-
Posts
7,230 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
192
Reputation Activity
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from Lord_James in A Quick Explanation of Forward Swept Wings
Every so often someone asks a question about the advantages of forward-swept wings, and usually they get a shitty half-assed answer about how they somehow improve maneuverability and stuff. I will attempt to provide a fully-assed answer.
The short version is that forward swept wings do roughly the same thing as conventional aft swept wings; they increase critical mach number. I found an excellent video explaining transonic effects, so watch that first if you don't already know what that is.
Typically, a straight wing starts experiencing shock wave buildup at around mach .7. These effects are generally bad; control surfaces lose effectiveness, the aircraft's center of lift moves, stability can decrease, and drag greatly increases.
It's generally desirable to delay the onset of this badness. The critical mach number is strongly affected by the thickness to chord ratio:
So, critical mach number could be increased by having really thin wings. The F-104 does this, but at the expense of having ridiculously tiny wings that generate barely any lift and no internal volume for fuel storage.
Critical mach number could also be delayed by having wings with a normal thickness, but very long chord. This would improve the supersonic performance of the wing, but subsonic drag would be negatively affected, because the wing would have a large amount of induced drag, and additional wetted area that would cause more drag.
Finally, the wing could be swept. This would increase the chord length relative to the airflow, but would not give the wing undue surface area and thus subsonic drag.
In theory, the critical mach number could be increased by a factor equal to the inverse of the cosine of the sweep angle (much like calculating the LOS thickness of tank armor, and for the same reason), but secondary effects mean that it's less effective than this. The practical effect of sweep on drag coefficient looks about like this:
(from Design for Air Combat)
This, incidentally, is why the ME-262 doesn't really have swept wings. The change in Mcr is basically negligible for any leading edge sweep under thirty degrees.
Note that this logic applies whether the wings are swept forwards or backwards; as far as delaying and reducing the transonic effects, forward or rearward sweep should be equally effective.
There are some secondary effects that make forward-swept wings more desirable. One of these is spanwise flow:
In any swept wing, the air isn't just flowing over the wing, it's flowing across them as well. This means that while pulling Gs the tips of the wings will stall first. Since the tips aren't producing lift anymore, but the rest of the wing is, the center of lift of the wing moves forward, which means that there's more pitch-up torque on the plane, which means that the nose goes up even more and the stall gets worse. This is known as the "sabre dance," as the F-100 displayed this undesirable property. With the wings forward swept, the root of the wings would stall first (although in practice, forward swept wing aircraft tend to have the wings attached well aft, so the CL still shifts forward during a stall)
To make matters worse, the air spilling out sideways and the early stall interfere with the effectiveness of the ailerons, which means that the aircraft can lose roll control effectiveness as it increases AOA. This is a particularly alarming behavior during landing, as speed is low, AOA is high, and keeping the aircraft level is of paramount importance.
Additionally, the air spilling out outwards towards the wingtips reduces lift. Reducing this bad behavior increases lift coefficient, therefore.
So, forward swept wings are a little more efficient, aerodynamically than aft swept wings. Why aren't they more popular?
The problem is something called aeroelastic divergence; which is engineer-speak for "the goddamn wings try to tear themselves off." I will attempt to illustrate with the finest MS pain diagrams:
The amount of lift that a wing generates is a function of the angle of attack. The wing will generate more lift the more inclined it is relative to the airflow.
Wings in the real world are, of course, not perfectly rigid, so when they generate lift in order to pull the weight of the fuselage through the sky, they bend slightly.
In swept wings, the wings aren't just bending, they're twisting as well because the center of lift is not aligned with the structural connection between the fuselage.
In an aft-swept wing, the force of the lift tends to twist the wings downwards. Increasing the angle of attack will increase the lift, which will increase this downward twist, which is a naturally self-limiting (negative feedback) arrangement.
In a forward-swept wing, it's exactly the opposite. When the angle of attack increases, lift increases and the wings twist themselves upwards, which increases lift even more which increases the twisting...
This is why forward-swept wings had to wait until magical composites with magical properties were available.
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from Zyklon in A Quick Explanation of Forward Swept Wings
Every so often someone asks a question about the advantages of forward-swept wings, and usually they get a shitty half-assed answer about how they somehow improve maneuverability and stuff. I will attempt to provide a fully-assed answer.
The short version is that forward swept wings do roughly the same thing as conventional aft swept wings; they increase critical mach number. I found an excellent video explaining transonic effects, so watch that first if you don't already know what that is.
Typically, a straight wing starts experiencing shock wave buildup at around mach .7. These effects are generally bad; control surfaces lose effectiveness, the aircraft's center of lift moves, stability can decrease, and drag greatly increases.
It's generally desirable to delay the onset of this badness. The critical mach number is strongly affected by the thickness to chord ratio:
So, critical mach number could be increased by having really thin wings. The F-104 does this, but at the expense of having ridiculously tiny wings that generate barely any lift and no internal volume for fuel storage.
Critical mach number could also be delayed by having wings with a normal thickness, but very long chord. This would improve the supersonic performance of the wing, but subsonic drag would be negatively affected, because the wing would have a large amount of induced drag, and additional wetted area that would cause more drag.
Finally, the wing could be swept. This would increase the chord length relative to the airflow, but would not give the wing undue surface area and thus subsonic drag.
