Amazingly cool and interesting plane footage

[anonymous-user]

Apologies if this has been posted. I am not a massive aviation geek/expert/guru like some of you guys but and fascinated by the engineering.

Came across this predecessor to the F-35, nothing is new!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yFd8lx7vQI

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R18uBA-QfY

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 12th December 08:22

[Zirconia]

Eric Mc said:

I was thinking more of how the incident is depicted in the film. The film, whilst very enjoyable and one of my favourites, is very misleading in many areas.

Ah, yeah. I enjoyed the film for what it was and picked up on the inaccuracies after reading more on the subject, I did see the film first before the books though but that was some time ago.

1983 was the film, wow.

[eccles]

Eric Mc said:

How not to land a Hercules -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM3bvRZRXLw

Knowing the undercarriage of a C-130 quite intimately, the mind boggles at the forces required to rip it off like that.

[Eric Mc]

Zirconia said:

Eric Mc said:

I was thinking more of how the incident is depicted in the film. The film, whilst very enjoyable and one of my favourites, is very misleading in many areas.

Ah, yeah. I enjoyed the film for what it was and picked up on the inaccuracies after reading more on the subject, I did see the film first before the books though but that was some time ago.

1983 was the film, wow.

I read the book in the year it was published, 1979. I saw the film three times in the cinema.

In the film, they make it look like Yeager has taken the F-104 up on a jolly with no flight plan etc - which, of course, is total nonsense.

[Eric Mc]

skinthespin said:

Apologies if this has been posted. I am not a massive aviation geek/expert/guru like some of you guys but and fascinated by the engineering.

Came across this predecessor to the F-35, nothing is new!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yFd8lx7vQI

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R18uBA-QfY

Edited by skinthespin on Thursday 12th December 08:22

The F-35 is light years ahead of those Russian aircraft regarding how it is built and the systems it contains. I saw a Yak 141 fly at Farnborough in 1992. It melted the tarmac.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WybwlN_UCVI

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

skinthespin said:

Apologies if this has been posted. I am not a massive aviation geek/expert/guru like some of you guys but and fascinated by the engineering.

Came across this predecessor to the F-35, nothing is new!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yFd8lx7vQI

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R18uBA-QfY

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 12th December 08:22

The F-35 is light years ahead of those Russian aircraft regarding how it is built and the systems it contains. I saw a Yak 141 fly at Farnborough in 1992. It melted the tarmac.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WybwlN_UCVI

Appreciate the F-35 is light years ahead in a million different ways, was looking more at the thrust vectoring at the rear and the hatch behind the pilot etc, like I say it all new to me!

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 12th December 11:07

[Eric Mc]

That concept goes back way before the Yak 141 - or even the Yak-36/38

The great divide in vertical take off is, do you use the same engine for forward flight and vertical flight? Or do you have separate engines for forward and vertical?

The Harrier uses a single engine for both.
The Yaks used separate engines.
The F-35 uses a single jet engine but a separate lift fan driven by the single engine

So all a bit different.

The problem with the single/vectored thrust system used on the carrier is that it precludes the use of afterburners - so limiting the top speed. The P1154 project tried to get around the limitations of lack of afterburner with an idea called plenum chamber burning but Rolls Royce could not really get it to work - and the project was not well supported by either the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy - so it was easy for the government to cancel it, which they duly did.

[FourWheelDrift]

Yaks were a failure not just because of the reliability of the system but they had a 200 mile range and if they took off vertically couldn't carry much in the way of weapons, were slower and less manoeuvrable than the fighters they might come up against plus the weapons they could just about carry were shorter range than the ones on the fighters they might encounter or never see because it didn't carry any radar either.

[anonymous-user]

FourWheelDrift said:

Yaks were a failure not just because of the reliability of the system but they had a 200 mile range and if they took off vertically couldn't carry much in the way of weapons, were slower and less manoeuvrable than the fighters they might come up against plus the weapons they could just about carry were shorter range than the ones on the fighters they might encounter or never see because it didn't carry any radar either.

