Heavy Metal

Amen @LocuMob :). Agree 1,000%

All in all, humans only "advance/grow/learn" at ANYTHING, when we TRY.

We will, necessarily, FAIL, at some things we try. But, neither the advancement NOR the fail ---- and hence the learning --- occur without the TRY.

reminds me of something (probably where I learned it as a lad) a teacher told me in another context. It wasnt her quote obviously, but i have had a framed poster in my work offices for 40 years now.

429380-Thomas-A-Edison-Quote-I-never-once-failed-at-making-a-light-bulb-I.jpg
 
Canceled before a single order:

#DidYouKnow | The MD-12, a large airliner concept by McDonnell Douglas in the 1990s, aimed to surpass the MD-11 with a quad jet design. Planned to rival the Boeing 747, it featured dual full-length passenger decks for increased capacity. Despite interest, it received no orders and was canceled. #Airways #Aviation

IMG_0316.jpeg
 
3175375 said:
Canceled before a single order:

#DidYouKnow | The MD-12, a large airliner concept by McDonnell Douglas in the 1990s, aimed to surpass the MD-11 with a quad jet design. Planned to rival the Boeing 747, it featured dual full-length passenger decks for increased capacity. Despite interest, it received no orders and was canceled. #Airways #Aviation

View attachment 659435
Click to expand...

If you dont know the story of this TYPE of plane -- huge, heavy, long haul, four engines - and if interested in these topics, you oughta read about the Airbuss 380 (below).

sources: https://static1.simpleflyingimages..../uploads/2023/11/shutterstock_112881910-1.jpg, A380 Cabin

Airbus 380
1714995596729.png
1714995999189.png
1714996401057.png
1714996768581.png


Its a story about business, nature of demand, technology changes, HUGE capital investments, perhaps supply chain partners NOT being straight with each other (allegedly), etc.

This MD-12 (canceled, but not until nearly $5 billion spent in development), the venerable Boeing 747 (except 747 was AHEAD of its time when introduced in 1969, arguably kept in service too long), the A380 -- ALL technological/engineering wonders, ALL were casualties of an ecomonic "mismatch" that, in HINDSIGHT (like most things tend to be clearer, sadly, ), were BAD decisions when they were made.

Aint dissing men/women corporate executives getting BIG business decisions wrong. They werent trying to waste BILLIONS of dollars on purpose. Still, we pay them a ton of money to NOT get it wrong.

I have little sympathy when CEOs get whacked when things go bad, especially in the Heavy Metal businesses - cars, planes, boats, trains - where the fickle consumer plays such a pivotal role.
 
Last edited:
amazinblue82 said:
If you dont know the story of this TYPE of plane -- huge, heavy, long haul, four engines - and if interested in these topics, you oughta read about the Airbuss 380 (below).

sources: https://static1.simpleflyingimages..../uploads/2023/11/shutterstock_112881910-1.jpg, A380 Cabin

Airbus 380
View attachment 659481View attachment 659483View attachment 659484View attachment 659485

Its a story about business, nature of demand, technology changes, HUGE capital investments, perhaps supply chain partners NOT being straight with each other (allegedly), etc.

This MD-12 (canceled, but not until nearly $5 billion spent in development), the venerable Boeing 747 (except 747 was AHEAD of its time when introduced in 1969, arguably kept in service too long), the A380 -- ALL technological/engineering wonders, ALL were casualties of an ecomonic "mismatch" that, in HINDSIGHT (like most things tend to be clearer, sadly, ), were BAD decisions when they were made.

Aint dissing men/women corporate executives getting BIG business decisions wrong. They werent trying to waste BILLIONS of dollars on purpose. Still, we pay them a ton of money to NOT get it wrong.

I have little sympathy when CEOs get whacked when things go bad, especially in the Heavy Metal businesses - cars, planes, boats, trains - where the fickle consumer plays such a pivotal role.
Click to expand...
My godfather worked for 30+ years at McDonnell Douglas in Long Beach, California. He told me after he had retired that the MD-11 was going to be the last aircraft that the company would develop, unless it was based on a military need. The costs in California had already risen significantly to become an obstacle in the 80’s/early 90’s.
 
3175375 said:
My godfather worked for 30+ years at McDonnell Douglas in Long Beach, California. He told me after he had retired that the MD-11 was going to be the last aircraft that the company would develop, unless it was based on a military need. The costs in California had already risen significantly to become an obstacle in the 80’s/early 90’s.
Click to expand...
guess your godfather saw the train comin, so to speak, for the big, 3-4 engine rigs. prescient. :)

Aside, it is alleged that, McD-Doug did too ... they were doing the MD-12 just too pump up a rumor that they were a Boeing acquisition target. I doubt it, but who knows ....

dont wanna go off on a rant here, but without the "subsidy" of military contracts, where the customer (government) pays "Good" ( hell, worse case they can and do literally call up their mints and print money if needed), there would be no civilian aircraft business as we know it today.

supply & demand .. its as much a mathematical analytical tool as it is a pretty good predictor of the future. even one could predict in 1950's, that one day, jet engines would sip aviation fuel AND produce the mega thrust (e.g. two engines that could almost do the job of four engines, on a BIG plane) given the performance curve jet engines were riding from the start.

boil it all down, while one didnt know when, one knew they would -- MD-11's &12's, A380's, etc., -- become brontosauruses and your company better be ready for the inevitable.

anyway, i ranted in #2,359, though. without all that military spending, this could be a worse world .. e.g., we'd be without some of the brilliant innovations and machines we have now that we take for granted. Tax money well (OVER)spent IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
What are the advantagesof the A-4 Skyhawk aircraft?

