Why the Mach3 razor annoys aviation addicts

Aircraft-SR-71-Blackbird-Wallpaper

Sleek as your face, the Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird. Image: USAF

Martin Cloe investigates the link between razors and planes and decides he’s not happy.

Apart from the excellent treatments for testicular cancer, the best thing about being a man in the modern age is the Mach3 razor. Though its blades couldn’t be more expensive if they were made by Lockheed Martin, it lives up to the hype: it is a superb razor. It is alleged that developing the razor, which reached the shelves in 1998, cost $570 million in research and development. The razor took around the same time as the F-35 to develop; the manufacturer Gillette started development of a three blade razor in the 1970s and took years to master one that didn’t cause increased skin irritation. The name was well-chosen, putting glamorous images of the SR-71 Blackbird into many men’s heads. What I didn’t like was an ‘improved’ version, the ‘Mach3 Turbo’. Ignoring the relative merits or demerits of the razor (in my opinion the attempt to improve on perfection was unnecessary and cynical – like Silent Eagle, and was a less pleasant shave) and instead look at the name ‘Mach3 Turbo’.

Technically the SR-71 was the fastest turbojet-engined aircraft. In 1976 the aircraft smashed the performance records for C-1 (Landplanes) in Group 3 (turbo-jet) reaching a terrifying speed of 2,193 miles per hour.  But calling it a turbojet-powered aircraft is rather misleading- at these speeds the spinning bits are causing more drag than thrust; at the higher end of the Blackbird’s performance spectrum the aircraft is effectively powered by ramjets. I know, it could be said that the MiG-25, with its turbojets, was Mach 3 capable, but it was Mach 3-capable in the same as my mountain bike is 150 mph-capable: it can do it if you’re willing to change the wheels and tyres afterwards (and allow three miles of braking distance). So suggesting that a Mach3 Turbo would have more grunt than a simple Mach3 seems a bit of a confused message. In fact it’s even more confused as it seems to have been borrowed from the automobile lexicon. I know how I can make my Mach3 car faster, I’ll stick a supercharger on it! This is a bit insulting to men. Oh wait, before I explain why, I should explain some of the silliness in the difference between the marketing of men’s and women’s razors: change the colour, change the name, change the slogan. I’ll give an example: the same razor in both sex-assigned versions was once advertised in the same break. The women’s version had its ‘blades behind silky-fine wires’, the men’s ‘was so sharp it had to be kept behind bars’. The reason I brought this up was my disappointment at the forced marriage between Mach3 and Turbo as words. It’s like there was a meeting to generate ‘words men like‘ and two were just thrown
together without rhyme or reason. I mean why not go the whole hog and call it the Titty-burger, the Football-Barbecue or the relationship-without-commitment-Cornish-Pasty.

Rant over.

X-2_on_ramp_with_B-50_mothership_and_support_crew.jpg

Top Twelve Contra-Rotating Lunatics

DCIM100GOPRO

By the mid-1940s the limitations of piston aero engines were becoming apparent. Every possible scheme to squeeze the last bit of power from the internal combustion engine was tried. One of the most successful innovations was the contra-rotating propeller arrangement whereby two sets of propellers driven by one engine and sharing a common axis are contra-rotated (with one set travelling clockwise and the other anticlockwise). 

This system, though insanely noisy, produced more thrust than an equivalent conventional arrangement. It also produced some of the most insane flying machines ever to have deafened their ground crew. 

12. Douglas A2D Skyshark

Douglas_A2D-1_in_flight_1954

In 1945, barely three months after the piston-engined Skyraider had flown, Douglas were asked to produce a turboprop aircraft of much greater power. Though the contra-rotation system was originally developed for the piston-engine, it was with the new turboprop that it realised its potential (the first turboprop aircraft, the Trent Meteor flew the same year on 20th September). The Skyshark, finally took to the air on 26th May 1950, and a proved a marked improvement over the Skyraider: it had a 160 percent better climb rate, a 50 per cent higher service ceiling and a 170 mph faster top speed. Unfortunately development problems (centred around the engines) had so delayed the type, that it was now up against the XA-4D-1 Skyhawk, a type that was superior in almost every way (as we shall see this would not be the last time that one of Heinemann’s creations would defeat a contra’ design). The brutal Skyshark was cancelled after the sixth production aircraft was built.

