Broken.

Try it now, it seems to work just fine.

It's small

Hmm... you're right. I don't know why, though --- it's supposed to be 8x10.

Yeah but I trust you can fix it.

Problem solved. I had it set as CMYK (which apparently doesn't mix with FA), rather than RGB. I often work in the CMYK format until I have a finished product, but I don't know why this particular file was even set that way to begin with.
Nevertheless, it works now.

In WWII, "Dazzle Canoflague" was developed. Submarines would gauge range to a target by noting the class of vessel, looking up its stats, then noting how far apart some feature was, like masts, or how wide the ship was. The angular extent as measured at the periscope gave the distance to the target which was used to set the torpedo arming range. Dazzle painted bright geometric colors on the vessel, which confused the submarine commanders and prevented accurate range measurements. I actually saw a vessel painted with Dazzle on a PBS documentary.

"Spitter" and "Shards" are extremely similar to "Dazzle", but are used for different purposes. Nevertheless, they are so like one another that they are practically interchangeable.

PBS has a series of documentary programs on Air Power or Fighters. From the Wright Brothers to the Super Cruiser, power, speed and payload were the factors driving aircraft development. Has lots of vintage footage, schematics, dogfight analyses, and first person accounts. Really interesting, especially the SR-71 Blackbird which detailed the bypass ducting that converted the tourbojet to a ram jet beginning at about mach 1.5. The Blackbird was never intercepted in 3,000 missions.

These days, I watch all of those documentaries on YouTube. If your internet connetion permits, go see the "Greatest Air Battles" videos --- they kept me on the edge of my seat!
Regarding your reference to speed in aviation development, it's interesting that you brought it up, because I made speed the centerpiece of the F20A3 Stalker you see above. Fighters that aren't pushed to the next level of speed tend to get, quite literally, left behind. The F-22, for example, can't maintain Mach 2 without accumulating skin damage, so it is artificially held down at Mach 1.8 --- Just the way the manufacturers of Mach 2.6+ threat fighters (Mig-29-series, J-10, JF-17 Thunder, Su-27-series, Su-47 Firkin, Mig-39 Flatpack) want it.

Hey, don't forget the MiG-31 Foxhound. Mach 2.83...and she'll be in service for years to come. (Does it have a definite successor yet?)

Yeah, I agree with the stance on primarily composite airframes...fine for jetliners and weedeaters, but not for things intended to spend time operating beyond the speed of sound.

I didn't include the Foxhound because it's only production versions are early 4th generation only, the only users are Russia and Kazakhstan use them (neither of which are threat-nations), and it had little prospect for export. It would be a tough foe for the Stalker, but by the time an airframe like it even flies for the first itme, the Foxhound will essentailly be an antique.
The Mig-31 Foxhound's logical successor would likely be the Mig-1.44 Flatpack (probably Mig-39 in active service), as it's weapons, FCS, and flight performance are very similar, but it is only a technology demonstrator, and probably won't enter production.

As for composites, it seems the people at Lochheed have developed an affinity for substances that are expensive, toxic, brittle, and have low melting points --- these are what give the F-22 it's only remotely useful feature, it's Stealth, but even that has little potential in battle. The problem is, at Beyond Visual Range (BVR) you can't fight without giving away your presence and/or position, because at 12+ miles onlt radar-guided missiles work. Within Visual Range (WVR), an F-22 not only can be seen with the naked eye, but also with IRSTs --- even the F-22 cannot fly without creating copious amounts of heat.

Recall that ship from the Babylon 5 TV series that unfolded like a flower? I thought about truly anthropomorphic aerospace vehicles.

I have a concept for a furry version of the Flying Wing Stealth Bomber. The Dragon Flying Wing, with an articulated dragon's tail for maneuveriability. The wing is about 70 meters wide while the head/neck and tail would make it about 80 meters long. It has a spade or diamond shaped tail fin at the end of a circular or complex cross section tail boom. The spade is about 6 meters across and can twist in all directions while the tail boom is articulated in all directions. There could be a pilots and avionics compartments in the neck and head of the dragon, with canards formed from the head frills. The head could form an escape capsule.

Would you be interested in drawing concept art or schematics. Unfortunately, I can't pay you for a commision. I had wanted to ask Pelzig to draw it, but I am not able to find him.

Have you ever heard of the Air Force Nuclear Flying Saucer prototype aerospace vehicle?

Well, it probably would need buckets upon buckets of RAM to be stealthy with such an odd shape. And if it's got a tail and what passes for a definite fuselage, it's not really a flying wing.

