For those who like Aircraft pictures

[Ohmisterporter]

Anyone else noticed that increasingly the plural of aircraft is aircrafts? 

[Jeff Smith]

14 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Anyone else noticed that increasingly the plural of aircraft is aircrafts? 

I have seen it occasionally in news items but not in use by anyone in the aviation sphere.

[Ron Ron Ron]

4 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Anyone else noticed that increasingly the plural of aircraft is aircrafts? 

No.

Never heard anyone use that.

 

.

[Martino]

5 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Anyone else noticed that increasingly the plural of aircraft is aircrafts? 

Yes, it’s becoming very common in journalistic circles.  I first put it down to writers whose first language was not English and assumed that any plural just had an S added to the end.  However, I am now coming to the opinion that it’s a ‘younger generation’ thing (I’m not really an old f—t.   No, wait, I am) a bit like ‘Train Station’.

[rob D2]

5 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Anyone else noticed that increasingly the plural of aircraft is aircrafts? 

I wouldn’t be surprised with my local rag. The journos are an unholy cross between AI and illiterate 10 year olds.

 

They keep posting aviation meaningless drivel “ large US warplane seen over Swindon “.

 

Er, yes, quite often as Fairford is up the road 

[J. S. Bach]

5 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

I wouldn’t be surprised with my local rag. The journos are an unholy cross between AI and illiterate 10 year olds.

 

They keep posting aviation meaningless drivel “ large US warplane seen over Swindon “.

 

Er, yes, quite often as Fairford is up the road 

Just hope that it does not do a Boise City, Ok over Fairford.

[PMP]

On 29/06/2024 at 14:52, Jeff Smith said:

Great list, I didn't know that the RAF had operated B29s and Sabres.

 

The RAF had a substantial number of Canadair Sabres, which were license built F-86E’s bought as a stop gap between the first generation Meteor and Vampire etc and the Hunter. The Canadian version was a bit better performance wise (different engine, and later modified wing), than the US homegrown version. With something like 400 ordered their primary role was in Germany as part of the front line in the Cold War.

Many of the RAF aircraft were sold on and some of them went to Italy, Yugoslavia, and then to Honduras. Quite a few were refurbished at Stansted and Prestwick, as well as being scrapped there too.

This is one of them in Honduran guise, in the late 80’s I was working for a company and we were offered five of them and an F-86D. It all got a bit ‘sporty’ when it turned out the Honduran authorised agent offering them for sale, wasn’t quite as authorised as he said he was. The aircraft and spares stayed there, and he was never heard of again. It was a pity as it would have been brilliant to get flying examples of ex RAF Sabres back, including the ferry flights which would have replicated the original Bechers Brook route they originally flew. This took them via Labrador, Greenland, Iceland and then to Prestwick.

[jjb1970]

It's mind boggling to think of aircraft life cycles in the 50's compared with today. Aircraft were designed, manufactured and retired in less time than the development phase of some modern programs. All sorts of designs came and went and are now largely forgotten, such was the rapid pace of technology development.  Now aviation is a mature technology designs are upgraded and remain in manufacturer catalogues for decades (F15, F16, UH60, AH64 for example) and development programs can seem very extended, such as the F35.

[Jeff Smith]

Yes, and all done on drafting boards and slide rules......  You'd think CAD/CAM would speed things up but now they're many times more complex, and more reliable with longer lives....

[Ozexpatriate]

21 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

It's mind boggling to think of aircraft life cycles in the 50's compared with today. Aircraft were designed, manufactured and retired in less time than the development phase of some modern programs. All sorts of designs came and went and are now largely forgotten, such was the rapid pace of technology development. 

The pace of innovation made them obsolete - and that in turn drove more innovation. No differently from the pioneering days in the 1910s and 1920s.

 

By definition a mature technology is one where the pace of innovation slows. The complexity of modern platforms is also massively higher than a 1950s aircraft.

 

Had the jet engine not appeared in the mid-1940s I wonder where/when the innovation curve for internal combustion propeller designs would have flattened out. I think they were pretty close at that time.

[jjb1970]

I think the technology curve for the piston engined fighter had flattened even before WW2 with designs like the Bf109 and Spitfire. Yes, aircraft continued to improve (particularly with regards range, where the US and Japan designed fighters to have ranges considered outrageous in Western Europe) and the laminar flow wing and presurised cockpits were big steps forward but fundamentally most of the concepts applied to the piston engined fighter were already in service in 1939 and with more powerful engines both the Bf109 and Spitfire remained competitive front line fighters to the end of the war. 

 

I think bombers saw a bigger advance as the B29 was a world away from the bombers of the Blitz and most of the RAF bomber command offensive with its pressurised fuselage, advanced gunnery control, payload/range and overall performance and capability. Although in some ways the Bf110 and Mosquito were perhaps more a pointer to the future, small fast designs relying on performance to operate and delivering a smaller payload with precision.

