A-5 Vigilante. Poops nukes.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/A3J-1s_VAH-7_CVAN-65_NAN11-62.jpg)
Oh already. Oh well.
I was going to go for the Mig-28.
(https://modelbrouwers.nl/media/cache/4d/32/4d320d8f24d25bcfa7c4b115edb675bf.jpg)
Some other movie?Iron Eagle II. and not the worst offense in that film either.
Was Iron Eagle the movie where the teenage pilot shot a tank with a Sidewinder missile while his jet was on the ground?I think so
Was Iron Eagle the movie where the teenage pilot shot a tank with a Sidewinder missile while his jet was on the ground?
Going more assault support less anti-air warfare.Sweet shot! :thumbsup:
Going more assault support less anti-air warfare.great pic
Was Iron Eagle the movie where the teenage pilot shot a tank with a Sidewinder missile while his jet was on the ground?
Those look a bit big compared to the other fighters on the carrier . . . twin engine? What is funny is it looks like a MiG-25 a bit . . . especially curious when I read that the Vigilante was supposed to be a twin tail airplane early in its design phase.
MiG-25s first entered service in 1970. A-5s were out of service starting 1963 & converted to the recon role...
Damon.
Liam: interesting, but that particular channel seems suspect to me (and not just based on the production quality and newness). At the very least (and within the scope of Rule 4), I can say they certainly didn't read Roger Hesketh's book about Operation FORTITUDE (one of their other videos). It's a great book, and worth the slog it can be to read.
Murphy's Dice...that thing probably has only two throttle settings: "Landing" and "Hold My Beer". :oChallenge accepted.
Challenge accepted.
Well, the A-5 was a carrier-based, long-range, supersonic nuclear bomber, not a fighter. A definite case of "Chancellor, we are for the big!".
And while the A-5 and Mig-25 were rough contemporaries (Vigilante '58, Foxbat '64), it's more about covergent evolution - having a highish-mach airframe dictates a pointy nose, and the top-forward intakes with intake ramps are features of many other such airplanes, from the F-15 to Concorde and the Tu-22. Heck, the Valkyrie has them, but on their sides!
Shoulder-mounted wings allowed for ordnance or fuel to be carried under the wings - the Vigilante originally carried a droptank under each wing, while the Foxbat mounted four of those telephone-pole Acrids. Also allows keeping the landing gear shorter, unlike the Hustler.
Now the Vigilante was operational before the Foxbat took first flight, but the Foxbat was the child of a long evolutionary process starting with the Ye-150 and Ye-152 (think Mig-21 on ALL THE STEROIDS), and the Ye-155 (direct ancestor of the Foxbat) had things like wingtip fuel tanks and canards, which the A-5 never had. Plus IMHO the Foxbat is a beefy, brutal design built around those massive and tempermental Tumansky engines, while the Vigilante was a long, lean design based around the weapons "bay" located between the pair of J-79s.
But then, like Buran, knowing something can be done one way does concentrate the mind, without the need for detailed espionage.
And to round off this adventure for a plane born around the same time as myself, I give you the NR-349 - a Vigilante upgraded to three J-79s, and meant to carry 6 Phoenix missiles as a dash interceptor, replacing the cancelled XF-108 Rapier (for which the Phoenixes were originally developed. The Tomcat just got the radar crammed in & the missiles slung). Note the over-wing intakes feeding the 3rd engine. I can't help but wonder if the NR-349 was meant to emulate the Foxbat ;)
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/nara-5cevolutionnr-349interceptor-jpg.42141/)
(https://i.imgur.com/iReDIgF.jpg)
Ahh so that seems to be where the 'Star Stiletto' came from ...
(https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/303096611465_/100-ORIGINAL-vintage-GI-JOE-complete-STELLAR-STILETTO.jpg)
Challenge accepted.Reminds me of the Swordfish II from Cowboy Bebop, minus wings and oversized chin gun
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/20/0b/19/200b193fd45e0189f4efae184121457e.jpg)
You know, I thought they were sort of crazy to ride a rocket fighter up . . . but THIS dude should KNOW how unstable the thing is and is still flying it?
Then again, that would be a light your pants on fire thrill ride (and yeah, that rocket might literally light your pants on fire).
Wasn't the Mig-25's speed and range more for patrolling the very, very large airspace?Actually the combat radius of a MiG-25 wasn't that big, just shy of 300 km. The total range (not ferry range, though) on internal fuel was around 1,860 km or 1,000 nmi.
A-5 Vigilante. Poops nukes.At least until the nuclear turd became a nuclear dingleberry...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/A3J-1s_VAH-7_CVAN-65_NAN11-62.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/20/0b/19/200b193fd45e0189f4efae184121457e.jpg)Well, the flight design was tested as a glider and a propeller driven prototype.
You know, I thought they were sort of crazy to ride a rocket fighter up . . . but THIS dude should KNOW how unstable the thing is and is still flying it?
Then again, that would be a light your pants on fire thrill ride (and yeah, that rocket might literally light your pants on fire).
Challenge accepted.Wait wait, that concept is supposed to be built around the freaking A-10's CANNON?! :o
To . . . literally make a flying cannon?a *fighter* built around it. THat concept echo F-16 Falcon in many of its elements.
Wait wait, that concept is supposed to be built around the freaking A-10's CANNON?! :oYup. Frankly that's how you have to build such a thing.
Yup. Frankly that's how you have to build such a thing.Well the good news is that the center of pressure is certainly aft of the center of mass :). An F-16 XL wing would certainly help with the lift issues, but that raydome looks like they are trying to maintain the F-16's air to air capability.
Here's the scary part - with that nose, cockpit setback, and the sheer lack of lift it has in the design...
LAND IT.
Yeah, but how screaming fast do you have to come in on approach? The stall speed on that can NOT be comfortably low...It's going to be noticeably draggy-ier than a Viper by that high cockpit, which probably generates some weird vorticies. It's also going to be heavier to account for that GAU-8, but the increased surface from a cranked arrow wing should offset quite a bit of that. I'm not saying this thing would ever be mentioned in the same breath as the P-51D, but I doubt it would a B-26 either. Digital flight controls should address most of the weirdness cause by the strange layout, but there will still be a lot of quirks. Although I am concerned that control authority at low speeds might become an issue, regardless of lift. If this thing was meant to be some kind of next gen A-10, it won't have anything like the low speed performance or loiter time.
I would also question what sort of warload it could carry too. While the big honkin' gun in the A-10 is scary, the flexible warload across 11 hardpoints is what makes the A-10 really effective at its job. That design just doesn't strike me as being able to carry much.I suspect there are quite a few reasons that this thing is just a couple of obscure sketches.
Damon.
During the day the sun might be lost in thatftfy
Story was crap, Mecha designs were gorgeous!
And as freaking goofy as some of the later series are, THIS is the one that's non canon? ???
The reasons why Macross II is non-canon would be enough for an entire thread of their ownThe core reason though was simply "it wasn't made by the company that made the rest"
The core reason though was simply "it wasn't made by the company that made the rest"
I though Macross II was ok.
Back to planes. That SR-71 with the afterburners is just awesome
(https://i.imgur.com/sqkioiG.jpg)" I like to see girls of that... caliber.
The margins for performing a successful intercept on a Blackbird at speed were ... microscopically thin. In most cases, when interceptors were vectored or even missiles were fired, I understand all it had to do was change course marginally to be 100% safe.
could you imagine the show of two planes with that performance trying to dogfight?I can't see more than one head on pass because by the time one plane turns around, the other one will be 2 time zones away.
Planes that can't turn at that speed can't dogfight, and can't remain in the air long at the lower speeds. It'd be a short clip - two radar vectors intersecting for a fraction of a second ...As an SR-71/A-12 pilot, I would start to nervous if I heard there was a YAL-1 out there, looking for me...
Now F-15s, F-16s - they can turn and burn, and boom and zoom.
Ka-52
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/83/0f/19/830f19a0307acc686f687b757c5f0e20.jpg)
Looks more like a camera pod to me...
I thought he was talking about the Super Hind...
Odd... the second time I came back to this thread, Kidd's picture was there, but not the first, and there's been no visible edit... ???I made a mistake with the URL link, and edited it within the same minute it was posted, so there was no "edited at xxx" message
Is that a fuel tank on the port pylon between the rockets & body?
Looks to be the exact type of tank the Havoc (or is it is often referred to as: the Apachski) is carrying.
I thought he was talking about the Super Hind...
Mi-35 Super Hind
(http://im.rediff.com/news/2015/jun/18lead2.jpg)
Because the Hind wasn't ugly enough allready
Paint up a Hind and they look pretty good!The Czechs won that competition forever.
The Czechs won that competition forever.I'm not the only one getting an Alien vibe, am I?
(https://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/img_0597.jpg)
They don't need that as much any more since with proper GPS, inertial navigation equipment and fly by wire systems, they don't need to do manual map reading and bomb dropping; equipment and softwares are getting more user friendly.
I am saddened that the RAF no longer has a fighter aircraft with a back seater as I do think that the capability to have someone concentrating on flying while another looks at sensor data or coordinates from up close is worth having (the other aircraft that would benefit from that in my opinion is the A-10)
They don't need that as much any more since with proper GPS, inertial navigation equipment and fly by wire systems, they don't need to do manual map reading and bomb dropping; equipment and softwares are getting more user friendly.
Re: SAMs - modern aircraft have much better threat receivers, and automatic chaff and decoy dispensers that decide themselves when best to deploy, unlike jets of that generation which still were manually deployed (at least the earlier models)
I suppose I think of it as mixing the offensive/defensive thinking - if I, as the pilot, can either focus on lining up an attack while someone else on board looks for threats (like SAMs) or else I can concentrate on keeping my head on a swivel and looking for threats and moving the aircraft through the sky while my backseater focuses on making a precision attack with a guided weapon danger close to friendly forces and collateral targets one would rather avoid
Combat Helicopter RegimentInformation like that, so I can see how pieces go together and how big support forces are, then jumble it all up.
907 men
215 ground vehicles
Command & Services Squadron
Support & Refueling Squadron
1st Reconnaissance Helicopter Squadron: 10 SA.341F Gazelle
2nd Light Attack Helicopter Squadron: 10 SA.341F2 Gazelle Cannon
3rd Anti-Tank Helicopter Squadron: 10 SA.342M Gazelle HOT
4th Anti-Tank Helicopter Squadron: 10 SA.342M Gazelle HOT
5th Anti-Tank Helicopter Squadron: 10 SA.342M Gazelle HOT
6th Transport & Utility Helicopter Squadron: 11 SA.330Ba Puma
And here I thougt that's what Link 16 was supposed to do... ::)C3 doesn't work with Stealth Armour turned on, so they're developing an Advanced C3 that does
I understand they're playing around with the AESA radars to do this; all the 1700-some emitters can project separate beams and they're electronically steering them to bounce a pencil-beam onto friendly aircraft.
Creepy tech.
We almost had a research proposal at our lab to join with a company test theoretical airborne wireless charging of drones via AESA radar. Quite the tech.I'm split between "That sounds like it could be a fun project," and "that's going to be a bloody nightmare!"
I'd mostly worry about the efficiency... I'd guess 10% would be fantastic, which means you're not only wasting a lot but you're also blasting a lot of Watts into the sky in frequencies other radio and radar will find rather irritating.
Well, getting some power through isn't hard. After all that's what ordinary radio does. I was thinking about a talk I heard about wireless charging of cars. Put an antenna in the floor and another in the bottom of the car, and park right above. Ideal position, range ~1 foot, about 50% efficiency... :PUnless you can build the RF equivalent of a laser, a RASER? MASER?, 1/r2 is going to eat your lunch VERY quickly.
Full disclosure, I've also had too much experience where upper management insisted on chasing something that would never exist, so the folks doing the work, it was "yessir," and down the rabbit hole.
And who knows when someone is going to get their head Eureka'd with a totally different thing entirely after spending months in said rabbit hole? Spinoffs are so deliciously unpredictable.
Nice Viggens! :thumbsup:
As far as the recharging thing... I'm having a hard time imagining where you'd have a drone of the appropriate size deployed in an area where you'd need a recharge of that kind for long enough that it would need a recharge at all...
Nice Viggens! :thumbsup:
As far as the recharging thing... I'm having a hard time imagining where you'd have a drone of the appropriate size deployed in an area where you'd need a recharge of that kind for long enough that it would need a recharge at all...
Don't say that to a SAAB car owner! Risk of severe burns! :D
The Gripen was also used in Macross Delta as a Valkerie too. Still can't get used to how skinny they are now.
Well engineered yes. Much like Volkswagens and Volvos.
And all three are about as exciting as a bowl of oatmeal.
MacLarens are from the UK, aren't they? ???
Sorry for the off topic bit there, but I HAD to ask...