11. Martin-Baker MB 5

8142751658_23b7b82fb7_z

First flying in 1944, the MB 5 was a superb fighter. According to master pilot Janusz Żurakowski (who demonstrated the type’s astonishing manoeuvrability at the 1946 Farnborough Airshow) it was superior in many respects to the Spitfire. The world’s most experienced test pilot Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown also commented on what a capable aircraft it was. Despite its huge potential, it didn’t enter production.

10. Convair XFY ‘Pogo’ and Lockheed XFV ‘Salmon’

XFY-1 POGO (37)

In 1950 the US Navy approached Convair and Lockheed and asked them to build tail-sitting experimental aircraft powered by the impressive (and troublesome) Allison T40. The 5,500 horsepower engines turned 16-feet co-axial propellers producing a pull that exceeded the weight of the aircraft. The aircraft demonstrated vertical take-offs (and that the US Navy were insane).

300px-Lockheed_XFV-1_on_ground_bw

9. Fisher P-75 Eagle

Fisher P-75 Eagle

The 1943 Fisher P-75 Eagle was certainly not as impressive as its later McDonnell Douglas namesake. Testing revealed several issues with this powerful (but mediocre) fighter including: miscalculated centre of mass; dismal engine performance from the Allison V-3420 engine; high aileron forces at high speed, and poor spin characteristics. Everything the Allison V-3420 touched turned to shit as all the types fitted with it (the Douglas XB-19, Boeing XB-39 Superfortress, Lockheed XP-58 Chain Lightning) failed to enter service.

8. Westland Wyvern 

IMG_6101

The post-war Wyvern was a single-seat carried-based fighter powered by a turboprop engine. As Ed Ward pointed out, it was, “650 pounds shy of a loaded Dakota”. Unsurprisingly, of the 127 that entered service with the Fleet Air Arm, 39 were lost despite a service life of only five years.

You may also enjoy top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story of The Planet SatelliteFashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. 

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter@Hush_kit

7. Fairey Gannet

15-1

Fairey’s seeming battle with Westland to produce the ugliest aircraft was won outright when the Gannet prototype took to the air in 1949. On 19 June 1950 it became the first turboprop aircraft to make a deck landing on an aircraft carrier.  Not put off by the type’s hideous appearance it received export orders from the German Marineflieger, the Indonesian Navy and the Australian Fleet Air Arm.1970 Fairey Gannet

Have a look at this fab model here

Continue reading

Kick the tyres and light the fires.. pilots and their cliches

naca-test-pilot-george-cooper-stand-in-front-of-the-f-100-1954

Tired old cliches are standard issue to every pilot. Here are some of the old groaners that will have you banging your head against the table in exasperation. Remove 100 hours from your logbook for each offence you have made.

Mark-One Eyeball  refers tlooking out of the window rather than relying on the instruments. Mainly used by airline pilots who wish they were flying a Piper Cub… to Australia.

Hot and High…...in reference to flying a Mooney or in more recent years a Cirrus SR22 and failing to slow it down before landingThe equivalent of walking into a nightclub with a younger girlfriend (or boyfriend) and knocking a table over.

Turning and Burning Indeed, the engines are functioning as we expected

Clockwork or Steam-powered instruments A sentimental or arrogant (depending on the orator) reference to the fact that times have changed.

Gear down and welded An unnecessary allusion to the standard downwind check that reminds the hirer that he/she is paying £160 per hour for an unsophisticated aircraft.