Advantages of this famous Marine and Navy attack
aircraft:
Armament: Even though quite small, (a maximum
takeoff weight of 24,500 Ibs,) it could carry a whopping
8,500 Ibs of external ordnance on five hard points,
more than a B-17 bomber.

Speed: Though sub-sonic it was still fast, hitting a top
speed of 670 miles per hour (1,080 km/h).

Size and cost: The Skyhawk, was designed by Douglas
to replace their own ground attack star, the Douglas A-1
SkyRaider, one of the largest single-engine propeller
driven fighter-bombers ever built with what turned out
to be one of the smallest, lightest attack jets ever. It
was successful: The Huge Skyraider could haul 8,000
lbs or ordnance, and the petite Skyhawk could hump
8,500 lbs. of a staggering array of munitions. The
Skyraider could hit a max speed of 322 and the
Skyhawk could hit 670 mph.

Douglas designed the Skyhawk so small that the result
was an aircraft that weighed only half of the Navy's
original weight specification for the new design. It had a
wing so compact that it did not need to be folded for
carrier stowage. The short-span delta wing didn't
require the complexity of wingtip folding, saving an
estimated 200 pounds (91 kg) per wing. 400 lbs total.
Its spars were machined from a single forging that
spanned across both wingtips. The turbojet engine was
accessed for service/replacement by simply removing
the aft section of the fuselage and just sliding out the
engine. This negated the need for access doors with
their hinges and latches further reducing weight and
complexity. (This simplicity of design is the opposite of
what can often happen in aircraft design where a small
weight increase in one area tends to a compounding
increase in weight in other areas to compensate,
creating a demand for more powerful, heavier engines,
larger wing and empennage area, and so on in a vicious
circle.)
The first 500 production examples cost an average of
$860,000 each, less than the Navy's one million dollar
maximum. Compact and economical in every way!
Longevity: Introduced into US arsenals on 1 October
1956; (65 years ago,) Skyhawks played key roles in the
Vietnam War 1, the Yom Kippur War », and the
Falklands War 2. In 2022, seven decades after the
aircraft's first flight in 1954, some of the 2,960
produced (through February 1979) STILL remain in
service with the Argentine Air Force 17 and the Brazilian
Naval Aviation 2, twice as long as the also-long-lived
and magnificent Skyraider, another of my favorite
aircraft. Many nations used the Skyhawk including the
U.K., Australian, France and Sweden.
Refueling: The A-4 Skyhawk pioneered the concept of
"buddy" air-to-air refueling, allowing the aircraft to
supply others of the same type, reducing the need for
dedicated tanker aircraft-a particular advantage for
small air arms or when operating in remote locations.
This gave the Skyhawk greatly improved operational
flexibility and fueling reassurance against the loss or
malfunction of tanker aircraft.
Nuclear payload capable: Though sub-sonic, the
Skyhawk had the flexibility to deliver a nuclear weapon.
Below: Thermal cockpit shield for nuclear weapons
delivery.
Emergency Landings: The A-4 was also revolutionarily
designed in the event of a hydraulic failure, to be able
to make an emergency landing on the two drop tanks
nearly always carried by these aircraft. Such landings
resulted in only minor damage to the nose which could
be repaired in less than an hour.
All Weather: The Users loved her and more variants and
modifications were added. The A-4C Skyhawk included
avionic changes, a low-altitude bombing system, an all-
altitude reference system and an automatic flight
control system, and the aircraft was now all-weather.
Skyhawks were well loved by their crews for being
tough and agile. These attributes, along with their
bargain-basement purchase price and operating cost
as well as easy maintenance, contributed to the
popularity of the A-4 Skyhawk with American and
international armed forces, both. The Israeli Air Force
also fell in love with them as they cost 1/4 of what an F-
4 Phantom Il cost, but had 1/2 its payload.

IMG_0330.jpeg
 
amazinblue82 said:
Guess if there was a "Hall of Fame" for US military airplanes, the A4 would be there. Speed, size, cost, payload, range, maintenance, length of service, etc.,

Former CO of the Blue Angels explains why they picked A-4 to replace F-4.

View attachment 659785
View attachment 659783View attachment 659784

Source: Man on A Missile: Former Blue Angels CO explains why the Team chose the A-4 Skyhawk to Replace the F-4 Phantom - The Aviation Geek Club.
Click to expand...
I worked with a guy who was a retired Marine pilot and he said that the government should have continued developing the A-4, like the F-15 has developed. It was light, extremely maneuverable, an extremely small radar cross section (less than 1 square meter clean - that is approaching stealth and is when the aircraft is untreated - applying non-metallic or radar absorbing coatings) and inexpensive.