My dad almost crashed in a VW Beetle way back in the day due to its aerodynamics. IIRC it lifts off at about 110 mph?
Beetles weren't that aerodynamic, they were just that light.
Really?
I missed a Macrosss!!!!
I thought the Windermearian (or however you spell it) Valkeries were based off the Draken, not the Gripen?
But I think we might be going just a little OT here. Have a flying car! :)
Working might be too strong a word.
AEROCAR PERFORMANCE
Top Speed ........Over 110 MPH
Cruising Speed ....Over 100 MPH
Rate of Climb (I st Min @ full load) ...Over 550 FPM
Service Ceiling @ full load ...Over 12,000 Ft,
Cruise Range .....Over 300 Miles
Landing Speed .... 50 MPH
Landing Run (with normal braking) ...300 Ft.
Take-off Run ..... 650 Ft.
Distance to Clear 50 ft. Obstacle .....1225 Ft.
Designed Road Speed (Engine red line)...67 MPH
Road Range .....Over 400 Miles
Fuel Consumption (Cruising)......8 GPH
Road Fuel Consumption ......18 MPG
Time to Change from Plane to Car ......Five Min.
Well, the Aerocar does have the advantage of 1) being able to drive away with the whole "aircraft" (wings and tail fold into a trailer) and 2) actually being a working, existing, flying car. ;)
I do not know, that little yellow pusher looks like its got some decent altitude for that sort of contraption.
I'm still trying to figure out how you get it through the dive-thru.I watched a documentary on that, titled The Fifth Element
AFAIK it was all of the above. The early SAAB cars had the same problems, actually. I think it came down to being designed by airplane engineers trying for minimal drag - going for the profile they knew best, a wing... ::)
But I think we might be going just a little OT here. Have a flying car! :)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5932b8_8fc5a378c3d741dca7110c99765e5b50~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_864,h_377,al_c,lg_1,q_80/5932b8_8fc5a378c3d741dca7110c99765e5b50~mv2.webp)
Taylor Aerocar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar)
It looks like perfect plane for Mr. Bean.
"Actually, ejecting from an aircraft is really dangerous"The little dead guy after hitting the water at 1:05 cracked me up, but...damn I'm glad we have 0-0 seats now. Considering you've just gone through one significant emotional and kinetic event hitting the water, punching out into it and not freaking the hell out and drowning is probably worth a medal on its own.
"Hold my beer"
(Jump straight to 1:15 for action)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITDFlZR_CXQ
Thing that gets me about that case, the pilot had just taken off from a carrier when he lost power. He knew the carrier was steaming up at him. So he waited, as the aircraft sank, until the carrier had passed overhead before ejecting underwater.If I had the cojones to do that, I'd have a camera in the cockpit just to snapshot the props as they go by overhead. THEN punch out.
Balls of pure adamantium.
There was also a case of A-6 which lost power at the take off and the crew ejected, wind carrying them right on the take off pad. There was lot of jokes about crashing into sea and not even getting feet wet.Just gather up your 'chute and walk off the flight deck like a boss.
Just gather up your 'chute and walk off the flight deck like a boss.
I really like the Gripen fighter just such a cool fighter. Would of been neat to see the Carrier Version of that plane!
They tried: https://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen-maritime/ (https://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen-maritime/)IIRC India still has it "on a list" of possible fighters for their CVs, given that all their current planes have some kind of problem. Brazil, of course, doesn't have a carrier for them any longer... ::)
Yellow should be the color scheme for the F-35 . . .Are you thinking like a taxicab yellow or perhaps more of a color more in the citrus family? >:D
Ah, not that many then... Jets came in pretty quickly...
The first jet landing and take off on a carrier was apparently in 1945, so it wasn't that long...
There's actually video
A deHavilland Vampire on HMS Ocean. Seas look none too calm.
IIRC India still has it "on a list" of possible fighters for their CVs, given that all their current planes have some kind of problem. Brazil, of course, doesn't have a carrier for them any longer... ::)Speaking of which:
Speaking of which:I honestly don't think Sao Paulo has ever been "operational" for more than a couple of months at a time
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Sao_Paulo_carrier_forward_flight_deck_2003.jpg
One year ago today the Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo, formerly the French aircraft carrier Foch was decommissioned after found to be uneconomical to refit and repair.
Speaking of which:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Sao_Paulo_carrier_forward_flight_deck_2003.jpg
One year ago today the Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo, formerly the French aircraft carrier Foch was decommissioned after found to be uneconomical to refit and repair.
I honestly don't think Sao Paulo has ever been "operational" for more than a couple of months at a timeThat's true, but they kept on trying until the plug to pulled.
The first jets were flying between 1939 and 1941 in prototype form, the first jet fighters were introduced to service in 1944 - all of this was on the background of active wartime development speeds
However, by 1945 the impetus for improving carrier based aviation was gone - Japan was crippled and Germany was not an issue for carrier based fighters
Early jets struggled with reliability (for example needing overhaul every 80-150 hours) and power at lower speeds was poor with slower acceleration than a prop driven engine to speed the aircraft along the short flight deck and up up and away with or without catapult assistance
There's actually video
A deHavilland Vampire on HMS Ocean. Seas look none too calm.
https://youtu.be/PNoUBil7A3c
And, of course it's Captain 'Winkle' Brown. I really should have known that it would be.
Just finished "Wings of the Luftwaffe", which is his book about flying captured German aircraft - highly recommended.
Ah, not that many then... Jets came in pretty quickly...1500 or so and they came into service late 1944.
And additional bonus is that a radial engine like the Skyraider had tends to weather damage a little better than many others.Yeah, the radiators on P-51s didn't do so well with ground fire...
I want to say the props in use in the Korean War still scored a few air to air kills.The last of the old will always be better than the first of the new.
The last of the old will always be better than the first of the new.That's a very good point.
https://youtu.be/MQU1f_bgPFEEngland has a stretch of mountains in wales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_Loop) where the RAF can fly their stuff fast and low for training, wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss don;t have something similar. especially since with their geography, they'd really need to train for terrain following.
Swiss Mirage IIISs doing their thing in the alps, apparently under "what's an altitude restriction?" flight rules. Some gorgeous stuff!
https://youtu.be/MQU1f_bgPFEThat's one heck of a hard "hard deck"! Nice gun work, too... :thumbsup:
Swiss Mirage IIISs doing their thing in the alps, apparently under "what's an altitude restriction?" flight rules. Some gorgeous stuff!
Go NASA indeed! Honestly, I always thought the solution to complaints about sonic booms was to move out of the flight path...If only you could...
If only you could...
Oh and that's not even peak air travel.
Traffic controllers cease caring when the traffic leaves the metropolitan area. The US (not to mention the planet) is a BIG place.Things can go very wrong of ATC doesn't keep track of things everywhere... (https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Mid-Air_Collision#Accidents_and_Incidents) :'(
Which leaves all the small private planes (at lower altitude) on their own...
I think we may mean different things by "ATC". Sure, the ADIZ is monitored. Doesn't mean everyone is under ground control everywhere.
Just to clarify my original point, there's WAY more empty sky than airplanes, and that website gives the opposite impression.
And there have been collisions before, very famously the PSA-Cessna high-altitude passenger swap back in my hometown of San Diego in 1978. Both of those planes were under ATC control, even with the light plane just puttering around. And while it's not the US, in Britain even the hot-air balloons are given orders to do things - there's a bit of a scary/funny clip from Top Gear where James May is getting orders for where he should be going in a balloon...
Oh yeah, big sky theory is still an active principle. We still use it in airspace evaluation for UAV collision risk. And I agree that the website gives a distorted impression of airspace busy-ness. The reality is that the terminal areas, especially in the wider northeast, are super busy and the plains and mountain region quite a bit less.Thank you, kind sir!
My point on the Flightaware stuff was in regards to sonic booms and NASA's work in abating them, and that if even a small fraction of the aircraft overhead were supersonic that'd still be a LOT of boom. Or thud, if NASA can pull it off.
Honestly, the laws of physics make the economics of SSTs pretty damn unfeasible in general.While I agree in general, very long-distance routes might benefit due to flying at very high altitude.
My point on the Flightaware stuff was in regards to sonic booms and NASA's work in abating them, and that if even a small fraction of the aircraft overhead were supersonic that'd still be a LOT of boom. Or thud, if NASA can pull it off.
Geography matters here... Hard to give an answer without knowing it...Take Bulgaria for a home country. Black Sea to the east, Serbs and Macedonians and mountains (oh my) to the west, Danube lowlands to the north, Greek mountain terrain to the southwest and to the southeast lowlands lies Turkey. Assume you're buying 140 airplanes for your major air superiority needs.
Wasn't the Mirage III more widely adopted? That would mean more plentiful parts, and less likely to be stranded with a dead-end unsupported design a couple of decades later.Point to consider, though the Swedes certainly did a fine job keeping Drakens around until 1999. The French did do better in the export market, as far as customer base goes.
Something to kick around and see if we can get a debate going. You're a small, not poor, but not super-rich country in the cold war. It's the mid 1960s and your air defenses consist of subsonic Hawker Hunters. Time to get some speed on, but you have a tight budget and coverage requirements that rule out only having a couple squadrons of big budget do-it-all aircraft.
Saab 35 Draken...
or
Dassault Mirage IIIC
DrakenOkay, why?
For Bulgaria, I'd go with the Draken. Long range strike isn't really their thing.Fair point, it's a small country as well - the longest distance corner to corner is 530km. You won't be traveling far to a battlefield.
Draken
Okay, why?I'm dealing with limited area of operations. Not like I have to deploy long range, I have a higher ceiling and climb rate, but yes I lose out at top speed.
For a moment, I thought you'd said "IIC's".How dare you refuse my colorful batchall!
How dare you refuse my colorful batchall!
(https://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ATAC-Mirage-F1.jpg)
J-35 Draken for me just because it looks coolerYes it does, would love to see how it would look all camouflaged up.
The most hilarious thing about that Handley Page is that the smoking section might just have been isolated enough from the "forward saloon" to make a difference...
The most hilarious thing about that Handley Page is that the smoking section might just have been isolated enough from the "forward saloon" to make a difference...
More airliners could use a cocktail bar, but I don't see how it could possibly pay for the seats it would displace, let alone the cost for a bartender.
Interwar British airliners were largely:
...
2) Really friggin' weird
Take the Vickers Vulcan... (8 made)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Vickers_Vulcan_Type_61_G-EBET_%28148227972%29_%28tight_crop%2C_white_balanced%2C_grayscale%29.jpg)
Okay, this is an odd tale, and I can't help but think there's a BT scenario (or an episode of the A-team) in here somewhere:
How Russian attack helicopters ended up in Australia 20 years ago. (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-01/png-helicopters-cabinet-secrets/11811170)
(https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/11637432-3x2-700x467.jpg)
I think the cadmium corrosion, and asbestos, contravened a number of Australia's workplace health & safety rules ...
Did they try selling the Hinds to a quasi allied user state? And by selling I mean "donating for parts and disposal". Corroded rockets included.
Interesting infographic, but JSF talk tends to get these threads locked...
Sweet MB.5! :thumbsup:
It happened a few times while you were, ah, out. So it's not just you...
(https://external-preview.redd.it/KZQzqGqG98aa3gG6nIEz2-EQ7ht5icxFee_vDyFXKIM.jpg?auto=webp&s=c043c601b0097932f84975785fb40fff7fa8fc67)Are those small passenger area above the pontoons?
Meet the Rocheville Arctic Tern: 1930s amphibian designed for photographic surveys of Alaska
(https://external-preview.redd.it/KZQzqGqG98aa3gG6nIEz2-EQ7ht5icxFee_vDyFXKIM.jpg?auto=webp&s=c043c601b0097932f84975785fb40fff7fa8fc67)
Meet the Rocheville Arctic Tern: 1930s amphibian designed for photographic surveys of Alaska
That Martin Baker MB.5 looks like someone left a late model Spitfire and a P-51 alone in a hanger overnight. It's a nice looking plane.True that! ;D
That Martin Baker MB.5 looks like someone left a late model Spitfire and a P-51 alone in a hanger overnight. It's a nice looking plane.
Hmmm... they DO appear to have windows...
It really makes you wonder when they finally settled on fully closed cockpits...Especially since this would have exposed the pilot to Alaskan conditions. Look at the size of the pilot and the cockpit. It looks positively toy-sized compared to his head.
wait the Raptor has a RCS LESS THAN A FREAKING HUMMING BIRD?!
The argument was still going on up until the beginning of WW2. Pilots were used to 'feeling the air', and felt enclosed cockpits restricted their fields of view.
It was only the rise of high-speed monoplane fighters which required enclosed cockpits that settled the argument, and in the process created abominations like the sturdy and obstructive cockpit of the Me-109.
