>>8019 TBH the F-20 Tigershark with link capability would be a better choice as the workhorse of the air forces backed by more specialized planes to back it up. Surprisingly the VVS still won't go for a single engine fighter. Not sure why other than maybe they are worried about engine failures. The only prototype single engine I can think of was the SR-10 trainer. Probably just the good old nepotisim network. Surprised there's been no use of the Yak-130 in a light fighter role.

>>8022 I think its due to the difficulty in making good high end rocket engines, its a terribly difficult process and there are like 3 factories in the entire world that can make the good stuff. So using two engines lets you use something with lower specs.

So the plane was found, crashed into a field. Official reason for ejection? Bad weather. Yeah the weather was so bad that the pilot ejected and the plane traveled for a good while on autopilot. So, what could be the problem here? Diversity is not an option, that plane has 1/3 chance of decapitating you on ejection even niggers are not so dumb as to risk it for seemingly no reason.

>>8024 One possibility I've read in a random comment section is that maybe the pilot wasn't getting enough oxygen, possibly due to a scrubber malfunctioning. In that case it makes sense that he ejects, as passing out while trying to land a plane doesn't sound like a good idea. And yes, if this happened then someone somewhere most likely fucked up something.

>>8024 >bad weather Where there any thunderstorms or cumulunimbus clouds in the area? A DOT&E report from ~2017 prohibited F-35s from operating in a 20 mile vicinity of thunder. This might've gotten "fixed" but the DOT&E reports also mention engineering&supply chain issues due to all those retroactively applied patchwork fixes making both prototypes/test planes and individual production aircraft too distinct from one another. Atmospheric scrubber or other life support problems are just as likely though since the F-22 has encountered those issues a number of times.

>>8026 Looks like there were. Jesus Christ what a disgrace.

>>8027 Just like how the Hotchkiss Portative was not a nighttime gun, the F-35 is not a thunderjet.

Why do aircraft always have the pilot cockpit above the center of mass and not under it? It's only a few hundred pounds but wouldn't it make more sense to have the pilot underneath the aircraft to act as a counter-weight and for better visibility? Planetard so maybe I'm just missing something simple.

>>8029 Multiple reasons. >Cockpit on top allows Pilot to see upwards. Cockpit on bottom would require Ace Combat tier COFFIN display arrangement to look up, and much of the Pilot's lower visibility would be obstructed by legs+instruments unless the Pilot is in a prone position. >Cockpit on top makes safe ejection mechanism design 6 trillion times easier unless you're Lockheeb. >Cockpit on bottom makes bellylanding due to landing gear failure very difficult to walk away from. >Counterweights aren't strictly needed on the bottom when relaxed stability FBW exists. What might be sensible would be putting the Cockpit inside the plane for maximized aerodynamics and stealth, but this would then entail more Ace Combat autism with the Pilot being wholly dependent on external cameras+sensors for basic navigation but in a traditional COFFIN layout with 360° screens there'd be no need for a heavy F-35 helmet so less risk of neck injury and the ejection mechanism would also be more complicated.

>>8029 Anon grab some crayons and draw me how you want to put a chair in down facing cockpit. And also you would lose visibility and carry space so also draw me how you want to put missiles above the wings. That said there were some bombers with 2ndary downward facing cockpit for better aiming, where the spotter was sometimes even lying flat. Glass nosecones won though

Planelet #2 here, is this? = https://web.archive.org/web/20230910200052/https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a43907928/darpa-x-65-plane-maneuvers-using-only-blasts-of-air/ a complete meme or the next wundertech or just something useful that is overblow?

>>8032 If I understand the physics correctly, it's not really a meme but it's also not really wundertech. It's taking advantage of the B-2's "gliding" mechanics but in a package that's harder for conventional radar to spot. It's a slow-moving aircraft meant to be unmanned but hard to see. The compressed air directional controls allow it to perform maneuvers that would either be disorientating or create too many G's for a meatbag pilot. In theory it could serve as a prototype for a super-high-altitude drone down the line because of how it generates thrust. What will really make or break it is the price point. If the thing costs as much as a traditional jet than it's memeware, but if they can keep the costs low, say comparable to a low-end missile, then they will make perfect "disposable" loitering fighter/recon aircraft with some bomber capabilities.

>>8031 I could make a 3D model but it would take too long. Basically something where the pilot is integrated into the "frame" of the aircraft with a slight dip below the aircraft for the legs. The front would consist of a partial viewport on the front and angled sides for upward viewing, and a small dome on the bottom for majority-viewing, and then angled mirrors around the wings or munitions would allow the pilot to see above-and-behind from the top viewports and below-and-behind from mirrors positioned at the pilot's feet. It would be initially disorienting but the weight distribution should be more even and it would give the pilot a more "full" field of view of anything that isn't directly above-and-behind him. The chair could either be secured through a baseplate mounted to the lower nose where the piloting controls + center console are, or through suspension tethers so that the pilot is partially free-floating to adjust for G-forces. The seat could then eject from the lower-dome disconnecting and letting gravity "drop" the chair through the lower viewport for safer and simpler exit rather than trying to be faster-and-higher than the aircraft post-ejection. I dunno it makes sense from a physics standpoint but >>8030 raises good points about landing.

