was made by the Horten brothers. AND, it seems it was possible to make a flying wing donkeys years ago with no computers.

I never said it was impossible to get off the ground or fly. What I meant by impossible by was that the dangers of the wing design was so great and if you got a stall in a wing designed plane, it will be nearly impossible to recover and wasn't worth the hassle back in the 40's. The Northrop Grumman test pilot was lucky he was able to regain control when he took the XB-35 into a stall. That is why the Air Force cancelled the program. Too risky and not worth it to risk the pilots life. I should of said impractical instead of impossible.

 

[ejb190]

Stealth is an interesting concept. What mode of detection are you trying to avoid? In modern times we asume we are talking radar detection, but visual, audio, heat, and radar all have to be considered. Catching view of a stealth aircraft is a risk. That is why most of them have been painted black and fly at night. Want to avoid being heard? Fly at 80,000 feet like the SR-71.

And concerning stealth aircraft in transit, they all have transponders just like commercial aircraft so they will show up and be identified on flight control radars.

The argument about which aircraft is better is also an interesting one. Lets consider an dog fight between an A-10 and an F-14. At a distance, it is all the F-14, assuming the A-10 does not get lost in the ground clutter. But close up, the A-10 will ALWAYS cut inside the 14's turn and bring the big cannon to bare. But in the end, it is all going to come down to the skill of the pilot and who sees who first. And thus we come back to stealth...

 

[quagmire]

The argument about which aircraft is better is also an interesting one. Lets consider an dog fight between an A-10 and an F-14. At a distance, it is all the F-14, assuming the A-10 does not get lost in the ground clutter. But close up, the A-10 will ALWAYS cut inside the 14's turn and bring the big cannon to bare. But in the end, it is all going to come down to the skill of the pilot and who sees who first. And thus we come back to stealth...

I have a quite a hard time believing the A-10 can out maneuver the F-14. Why? Because while the F-14 is big for a fighter, the A-10 is bigger. The F-14 has the sweep wings, the A-10 has a long wingspan that doesn't sweep back. I don't believe the A-10 can go supersonic, but could be wrong. The F-14 goes Mach 2.3. So the F-14 can outrun the A-10 if necessary. But, the F-14 does have to worry about the cannon on the A-10. Plus the A-10 wasn't exactly designed for dog fights. It is more of a close range ground support bomber. While dog fighting wasn't the F-14's purpose, it is a pretty good dog fighter. I believe the F-14 can shoot down the A-10 without a doubt.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The A-10 can out-maneuver the F-14 any day - Lower wing-loading, large wing area and lower weight.

But it's a useless comparison - the A-10 is a heavily armed CAS aircraft that needs to dodge SAMs and artillery, not dogfight with big high-speed interceptors like a Tomcat. While the A-10 would not be automatically dead, especially in a close engagement where it could use its massive cannon, it is not designed for air-to-air combat.

Regarding the Horten flying wings: they never logged the amount of flying hours that Northrop's designs did, so we never got a chance to find out how good they were. I take the quoted Wikipedia article with a little reservation - the solution to the flying wing problem is not aerodynamic, but rather one of control systems. The Germans could not have solved the basic control problems without a fly-by-wire system, a system that was barely more than concept during world WWII.

 

[jefhatfield]

That is also true. Anyway, even F-22 can't match the manoeuvrability of Su-37 (which was built in 1996, http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su37/ ) not to mention the up and coming Su-47 (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/)

However, as I mentioned earlier, you can have the best airplane in the world, but if you are not a good pilot, nothing will save you. Airplane is just a machine which needs a human control input. Just like in a computer world, you have people with over 3GHZ rigs and all they do is play solitaire or surf the net

EDIT: I think I should correct myself, Russians make better fighter jets as Americans definately seem to have better bombers.

wow, those are amazing planes...i wonder if i could parallel park one of those things in a one horse town

 

[jefhatfield]

Rear view mirror? I dont know but i also didnt know a F15 was ever shot down.

i remember hearing it's the only fighter of its type (f-14, 15, 16, 18) that has never been shot down by an enemy...it is the fastest of the bunch

 

[quagmire]

i remember hearing it's the only fighter of its type (f-14, 15, 16, 18) that has never been shot down by an enemy...it is the fastest of the bunch

I doubt that. As the F-14 has only been in 2 dog fights. And in both situations 2 Tomcats came into a fight. And 2 Tomcats left the fight shooting down the enemy MIG's or SU's. Unless they were other dog fights that I am not aware of with the F-14.

 

[Kingsly]

I doubt that. As the F-14 has only been in 2 dog fights. And in both situations 2 Tomcats came into a fight. And 2 Tomcats left the fight shooting down the enemy MIG's or SU's.

...which gives us an interesting Russian vs. American warplanes image. In fact, most modern shoot downs I've heard of were from SAM's or AAA. Not an opposing air force, which seems to be little more than an annoyance to the USAF/USN

 

[sushi]

Rear view mirror? I dont know but i also didnt know a F15 was ever shot down.

Good guess!

Low fuel warning light on the canopy.

Quite a few aircraft were lost during Vietnam due to fuel starvation. In a dogfight, the pilot's head is out of the cockpit so in many cases they would not realize their low fuel situation until it was too late.

 

[sushi]

Of course its speed was its real defense - I don't think that aircraft could be intercepted even today.

Two good books on the SR-71:

- Sled Driver

- Untouchables

Would highly recommend reading them.

BTW, the SR-71 was originally designated the RS-71. Around 1964, then President Johnson incorrectly called it the SR-71. Rather than acknowledge the error, everything including blueprints, diagrams, manuals, etc. were changed to read SR-71 vice RS-71.

The SR-71 was designed to fly MACH 3.2 at 80,000 feet.

