testtest

Beautifully Flawed Douglas X-3 Stiletto

Interesting aircraft, and being "experimental" it pushed the tech limits of the day.

While underpowered, not uncommon for the era, I don't know why the really stupid titles are used in articles like this.

But, it's the state of many articles today that have stupid titles in order to catch the attention of someone to get them to read it.

My .02
 
The late 40's all the way to the early 60's were rife with advanced airframes, but inferior power plants, and control systems.

I hate to think of the test pilot attrition rate between say 1947, and say 1970. And nevermind the non-combat accident rate for the more advanced types that made it to service adoption.

Flight test and research today is nearly dangerless compared to the Gen 1, 2, and 3 jet aircraft.

That's not to say it's a cake walk today either. But by comparison............
 
USMC6094 said:
The late 40's all the way to the early 60's were rife with advanced airframes, but inferior power plants, and control systems.

I hate to think of the test pilot attrition rate between say 1947, and say 1970. And nevermind the non-combat accident rate for the more advanced types that made it to service adoption.

Flight test and research today is nearly dangerless compared to the Gen 1, 2, and 3 jet aircraft.

That's not to say it's a cake walk today either. But by comparison............
Click to expand...
Test pilots had brass balls. Read a book recently on Russian aircraft development. The rate of fatalities was staggering.

Engines have gotten much more reliable since the 60’s. TBO on the engines I fly is 3600 hours. It’s a turbo prop, but still……it’s a P&W PT-6. Bullet proof. Of all the turbofan engines I think Pratt makes the best. Thirsty, and oily but just run. The Garrett/Allied Signal/GE TFE series of engines were a little more…….delicate? The Falcon 50 airframe was rock solid, but the engines needed swapping more than any Pratt I flew. Did more than a few swaps when I was turning wrenches. Rolls Royce engines were also oily, but rock solid. The smaller biz jets of today use engines designed for ballistic rockets: Williams J33. I do not have any experience with them, but a friend I have who flies an aircraft with it doesn’t trust them.

Catastrophic failures don’t happen much anymore. If you operate the aircraft/engine IOW. If you don’t? They still run, but when they do hot section/compressor section inspections? You find erosion, cracked blades, hot spots, etc.

Just my experience.
 
Talyn said:
Interesting aircraft, and being "experimental" it pushed the tech limits of the day.

While underpowered, not uncommon for the era, I don't know why the really stupid titles are used in articles like this.

But, it's the state of many articles today that have stupid titles in order to catch the attention of someone to get them to read it.

My .02
Click to expand...
YouTube is saturated with click bait titles often saying the opposite or exaggerating the content in the video. Viewer beware.
 
Cedric said:
YouTube is saturated with click bait titles often saying the opposite or exaggerating the content in the video. Viewer beware.
Click to expand...
+1

Plus, there's a raft of what I call, "National Enquire" websites, that market borderline trash articles on military, aviation, and firearms articles by familiar authors.
 
APPilot said:
Test pilots had brass balls. Read a book recently on Russian aircraft development. The rate of fatalities was staggering.

Engines have gotten much more reliable since the 60’s. TBO on the engines I fly is 3600 hours. It’s a turbo prop, but still……it’s a P&W PT-6. Bullet proof. Of all the turbofan engines I think Pratt makes the best. Thirsty, and oily but just run. The Garrett/Allied Signal/GE TFE series of engines were a little more…….delicate? The Falcon 50 airframe was rock solid, but the engines needed swapping more than any Pratt I flew. Did more than a few swaps when I was turning wrenches. Rolls Royce engines were also oily, but rock solid. The smaller biz jets of today use engines designed for ballistic rockets: Williams J33. I do not have any experience with them, but a friend I have who flies an aircraft with it doesn’t trust them.

Catastrophic failures don’t happen much anymore. If you operate the aircraft/engine IOW. If you don’t? They still run, but when they do hot section/compressor section inspections? You find erosion, cracked blades, hot spots, etc.

Just my experience.
Click to expand...
IMO, the first "reliable" mil-engines were the J79 & J52.

Like you said engines are extremely reliable nowadays, except when they pushed the use of some of the new airline engines before the bugs were worked out, like what GE, Pratt & Rolls have found out.

GE is making a new turbo-prop engine that's impressive.
 
Talyn said:
IMO, the first "reliable" mil-engines were the J79 & J52.

Like you said engines are extremely reliable nowadays, except when they pushed the use of some of the new airline engines before the bugs were worked out, like what GE, Pratt & Rolls have found out.

GE is making a new turbo-prop engine that's impressive.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly it’s based of an old Soviet design. However it’s based they are having…..issues. Textron has a turboprop that is known as the “PC12 killer” officially the Denali. Single engine, competing for the market that Pilatus has had exclusive rights to for years. The airframe has been done for….2 years now? Maybe longer. The GE engine? Not so much. It’s called the Catalyst by GE. I’m sure Textron is pissed. I know I would be. I have a feeling, not based on any concrete evidence, that the engine is finished and fine, but the certification branch of the FAA is holding things up.

Really interested in seeing how it turns out. PC12 is a great aircraft and if Textrons Denali can compete? Good for operators who need solid, inexpensive (relatively speaking) transport, supported by Textron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top