Aircraft Recognition

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2010 19:04

From a distance, and if it is maneuvering fast, it may be difficult to differentiate and F 16 from a JF 17 Thandarrr

Thandarrr

F-16

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Sep 2010 19:07

^ Intakes....

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Sep 2010 19:09

How about the engine sound.... I guess, one can easily identify a Jaguar.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2010 19:29

Kanson the intakes will be seen only from below and will be difficult to recognise for another aircraft in the air especially if the other a/c is maneuvering. Sound of course cannot be depended on because fast low flying aircraft often appear and disappear within moments of the sound being heard because they are flying at a high subsonic speed. The Jaguar is particularly good at this.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 23 Sep 2010 19:41

Shiv, the J-7 can be confused for the early MiG 21F-13, which is the 'original' of the 'xerox copy'. However, there are significant differences in the dorsal 'hump', size of nose intake, radar cone, vertical tail and other markers between the J-7 and the later -21's - M, MF, & bis.
What's more, all J-7 models from the 'E' onwards feature a cranked double delta wing which is immediately noticeable. But yes, in a turn and burn WVR engagement, there is a possibility of mistakes happening.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Sep 2010 19:47

will be difficult to recognise for another aircraft in the air especially if the other a/c is maneuvering.

did you ever done that? I thought you are discussing about the 'spotting'.

Sound of course cannot be depended on because fast low flying aircraft often appear and disappear within moments of the sound being heard because they are flying at a high subsonic speed. The Jaguar is particularly good at this.

If one can't pickup visual cues, another way is to identify by sound. Some crafts have very unique sound.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 23 Sep 2010 19:48

Mirage Series fighters, they are probably the most difficult to distinguish. Last four images for some reasons are not working, click on them to view.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 23 Sep 2010 19:52

shiv wrote:If you don't look carefully, you can mistake a MiG 25 or a MiG 31 for an F 15. If you can't do IFF at BVR imagine the fuk up possible WVR!!

This one's easy. Look for the one that's flying like a subsonic brick in a WVR engagement. That's the MiG!

But seriously, a good way to immediately gauge the difference is to look at the nose/cockpit area: the F-15 has a clear bubble canopy and slightly more ogival nose. The MiGs have cockpits that are almost completely embedded in the fuselage to aid in high-supersonic flight, as well as more sharply defined noses for the same reason. Wing planform is also drastically different, if you catch a top/bottom view. At the rear, the MiG 31 has ventral strakes just ahead of the engine nozzles.

As to the F-16 vs JF-17, if it looks F-16ish but chubbier, and likely going down in flames due to a well-placed R-73 up the Musharraff... erm though this would probably be true of the F-16 around here as well...

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 23 Sep 2010 20:10

F-35 Variants
F-35A

F-35B

F-35C

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 23 Sep 2010 20:24

smpratik wrote:Mirage Series fighters, they are probably the most difficult to distinguish.

I see where you're coming from - from the III to the 2000, Mirages have seemingly identical noses and intakes. However, a quick glance at wing planforms and tailplanes will tell you what is what.

Mirage III/5/50:
3-piece windscreen
Low aspect ratio Delta wings
Angular vertical tail with forward extension
Typical (on the earlier Atar engines) split nozzles
The 5 is configured for daytime strike with a slim radar-less nose with a more powerful engine with a convergent-divergent nozzle
The IIING on the other hand features canards, under-intake strakes and more powerful engines.

Mirage F1:
The easiest: shoulder-mounted wings with tailplanes make this one immediately stand out from the crowd.

Mirage 2000:
Clear windscreen
Higher aspect ratio wings than the III
A less angular tail
Small strakes just aft of the intakes
Delta at a less acute angle than the III, less emphasis on M2+ performance

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Sep 2010 20:31

PLAAF fighters

J-10

a family of aircrafts which is very important and one which spotters need to be able to differentiate.
PLAAF
su-27 (the J-11 and improved J-11b looks similar. I'll try to find good 3views of those)

su-30mkk

JH-7A fighter bomber of PLAAF

J-8 (basic mig-21 design modified to accommodate 2 engines)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2010 20:35

Kanson wrote:
will be difficult to recognise for another aircraft in the air especially if the other a/c is maneuvering.
did you ever done that? I thought you are discussing about the 'spotting'.

