Since the 1960s USAF aircraft have become progressively grayer, losing their bright markings and colourful schemes to become uniformly gray,  in the name of camouflage. Thanks to advances in ‘lo viz’ (low visibility) markings, the badges that inform friends and enemies of an aircraft’s nationality are now invisible beyond 50 metres. According to Gen. Fulsom Boutay of Semiotics Command this is only the beginning, “Despite the ubiquitous application of invisible signage on our aircraft, bases are still covered in signs that are highly visible from ground level. The most obvious is the signage of ground vehicles, for instance, signs to the car lot or showing the speed limit on-base. By reducing the contrast of the colors used in these signs – say using gray on gray – we can have signs that are completely unreadable by 2026. We will then move on to the bigger picture, a system of systems of symbols of symbols that are all invisible to both human eyes and on the infra-red spectrum. An example: internal emails still use black text on a white background, by simply changing the text color to white we should give them a true lo-viz capability without costing tax payers a cent. By 2070, we hope all airmen will have no distinguishing features – except during Mustache March, where they will all (male and female together) have 3mm long upper lip hair in FED-STD-595 Federal Standard 595 Color FS 36251. “ 

The greatest fighter pilot in the within-visual range combat arena was Red Baron Richthofen, popularly known as the ‘Schicker Psychopath’ (which translates as Red Baron). His victory was greatly aided by his use of camouflage – he painted his aeroplane red and then filled the sky with British airmen’s blood, rendering himself invisible. Similarly, British nuclear bombers were painted white to symbolise the horror beyond words of a nuclear holocaust. Today, the best US pilots, who are trapped within aggressor units to stop them from actually hurting anyone, are allowed the most vibrant camouflage schemes on their aircraft.

The leaders of several African air forces have been vocally critical of the lo-viz approach, Air Force Commander Abbas Al-Badboy of the Sudanese Air Force noting, “I’ve got a load of lovely bright green paint in my shed I got from B&Q and I am determined it will get used.” Similarly the Russian aircraft design bureau Sukhoi announced in last press conference/ barbecue party “We may not have the funds to run a full test programme of all our aircraft, but we can at least paint them in a different cool scheme every month – lo viz is (an) unwelcome distraction from this distraction. We offer discounts to Frogfoot operators who paint them like a survivalist’s Humvee.”

Article Spelling in NATO British-US English. 

At the Paris Air Show, Turkish Aerospace displayed a model of the TF–X fighter. Turkey has never designed an advanced combat aircraft before, and the aircraft is symbolic of the nation’s new confidence in breaking its dependence on the US. Looking every inch a Lockheed Martin model, could the TF-X become the air superiority ‘F-35’ that Turkey, and other air forces, are crying out for? 

The TF-X is at first sight a twin-engine F-35 look-alike. Turkey projects this aircraft as a replacement for the F-16, and might operate it alongside the F-35, although this currently looks a bit uncertain for Turkey due to the deterioration in its relationship with the Trump administration. Either Turkey is seeking a more agile, air-to-air aircraft to complement F-35, which might then be used mainly for air strike, or perhaps TF-X can be seen as a move to develop both Turkey’s Industrial capability and its Defence self-sufficiency.

I would expect the aircraft to focus on the Air Defence role, because this would provide an opportunity to supplement rather than simply duplicate F-35 capability. A secondary strike role for the aircraft is likely.

The TF-X has been the subject of a technical agreement with BAE Systems, and initially, two EJ200 engines were to be used. However, the technical dialogue with Rolls-Royce has apparently been broken off. The configuration recently shown at the Paris AirShow is unchanged from previous illustrations. Claimed characteristics include 2 x20,000 lb thrust engines, Max Take-Off Weight (MTOW) of 60,000 lb +, Max speed of Mach 2 and a ceiling of 55,000 ft+.

A stealthy Typhoon? 

Broadly, then, Turkey appears to be, seeking to build a stealthy Typhoon. Is this achievable? I think it is doubtful that Turkey could achieve such an outcome without significant design and manufacturing assistance.