In theory, the critical mach number could be increased by a factor equal to the inverse of the cosine of the sweep angle (much like calculating the LOS thickness of tank armor, and for the same reason), but secondary effects mean that it's less effective than this. The practical effect of sweep on drag coefficient looks about like this:
(from Design for Air Combat)
This, incidentally, is why the ME-262 doesn't really have swept wings. The change in Mcr is basically negligible for any leading edge sweep under thirty degrees.
Note that this logic applies whether the wings are swept forwards or backwards; as far as delaying and reducing the transonic effects, forward or rearward sweep should be equally effective.
There are some secondary effects that make forward-swept wings more desirable. One of these is spanwise flow:
In any swept wing, the air isn't just flowing over the wing, it's flowing across them as well. This means that while pulling Gs the tips of the wings will stall first. Since the tips aren't producing lift anymore, but the rest of the wing is, the center of lift of the wing moves forward, which means that there's more pitch-up torque on the plane, which means that the nose goes up even more and the stall gets worse. This is known as the "sabre dance," as the F-100 displayed this undesirable property. With the wings forward swept, the root of the wings would stall first (although in practice, forward swept wing aircraft tend to have the wings attached well aft, so the CL still shifts forward during a stall)
To make matters worse, the air spilling out sideways and the early stall interfere with the effectiveness of the ailerons, which means that the aircraft can lose roll control effectiveness as it increases AOA. This is a particularly alarming behavior during landing, as speed is low, AOA is high, and keeping the aircraft level is of paramount importance.
Additionally, the air spilling out outwards towards the wingtips reduces lift. Reducing this bad behavior increases lift coefficient, therefore.
So, forward swept wings are a little more efficient, aerodynamically than aft swept wings. Why aren't they more popular?
The problem is something called aeroelastic divergence; which is engineer-speak for "the goddamn wings try to tear themselves off." I will attempt to illustrate with the finest MS pain diagrams:
The amount of lift that a wing generates is a function of the angle of attack. The wing will generate more lift the more inclined it is relative to the airflow.
Wings in the real world are, of course, not perfectly rigid, so when they generate lift in order to pull the weight of the fuselage through the sky, they bend slightly.
In swept wings, the wings aren't just bending, they're twisting as well because the center of lift is not aligned with the structural connection between the fuselage.
In an aft-swept wing, the force of the lift tends to twist the wings downwards. Increasing the angle of attack will increase the lift, which will increase this downward twist, which is a naturally self-limiting (negative feedback) arrangement.
In a forward-swept wing, it's exactly the opposite. When the angle of attack increases, lift increases and the wings twist themselves upwards, which increases lift even more which increases the twisting...
This is why forward-swept wings had to wait until magical composites with magical properties were available.
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from SuperComrade in A Quick Explanation of Forward Swept Wings
Every so often someone asks a question about the advantages of forward-swept wings, and usually they get a shitty half-assed answer about how they somehow improve maneuverability and stuff. I will attempt to provide a fully-assed answer.
The short version is that forward swept wings do roughly the same thing as conventional aft swept wings; they increase critical mach number. I found an excellent video explaining transonic effects, so watch that first if you don't already know what that is.
Typically, a straight wing starts experiencing shock wave buildup at around mach .7. These effects are generally bad; control surfaces lose effectiveness, the aircraft's center of lift moves, stability can decrease, and drag greatly increases.
It's generally desirable to delay the onset of this badness. The critical mach number is strongly affected by the thickness to chord ratio:
So, critical mach number could be increased by having really thin wings. The F-104 does this, but at the expense of having ridiculously tiny wings that generate barely any lift and no internal volume for fuel storage.
Critical mach number could also be delayed by having wings with a normal thickness, but very long chord. This would improve the supersonic performance of the wing, but subsonic drag would be negatively affected, because the wing would have a large amount of induced drag, and additional wetted area that would cause more drag.
Finally, the wing could be swept. This would increase the chord length relative to the airflow, but would not give the wing undue surface area and thus subsonic drag.
In theory, the critical mach number could be increased by a factor equal to the inverse of the cosine of the sweep angle (much like calculating the LOS thickness of tank armor, and for the same reason), but secondary effects mean that it's less effective than this. The practical effect of sweep on drag coefficient looks about like this:
(from Design for Air Combat)
This, incidentally, is why the ME-262 doesn't really have swept wings. The change in Mcr is basically negligible for any leading edge sweep under thirty degrees.
Note that this logic applies whether the wings are swept forwards or backwards; as far as delaying and reducing the transonic effects, forward or rearward sweep should be equally effective.
There are some secondary effects that make forward-swept wings more desirable. One of these is spanwise flow:
In any swept wing, the air isn't just flowing over the wing, it's flowing across them as well. This means that while pulling Gs the tips of the wings will stall first. Since the tips aren't producing lift anymore, but the rest of the wing is, the center of lift of the wing moves forward, which means that there's more pitch-up torque on the plane, which means that the nose goes up even more and the stall gets worse. This is known as the "sabre dance," as the F-100 displayed this undesirable property. With the wings forward swept, the root of the wings would stall first (although in practice, forward swept wing aircraft tend to have the wings attached well aft, so the CL still shifts forward during a stall)
To make matters worse, the air spilling out sideways and the early stall interfere with the effectiveness of the ailerons, which means that the aircraft can lose roll control effectiveness as it increases AOA. This is a particularly alarming behavior during landing, as speed is low, AOA is high, and keeping the aircraft level is of paramount importance.
Additionally, the air spilling out outwards towards the wingtips reduces lift. Reducing this bad behavior increases lift coefficient, therefore.
So, forward swept wings are a little more efficient, aerodynamically than aft swept wings. Why aren't they more popular?