True we are talking about spotting - but the same skill is necessary for fighter pilots as well in a busy air to air engagement which is what I was talking about.

Where I live there is a lot of tree cover and cloud cover is common. In such an environment sound is completely useless for plane spotting and recognition. It is sometimes not even possible to judge the direction from which the sound is coming because of reflections from multiple buildings. Hence visual acquisition is the only way and the plane is often seen for less than a second.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2010 20:38

Jaeger wrote: Mirage III/5/50:
3-piece windscreen
Low aspect ratio Delta wings
Angular vertical tail with forward extension
Typical (on the earlier Atar engines) split nozzles
The 5 is configured for daytime strike with a slim radar-less nose with a more powerful engine with a convergent-divergent nozzle
The IIING on the other hand features canards, under-intake strakes and more powerful engines.

Mirage F1:
The easiest: shoulder-mounted wings with tailplanes make this one immediately stand out from the crowd.

Mirage 2000:
Clear windscreen
Higher aspect ratio wings than the III
A less angular tail
Small strakes just aft of the intakes
Delta at a less acute angle than the III, less emphasis on M2+ performance

The problem is if you just get one glance for less than a second and have to decide what it is. If you spend time - 100% recognition is easy for most enthusiasts. That is why the quiz in the previous page has a time counter. The idea is near-instant recognition

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Sep 2010 21:09

shiv wrote:If you don't look carefully, you can mistake a MiG 25 or a MiG 31 for an F 15. If you can't do IFF at BVR imagine the fuk up possible WVR!!

Shive its not a conicidence , I read that F-15 was designed to take out the Mig-25 hence they adopted the same planform , widely seperated engine and wings but F-15 was designed as a fighter hence it was a better fighter while Mig-25 was a better interceptor. The Mig-31 improved upon the Mig-25.

Ofcourse many American would disagree that F-15 idea come from Mig-25 since all original ideas originate from America.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2010 21:39

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:If you don't look carefully, you can mistake a MiG 25 or a MiG 31 for an F 15. If you can't do IFF at BVR imagine the fuk up possible WVR!!

Shive its not a conicidence , I read that F-15 was designed to take out the Mig-25 hence they adopted the same planform , widely seperated engine and wings but F-15 was designed as a fighter hence it was a better fighter while Mig-25 was a better interceptor. The Mig-31 improved upon the Mig-25.

Ofcourse many American would disagree that F-15 idea come from Mig-25 since all original ideas originate from America.

Truer words have hardly been said on here.

Until Belenko delivered his MiG 25 to Japan - it had scared the crap out of the opposition. I recall reading that in "Time" as a college student in the library.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 23 Sep 2010 22:37

Austin wrote:Ofcourse many American would disagree that F-15 idea come from Mig-25 since all original ideas originate from America.

If you want to see height of propaganda, watch discovery WINGS. I don't know how and by looking at what they came to the conclusion that MiG-25 is a vigilante copy.

Somehow I don't see a bit of similarity between those two. WINGS of Red Star proclaims that MiG-29 design took leads from F-15 and they even tried a configuration similar to F-15.

Cheers....

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Sep 2010 23:31

Thank you guys for the line drawings of so many aircrafts ... Please keep them coming. Was just lazy to find them online. This will be my reference page for my next few aeromodels. Will make sure the LCA has the strongest engine though

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 24 Sep 2010 01:22

Lalmohan wrote:14409
20/20
bit slow on the clicking

Similar score as lalmullah with 20/20 - the problem was the clicking rather than the speed with which brain recognized the aircraft. A tougher exercise is to recognize from silhouettes esp. head-on. I use Jane's aircraft guide almost exclusively.

Still indulge in plane spotting at NASA Ames (Jai Ho to CMU campus) and earlier at NAS Pensacola. Eagerly waiting for IAF to get the next invite to Red Flag at Nellis.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2010 04:48

Raja Bose wrote:- the problem was the clicking rather than the speed with which brain recognized the aircraft. A tougher exercise is to recognize from silhouettes esp. head-on. I use Jane's aircraft guide almost exclusively.