From a configuration viewpoint, the quoted Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) appears pretty high. It is about 10,000lb greater than the max overload Take-Off Weigh of the comprehensively equipped Typhoon. The claimed Mach 2 maximum speed and ceiling of 55,000 ft match those of Typhoon, but the MTOW seems high. I cannot comment with confidence onTurkey’s ability to design and build such an aircraft, and make it stealthy as well, but it does seem questionable.

Top fighters of the 2030s here

Otherwise, if the aircraft is to accommodate fuel and weapons internally, it is likely that wave drag will become an issue, although the additional internal fuel may increase combat persistence.. Similarly, the simple intakes shown lack the variable area and boundary layer management of the Typhoon to reduce signature. From these aspects, I would suggest that Mach 2.0 is an optimistic figure.

Musings on Project Tempest

All-in-all, the TF-X is much more like a twin-engined F-35 than a Typhoon. I doubt speeds greater than M 1.8 are achievable. From a manoeuvre perspective, I’d expect reasonable manoeuvrability in an air combat configuration, but I would be concerned that the relatively tall fins might be subject to significant buffet loads at high incidence.

Airbus/Dassault reveal full-size model of New Generation Fighter here. 

Could Turkey deliver the TF-X as an F-35-clone, but optimised for air defence? It’s a nice concept, but a huge step forward from their current Industrial capability.

— Jim Smith

Jim Smith had significant technical roles in the development of the UK’s leading military aviation programmes from ASRAAM and Nimrod, to the JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon.

We are currently well behind our donations target. This site can only survive with your donations. Click here to keep this site going.

Want to see more stories like this: Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Have a look at How to kill a Raptor, An Idiot’s Guide to Chinese Flankers, the 10 worst British military aircraft, The 10 worst French aircraft,  Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 

 

Following chaos at last month’s Rafople spelling press conference, a new controversy has come to light regarding the pronunciation of FCAS (Future Combat Air System) a joint Dassault/Airbus plan for a combat aircraft system or system of systems (which may develop into a systems of systems of systems). According to Eric Frappier, Head of Nomenclature & Onomastics for aero giant Dassault, FCAS is pronounced ‘F-cass’ and not ‘Fuck-ass’. In the press release he noted, “any connections with anal sex are unintentional – this system is strictly for killing.” 

A spokesperson for rave weapons manufacturer MDMA we talked to noted, “We initially had the same issue with the ASRAAM (a missile) – which is said as ‘az-ram’ and not ‘ass-ram’. I mean ass is an American thing – it is arse over here anyway.” 

Frappier’s release was criticised by sex positivity activist Titty McShane who was angered by the denial, ‘The idea that anal sex is something to be distanced from is quite frankly disgusting…and also where have the vertical tails come from? Have they given up on true low observability?” 

It is likely that FCAS will rely on the new concept of a remotely piloted/unmanned loyal (or poly) wingperson, a simpler but still high performance aircraft known colloquially as a ‘strap-on’.

Some see Britain’s rival Tempest as an attempt by BAE Systems to enter FCAS by the backdoor. Both Britain, Europe and Turkey have created doll versions of their proposed fighters in an attempt to let influential politicians get a selfie in the cockpit “holding the steering wheel and looking like a cool fighter pilot.” The mock-ups are slated to be used as disappointing museum exhibits from 2025.

In attempt to quell the storm in both the world of sexual politics and the defence industry, Spain has joined the project and has requested that FCAS be renamed CARAJO (Combat Aircraft/Remote Aerial Joint Offence). This will see the project merge with ATROYA (Advanced Technology Remote Offensive Yuropean Aircraft).

A few short years ago, it seemed as if the future of the European fighter industry had been all but quashed by the US — today is a different story. As the Eurocanards continue to generate orders, Europe looks ahead to the creation of a multi-role stealthy combat aircraft to serve from the 2030s. The  Next Generation Fighter is an ambitious project led by Dassault of France and Airbus Defence, two organisations with a wealth of experience. Jim Smith reports. 