The problem is something called aeroelastic divergence; which is engineer-speak for "the goddamn wings try to tear themselves off." I will attempt to illustrate with the finest MS pain diagrams:
The amount of lift that a wing generates is a function of the angle of attack. The wing will generate more lift the more inclined it is relative to the airflow.
Wings in the real world are, of course, not perfectly rigid, so when they generate lift in order to pull the weight of the fuselage through the sky, they bend slightly.
In swept wings, the wings aren't just bending, they're twisting as well because the center of lift is not aligned with the structural connection between the fuselage.
In an aft-swept wing, the force of the lift tends to twist the wings downwards. Increasing the angle of attack will increase the lift, which will increase this downward twist, which is a naturally self-limiting (negative feedback) arrangement.
In a forward-swept wing, it's exactly the opposite. When the angle of attack increases, lift increases and the wings twist themselves upwards, which increases lift even more which increases the twisting...
This is why forward-swept wings had to wait until magical composites with magical properties were available.
-
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from Zyklon in Great Video on Transonic Flow
From back when they made decent educational videos!
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from Belesarius in Anti-Aging Technology And Physical Immortality
I realize that this is supposed to be a thought exercise that's more about risk management, but how exactly is the pill supposed to be able to halt aging, but be at the same time unable to reverse previously accumulated damage? If we think of aging as the failure of the body to perform upkeep on itself, this distinction doesn't really make that much sense.
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from LoooSeR in Great Video on Transonic Flow
From back when they made decent educational videos!
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from That_Baka in The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.
I've field-stripped a spectre, and I was surprised at how crude it was.
Dunno how functional they are, but they're sure not pretty.
The magazine design is fucking rad.
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from Belesarius in The Swedish AFV Thread: Not Just Strv 103s
For all your STRV-2000 needs.
As for the concepts that S-tank beat out, I've only ever seen the FTR writeup:
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/08/06/swedish-tanks-part-xv-strv-a-strv-t-strv-k/
-
Collimatrix reacted to T___A in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
Unfortunately he can't since he tanks nitrates for those final drive problems.
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from Belesarius in Yakovlev MFI submission
I'm not sure why, but I suspect that survivability was a major concern. Sukhoi's S-37 delta wasn't popular with the brass for the same reason:
That NK-32/NK-321 is a hell of an engine, BTW. I'm assuming they would have reduced the bypass ratio for a fighter version, but the bomber version delivers an outstanding 55,000 lbs of thrust in afterburner. That Yakovlev MFI would have had about as much thrust as a rafale or EF-2000, just on one engine.
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from Belesarius in Aerospace Pictures and Art Thread
Configuration IV of the Hornet 2000 proposal:
From Paralay's site.
-
Collimatrix reacted to LostCosmonaut in Aerospace Documents Collection Point
I will be making a list of useful aerospace related documents in this thread. I'll be adding my own collection at first, feel free to add you own.
Launch Vehicles
Advanced Cryogenic Expendible SSTO
Advanced Rocket Engines
Air Augmented Rocket Propulsion Concepts
Improved Saturn V Variants
History of Soviet Liquid Fueled Engines
Silbervogel
The Space Shuttle as an Element in the National Space Program (published 1970)
Space Shuttle Range Safety Command Destruct System
Why Does the Space Shuttle Have Wings?: A Look at the Social Construction of Technology in Air and Space
Human Rated Delta IV
Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants
Soviet Space Program Handbook (1988)
Launch Loop
Atlas V Users Guide
Current Evaluation of Tripropellant Concept
Star Raker
Assessments of Proposed Upgraded (STS, 1999)
Liquid Flyback Booster Configurations
Liquid Flyback Booster Study Assessment
Dual Liquid Flyback Booster for Space Shuttle
Apollo Lunar Module Propulsion Systems Overview
Lifting Manned Hypervelocity Reentry Vehicles
Saturn V Improvement Study
Nuclear Propulsion
Missions to Mars and the Moons of Jupiter and Saturn Utilizing Nuclear Thermal Rockets with Indigenous Propellants
Nuclear Thermal Rockets Using Indigenous Martian Propellants
Nuclear Thermal Rocket/VehicIe Design Options for Future NASA Missions to the Moon and Mars
Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
Solid Core Nuclear Propulsion Concept
Development of Nuclear Rocket Engines in the USSR
NSWR
Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Program
Rover Nuclear Engine Program Tests
Design of Antimatter Annihilation Rocket
Antiproton Powered Propulsion with Magnetically Confined Plasma Engines
Nuclear Pulse Space Vehicle Study
SOAR: Space Orbiting Advanced Fusion Power Reactor
Metal DUMBO Rocket Reactor
Fission Fragment Rocket Engine
The Political Feasibility of Nuclear Power in Space
Liquid Annular Reactor System (LARS)
On the Use of a Pulsed Nuclear Thermal Rocket for Interstellar Travel
Fission Fragment Rockets (1988)
Exploration
Lunex
Soviet Manned Lunar Program
Solar Rocket System Concept Analysis
Manned Mars Missions Using Electric Propulsion
Galactic and Solar Cosmic Ray Shielding
Issues in Radiation Protection: Galactic Cosmic Rays
Titan Submersible Proposal
Discovery of 1992 QB1 (first KBO)
Color Diversity Among Centaurs and KBOs
Manned Venus Flyby Proposal (1967)
Manned Eros Flyby (would have used Apollo derivative possibly)
Bussard Ramjet (simple)
Bussard Ramjet (more stuff)
Comparison of Phobos and Deimos as Exploration Targets
Scenarios for the Orbits of 2000 CR105 and 2003 VB12
A couple of spaceflight books
JIMO Materials Challenges
Aerocapture Analysis for a Neptune Mission
Aerogravity Assist at Triton
Neptune Orbiters Using Solar and Radioisotope Electric Propulsion
Magnetic Field of Mercury
Human Exploration of Mercury and Saturn
Project Mercury Report (1959)
Abort Options for Mars Missions
Manned Phobos Mission (Project APEX)
Manned Venus Orbiting Mission
High Altitude Venus Operations Concept
Crewed Mission to Callisto
Titan and Europa Mission Summary
Design of a Common Lunar Lander (1991)
Manned Lunar Habitats
Meteroid/Debris Shielding
Interstellar radio links enhanced by exploiting the Sun as a Gravitational Lens.