Kick the tyres and light the fires.. An irreverent nod to to pre-flight walkaround

Fill it with go juice...Once said by an instructor. I could never forgive her.

When it all goes quiet up front...I’m losing my patience now. An engine failure would be a relief.

Old pilots and bold pilots…. .Anyone who ever said these things has reduced their minima..that’s my contribution.

Runway behind you….blah blah blah…

Dorian Crook, proud co-owner of a Maule

 

Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. At the moment our contributors do not receive any payment but we’re hoping to reward them for their fascinating stories in the future.

Have a look at 10 worst British military aircraftSu-35 versus Typhoon10 Best fighters of World War II top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 

The US Army’s Ring-Wing Transformer: The strange story of the Convair Model 49

 

convair-49

In the 1960s the US Army were growing sick of dependence on inappropriate USAF aircraft for the close support mission. Aircraft like the Republic F-105 Thunderchief were simply too fast and too vulnerable to support troops on the ground effectively. Instead the US Army wanted the versatility and forward-basing possibilities of a vertical take-off platform with the ability to hover. To excel in the tough close support role the type would need to be heavily armed and armoured. This need was expressed formally as the Advanced Aerial Fire Support System or AAFSS.

Convair, a company famed for its adventurous designs, responded to the Army’s AAFSS requirement with typical ambition. Drawing on their experience with the tail-sitting XFY-1 ‘Pogo’ they proposed a two man ‘ring’ (or annular) wing ducted-fan design quite unlike anything else in service, though somewhat similar to the experimental SNECMA C.540 Coléoptère. The concept was bizarre in appearance but Convair believed it was the perfect configuration for an aircraft combining a helicopter’s unusual abilities with some of the offensive features of a military ground vehicle. One of the greatest challenges was creating a cockpit that tilted so the pilot was not facing the sky in the take-off/landing and landed support parts of its mission. This necessitated  a complex hinged forward fuselage giving the type its distinctly ‘Transformer’-like looks.

Hit the donate button at the top or bottom of this page to help Hush-Kit create more articles like this.

XFY-1 POGO (37)

The Convair XFY-1 ‘Pogo’ tail-sitting fighter.

convair-49

 

Two co-axially mounted contra-rotated rotors were to be powered by either Pratt & Whitney’s JFTD12 or Lycoming’s LTC4B-11 (GE’s T64 and Allison’s T56 were also assessed as candidates). The duct would generate more thrust from the engine than would the open rotors of a conventional helicopter design, which was a good thing as it was expected to weigh in at around 21,000 Ib (9526kg) fully-loaded.

 

The untold story of Britain’s cancelled superfighter, the Hawker P.1154, can be read here.

 

 

 

 

 

v2n2ad14

Armament for this monstrous machine would include a central turret with a XM-140 30-mm automatic cannon with 1,000 rounds or a launcher for 500 (!) WASP rockets and two remotely-controlled light machine-gun turrets with 12,000 rounds of ammunition or a XM-75 grenade launchers with 500 rounds. Addition to this already awe-inspiring arsenal were four hard points on the nacelles which could carry Shellelagh or BGM-71 TOW missiles, or even the M40 ‘106-mm ‘ recoilless gun! The weapons could be fired during any part of the flight profile (note the ‘hover firing’ position). The steel armour would be impervious to 12.7-mm rounds, but there was little or no provision for defences or countermeasures against surface-to-air missiles.

Hit the donate button at the top or bottom of this page to help Hush-Kit create more articles like this.

The risky Model 49 lost the AAFSS contest to the remarkable Lockheed AH-56A Cheyenne which was in turn cancelled. The thirty year journey to produce an indigenous fire support aircraft for the US Army eventually led to today’s widely feared AH-64 Apache.

Click to access go6858.pdf

Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here– it doesn’t have to be a large amount, every pound is gratefully received. If you can’t afford to donate anything then don’t worry.

At the moment our contributors do not receive any payment but we’re hoping to reward them for their fascinating stories in the future.

