WOW!….I’ll say it again WOW…..

Any footage from RIAT post a link quick !!

Was always amazed at the skill and carefree handling at the world aerobatics championships…… Still amazed that the airflow doesnt get disrupted long enough to cause a problem too….

That Mig isnt the only aircraft which was spirited out of Iraq, there are a lot of pictures showing aircraft being loading into transport aircraft…. and have a look at the amount of photos available showing how well surviving aircraft were treated by invading forces. Those that werent damaged by bombs etc were vandalised by visiting troops.
So much for the brass telling their troops not damage expensive military equipment. Obviously they can do what they want… so much for being professionals…

I think this has gotton out of the scope of this forum people…..

Though why is it when Israel attacks someone…. its a “strike”, “retalliation” etc…. yet when someone else commits something against Israel its a Terrorist act?
Israel has a “free hand” as to what it can do.. while everyone else are all animals and *******s and terrorists…
And no i wont even bother to reply to all the baiting posts after i post this…..

Yea nice photoshop….. though the intake like that wouldnt work… any sort of yawing would disrupt airflow too much…..
The idea of a conformal bomb bay is sound enough…. and aerodynamically would be better then having the normal weapons hanging in the breeze between the engines…

The Il-102 is a total oddity…. An understatement… A sorta throwback to WWII in having a rearward facing gunner and guns!
If you look inboard of the rocket pods you can see the small tripple bomb-bay doors which were supposed to carry a single bomb in each bay…. (more bizzare!!)
In any case something that hopelessly ugly could never fly !!!

Like the UH-1? Do you say that the USMC’s long-fuselage, twin-engine, four-blade, all-digital/computerized UH-1Y is really a new helicopter, or an “upgrade”, when compared to the original short-fuselage, single-engine, twin-rotor, analog/no-computer UH-1B model?

Now i think you gotta think about terminology….. an “upgrade” means you have an old airframe (2nd hand) and you rebuild it.

Re-designing something means your not happy with the orginal, so production changes are made (or production improvements/developments i guess).

But at which point do you say something is “new” design. Take the Mig-21 for example… it went through so many changes in its life that you cant honestly say the the Mig-21bis and the orginal are still the “same” aircraft ?

Go down the civilian path and look at the cessna 172. From the A model built in the 1950s to the current “R” ( or we up to “S”? now) there is not one common part in the airframe or engine…. Yet it is still certified as Cessna 172.

Certification involves going back to square one and testing the aircraft in every concievable manner, not to mention the mountains of paperwork and legal crap!

Dunno whats going on.. but my posts keep disappearing.. argh…

Depends on your view point i guess……. As a re-worked 117 i doubt there would be much in the way of common parts between the two. Perhaps i should’ve siad re-designed? in any case… very few common parts would find its way into the EC-145.

EC-145

BK-117