Origin and Orbital Distribution of Trans-Neptunian Scattered Disc
X-Ray Fluorescence from Inner Disc in Cygnus X-1
Evidence for a Distant Planet in the Outer Solar System
Evidence for Nemesis (from 1985)
THE USES OF ASTRONOMY AN ORATION
Rapid Mars Transits with Exhaust-Modulated Plasma Propulsion
VASIMIR
Columbia Crew Survival Investigation Report
CO2/Metal Propellants for Mars Sample Return Missions
ISS EVA Radiation Protection Studies
The Mars Project (Von Braun, 1953)
That is not dead which can eternal lie: the aestivation hypothesis for resolving Fermi’s paradox
Nanotechnology and Space System Architecture
Apollo Guidance Computer Code List
Missiles
Defense Against Ballistic Missiles
ICBM Basing Options
Soviet Theater Nuclear Forces: Implications for NATO Defense (1981)
The Evolution of the Cruise Missile
A series of presentations on guided missile technology from the National University of Singapore.
Seize the High Ground: The Army in Space and Missile Defense
Soviet Concepts of Ballistic Missile Defense
ABM R&D at Bell Labs
Production and Deployment of Nike-X
Professional Development Short Course on Tactical Missile Design
Tactical Missile Design
The Pluto Program
Ballistic Missile Defense Report
IADS / GCI systems of the Cold War
Air defense at the XXI. century
Ault Report (Report on Performance of US Navy AAMs in 1968)
Nike family and BOMARC
HAWK
Patriot
S-25
S-75 family
S-200 family
S-300 family
2K11 Krug
2K12 Kub
9K33 Osa
9K331 Tor
9K37M1 Buk
9K81 / 9K81M aka S-300V / VM
9K35 Strela-10
2K22M Tunguska
ZU-23-4 Shilka
MANPADS
Tactical Missile Design by Fleeman.
Johns Hopkins APL Lectures on Missile Design.
Military Aviation
US
THE SEARCH FOR AN ADVANCED FIGHTER A HISTORY FROM THE XF-108 TO THE ADVANCED TACTICAL FIGHTER
F-106 Data Sheet
Encyclopedia of US Air Force Air Craft and Missile Systems, Vol. 1 (1945-1973)
Encyclopedia of US Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems, Vol. 2 (1945-1973)
Designations of US Aircraft
Accuracy of Azon Guided Bomb
AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A 0.12-SCALE MODEL OF THE A-9A AIRCRAFT AT MACH NUMBERS FROM 0.30 TO 0.80 A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CASE STUDY FLIGHT EVALUATION (SYSTEMS) OF THE A-1OA PROTOTYPE AIRCRAFT - APPENDIX V - WEAPON DELIVERY FLIGHT EVALUATION (SYSTEMS OF THE A-10A PROTOTYPE AIRCRAFT RAND Study on F-20 Project FICON STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS OF SEVEN LENTICULAR MODELS AT MACH NUMBER 5
FORCE TESTS ON TEN LENTICULAR MODEL CONFIGURATIONS AT MACH NUMBERS 3 AND 5 AND ANGLES OF ATTACK FROM 0 TO 90 DEG
LANDING CHARACTERISTICS OF A LENTICULAR-SHAPED RE-ENTRY VEHICLE
PYE WACKET. LENTICULAR ROCKET FEASIBILITY STUDY
LONGITUDINAL STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS OF A LENTICULAR MODEL AT MACH NUMBER 8
STATIC LONGITUDINAL STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS AT MACH NUMBERS OF 2.86 AND 6.02 AND ANGLES OF ATTACK UP TO 95 DEGREES
Congress and SDIO
AIM-4F Falcon Characteristics Summary September 1963 AIM-4D Falcon Standard Missile Characteristics September 1963 APPROVED NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AIM-7M/P SPARROW MISSILE SYSTEM N88-NTSP-A-50-8008C/A NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AIM-9M SIDEWINDER MISSILE SYSTEM(FOR MODELS THROUGH AIM-9M-10) N78-NTSP-A-50-8105C/A NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AIM-9X SIDEWINDER MISSILE SYSTEM N88-NTSP-A-50-9601A/A APPROVED NAVY TRAINING PLAN FOR THE AIM-9M SIDEWINDER MISSILE SYSTEM (FOR MODELS THROUGH AIM-9M-8) A-50-8105B/A DRAFT NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AIM-54 PHOENIX MISSILE N88-NTSP-A-50-8007C/D APPROVED NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AIM-120 ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE N88-NTSP-A-50-8111C/A A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Test Firings Versus Simulated Soviet Tank Company NPS-50-80-008 A4D-2 Standard Aircraft Characteristics Naval Air Training And Operating Procedures Standardization Manual A-4A/B/C F-16A-B MLU Pilot Guide Part 1 F-16A-B MLU Pilot Guide Part 2 Pilot Operational Procedures of F-16 USAF Test Pilot School F-4 Phantom II Guide USAF T. O. 1F-4C-1-2 Flight Operating Difference Supplemental Data USAF Series F-4E Aircraft Thunderbird Configuration NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model RF-4B Aircraft NAVWEPS 01-235FDC-1 NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model F-4J Aircraft NAVAIR 01-245FDD-1 NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1B NATOPS POCKET CHECKLIST F-14B AIRCRAFT NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F−14D AIRCRAFT XB-35 Pilots Handbook YB-49 Pilots Handbook YRB-49A Pilots Handbook YF-12 Utility Flight Manual Aparent AN/APG–68(V5) Operations Guide, Used on F-16C Aircraft NAVEDTRA 14014A Ch. 9 Aircraft Ordnance Weapons File 2003-2004 TECHNICAL MANUAL, ENGINEERING HANDBOOK SERIES FOR AIRCRAFT REPAIR, GENERAL MANUAL FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIR T.O. NAVAIR 01-1A-1 - 1 APRIL 2015