Have a look at 10 worst British military aircraftSu-35 versus Typhoon10 Best fighters of World War II top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 

 

What the hell is wrong with aviation nerds?

woman_airplane__Wallpaper_lfs9t

I get it. Some people find aircraft and aviation all-consuming and fascinating. They cream their keks over the physics of it all. The turbines, the atmospheric pressures and gravitational forces at work on the fuselage at speed and altitude. The engineering and science that made it possible to send tons and tons of metal into the sky and keep it there – and even control it to get from A to B without incident (eventually). All this progress within, what, 30 years of the 20th century? Yes, it’s staggering. Yes, there is beauty and wonder in it all. But that’s what makes the whole nerd thing a bit weird to me: it’s all entirely subjective.

I love to look at aircraft as aesthetic pieces. Creatures, if you like – each with a humble, unquestioning work ethic – that reluctantly took their forms to serve a higher purpose. Sleek or lumbering, monolithic or slight and nimble – all had their origins in human agendas. Agendas like ‘being the first’, ‘puffing chests out to potential enemies’, and if we’re lending humanity any faith: ‘to discover what’s possible and improve life on earth’.

Pipes and clap

I’ll quite happily shuffle around a museum and look at engines, cockpits and pretend payloads, and gasp at the size of wings. I’ll readily read the stories of the scientists and test pilots who, albeit under the wagging finger of wealthy governments, put their lives on the line for progress. I love to imagine myself born into those innocent, pioneering times, and I wish we could still gather at air shows with hampers and pipes and clap at the achievements that fly by.

Boeingspeedagile-thumb-560x458-175363

Kettle-face transvestite 

What I don’t get, is the obsession. The submersion, the insatiable thirst to know everything about a particular model – its inner workings, how much it weighs, how much its riveted panels shrink or expand in extreme environments. Why Jerry ‘Kettle-Face’ Johnson insisted on wearing ladies’ underwear on every third testing mission he flew from Edwards Air Force base after 13 December 1974 (or some insist, 22 January the following year).

 

Nor do I understand why those afflicted with such passion (in its true sense – i.e. emotionally driven madness) think you’re a weirdo and a heretic if you’re not wearing a flak jacket, baseball cap and oversize training shoes laced up way too tight – and don’t spend at least ten minutes at every exhibit, rocking back and forth with your hands behind your back.

 

vintage airplane travelSure, for some, there is greater meaning and emotional attachment to a lost era. Lost colleagues, the tension of the Cold War, the reality behind the TV soap, Vietnam. But I don’t want to feel guilt or inadequacy for just looking at aircraft and being bowled over for my own inexplicable reasons. Reasons I wouldn’t want to decipher or disseminate through deeper knowledge, because that often spoils the wonder. We can’t yet explain love, and hopefully we never will. And often, when you nail something to the floor, it withers and dies. Our appreciation for beauty and awe is only common in the language we use to express it, which will never be sufficient. Evocative, maybe. But defining? No.

The end of an affair?

So stop it. Stop it at once. Empty your study of all the literature you’ve amassed in your pursuit of what will essentially be the end of your love affair: defining why you’ve amassed them in the first place. Erase your hard drive of all but the images and schematic diagrams that simply inspire you, and leave it at that. Put your hands up in the air, and shout, ‘I don’t know why, I just fucking love B-52s, and I don’t care who knows my knowledge on the matter is incomplete!’

08164738

I went to Pima Air and Space Museum in Arizona – and its boneyard – in 2010. I’m not an aviation enthusiast; I just know that some aircraft, up close, move me in mysterious ways. I don’t need to know why, or chase that feeling down – it’s enough in itself. I bought a coffee mug that says, ‘I love the smell of jet fuel in the morning’ and moved on.

 

Perhaps some people thrive on obsession – but the ones I’ve met didn’t look too good on it.

