Military Plane discussion thread - Let’s talk Fighter/Attacker planes.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The Sukhoi Su-37

kkInMUGThaxeeIZbPI8H-HUgzxIi-JWBFJOzqwUThBE.jpg


NATO reporting name: Flanker-F
Russian Codename: Terminator \m/

The Su-37 was a one-off air superiority fighter. The single example built was used as a technology demonstrator by Russia to show off their advancements in aerial supermobility and agility.

In late 1983 the Soviet government commissioned the Sukhoi Design Bureau to start development of a Su-27 upgrade known now as the Su-27M. As part of this development, Sukhoi also began extensive research on thrust vectoring.

By 1988 the Su-27Ms had began test flights. The results yielded that ineffective flight control surfaces on the aircraft made it difficult for pilots to keep it under control at high angles of attack.

The newly developed axisymmetrical vectoring nozzles were fitted onto an old Su-27 test bed, along with AL-37FU engines. Additionally, what was then state-of-the-art digital fly-by-wire avionics were installed that directly linked to the thrust vectoring. And so, the Su-30 was created.

It was only a one-off project and was used by Russia at various airshows in the 90's to show off its abilities. In 2002 it crashed after the near 15 something year old thrust canards and thrust nozzles failed from years of testing and use. That was prettt much the end of the Su-30. Russia continued on with fighter jet advancements as did the rest of the world.
 
I remember seeing the Horten Ho 229 fuselage section at the Smithsonian's Air & Space annex in Virginia. Even accounting for the incomplete nature of the fuselage, it was much smaller to see in person than I had imagined.

Typically when I finally have the chance to see the vintage aircraft in person, I am impressed by how much bigger they are in real life compared to how they look in the photos or flight sims, but that 229 was one of the few exceptions.

The other incomplete aircraft that they had there that seemed surprisingly small was the He 219 "Uhu" nightfighter.

I wish I had had a full day to look at everything there in detail. The one part of their collection that I unfortunately had zero chance to look at was their big wall display of fixed mount aerial MGs and automatic cannon. They are supposed to have all the WW2 and Cold War aircraft guns that reached mass production for each country, so I was especially curious to see the automatic cannons, since most museums only have examples of rifle-caliber aircraft MGs on display. Probably the only place in America where you can see things like a 20mm Hispano-Suiza or a 30mm MK 103 outside of private collections.
 
I'm a fan of aviation, especially WWI&II fighter planes. Does somebody know good books on these topics?
 
I'm a fan of aviation, especially WWI&II fighter planes. Does somebody know good books on these topics?

Lords of the Sky by Dan Hampton is a good start. It's a great book until Vietnam, but completely glosses over Naval Aviation. Because Dan Hampton was an Air Force Wild Weasel pilot who probably got cucked by a Navy F-4 pilot at some point
 
I'm a fan of aviation, especially WWI&II fighter planes. Does somebody know good books on these topics?
Duels in the Sky: World War II Naval Aircraft in Combat by Eric "Winkle" Brown. Evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of World War II aircraft and matches Allied and Axis fighter planes in theoretical combat. Brown flew all aircraft mentioned in the book.
 
Full Circle by RAF WWII veteran J.E. 'Johnnie' Johnson. He states that many lessons on air combat were forgotten between World War I and II, and my impression is he wrote this to protect against that.
 
I'm a fan of aviation, especially WWI&II fighter planes. Does somebody know good books on these topics?
The Osprey Books publishers have put out a lot of good primers on the iconic models of WWI and WWII aircraft and their most famous pilots. They have a seemingly endless number of series on the topics, each with many volumes on different aircrafts, units, or pilots: "Aircraft of the Aces", "Duel", "Aviation Elite Units", "Combat Aircraft", etc.

For more detailed coverage of the pilots' experience, you cannot beat the old memoirs. For WWI, one of the more interesting ones I read was that of Julius Buckler, famously the only German pilot to get the Wound Badge in Gold (ie get seriously wounded on 3x separate occasions, a cumulative feat that is generally considered a death sentence for pilots in the pre-parachute era). He wrote about his war experience all the way from pre-war infantry training, to his infantry combat experience as a lowly grunt, to flying school, air combat, and finally commanding an entire Jasta and how they handled the demobilization after the armistice.
 
Any opinions on the F-16XL?

It was a NASA prototype, it didn't change how planes were designed and the F-16 remained with different changes for decades after.

It was a waste of money, but it looked pretty cool.


Good bomber and strike aircraft interceptor. Solid interdiction, SEAD and anti-ship platform. With newer 9X's and 120's it should do fine against any Chinese threat thanks to having pretty good radar capability, but not much of a dogfighter without the 9X because it's a bit heavy for a viper. I actually have 3 friends who are viper guys right now, one who had to go to a NATO ally recently and help train pilots in the newer F-16s and his take away is "Every pound you put on the viper makes it exponentially worse in a dogfight but a lot better in almost every other aspect."

The F-16, especially as it evolves, has become a jack of all trades at a reasonable cost. Its not the best at anything anymore, but it can do almost every job in an above average way
 
F-16XL was donated to NASA after it lost to the F-15E in the USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter Program.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article1.html

Thats actually cool. All I ever saw on the XL was the NASA testing, which I was told never led to anything to be discovered that hadn't already been seen in other 4th gen deltas. As a strike aircraft it makes a lot more sense
 
Thats actually cool. All I ever saw on the XL was the NASA testing, which I was told never led to anything to be discovered that hadn't already been seen in other 4th gen deltas. As a strike aircraft it makes a lot more sense
Only flaw the F-16XL had it was using a 30mm cannon (30×173 mm) which cause serious cracking along the wing root. Swiping it out for the smaller 30mm cannon (30x113 mm) or forgoing 30mm altogether for the 20mm M61 Vulcan that is on almost everything USAF, USN and USMC would have been better. XL came out six years too early as with Desert Storm and onward F-16 been used as bombtrucks.

F-16XL if anything should have been put in service ala F-5 Freedom Fighter long enough for evaluation for problems to be found and fixed. Once that is done have it put up for the international market for those looking to upgrade their existing F-16 fleet and/or new builds for those wanting a multirole single engine strike fighter.

Other experimentals which were only for research purposes Grumman X-29 https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/x29

F-15 ACTIVE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_STOL/MTD
 
Back
Top Bottom