Other than that it was mint!

[MB140]

eccles said:

Knowing the undercarriage of a C-130 quite intimately, the mind boggles at the forces required to rip it off like that.

Yep having spent 5 years on them me too. Talk about a substatioal bit of engineering. Although I was there when one landed on a rough strip and punctured a tyre. Took the APU out, undercarriage door, part of the landing leg and associated wiring. I was part of the team sent to recover it. Chained the leg in the down position. Repaired some of the looms and 1 flight only cleared back to Brize to repair it properly. It’s amazing the damage they can withstand.

Edited by MB140 on Thursday 12th December 15:41

[Dont like rolls]

FourWheelDrift said:

Yaks were a failure not just because of the reliability of the system but they had a 200 mile range and if they took off vertically couldn't carry much in the way of weapons, were slower and less manoeuvrable than the fighters they might come up against plus the weapons they could just about carry were shorter range than the ones on the fighters they might encounter or never see because it didn't carry any radar either.

Up until recently most carrier based "attack" aircraft were like that.

[FourWheelDrift]

Dont like rolls said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Yaks were a failure not just because of the reliability of the system but they had a 200 mile range and if they took off vertically couldn't carry much in the way of weapons, were slower and less manoeuvrable than the fighters they might come up against plus the weapons they could just about carry were shorter range than the ones on the fighters they might encounter or never see because it didn't carry any radar either.

Up until recently most carrier based "attack" aircraft were like that.

Name one.

[Dont like rolls]

FourWheelDrift said:

Name one.

Anything designed to carry a significant bomb load.

[Ayahuasca]

FourWheelDrift said:

Dont like rolls said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Yaks were a failure not just because of the reliability of the system but they had a 200 mile range and if they took off vertically couldn't carry much in the way of weapons, were slower and less manoeuvrable than the fighters they might come up against plus the weapons they could just about carry were shorter range than the ones on the fighters they might encounter or never see because it didn't carry any radar either.

Up until recently most carrier based "attack" aircraft were like that.

Name one.

A6 intruder?

A4 Skyhawk?

[FourWheelDrift]

Ayahuasca said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Dont like rolls said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Yaks were a failure not just because of the reliability of the system but they had a 200 mile range and if they took off vertically couldn't carry much in the way of weapons, were slower and less manoeuvrable than the fighters they might come up against plus the weapons they could just about carry were shorter range than the ones on the fighters they might encounter or never see because it didn't carry any radar either.

Up until recently most carrier based "attack" aircraft were like that.

Name one.

A6 intruder?

A4 Skyhawk?

Intruder - 1,010 mile combat range and had a very complex radar system called DIANE (Digital Integrated Attack/Navigation Equipment)

Skyhawk - 680 mile combat range and had on-board radar.

Really there is nothing that only had a 200 mile combat range and flew with no radar installed like the Yak-38. You probably have to go back to WWII/early 50s to find a carrier borne fighter aircraft that had no radar on board.

[Eric Mc]

Both the Phantom and Buccaneer were designed initially for carrier operations. Both went on to be world beaters as land based aircraft too.

[FourWheelDrift]

Eric Mc said:

Both the Phantom and Buccaneer were designed initially for carrier operations. Both went on to be world beaters as land based aircraft too.

Lovely I'm sure but what exactly have they got in common with a VTOL Soviet Fighter with a very small range and no radar installed

[Eric Mc]

Just the fact that that because something that is designed initially for carrier operations is not precluded from being a good land based aircraft too.

Vertical take off has always compromised other capabilities, whether land based or nautical based.

[RDMcG]

The huge Tupolev ANT-20:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QLpyNT3lB8

[Art0ir]

Some sort of converted pax jet fighting fires in Australia. Quite impressive flying.

https://twitter.com/paddydunphyish/status/12089306...