Belarusian airforce Mig29 and Su25 are landing on Minsk-Mogilev highway.

Are we really getting that old? I remember the first time I've sen one in flight, just above the French/German border, you could not mistake it for any other aeroplane for sure. It should have been 1979 or 1980. Oh my...

Rgds

 

Crazy, I know.

My first assignment, I arrived at MacDill AFB in Feb 1977. Many there had returned from Vietnam only a handful of years before. That same year, the Korean War ended 24 years before, and before I was born.

Fast forward; I returned from the Gulf War in 1991, most college kids today were born afterwards (26 years ago).

Our early lives are ancient history.

 

It was mostly to reduce FOD. Blowing up crap on the ground from really low altitude.

That's one of the reasons it was selected over the competition with low intake engines.

Overwing intakes = reduced FOD thrown up by wheels, too from unimproved runways.

 

Thanks for making feel real old now... I remember seeing the F-15, F-16 and A-10 prototypes and the test pilots up close and personal as a kid growing up in Germany. Good times

 

reference?

 

Not exactly concise:

"However, selecting a winner for the competition strictly on the basis of political pressure was crooked as well, and also not in the military's best interests over the long term. They needed the best weapon available for the troops in the field. Selecting the "best" in this case was troublesome, since the YA-9A was more maneuverable, while the YA-10A was easier to maintain and judged more survivable."

"The positioning of the engine pods above the rear fuselage helps improve the survivability of the machine, with the wing providing protection against ground fire and the twin fin tail masking the exhaust from heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) -- the fact that high-bypass turbofans like the TF34 have a relatively cool exhaust flow helps as well. The high position also protects the engines from foreign object ingestion while operating off of dirt strips. In addition, the engine placement reduces the impact of gun-gas ingestion, in which gases released by firing the cannon choke off airflow to the engines. Considering the armament of the A-10, gun gas ingestion was a major potential problem."​

It's competitor, the Northrop YA-9A, had a high wing and low engine configuration.

Also:

"Incidentally, the A-10 is designed for short-field operation more than for rough-field operation. Its tricycle landing gear, all of which retracts forward, feature single wheels with low-pressure tires mounted on simple struts without shock-absorbing mechanisms. More serious "farm tractor" type landing gear would have increased cost and weight. The A-10 was intended to operate from relatively short strips of highway, runways that had been damaged by runway-dibber bombs, or leveled dirt or grass strips -- but not generally from an unprepared flat patch of ground."

[1.0] A-10: Development & Description

 

So? The newest B-52 is 55 years old!

 

Old birds indeed!

B-52 Stratofortress > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

NASA has 2 or 3 B-57 Canberras that are of the same vintage. One returned to flight after 41 years of inactivity.

NASA Martin B-57 Canberra makes its First Flight in 41 Years

 

Precisely...the pace of development in aviation has slowed a lot, as for airframe shapes and so on (not for IT, softwares, hardwares, etc...) and the costs have escalated a lot. So old designs are reaching service lives that were impossible to imagine fifty years ago.

What I mean is that fifty years ago, you could find pilots retiring who had flown, if they were americans, Boeing P-12 at the beginning of their career and Lockheed F-104 Starfighters at the end, which were visually "rather different", shall we say? And ditto for performance.

Another example could be found in the fast succession of the principal fighter planes, let's say for instance, of the US Navy: during the fifties they went through:
Mc Donnell F-2H "Banshee", then Grumman F9F "Panther" (and its derivative with swept wing the "Cougar"), then Vought F-7U "Cutlass", then North American "Fury", then Mc Donnell F-3H "Demon", then Douglas F-4D "Skyray", then Grumman F-11F "Tiger", then Vought F-8U "Crusader", then McDonnell F-4H "Phantom".

I may have even forgotten one design or two, but that's nine different fighters in ten years...(ten if we separate Panthers/Cougars)

Nowadays, a fighter plane design will serve for thirty years before replacement. As I wrote above, I remember very well the retirement of the F-104 in Europe; I was 25 in 1985 when the Canadians retired the CF-104 and the first CF-18 arrived. These are still in service, 32 yeras later, giving you the impression that those who witnessed the forties and fifties have seen changes in aviation that we didn't...I have witnessed the entry in service in the french Armée de l'Air of the Mirage III, then the Mirage F1, then the Mirage 2000 and finally the Rafale in 60 years; and will probably not see another fighter design entering service....

