Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 3)

[GliderRider]

Baron Greenback said:

Boom's XB-1 supersonic demonstrator completed its maiden flight at the Mojave Air & Space Port in Mojave, California

According to Boom, once its aerodynamic characteristics and flight worthiness are confirmed, the XB-1 will increase speed until it is flying on later tests in excess of Mach 1.

A sort of Fairey Delta FD-2 meets NA F107.

[hidetheelephants]

Reminds me of the Interceptor in Captain Scarlet.

[GliderRider]

Baron Greenback said:

Other one I bumped into, ok not real pic yet, 108-m (356-ft) long Radia Windrunner as poor old Antonov is not more. payload weight is a whopping 72,575 kg.

I couldn't work out why they are being so parsimonious with the wing, so I looked it up. Its for carrying wind turbine blades and intended to land at smallish airfields, so for its size a relatively light cargo and, probably, a wing that isn't going to hit obstructions either side of the runway. Shades of Convair Charger in that respect.

[RizzoTheRat]

I was thinking the engines looked tiny too, but that explains it. That payload is less than a C17 but the aircraft is twice a long.

[Still Mulling]

I fail to believe that the wind industry would fly its components around the world instead of favouring more local manufacture that can travel by road of be built in sections on site. It jars with the environmental aspect of the end product. Does it really happen‽

[MB140]

aeropilot said:

generationx said:

Story, no pictures as I was driving but I’m pretty sure I saw an E-3A AWACs over Cologne, Germany today, heading west.

The NATO E-3's are based at Geilenkirchen, which is about 40 miles due west of Cologne, so very likely a regular sight over the city.

Yes you are correct, I’ve flown on NATO E3-A out of GK as crew and spent 7 years flying on E3-D out of waddington as an airborne tech.

Biggest mistake RAF made was not upgrading our fleet of E3-D to the mission kit fitted to the E3-A. We were offered but of course it was deemed cheaper not to. Now instead of having the 7 dwarfs (each of the 7 E3-D were named after one of the 7 dwarfs, complete with caricature picture of the dwarf by the aft door),, we are left with 2 or 3 E7 which undoubtedly will cost 10x more than just upgrading what we had.

Airframe hours wise the E3-D were low hours so had lots of life left in them. It was the mission kit that was old and antiquated.

[aeropilot]

MB140 said:

aeropilot said:

generationx said:

Story, no pictures as I was driving but I’m pretty sure I saw an E-3A AWACs over Cologne, Germany today, heading west.

The NATO E-3's are based at Geilenkirchen, which is about 40 miles due west of Cologne, so very likely a regular sight over the city.

Yes you are correct, I’ve flown on NATO E3-A out of GK as crew and spent 7 years flying on E3-D out of waddington as an airborne tech.

Biggest mistake RAF made was not upgrading our fleet of E3-D to the mission kit fitted to the E3-A. We were offered but of course it was deemed cheaper not to. Now instead of having the 7 dwarfs (each of the 7 E3-D were named after one of the 7 dwarfs, complete with caricature picture of the dwarf by the aft door),, we are left with 2 or 3 E7 which undoubtedly will cost 10x more than just upgrading what we had.

Yes, but that way the money can gets kicked down the road to be someone else's problem.......capability holiday's are much cheaper in the world of MOD and Treasury Dept.

Same with axing the Nimrod fleet......

We used to have 5 full squadrons of Nimrods........we won't even have enough P-8's to form a single old size squadron.

C'est la vie.

[Eric Mc]

GliderRider said:

Baron Greenback said:

Boom's XB-1 supersonic demonstrator completed its maiden flight at the Mojave Air & Space Port in Mojave, California

According to Boom, once its aerodynamic characteristics and flight worthiness are confirmed, the XB-1 will increase speed until it is flying on later tests in excess of Mach 1.

A sort of Fairey Delta FD-2 meets NA F107.

The dorsal air intake reminds me of this -

[mylesmcd]

generationx said:

aeropilot said:

generationx said:

Story, no pictures as I was driving but I’m pretty sure I saw an E-3A AWACs over Cologne, Germany today, heading west.