What was your average airspeed? Average speed for a Swordfish was 124mph.
Surprised she's to be recovered considering it's a war grave.Properly interning the remains from a single plane is a lot more feasible then a ship, for one thing.
The CMV-22 looks pretty neat in that paint job.oh, yes it does
I've seen Canadian Hornets with the fake cockpit painted under the fuselage, and recently seen one on a Spanish Hornet as well. Are there any examples of other nations doing this, or on aircraft other than Hornets?I've never seen it myself but a then active-duty Master Chief told me that some USN squadrons do that too.
What's the point of the fake cockpit?
Yup. Given a quick glimpse when passing, it's possible to mistake the orientation and therefore which direction it's likely to turn.Trailing edge of the wings a neutral a sky color as you can. The leading edge of the wings/mid body of the airplane should be painted to stand out a bit.
Working really hard to figure out how to paint one of the tail less, delta-winged sixth-gen fighters so it looks like it's flying backwards.
(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/flinkie/1252479/53617/53617_900.png)
I was playing around with the idea of layered, offset semitransparent stripes in a dazzle camouflage. Kinda hurts to look at.
The jet's a whif of a one-engine F-15 doodle, I got bored once.
looks like a F15.5 or (F15+F16)/2 ?
It looks like a F15, F16 and a F18 all in one plane.
I doubt that the USAF ever would..
Boeing Defense has officially unveiled its offering for the US Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program.
Boeing Defense has officially unveiled its offering for the US Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program.Comanche Mk.II
(https://www.key.aero/sites/default/files/inline-images/Boeing-FARA.jpg)
(https://www.key.aero/sites/default/files/inline-images/Boeing-FARA-2.jpg)
(https://www.key.aero/sites/default/files/inline-images/ESMhaa_UUAM0k7M.png)
(https://www.key.aero/sites/default/files/inline-images/MJEF3T463FDFRBE7EXIRJEXGVY.jpg)
Am I the only one getting flashbacks to the AH-56 Cheyenne prototype with all of those concept designs? Except for the Bell one, which looks like a revamped Comanche?
I was thinking it looked like a flying whale. A beluga, perhaps.
Much like the (not so love) child of a Mitsubishi F-2 and a F-15.
It looks like a F15, F16 and a F18 all in one plane.
So in 2017 commander of an airbase near Severnomorsk ordered that the long stuck doors of an abandoned HAS be forced open. This is what they pulled out.
(https://i.redd.it/q28xjwfaknk41.jpg)
So in 2017 commander of an airbase near Severnomorsk ordered that the long stuck doors of an abandoned HAS be forced open. This is what they pulled out.HAS?
(https://i.redd.it/q28xjwfaknk41.jpg)
YAK-38s. I don't remember seeing pics of them painted grey. All the ones I can remember were blue.Probably got the grey in the late 80s or early 90s. In 1986 they were still blue, here is a picture from 1993 that looks very similar to the one posted earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38#/media/File:Yakovlev_Yak-38M_at_MAKS-1993_airshow.jpg
Is that an additional intake on top, or just an access panel?Intake for a vertical takeoff engine.
Intake for a vertical takeoff engine.technically engines plural, as it had two Rybinsk RD-38 turbojet engines in that location for use as lift jets.
Wasn't it designed to ferry hop from ice flow to ice flow across the Bering Sea in a proposed surprise attack of the Cold War? Invasion of Alaska via WW III...no. it was designed to let them have a carrier jet they could stick on their bigger cruisers (which till then could only use helicopters), as an attempt to give them a defense against NATO strike fighters. unfortunately it was far too limited in ability and they didn't have enough ships that could carry it.
TT
Comanche Mk.IIGlad it was not just me..
no idea why "warhistoryonline" is reporting a 2 year old incident as being new. especially when the pictures match so it isn't a 2nd incident.
When they gonna put a particle wave cannon on those !! :D
TT :D
The only other fwd swpt plane that tried to make it was the Su-47. Not as clean as the X-29, but for a Russian plane its not that bad.
Why on earth would you use a forward swept design for passenger jet? ???
I'm not seeing a STOL advantage for forward swept wings... they seem to only provide for higher maneuverability, something that passenger jets really don't need...
That thing is so low, I first thought it was taxiing! :o
That thing is so low, I first thought it was taxiing! :o
The History Guy seems to be spying on our thread again...Cool video, thanks for sharing! :thumbsup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iExudx915Ek
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the stall characteristics seem to be worse without some serious computing power.
It's now a two horse race.
On March 25th the US Army selected Bell and Sikorsky to move forward with its Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft-Competitive Prototype (FARA-CP) program.
Not surprising, as both companies are also the finalists in the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program.
(https://sites.breakingmedia.com/uploads/sites/3/2020/02/FVL-both-FLRAA-V-280-SB-1-Army-photo.jpg)
Any chance of cross over of components like engines or transmissions to ease logistics? A bit like the AH-1 and UH-1
Both of these are aesthetically unpleasing, especially what appears to be Sikorsky version (top)
The Sikorsky reminds me of the dragon Toothless from How To Train Your Dragon in appearance
Does anyone know of a real-world seaplane that has a float layout similar to the Seabuster?
(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/mul-images/Aerospace%20Fighters/Seabuster%20Strike%20Fighter.png)
I'm planning to kitbash a couple Mechbuster minis, and was hoping to have images from multiple angles to work with for reference.
Does anyone know of a real-world seaplane that has a float layout similar to the Seabuster?
Maybe they're just retractable pontoons? Extend when in the water, retract them once in the air for better aerodynamics? Not exactly common, but not unheard of either.
With enough thrust, even a brick can fly! - Leopard class dropship.
With enough thrust, even a brick can fly!
It's true.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/QF-4_Holloman_AFB.jpg)
Anyone in Houston is in for a treat
http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/fight-to-the-finish-flyover-houston-texas-on-may-8th-2020.html
I thought the B-52 gunners were closer to their guns...
BUFFs started with quad fiftys. Then moved on to twin twentys, then eventually a Vulcan.
They're now gunless.
"But we never saw any aircraft?"
"It's a STEALTH aircraft!"
^-^
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a1/ac/6b/a1ac6bb0af88cb4d44d0466279675292.jpg)
Reminds me of a display at an open house at Shaw Air Force Base back in the late 80’s or so. Had a display set up showing off the new stealth fighter.
Only it was in full stealth mode, so the only thing you could see behind the barrier lines was it’s landing gear.
;D
Ruger
;)
(https://i.imgur.com/t1whbmk.jpg)
sometimes, with fighters, you land the airplane, and sometimes, with fighters, (even in peacetime) the plane lands without you. this is true of pretty much ANY sort of high performance machine. (a motorcyclist that hasn't dumped their bike, hasn't dumped it YET. same thing applies to aircraft.)
Sounds like the pilot managed to miss everyone on the ground at the cost of her own life... That takes work in a residential neighborhood.
Yikes! Why would you fly aerobatic aircraft WITHOUT a 0/0 seat?? ???Because planes are old, predating the 0/0 seats and Canadian military budget has always been tight. It took them more than thirty years to replace the aging Sea Kings, ejection seats in these planes are even further down the list of priorities.
The aircraft are lower performance than those used by the Thunderbirds or Blue Angels. And other acrobatics oriented aircraft, such as those used in the Red Bull air races, don't have any ejection system.Yikes! That must involve one hell of a waiver...
I meant for the pilots to sign...
I meant for the pilots to sign...
You should see the waiver I signed for my flying job. There has to be a better way to make $18/hr...
(https://www.key.aero/sites/keyaero/files/inline-images/Xian%20H-20%20%5BWeibo%20via%20Fox%20News%5D%20%231.jpg)
that figure for the F-16 (it being 15% of the operational aircraft in the world) makes me wonder what percentage the MiG-21 (and derivatives like the Chengdu J-7) held in their heyday, given that the F-16 only had ~4600 built, while the MiG-21/J-7 had nearly 14,000 built
Quite possibly less. Aircraft were cheaper and more specialized, while air forces were larger in the heyday of the MiG-21. Modern air forces are based off one or two core multi-role aircraft now. Until you get to some of the late model J-7s with the new wing, Fishbeds lacked range, payload capacity, and just plain old number of hardpoints to do much more than hurl a couple of IR missiles at an attacker (not all Fishbeds carried cannon either). They had about the light attack capability of an advanced trainer - using the gunsight to aim unguided rockets.
One of the UKs refuelling Voyager craft also acts as a VIP transport. It recently got a new paint job
Can anybody tell me why re-painting that jet cost ~£900,000 or does that go into Rule 4 territory?
According to reports it was also electronics overhaul and general maintenance for the year as well
Can anybody tell me why re-painting that jet cost ~£900,000 or does that go into Rule 4 territory?
Ever watched Independence Day?
Can anybody tell me why re-painting that jet cost ~£900,000 or does that go into Rule 4 territory?I suspect part of it has to do with the nature of large bureaucratic organizations. I work at an Ivy League University. Say I want to buy a $5 pack of O-rings. I make about $30/hr, but because of benefits and overhead costs, I cost the department about $60/hr. So if I spend half an hour calculating the proper size O-ring for this dingus I'm designing, then find out that McMaster doesn't sell that size, so I go back and redesign the dingus to match what they do sell, that's $30. I send the purchase request up the chain and the purchasing agent is required to by policy to check a couple different vendors, place the order, then file out some paperwork. Maybe an hour's worth of work. Lets say makes $25/hr, so with benefits and such, she costs $50/hr. Then someone over at financial affairs costing another $50/hr spends 30 minutes looking over the paperwork. See how this adds up?
One of the UKs refuelling Voyager craft also acts as a VIP transport. It recently got a new paint job
Imperial White
Eh...not pompous or edgy enough.I dunno, imperical evidence suggests otherwise :D
I dunno, imperical evidence suggests otherwise :D
I imagine the paint itself is really expensive. After all, you need stuff that will go on fully opaque with as thin a coat as possible to avoid adding hundreds of pounds to the aircraft's weight (and ask anyone up in the minis forum how hard it is to get certain colors to look right with only one coat), while also going on perfectly smooth to reduce drag, AND also being tough enough to withstand the full range of harsh sunlight, temperature/moisture extremes, and high-speed dust and microdebris that all aircraft are expected to operate it. Games Workshop may be a rip-off, but I suspect even folks used to such extortion would suffer more than a little bit of sticker shock if they ever had to spring for any quantity of aviation paint.I used to volunteer with the crew that restored static display aircraft at China Lake NAWS. We used the same polyurethane paint that the active squadrons used. I don't know how expensive it was. It clogged guns pretty readily and pretty much laughed at solvents, short of MEK. On the other hand, cleaning up the mixing buckets was easy. Wait a week. It didn't form a strong bond with whatever plastic is preferred for 5 gallon buckets. I watched a guy pull an inch thick disk of the stuff out of the bottom of a bucket with no problem. I could barely cut that stuff with a knife!
I shudder to think how many coats of paint might be on some of the B-52 out there...Fordite armor plating perhaps?
I shudder to think how many coats of paint might be on some of the B-52 out there...don't worry it will keep flying, might add structural support
I had no idea this sort of thing was still out here...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/121990112/treasure-trove-of-hidden-historic-planes-including-rare-wwii-mosquito-to-see-the-light?fbclid=IwAR2RMAAFh1je8qp-vQfC3wwyr9GMC02QnY3Y20a27chIMiQElwM9VonPw1Y
The Blue Angels are getting a new "Fat Albert".
(https://www.key.aero/sites/keyaero/files/inline-images/New%20Blue%20Angels%20C-130J%20first%20flight%20Cambridge%2020-7-20%20Blue%20Angels.jpg)
i suspect by the time the USAF retires the F-16, there won't be any LRIP F-35A's around. the F-16 looks to have the staying power of the BUFF right now.That and the M16 platform. I'll wager a steak dinner that the DoD will be using an AR-pattern weapon until we have freakin' laser rifles. An even then, it will use AR-style ergonomics. :-)
That and the M16 platform. I'll wager a steak dinner that the DoD will be using an AR-pattern weapon until we have freakin' laser rifles. An even then, it will use AR-style ergonomics. :-)What do you me AR-style, it will be an AR with Laser power mag and what have you... :-)
That and the M16 platform. I'll wager a steak dinner that the DoD will be using an AR-pattern weapon until we have freakin' laser rifles. An even then, it will use AR-style ergonomics. :-)
Same Idea will have the BUFF flying as Laser platforms...Is anyone else thinking about Dale Brown?
Is anyone else thinking about Dale Brown?
That’s exactly what Palladium did in their Rifts game. :)As did Battlelords. And they even had the ACR still being a thing!