Rgds

 

Highways that double as secret military airfields | Fox News

 

I read an article several years ago about a B-52 pilot.

His father had been a B-52 pilot also.

...and, his grandfather had been a B-52 pilot too.

 

That is absolutely amazing. I came to Boeing in 1950 and worked on the B-52 in 1951. I saw the first flight in 1952 and worked on all Boeing designs that followed up to the 777. Here I am at almost 91 and that B-52 is still going ! I have the sinking feeling that it is going to out-live me. I worked on the KC-135 in 1955-60 and it is still going. I have a feeling that maybe we did a good job on those birds.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1piR6LPJ6I[/ame]

Finnish army's normal routine. There is multiple road landing zones around Finland that can be used.

 

You didn't do a good job-- you did a GREAT job!

 

US fighter pilots like to say that Russia Vs US jets are like Fords vs Ferraris.

That battle didn't go too well for Ferrari.

 

Ever seen a Ford with a Ford engine win an F1 race? Yes, I know Ford funded the Cosworth V8.

 

You could argue that the Stewart-Ford of 1999, which won at the new Nürburgring driven by Johnny Herbert was rather close to that (a Ford powered Ford; well, not quite exactly, as officially a "Stewart-Ford" but truly very close)...

Rgds

 

The most famous ford/ford to win was the J car aka GT40 Mk4, which was besides the transaxle a pure ford design.

The earlier Gt40s were really lolas that ford then took over, redesigned somewhat and they were of course ford powered.

Cant think of too many mass car manufactuers who have had sucess at f1. Most seem to at best design the engine.

Is ferrari not unique in doing engine and chassis.

That canaberra story is amazing. i wonder what ti took to get it back in the air.
Did the wb 57 not have similar performance to a U2?

 

Sean- Not true, the Mk IV did not race until 1967. The most famous victory was in 1966 when three GT-40 Mk IIs did a formation photo finish at Le Mans. That was the big impetus for the Ford GTs that won their class at Le Mans in 2016, 50 years later.

The original GT-40 was based on the Lola GT, but by the time the MkIIs won Le Mans, there was not much Lola left, and even less on the MkIV.

I had friends who flew the RB-57F in VietNam, and the performance was indeed similar to the U-2, except with a lower ceiling. Those RB-57Fs were redesignated WB-57Fs in the late 60s.

 

Taz I'll beg to differ on the Gt40 Mk2, yes it had the famous win, but it was still really the lola tub under the moded fiberglass, really just a aero and cooling evolved Mk1 with some minor changes to the rear in terms of making it stronger and of course the 4 sped transaxle to handle the 427. If the Mk1 is not a full ford neither is the Mk2.

The Mk4 was wholly developed by ford in detroit, complely different animal(except engine) the only comonality with the earlier cars being Gt40 name, first car made I think with honey comb composites and glue..

Canberra was an amazing plane, apprently still is. I wonder what it took to get that one back in the air.

 

I remember B-57's at Kirtland AFB when I was a kid. I think all the Martin planes had tandem cockpits while the Brits were side-by-side (I think).
These were the standard wing, not the giant wing of later variations.

I've wondered why the Brits tended to bury the jet engines in the wings (Canberra, Comet, V-Bombers, etc.), it seems like a big increase in maintenance time.

Then, to be different, the EE Lightning had the engines stacked vertically...was fast, though.

 

There are 3 NASA WB-57s flying out of Ellington Field here in the Houston area.

https://theaviationist.com/tag/martin-b-57-canberra/

 

The altitude they can fly puts them over nearly all the weather, so that gives them a lot of flexibility. Plus they are not nearly as big a pain to land as the U-2, and have more alternate possibilities.

We lost a U-2 instructor (ejection seat contacted the aircraft) and aircraft, student pilot OK, in September 2016. The student later completed transition training and is now fully qualified.

 

If you go to Bing maps and enter the coordinates 31.511110, 65.862264, you'll see one on the ramp in Afghanistan

 

the SU's have flaps that block FOD