Hoax or Real Aircraft images.

Thanks guys. With the wealth of knowledge on ATS.

Ok, I've worked on, in, and with a few prototype aircraft and mockups. There are so many things wrong with this picture, I don't know where to start. Let's just say, take a real close look. Too many parts and pieces don't line up like a real manufactured aircraft would have. Nor what would be seen in an actual full size mockup. (Not counting the poor photoshopping of edges and images.)

I sure wouldn't fly it, parts of it look like paper mache. Everything inside the access hatches looks like a picture pasted on of something.... something sort of "aircraft stuff should be in here". It's just so wrong in so many ways.

Not to mention the canopy looks like it's from a plastic model.

This aircraft won't be flying anytime soon. And if this picture is fudged up from a real mock-up, somebody's got a lot more work to do before any of this type flys. Mock-ups are built from the inside out, not the outside in. That's for automobile concepts, not aircraft.

Now if a picture of a quarter scale or tenth scale wind tunnel model was published, I'd be a believer in their design development abilities.

Nice try though, it had me looking....

Cowlan...several of your pics didn't work. (FYI)

I think it look a lot like a Y/F-23 with canards.

looks pretty cool, I would lean towards CGI...some cgi models look obviously computer made...but there are tens of thousands of people out there with the capability to do this...I wish I was one of them.

As said...programs like Lightwave and others, can get this clarity, it all depends on how good there computer is, and how much time they are willing to put into it (meaning the small details of things, which add a ton of additional pollygons, which is often the "bottleneck" of the process, and strains the computer), and there knowledge of the program itself.
BTW, a 3ghz pc with a good vid card can normally do the job.

Heres an example of a obvious CGI, and a not so obvious CGI.

The shuttle one is obvious because Challenger didn't have a black upper surface on the forward part of the wing. Only Columbia had that.

The shuttle one is obvious because Challenger didn't have a black upper surface on the forward part of the wing. Only Columbia had that.

with respect I would say that only makes it obvious that something is wrong with the picture, and only then if you are familiar with Space Shuttle variations. It would not tell you that CG was involved.

Some very good (although obvious) Photoshops:

New Ideas for Typhoon Tranche 4

Eurofighter Typhoon PJC (Pilot job creation)-
Due to decreased size of modern airforces, this model helps against increasing unemployment caused by the switch from 2-seated Tornados to 1-seated Typhoons.



Typhoon CC (Carrier capable)-
After the recent problems in the F-35B programme more and more Navys opt for a conventional catapult start. And why get a new naval aircraft when existing logistics can be used for a navalized Typhoon? (Actually there are really researches into this)




Typhoon ISP (improved stability programme)-
The Typhoon is inherently unstable, causing problems during peacetime if computers fail. This peacetime improvement takes care of this once and for all



All from Airpower.at. Personally, I cannot see any definitive proof of them being faked.

[edit on 17/11/2005 by Lonestar24]

Lovely pics! The only flaw I could see (apart from the obvious silliness) is the way the VC tailplane is cut off at what would haveen the edge of the frame on the original pic, otherwise they are near flawless, especially the three seater

hahahaa
I won't want to say any words just say look at these below
I'll just remain these one day before delete it






[edit on 17-11-2005 by emile]

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
yeah, I think it's a hoax too... It's just too blur... But the plane looks a bit like the "Bird of Prey"

What Bird of Prey are you talking about... cause it looking nothing like the Boeing Bird of Prey... nothing

Originally posted by vt hokie
The shuttle one is obvious because Challenger didn't have a black upper surface on the forward part of the wing. Only Columbia had that.

He was clearly giving one that is.. NOT sooooooooooo987 obvious... his point was well made.

Originally posted by emile
hahahaa

I won't want to say any words just say look at these below
I'll just remain these one day before delete it

[edit on 17-11-2005 by emile]

Incredible...

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Personally, I cannot see any definitive proof of them being faked.

[edit on 17/11/2005 by Lonestar24]

in the second to last pic, if you look at the shadow of the plane versus the shadow of the ground crewman you can see a discrepancy.

I'm not surprised by the navalised research. many ground based fighters have later variants researched for carrier use. Even the P-51h mustang was researched by the US navy and passed carrier trials. The only thing that stopped it from being used on carriers was the end of the war.

Bearing in mind that emiles pictures bear the same watermark as the one we're debating I'd say that settles it, He's proved its a CG image to me. Well done emile

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Great stuff. Personally I was amazed that there weren't immediate moves for this kind of thing. I watched the first demonstration video of the Typhoon and after its near loop from takeoff the first thing my mind screamed was "Hello new Sea Fury!" I know you'd have to redo the undercarriage and add a hook and a landing system ("ball" isn't it?), but with a climb rate like that...

edit: quote

[edit on 17-11-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 17-11-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]

The funny thing is that the Typhoon already HAS an arrestor hook. Well, anything is possible if only the tranche 3 will become a success.

No, it doesn't have an arrestor hook.

Yes, it has

Ancillary structures
...

One of the requirements imposed on the Eurofighter is the ability to operate from hastily prepared landing and take-off strips. [...] Additionally an emergency arrestor hook is fitted to the rear of fuselage.

www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk...

There are two major frames supporting the engines the rear frame also incorporates fin and arrester hook attachments. ...

www.eurofighter.com... -> click on "Rear Fuselage"

The reason for this is that there are mobile arrestor wire units that can be used if a n improvised airstrip is not long enough for a safe normal touchdown. The Tornados have those hooks too IIRC.

It is stressed for an arrestor hook but it does not have one fitted as standard, as far as I understand it. I have been wrong before though.

edit; And I am wrong again! Item 101 on the Janes 1999 cutaway of the Typhoon is 'emergency airfield arrestor hook'. Oops.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by waynos]

Hey that photo was from a video game. and it actually looks like one of the prototype drawings for the raptor (obviouisly from the company that didnt get to make one) I want to say the game is ace combat 7 (not sure of the number) but some engineers some where have actually drawn this plane made little models and put it in a wind tunnel. If really made this plane could fly. Just imagine the drawings of the f-117 that didnt make it. talk about weird!