F-16 airframes will eventually wear out though, faster than FREX the BUFF considering the more aggressive maneuvering they do.True, but Vipers are still in production. Everyone's buying them, even sales to unspecified nations in Africa. A batch for Slovakia and Bulgaria just came out in the last year, there's a big order for Taiwan, and there's other nations in both SEA and South America that are negotiating buying in on them too.
Meanwhile, I suspect there are some B-52 and KC-135 parts that are being pulled off un-melted down derelict 707s. After all these decades, the boneyards have got to be picked completely clean of some of the bitz and pieces by nowSo the US air force is entering the mad max era of battletech?
So the US air force is entering the mad max era of battletech?Technically it's been there for a while, but especially the BUFFs. There was one a few years ago that was put together out of, to quote Mad Max, "parts from here, parts from there" literally. Ghost Rider flies again.
Technically it's been there for a while, but especially the BUFFs. There was one a few years ago that was put together out of, to quote Mad Max, "parts from here, parts from there" literally. Ghost Rider flies again.When will the DoD just accept the reality that the BUFF will be in service for the next 200 years and do the engine and wing upgrades? :D
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5384/resurrected-b-52h-ghost-rider-reenters-active-service-at-minot-afb
Originally built in 1961, and tail number 007; surely they gotta have a better name for it than Ghost Rider.
it's rumoured the recertification paperwork required would wrap around the equator 17 times ...But this is the 21st century. Everything is paperless!!
it's rumoured the recertification paperwork required would wrap around the equator 17 times ...
But this is the 21st century. Everything is paperless!!nah it a government agency... there is paper, and only 17times that not bad
:-)
Meanwhile, I suspect there are some B-52 and KC-135 parts that are being pulled off un-melted down derelict 707s. After all these decades, the boneyards have got to be picked completely clean of some of the bitz and pieces by now
nah it a government agency... there is paper, and only 17times that not bada friend who used to work in a civilian office supporting USN submarine maintenance said that when the weight of the paperwork equaled the weight of the part, it was ready to go. :-)
a friend who used to work in a civilian office supporting USN submarine maintenance said that when the weight of the paperwork equaled the weight of the part, it was ready to go. :-)
That and the M16 platform. I'll wager a steak dinner that the DoD will be using an AR-pattern weapon until we have freakin' laser rifles. An even then, it will use AR-style ergonomics. :-)
That’s exactly what Palladium did in their Rifts game. :)
Ruger
You mean like the US Navy's Beachcomber Ion pulse thingy from the New Navy?
Or the 7th CAV from South America?
TT
The first was the M-160 ion pulse rifle. The 7th Cav’s ARP-1 plasma assault rifle took some looks from the AR-15 platform’s appearance (vaguely).the MercOps sourcebook established the first use of advanced tech by the USA was the M-20 assualt rifle, which was basically an M-4 with an underslung laser (basically a bulkier version of what would become laser pistols) golden age weaponsmiths started mass producing them three and a half centuries later as a low budget infantry weapon.
The Sovietski world book (WB36) did much the same with the AK and SVD rifles.
Ruger
the MercOps sourcebook established the first use of advanced tech by the USA was the M-20 assualt rifle, which was basically an M-4 with an underslung laser (basically a bulkier version of what would become laser pistols) golden age weaponsmiths started mass producing them three and a half centuries later as a low budget infantry weapon.
Here we see the mother helicopter sitting with one of its chicks...
(https://i.imgur.com/kEFlPs6.jpg)
I always knew the Mi-26 was big, but that Jet Ranger really helps put it into perspective.
How does that thing's fuselage compare with a airliner in dimensions?
How does that thing's fuselage compare with a airliner in dimensions?
Anyobe able to confirm if this pic is real?Well I would say yes... Foam fills airport hanger after system malfunction
What if anything does it do to the aircraft or other equipment? Does it involve a poor schlub with a water hose and a lot of man-hours, or is it more intensive than that?It degreases equipment nicely. It's a heavy detergent that will bleach out your clothes if you don't rinse it off. But mostly "poor schlub".
A fire contractor, while performing maintenance on the system, inadvertently activated the foam fire suppression system at the Minnesota National Guard's Army Aviation Support Facility in Saint Cloud, Feb. 11. The hangar floor, including 8 aircraft, was covered with 7 feet of foam as a result. The foam is soap based and should not damage the aircraft. When the foam dissipated, all aircraft and equipment in the hangar received a detailed wash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzPVkPm43HADid the system dump more foam than anticipated? I know the foam needs to engulf whatever is burning, but this seems like it could be pretty easy for maintainers to get cutoff and trapped. Or did it produce less? The rotors and engines of those Black Hawks look to be foam-free.
video with details
Found it- Musees du Chateau de Savigny-les-Beaune [47.060346, 4.819158]. That's a nice start to an air museum.
https://www.chateau-savigny.com/
My co-worker hadn’t realized how relatively small those bombers were back then.So very much this, and not just the bombers!
So very much this, and not just the bombers!
The Mosquito was a heavy fighter/light bomber:
Length: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
Wingspan: 54 ft 2 in (16.51 m)
Height: 17 ft 5 in (5.31 m)
Empty weight: 14,300 lb (6,486 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 25,000 lb (11,340 kg)
And then compare this to one of the smallest modern fighters:
Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
Empty weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (30,865 lb)
Yeah, it's not just the warships that's been growing...
generally the answer to the question "can [plane] do [thing from Wingman Novels]?" is "no"I read most of one of those. It was the one with the Vice President being a Soviet mole, WWIII happening, and Wingman flying a B1 over Russia and being rescued by a Soviet soldier declaring "Me good Russian." Oh and he mastered flying a V-22 in a day.
Anyone know what the takeoff and landing distances for an old Canberra are? I can find info on the RB model with the giant wings, but that's not the version I'm looking for.
Not to mention get a flotilla of tugs to pull a nuke carrier, fighting alongside of Bulldog jarheads, flying cover for Crunch O'Malley and his Phantom company and being friends with Louis St. Louis the Chicago man. Or helping out wherever there's trouble.yeah, they're mindless action books, not too dissimilar to the Mack Bolan and related franchises, or the Deathlands post apoc books. just with Pilots and planes instead of Commandos and guns. basically modern Pulp novels. there seem to be a number of such franchises that have been going strong since the 70's, and they often make battletech's Immortal Warrior stuff seem sound a well thought out story.. you can usually find whole bookshelves full of such franchises in used book stores, sold cheap.
Yeah most of that was like a 14 year wannabe pilot dream. Then reality sets in and your term paper is due in an hour and it takes like three days to do an average one...
TT
General limits, I suppose, would be primary things - I've got a fictional airfield setting in mind and I'm trying to make it as small as believably possible. Too small to convert the squadron stationed there from Meteors to Canberras is what I'm trying for. At the moment, from the flight envelope data I found a Meteor can get airborne in 390m at 0 wind on a temperate day, and around 700m on a hot-and-heavy.
The recon Canberras were like the U2; it got into ground effect and you'd have to stall the thing repeatedly to get it to land. I'm hoping the bomber versions were a little less gliderlike.
. . . they often make battletech's Immortal Warrior stuff seem sound a well thought out story..
Everyone OK thankfully
KC-130 crew did a magnificent job
https://news.usni.org/2020/09/29/marine-f-35b-crashes-after-collision-with-kc-130-over-california-all-aircrew-recovered-safely
Wait, why is there a picture of the KC-130 in a farm field if it managed to make an emergency landing at an airport?
The article said near the airport rather than at the airport
The article said near the airport rather than at the airport
There was a B1B refit idea that would of turned the B1 into a missile truck and carry 24 or more of Amramms. But that isn't going to be built
Rotor hub of a CH-53 put into perspective:
(https://i.imgur.com/7iR3t.jpg)
Watched a vid of the Tallboy explosion and it was quite impressive.
I have so many questions.
I bet his commander does, too.If there is a god of irony, that's a "caution: low flying aircraft" sign.
If there is a god of irony, that's a "caution: low flying aircraft" sign.My guess: Sign on road near airport. Fastenings had rusted away. One aircraft passes over and turbulence rips the sign into the air, second aircraft hits it before it drops down.
There was a joke during the Cold war that pilots training in low level flying regularly returned with pieces of pine tops stuck in the aircraft.
Commander: ''You are officially reprimanded for flying below minimum safety level.''
Pilot: ''Oh come on, you can't just give me reprimand just because mechanics found some pine needles on the aircraft..''
Commander: ''Pine? That was a BLOODY FERN!!!''
There was a joke during the Cold war that pilots training in low level flying regularly returned with pieces of pine tops stuck in the aircraft.A former USN helo pilot told me about a Mishap report he saw one day. An A6 was going along at a low, but not "tree top" altitude, when one engine died. So the crew declared an emergency and executed a single engine landing. Investigation found FOD, specifically, FISH. A fish got sucked into the engine. The investigation decided that a bird had grabbed the fish and was flying off, and it dropped the fish.
Commander: ''You are officially reprimanded for flying below minimum safety level.''
Pilot: ''Oh come on, you can't just give me reprimand just because mechanics found some pine needles on the aircraft..''
Commander: ''Pine? That was a BLOODY FERN!!!''
Sounds fishy (pun intended). A fish small enough to be carried by an osprey or bald eagle should have passed through the engine rather easily, right?
Sounds fishy (pun intended). A fish small enough to be carried by an osprey or bald eagle should have passed through the engine rather easily, right?not really, they can carry some pretty big fish. they've been seen picking up and carrying fish as big as themselves.. and these are not small birds.
not really, they can carry some pretty big fish. they've been seen picking up and carrying fish as big as themselves.. and these are not small birds.
not really, they can carry some pretty big fish. they've been seen picking up and carrying fish as big as themselves.. and these are not small birds.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/ad/3a/9ead3a1a417cfa1973bc7f2edd83b6a0.jpg)
I'm going to count that one, so "as recent as the first Gulf War" counts. On that note, I'm still hoping to hear this particular explanation someday.
That's an F-16, not an F-35.
You sure?
Its a F16. Would love to know the story of a A10 "killing" a F22 and a F16. I guess if it flew right in front of the gun and oops....simulated.
Or on the airfield.
I'm going to count that one, so "as recent as the first Gulf War" counts. On that note, I'm still hoping to hear this particular explanation someday.
The one I always wondered about was from a scenario in Jane's ATF . . . you could fly the B-2 . . . I remember sitting way up high to penetrate the air defenses and picking up fighter radars. Been reading Old Dog. Toggled the weapons over, hmm, my HARM is seeing that fighter radar . . . oh what the hell, let it fly. One of those things I wonder about possibly happening IRL.
Didn't the tail gun get removed at some point?yes, they started removing them 1991, mostly because of the end of the cold war.
Bailing out also wasn't an option at low level for the lower deck crew since (being on the lower deck) their ejection seats fired downwards... I think this was also an issue on the Avro Vulcan.
I'd credit part of the B-52's survival to the fact that as an air-to-ground missile, the AGM-88's warhead (although big at 66kg) is a blast/frag warhead. If it had been a continuous rod warhead like on actual anti-air missiles, the B-52 might not have had a tail left after the strike.
I'd credit part of the B-52's survival to the fact that as an air-to-ground missile, the AGM-88's warhead (although big at 66kg) is a blast/frag warhead. If it had been a continuous rod warhead like on actual anti-air missiles, the B-52 might not have had a tail left after the strike.I imagine you're right, though
um, Chanman? wrong.
do you know what the typical SAM is loaded with? let me give you a simple example: The Patriot missile, 40 kilos of explosive, wrapped in cubes of steel for fragmentation. That's how it shoots down airplanes. (Fly up close, explode, shrapnel rips the plane apart.) a long rod penetrator would make a penetrator size hole in one side of the airframe, and a penetrator size hole in the other (entry and exit wound).
Airframes are low density targets and in the Buffs case, low density with lots of redundant backups to deal with failure caused by accidents, incidents, shoddy parts and enemy fire.
It wasn't a SAM, it was an air-to-ground missile.
a long rod penetrator would make a penetrator size hole in one side of the airframe, and a penetrator size hole in the other (entry and exit wound).Continuous-rod warheads are a different thing; it's basically a bundle of rods soft-welded to each other at alternating ends so that when it detonates, the thing expands like an accordion in a circle, and cuts a target in pieces.
Airframes are low density targets and in the Buffs case, low density with lots of redundant backups to deal with failure caused by accidents, incidents, shoddy parts and enemy fire.
um, Chanman? wrong.
do you know what the typical SAM is loaded with? let me give you a simple example: The Patriot missile, 40 kilos of explosive, wrapped in cubes of steel for fragmentation. That's how it shoots down airplanes. (Fly up close, explode, shrapnel rips the plane apart.) a long rod penetrator would make a penetrator size hole in one side of the airframe, and a penetrator size hole in the other (entry and exit wound).