The sleek mock-up revealed this week at the Paris Air Show demonstrated a confidence fortified by the signing of an accord by the defence ministers of Germany, France and Spain. But what does the mock-up reveal? 

“Airbus Defence and Space of Germany, and Dassault of France, have agreed to cooperate on the Next Generation Fighter, the manned air combat element of the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) project to develop a future European air combat capability. France and Germany have been joined in this effort by Spain, and a mock-up of the proposed aircraft has been shown at the Paris Air Show.

It is expected that the aircraft will be multi-role, with both air combat and strike capabilities. The platform will be stealthy, and is envisaged as operating as part of a networked system-of-systems, in conjunction with other manned and unmanned capabilities, which together will form the FCAS.

The mock-up shown at Paris is perhaps 15m long, and features a wing with a planform resembling a delta wing, but with swept outer panels. A feature drawing significant comment is the broad butterfly tail, resembling that of the Northrop YF-23, but with even greater cant angle from the vertical (earlier artworks showed a tailless configuration). 

To me, the configuration suggests significant trades have been made with an intent to minimise signature, at least in the forward and side-on aspects. The profile from the side is very low and flat, with the highly canted fins clearly intended to reduce signature in side-on aspects. I assume internal carriage of fuel and weapons, and bays intended for both air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. The intakes are simple, and would probably limit the aircraft to about Mach 1.6.

The cranked wing configuration assists in providing internal volume for fuel and weapons, possibly at the expense of rear aspect signature. Such a planform would also ease the development of a naval variant, allowing lower approach speeds and/or a reduced nose-up attitude on the approach than a delta wing.

The platform does not seem to be designed with high manoeuvrability in mind, and looks to be likely to rely on its low signature, weapons system, and cooperative systems, rather than manoeuvrability or dash speed to survive in air combat.

Although, in a configuration sense, plausible, the mock-up shown at Paris somehow lacks the credibility of a fully developed design. It’s a little difficult to put one’s finger on why this should be the case, but the apparent lack of sensors, undercarriage, access panels, cockpit transparency, joint and panel lines with common angles to aid in managing signature, all contribute to this impression.”

The desired schedule demands a first flight of a demonstrator in 2025 and service entry in around 2040. Our full article on future fighters can be found here.

— Jim Smith

We are currently well behind our donations target. This site can only survive with your donations. Click here to keep this site going.

Want to see more stories like this: Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Have a look at How to kill a Raptor, An Idiot’s Guide to Chinese Flankers, the 10 worst British military aircraft, The 10 worst French aircraft,  Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 

When we think of a fighter aircraft we think of its high manoeuvrability. Even today, this exciting and romantic trait is still highly desirable. We look at the best ‘turners and burners’ in service today and the science behind it. 

A missile needs to be placed into the right section of sky to kill its target, and a fighter aircraft must also have a decent chance of dodging enemy missiles. High manoeuvrability also gives the fighter a greater opportunity to evade enemy sensors or eyes. Even when missiles can be told the position of their target not just through their own limited ‘vision’ by via the direction the pilot is pointing her head, or sensors both on and off the launcher aircraft, manoeuvrability is still valuable. High manoeuvrability is expensive though both in terms of the g-force it generates, and the demands it will put on the design of the aeroplane. The g-force, is a measurement of the type of force that causes a perception of weight. On Earth normal gravity gives us 1G conditions, and that’s what the human body is best at dealing with. A hard manoeuvring fighter can reach 9G, though greater G is possible, 9G is the effective limit of what the body can withstand repeatedly while performing the tasks required of a fighter pilot. At 9G a 100kg pilot would feel and move as if he weighed 900kg.

