Searching \ for '[TECH]:: British aircraft design to progressively' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=british+aircraft
Search entire site for: ':: British aircraft design to progressively'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH]:: British aircraft design to progressively '
2009\11\18@053141 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
Now I have your attention ... :-).
While that subject line is only part of a larger truth, it is interesting to
see a design based solidly on a UK aircraft replacing the F16 (from 2013),
A-10 Thunderbolt-II "Warthog" (from 2028), AV8-B (to which it is the 'big
brother'). FA-18 & EA6B. are also mentioned with no other details.

Who is this masked man, and how can one claim it to be British in origin?

It's the Lockheed Martin (so far so good), F-35 (sounds reassuring),
Lightning II (whoops), Stealth (OK), STOVL (Ah), in A / B / C variants. The
A variant is conventional. The B variant has a Rolls Royce fan unit spawned
from the original VTOL Harrier and can take off vertically and, if desired,
fly backwards (aka viffing). The C variant is a Navy only and carrier
optimised.


http://www.gizmag.com/lockheed-martin-f-35b-lightning-ii-stovl/13373/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=1a3791aeff-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

Brings back memories of other initially UK designs which are subsequently
thought of as US creations, such as the Mustang fighter and Sherman tank.
(Flame shields up).

FWIW I'd have the most severe reservations about trying to replace an A10
with anything like the A-35. I'd go so far as to suggest that the planners
had lost the plot. Unless they have decided to use a whole new class of
munitions that go where the aircraft doesn't (and that's entirely possible)
then there is no way that this aircraft can survive in worst case A10
survival situations. The A-10 is not really an aircraft at all in the normal
sense - it's a tiitanium bathtub with two engines, two wings, and two rear
control surfaces attached (ignoring mentioning a gun as big as a flatdeck
railroad car). You can shoot off or otherwise remove one of everything and
still have a fair chance of it coming home by itself. But, even if the
aircraft becomes a standoff delivery system that stays "out of harms way"
there are going to be niches that the A10 fills which an A-35 can't. At
least they have 19 years to change their mind.


          Russell

2009\11\18@054608 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechnzTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
> Who is this masked man, and how can one claim it to be British in origin?

US is British origin, right? Sorry, I could not resist :-)

Tamas

2009\11\18@061117 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Tamas Rudnai ha scritto:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Russell McMahon <.....apptechnzKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Who is this masked man, and how can one claim it to be British in origin?
>
> US is British origin, right? Sorry, I could not resist :-)


I still have mails from 2000 election day - wanna see them?? :))

2009\11\18@130256 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Other than the engine, where does it say that the F-35 is a British design?

Sean


On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Russell McMahon <apptechnzspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2009\11\18@135718 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
Assuming you're including the vectored thrust stuff as part of
"engine", then that's quite a significant part of the control of the
flight envelope!

It all kind of gets a bit silly though, as you could argue that all
aircraft are an Italian design if you want to go back far enough ;)

Chris

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Sean Breheny <.....shb7KILLspamspam.....cornell.edu> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> -

2009\11\18@172406 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Chris McSweeny wrote:

> Assuming you're including the vectored thrust stuff as part of
> "engine", then that's quite a significant part of the control of the
> flight envelope!
>
> It all kind of gets a bit silly though, as you could argue that all
> aircraft are an Italian design if you want to go back far enough ;)
>

Yes let's do that.

Regards
Sergio Masci

2009\11\18@182045 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> > Assuming you're including the vectored thrust stuff as part of
> > "engine", then that's quite a significant part of the control of the
> > flight envelope!

> > It all kind of gets a bit silly though, as you could argue that all
> > aircraft are an Italian design if you want to go back far enough ;)

> Yes let's do that.


Anything can be viewed as silly if you don't like it's face enough.

While one version is "conventional", to consider the "vectored thrust
stuff", which is supplied by Rolls Royce, as less than pivotal to the
whole VTOL concept is missing the central point of the design. Even in
a STOL mode the vectored thrust allows use of real world 'battlefield'
strips such as random pieces of highway, and the true VTOL which it is
capable of (which does rather eat into its fuel supply) allows you to
use random pieces of eg forest. Removing loose ground cover prior to
use is 'a good idea' [tm]. Anything that can fly, literally, backwards
if it really really has to, is 'somewhat' different than about any
other real-world jet fighter in existence (except its predecessors).

Seeing a Harrier fall vertically and noisily into the sky from close
range (as I've had the privilege of doing on one only occasion, here
in NZ) is an exciting and impressive experience.

For shipboard operation the STOL capability, with or without "ski
jump" allows shorter decks and heavier payloads. Arguably it also
allows arrestor-less recovery, but the fuel penalty may make this less
attractive, and the article specifically notes the 'beefing up' of the
C version mechanicals for carrier (arrestor?) use.

And, if you really want to claim a single actually-flown source for
all heavier than air craft powered craft (as opposed to various glider
implementations which have a far longer and ultimately unknown
provenance)(I'm not aware of any claimed practical Roman
implementations) (although some later paper designs from the Vinci
area are extant) then you'd ((very) arguably) have to say that all
such derived from a New Zealand design, the mouldering remains of
which reside in a glass cabinet about 10 kilometres from here. [Flame
shields still up].



    Russell

2009\11\18@184056 by John Gardner

picon face
Is there a nation which does'nt lay claim to first flight?  :)

My knowledge runs no deeper than Wikipedia, but NZ seems to
have as good a claim as many.

I suppose Montgolfier, et al, doesn't count...

2009\11\18@185931 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

You missed the point of my reply!!!!