Airframes are low density targets and in the Buffs case, low density with lots of redundant backups to deal with failure caused by accidents, incidents, shoddy parts and enemy fire.
How it works:Do some SAMs still use individual fragments? I saw an episode of Air Disasters on Science, or Discovery, and the covered the civilian aircraft that was accidentally shot down by a SAM over Ukraine. The episode said that they were able to id the missile based on the very distinctive "I" of some of the holes. The accompanying animation showed rows of "I" shaped pellets, interspersed with cube shaped pellets.
(https://www.tpub.com/gunners/12443_files/image1048.jpg)
The US Air Force’s bomber triad will conduct a first-of-its-kind trifecta flyover of the Raymond James Stadium as part of the opening ceremony of Super Bowl LV.
(https://fullfatthings-keyaero.b-cdn.net/sites/keyaero/files/inline-images/3234969.jpg)
I didn't realize the B-1 was still in use.
I love that no-one says that about the B-52!Nope I expect my Grandkids someday to still see them flying in USAF
Nope I expect my Grandkids someday to still see them flying in USAF
The only reason we don't see them in Battletech is because we don't have the rules for a heavy bomber like that yet.https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Torrent
The only reason we don't see them in Battletech is because we don't have the rules for a heavy bomber like that yet.Internal Bomb Bay quirk turns anything into a bomber, just have to devote the cargo space.
In my headcanon three reserve squadrons still operated B-52 by the time of Periphery rebellion, but were all destroyed in Amaris coup.but they put them back together again from spare parts Right (https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/05/16/wise-guy-flies-again-b-52-resurrected-from-boneyard/)? 8)
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/150996597_3642663135820650_714937616241697430_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=3&_nc_sid=2c4854&_nc_ohc=dCSjLYrlf80AX90_gSW&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=27c1e5e8721ee2827008fb14b76fe596&oe=60570A7A)
Saw this . . . just going to leave this here . . .
No idea, just saw the picture . . . by the vegetation it makes me think Carolinas.
Speaking of the 777, anyone see the picture of the engine housing ring sitting in the front yard? about 2 feet from a house?
I saw it. Apparantly it landed on the parked car then rolled into the tree. The BBC has some video clips, including the burning engine as seen from inside the plane, here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56149894 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56149894)
I'm glad the plane got down safely before anything else went wrong.
Unfortunately the story is not as funny as the picture :(Yikes! No kidding... glad he survived!
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/small-plane-collides-man-lawn-mower-taylorsville/112951356/
That's one big bomb... :o
So I have always seen the pictures of these modified planes flying. This picture looks like it was taken when US forces took control of the plane or airbase? Besides the grunt with a US helmet on, the guy examining it looks like US uniform though the guy w/o a shirt does not . . .
(https://wingstracksguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/junkers-ju-87-g-2-stuka-underwing-cannon-37mm.jpg)
Just because the picture caption says it is RAF does not actually mean they are RAF. The shirtless guy probably is, but the British never used the M1 helmet, & the guy inspecting the cannon is almost undoubtably, in my mind, US Army, Possibly USAAF.
Damon.
Navalized ME-109s and Stukas I believe.
Also remember seeing somewhere modified Fw-190s to be the torpedo bombers. Trouble is I can't remember where I saw it so I would advise a mountain of salt with that.
I would wonder if the Graf Zepellin would have kept the Stukas, or if they would eventually be traded in for FW-190Fs at some point...i'd imagine the stuka's would have stuck around, perhaps gotten a new variant or two.
Damon.
I would wonder if the Graf Zepellin would have kept the Stukas, or if they would eventually be traded in for FW-190Fs at some point...
Damon.
The Stuka strikes me as rather a logical conversion - did they get to folding wing variants? But that big thick wing, wide carriage, & slow airspeeds would have helped.
The idea of the Me-109, with it's narrow wheelbase, and trying to get folding mechanism into those thin wings? No. Nope. No way. Wonder how many pilots died trying to land those things.
Wasn’t it originally to be Fieseler Fi-167 biplanes as torpedo bombers for them, and then later changed to a modified Ju-87 Stuka?
That’s what I’ve always read?
Ruger
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/159175221_4014914135240338_8342263218060211352_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=jIamNv_rlpEAX8z9WO9&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=dac0597208c20b603c6824360e93cdf8&oe=606E5100)
Last deployment flight of the F-14s . . .
"This butt clenching tail strike occurred during at a 1990 show in Harrison, Arkansas when the pilot had just completed a loop and misjudged the pull-out. Amazingly, the MIG 17 was able to continue, completing one circuit to land, then taxied in showing nothing more than scratched paint, and the necessity for a new pair of under garments for the pilot."
Congrats! That is indeed a nice looking ride! :thumbsup:
A friend of mine went from commanding an F-18 squadron to the airlines. I THINK he's happier now? ???
My personal assessment is that if he'd stayed Navy, he could have been CNO in about 10 more years... :-\
Thanks! Can't wait, only took me 30 years of flying to finally get into a jet.
Do you already have type cert or is that upcoming? Who are you training with? Flight Safety? Pan Am?
A friend of mine went from commanding an F-18 squadron to the airlines. I THINK he's happier now? ???
My personal assessment is that if he'd stayed Navy, he could have been CNO in about 10 more years... :-\
Why didn't I notice this sooner?
Cut the beach goers out of the picture and you can put in the caption ''Pacific 1944 - colorized''.
honestly i wouldn't be surprised if the X-2 doesn't get bigger when they start work on a non-tech-demonstrator version. i could see them going for something comparable to their F-2 fighter (which is a slightly larger F-16). they seem fairly happy with their F-15's, but they didn't have many F-2's (which they weren't terribly happy about to begin with) and most of the ones they had were damaged in that tsunami in 2011. they've repaired a fair number by now but getting a replacement is probably high on their minds.
Did they ask the Spitfire pilot to mow the grass? Man, he was low.
Heck, I think they might be able to get the plane flying again without too much work...
That's nothingThe Merlin engine that came on afterwards was educational and entertaining as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iOoiEbtf2w&ab_channel=WingsTV
THAT is low. You don't even spot it until the last moment really.
This is pure warnography of the highest order, turn the sound on and up
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ex09JBk
This is pure warnography of the highest order, turn the sound on and upSWEET video Marauder! :thumbsup:
https://imgur.com/gallery/Ex09JBk
Missed my chance to hear this happen live ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS7Hc5QZO_U
(I love the fact that the 'howl' was apparently a complete accident of airflow - which isn't to say that it wasn't appreciated by many!)
Yeah the howl's basically due to the setup of the air intakes and at certain throttle settings the air and the turbines combine to make the distinctive howl.
The F-104 Shooting(crashing)star also howled and there's a good vid of it here.
https://youtu.be/vdDoKosn-88?t=153
The howling starts at 2.35 and again its due to the arrangement of the air intakes and how the air's interacting with the turbine blades at certain throttle settings. It still sounds weirdly organic though and is quite awesome!
The F-104 Shooting(crashing)star also howled and there's a good vid of it here.
A Gannet folding its wingsStill a very ugly aircraft.
https://imgur.com/gallery/cfGyhuA
Still a very ugly aircraft.
I only know one word in Finnish and it's one I think that the people responsible for maintaining the aircraft will be using a lot if the Finnish government goes with the F-35. ;DHah, yeah ;D. Same would go for whoever has to explain the cost of that maintenance to the politicians. Even the old F-18Cs ended up costing twice as much over their service life as was originally estimated and that's a pretty straight forward plane in comparison.
The support costs are always the money maker. That's why I personally would reject the "free" AWACS...Yeah. I'm not sure if the 64 Gripens actually fit the budget with money to spare of if the two Globaleyes were included as force multipliers for the wargames that should have a big impact on the winner of the contest. At least the Saab stuff should be cheapest of the lot to maintain from what I have understood and Globaleye is built on a commercial Bombardier Global Express frame so that part at least should be relatively easy to maintain. Nice thing about Saab is that if something just doesn't work you can always fuel up and fly the plane over the Baltic Sea and make the Swedes fix it ;D.
Nice thing about Saab is that if something just doesn't work you can always fuel up and fly the plane over the Baltic Sea and make the Swedes fix it ;D.
I mean, it's Saab-BAE these days.How is Canada of all places having so much trouble getting offers? Unluckily for Canada even the F-16 could be off the table if there's any chance of F-35 being accepted since Lockheed would rather sell their expensive mistake in hopes of making that disaster recuperate at least some of the expenses over the next century through economy of scale.
I'm still waiting to see what Canada's going to do for a Classic Hornet replacement. Eurofighter and Dassault have ruled themselves out - I think both had an issue with the tech-sharing with the US required by NORAD and Dassault also had an impasse over industrial offsets.
The original 'interim' Super Hornet plan has been scuppered due to deteriorating relations with Boeing, which also rules out Eagle IIs.
The F-35 is probably inherently off-the-board unless there have been some massive changes - the idea of a flyoff / competition bid was planned after the original sole-source F-35 contract was cancelled.
By my count, that leaves the new F-16 variants (ironically, they have a higher fly-away cost than the F-35 now, but hopefully cheaper maintenance) vs. the Gripen-E. Although if replacement is delayed enough, maybe the KAI KF-21 would be possible - assuming both a smooth development cycle and no hangups with the NORAD tech-sharing requirements.
How is Canada of all places having so much trouble getting offers? Unluckily for Canada even the F-16 could be off the table if there's any chance of F-35 being accepted since Lockheed would rather sell their expensive mistake in hopes of making that disaster recuperate at least some of the expenses over the next century through economy of scale.
The HX program originally send offer requests for F-15 and F-16 as well but received no offers. The other five on the other hand have been pushed and lobbied with amusing enthusiasm despite the Finnish demands that some of the building and assembly be done in Finland. I was googling the HX today and the first search result was paid F-35 advertisement by Martin Lockheed (not sure what they hope to achieve by advertising those to the general population ;D). The various aviation shows where the potential fighters have been on display over the last few years have been nice as well.
In general Finland has never had much trouble getting aircraft. Back in the late 80's when the current fighters were being selected we were offered earlier Saab Gripen from the neutral Sweden, F-16 and F/A-18 from the US, Dassault Mirage 2000 from France and Mig-29 from the then Soviet Union (none of them were old or downgrade models either as far as I know).
How is Canada of all places having so much trouble getting offers?
The whole fighter replacement program here is a big, deep pile of Rule 4, both internally and internationally. Ever step into a mud pit so bad you just want to throw the boots out after? It's that bad.
So in other news (marching firmly away from this topic)... I've seen increasing mention of "buddy drones" for fighters. Anyone have good news and/or resources on these programs?
The whole fighter replacement program here is a big, deep pile of Rule 4, both internally and internationally. Ever step into a mud pit so bad you just want to throw the boots out after? It's that bad.
So in other news (marching firmly away from this topic)... I've seen increasing mention of "buddy drones" for fighters. Anyone have good news and/or resources on these programs?
Let's see. Japan has its vocaloids, we have AIs being worked on and now we want drone air power. Didn't we see how well this turned out in Macross Plus already?
Let's see. Japan has its vocaloids, we have AIs being worked on and now we want drone air power. Didn't we see how well this turned out in Macross Plus already?
Wait a second... does that lead plane have "Hell Er Bust X" on its side? Do I even want to know what happened to I-IX? ???
HOSHIT, that landing roll across the dirt road... :yikes:
Full video (approx 9 minutes) is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL3aFdFBwu0Thanks! So it was an actual airfield that they were landing on (imgur description seems to be as accurate as can be expected ;D). Quick glance at the report seems to confirm that higher than usual landing speed was due to handling problems and that's probably also why they went over the two roads into what I guess was still part of the "extended" runway.
Incident report from the AAIB (UK version of the FAA) is here: https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-mooney-m20k-g-osus
The plane is a Mooney M20: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_M20
edit. I guess I also accidentally roasted the British calling their actual airfield "fine by 1915 standards". I don't understand how that island is still floating...
Talk about complete research! :o :thumbsup:
That's OK, mate - I live here, and I don't understand either sometimes. :-) And I believe a lot of the more rural airfields are more field than air ...Hah, well, at least it's a field ;)! I remember seeing an episode of some gold digger reality tv shows (the stuff that Discovery and History churn out) where some Alaskan/Canadian delivery pilot landed and took off from a curving dirt road surrounded by trees on both sides.
You give me too much credit, link to the full vid was in the Imgur comments.Just because it was easy doesn't mean you weren't the first to bring it here... ;)
Hah, well, at least it's a field ;)! I remember seeing an episode of some gold digger reality tv shows (the stuff that Discovery and History churn out) where some Alaskan/Canadian delivery pilot landed and took off from a curving dirt road surrounded by trees on both sides.