>>8031 I mean that weapons mounted on strongpoints under the wing will reduce visibility. Sorry for being so confussing. >>8032 Aside from potentially reducing planes profile it needs to be pointed out that this shit can be used for control in low orbit or even void. So this shit is for dropping satelites.

>>8033 >The compressed air directional controls allow it to perform maneuvers that would either be disorientating or create too many G's for a meatbag pilot. So you're saying that if a pilot not clued in to the program happened to see one manoeuvring, then he'd see an unidentified object flying in a way inconsistent with and far beyond the manoeuvrability of conventional aircraft? Sounds familiar.

Wait, it would remove vertical control surfaces meaning there is nothing that could obstruct hardkill APS mounted on such a plane, meaning end of dominance of missiles and return to dogfighting Shit would be so cash.

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=9K5v3Jwz89w >the US Navy used kamikaze drones during ww1 >maybe even before the Japanese themselves started using kamikaze planes

>>8038 >WW1 *WW2 The japs only resorted to kamikaze towards the end of the war, after their navy was effectively defeated and no longer a threat to the US.

bump

Why is aviation discussion so dead lately? With B-21's reveal, the SR-72's development and the shit like murka's 6th gen prototype flying I'd guess the would be more vivid shitflinging all around.

>>8041 Perhaps because the board is dead.

>>8042 NO U!

>>8041 You need at least one planefag to start a discussion, and if no one else is doing it then you should be the one. So, tell us about all of those things.

>>8041 >burgerkikestan's 666th gen flying patty What could it be? An F-35 with an ethnically diverse Live2D AI avatar made by Facesperg?

>>8045 Likely but it's even more likely this is where the F-35's 2 trillions budget actually went.

>>8046 Are they going to recycle the YF-23's variable cycle engines and claim it as a new revolutionary design?

>>8047 Can they claim that it is after making the tax payer fund the reverse engineering of it after all the blueprints got mysteriously lost?

>>8047 This hit really irks me. Murkans had this technology since the 90s at marginally higher cost than muh bigger turbofans and now treat this shit as if it is borderline science fiction.

>>8017 >>8025 https://fritz-aviewfromthebeach.blogspot.com/2017/04/reason-5502-that-trump-was-elected.html So, did they at least fix it on Goshawk, or did this just quietly roll into the crapper until there's a new kickback in sight?

How are Boeing's current military safety and quality control standards relative to those of their civilian divisions?

>>8049 Don't see how you can expect much when companies like Boeing just take their 60's 737 design and strap bigger engines. Then it still somehow gets fucked and kills everyone in 2 crashes and now they can't put a plug door in correctly. They have more then proven themselves incapable of even slight upgrades to 1960 designs and you expect them to grasp the 90's?

Anyone do aerial refuelling better than USAF?

>>8052 Even freaking SOVIETS in the 80s managed to do it, on a Gorbachevian budget ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-41 >The first prototype engine flew in a MiG-25 Foxbat testbed. An 18–tonne (177 kN, 40,000 lbf) class engine, the AL-41F used a variable bypass architecture to facilitate the aircraft in supercruise, or fly at speeds of Mach 1.5 without afterburner. This level of incompetence and technological regression is beyond drunken marxist Slav level of idiocy, this is deep diversity hire territory!

>>8052 >Boeing >>8054 >this is deep diversity hire territory! In Boeing's case it was the bean counters who came over in the McDonnell Douglas merger that fucked it over. Harry Stonecipher, the last CEO of MDC, somehow became the CEO of Boeing in the merger and in short order replaced most of Boeing's senior leadership with former MDC people (basically amounted to replacing "expensive" senior top tier aviation engineers with MBAs) and lo and behold quality goes down the drain. So in summary - you have a company run by bean counter MBAs, no competition in the US civilian airline market (airbus is under tariffs), FAA allowing them to "self certify" aircraft. Good times. t. salty

>>8055 >FAA allowing them to "self certify" aircraft Truly terrifying to think of if you're a frequent flyer.

>>8056 >>8055 Boeing was literally asking the FAA to waive safety standards due to, yet again, the 737 Max having issues where using the anti-ice systems for too long in certain situations might cause fatal damage to the engines in flight. https://archive.vn/BxGzo Boeing said they would fix it at some point in the future, but they probably have to sacrifice another few hundred passengers to their vengeful gods before that it actually happens. No wonder Airbus is sucking up the market.