The NATO E-3's are based at Geilenkirchen, which is about 40 miles due west of Cologne, so very likely a regular sight over the city.

Thanks Aero - I’ve been here in western Cologne for 11 years and this is the first time I’ve seen one. Only about 50km from us. We have a lot of local Luftwaffe activity here too, there’s a fighter base nearby with, amongst other things, pairs of Typhoons regularly going overhead.

The NATO Exercise Steadfast Defender 2024 is on in Norway rn, no idea if these would be needed. But interestingly the F16s from Aviano have been away for a training exercise in Poland..rumour has it it is pre deployment training to Ukraine for the Poles.

[havoc]

Still Mulling said:

I fail to believe that the wind industry would fly its components around the world instead of favouring more local manufacture that can travel by road of be built in sections on site. It jars with the environmental aspect of the end product. Does it really happen?

In the third world, quite probably (not many roads which can take an ultra-long HGV for long distances)...but I'd be surprised if this thing had enough short-field capability.

[thegreenhell]

havoc said:

Still Mulling said:

I fail to believe that the wind industry would fly its components around the world instead of favouring more local manufacture that can travel by road of be built in sections on site. It jars with the environmental aspect of the end product. Does it really happen?

In the third world, quite probably (not many roads which can take an ultra-long HGV for long distances)...but I'd be surprised if this thing had enough short-field capability.

I would have thought most third world countries would be better served by solar than wind power. Most places remote enough to be unsuitable for road transport are probably not ideal for a 2km runway and supporting infrastructure for a massive plane either, since the windiest remote places tend to be either offshore or on mountain tops. Even if you have your local runway sorted you then still have the issue of transporting the blades offloaded from the plane to the final installation location, which will need... the same massive trucks that apparently couldn't get there in the first place.

Anyway, it's just a concept, and I'd put a virtual £5 on it never going into real life service.

[Speed 3]

I'll put a real fiver on that outcome.

[hidetheelephants]

Still Mulling said:

I fail to believe that the wind industry would fly its components around the world instead of favouring more local manufacture that can travel by road of be built in sections on site. It jars with the environmental aspect of the end product. Does it really happen?

It's nonsense designed to extract money from the gullible; there's a buoyant market in moving these non-time-critical indivisible loads by ship and that's how it's likely to stay.

[Still Mulling]

Grateful to see a consensus; feared I’d finally lost my last marble!

[GliderRider]

Still Mulling said:

I fail to believe that the wind industry would fly its components around the world instead of favouring more local manufacture that can travel by road of be built in sections on site. It jars with the environmental aspect of the end product. Does it really happen?

If you saw the complex moulds for moulding wind turbine blades, you would understand why making them on-site is a non-starter. In addition to getting the mould to the site, the clean, temperature controlled conditions for moulding it need to be maintained



Moving these blades is actually one job at which the Airlander hybrid air vehicle would come into its own, as it doens't need a runway and can carry a large bulky load.

[LotusOmega375D]

Ironically until the wind starts to blow and turns it into an involuntary helicopter.

[Still Mulling]

Ah, I didn’t mean to allude to making them on site, just not so far away that they’d need a flight.

[DodgyGeezer]

Edited by DodgyGeezer on Friday 29th March 13:50

[xeny]

The two guys sitting on the tailplane - is that because the wheels are so near the CG when the 109 is chocked up like that there is a genuine risk of it tipping forwards?

[GliderRider]

xeny said:

The two guys sitting on the tailplane - is that because the wheels are so near the CG when the 109 is chocked up like that there is a genuine risk of it tipping forwards?

Probably. The same reason that taxiing Spitfires often had a WAAF sittng on the tail (and in one case took off with her still there).

There was a 'Mk26' Spitfire replica (the Jabiru-powered one) that tipped on its nose a few years back, The owner had been asked to static display it as a backdrop in a 40s themed dance. When he taxied it back to its normal hangar sometime after, he didn't have any assistance and came a cropper on a downhill taxiway, presumably when he applied the brakes.

Edited by GliderRider on Saturday 30th March 14:50