You think that's crazy, you should see some of the videos of what the bush pilots were doing in the 20s and 30s.Yeah, the aviation safety standards from training and aircraft to airfields (or the lack thereof) really were something else back then and even more so in WW1.
Yeah, the aviation safety standards from training and aircraft to airfields (or the lack thereof) really were something else back then and even more so in WW1.
I don't remember which ace it was that shot down an enemy plane and, lacking witnesses but really wanting the kill confirmed, landed in the no man's land to rip off a machine gun from the downed plane then took off and returned home with the gun as evidence. Pretty much any field was about as good as the designated airfields so those guys were landing just about anywhere if need be.
Speaking of early aviation, here's a cool air combat scene from the movie Wings released in 1927 and shot long before special effects really became the easy option: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrVY8ukOl88
[edit: Replaced original comment that had been ninja'd]I don't even know which is more hazardous there, the two power-lines the planes have to cross on landing and take off, or the fact that people driving on that road are probably not paying much attention to the traffic when a plane flies over the road at 30 meter altitude and disappears behind a hedge ;D.
One step below airport, we still have uncontrolled air fields and air parks in Canada that are just fields. This one was near me (land owner had some redevelopment plans and has since declined to renew the lease) and I had no idea it existed until an ultralight had to make an emergency landing on the highway one time a few years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF93ncp1IbA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF93ncp1IbA)
Looks like I need to " spice " things up a bit, eh?
(https://yeahmotor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/aircraft-paint-43.jpg)
TT
As a tanker, isn't that one of your normal predators in the food chain of dakka?
I think the implication is that Santa no longer brings coal for the bad kids . . . but BURRRRRRTTTT.I hope you have to be TT level of >:D to get Santa Nick to bring that out
I think the implication is that Santa no longer brings coal for the bad kids . . . but BURRRRRRTTTT.
I hope you have to be TT level of >:D to get Santa Nick to bring that out
THAT guy landed... what about the OTHER guy?? :oAirplane parachute.
Was there really enough airplane LEFT to deploy a parachute? ???Picture in the article. Not a great one, but you can see the cockpit.
Holy cow! Key Lime 970 had NO IDEA of the damage to his aircraft... :o
I'm not too surprised an F-15 survived losing a wing... I'm more surprised the Skyhawk pilot managed to bail out! :o
The CAPS makes sense... it's the A-4 pilot being able to bail after a collision like that... 8)
Er, the Metro pilot? He landed his plane.You are talking about two different incidents :).
Beat me to it... I was talking about the F-15/A-4 collision...
The CAPS makes sense... it's the A-4 pilot being able to bail after a collision like that... 8)
I wonder if they did create commercial " Pods " with attached Parachutes and floating rings.
Each " Pod " would be fitted so that incase of any extreme depressurization, it would seal and deploy.
Anyone remember Escape from New York movie?
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dORT6ZXKVoI/UJKNj3FUBsI/AAAAAAAAS5Q/61kBiosjWg4/s1600/Life%2BArmor.jpg)
Just a 10 - 15 person section built as a pod. ( One can even use them as pre-pressurized Cargo pods. )
TT
Anyone remember Escape from New York movie?
I wonder if they did create commercial " Pods " with attached Parachutes and floating rings.
Each " Pod " would be fitted so that incase of any extreme depressurization, it would seal and deploy.
Anyone remember Escape from New York movie?
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dORT6ZXKVoI/UJKNj3FUBsI/AAAAAAAAS5Q/61kBiosjWg4/s1600/Life%2BArmor.jpg)
Just a 10 - 15 person section built as a pod. ( One can even use them as pre-pressurized Cargo pods. )
TT
Sadly, I don't think we'll see nose art again any time soon... :-\
there are many question to as here Crew Ejects From Qatari F-15QA Fighter While On The Ground At Airport Near St. Louis (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40667/crew-ejects-from-qatari-f-15qa-fighter-while-on-the-ground-at-airport-near-st-louis?fbclid=IwAR1hbR5BOxdxSGt6kaLSZ_7UIrotn3Pzqp--t0FcPTntb-Hw_tOFv-FWjYE)I guess I'm not the only one who always has trouble finding the right lever for adjusting the seat in a new vehicle.
So aside from rocket exhaust smoke really, what kind of damage can be expected from that incident?Depending on that military's particular regulations, they could lose the crew. Ejections tend to cause spinal damage. The US and Canadian Air Forces ground pilots for a period of time, if not permanently, afterwards.
Mostly unrelated question: Would anyone know of a way for me to learn about any WWII Allied bomber squadrons that flew Lancasters or Halifaxes in the Mediterranean theater, without combing through the Wikipedia pages of every single RAF/RCAF/RAAF/other bomber squadron that ever existed?
Do you want Skynets? Because that's how you get Skynets.
Do you want Skynets? Because that's how you get Skynets.
Ever worse, Macross Plus.
Ya might enjoy this, the startup and taxiing of a Gannet ASW plane and its contra-rotating turboprop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdBrfiYYQ8U
Worse, this is how you get Stealth.
The biggest threat to pilots? Pilots complaining parts of their job are "boring"... refueling is only the first thing to go full "robot".
The USAF released a new rendering of the B-21 Raider. The first flight of the Raider prototype is currently anticipated to take place in May 2022.
(https://fullfatthings-keyaero.b-cdn.net/sites/keyaero/files/inline-images/New%20B-21%20artwork%20over%20Edwards%20-%20crop%20released%206-7-21%20USAF.JPG)
There is 30 years of technology development since B2, rebuilding it would be as complex as designing a new plane but perhaps not as efficient, so by designing a brand new plane, while using lessons learned from B2 enables you to make maximum use of the technological advancements.
Also USA has by far the largest military budget in the world, so it can do it.
Kind of weird that we've now hit a point where the lifespan of a combat aircraft is potentially longer than that of its pilot.
meanwhile the B52 is slated to remain in operation til 2050, and possibly longer if the re-engineing plans go through.(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a8/71/c3/a871c3f0b33784b09ee7ee25a5bb9bdb.png)
another leaked picture
Exactly my thought. Any word on intended role - low-end of a high-low fighter mix, strike fighter, other?
And how many Soviet carriers are operable?
I do forget how old the Mig-29 is ... 1977. Pretty bird, with short legs. And the Mig-35 (rebranded latest Mig-29) isn't exactly setting the world on fire.
Just the one carrier, and i'm not sure you can really call it operational.
It is Tuesday, I forget . . . does that mean it is floating or sunk today?
And how many Soviet carriers are operable?
I do forget how old the Mig-29 is ... 1977. Pretty bird, with short legs. And the Mig-35 (rebranded latest Mig-29) isn't exactly setting the world on fire.
the chinese are working on their own stealth carrier planes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_FC-31) though, so i doubt they'd be too interested in buying russian.. unless it was for the purposes of stealing the design. which i doubt that russia will fall for this time.
With the Mig-29 almost 45 years old, and the derivative Mig-35 not catching attention, it may be a Sukhoi play to become "the" Russian aircraft industry. They hold the high end interceptor, they hold the strike fighter, they hold the interdictor. What's MiG done lately that's worked?
They were already both been merged (among others) into United Aircraft Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_Corporation)) some 15 years ago in a very BAE move.
It's built for export and marketed as a low cost alternative to the F-35. Then again so was the Shenyang FC-31. Nine years later and they have yet to sell a single one of those. And I'd bet real money that everything except the engines on the Gyrfalcon is better than the Checkmate (for all they do well, China can't seem to make a jet engine worth two shits).given the F-22 took the better part of two decades to reach initial operational status after its prototype flights, and it took 20 years for the F-35. (and they're still working on getting that for some of the variants)
I would love to see them do that around here, but I currently live smack dab between Philadelphia & NYC in Pennsylvania. They'd likely get gunned down from road rage here...
Damon.
I would love to see them do that around here, but I currently live smack dab between Philadelphia & NYC in Pennsylvania. They'd likely get gunned down from road rage here...A10 could survive most things a road rage shooting could involve and provide it own return fire >:D
Damon.
(https://add.pics/images/2021/07/25/Snorts-Banana-Pass.jpg)
The pilot who pulled this stunt, Dale Snodgrass, died in a small airplane crash, two days ago. (https://theaviationist.com/2021/07/25/dale-snort-snodgrass/)
The RAH-66 Comanche was cancelled I don't see that Bell Chopper getting built.
Michigan Air National Guard was training today to land and take of from a civilian highway (State Route 32 to be precise).
Excellent training!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI3cy84b81w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ1NtzwnGwo
https://twitter.com/mspnorthernmi/status/1423274076706062338?s=20
The aircraft was originally planned without ejection seats. ZELL required them since the operational concept for the system was effectively performing one-way missions after airfields had been destroyed. Think WW2 Ba349 Natter, just instead of firing a non-reloadable 30-round rocket salvo at a bomber the mission here was to drop a single nuke. Since there was no airfield to return to the pilot after dropping the nuke would simply eject. The concept was primarily abandoned due to NATO adopting Flexible Response, under which it was no longer assumed that all airfields would be nuked.correction, the F-104 was designed from the start to use an ejection seat. it just fired *downwards* because the aircraft was never envisioned by lockheed to be used in low altitude at high speed. (when it was created there were no ejection seats that were rated for low altitude anyway, and the downward firing would make it safer since there would be no chance of being blown into the airplane's tail at high speed) some USAF starfighters would get refits to newer upward firing seats in later production (lockheed developed an in house seat just for it) but those were still only rated for high altitude use.
and the downward firing would make it safer since there would be no chance of being blown into the airplane's tail at high speed)
correction, the F-104 was designed from the start to use an ejection seat. it just fired *downwards* because the aircraft was never envisioned by lockheed to be used in low altitude at high speed.The German F-104G initially all had the C-2 upward-firing ejection seat - instead of the downward-firing B/C/C-1 models of the F-104A/B/C/D (which themselves were replaced with the C-2 in US service starting in 1959, a year before Germany put their F-104G in service). It is regularly misstated in German literature too btw.
Its weird that they tried that with a F104, that plane wasnt the best for low speed anything.lockheed did get in trouble for bribery after those sales, if that helps explain anything.
Hi Top, is that something new or something they've always done?new to operations in the US, but yeah a # of places are starting to do cold war fighting drills again
Only reason I ask is that the RAF has recently announced they are going to start doing that again having stopped it at the end of the cold war.
lockheed did get in trouble for bribery after those sales, if that helps explain anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
they also bribed people in japan and the netherlands as well in the course of those countries adopting the F-104. spending about 22 million total in bribes (about 111.1 million in modern dollars)
new to operations in the US, but yeah a # of places are starting to do cold war fighting drills again
That sounds like an incredibly uncomfortable negative-G way to leave an aircraft with even more things that could break or go wrong than in regular ejection.Everything after pulling the lever would have been automatic, nothing where g-forces (or manual intervention) could really interfere - on the C version the seat would pull your legs into the right position, then the hatch under you opened and the seat lifted slightly forward while the cabin depressurized; once the hatch was pulled away by windstream the catapult would fire and dump the seat downwards. Two seconds after ejection the seat would automatically separate from the pilot, and with different weights sorting out separation both pilot and seat would have their parachutes automatically launched based on altitude.
Two units have joined Carrier Air Wing 2 aboard the USS Carl Vinson as the carrier departed San Diego on August 2nd. VFA 147 "Argonauts" flying the F-35C and VMR-30 "Titans" flying the CMV-22B carrier-onboard-delivery aircraft.This marks the first operational deployment of both types.
(https://fullfatthings-keyaero.b-cdn.net/sites/keyaero/files/inline-images/6698994.jpg)
(https://fullfatthings-keyaero.b-cdn.net/sites/keyaero/files/inline-images/7474399_0.jpg)
Didn't realize they're using the V-22 platform for COD. Probably a good choice, don't need a catapult to get it back in the air and easier landings.its actually too small for some of the more major cargo trips (it cannot for example carry a replacement Jet engine, like the C-2 could) but for most of the common duties it ought to suffice.
Didn't realize they're using the V-22 platform for COD. Probably a good choice, don't need a catapult to get it back in the air and easier landings.But what about cargo/passengers and flight range?
Didn't realize they're using the V-22 platform for COD. Probably a good choice, don't need a catapult to get it back in the air and easier landings.Easier landings for the aircraft at any rate. Those engines will do a number on the flight deck.
Easier landings for the aircraft at any rate. Those engines will do a number on the flight deck.That's not a bug, it's a feature. It self-deploys to the hangar below ;D
But what about cargo/passengers and flight range?Going by the publically available specs: the V-22 can carry twice the mass in cargo over the existing C-2A's, and similar # of passengers. Not sure what the proposed C-2 upgrade could do (the new engines would have increased the cargo mass) the C-2 has the physically larger cargo area however.
