Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)

[JuniorD]

Is the Tu-204 / Tu-214 considered a flop? 85 built in 28-odd years.

[MartG]

Second XF8U-1 prototype on the ramp

[Dr Jekyll]

JuniorD said:

Is the Tu-204 / Tu-214 considered a flop? 85 built in 28-odd years.

That would make the VC10 a flop with 54, so no.

[irocfan]

Eric Mc said:

MartG said:

Hence things like the BP Defiant

Exactly - and the Messerchmitt Bf110 and the Fokker G1.





All conceived as "bomber destroyers". In the real war, it was found that bombers often did have fighter escorts and this made these "destroyer" aircraft very vulnerable.

Or more amusingly the Ju88 light bomber found quite a lot of success in later years as a night fighter

[Eric Mc]

Pretty typical of what happened in World War 2.

The Blenheim was designed as a fast medium bomber. It became the world's first effective radar equipped night fighter.

The Junkers Ju88 followed a similar path.

The Dornier 17 family evolved into various night fighter derivatives.

The Mosquito was another example of a medium bomber turning out to be good at lots of other things.

[irocfan]

Eric Mc said:

Pretty typical of what happened in World War 2.

The Blenheim was designed as a fast medium bomber. It became the world's first effective radar equipped night fighter.

The Junkers Ju88 followed a similar path.

The Dornier 17 family evolved into various night fighter derivatives.

The Mosquito was another example of a medium bomber turning out to be good at lots of other things.

In WWII terms what would be the difference between a light and medium bomber?

[DMN]

irocfan said:

Eric Mc said:

Pretty typical of what happened in World War 2.

The Blenheim was designed as a fast medium bomber. It became the world's first effective radar equipped night fighter.

The Junkers Ju88 followed a similar path.

The Dornier 17 family evolved into various night fighter derivatives.

The Mosquito was another example of a medium bomber turning out to be good at lots of other things.

In WWII terms what would be the difference between a light and medium bomber?

A light bomber would be something like the Fairy Battle or Stuka (just about).

Medium would cover things like the Wellington, B25 and He111.

[Eric Mc]

The definitions are a bit arbitrary. For instance, when the Air Ministry set out the specification for what became the Hampden, Wellington and Whitley, it was classed as being for a "Heavy Bomber" - based on bomb lifting capacities set out by the League of Nations.

By the time their replacements entered service (Halifax, Stirling and Lancaster), they were firmly in the Medium Bomber category.

[DiscoColin]

JeremyH5 said:

DiscoColin said:

Not yet, but the Textron AirLand Scorpion has been flying for approaching 5 years now and they still haven't persuaded anybody anywhere in the world to order one...?

[Will be familiar to airshow buffs who wander the static displays - there is always one parked up looking hopeful at RIAT]

This has puzzled me for a while but I haven’t done any research to find out what’s wrong with it. It looks “right”. Can anyone enlighten me?

I can only throw logic at it and give you an opinion. The most obvious is that apparently nobody wanted to be the first to order it (risking being the only customer, with a lifetime of no economies of scale in the supply chain). It will cost more than a Reaper drone which would meet most of its potential missions without putting any crew in harms way and which is also of course already in service and proven. It has no systems or parts commonality with anything that any potential operators might already have in their inventories (so the flyaway cost becomes much less important than the spares/training/infrastructure startup costs of a new type). The US manned light attack aircraft project that they thought they were filling a need for has instead decided that a single engine turboprop for way less money is the way to go. The next generation US jet trainer programme that they were thinking of bidding at was only ever going to be considering a much higher performance airframe and they are out of that one...

Basically anyone buying it is potentially on their own whereas there is no shortage of alternative platforms in a similar ball park price range which are proven and have customers, support and supply chains in place (M-346, Hawk, L-39NG, T-50, etc...).

Some of our better connected aerospace buffs on here probably have more insight, but to me it just looks like a speculatively developed lame duck for which pretty much every potential use case has an existing better option...?

[JeremyH5]

Thank you, Colin, for a well reasoned explanation. I have now done a bit more searching and see that Wikipedia runs a more detailed but fundamentally similar argument.

[greghm]

I am sure someone posted already the BV 141

Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV96hXwWN7c

[Eric Mc]

It was too radical - even for the Germans.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

It was more down to the fact that the preferred engine option for the BV141, the BMW801, was not available in sufficient quantity because it was being used in the Focke-Wulf 190, coupled with the fact that the Focke-Wulf 189 was a more versatile design for a reconnaissance a/c.

[Eric Mc]

Yes, the Fw189 was a better bet all round. Eric Brown flew the Bv141 and found it was nice to fly.

[XB70]

Help - looking for a photo that I think was on this thread



It was a of a HDR Mig 29 going vertical with afterburners lit.

It was in the last few months but search as I might, I cannot locate it.

I believe it was taken by a PHer rather than a source from elsewhere.

Thanks in advance

[LotusOmega375D]

The one at the bottom of page 311 sticks in my memory. Biut might not be the one you mean.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[XB70]

LotusOmega375D said:

The one at the bottom of page 311 sticks in my memory. Biut might not be the one you mean.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Hi

It is very similar in the look and feel (the aircraft was vertical with the topside facing to the right) but that shot you have linked to is amazing!

[LotusOmega375D]

It may have been deleted or have been linked to a Photobucket account.

[irocfan]

[irocfan]