NAVAIR 01-245DB-2-1.2 (6-1 to 6-49) part 1
NAVAIR 01-245DB-2-1.2 (6-50 to 6-86P) part 2 NAVAIR 01-245DB-2-1.2 (6-87 to 6-108) part 3 Pilots Flight Operating Instructions for Army Model B-17 F and G, British Model Fortress II P-40N Erection and Maintance P-40N Flight Operating Instructions F-86A Flight Handbook AN 01-60JLA-1 30 July 1952 F-86A Flight Handbook T.O. 1F-86-A-1 - 30 August 1957 U-2 Flight Utility Manual 1 March 1959 Supercharging the Allison V-1710
The Impact of Allied Air Attacks on German Divisions and Other Army Forces in Zones of Combat
The Effect of the Allied Air Attacks on the Ground Echelon of the Luftwaffe in Western Europe in 1944
1959 SAC Target List
A-26 Pilot Training Manual
P-40 Pilot Training Manual
P-51 Pilot Training Manual
P-47N Pilot Training Manual
P-38H Pilot Training Manual
F-14D manual
B-25 Pilot Training Manual
USAF Designations Sheet (?)
Air Force Performance in Desert Storm
YF-109/F3L
XBT2D-1 Destroyer Characteristics Sheet
AD-5 Skyraider Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
A4D-1 Skyhawk Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
A2F-1 Intruder Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
XF5U-1 Flapjack Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
F7U-3P Cutlass Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
F3D-2 Skyknight Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
F4D-1 Skyray Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
F2H-3 Banshee Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
F3H-2N Demon Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
F4H-1 Phantom Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
AF1-E Fury Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
AF-9J Cougar Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
F-11A Tiger Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
F-14A Tomcat Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
R3Y-1 Tradewind Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
R4Q-1 Flying Boxcar Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
P2B-1 Superfortress Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
P4M-1Q Mercator Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
P5M-2S Marlin Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
P3V-1 Orion Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
D-188A Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
HO4S-2 Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
HSS-1F Seabat Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
HSL-1 Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
K-225 Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
KD2G-2 Firefly Aircraft Characteristics Sheet
D-188 Scale Model Flight Tests
An Experimental Investigation of VTOL Flying Qualities Required for Shipboard Landings
X-22A Report
Air Combat Tactics Evaluation F-100 F-104 F-105 F-4C vs. MiG 15/17 Type Aircraft (F-86H)
History of the NF-104A
USAF Serial Numbers 1922-2018
JATO Rocket Flight Test
An in-depth examination of the F-20 tigershark program
Lockheed P-80A Manual
North American X-15 Manual
Bell YFM-1 Airacuda Manual
CIA Oxcart Archives
Performance and Surge Limits of a TF30-P-3 Turbofan Engine/Axisymmetric Mixed-Compression Inlet Propulsion System at Mach 2.5
Wind Tunnel Tests of 1/17th Scale XBDR-1 Model
US Navy Interest in U-2
Project Hazel (Mach 3 Recon)
Speed Agile Concept
Lockheed's Archangel whitepaper
NASA Comparison of Me-262, P-80, and Meteor
P-38 Design Analysis, by Hal Hibbard
Evolution of the F-16
R-2800 Maintenance Manual
General Dynamics Aircraft
X-Planes at Edwards
ATF Contenders
Grumman F-11
Northrop YF-23
Lockheed AH-56
Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger
Douglas A-1 Skyraider
Douglas A2D Skyshark
F-22 Raptor
McDonnell Model Numbers
US Navy PBY Operations 1941-1945
Coalition Air Warfare in the Korean War
The US Navy's Transition to Jets
U.S. Air Force Investments in Hypersonic Test Technologies & Infrastructure
P-40 Variants
XB-19 Technical Report
A Compendium of Encounter Reports from P-47 Pilots
Advanced Technology Tactical Transport
A Case Study in US Air Force Air-to-Air Armament Post–World War II through Operation Rolling Thunder
747 Deployed Microfighters
Next Generation Attack Fighter Study
NAVAIR Air-to-Air Intercept Procedures Workbook.
