willedoo

Here's a couple of post war fighters that probably looked reasonable for their time. Compared with modern designs they look a bit boof-headed. The first is the 1949 Sukhoi Su-15 ( "Aircraft P", first use of the Su-15 designation, not to be confused with the later delta winged Su-15). A good example of radomes and antennas detracting from the overall look of an aircraft. It's an unusual design, a twin fitted with engines in tandem. The Klimov RD-45 was an early clone of the Rolls Royce Nene, and being a centrifugal compressor engine, the diameter was too large for them to be mounted side by side in a design of this size. The forward engine exhausts at the mid lower fuselage and the aft engine at the tail cone. Air supply to the aft engine is ducted on the starboard side of the fuselage, with fuel cells offset on the port side. [ATTACH=full]1476[/ATTACH] The second one is the Yak-23. It might be a bit unfair to include it in an ugly thread as it's looks might have been considered a bit sporty in it's day. Powered by a Klimov RD-500, a Rolls Royce Derwent copy. High thrust/weight ratio, apparently giving good acceleration and climb rate, also very maneuverable. It had poor directional stability at Mach 0.8+. Looking at it, it's easy to imagine adverse yaw occuring.[ATTACH=full]1477[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1478[/ATTACH] Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18306[/ATTACH]

It's successor looks a bit like a submarine with wings. [ATTACH=full]1467[/ATTACH] Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18302[/ATTACH]

It makes you wonder if bad looking aeroplanes were accepted as the norm back then, or if people really fell about laughing when something like this showed up at their airport. Cheers, Willie.

The Sukhoi T-4 prototype is probably in the category of 'only ugly part of the time', with the nose lowered for take off/landing. The canards are mostly what makes it look sillier than the Concorde or Tu-144 in the same configuration. [ATTACH=full]1459[/ATTACH] Reminds me of some sort of dog, like Pluto. [ATTACH=full]1460[/ATTACH] Looks a bit better with the nose up. [ATTACH=full]1461[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1462[/ATTACH] Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18298[/ATTACH]

Tracked it down from that clue to a 1932 Caproni Stipa. An X plane, looks like an early attempt at a ducted fan, not very successful apparently. Has a Gypsy 3 engine. [ATTACH=full]1456[/ATTACH] Pity there wasn't more photos of this one, it's a Romanian I.A.R. CV-11 Fighter. Only one prototype made, I think. Not really ugly, but not pretty either. [ATTACH=full]1457[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1458[/ATTACH] Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18297[/ATTACH]

Looking for a hint here, Peter. Was it round and made in Canada? Cheers, Willie.

There's a few photos on Airliners of RF-55204. http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=RF-55204 Also found a photo of an old M-17 in Aeroflot markings. The smaller nose is evident, as well as the longer intakes closer to the cockpit & lack of a FLIR. [ATTACH=full]1455[/ATTACH] Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18296[/ATTACH]

Yes, that's right, the M-55's are Mystic-B's and the M-17's are the Mystic-A's. I think there were only two M-17 prototypes built. The M-55 is supposed to have a longer jetpipe and shorter intakes, and a re-profiled longer nose plus an undernose FLIR turret. The photo posted above is an M-55 as far as I can see. It has 'Geophysica' in Cryllic written on it, some other photos have it in English, maybe for the benefit of airshows. Most photos seem to be of 55204 or 55203, both M-55's I think. Cheers, Willie.

Well, it's a Mystic, I'm just trying to figure out whether it's a Mystic-A or a Mystic-B ( Myasishchev M-17 'Stratosfera', or M-55 'Geophysica'). I'd guess by the paintjob, it's a M-55. It can be pronounced different ways, probably the more common is Mya -shee - chev. Cheers, Willie.

Dazza, I recon we could dedicate a whole forum to ugly aircraft designs. I don't know who'd win though. The Soviets would definitely be in with a good chance. Britain might give them a run for their money, though. And then the French got a little bit weird at times as well. Cheers, Willie.

Doesn't seem to be anymore takers, Dave. Looks like not too many people have encountered that bit of coastline before. Cheers, Willie.

Yes, fancy picking on the poor old Il-76. It's easy to feel sorry for the presenters at times; they only read out what someone else has written for them. They must go home sometimes and think, 'Jeez, that didn't sound right.'. Having said all the above, I've got a lot of respect for SBS, they stand out in Australia in the news and current affairs department. Probably if I ever had to be critical of them, for anything other than bagging a perfectly good aeroplane, it would be for under reporting or convenient omissions, rather than blatantly stretching the truth. Can't blame them though, there's a big boat out there that doesn't want to be rocked. Half the battle seems to be competition for ratings; the news these days seems to have become entertainment, like some reality show, rather than serious reporting of events. I guess it's always been that way, but modern technology and helicopters etc. seem to have made it more so. Maybe a lot of people only want to sit down for half an hour and watch a few car crashes, house fires, and robbers being chased and be satisfied they've seen the news. If that's where the market is, the producers will keep dishing it out. I guess I'd better quit while I'm ahead, I wouldn't like to upset Lee Lin. Cheers, Willie.

Congratulations, Kaye. Cheers, Willie.

