Amazing planes that failed
- Thread starter JonAsad
- Start date
LEO99
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2010
- Messages
- 216
- Reaction score
- 0
Yak-141
YAK-141,only 2prototypes were made one crashed while tempting to do a vertical landing on gorshkov aircraft carrier .project was canceled & left YAK 141 was put in a museum.
PAFAce
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,637
- Reaction score
- 0
Sir, you can regard this as whatever you like. My job is not to satisfy your emotional needs, its to ensure the thread remains on topic.
Not that I need to justify myself to you, but I've removed posts that were flame baiting calling the LCA Tejas a failed aircraft etc. That worked just fine to keep the thread on topic.
Let's get back to discussing failed fighter aircraft platforms.
PAFAce
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,637
- Reaction score
- 0
Alright, I myself said that experimental aircraft are not failures by definition. However, there are exceptions to this rule.
For example, the X-33 experimental Single Stage to Orbit Reusable Space Launch Vehicle (SSTO RLV) was supposed to be the first of its kind, replacing the current Shuttle Transport System. Despite being classified as experimental, it was still very much a design that was intended to be usable within two decades.
I came to learn a lot about it from one of the senior engineers at Honeywell Aerospace Canada. He had been part of the design team way back in the day, and still spoke about it in very bright terms. I did some research, and it definitely was one heck of an idea.
Here's the Wikipedia link:
Lockheed Martin X-33 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enjoy the pictures and video:
For example, the X-33 experimental Single Stage to Orbit Reusable Space Launch Vehicle (SSTO RLV) was supposed to be the first of its kind, replacing the current Shuttle Transport System. Despite being classified as experimental, it was still very much a design that was intended to be usable within two decades.
I came to learn a lot about it from one of the senior engineers at Honeywell Aerospace Canada. He had been part of the design team way back in the day, and still spoke about it in very bright terms. I did some research, and it definitely was one heck of an idea.
Here's the Wikipedia link:
Lockheed Martin X-33 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enjoy the pictures and video:
Last edited by a moderator:
Wingman
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 719
- Reaction score
- 0
Peregrine
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,672
- Reaction score
- 0
Tu-144
Tu 144 which had almost a similar structure to the Concorde but due to engineers miscalculations in stabilization control in order to surpass the Concorde performance, the prototype crashed at the bourget airshow. The Tu-144 was introduced into passenger service on 1 November 1977, almost two years after the Concorde, but was soon withdrawn after just 55 scheduled passenger flights due to potentially severe problems with aircraft safety and was not re-introduced to service. it is to be noted that this was the first commercial plane to break the sound barrier and to reach the speed of mach 2.
Tu 144 which had almost a similar structure to the Concorde but due to engineers miscalculations in stabilization control in order to surpass the Concorde performance, the prototype crashed at the bourget airshow. The Tu-144 was introduced into passenger service on 1 November 1977, almost two years after the Concorde, but was soon withdrawn after just 55 scheduled passenger flights due to potentially severe problems with aircraft safety and was not re-introduced to service. it is to be noted that this was the first commercial plane to break the sound barrier and to reach the speed of mach 2.
nightcrawler
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,400
- Reaction score
- 0
I noted that it has a moving nosecone or am I wrong
hataf
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 0
I noted that it has a moving nosecone or am I wrong
yes both concorde and tu-144 have it
Droop-nose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
X-44 MANTA Multi-Axis No-Tail Aircraft
The X-44 designation is said to be reserved for possible NASA full-scale manned tailless flight control demonstrator. The X-44A has been referred to as the MANTA, or Multi-Axis No-Tail Aircraft. A conceptual drawing of an X-44 is said to resemble a tailless F-22, and is said to be based on an F-22 airframe, engines and systems. The X-44A thrust-vectoring test aircraft would have pitch/yaw vectoring nozzles and would not only be tailless but would have no moveable aerodynamic surfaces.
The X-44 MANTA is a converted delta-winged F-22 which uses vectored thrust as its sole means of control. The plan is to convert an F-22 so that it uses its thrust vectoring nozzles for its flight control, without rudders, stabilitors, or ailerons. MANTA could be used to validate the planform for the FB-22. MANTA flights could begin by 2006.
Thrust vectoring -- the ability to turn the jet exhaust -- allows an aircraft to create forces with its motors similar to the forces created by aerodynamic surfaces such as flaps, rudders & stabilators. The result would be a structurally simple, light airframe, with increased fuel volume and fewer gaps to cause stealth problems. An X-44A feasibility study is in progress, with a team including AFRL, NASA, Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney.
The X-44A is unlikely to fly before 2007, though the F-22 program will retire the first and second flying prototypes in 2001-02.
The X-44 designation is said to be reserved for possible NASA full-scale manned tailless flight control demonstrator. The X-44A has been referred to as the MANTA, or Multi-Axis No-Tail Aircraft. A conceptual drawing of an X-44 is said to resemble a tailless F-22, and is said to be based on an F-22 airframe, engines and systems. The X-44A thrust-vectoring test aircraft would have pitch/yaw vectoring nozzles and would not only be tailless but would have no moveable aerodynamic surfaces.
The X-44 MANTA is a converted delta-winged F-22 which uses vectored thrust as its sole means of control. The plan is to convert an F-22 so that it uses its thrust vectoring nozzles for its flight control, without rudders, stabilitors, or ailerons. MANTA could be used to validate the planform for the FB-22. MANTA flights could begin by 2006.
Thrust vectoring -- the ability to turn the jet exhaust -- allows an aircraft to create forces with its motors similar to the forces created by aerodynamic surfaces such as flaps, rudders & stabilators. The result would be a structurally simple, light airframe, with increased fuel volume and fewer gaps to cause stealth problems. An X-44A feasibility study is in progress, with a team including AFRL, NASA, Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney.
The X-44A is unlikely to fly before 2007, though the F-22 program will retire the first and second flying prototypes in 2001-02.
IndianRobo
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2010
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 0
HF24 Marut dont seemed to be a great plane
HF-24 Marut was a Great Aircraft, its Airframe was Designed to Glide in the Air, It could Achieve the speed of Over MACH2.... But as we Conducted Nuclear test , We were Not given any Superior Technologies, thus Led to the failure of HF-24 marut.....
You cannot Say that Just because its Indian..... Get some fresh Air man
Last edited:
Similar threads