With the F/A-18 and now the F-35 being excessively more expensive and less maneuverable, it makes sense to me that the A-4 should have been continued to be developed.
 

This photo is an exploded view of an actual B-29, showing many of the main components, and the companies that made each​

1715518822143.png

The Chrysler DeSoto nose section is separated from the Goodyear built bomb bay fuselage sections.

The Hudson built rear fuselage sections with the Goodyear vertical and horizontal tail and control surfaces can be seen.

The main wing center section was built by Martin Omaha but the outer wing section components built by Hudson are visible.

The Fisher Body engine nacelles have Chrysler built engine cowlings attached. Frigidaire props are off the Dodge built engines.
 
67newport said:

This photo is an exploded view of an actual B-29, showing many of the main components, and the companies that made each​

View attachment 660539
The Chrysler DeSoto nose section is separated from the Goodyear built bomb bay fuselage sections.

The Hudson built rear fuselage sections with the Goodyear vertical and horizontal tail and control surfaces can be seen.

The main wing center section was built by Martin Omaha but the outer wing section components built by Hudson are visible.

The Fisher Body engine nacelles have Chrysler built engine cowlings attached. Frigidaire props are off the Dodge built engines.
Click to expand...
Fascinating ... more of the story:

sources: Building a B-29 Piece by Piece, B-29 and the US auto industry in World War Two
1715531693506.png
1715532069409.png


1715532151413.png

1715532279616.png
 
The aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), USS George H W Bush (CVN-77), USS Enterprise (CVN-65), USS Harry S Truman (CVN 75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) are in port at Naval Station Norfolk, which is the world's largest naval station, December 2012.

IMG_0398.jpeg
 
Why does the An-225 have such a strange empennage with a huge, swept back double tail?
The An-225 has a very distinctive empennage, or tail section, that consists of a huge, swept-back double tail with an oversized horizontal stabilizer. The empennage of the An-225 was redesigned from the single vertical stabilizer of the An-124, which is a smaller cargo aircraft that served as the basis for the An-225. The reason for this redesign was to improve the stability and control of the An-225 when carrying large and heavy loads on its back.

The double tail provides more vertical surface area and more directional stability than a single tail, especially when the aircraft is flying at low speeds or high angles of attack. The double tail also reduces the interference between the tail and the wing, which can cause a loss of lift or control effectiveness. The double tail also allows for more space between the engines and the tail, which reduces the noise and vibration levels in the cockpit and cabin.

The horizontal stabilizer is very large and swept-back to provide more longitudinal stability and pitch control than a conventional horizontal stabilizer. The horizontal stabilizer also acts as a lifting surface that helps to balance the weight of the payload on the back of the aircraft. The horizontal stabilizer has two elevators that can be moved independently or together to adjust the pitch attitude and trim of the aircraft.

The An-225 has such a strange empennage because it was designed to handle very challenging aerodynamic conditions and to ensure safe and efficient flight performance when carrying enormous payloads. The empennage of the An-225 is one of the most remarkable features that distinguish it from other aircraft.

IMG_0574.jpeg
 
3175375 said:
Why does the An-225 have such a strange empennage with a huge, swept back double tail?
The An-225 has a very distinctive empennage, or tail section, that consists of a huge, swept-back double tail with an oversized horizontal stabilizer. The empennage of the An-225 was redesigned from the single vertical stabilizer of the An-124, which is a smaller cargo aircraft that served as the basis for the An-225. The reason for this redesign was to improve the stability and control of the An-225 when carrying large and heavy loads on its back.

The double tail provides more vertical surface area and more directional stability than a single tail, especially when the aircraft is flying at low speeds or high angles of attack. The double tail also reduces the interference between the tail and the wing, which can cause a loss of lift or control effectiveness. The double tail also allows for more space between the engines and the tail, which reduces the noise and vibration levels in the cockpit and cabin.

The horizontal stabilizer is very large and swept-back to provide more longitudinal stability and pitch control than a conventional horizontal stabilizer. The horizontal stabilizer also acts as a lifting surface that helps to balance the weight of the payload on the back of the aircraft. The horizontal stabilizer has two elevators that can be moved independently or together to adjust the pitch attitude and trim of the aircraft.

The An-225 has such a strange empennage because it was designed to handle very challenging aerodynamic conditions and to ensure safe and efficient flight performance when carrying enormous payloads. The empennage of the An-225 is one of the most remarkable features that distinguish it from other aircraft.

View attachment 662266
Click to expand...
A Heavy Metal fave.

Good info on that tail. (eppenage):)

Heavy Metal

Heavy Metal

1280px-Antonov_An-225_Beltyukov-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pete Kaczmarski
"Blues Brothers" movie, 60 cruisers for $400 each....
Replies
6
Views
3K
tallhair
tallhair
tbm3fan
The Last Battle
Replies
8
Views
2K
tbm3fan
tbm3fan
detmatt
  • Locked
For Sale MAD magazine collection
Replies
6
Views
5K
69CoronetRT
69CoronetRT
Back
Top