Nah, we would use the F4 to overwhelm the sensors of today with it's antistealthyness.
The Aerospace Industry Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Bad Monkey!
- Start date
Which made it sound very much like you were arguing that I was wrong to point out the obsolescence of the MiG-21 and greater capability of the -23, so I responded with the importance of the look-down/shoot-down radar to avoid being ambushed in close.
Are you claiming you were merely making an aside about the airplanes, such that a response as to the key improvement from the -21 to the -23 was irrelevant?
why? Like, a commercial freighter ain't a skunkworks project, why not wring a quarter out of it?
I think it depends on what the NTSB/FAA decide the acceptable fix is going to be. If it's new bearings and a really frequent inspection routine that might be okay for a while. If it's held to be a design flaw and they have to reengineer the whole fucking pylon then byeee.
The wait to figure out what the fix is might itself be operationally not worth it. If they have to bring in more capacity anyway, then they might as well just retire them now. And there's only two other operators worldwide, and the fix may well be more than the airframes are worth.
Other than the Boeing 747 and DC-10/MD-11, what other jets have dropped entire engines?
UPS is very phobic of their name being associated with used/damaged equipment. Their delivery trucks all get crushed (or at best painted white and only used for internal purposes other than deliveries) and either buried or melted down . They basically never resell an aircraft after they're done with it, even the parts. They don't want anyone to say "oh that plane involved with drug smuggling used to work for UPS" or "look at that old POS food truck, looks like they used an old UPS delivery van and put a BBQ inside it."
When a UPS MD-11 overran the end of the runway in Korea, they went out into the wreckage and covered up the logos on the airplane even during the investigation. I don't know how they talked the authorities into that but it just shows how much they don't want their name associated with damaged goods.
No, I was only commenting that once you got in close the Flogger was not an improvement. It had some technical improvements, but it was not a step up like going from the F4 to the F15 for air superiority. The Flogger to Fulcrum was a much larger leap in all categories, except maybe range!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categ...idents_involving_in-flight_engine_separations
MD-11/DC-10 x2
L-749A
707 x3
L-188 Electra
377 Stratocruiser x2
737-230A
747 x3
An-24
Il-18
I had no idea that there was such a list to find!
The 737 seems to be the only 2 engine jet and there are a LOT of them out there.
Newspapers have been treating jet as a noun referring to any generic aircraft for years, regardless of the powerplant of said aircraft. So an Electra might not have a jet powerplant, but I bet most people would probably say it's a jet.
edit: Hell, an MD-11 has a turbofan, which is not strictly speaking a jet engine.
But those are still more "jet" propulsion than a turboprop, which is "jet" powered or a piston engine.
If you don't think the Electra looks like a jet, then say that. You said:
and now that I point out that the original post was about the MD-11, which is also not a jet in the sense you seem to be implying, you're complaining that's not what you meant? Are you being pedantic about some of the aircraft on the list don't look like your concept of a jet, or something else? The electra isn't piston engined, it's a turboprop. Museum cutaway model. So it's just as much as a jet as the MD-11, it just has a propeller rather than a fan.
I don't think the 377 Stratocruiser looks like a jet at all, no.
That's a really interesting discussion on some level. I personally would only discriminate based on literal powerplant. IOW the stratocruiser and L-749A would definitely not be jets, and to me anything powered by a turbine would be a jet, including turboprops. There is maybe arguably a grey area with turboprops since they derive almost no thrust from the jet of air out of the exhaust, but then what is a CFM RISE-powered aircraft? To me, determining jet-ness by an arbitrary cutoff of bypass ratio is madness, so the only logically consistent choices are that either all turbine aircraft are 'jets' (i.e. everything including helicopters), only pure jets are 'jets' (i.e. basically no aircraft) or only defined bypass ratios are jets, excluding turbprops, turboshafts and RISE.
Another criterium for discriminating between jet and non-jet would be a pressurized cabin, allowing for higher, faster flight out of the weather. That's pretty much what distinguishes the jet age from what came before. In that case, IMO all of the aircraft on the list are jets, even though some use piston engines and props.
Another criterium for discriminating between jet and non-jet would be a pressurized cabin, allowing for higher, faster flight out of the weather. That's pretty much what distinguishes the jet age from what came before. In that case, IMO all of the aircraft on the list are jets, even though some use piston engines and props.
Some current insight on some of the concepts/hybrid/electric aircraft that have been in the news the last few years.