XB-70 Aircraft Study
Tailsitter Stability and Control
P-38L Maintenance Instructions
Assault Gliders: A Reexamination
Gliders of World War 2
Convair MX-1964 Proposed Supersonic Bomber (B-58 Initial Studies)
USSR
SOVIET ASSESSMENTS OF U. S. CLOSE AIR SUPPORT
Soviet Naval Aviation (1986)
Guide on using E-24 in MiG-23ML Part 1
Guide on using E-24 in MiG-23ML Part 2
Supposed digital transcription of Mi-24V(P) Pilots notes
MiG-21Bis Performance Analysis Tumanskiy R-25-300 SU-27SK Flight Manual Part 1 SU-27SK Flight Manual Part 2 ICAS2002 Congress - Generations of Su-27 Fighter - Mickhail A. Pogossyan, Mickhail P. Simonov, German I. Zagainov, Alexy Z. Tarasov - Sukhoi Aircraft Design Bureau, Russia Aviation Week September 24 1990- Su-27 British Pilot Report (1 of 2) Aviation Week September 24 1990- Su-27 British Pilot Report (2 of 2) Russian performance charts for many planes Polkarpov Po-2 technical manual Tu-16 Badger Sukhoi T-50 Evaulation of Soviet Automatic Aircraft Guns 37mm NS and 37mm N Soviet Air Force P-39 Manual
Soviet Assessments of North American Air Defense
Tupolev Tu-22M
Soviet Secret Projects: Fighters Since 1945
Su-25
Mi-24
MiG-29
MiG-31
Yakovlev V/STOL Fighters
Su-27 Walkaround
OKB MiG: A History
Soviet Secret Bomber Projects
China
Chinese AA Systems
UK
Vulcan B MK. 2 Aircrew Manual
Hunter F.1 Pilots Notes Sea Hawk F.2, F.B.3&5 and F.G.A.4&6 Pilots Notes Sea Hornet F.20 Pilots Notes Venom FB.4 Pilots Notes SPITFIRE IX, XI & XVI PILOTS NOTES THIRD EDITION Seafire Mk.I, II, III Merlin 32, 45, 46, 55 or 55M Engine Pilots Notes Seafire Mk.XV&XVII Griffon VI Engine Pilots Notes Seafire mk.45 Griffon 61 Engine Mk.46 Griffon 87 Engine Seafire FR.47 Griffon 87 or 88 Engine Naval Air Fighting Development Unit Test Report on Seafire FR.47
WT Thread with Pilot Notes on British/Commonwealth Planes
Royal Air Force Buffalo Mk. I Manual [url= https://www.dropbox.com/s/d00qe9vl3sdkdxj/TempestV PilotNotes.pdf?dl=0 ]Tempest V Pilot's Notes[/url] British Secret Projects (Fighters)
Sweden
Swedish Military Aircraft Reference Sheet
Swedish Air Force Squadron Composition
Saab SK35C Draken Flight Manual SFI FPL SK35C 29 October 1994 Australian Government Evaluation of J35B A Bunch of Swedish Gas Turbine Patents from the 1930s
Swedish Air Force Jet Engines
AJ and AJS 37 Viggen flight manuals (untranslated)
1965 Swedish Fighter Tactics Manual
From Jaktfalken to Viggen
Where the Air Force was After 1945
Critical Years: Formative Moments for the Swedish Aircraft Industry 1944-1951 (untranslated)
J21 A-3 Manual (partial) (untranslated)
Italy
G.91 Flight Testing
Italian F-104 UCAV Proposal
Macchi 200 C Aircraft Manual
CR.32 Manual
February 1941 Italian Aviation Magazine
Germany
A Ram-Jet Engine For Fighters (NACA, 1947, Translation of German Paper)
1950 report on the Horten designs
Luftwaffenmaterialkommando GAF T.O. 1F-MIG29-1 Flight Manual MiG-29 (English) Ta-152H Teil 1 Ta-152H Manual Translated Ta 152 C, Baubeschreibung Nr.290, 5.Januar 1945, 12 Seiten Ta 152 H-0, H-1, Vorläufiges Handbuch, Elektrisches Bordnetz, Januar 1945, 42 Seiten Ta 152, Ersatzteil-Liste Ta 152, Januar 1945, 299 Seiten Ta 152 C,H, Werkzeichnungen , 1943-1945, Band 1, 104 Seiten Do-335 A1 Teil 0 Flight Handbook Do-335 Patentschrift Document Do-335 A1 Geraeteliste Do 335 A-6 Nachtjaeger Baubeschreibung Do 335 B-0 Zerstoerer Daimler Benz Handbuch DB 601 A-B Daimler Benz DB 603 A Handbuch Daimler Benz DB 603 E-G Handbuch East German MiG-29 The Development of German Antiaircraft Weapons and Equipment of All Types Up to 1945
Flight evaluation of a captured ME-262
MK 112 Autocannon
MK 101
MK 103
MK 108
American Analysis of Me-110
Bf-109 F-1 Handbook
Me-109 K-4 Handbook
Me-163 Handbook
Me-262 A-1 Handbook
R4M Rocket
Jumo 004 Improvements
Jumo 004 Pictures
Fritz-X
Rheinmetall RZ-65
Hecht Glide-bomb
Wasserfall
Hs 117 Schmetterling
Rheintochter
Rheinbote Rh Z 61/9
Luftwaffe Suicide Projects
He-176
Soviet Bf-109 G-2 trials
Bf-109 F-1/F-2 with DB601N Performance Trials
US Navy Report on Messerschmitt Aircraft Development
Ta-152 Working Drawings
Ta-400
Focke Wulf PTL 021
German Secret Weapons
Secret Wonder Weapons of Germany
Rotorcraft of the Third Reich
Luftwaffe Secret Projects (Ground Attack)
Luftwaffe Secret Projects (Fighters)
Luftwaffe Secret Projects (Bombers)
Japan
A7M Wind Tunnel Test Results (Untranslated)
A6M3 Operations Manual (Untranslated)
Ki-10 Manual (Untranslated)
Ki-44 Manual (Untranslated)
Nakajima Type 99 Ha25 Manual
Nakajima Aircraft Engine List (Line Type)
Nakajima Aircraft Engine List (Single Row Radial)
Nakajima Aircraft Engine List (Double Row Radial)
F6F-5 vs. J2M3
Japanese Secret Projects (WW2)