The control systems would be a nightmare to design/build/operate/maintain, even with fly-by-wire/artificial stability. Note the abject lack of such features on existing aircraft. Not to mention that those mechanisms would take up a lot of space compared to ordinary actuators/surfaces, just think about one of the reasons why the plans for swing-wing SSTs were canceled. Please tell me it uses a conventional undercarriage...the alternative probably wouldn't work. (The only flying vehicle with an articulated fuselage component was a small radio-controlled pterodactyl [not MacCready's Quetzalcoatalus] that used a servo or two to keep its head pointed into the wind.

Escape capsules are best left to things such as the B-58 and XB-70, since a stealthy heavy bomber would probably fly at high subsonic speeds tops. Zero-zero seats would be enough.

Sorry about shoving an SA-21 into your face there, but this really showed up in a glaring manner.

The Air Force Nuclear Flying Saucer...I remember that from Popular Mechanics. Cool, but environmentally unfriendly.

Remember the fine movie called, "The Dam Busters?" The PBS documentary reveals the truth behind the Lancaster heavy bomber and the incredible bouncing bombs. What do modern golf balls owe to Barnes Wallis?

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/cas.....ams/index.html

I've never seen that movie, but I have seen the concept in action (albiet in a combat flight sim). In "Secret Weapons Over Normandy", several missions require the player to deliver such weapons, and let me tell you, it ain't easy.

Cruise Missiles are more effective, these days.

Wicked jet, sweet camo scheme!

Thanks!

This I like. The Su-27-style airframe is really amenable to the development of variants.

Nice, unstable triple surfaces a-la the upgraded Flanker derivatives.

They are somewhat neccessary as well, because the Stalker wouldn't maneuver well in a dogfight without them.
Unlike the Flanker, however, the F20A3 Stalker is an original design, and thus has nearly unlimited development potential --- the Flanker's potential is nearly exhausted.

Wow! Reminds me of the Su-47 and the F/A-22, great picture!

It should --- it's a design study of a follow-up, 6th Generation, Air Superiority Fighter.

I have seen pictures of a design of a strike variant of the F/A22 (cant remember its name), but not a 6th generation thing. Anyway great picture!

Sound's like the F/B-22 concept. Don't get too exited tough, it's just more of the same limitations of the regular F-22, only in a Striker format.
In other words, it's too slow, too fragile, doesn't have enough weapon stations, and won't last long if (or rather, when) the enemy detects it.

Good point, I didnt like the look of it anyway. Have you read 'fortunes of war'? The F/A 22 plays a good role in it, with a new feature on it...

I just finished reading a quote from Coontz (the Author) about the F-22.
He sounds kind of... naieve. His description of his "experiences" with the F-22 soud like they were written by Lockheed itself. He really seems to believe that the F-22 is an unbeatable super-weapon, citing what Lockheed told him about it, and what the F-22 simulator --- built by Lockheed --- was like.

Sorry Yellow07, but I find it hard to listen to someone who "drank the Koolaid."

I know what you mean... He obviously like the F/A-22 a lot, and it is a shame how he writes little about the jap 'zero', he is not descriptive at time ^^, but he did seem like he was promoting Lockheed! No thats funny XD, but still, there are plenty of the aircraft out there now that beat the F/A-22 paws down!!

Form fallows function. Sleek, deadly, almost sensual...

The tingling sensation means it's working! :)

Or that something's wrong with my oxygen mask.

Nah, that works just fine --- the pink elephants just said so.

This is sort of why I question giving pilots amphetamines....

I like the bird, the 'Dazzle'esque paint looks badass.

I don't agree 'bout Russia not bein' a threat though.
Yes, I do read all these things...

The only threat Russia poses to the West are the greed of it's arms-smuggling military, and their governments big, fat mouth.

I don't know, they do still have a formidible nuclear arsenal, and the ability to deploy it.
Maybe not well, but if you use a lot, you're sure to hit.
And Vladimir Putin is ex-KGB, and in an interview I read when he first came to power, he's quoted as saying that the best way to win is with an overwhelming first strike...
Not what I like to hear from folks in control of several thousand nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are only useful when used against an enemy who doesn't know what they are, in a world that doesn't know what they are --- in the post-war era they are nothing but paper tigers, as the social, political and economic (not to mention military) backlash from using them is far worse than what the warheads themselves inflict. This is why only two were ever used in battle, within three days of one another.
Using nukes means either doomsday, or a major diplomatic ass-kicking on whomever drops the bomb.

In short, don't take nuclear threats too seriously.

I suppose, but take into account the fact that if yer willing to use nukes, you probably don't care about the backlash, because you either figure your going to win, or you just want to go out in a blaze of glory, takin; yer enemy with you...