Over to Jim Smith for more:  “For significant parts of the flight envelope, manoeuvre performance may be limited by the structural design of the aircraft, which is likely to be constrained to no more than 9g. This is due to the limitations of the human pilot, even supported by a ‘g-suit’. One key manoeuvre parameter is the instantaneous turn rate (the ability to suddenly pull a turn from level flight), which fundamentally depends on wing loading (how much weight each square of metre is supporting) and usable lift coefficient (in simple terms, how much lift is available to the aircraft). The significance is that this is a measure of how rapidly energy may be traded against turn rate to temporarily point the nose to the aircraft, for example to gain a firing opportunity, or to evade a threat such as a surface-to-air missile. Since supersonic combat aircraft have relatively low lift curve slopes*, due to sweep, and low aspect ratio wings, a number of the following may be used to provide a short-term increase in turn rate: Thrust-vectoring (the mechanical steering of the jet exhaust) provides a powerful way of nose-pointing, particularly at relatively low speeds; A delta wing with sharp leading edges will generate a leading edge vortex, which will increase both lift and drag; A leading-edge root extension (LERX) or strake may be added to a lower sweep wing to mimic the vortex flows generated by a delta and increase lift; Higher thrust-to-weight ratio may be required to overcome the drag at high incidence – particularly if the turn is to be sustained, rather than allowing energy to bleed off; Finally, unstable configurations are preferred, as these maximise the effect of controls. European and Chinese aircraft favour the use of a destabilising canard, while US aircraft generally do not, preferring closely-coupled tailed near-delta configurations.

*Lift curve slope is the amount of lift you get for a given angle between the wing and the airflow. Low lift curve slope means this is less than usual.

For instantaneous turn rate  the aircraft may be either structurally limited to 9g, or aerodynamically limited by the lift available, dependent on the maximum possible wing lift (known as CLmax), speed, density and wing loading. Except for that area of the flight envelope where the aircraft is capable of delivering a sustained turn at 9g, energy and speed will reduce, and the rate of reduction will depend on Thrust to Weight ratio (high T/W reduces decay rate), and lift dependent drag (high lift dependent drag increases decay rate). 

At altitude, at some point, an instantaneous turn rate of 9g will no longer be achievable because the wing will have reached maximum available lift, Clmax. Above this altitude, the turn rate available will depend on wing loading and Cl max, and the bleed off in energy will depend on T/W, and lift-dependent drag as indicated above. Thrust vectoring may assist in generating a rapid pitch response, as will an unstable configuration with an advanced flight control system.

At transonic and supersonic speeds, wave drag will become an additional factor, with high wave drag increasing the speed decay rate.

From all this, we can extract the following pointers for good instantaneous turn rate:

– Low wing loading (the ‘wing loading’ is how much weight each square metre of wing is supporting)

– High max lift coefficient

– Thrust Vectoring

– Unstable designs with advanced Flight Control Systems

And for lower bleed-off in energy

– Low lift-dependent drag

– High Thrust to Weight

– Low wave drag if transonic or supersonic

The close coupled Euro-canards, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are likely to be very good; F-22 is also good due to high T/W, thrust vectoring, and wing area; Su-35 likely to be pretty good too – big wing, reasonable aspect ratio, canards, and thrust vectoring. F-35 will perhaps have more energy bleed off due to its higher wave drag, lower T/W, and higher wing loading

Best current aircraft: Difficult to assess and likely to vary dependent on Mach number and altitude, but suggest Typhoon and Rafale, with perhaps Gripen, F-22 and Su-35 also very good.

 

Sustained turn rate for part of the flight envelope will be limited to the best that can be achieved with a ‘g-suit’ equipped human pilot. Reaching those levels may influence wing design, through wing loading, aspect ratio and sweep, unless these are constrained by other requirements. Thrust-to-weight ratio will possibly also be influenced by the turn rates required, as sustained turning flight is a high drag situation.

However, the area of the flight envelope in which the aircraft will be capable of sustaining 9g will be substantially less than the area in which it can generate an instantaneous 9g turn rate. To generate and sustain a high turn rate, the aircraft will be relying on the extra energy available – as we have seen ((T-D)/W) x V, but with the wing at high lift.

