I seem to catch myself surfing the interweb for new and exciting Plane Porn.

I came across this a while back and thought it might stir some interest.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Wlv-q_T95HA[/youtube]

And this

http://www.treehugger.com/aviation/boei ... plane.html

Augusta-Westland and Boeing: good to see companies with capital doing basic research. The Augusta VTOL looks sexy.

At work we were reflecting on the fact that most military airplanes are seeing very long service lives with various service life extensions along the way. My take is that we have pretty much employed all the available technology (digital electronics being the huge exception). Up until the 1970s, military aircraft rarely went more than a few years as front line aircraft. Since then, aircraft like the F-15 are seeing service lives of 50 years. The reason is it now takes that long to get the technology developed and take much money to pay for the development. The F-22 is a far more capable aircraft than the F-15 but much of that capability is electronic. True, the F-22 is better aerodynamically than the F-15 but the difference is a small fraction of the improvement made between, say, the P-51 and the F-86.

We've got the aerodynamics figured out. Future improvements will come from materials: lighter, stronger structural components and turbine components that can operate at higher temperatures. And of course, continued improvement in avionics. The same is true in the light airplane market except more so since GA has a much tighter price limit than military aircraft. Technology that costs three times as much for a few percent improvement is usually a non-starter in GA until the price comes down. Witness our Bo's, a 60+ year-old design, is still in production and still competitive.

Cue the "yeah-but if it weren't for the fricking FAA we'd all be flying supersonic machines for the cost of an SUV" comments.

The B-52 comes to mind for time in service. Wouldn't that be a record for military ac?

Probably so. There are now several families that contain five generations of B-52 pilots.

We've run up against technology limits before. In 1805, Admiral Nelson's flagship, the HMS Victory, was 40 years old and served another 20 years beyond that as a ship of the line. Steam power and better metallurgy for cannons brought about the technology revolution that consigned the HMS Victory to a museum. That's why basic research, done with no expectation of immediate reward, is so important. The next technology revolution, be it di-lithium crystals or plasteel, will come from a lab looking for something entirely different from what they find.

This seemed to be getting traction last year. Haven't heard much lately though.




[youtube]http://youtu.be/scTT2NOYmCM[/youtube]

I believe the airforce is still flying two Canberra bombers, which came into service in 1951 , 4 yrs ahead of the B-52
The C-130 has been in continuous production for almost 60 yrs.
Some individual b-52s are over 50'yrs old.

Good catch, Rocky.

Interesting find, Dino. Thanks.

The Synergy Aircraft is an interesting idea, but it has been around for a number of years with little apparent advancement. I rang them up over two years ago to understand what they were up-to and to learn about the project. Surprisingly, they didn't really seem interested in obtaining the funding necessary to bring the project to scale. They wanted donations, and wanted to keep the development a garage-build. If the technology is viable (meets low drag, low fuel consumptions claims) and the opportunity is anywhere close to multi-billion dollars (as claimed in the video) these guys would be tripping all over cash to fund development. One wonders why they can't accelerate their progress.

+1000
Most salient thing posted on BT in months

I really like this one...


[youtube]http://youtu.be/hLY59_jImLc[/youtube]


http://raptor-aircraft.com/

Disappointing to hear.

Anyone familiar with this one?


http://www.smartfish.ch/index.cfm/fusea ... th/1-2.htm

I do as well but, unless they build a complex (foolproof) flap/slat system, short field performance will suffer. The rule of canards...

Also, claiming 5000NM out of the box? 285kts - 330kts (varies by engine) TAS @ 25k? Wow. He hits the range / speed numbers he believes, and he'll have home builders lining up. I mean, it crushes an RV in performance, it's pressurized, et al. Having set the numbers that high though, it leaves a lot for disappointment. My grandfather always stressed under promising and over delivering.

We also know it'll be (currently) $120k for the kit, another $70k - $80k for avionics, and probably (minimum, for the diesel) $25k - $50k for the engine. Well, unless it's the turboprop, because then it'd probably be $350k very used. Plus the prop.

I'll definitely look at it if he makes it to EAA next year, and certainly hope he succeeds.