Reading the names takes more time than recognizing the aircraft!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2010 06:18

The MiG 29 and the Su 27 come from the same design stable

MiG 29

Su-27

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2010 06:21

The Su-30 MKI

Su 35

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2010 06:23

A great comparison of the Su-47 and the PAK-FA

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2010 06:25

Can't resist putting up this - a beautiful pic comparing sizes and sahpes of Tornado, Eurofighter and Su 30 MKI

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2010 06:34

Unless you are aware of the differences, it is easy to mistake a Tornado for an F-14. The twin tail of the latter is the one that can be seen from far away.

Tornado

F-14

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Sep 2010 06:52

^^^ Shivji, Thats not a F-15. It is the F-14.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2010 06:58

indranilroy wrote:^^^ Shivji, Thats not a F-15. It is the F-14.

Thanks. I have corrected the typo.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Sep 2010 07:00

This post committed soosai

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2010 07:02

From a long distance, or in a small image, the Chinese J-10 and the Eurofighter can be confusd

J-10

Eurofighter

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 24 Sep 2010 07:03

shiv wrote:A great comparison of the Su-47 and the PAK-FA

The Su-47 also has a certain close resemblance to a Grumman X-29. I remember seeing details about this aircraft in the mid 80s from Dad's copy of Aerospace America.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2010 07:07

From some angles the Taiwanese Ching Kuo can be mistaken for an F-16. Note twin engine and underwing intakes.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Sep 2010 07:07

ArmenT wrote:
shiv wrote:A great comparison of the Su-47 and the PAK-FA
The Su-47 also has a certain close resemblance to a Grumman X-29. I remember seeing details about this aircraft in the mid 80s from Dad's copy of Aerospace America.

ArmenT, aside from the forward swept wings the design seems completely different. basically the X-29 and later the F-16SFW(which only got as far as the drawing board I think) were the American experiments with forward swept wings while the Berkut was the Russian experiment. Unfortunately both came to the conclusion that the design was not practical.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2010 07:09

ArmenT wrote:
shiv wrote:A great comparison of the Su-47 and the PAK-FA
The Su-47 also has a certain close resemblance to a Grumman X-29. I remember seeing details about this aircraft in the mid 80s from Dad's copy of Aerospace America.

There was also a German experimental aircraft with forward swept wings - whose name I cannot recall at this moment. Apparently this configuration was able to prevent stalling or some such thing.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 24 Sep 2010 07:11

shiv wrote: There was also a German experimental aircraft with forward swept wings - whose name I cannot recall at this moment. Apparently this configuration was able to prevent stalling or some such thing.

I think you're talking about Junkers JU 287

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 24 Sep 2010 07:13

Shiv saar, you've corrected one instance of F-14, but the caption above the picture still say "F-15" instead of "F-14"

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 24 Sep 2010 07:15

shiv wrote:Unless you are aware of the differences, it is easy to mistake a Tornado for an F-14. The twin tail of the latter is the one that can be seen from far away.

Easiest way to differentiate is number of tails and the shape of the tail.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2010 07:16

The South Korean T-50 is another plane that can be mistaken for an F-16. ArmenT - thanks - will correct the F-15 caption to F -14. I wonder of the South Koreans collaborated with the Taiwanese Ching Kuo?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Sep 2010 07:17

Germans have tried the Forward swept wing even on a civilian jetliner. Infact the first one germany ever built.

The HFB 320 Hansa jet

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2010 07:23

Give yourself exactly one second to identify this aircraft. Don't post the answer here and let new enthusiasts take a shot.

Click for image

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 24 Sep 2010 07:45

shiv wrote:Give yourself exactly one second to identify this aircraft. Don't post the answer here and let new enthusiasts take a shot.

Click for image

Isn't that the aircraft which got inducted with out an IOC and FOC

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 24 Sep 2010 08:12

shiv saar, that looks like a render and not a 400% halal one at that.