If memory serves, in the book Untouchables, Brian Shul mentions that they hit MACH 3.45 at 85,000 feet while flying over Libia.

As for the SAM threat, Russia had missiles that could shoot down the SR-71 while it was still operational. However, by that time, both countries realized that overhead monitoring was a good thing.

I don't know. I do know that the flying-wing form factor gives it a very low physical (and radar) profile in the horizontal plane, and it makes use of supposedly more effective radar-absorbant material.

Raw computer power. When the F117A was designed, available computers could only handle the calculations in 2D, hense the flat panels. By the time the B-2 came around available computers could handle the 3D calculations.

BTW, the stealth equations came from the Russians.

BTW2, the majority of titanium for the SR-71 came from the Russians.

 

[sushi]

The A-10 can out-maneuver the F-14 any day - Lower wing-loading, large wing area and lower weight.

You are completely correct on this. The A-10 can way out maneuver (read turn) than the F-14.

I have worked with both. The Warhog is a beautiful plane to see in flight.

Not bashing the Tomcat. Love it too.

But it's a useless comparison - the A-10 is a heavily armed CAS aircraft that needs to dodge SAMs and artillery, not dogfight with big high-speed interceptors like a Tomcat.

Exactly!

Big sky little bullet comes into mind as well.

 

[sushi]

i remember hearing it's the only fighter of its type (f-14, 15, 16, 18) that has never been shot down by an enemy...it is the fastest of the bunch

There is only one Air Force airframe that has not had a single loss to enemy fire.

And that is the SR-71.

 

[Black&Tan]

Vietnam was the last dog fights but with planes that dont need pilots in them and ground and air based lasers coming the day of the fighter pilot may be ending.

..and lets not forget the Falklands War, in the early 80's. There was a great deal of assumption that the Argentine Mirage's would be able to easily defeat the British Harriers. And we saw what happened with that fight, the Harriers wiped the Mirage's out of the sky.

But it's a useless comparison - the A-10 is a heavily armed CAS aircraft that needs to dodge SAMs and artillery, not dogfight with big high-speed interceptors like a Tomcat. While the A-10 would not be automatically dead, especially in a close engagement where it could use its massive cannon, it is not designed for air-to-air combat.

And I think one could draw a parallel betweeen the Harriers and Mirages in the Falklands and the A-10 and F-14 currently being discussed. Both would be conflicts between CAS and Interceptors. If both aircraft were out of missiles, the outcome would be very interesting.

 

[Bunnyman4]

LOL​

Take My Breath Away - Berlin
Watching every motion in my foolish lover's game
On this endless ocean finally lovers know no shame
Turning and returning to some secret place inside
Watching in slow motion as you turn around and say


Take my breath away
Take my breath away

Watching I keep waiting still anticipating love
Never hesitating to become the fated ones
Turning and returning to some secret place to hide
Watching in slow motion as you turn to me and say,​

My Love,
Take my breath away

Through the hourglass I saw you, in time you slipped away
When the mirror crashed I called you, and turned to hear you say
If only for today I am unafraid

Take my breath away
Take my breath away​

Watching every motion in this foolish lover's game
Haunted by the notion somewhere there's a love in flames
Turning and returning to some secret place inside
Watching in slow motion as you turn my way and say

Take my breath away,
My Love
Take my breath away
My Love
Take my breath away
Take my breath away​

 

[Bunnyman4]

There is only one Air Force airframe that has not had a single loss to enemy fire.

And that is the SR-71.

The Black Bird was one of the fastest planes in world, the aircraft is retired now!

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Two good books on the SR-71:

- Sled Driver

- Untouchables

Would highly recommend reading them.

BTW, the SR-71 was originally designated the RS-71. Around 1964, then President Johnson incorrectly called it the SR-71. Rather than acknowledge the error, everything including blueprints, diagrams, manuals, etc. were changed to read SR-71 vice RS-71.

The SR-71 was designed to fly MACH 3.2 at 80,000 feet.

If memory serves, in the book Untouchables, Brian Shul mentions that they hit MACH 3.45 at 85,000 feet while flying over Libia.

As for the SAM threat, Russia had missiles that could shoot down the SR-71 while it was still operational. However, by that time, both countries realized that overhead monitoring was a good thing.

Interesting. I have an article in an International Air Power Review somewhere that interviewed an SR-71 pilot and they hinted that the aircraft could fly significantly higher than has ever been publicly stated - numbers at or above 90,000ft have been mentioned. I didn't know that anyone ever built a SAM that could engage a Mach 3-plus aircraft at those altitudes, but the Soviets did have very good SAMs - in many cases somewhat better than ours due to Kruschev's intense focus on missile development during much of the 60's.

I DO know that the MiG-25/31, which was built to counter the SR-71, was not capable of intercepting the latter aircraft, if post-cold war accounts from Russian personnel are to be believed. While very fast (Mach 2.8+), it wasn't fast enough to catch the Blackbird.

 

[Bunnyman4]

I would say she’s was probably one of the most controversial aircrafts of her kind?

 

[sunfast]

I used to dream about the SR-71 as a kid. I love the way it's panels don't fit when stationary as they expand massively at high speed.

 

[Bunnyman4]

Wow, I like the sound of the afterburner, which must have some kick, deep low end, sonic KABOOM!!!

 

[Black&Tan]

...ahead of its time, the SR-71 was forcibly retired by Congress. Since they weren't able to cancel the program directly, a Senator was able to have the dies destroyed, effectively ending the program. Either the bird or the dies were made of titanium, a very difficult metal to work with. Incidentally, titanium is also biocompatible, making it ideal from implanting into the human body.

 

[pilotError]

Sr-71

the aircraft is retired now!

I think NASA still has a pair of them.