Various Japanese Aircraft Links
J2M2 Performance Chart
United States Strategic Bombing Survey Report I Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Airframes and Engines)
United States Strategic Bombing Survey Report XIX Army Air Arsenal and Navy Air Depots (Airframes and Engines)
Canada
Canadian Neptune (P2V)
Project 1794 (Avrocar) Final Report
Australia
Wirraway Operating Instructions
Boomerang Operating Instructions
Israel
6 Day War Air Power
France
Mirage 2000C Manual
L'Arsenal de l'aeronautique (Untranslated)
Hawk 75 Pilot's Manual
Hawk 75 Maneuvers
Mirage F1 in South Africa
Vietnam
North Vietnam Air Defences
Finland
Winter War and Continuation War Aircraft Types
Other/Uncategorized
Leaked Swiss Evaluation of Gripen vs Eurofighter vs Rafale
The Strategic Aspect of Supercruising Flight
Standard Aircraft Characteristics Archive
Close Coupled Canard
Design for Air Combat
Aerodynamic highlights of a fourth generation delta canard fighter aircraft
Air Intakes for High Speed Vehicles
Ballistic Missile Defense
Penetration and Deceleration of 25,000 lb Bombs in Concrete Targets
The Use of Prototypes in Weapon System Development Radar Cross Section Measurements
Breuget Range Equation
External Burning Ramjets
Wingless Flight: The Lifting Body Story
Engineering Design Handbook: Design for Air Transport and Airdrop of Materiel
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design
A Study of Hypersonic Aircraft (1964)
A Linear Accelerator in Space
Astronomical Engineering: A Strategy for Modifying Planetary Orbits
A comparison of sleeve valve and poppet valve engines.
Combat Aircraft Prototypes Since 1945
The Perception of the P-16 in the US
Energy Efficiency of Sea and Air Vehicles
Do Joint Fighter Programs Save Money?
Ducted Pulsejet
Development of Radar Homing Missiles
Aviation (Civilian)
Generalized Performance Comparison of Large Conventional, Tail Boom, and Tailless Aircraft (NACA, 1947)
The Supersonic Transport as an Instrument of National Power
Silent Supersonic Demonstrator (Japan)
Sonic Boom Reduction
United 232: Coping with Loss of All Flight Controls
Wing-in-Ground Effect Craft
Supersonic Aerodynamics
747-400 Flight Crew Operations Manual Boeing 747-400 Operations Manual 767-300 Flight Crew Operations Manual For Norwind Airlines - Document Number D632T001-36NRW - Revision Number: 9- Revision Date: August 16, 2013
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Four Duct Tandem VTOL Aircraft Configurations
Engine Proposal for Phase III of the Supersonic Transport Program
Supersonic Transport Engines
GE4 vs. JTF17
Sonic Cruiser Concept Analysis
Span-Distributed Loading Cargo Aircraft
Boeing - Planemaker to the World
High Velocity Jet Noise Reduction
Kalman Filtering (GPS Technology)
Flight Investigation of Supersonic Propellor
Study of 14 Nuclear Powered Airplanes
Performance of External Bump Compression Inlet at Mach Numbers of 1.5 and 2.0
Free Flight Tunnel Test Log
Biographies/Personal Accounts
Fulcrum: A Top Gun Pilot's Escape from the Soviet Empire, by Alexander Zuyev
MiG Pilot: The Final Escape of Lt. Belenko
Boris Chertok Memoir Link to English Translation
Memoirs of an Aeronautical Engineer: Flight Tests at Ames Research Center: 1940-1970
The Problem of Space Travel 1928 by Slovenian Engineer Herman Potočnik
General Kenney Reports, a personal History of the Pacific War By George C Kenney:
Darker Shades of Blue
Rockets and People, by Boris Chertok
Pierre Sprey gets dunked on
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from LoooSeR in The Merkava, Israel's Chieftain?
This was discussed at length on TN, with the consensus being that the hull armor of the merkava probably isn't anything special, but that the turret armor is insanely thick and always has been. There were a number of pictures of the engine being serviced and/or replaced, and since the engine is in the front you got a fairly good look at a cross section of the glacis. There were also a number of diagrams of the turret, which is far more impressive.
When the merkava I was designed, Western armor technology was lagging behind Soviet armor technology badly. The T-64 was being mass produced, and the West mistakenly believed it had steel armor for quite some time before some spies managed to get a good look at one. Making an MBT within reasonable weight limits frontally resistant to 100mm threats, let alone 115 or 125, was extremely difficult.
So, the merk I was designed with a narrow turret with extremely good sloping (you know, for all the good that does against APFSDS), lots of spaced armor, and lots of internal bulkheads to limit the amount of damage that a penetration could cause.