(proper article title: Outlook 2026: The airliner projects that promise new technology and lower emissions)
https://leehamnews.com/2026/02/05/o...t-promise-new-technology-and-lower-emissions/
Paywall but some choice bits on some two of the more well-know speculative ones:
Boom Aerospace and their prototype (supersonic always fun!):
Honestly, in practical terms, was more interested in the JetZero BWB:
(proper article title: Outlook 2026: The airliner projects that promise new technology and lower emissions)
https://leehamnews.com/2026/02/05/o...t-promise-new-technology-and-lower-emissions/
Paywall but some choice bits on some two of the more well-know speculative ones:
Boom Aerospace and their prototype (supersonic always fun!):
And:
Honestly, in practical terms, was more interested in the JetZero BWB:
and:
and:
Ah the old “one true Scotsman” debate over what a jet is.
Really in practical sense there’s just three categories: piston, turboprop and turbojet. Whether it’s a 707 with straight pipe turbojets or a A350 high bypass turbofan is nitpicky bullshit in comparison.
Out in the real world it’s really just the three categories that determine how they fly, get handled by ATC and get charged for parking and maintenance
Really in practical sense there’s just three categories: piston, turboprop and turbojet. Whether it’s a 707 with straight pipe turbojets or a A350 high bypass turbofan is nitpicky bullshit in comparison.
Out in the real world it’s really just the three categories that determine how they fly, get handled by ATC and get charged for parking and maintenance
How about civilian afterburning turbojets?
Of course the Concorde is no more -- IMHO the Concorde wing and engine nacelles still are some of the most aesthetically pleasing design work ever done in aviation -- but there are a couple F-104's with civilian regs ...
Of course the Concorde is no more -- IMHO the Concorde wing and engine nacelles still are some of the most aesthetically pleasing design work ever done in aviation -- but there are a couple F-104's with civilian regs ...
Doing a quick wikipedia search says the F-86H had afterburners, too. I know Michael Dorn had an F-86 for a while, but no idea if it was an H.How about civilian afterburning turbojets?
Of course the Concorde is no more -- IMHO the Concorde wing and engine nacelles still are some of the most aesthetically pleasing design work ever done in aviation -- but there are a couple F-104's with civilian regs ...
I'm not a pilot (other than VR) and am too risk averse to ever really get into general aviation, but I followed the old ME-262 restoration project while it was going on over a decade ago. Owning a 262 with modern engines would have been the pinnacle of awesomeness in terms of classic aircraft.
Trans-Air Service Flight 671 was of particular note (one of the 707s).
It's happened to military aircraft too which aren't included on that list, such as a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker:
Needless to say, these make for some of the more interesting Mayday episodes, particularly given in both above examples the pilots were still able to still safely land the compromised aircraft!
Scott Manley has posted a good discussion of the many things that went wrong with Starliner:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L96asfTvJ_A
Classifying this as a Type A mishap is really serious and yet it still doesn't fully describe the magnitude of the failure. This could easily have taken out the entire ISS and everyone on it. We're extremely lucky the Starliner astronauts survived. Lots of executives should have been fired.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L96asfTvJ_A
Classifying this as a Type A mishap is really serious and yet it still doesn't fully describe the magnitude of the failure. This could easily have taken out the entire ISS and everyone on it. We're extremely lucky the Starliner astronauts survived. Lots of executives should have been fired.
I mean he says it later in the video but the fact that Boeing is allowed to "self police" ends up with shit. This is basically 737MAX/MCAS all over.
I especially like the part about someone said it was the wrong O-Rings but nothing came of it.
It also seems a failure of NASA to not know that what they were flying didn't meet the standards/requirements that had been agreed to.
The fact that nobody died or it didn't slam into the ISS is pretty nice though I guess.
I especially like the part about someone said it was the wrong O-Rings but nothing came of it.
It also seems a failure of NASA to not know that what they were flying didn't meet the standards/requirements that had been agreed to.
The fact that nobody died or it didn't slam into the ISS is pretty nice though I guess.
Yeah that stuck out, something like "a non metal washer is not a seal, it is a controlled leak".
Given that the thrusters were guaranteed to fail eventually, and that Starliner was somehow accepted without meeting the fault tolerance specs in the contract, I think live astronauts was actually a statistically unlikely outcome. Far more likely that the capsule would have tumbled out of control, only question is whether that happened before or after it was headed for the ISS.
Sandboxx impromptu video drop, expect more on the usual Friday release.