By George Caveney musician, writer, cynic and firefighter. 

Top Ten Carrier Fighters 2015

12_MiG-29KUB_main

Carrier-borne fighters are a rare beast, with only the US boasting a sizeable force. Selection for a top ten was easy, as there’s barely ten types in total! The ordering of these types was a lot harder and to some extent subjective, though the winner is certainly an extraordinary aircraft.

10. Lockheed Martin F-35B/C Lightning II

F-35B-CV

Strictly speaking, the F-35 doesn’t deserve a place on the list as it’s not yet operational, but as training has begun (and we’re short of an aircraft), we have included it. In time the F-35B and C will deserve separate entries. The next new naval fighter after the F-35 may be India’s equally long-delayed Tejas.

9. BAe Sea Harrier FRS.Mk 51

shar_lineup

Indian’s aged Sea Harriers are not considered as capable as the FA.2s that Britain’s Royal Navy used to operate and of the thirty delivered only around eleven are still flying. However, the Limited Upgrade Sea Harrier (LUSH)  upgrade gave aircraft the Elta EL/M-2032 radar and the potential to use the Rafael ‘Derby’ medium-range beyond visual range air-to-air missile.

8. McDonnell Douglas AF-1 (A-4) Skyhawk

Brazilian_Navy_McDonnell_Douglas_AF-1_Skyhawk_(A-4KU)_Schleiffert-1

Brazil’s A-4s remain a viable aircraft despite the almost prehistoric airframe design. A host of promised, and in some cases, fulfilled upgrades have kept the beloved ‘Scooter‘ going on the deck of the Clemenceau-class aircraft carrier São Paulo. Long-promised weapons-options include the MAA-1B, Python 4 and Derby AAMS. Maybe one day they could be replaced by Sea Gripens.

7. Boeing AV-8B+ Harrier II/EAV-8B Matador

av8b-06

A mature platform with AMRAAM capability and a wide range of air-to-ground stores the modern Harrier is a well-equipped fighter-bomber that proved itself in the Close Air Support role in Afghanistan and the recce/attack/CAP roles over Libya. Sadly the Harrier is the most dangerous aircraft in US service with a shocking attrition rate that is around three times higher than the F/A-18. As well as a high attrition rate the type is considerably slower than most of it peers. The aircraft is operated by the USMC and the Italian and Spanish Navy.

6. Sukhoi Su-33

KnAAPO-Su-33-1

The Sukhoi Su-33 was intended to serve on Soviet aircraft carriers, however by the time it entered service the nation it had been developed to protect had disappeared. Only a small number were produced and were considered rather inflexible (with limited weapons options). Now their avionics suite is obsolete and they face the indignity (at least in Sukhoi’s eyes) of being replaced with the smaller MiG-29K.

5. Shenyang J-15

413905

Though not yet mature, the Chinese navy’s pirate ‘Flanker’s promise to be formidable machines. Utilising the best of China’s indigenously developed (and highly-respected) weapons and sensors the J-15 will be a sophisticated, agile and long-ranged fighter. In terms of all-out performance, it will enjoy a significant advantage over the Hornet family in several respects, notably high altitude performance.

4. McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C/D Hornet

fa-18_title

The plucky ‘Bug’ is now in the twilight of its career. When it arrived on the scene in 1983 it was extremely advanced and trail-blazed many of the features that have since become de rigueur for fighters, especially in the field of cockpit design and multimode radar. It remains the fighter to beat at low altitude and is still held in awe as a dogfighter (according to pilots it has the edge on its larger brother in a ‘knife fight’). It was always short on range and struggled at the top right-hand corner of the performance envelope. The F/A-18 will be replaced in US Navy and USMC service by the F-35.