For good sustained turn rate, we need:

– Low lift-dependent drag, and hence a higher aspect ratio

– Low wave drag if transonic or supersonic – noting this is likely to drive to low aspect ratio and high sweep

– High Thrust to Weight

– Low wing loading

The highly-optimised close-coupled Euro-canards are likely to be the best current aircraft; the Su-35 has higher aspect ratio but potentially higher wing loading. I suspect F-22 will be competitive, but F-35 is likely to have lower sustained turn rate, as it has higher wing loading. In considering the F-22 and F-35, one should remember that the operating concept for both is likely to avoid the close-in turning fight typical of within-visual-range air combat. 

 

Flight at high-alpha seems to me to be a contentious requirement that, in general should not be a design driver. At high incidence, a combat aircraft is likely to be at low, or very low speed. While, given powerful control effectors, this may minimise turn radius and allow rapid change in nose pointing angle, the loss of energy may make surviving a missile engagement very unlikely, and re-joining combat difficult. 

However, given the convergence of structural limits, and the limitation of airshow performances to subsonic speeds, high-alpha performance remains one way of impressing the tax-payers. With unstable aircraft, thrust vectoring and a host of other aerodynamic gizmos, the Su-35 is probably champion at this. But many of today’s aircraft have at least equally high thrust to weight ratios, and similar aerodynamic and structural performance at low altitude and subsonic speeds. Personal experience of displays by the F-22, F-35, Typhoon, Rafale, Su-27, Su-35 and even the less capable Super Hornet show that all of these can put on a jolly good airshow performance.

On turning performance, and generally awesome airshow characteristics, the canard-equipped, thrust-vectoring Su-35 gets my vote for high alpha performance. On more general manoeuvre performance, all the other aircraft mentioned are very capable, with Typhoon, Rafale and F-22 all benefitting from high thrust to weight ratio, clean aerodynamic design and sophisticated flight control systems.

Click here for part one.

Take thirty supersonic seconds to donate a small amount here to keep this site going.

Want to see more stories like this: Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Have a look at How to kill a Raptor, An Idiot’s Guide to Chinese Flankers, the 10 worst British military aircraft, The 10 worst French aircraft,  Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 

 

In an attempt to create an aviation article that will only be read by twelve people, we have paired notable aircraft with notable writers (or in one case, her character). Shared chronology, traits or nationality sees these titans of literature matched with their flying riveted twins. Whereas Roald Dahl, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and Thomas Ruggles Pynchon have readily obvious links to aviation, our approach was a little more oblique. Confused? Keep reading. 

Hawker Hunter – Graham Greene ‘The future’s in the air’

These two great British characters are clear matches. The Hawker Hunter and Greene’s prose style were functional and simple, and both employ elegant uncluttered lines. Greene wrote his brilliant ‘End of the affair’ in 1951 and, perhaps in as celebration, the prototype Hunter flew. Both were occasional spies, but we know more about the Hunter’s reconnaissance duties.  Both were fascinated with decrepit corrupt regimes: the Hunter fighting for them and Greene documenting them. The ‘near idiot-proof’, Hunter was kind and undemanding to its pilots, similarly Greene is easy and accessible to read, spurning unnecessarily complicated tricks. Greene died in 1991, the Hunter in 1994. Though the Hunter, perhaps proving Catholic in belief, has enjoyed a long afterlife, returning to fight for the Lebanese Air Force in the 2010s and continuing in several support roles around the world. Both remain much-loved to the present day.

Antonov A-40/ MikhailBulgakov ‘The heart of a tank’

Antonovs are Russian right? Oh wait no, they’re Ukrainian, but Kiev was in the Soviet Union when the design bureau started in 1946.  Bulgakov was Russian right? Sort of, he was born in Kiev when it was in the Russian Empire. Bulgakov died in 1940 as work on a flying tank began. Whether he reincarnated himself as this flying tank is hard to say, but this absurd (yet at the time strangely ubiquitous) was as unlikely and thrilling as his classic works. In his most famous book,  The Master & Margarita, the titular character female learns to fly across the USSR. She then welcomes the dark celebrities of human history as they arrive from Hell – the A-40 was expected to send some of the darkest celebrities (the leaders of the nazi invasion) into hell, while aiding the extremely dark Stalin. Both Bulgakov and the A-40 endured a complicated relationship with the communist monster, and neither helped the Soviet Union.