Never ceases to amaze, some of the comments from the media in the nightly news. I was watching the SBS news report on Friday's crash of an Il-76 at Brazzaville, Congo. They wrapped up the report by saying that the Ilyushin 76 is banned in many countries including Australia, because of it's poor safety record. I must be missing something here, I was always under the impression they were banned because the D30-Kp engines did not meet ICAO noise and pollution requirements. All the aircraft converted with Ps-90 high BP engines satisfy ICAO requirements and are allowed to fly in the EU and other countries. I'm not sure what constitutes a poor safety record in the context of the aicraft itself, in SBS's view. There has been a lot of losses of Il-76's over the years, but the aircraft itself is inherently safe and reliable. I don't know of any incidents related to inherent design faults or weakness of the aircraft. The reasons behind the crashes have been pilot error, weather, hostile action, and most notably, lack of maintenance by independant operators. Some ex Air Force Il-76's that saw heavy service with the Soviets in Afghanistan suffered unusual stresses to the airframes due to the take off and landing methods, where they were flown outside the manufacturer's limits in order to avoid shoulder fired missiles. With the fall of the Soviet Union, a lot of these ended up in private hands, and, combined with a lack of maintenance, eventually fell victim to degradation of the airframes caused by these stresses. There's nothing unsafe about the aircraft, in the original form that it leaves the factory. As long as it's operated according to the manufacturer's recommendations and maintained properly, all's ok. Using the logic of SBS, if thirty people bought a Cessna 206 each, flew them round the clock with little or no maintenance, and they eventually crashed, then it follows that the Cessna 206 would have a poor safety record. I guess one of the advantages of television journalism is that everyone forgets about the news five minutes later, so it doesn't have to be as factual as the printed media. Maybe SBS is right and I'm wrong. Maybe it is just a bad plane. Cheers, Willie. http://avherald.com/h?article=459df3ac Photos of EK-76300 c/n 073410300. It's an old Il-76T manufactured in 1977, and been around a bit. Originally Air Force CCCP-86729, then reregistered RA-76430. Other registrations have been HA-TCI ( Hungarian Ukranian Air Cargo, 2001). ER-IBF (Jet Line International, 2006). TN-AHT (Heavy Lift Congo,2008). At one stage, it was thought to have been part of Viktor Bout's fleet with Air Pass in Swaziland and then sold to Centrafrican Airlines in 1998. Also was operated by Tatarstan airline, Iron Dragon-Fly. EK-76300 was one of only about twenty Il-76T 'Falsies' known to be built. These were built with a tail gun station instead of the normal pointed tail cone of the civil 'T' version, but were designated 'T' instead of 'M' for some unknown reason. http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch==("ilyushin il-76/78/82" OR "beriev a-50/be-976")&airlinesearch=&countrysearch=&specialsearch=&daterange=&keywords=ek-76300&raHA-TCInge=&sort_order=photo_id desc&page_limit=15&thumbnails=

Geoff, I was watching a doco a couple of days ago, called 'War in the North' about the campaign in the Aleutians. There was a brief glimpse of a P-38 landing at Adak in conditions similar to what you describe. Turns out they used much of the same footage as John Huston's 'Report from the Aleutians', which is on youtube in various forms. The same landing and others are here in better detail from 16min 30secs. onwards to around 17min 30secs. Immediately previous to this is some good footage of the airstrip construction, probably worth watching as well. I wonder if it's the same landing you're talking about. Cheers, Willie.

I didn't count them, siz, but that sounds about right. That would have been a good show to be at & to see all those B-17's together. I had an idea there were a few of them, but never really visualised them in the same place at the same time. I wonder if they did a formation flight. Cheers, Willie.

A helmet cam video of Captain Michael Allen in a USN FA-18C performing at the 2010 Thunder Over Michigan airshow.

Michael, the logo looks to be Etihad, and you're right, it's not between Wolongong and Mackay. The first place I looked (when I was cheating) was up the Qld. coast. The sand looks very Queensland, but couldn't remember that shape from anywhere on the Qld. coast.. Cheers, Willie.

It's an interesting design; I wonder how the low wing goes alighting and taking off in a bit of a chop. The Che-28/29 looks like a handy little amphibian as well, a bit smaller and more conventional looking than the Be-103, looks a bit like a little Grumman. http://che-seaplanes.com/GalleryChe28.php The new model Che-29 is supposed to be priced from around $170,000. It would certainly be a lot of fun for someone living near a lot of waterways. Cheers, Willie.

Tracked it down, Dave, basically by cheating. Had a whip around the coast on google maps, which is an interesting journey in itself. It's not where I first thought it was, though. Cheers, Willie.

Some video of an Antonov An-2R giving a spraying demo at a Hungarian fly-in.

I don't get out that way these days, zenonie; retired a year or so ago to look after my dad. Main base was the Cooper & Eromanga basins, but we did a bit in the Territory and Kimberleys from time to time. I've got a bit of a soft spot for your part of the world, though, having worked from St. George through to Noccundra and the South West quite a bit over the years. It grows on you. I miss that country, but will be back out there for sure one day. Cheers, Willie.

Yes, zenonie, it does go to Mt.Isa. Haven't been on it for a year or so. I think the route is usually Brisbane/Toowoomba/Charleville/Quilpie/Windorah/Birdsville/Bedourie/Boulia and on to Mt.Isa, returning the next day. It would be a good round trip to do, particularly in a wet year. Must put it on the bucket list. Cheers, Willie.

I've only been on the Skytrans flight from Brisbane & Toowoomba to Quilpie, zenonie, but I agree with you, it's a nice way to fly. Looking forward to going on the new Toowoomba-Sydney return flight one day. It's been better than expected public response; they're talking now about increasing the number of flights. The last flight I did to Thargomindah was a fair while back, in a Metro. Can't remember the operator, Macair perhaps. Cheers, Willie.

I don't recall seeing that one around anywhere, it would be good to watch if it shows up. This History Channel doco on P-38's is good viewing, it must be a few years old going by the age of the veterans being interviewed. It's in three parts, Part 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9_-_W-KUlc Part 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRmrm2R5jHs Part 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcMLW9ZGIvo This is another interesting one, a 1943 P-38 flight training film, about 35 minutes in length. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilArlZzLW-U Cheers, Willie.