 

The last of the piston engined aircraft were wonderful machines. The F8F Bearcat and Sea Fury were impressive machines, and the A26 Invader a very useful machine still giving good service in Vietnam. And of course the mighty A1 Skyraider which was a little bit like the Swordfish in being pretty almost an anachronism when new but which gave outstanding service and had a longer front line career than many early jets.

[Jeff Smith]

There were a few front line fighters with turbo-props, eg Westland Wyvern but propeller aerodynamics did not allow much of a speed advantage.

[rob D2]

End of the war = spitfire .

15 years later = the lightning .

 

That timescale knocks me out 

[Jeff Smith]

Frontline fighters, yes.
 

If we’re talking prototypes:-

 

End of the war = Meteor 

Approx 10 years later = Lightning

Edited July 3 by Jeff Smith

[russ p]

19 hours ago, PMP said:

The RAF had a substantial number of Canadair Sabres, which were license built F-86E’s bought as a stop gap between the first generation Meteor and Vampire etc and the Hunter. The Canadian version was a bit better performance wise (different engine, and later modified wing), than the US homegrown version. With something like 400 ordered their primary role was in Germany as part of the front line in the Cold War.

Many of the RAF aircraft were sold on and some of them went to Italy, Yugoslavia, and then to Honduras. Quite a few were refurbished at Stansted and Prestwick, as well as being scrapped there too.

This is one of them in Honduran guise, in the late 80’s I was working for a company and we were offered five of them and an F-86D. It all got a bit ‘sporty’ when it turned out the Honduran authorised agent offering them for sale, wasn’t quite as authorised as he said he was. The aircraft and spares stayed there, and he was never heard of again. It was a pity as it would have been brilliant to get flying examples of ex RAF Sabres back, including the ferry flights which would have replicated the original Bechers Brook route they originally flew. This took them via Labrador, Greenland, Iceland and then to Prestwick.

 

Like others I hadn't heard of RAF sabres . Another US aircraft the RAF was associated with was the RB45. They flew from Sculthorpe with RAF roundels but no serials and apparently flown by RAF crews close to and over the USSR

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, russ p said:

 

Like others I hadn't heard of RAF sabres . Another US aircraft the RAF was associated with was the RB45. They flew from Sculthorpe with RAF roundels but no serials and apparently flown by RAF crews close to and over the USSR

The RAAF also flew Sabres, some fitted with Avon engines.

 

 

[J. S. Bach]

Wow, that radar antenna on top of that first Sabre must have really screwed up the aerodynamics!

[Ozexpatriate]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

The RAAF also flew Sabres, some fitted with Avon engines.

They were a big improvement over the P51s* the RAAF sent to Korea only to be shot down by MiG-15s.

 

* The Meteors didn't fare much better.

 

A lot more specific detail here.

Quote

The RAAF attempted to procure Sabres to replace No. 77 Squadron's Mustangs, but the priority being given to re-equipping the USAF meant that deliveries would not be possible until 1954. The Australian government agreed to purchase Gloster Meteor straight-wing jet fighters from Britain as the only viable alternative;

 

Edited July 4 by Ozexpatriate

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, J. S. Bach said:

Wow, that radar antenna on top of that first Sabre must have really screwed up the aerodynamics!

I didn't mention that as I wanted to see who would respond first...

[rob D2]

On 03/07/2024 at 04:42, Jeff Smith said:

Yes, and all done on drafting boards and slide rules......  You'd think CAD/CAM would speed things up but now they're many times more complex, and more reliable with longer lives....

Not always longer lives !

787s built in 2013 have already been retired , as have some recent Airbus . I’m not sure if the economics but the parts are sometimes more profitable 

[Jeff Smith]

8 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Not always longer lives !

787s built in 2013 have already been retired , as have some recent Airbus . I’m not sure if the economics but the parts are sometimes more profitable 

These retirements are often on economic grounds not because they are worn out.  Modern commercial engines can stay on wing for 30,000hrs, a figure undreamt of in the 50s and 60s.  The re-engined B52s will probably have very few engine changes until retirement in 2050!

[rob D2]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

These retirements are often on economic grounds not because they are worn out.  Modern commercial engines can stay on wing for 30,000hrs, a figure undreamt of in the 50s and 60s.  The re-engined B52s will probably have very few engine changes until retirement in 2050!

RR Trent 1000 certainly struggled to make 300 hours 

[Jeff Smith]

25 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

RR Trent 1000 certainly struggled to make 300 hours 

You mean this Trent?

[rob D2]

2 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

You mean this Trent?

I have no clue what that is  !

[jcredfer]

I believe it is the piston engine back-up version of the Meteor Jet, as they weren't completely confident of the jet technology.  I can't remember seeing the intended name for the piston version.  Hence why the jet version engines ended up so far spaced from the fuselage.  The Canberra had the same wide spacing for their engines, for the same reason.