AH-64 Apache – Bret Easton Ellis ‘Imperial Gunships’ 

In an ugly modern world of brutal psychopathy, the killiest military aircraft is certainly an American Psycho. Less than zero and the Apache become operational in the mid-1980s and both displayed a love of gadgets and a glee in dismembering people. The Apache fought in Desert Storm in 1991, the same year American Psycho hit the shelves.

Airbus A320 – Alain de Botton ‘The school of lift’

Ahh, these clever, helpful, Europeans are often scorned by snobs, but both are huge successes that make life easier. Alain, born in 1969, is a year older than Airbus. Airbus mastered the Architecture of Happiness with the A380, popular with passengers for its winding alleys and charming squares, but sadly a world full of beancounters killed it. He also made a brilliant diagram about the probability of falling in love on an airliner that I’ll add to this article when I find it.

F. Scott Fitzgerald – Lockheed Model 10 ‘Electra Ladyland’

Elegance, glamour and a touch of tragedy unite these two two American interwar heroes. The exquisite Electra carried Amelia Earhart to a fate unknown in 1937, the year Fitzgerald signed a contract with MGM. Though the aircraft had a rather later heyday than the author, these two poetic beings shared the excitement of an age with the same fresh energised beauty.

Raymond Queneau —SNECMA Coléoptère  ‘Doukipudonktan?’

Experimental, bizarre and extremely clever – it’s hard to understand what the hell either of this two French innovators was up to. The bonkers Coléoptère took to the sky in 1959, the  year Zazie dans le métro was published, both are surreal, and full of visual jokes.

Sue Townsend/ Nimrod AEW. 3 ‘Big nose strikes again’

Thatcher’s Britain wasn’t very good as military equipment. It gave birth to the hopeless SA80 rifle, the overpriced and limited Hawk 200, the seriously flawed Challenger I, the gunless Harrier GR5 (years behind its US equivalent), the radarless unagile Tornado ADV and the awkward Nimrod AEW.3. This wannabe AWACS soaked up a great deal of money only to be binned and to have the role filled by a US aircraft (see Nimrod MRA.4 for the more expensive reboot of the story). Like the BAe ‘Big Nose’, Townsend’s Adrian Mole is a deluded and awkward individual failing to live up to his delusions of grandeur.

(Special thanks to Thomas Lovegrove) 

 

 

Which are the easiest and hardest aircraft types to take-off and land? Over to Jim Smith to explain more.

“To minimise take-off distance, a slow take-off speed is desirable, aided by a rapid acceleration to reach that speed as quickly as possible, implying a low wing loading, high-lift wing, and high thrust-to-weight ratio, or some assistance, such as a catapult or some form of rocket assistance. Similarly, for landing, a low approach speed is desirable, enabled by low wing-loading, and a high-lift wing; after touch-down effective braking, thrust reversers, or (for carrier-based aircraft) the use of an arrester system, will all reduce stopping distance.

Alternatively, the VTOL or STOVL approach can be used, as in the Harrier or F-35B, but as indicated in my recent article on ASTOVL, this brings a whole world of additional complexity into the choice of propulsion and lift system, and how the packaging of this impacts on the configuration. One problem is that the desirable low wing loading, and extensive high lift devices, add weight and drag, and may not be compatible with the mission required. For example, the F-104 has high wing loading to achieve a high maximum speed and rapid acceleration in its role as an interceptor. Taming the landing speed requires the use of a blown flap system and brake chute. Some aircraft, which seek to combine high take-off (and possibly landing) weights with high dash speed capability, use variable geometry to get around the delivery of a good high-lift wing which is also compatible with high-speed flight.