Fresh info on the F-22 Raptor upgrades:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N_0L9uASjA
Fresh info on the F-22 Raptor upgrades:
- New stealth fuel tanks can be dropped, but are intended to be semi-permanent. Unlike current drop tanks, they are intended to be taken into combat. Still a significant range extension over the bare F-22.
- New external passive-IR search-and-track targeting pods
- Engine upgrades
- New modular software platform to make future upgrades easier
- Helmet-cued targeting
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N_0L9uASjA
I thought I read recently that this is more than speculation
The IR is probably much more about detecting stealth than avoiding radiating radar. The F-22’s radar is LPI, so already very hard to detect against the noise background. Maybe I’ve missed something, but so far I haven’t seen any evidence that anyone has cracked the problem of detecting such LPI radars.
Israel announced they have both stealthy external tanks and some missiles that can ride under the wings stealthily (although have not been specific regarding what missiles, at least that I’ve seen). The speculation is that they worked closely with Lockheed, such that the tech might not be proprietary to Israel. The Israeli tanks are probably not droppable, which might be why the U.S. is still working on stealthy droppable tanks for the F-35, similar to those for the F-22. If they’ve cracked the code for the F-22, seems like a version for the F-35 is a matter of development time+$, rather than a fundamental issue of how to accomplish it. Seems unlikely there’s something about the two planes that makes the development process of such tanks much easier for one than the other. More likely there was some fundamental issue with the concept that needed cracking — maybe the stealth geometry design software couldn’t handle the more complex geometry of a tank sticking out like that, without a meaningful upgrade, as one possibility.
EDIT: What I’ve seen about missiles is Israel claiming they can carry up to four underwing missiles along with the external tanks without compromising stealth, but not saying anything else about what missiles those might be.
Last edited:
Don't think that's possible unless the missiles are themselves stealthy, or are carried in a stealthy fairing.
I assume that's exactly what they mean: they have either developed one or more stealthy missiles or have developed a fairing that works with one or more missile models. If one can develop a stealthy external fuel tank, applying the same process to a missile or fairing is entirely plausible. But I don't mean to make any assertion beyond that I read that Israel claimed to have such a capability and that such a capability is plausible.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/27/science/nasa-moon-landing-artemis-schedule
It looks like Jared Isaacman has moved to at least partially rationalize the Artemis program, to the extent that continuing it at all is rational. Some of these things require legislative changes in the NASA authorization bill, but it sounds like they're in the draft already
It looks like Jared Isaacman has moved to at least partially rationalize the Artemis program, to the extent that continuing it at all is rational. Some of these things require legislative changes in the NASA authorization bill, but it sounds like they're in the draft already
- HLS will be tested in LEO on Artemis III, moving a landing attempt back to Artemis IV
- Vehicle construction for flights IV and V may move ahead in close succession
- SLS Block 1B development is cancelled
- Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) development may also be cancelled
Having recently been at a supercomputing-focused presentation by GE, I can believe that; computing power now of the very largest HPCs (such as Frontier) are able to handle calculations needed for parts of an airframe at high detail levels, but the entire airframe (or a large enough part) are still not possible at the resolution demanded. I should caveat this presentation was for airflow/aerodynamics, not radar reflections, so YMMV. Obviously there are significant asterisks there to anything I am saying if you are trying to extrapolate out.
Honestly, a lot of this sort of limitation is simply due to under-investment in software and the implementation of modern numerical methods. That's not to mention ML-based surrogate models for parts of the physical calculations. The major aerospace players tend to have a lot of established simulation codes that they've grown over the years, and won't spend money improving it because they're mostly in a market where they're not really racing any particular competitor to get the next big thing out to customers.
For contrast, wind turbine manufacturers doing very similar aero-structural simulations have incredibly sophisticated simulation suites, that are the subject of huge amounts of innovation and development for a competitive edge in improving subsequent product design generations.
I would expect that the defense primes would be happy to update their numerical methods software to allow them to do more complex analyses… for a fee, of course.
NASA put out the equivalent of a bug bounty for their major windflow/drag/aerodynamics model a few years ago (maybe a decade now). They pointed to their current code repo and said that lines x-y of file z were a big bottleneck, and they'd give bounties for anyone who could improve the code. The only issue was that all the code was in FORTRAN. No idea if they ever paid out any money.
Be happy it was in FORTRAN! It coulda been in ADA.
It could be worse. Might have been in Adatran.
As I heard Kelvin Henney say once, “you can write Fortran in any language”.