It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pray, you tell me which airplane this is

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
In reality however I'm still to see the first aircraft in active duty that even has 1 spec of rust on it.


You must not have had a roomate that worked in corrosion control in the Air Force. I was stationed at Clark AB in the earily 80's. High humidity, salt air, and lots of flying = plenty of rust on the 'ole F-4's. However, they usually kept them looking good.




posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Thats what I ment. There can be rust underneath all you want, but I've never seen an active duty jet with visible rust (except for WW2 Zero's)



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Too bad we don't have the C-135s out here anymore. I could have shown you all the rust on the outside you wanted to see. There are ways to hide it, but not completely, and if you know where to look you can see it pretty easily.


la2

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
www.airliners.net... F%20RTLP%29&ERDLTkt=HX%20-%20Ratynaq&ktODMp=Bpgbore%2026%2C%202004&BP=1&WNEb25u=Puevf%20Ybsgvat&xsIERvdWdsY=MW800&MgTUQtODMgKE=17FDA%20oernxvat%20gb%2 0ynaq%20ba%20ehajnl%2022&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=2046&NEb25uZWxs=2004-10-30%2000%3A00%3A00&ODJ9dvCE=NP&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes&width=1600&height=1167&sok=JURER% 20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27ONR%20Flfgrzf%20Rhebsvtugre%20Glcubba%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=9&prev_id=705313&next_id=66 5039

[edit on 9-9-2005 by la2]



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Yet this picture is of a crossbred jet of 2 relativly new aircrafts. Most recent aircrafts can't even rust with their composite, titanium and aloy components.

As I said, I've seen many WW2 Zero's with more then their share of rust on them. But is rust something you've ever seen on a modern active duty aircraft?



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
looks a bit like this >> The Rafale C01

external image

external image



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Just for note, Thomas Boulard is the Head of the Art Department and concept artist for Ryzom. (A Game Company)

-DT



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
It looks cool though. Lets see what the future holds in the next 50 years in aircraft design. Like this. This aircraft has the ability to go up to Mach 3.2. Can go high as 24 kilometers.






[edit on 1-12-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
This looks like a F-18 mated with a Su-47 Berkut; anyone have any clue as to which plane it is...and if you do please post some details on it as well.


We could also discuss how rubbish the design is... aerodynamicly...



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rmatrem

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
This looks like a F-18 mated with a Su-47 Berkut; anyone have any clue as to which plane it is...and if you do please post some details on it as well.


We could also discuss how rubbish the design is... aerodynamicly...

I don't know, seems pretty stable to me
.

But in all honestly, I think that it doesn't matter how rubbish the design is, with today's technology, we can make pretty much anything fly, hell anything with enough power behind it will fly. Look at the F/A-22 Raptor for instance, it's aerodynamically unstable and wouldn't fly without FBW. Or the F-117, or the B-2(depends really, the XB-35 flew without FBW, but did it ever get put into production? No, technology hadn't advanced to the point where it needed to be in order for it to fly the way we wanted it to then).

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
This looks like a F-18 mated with a Su-47 Berkut; anyone have any clue as to which plane it is...and if you do please post some details on it as well.



Thanks in advance,

Stealth Spy
It could be an F-29 Retaliator, F-19, F-24,5,6,7,8, NATF?
Dont know but it is deffo US. Nice one though should be a Tomcat replacement if there is one maybe?. Could be an Attacker/Fighter/Bomber?

We will all find out one day!



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
F-29 Retaliator? The F-29 is the Scorpion, fighter version of the X-29, but, alas, only in my head



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Did a search on the internet for F-29, the F-29 Retaliator was the basis for a 3-D flight sim that revolved around advanced 21st century fighters, hardly a real fighter.

Now as for the F-29 Scorpion, that I could not find, waynos, do you have any sources that I can turn to, to find information on the F-29 Scorpion?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   



Just if these Japanese manga aircraft came to reality, would look good for the next Eurofighter if there will be one!. Imagine these in FAA Service!.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Shattered, you'll have to pardon me for giving you duff information there, the F-29 Scorpion is a conversion I intend to do with a X-29 model kit, sorry, I did say it was only in my head though.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Shattered, you'll have to pardon me for giving you duff information there, the F-29 Scorpion is a conversion I intend to do with a X-29 model kit, sorry, I did say it was only in my head though.

I thought you were making a joke when you said that.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Come on Boyz lets move on with this board, Has anyone found out this plane yet?, Maybe it could be the new E/A-18 Growler becouse of the big hump on its back looks like it houses a big radar or it could be a new Naval Attack Bomber of the F/A-18 series. I dont think it has anything to do with the F/A-18 series exept its canopy and the afterburners look like parts of it.

It might be a testbed for a new fighter but its built on a F/A-18 airframe.

Maybe it could be a derivative from the Hornet?.

[edit on 10-12-2005 by Browno]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
self deleted !

[edit on 10-12-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Mmm if it was an E/A-18 Growler etc i would assume that any model would be two seat as its a bit much to ask one person to fly/operate equipment a la the Prowler etc.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rmatrem

We could also discuss how rubbish the design is... aerodynamicly...



I don't see one single insurmountable problem with it really.

Sure, the rudder ('vertical' stabilisers) are well obscured at high AoA and may not be as effective in roll damping, but I don't think that would be a large issue with canards and the large wing area.


I don't know why the small stubs inboard of the canard trailing edge are there - they would only serve to break up the vortex from the LERX... Unless there are two (four) vortices formed, one from each LERX, which passes inboard of the rudders, and one from each canard, which passes outside - but these would be co-rotating, and therefore destructive.

However, as far as I knew, the LERX vortices pass outboard of the fins on a F-18 anyway.


Maybe it stops the LERX vortex formation and encourages it only on the canard
somewhat puzzling - but those stubs aren't present on F/A-18 E/F nor the S-37...







 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join