Once aerial refueling is on the table "max range" is a bit less important, so I can see the vertical landing aspect tipping the scales.that's what i thought. and the smaller cargo area is offset buy the fact that a V-22 can sling a cargo crate or pallet externally if it isn't having to fly for an extended time. which in theory makes it more versatile.
Once aerial refueling is on the table "max range" is a bit less important, so I can see the vertical landing aspect tipping the scales.
Horrible start? Are you familiar with how the F-14 program started? ???
The first minute of so of this video a humorous refresher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCmEFrWDAUY
So, yeah I can see them refueling from each other if they made a tanker version of themselves, slinging cargo equipment, having a V-22 Gunship, maybe an AWACS version?I know that they are/were currently working an refueling pod that fit in the cargo bay.
Who knows what the future may have in store...
TT
A few samples taken this week at the French air&space museum, near Paris. It has been refurbished a few years ago and does a good job enlighting its unique collection.
It took me a minute to realize you weren't talking about Iron Wind Metals.Same...
It took me a minute to realize you weren't talking about Iron Wind Metals.
Those are great!Thanks, I envy you being able to see and hear those birds up. One of my cherised memory is being surprised by the flyby of four Spitfires while walking in a park in England; I did not know there was flights scheduled... But then, this sound, those engines <3
I spent yesterday at IWM Duxford, and have several hundred photos to sort through once I'm properly back home. They'd got a pair of Spitfires, a pair of Tigermoths, a Dragon Rapide, and a pair of Harvards flying most of the day, and also a Cataline & Hurricane both took a short flight.
The RAF Battle of Britain Flight Lancaster was there, and was meant to be flying back to Conningsby, but they had some issues signing off some maintenace. and ran out time to complete the flight in daylight, so it got cancelled.
If there's anyone near Duxford, the pilot said they were hoping to fly on Sunday instead.
To be honest, with how close it seems the photographer was when that was taken I am wondering what shape THEIR Liberator was in afterwards. I mean the photo appears to have been taken what would be right before the plane blew apart.Intact enough to make it back and have the film developed?
Yeah, because it looks like the flames are down in the bomb bay too.Judging by the size of the blaze, everybody would be killed by fire or managed to bail out, before the bombs cooked off.
Bad day to be the rear or side gunner in any case.
Wasn't the tail gunner position the most dangerous one on those big bombers?
Or the simple fact the ball/belly gunner was so scrunched up that taking any sort of damage through the plexiglass- not to mention pretty much resting/stretching against it which could frag- meant the round or shrapnel likely traveled through much of the body. Unlike the side gunners who were standing up, they could theoretically have something pass through their leg or arm and leave the torso intact.
I thought the B24 did have the ball turret, but it had to be retractable for takeoff/landing.As far as I know some B-24 originally had no belly turret, then got one, swapped it for a tunnel gun, got rid of it and then got a turret again later. At least the latter belly turret was retractable. Belly turrets also weren't great place to be in in case of belly landing, not that unexpected belly landing was particularly common occurrence at least in European theater.
Or was it only installed on the final models, like the chin turret on the B17G ?
When Air Force Supply runs out of smokeless powder...
Or the greenhorn grease monkey gets the instructions mixed up and lubes up the inside of the barrels...
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/iVOHv.jpg)
Yeah, smokeless powder is only smokeless when compared to black powder.
I would find it absolutely hilarious to see an A-10 rip off a burst of rounds loaded with BP! It will never happen, but it would make an awesome wall of smoke.
Its interesting to me how much work goes into powders these days to reduce smoke, flash, and copper fouling. The modern military doesn't just want a round that goes boom every time, they want one that minimizes maintenance and doesn't give away your position. The reduced signature is probably less of an issue for something like an A-10, but cutting down on maintenance to all those barrels is probably worth something. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that current rounds used in that cannon do actually produce less smoke than they used to, even if they still aren't truly 'smokeless'.
given modern smokeless powders generate about an order of magnitude greater energy than the best black powder, i'm not sure that you'd even get the 30mm rounds to leave the barrel if fired with BP propellant.
I'd like to see that too. Along with gun pods on the wing stations. Might cause gas-ingestion issues for the engines though with their current placement...Gas ingestion issues were absolutely a problem in the prototypes. If I can find the video where that was explained, I'll post it here.
Gas ingestion issues were absolutely a problem in the prototypes. If I can find the video where that was explained, I'll post it here.
While it's a BT related item, my concern is why haven't we seen any development of non-ferrous rounds as a more conservative ammo?For aircraft-mounted guns, or in general?
Factory diamond penetrators? Something like this might work?MIT was researching (https://news.mit.edu/2014/alloying-tougher-tungsten-zack-cordero-1202) tungsten-chromium alloy powders for sintering of ultra-hard metals our of compacted nanostructures a few years back, if that has enough "future buzzwords".
Well watching a rando youtube thing I do, say this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor)
Weird thing... is she still there?
TT
I just use a die-cast B1. :)
I just use a die-cast B1. :)
Fun fact: I once got nuked at NTC by a BONE from my sister's squadron.Isn't that rivalry among siblings taken too far? ;D
I thought the B-1 was a Rubvogel?
Isn't that rivalry among siblings taken too far? ;D
It depends how old she was at the time... pretty much any age under 30, ANYTHING goes... :D
Just saw this today and, y'now, at the rate we're going...
(https://i.imgur.com/LPFOu0h.jpg)
Air Force Special Operations Command and private sector counterparts are currently developing a Removable Amphibious Float Modification (RAFM) for the MC-130J, allowing aircraft to take off and land in bodies of water and conduct runway independent operations.
(https://www.defensenews.com/resizer/xQw6Z5hrxyZW2kHY7OFL_t7-6wA=/1024x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/PFFZFHXSMVBU7NA2AOMGHVF7LA.PNG)
The drag from that should kill your range/payload.
Lol, just how bad does it kill the range with that drag?
(http://www.starshipmodeler.com/events/ipms2k5/ss_imvc-895s.jpg)
Next Gen B-52 upgrade
(http://www.starshipmodeler.com/events/ipms2k5/ss_imvc-895s.jpg)
Next Gen B-52 upgrade
Well-played, sirs.
Fire Cobras are a thing?
What are they even used for?
The Vietnam-era army attack helicopters have been striped of their weapons and lasers. Cameras and infrared sensors have been added to convert them to Cobra Firewatch Helicopters.
In 1996, the U.S. Army retired 25 of its Cobra helicopters, which are able to reach speeds of 160 mph. The U.S. Forest Service eagerly accepted the hand-me-downs and refitted them with an arsenal of high-tech gadgets. The new Cobras don’t extinguish fires by themselves. Their main purpose is to relay information to ground crews about the direction and strength of a blaze and to help larger planes make more accurate water or fire-****** drops.
The Firewatch’s infrared thermal imager can detect the heat of a wildfire even through thick smoke. Its low-light and color cameras can pick up fine resolution images of the fire, and then its transmission equipment can send those images—in real time—to firefighting crews up to 30 miles away. Also, the Cobra can direct larger water haulers by providing precise GPS coordinates.
What are they even used for?
Forward air control and spotter, I believe. https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/4951/aviation-guide2019-print.pdf (https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/4951/aviation-guide2019-print.pdf)
Interesting - I hadn't realized P-2 Neptunes were still in use, especially with the funky piston/jet power packs.
I think it might be time for CalFire to purchase their own flight of SuperScoopers though. I think everyone's going to need more capacity soon in that regard.
It looks like Cal Fire ranks pretty highly in size of air force globally...
It looks like Cal Fire ranks pretty highly in size of air force globally...
Curious...Purchase price and cost to run probably. Assuming the military is allowing civvie sales at this point.
No Osprey? I mean their new and all... But the ability to hover in place while they reload their tanks...
TT
Purchase price and cost to run probably. Assuming the military is allowing civvie sales at this point.
Right, so when the military starts surplus sales of them, I'm sure California will pick them up. I mean, they found a use for Cobras, after all...
Hmmm... tilting the whole wing would introduce massive drag... that might be why it didn't survive R&D...
I agree on the mechanic pool, but all rotary wing pilots have to learn fixed wing flying first, so I don't think the pilot pool will be as limited.
Well, that's how it works in the part of the military I'm familiar with.
I agree on the mechanic pool, but all rotary wing pilots have to learn fixed wing flying first, so I don't think the pilot pool will be as limited.
With the length of California, I think there would be a role for V-22s, even if the majority of the fleet would be 53s...
Unliscensed? Just state the truth- stolen design from buying a airframe for 'testing' purposes, then back engineering it. Russians decided to not to sell something- forget which- to the ChiComs for carrier operations over the last few years because of this tendency.
Though I grant, Chinese birds are probably the best amalgamation of NATO & old Warsaw Pact tech with the thefts from both.
The author did a great job maximizing the comedic effect. ;DAgreed! ;D
Apologies if someone got to this first, but I hadn't seen it until I ran across it on TMP:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a32131240/french-dassault-fighter-jet-joyride/ (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a32131240/french-dassault-fighter-jet-joyride/)
Its funny because no one died. Damn funny.
J-16D at the Zhuhai airshow. You don't get a sense of how big the Flanker is until you see it dwarfing people in the foreground
(https://i.imgur.com/mafteD1.jpg)
For those keeping track of which particular Flanker this is, the J-16D is an EW variant of the J-16, which is an indigenized take on the Su-30* - new avionics (obviously, as an EW bird), domestic engines, and supposedly much heavier use of composites in the airframe. Not a lot published information about it.
Interestingly, the J-16 looks like it was developed from the J-11B unlicensed single-seat Flankers that progressively introduced more indigenous equipment over the course of the production run instead of straight-up copying the Su-30 MKK/MK2s that the PLAAF and PLAN already operated.
Kind of like how the J-7E and the Mig-21bis have a common ancestor in the old Mig-21F-13 but evolved separately into noticeably different machines.
Just also remember that its a carrier plane, so much larger than a Super Hornet or a Rafael Fighters.
It's more the other was never that big, really... ^-^
Soviet Union was a big country and Su-27 was supposed to cover a good chunk of it on internal fuel.Yep.
Yep.
Which was also why they used it to make the carrier plane, even though the smaller MiG-29K would have been easier to operate from a skijump flattop. With little in-flight refueling projection ability to speak of, they wanted a fighter that had good range while still carrying a decent warload to maximize their options.
I don't think the carrier Flankers have ever been able to take advantage of their fuel capacity because of the lack of a catapult. Being limited to using the ski jump means the aircraft can't actually take off if their thrust to weight ratio gets below what is needed to accelerate it up to take speed in the space available, so those Su-33s and J-15s are hauling around a lot of extra airframe.you are certainly correct that they never get to use a full load due to skijump issues ( though as I understand it in theaters where refueling aircraft are in use they can do the "load ordnance and a minimum of fuel just to get to the tankers, where they top up" approach)
It would have been pretty awkward if the hook had caught a wire after all, it comes really close.
How is that even possible?read a list of their subcontractors and suppliers? I mean, that's flippant and all, but if the other competitors have backorders and their suppliers are swamped, and Rolls has suppliers that aren't swamped, and maybe passed some work to one or the other major competitors who needed work? there's not gonna be much bitching about losing the contract.
That observation ladder looks absolutley insane! :o
(https://images.outbrainimg.com/transform/v3/eyJpdSI6IjM1MTk1NjlhYTVkZWRlNTNmMzI0ZDhmZTU4YmM5OWZmNWI4OWRjMjI0MDdlOWQ3NGZkZTI4NTEzMTg3NzA3OTIiLCJ3Ijo5NTAsImgiOjU3MCwiZCI6MS41LCJjcyI6MCwiZiI6MH0.jpg)
Found this online....
Yikes!
TT
My totally non cognisant moresion is that it looks underarmed? And probably does not have much in the way of fighter mobility or size for a bomber carrying capacity.
You have to be careful flying low, though. Screw it up, and you'll get yourself and any passengers you have aboard killed, as well as the potential to kill people on the ground.
Monday night I was witness to an aircraft crash. I'm not going to post any of the pictures of this here directly, but here's a link with pictures of the debris field and information on the crash itself, and discussion amongst some pilots (including local ones) about what probably happened:
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/12/learjet-35a-n880z-fatal-accident.html
You witnessed that crash? I saw it on the news. Looked real bad just from the pictures they showed.
Mini C-17 (https://taskandpurpose.com/mandatory-fun/mini-c-17-air-force-315th-wing/?fbclid=IwAR3mptXS0KaUI7Ae-Z12Ry_eEvjCn-Ai0V7eq3assLaDkYlj4lIwS7DsRyQ)
"They made clipped-wing Spitfires, so why not my Cessna?" said someone at some point...