Merk IV appears to have perfectly credible turret armor; possibly even excellent turret armor. Diagrams showing the actual size of the turret, as opposed to the add-on modules, shows that the thickness of the armor modules is insane, and their coverage is exceptional. A few pictures of battle-damaged merk IVs that have leaked out show that the armor modules have some sort of multi-layer construction. My bet is on NERA. Because fucking everyone uses NERA. Subtle differences in the shape of the modules from tank to tank show that at least some lots have been progressively upgraded as well.
Shot traps aren't really an issue. Anything puny enough to actually ricochet off the reverse slope of the turret modules (remember; they're multi-layered so the outermost layer is quite thin) won't penetrate the glacis.
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from Sturgeon in Oh No, It's Time For Early Christological Controversies!
Only Calvinists think fun is heretical.
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from Belesarius in The Northrop Jet Fighter Family: A Pictorial History
Alas, not even Chuck Yeager could save tigershark from the specter of unrestricted F-16A sales.
It would have been interesting to see how the F-20 would have stacked up to the gripen; they're very comparable.
-
Collimatrix reacted to Walter_Sobchak in Harry Yeide Interview
Last week I spent an hour or so on the phone with Harry Yeide, author of several books on US Armor in WW2. For those interested in reading the interview, you can find it at the links posted below.
Interview with Harry Yeide – Part 1: US Armor in World War II
Interview with Harry Yeide – Part 2: Fighting Patton
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from LoooSeR in Yakovlev MFI submission
I found this interesting picture of the Yakovlev MFI design:
Obviously, it was never built. The MiG submission was the 1.44 and the Sukhoi submission was the SU-47.
-
-
Collimatrix reacted to LoooSeR in The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.
Yakutia SOBR unit in Northen Caucasus and SR-3M "Vikhr" 9x39 mm automatic carabine.
Hardingush and GM-94.
Chechen Spetsnaz team "Terek" prepare to competitions in Jordan.
http://youtu.be/O6GQzSKn0Sk
"Terek" in Jordan.
http://youtu.be/NA0CIKtZM7Y
St.Petersburg FSB team "Grad". Those guys 2 years ago arrested one Islamists not far from my home.
http://imgur.com/a/hji6q#2eeyE1u
From 1:36 you can see some interesting things. That training with "live obstructions" reminds Alpha training, which Larry filmed.
-
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from xthetenth in A comparison of the F-16, F-15 and MiG-29... by a pilot who flew all three
I don't think UCAVs will be competitive with manned fighters for a while for the following reasons:
-ECM is a thing, and just because the US has been fighting people armed with dried grass lately doesn't mean that everyone is armed with dried grass. A UCAV in a really heavy ECM environment is screwed in a lot of subtle ways. Good enough ECM means no signals from the operator. Fine, you say, we have the software for the drone to navigate its way around the battlefield autonomously. Oh really? What about when the GPS gets jammed out? INS is only so accurate, and the technology for a drone to automatically correlate terrain features with an internal map the way a human pilot could does not, to my knowledge, exist.
Electronic IFF only works so well; that was why F-4s in Vietnam had to visident anything they wanted to shoot at, and also the reason that blue on blue was a higher cause of Coalition losses in Iraq than Iraqi bullets. A pair of eyes attached to a brain is a mighty fine thing to have in a fighter.
-A drone could in theory outmaneuver a manned fighter, and it could do so in some novel and unexplored ways. For instance, a drone could have negative G limits that were as high as its positive G limits, which is impossible in a manned fighter. However, actual aircraft are G-limited by their structure, which is only built strong enough to withstand what a human could stand. A drone that could explore the additional maneuverability made possible by the lack of a pilot would have to be purpose-built and would probably be expensive.
-Fighter size isn't really driven by the pilot; it's not like taking away the pilot will allow you to make dinky little fighters that are a bazillion times more efficient. It would allow modest gains at best.
The biggest driver of a fighter's size are still the engine and the radar. Engine isn't too bad; lop the cockpit off and fit a smaller engine to compensate. However, making competitive fighter gas turbines is a lengthy and expensive process these days, so you couldn't do that overnight.
Radar is harder. Radar range, frequency and power are still a function of antenna diameter (although less so than in the past thanks to science). A fighter with a weak radar can't BVR, and BVR actually works now. The number of cheap drones a raptor can kill without risk to itself is basically a function of how many AMRAAMs it can cram into its bays.
UCAVs look really good for bombing people armed with dried grass because it's easy to strap hellfires to a predator and blow up Pathan wedding parties. They're still a long, long way off from being able to do air superiority.
I am curious to find that report on the firebees getting a solution on those F-4s. I would think they contrived the situation just to see if it was possible. I don't think they even had all-aspect sidewinders at that time. The phantoms would have had to let themselves get tailed by the drones for the shot to be possible.
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from Domus Acipenseris in A comparison of the F-16, F-15 and MiG-29... by a pilot who flew all three
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379
Very interesting article. Some takeaways:
-The East German model fulcrum wasn't particularly impressive BVR.
-The IRST was surprisingly lame.
-Mirage 2000 apparently sucked in DACT.
-
Collimatrix reacted to Khand-e in Collimatrix's Terrible Music Thread
I was going to post a fucking ton of horribly terrible music.
Unfortunately, "SabatonsEntireDiscography.MP3" was apparently too big for youtube.
-
Collimatrix got a reaction from xthetenth in Art Appreciation Thread
Lilith by John Collier. Interestingly, Mr. Collier was married to two daughters of T.H. Huxley.