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.

VTOL the most sought after

Well last few week is really breaking story regarding VTOL aircraft. That "Vertical or short takeoff and landing", hence VTOIL. This characteristic on aircraft has been sought as early 1950s.

The famous Osprey V-22 aircraft finally got to see an action in Iraq amid the controversy .

Bellow is an interesting excerpt that I found from posting in craigslist.org.

QUESTION: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE TRUE?

The Osprey V-22 aircraft was designed to maneuver like a helicopter, while flying as fast as a plane.

The Osprey V-22 aircraft cannot maneuver as well as a helicopter or fly as fast as a plane.

Boeing & Bell failed to deliver 1,000 Ospreys in under 10 years as stipulated in their contract with the Pentagon.

It took Boeing & Bell 25 years to deliver less than 500 Ospreys at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of $55 BILLION.

Prior to being depolyed, the Osprey aircraft has already KILLED 30 MEN.

The Osprey has NO FRONT GUN to provide cover on approach landing.

After spending $45 MILLION redesigning Osprey to accommodate a front gun, the Pentagon cancelled the plan.

The Pentagon's top aviation consultants have little confidence in the Osprey.

After 12 years and $13 BILLION spent, NOT ONE Osprey was battle ready.

The Pentagon abandoned the Osprey project in 1983.

In 1991 an Osprey crashed during take off.

In 1992 a SECOND SPREY CRASH killed SEVEN more MEN.

23 MARINES WERE KILLED in Osprey crashes in 2000.

Pilots were told to fly Osprey “less aggressively” so that flaws would not be detected.

Ospreys create a dangerous DUST STORM when landing in places like Iraq with desert terrain.

The Osprey’s rotors, designed to “auto-rotate” for “soft” emergency landings, CANNOT AUTO-ROTATE.

Emergency landings are treacherous since Ospreys can't glide like planes or hover like helicopters.

Our brave military men and women will die due to the Pentagon’s mismanagement and lowered expectations.

The Pentagon and Boeing and Bell have spent no less than 25 years trying to design and build the Osprey.

War profiteers Bell Helicopter and Boeing have made BILLIONS from their failed efforts.

The Osprey demonstrates the extreme level of dysfunction and corruption in our government.

The Osprey V-22 is another politically driven Pentagon fiasco, will be in Iraq next week.

The Osprey V-22 exposes the life threatening compromises that are made when narrow interests collide with common sense and

The Osprey V-22 shows how our government fails at its most significant task, by placing in jeopardy those we count on to protect us.

Osprey is another example of how defense contractors bribe Pentagon generals and or civilian leaders to keep a worthless program alive and should be investigated by Congress.

Pentagon efficiency is of little concern to lawmakers: "Almost every program the U.S. military is now buying takes longer to develop, costs more than predicted and usually doesn't meet the original specifications and requirements," says Gordon Adams, who oversaw military spending for the Office of Management and Budget.

The U.S. spends over $750 BILLION a year on defense programs and war. Crooked congressmen who took money from Bell Helicopter, Boeing and 2,000 suppliers created the Tilt-Rotor Technology Coalition to keep the dying project alive. All of these congressman should be investigated and tried in a court of law.

Aviation expert Rex Rivolo, who called the decision to deploy Osprey in Iraq "unconscionable" in a confidential 2003 Pentagon report, is afraid to be interviewed.

"In simulations," the Osprey flight manual warns, "the outcome of (emergency) landings varied widely due to the extreme sensitivity to pilot technique and timing."

The director of the Pentagon's testing office stated in a 2005 report stated that emergency landings below 1,600 ft. "are not likely to be survivable."

Sending the V 22 into combat armed with ONE TINY gun that points backward is, to put it quite simply, criminal.

The Pentagon website falsely claims that the Osprey "will be the weapon of choice for the full spectrum of combat."

10 Ospreys are going to war in October each with one TINY rear mounted 7.62 mm gun that fires when it’s too late. The gun's rounds are about the same size as a .30-06 hunting rifle's, and it is capable of firing only where the V 22 has been — not where it's going — and only when the ramp used by Marines to get on and off the aircraft is lowered.

In March 2006 an Osprey actually took off on its own with three people aboard and flew for 3 seconds. After crashing from an altitude of just 6 feet, the Osprey lost its right wing and suffered more than $1 million in damage.

A flawed computer chip that could have led to crashes forced a V 22 grounding in February 2007.

Bad switches that could have doomed the aircraft surfaced in June 2007.

In March 2007 the Government Accountability Office warned that V 22s have “serious defects."

An internal Pentagon memo warned in June that serious and persistent reliability issues could "significantly" reduce the aircraft's anticipated role in Iraq.

The Osprey has been compared to the Harrier jump jets, which crashed 143 times killing 45 troops. The difference between the two aircrafts is that a) each Harrier carried ONE PILOT in an EJECTION SEAT with a PARACHUTE and Ospreys carries 26 TROOPS with NO ejection seats — and NO PARACHUTES!

The .... administration is fully that Osprey is an unsafe and unpractical combat aircraft.

The .... adminstration does not care about the safety of our troops. No body armor. No up armored humvees. No anti RPG devices for our tanks. No defined mission. No exit strategy. And now...the OSPREY!

ANSWER: All of the above statements are true.
(For a Record:-This is from American citizen point of view and not mine)

By the way Boeing/Bell should be commended for V-22 Osprey effort, since somebody have to investigate by any mean of available technology and perfected it.

About few month ago RMAF Sikorsky S-61A Helicopter crash near Karak Genting rainforest,and the setup incident committe just released the result of the crash. Its seem that its a pilot error rather than mechanical failure, the pilot flew too low because of the weather and swoop the rainforest canopy. For a record this Heli been in service since 1968, so now RMAF sought for its replacement. What a relief.

So people still looking for an aircraft "or" worthy of it like seeing in movie like StarWars-The Clone war, where it's land anywhere in battle with ease. The coming JSF Stealth Fighter F-35 is next candidate to roll on.