Dark grey anyone?

Is it for aesthetic or there is other significant reason for it. Some fighter aircraft or special operation purpose aircraft spotted a dark grey or matte black camouflage.

The well known Stealth aircraft F-117A spotted with black finished because its has to operated in total darkness and its suitable for that purpose because its more a bomber than a fighter. Moreover it is covered by some kind of material known as 'RAM' or radar absorbing material.
On special operation aircraft like MC-130E Hercules. Its having a black finish over all but the upper surfaces. All serves two purposes; first to absorb radar signals and second to reduce visual acquistion during the highly classified missions during the night.

Aha..Here come the puzzling part, are they really exits; paint that absorbed radar signature or what ever. Probably its exits, then why certained aircraft having a dark grey paint although they served more on daylight. For example certain F-15C having dark grey while some lighter. The famous F-15E having dark grey overall, they served at night and daylight.

More puzzling the RMAF MiG-29N when first delivered having a Russian air superiority camouflage the light grey and lightgreen, then after.. I don't know what probably after gone servicing by ATSC the company who handled maintenance of MiG aircraft in this region, it gone wild spotted dark grey like F-15E. So is there any purposes of it? MiG-29N is a fighter like the Russian counterpart, but the Russian never ( haven't seeing theirs in dark grey yet) done it. Light grey supposed to protect aircraft from preying eyes in the event of dogfight. Light grey tend to blended well with clouds and sky, proven by the British aircraft researcher, or is it some kind of radar absorbing paint that they applied on it?, then where can you get one?

I'll be going for holiday for a couple of day, will see you then.

Russian aircraft and VTOL story

Last week the unfortunate crash of Antonov AN-24 a twin engine regional turboprop aircraft in Africa brings back a memory of what I read in Times Magazine about Russian aircraft, by the way AN-24 prototype first flew in 1960. I can't remembered the magazine exact published date or year, probably in cold war era. An interview by Times reporter with Russian Officer, he cited and analogy between Russian and American aircraft. He said Russian aircraft is like Mickey Mouse toys when broken just fixed it, its will good as new but American aircraft like an expensive watch when broken can't be repaired, just throw away. Usually you'll see how Russian fighter appears to be a robust and well-used aircraft in that era even today itself. Paint chipped up there and here, if you looked into old Mig-23 aircraft cockpit you can see wire running there and here. Sorry, I'm not belittled Russian aircraft they are great and different. Regards to the analogy I'm really disagree with it.

Buying Russian aircraft will posed a quite problematic venture itself. Let see the example what happen to Indian and Malaysian airforce. The IAF SU-30 MKI has to fixed with Israeli avonics etc. While RMAF SU-30 MKM has to be fixed with western avionics. I'll think all because of language barrier or inferior Russian avionics quality, I dunno you decide. I still remembered in a movie "Firefox" starring Clint Eastwood how he has to operate the imaginary MiG-35 Firefox "brain taught" missile system, he has to think in Russian.

In my last post how we thrill with a news that at last V-22 Osprey will see some action. Okay, VTOL aircraft race begin after world war II, thats early 1950. Rolls-Royce with his Flying Bedstead had shown that it was possible for an aircraft to lift off, hover and land using combination of carefully positioned jet exhausts and automatic stabilising systems. While a number early prototype emerged in the mid to late 1950s.
One of them Bell XV-3 using a rotor engines, depended entirely on ground effect for hovering.
The most practical but a clumsy aircraft to fly is British Fairey Rotodyne, which was called a 'compound helicopter' rather than a VTOL aircraft. Although the interest is strong in the aircraft, unfortunately the project was allowed to wither and die.
In 1959 Hiller X-18 , was deemed to dengerous to attempt to put through the transition test, while the earlier Boeing Vertol VZ-2 had showed up the inherent drawback with the basic concept: the wing,when turned up for the hover, acted like a sail , and the aircraft was extremely vulnerable to even the slightest gusts of wind.
Then come the Ryan XV-5A and 5B prototypes attempted powering three fans in the wings and fuselage from two mid-wing turbojets. The XV-5s killed three test pilots before the project itself was declared dead.
In 1962 Lockheed XV-4A Hummingbird was fitted with four lift engines poured jet exhausts over the upper surface of its wing from ducts in the fuselage. The additional airflow would then virtually suck the plane off the ground. Laboratory tests on the models had shown that the technique works, but it failed at full scale .
One of the earliest 'flat-risers', the Bell X-14 utilised a large wing flap to deflect air downwards, control being archeived in the hover by small jets a the the extremities of the aircraft.
Avro Canada VZ-9AV prototype for the US Navy is among the famous when it was declassified, was seized on by the UFO brigade as certain proof of government cover-ups, extra-terrestrial conspiracies and similar strangness. A flying saucer powered by a fan and direct exhaust from three turbojets, which was intended to cruise at 300 knots at 30,000 ft.
The most successful development of the Rolls-Royce concept started with the British Short SC.1, which first hovered in 1958 under the power of four RR RB 108 engines.
The French Dassault Balzac, which flew in 1962 with eight RB108s to lift it and Bristol-Siddeley Orpheus for cruising. A massive drag developed through the lift engines, misjudgement during transition actually stalled the planed, seesawed to the ground like an autumn leaf, killing the pilot. The Balzac successor, Dassault's Mirage IIIV, featured eight more powerful RB 162 lift engines and Pratt & Whitney turbofan that with an afterburner powered it up to Mach 2. This Plane destroyed by a visiting USAF pilot whose attempt at a hover turned into a hard landing.
While the German Focke-Wulf with VJ-101 were powered by swivelling life/thrust engine mounted on the wingtips, and were fitted with auxiliary fuselage-mounted lift engines. Yet its another painfully hard landing demonstrated the inherent danger of the multiple-engine concept. Another German VTOL system seemed to work is Dorneir DO31. First flying in early 1967, having two directable-thrust Bristol Pegasus 5 engines in underwing pods, and four Rolls Royce RB.162 lift engines on each wing tips. The Dornier handled well and had plenty of tolerance in its translation point, as well as a simple control system for the pilot. Despite its promise , the project for 100 seats DO 123 lapsed, and the prototype is grounded in Museum. DO 31 was one of the few VTOL research planes that didn't crash and kill its fliers.
Beside the whole western prototype there is not much news from Soviets' designer, although we know thats there are only few operational VTOL aircraft in the world YAK-36 'Forger', YAK-38, YAK-41 'Freestyle and the only one British BAe Harrier.
As I said before we looking forward for next operational aircraft JSF Stealth Fighter F-35.