3. Mikoyan MiG-29K 

16_MiG-29KUB_main

When Russia selected the Su-33 for its carriers many thought it had gone for the wrong type as the smaller MiG-29 offered more versatility. A complicated saga ensued, made more complicated by the fall and then rise of the Russian economy, MiG’s precarious position and the Indian Navy’s order for the type. The MiG-29K is a world away from the original ‘Fulcrum’ in terms of range, pilot interface and sophistication and is one of the nastiest naval fighters to tangle with in the within-visual range merge. It is no slouch in the BVR regime either, with an advanced radar and the widely-feared R-77 ‘AMRAAMSKI’. India has 45 on order (and has received more than 30), the Russian Navy has ordered 24.

2. Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

fa_18_ef_super_hornet_l2

The Super Hornet rectified the legacy Bug’s main shortcomings of limited range and bring-back (the weight of stores that the aircraft can bring back to the carrier after a mission). It also featured radar cross section reduction measures which are rumoured to make it the stealthiest fighter (in terms of frontal cross section) this side of the F-22 (though Dassault may dispute this). The Super Hornet retains the ‘Turbo Nose’ of the Hornet (the almost uncanny ability to point the aircraft quickly and accurately). Though the APG-79 AESA radar of Block II aircraft has been plagued with unreliability issues, it was one of the first to offer simultaneous air and ground modes. The Super Hornet is fitted with some great kit and is compatible with a larger range of stores than any fighter on this list. Where it falls down is in its poor performance at higher altitudes and speed, where its relative lack of poke is an issue. Despite this, the Super Hornet has repeatedly proven its ability to rise to any challenges as a robust and reliable fighter-bomber. (All US Navy fighters are supported by the E-2D  Advanced Hawkeye, a powerful force multiplier with a ‘stealth-busting’ UHF radar).

1. Dassault Rafale M

Regularly Scheduled six-month deployment Image Released by LT Mark C. Jones, PAO CV65

Dassault’s Rafale is a masterpiece of aeronautical engineering. Despite being burdened with the additional weight of being a carrier fighter, it can mix it with the best fighters in the world (which it has demonstrated on exercises with the F-22 and Typhoon). In performance it is closely matched to the Typhoon, with the French fighter enjoying an advantage at lower altitudes. Few fighters excel at both the fighter and the bomber mission, the Rafale is a rare exception. According to one test pilot the Rafale’s flight control system is unmatched in its responsiveness and precision (and markedly superior to the F-16) , an important consideration, especially for a carrier fighter. Defended by SPECTRA, which some regard as the best defensive aids suite in the world, guided by one of the world’s most sophisticated radars and well armed with weapons which include the most advanced aircraft cannon, the Rafale is the hottest naval fighter in the world.

You can find out about the worst carrier aircraft here 

“Never fly the ‘A’ model of anything” expect amends to this article over the next few weeks. 

Favourite aircraft No. 37: Airbus A320

Nachrichten_105_35

 

Kick-started by vast military orders, the US company Boeing wisely invested a great deal into developing very fine airliners. With great products, a big home market and governmental support it wasn’t surprising that Boeing soon dominated the civil marketplace. It was sheer madness to take this titan on, but that’s exactly what Airbus did. This upstart from the Old Continent smashed the door open with the A300 in 1974, but it was the A320 (entering service in 1988) that established Airbus as the ‘other’ big plane-maker. The A320 was the F-16 of the airliner world, introducing both the side-stick controller and fly-by-wire to the commercial world. The A320 scared the bejesus out of Boeing: at last the 737 had a worthy adversary. The A320 family grew, and soon Airbus was selling as many airliners as Boeing. By late May 2014 Airbus had produced 6,092 members of the A320 family. This year the lean and green A320neo will join the series. The future looks bright for the neo: In 2011 Malaysia’s AirAsia ordered 200 for 12.7 billion. By late 2013 Airbus was happily holding an order book for 2,523 neos. By becoming the Pepsi to Boeing’s Coca-Cola, Airbus powered an efficiency ‘arms race’ that benefited the holiday-maker and airlines alike. We salute the A320!

Marie Boustani