Check the signature :-)


Regards
Sergio Masci

2009\11\18@192038 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> Is there a nation which does'nt lay claim to first flight?  :)

> My knowledge runs no deeper than Wikipedia, but NZ seems to
> have as good a claim as many.

> I suppose Montgolfier, et al, doesn't count...

The key terms (or weasel words, depending on whether you want to like
its face) are "heavier than air powered flight."
Those who prefer some other face may add words like "sustained" or
"controlled" depending which pretender they preferred. By that measure
NZ was probably first. Arguably the Wright's first 12 second flight
was hardly "sustained" although it was more or less "controlled" as
evidenced or at least adumbrated by later longer flights.

Richard Pearce's first and only heavier than air powered flight, which
occurred the year before the Wright Brothers' first 'flight',  was of
unknown duration - apparently enough to cross a dryish river bed - and
probably not overly controlled. The remains were left embedded in the
river bank where the craft "landed" - to be dug out some decades later
and ultimately they ended up in their present location at MOTAT
(Museum of Transport and Technology" in Western Springs, Auckland, NZ,
a mere WAC Corporal flight from here. (They have one of those too, but
in not too much better repair, despite never having been used).

"Of Course" [tm] Wright aficionados will not have a bar of any
suggestion that W&O were second. I am not ware of any other claim that
comes more credibly close to having been earlier, using the weasel
words / definition above. I have heard other claims which sound to me
(of course) less credible.

Pearce, like the Wrights, 'built all his own stuff', but whereas they
had the ability to pay for other's services (whether they did I know
not) Pearce was a loner and built everything himself including, of
course, the engine. He had a motorised bicycle when such things were
solidly in the realms of fiction. He was as close mechanically to a
modern Leonardo da Vinci as one could hope for except he did not,
apparently, unlike LdV, have ADHD, so actually implemented his ideas
instead of only drawing and modelling them and writing about them, and
severely annoying the pope of the day as a a consequence. I am not
aware of Pearce painting or sculpting, except in steel with a welding
torch. Pearce built a later heavier than air craft with variable pitch
prop, swing wing and intended VTOL / STOL capability. Alas, it was
too-much-heavier-than-air for the engine power his hand made engine
could produce and it never flew. This no doubt saved it from
destruction, and the actual craft is in MOTAT, alongside the remains
of its world beating older brother.


             Russell

2009\11\18@192325 by Sean Alcorn

picon face

On 19/11/2009, at 10:40 , John Gardner wrote:

> Is there a nation which does'nt lay claim to first flight?  :)
>
> My knowledge runs no deeper than Wikipedia, but NZ seems to
> have as good a claim as many.

I believe Russell is referring to Richard Pearse and there are plenty of eyewitness accounts (but perhaps not enough hard evidence?) to suggest that he was in fact the first to perform a successful 'heavier-than-air' flight - and long before the Wright brothers.

Unfortunately there was some sort of spoof documentary a few years back that made light of these claims - Aussie produced no doubt? [I'm Australian, I can say that! :) ]

As far as I am aware, his drawings have survived to this day. He was the first to use ailerons - if I am not mistaken - whilst the Wright brothers had yet to discover their 'warped wing' technique.

> I suppose Montgolfier, et al, doesn't count...

No. Not to discount the achievements of the Montgolfiers, but they do not count in this discussion. The 'category' Russell is referring to is 'heavier-than-air' which requires some form of mechanical generated lift. The hot air contained in the Montgolfiers' balloon made the craft 'lighter-than-air' and is a whole different kettle of fish.

It is indeed a shame that Richard Pearse's achievements were not recognised for what they were at the time, but I guess history is full of much greater inaccuracies.

Regards,

Sean

2009\11\18@195933 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:53 AM, sergio masci <smplxspamspam_OUTallotrope.net> wrote:
>> It all kind of gets a bit silly though, as you could argue that all
>> aircraft are an Italian design if you want to go back far enough ;)
>>
>
> Yes let's do that.

Oh common guys, Icarus and Daedalus were Greek :-)

Tamas


>
> Regards
> Sergio Masci
> -

2009\11\18@200318 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
I do in general agree with you, not just because I live in the same
country as Rolls Royce (and in one work placement years ago, did have
a peripheral involvement in Pegasus engine stuff).

Genuine VTOL not only eats into the fuel supply, but also tends to
limit payload (certainly the case for the Harrier - I presume the F-35
is pretty similar). Hence why it's the STOL capability which is made
most use of. If you were to dogfight, then vectored thrust also helps
a lot (reputedly Harriers are still the World's premier dog-fighters)
- of course nowadays dog-fighting isn't a normal thing to do!

Chris

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Russell McMahon <@spam@apptechnzKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2009\11\19@140910 by Gary Crowell

picon face
I'd guess that reputation is based on the Falklands war, since there hasn't
been any significant air-air action since then.  IIRC the US rushed
practically the entire world's inventory of the new AIM-9L to the Brits, and
it was deadly against the Argentine A4's.  Excellent book on the subject is
'Air War: South Atlantic'.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Chris McSweeny <KILLspamcpmcsweenyKILLspamspamgmail.com>wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2009\11\19@200332 by John Gardner

picon face
>> I suppose Montgolfier, et al, doesn't count...

> No. Not to discount the achievements of the Montgolfiers, but they do not count in this discussion.

I guess that settles that.

If there's a Gaul in my woodpile it's news to me, but I suspect manned
flight was yet another catalyst for the spawn of 18th Century rationalism -
Science, and Engineering...

Jack

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...