Obvious examples here include the Rockwell B-1B, Tupolev Tu-160, General Dynamics F-111, and Panavia Tornado. The Tornado, in particular is interesting in the use of a thrust reverser system rather than a brake chute to shorten the landing roll. I assume this comes from a desire to minimise turn-around time while operating from short tactical runways. Inevitably, though, there is a trade-off due to the additional weight and space requirements for the wing pivot and wing sweep system.

One example of an aircraft which sacrificed take-off distance to the mission is the Republic F-105 Thunderchief, which is said to have depended on the curvature of the earth to achieve take off. In this case a combination of high weight, two crew, a single engine, and a high wing loading, driven by a desire for high speed at low level, will have contributed to the long take-off run.

From the landing perspective, the U-2/TR-1 has a reputation for being particularly difficult to settle on to the runway, due to its long-span, and pronounced ground-effect, which results in the aircraft floating on landing, and generally being talked down by a pursuing car.

Oddly enough, while the structure and undercarriage design of carrier-borne aircraft are heavily influenced by landing loads, take-off and landing do not seem to heavily constrain the configuration of such aircraft. This is largely because of the reliance on arrester gear to control the landing run, and catapult assistance on take-off. Weight penalties are incurred by the additional structure and landing gear weight, and (normally) provision for wing folding. One exception would be the
Crusader, which featured a variable incidence wing to manage the approach attitude of the aircraft and improve deck landing safety.

Nomination for best – I like the Tornado because of its variable sweep and high lift devices, but I’m going for the SAAB Viggen, for all round panache, a huge afterburner and thrust-reverser.

 

For worst, the U-2/TR-2 is clearly a contender. I suspect the Chance-Vought Cutlass may be the historic ‘reserve champion’, because of the draggy, low lift-curve slope configuration coupled with engines that would not spool up rapidly.

At a larger scale, the Tu-22 ‘Blinder’ looks simply terrifying.

The historic champion would be the Messerschmitt 163 Komet – no power, so no go around; tailless, with no high lift devices; and nasty hypergolic fuel mix, prone to exploding on landing. Compared to the Komet, almost anything modern is relatively tame, and significant effort will have gone into the control laws for the approach, so even plausible candidates like the Mirage 2000 are now much more tractable than their predecessor the Mirage III.

Worst- historic: Me 163, with Cutlass and Tu-22 close behind.

Worst – current: TR-1″

Donate to the Hush-Kit blog and keep this going here. Thanks for reading this. We need your donations to carry on. 

The European consortium that builds the Eurofighter Typhoon has announced a comprehensive upgrade package that could see the integration of a Betamax video player as soon as 2056. 

Work on an active electronic scanning radar for the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft began in 1923, but so far has failed to enter service. In 1923 they predicted an service date of 1927, but with the reduction of the Soviet threat in 1924 (following Lenin’s burial) work slowed. Attempts to get the radar operational during the Battle of Britain failed due to differences between two of the partner nations (Germany and the UK). The 1977 Eurovision Song Contest results was responsible for a further delay as was the three-day week, and the unpredicted success of Roland Rat.

In an attempt to assuage customers’ worries that the type contains obsolete equipment, Eurofighter announced on Wednesday a package of upgrades intended to put the aircraft at the technological forefront. Under Project Gladiator, Typhoon will receive the same weapons capabilities the aircraft it is replacing had twenty years ago.

According to a member of the Eurofighter sales team —

“We see this as a major step forward – OK, so it may not have the range of the Tornado, or the advantage of a second crew-member or a dedicated reconnaissance pod but it is definitely MUCH MUCH faster (at higher altitudes). Anyway, as I like the look of you I’m going to chuck in a laserdisc player, a carphone and a Betamax player. All free for you. All top of the range stuff. F-35 does not have any of that. And a Tamagotchi if you like.” On seeing a passing policeman, the company representative quickly packed his suitcase of electronic goods and sprinted away from his headquarters outside the Leicester Square branch of Beefeater Steakhouse.

If you decide to donate to the Hush-Kit blog (because you like this kind of thing and want to see more) you can donate here. Thanks for reading this.