There's clipped-wing, and then there's clipped-wing:
(https://aviationhumor.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Craigslist-gold-2.jpg)
I don't think that propeller is in compliance with modern pedestrian crash standards.
I did, and it was. I didn't see the aircraft itself, but I saw the impact effects.
This is basically begging for an entry in the Red Bull Flugtag.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/3493/3835127264_4ff3823731.jpg)
I don't think an F-4 could ever be mistaken for anything else regardless of paint scheme... ^-^
That F-14 looks a lot like the Iranian ones
(https://www.defencetalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iran-F-14-IRIAF.jpg)
Saw a trio of AH-64s land at the local airport. Makes we wonder where they're going to/from.
It never pleasant to hear a person's last words, doubly so when they realized they made a critical and ultimately unforgivable and uncorrectable error. I'd recommend you do not try to listen to the audio of Western Airlines 2605 crash in Mexico City...because what is once heard cannot be unheard. On the other hand, the audio of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 is sobering, but it fills you with awe of the composure of the flight crew and the attempts they made to save themselves and their passengers when placed up against a problem that was none of their doing, and from which there was no recovery.
When that time comes for me, I hope to do as well.
From what my father told me, they had a recording of the Thresher as she went down. Story is that someone stayed on the underwater telephone describing everything until hitting crush depth. Supposedly you could hear crew freaking out in the background because those in the conn knew they were heading down. Not that I could blame those freaking out, but the guy on the phone would have been one cool customer.
I had to look up b/c I can never remember if it was the Thresher or Scorpion that had it happen . . . but got to reading, and apparently the pressures to avoid saying the Scorpion was lost to enemy action has decreased to the point they are no longer saying it could never have been a Soviet taking the boat down. In fact, other FOIA like requests across NATO showed reports where Soviet subs had increasingly been aggressive maneuvering against NATO subs and even a few incidents where torps were put in the water. Interesting part for one of those incidents is it was written off as the NATO sub was not known to be in the area- command decided they had stumbled on a Soviet live torpedo exercise in their waters.Sosus allowed us to find K129. A book, Project Azorian: The CIA and the Raising of the K-129, details the sinking with Sosus data. Sosus data makes it seem like a failed missile test that lighted a missile off while the missile door was closed.
But you can also note 4 subs were all lost that year ('68) all mysterious . . . 1 US, 1 Soviet, 1 French, and 1 Israeli. Unlike some other sub losses, the location of where these subs were lost in some cases took decades (Minerva, 2019?) to find. Took a bit to find the Scorpion, the Soviets despite a large effort after 2 months of silence was unable to find K-129 which had just undergone modernization (but the USN was able to find it by 5 months later . . . ?). The Israeli sub was found in '99, cause of destruction claimed to be unknown.
I'm just trying to figure out what's "super" about it... ^-^
Those grilles over the intakes look like either thermal masking, or stealthing? Either way, you still have that honking great exhaust IR flare on each side, and a giant rotating radar reflector on top.There's also an uncovered intake directly above them. I assume they're going for "reduced" rather than "eliminated" when it comes to detection. On the other hand, they could be armored vents to protect from ground fire. The upper intake wouldn't be as exposed.
Those grilles over the intakes look like either thermal masking, or stealthing? Either way, you still have that honking great exhaust IR flare on each side, and a giant rotating radar reflector on top.
I'm just trying to figure out what's "super" about it... ^-^The fact that it can fly... with all that armor and weapons..
The fact that it can fly... with all that armor and weapons..
3026 missed an opportunity to show us a VTOL APC listed next to the others... ^-^ran a quick version through MML.. if nothing else changes but motive type, the 10 ton APC would have an 11/17 movement.
Possibly because it came too late (by days) for WWII, too early for Vietnam (out by 1956) and too few (around 300 all variants) for Korea, where it was also overshadowed by jets (new toys!)
That's just a Skyraider flexing its arms.;D
It's nice, but I think I still prefer the de Havilland Hornet/Sea Hornet.
But I guess that also depends on if you prefer your single-seat twin-engined piston fighters to look more like a mini Mosquito or a mini A-26
It's nice, but I think I still prefer the de Havilland Hornet/Sea Hornet.
But I guess that also depends on if you prefer your single-seat twin-engined piston fighters to look more like a mini Mosquito or a mini A-26
Yeah, but as slim as the tiger cat was, just wonder what it could do with marlins instead of radials
Why do you think there's a second seat?
two open canopies, probably two-seater, the air intakes look like an F-105.
Why do you think there's a second seat?
That's no seat, just an extra-large hat box.
If you're in the UK, and haven't been watching 'Big Jet TV' on YouTube today, are you even in the UK? (It's a guy standing in the paddock just outside Heathrow, livecasting the jets on approach and landing as they get blasted by Storm Eunice.) He's quite excitable when watching jets make interesting landings. At it's height earlier (i.e. just around lunchtime), he had over 185,000 live viewers.
Big Jet TV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPQh1FrbOc0)
If you're in the UK, and haven't been watching 'Big Jet TV' on YouTube today, are you even in the UK? (It's a guy standing in the paddock just outside Heathrow, livecasting the jets on approach and landing as they get blasted by Storm Eunice.) He's quite excitable when watching jets make interesting landings. At it's height earlier (i.e. just around lunchtime), he had over 185,000 live viewers.
Big Jet TV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPQh1FrbOc0)
Basically everyone watchingSome of those landings were pretty impressive. And much better to watch from the outside too. :D
https://twitter.com/BigJetTVLIVE/status/1494812583202893829
Please don't try to make this political, nor take anything out of the followign article than the salient point, but...
The only Mriya, the An-225, has been destroyed by most accounts:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/world-s-largest-cargo-aircraft-was-destroyed-during-a-russian-attack-on-an-airfield-ukrainian-minister-says/ar-AAUnzu7?ocid=msedgntp (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/world-s-largest-cargo-aircraft-was-destroyed-during-a-russian-attack-on-an-airfield-ukrainian-minister-says/ar-AAUnzu7?ocid=msedgntp)
We all know the C-5 is ultimately better for what they both do (move large, heavy things long distances), but the An-225 was still the largest aircraft so far in actual use. But not any more.
Are both cockpits on that thing fully functional? ???
Stratolauch airplane is such a weird looking craft.
So, again, not a political issue in the slightest here, but it turns out that Hinds and Stingers still don't get along together after all these years:That's not a Stinger btw, going by flight course and explosive pattern. Given low-angle frontal hit possibly Strela-3 or Igla-1.
Up until last month, this was one of the planes I was flying. Happened the week after I quit working for that company.
The plane had been somewhat of a hanger queen and the company had just spent more than a few $$ chasing down all the last few gremlins to get it working gripe free again.
I guess the PC 12 decided to taxi at warp speed instead of walking speed.
I wonder what the price ratio is between an An-2 and a MANPAD... 8)
That's not a Stinger btw, going by flight course and explosive pattern. Given low-angle frontal hit possibly Strela-3 or Igla-1.
Germany became the 15th nation to buy the F-35 on Monday.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/15/europe/germany-f-35-fighter-jets-replace-tornado-intl/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/15/europe/germany-f-35-fighter-jets-replace-tornado-intl/index.html)
Thats awesome. See what happens when you expand your budget.
Thats awesome. See what happens when you expand your budget.This has absolutely nothing to do with the budget, and everything to do with the mutual lobby war in the defence industry between Lockheed-Martin and Boeing (who originally had this fairly secure in the pocket).
I, um, didn't know they were stressed for things like that...
I don't think they are, and I suspect the drag at altitude would make the plane unflyable: as I recall, there's only a 15-30 kt window between cruise speed and stall speed at altitude.
I was being a bit facetious. The wheels at the end of the wingtips are there for a reason. Just like SR-71s were anything but sleek before they got airborne, up to speed, and their airframes shook themselves out.Don't forget "warmed up"... temperature is what sealed their gas tanks, as I recall... ^-^
It's one of the reasons the SR-71 was such a hanger queen, IIRC.
...And that don't have to work in shifts, deploy, or participate in drills and the other minutia associated with serving in, well, the military.
The end of this year is pretty ambitious... I wish them luck! :thumbsup:They probably had that demonstrator planned on their development roadmap anyway, and that gives their engineering team something to do - plus this way they can get some money for the resulting data. Likely not too much, but enough to simply keep the team going - the research study for RDRS they did last year got them about quarter million.
And for more weirdness, remember the Skyfox? (Independent project then acquired by Boeing).
It's based on a T-33 airframe with more modern engines mounted A-10 style.
Is this some sort of light attack prototype? Or aero engineers just messing around?Primary trainer, with the usual possibility to develop it into a light attack plane, like the T-37 Tweet/A-37 Dragonfly.
That's a terrifying prospect - it's like a two-person rotor backpack!
BT's VTOL Micro-copter Infantry :))
I can't believe anyone voluntarily got into any of those.I like the jeep the others are skeet shooting targets, but that the same as the new [url-https://www.forces.net/news/navy-and-marines-test-ship-boarding-jet-suit]navy boarding jet suit[/url]
I can't believe anyone voluntarily got into any of those.They were volunteered? ;)
They were volunteered? ;)
People were BOLDER then.
I guess that has been said since antiquity, about every decade :)
You gotta remember a couple things about that era though;
1. The people leading those people fought World War 2.
2. It was only a generation or two past the age of iron men and wooden derricks.
Tiny roll damping(https://preview.redd.it/j72iqj8hx6z71.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=fcb804b444c8a54101c579422568256247dd07d6)
Tiny moments of inertia
Probably on the wrong side of the drag curve all the time because of massive drag due to lift, therefore speed unstable.
Low AR wing means very shallow lift curve slope, so lots of α needed. Therefore high likelihood of finding nasty inertial couples.
The fact that it survived for 25 hours suggests careful flying by a sensible pilot, especially given that its absolute endurance would have been about an hour assuming no unusable fuel, so about 15 minutes of safe flying time with §91 reserves (30 minutes) after warm-up and taxi.
I don't know how many people are familiar with Kei cars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car) or Kei trucks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_truck), but hey, it's time for some Kei planes! (Thanks to the /r/WeirdWings subreddit)
First the Bede BD-5 as seen in the opening of Octopussy:
In prop form in very early 50's USAF-style markings:
(https://www.skytamer.com/1.2/2001/1328.jpg)
So how does a push-rotor aircraft's performance and handling differ from a standard pull-rotor? I assume it's got to have problems given that pull-rotors are the norm?
It changes the weight distribution (more weight at the back from the engine) and the fuselage blocks some of the airflow to the pusher prop. Cooling issues were a recurring problem for high-powered pusher prop designs, which makes sense when you realize that even many front-engine designs like the Griffon-powered Spitfires had trouble keeping their monster motors cool.
I've seen claims it's also more dangerous in a crash landing because if the engine tears loose from the frame, that big chunk of metal is like to through the cabin
Wikipedia offers an entry on pusher configurations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusher_configuration), including advantages and disadvantages.the heyday of the pusher config was around WW1, where it had advantages in terms of weapons placement (at least, prior to the development of the interrupter gear) as well as sometimes being combined with tractor mounted engines to double the propulsive power without dealing with extra engine mounting locations. never really was all that effective though.
the heyday of the pusher config was around WW1, where it had advantages in terms of weapons placement (at least, prior to the development of the interrupter gear) as well as sometimes being combined with tractor mounted engines to double the propulsive power without dealing with extra engine mounting locations. never really was all that effective though.
of course one could argue that most modern aircraft are "pusher" types, due to the placement and mechanics of the jet engines.
Another bad pusher:The Bell FM-1 Airacuda. So many bad ideas on one aircraft.
(https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/omCUwyDFCFtDRopmIKx7D1slMgI=/fit-in/1600x0/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/9c/12/9c12bbcf-44ae-4ad1-a4a1-47176124e0cd/23586820864_4cdb4bdc8d_o.jpg)
Another bad pusher:The Bell FM-1 Airacuda. So many bad ideas on one aircraft.
(https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/omCUwyDFCFtDRopmIKx7D1slMgI=/fit-in/1600x0/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/9c/12/9c12bbcf-44ae-4ad1-a4a1-47176124e0cd/23586820864_4cdb4bdc8d_o.jpg)
Is that a blister turret on the fuselage?
I know the B-17 mounted machine guns in side blisters on some models.
Another bad pusher:The Bell FM-1 Airacuda. So many bad ideas on one aircraft.
(https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/omCUwyDFCFtDRopmIKx7D1slMgI=/fit-in/1600x0/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/9c/12/9c12bbcf-44ae-4ad1-a4a1-47176124e0cd/23586820864_4cdb4bdc8d_o.jpg)
Is that a blister turret on the fuselage?
Back about 30 years ago, my dad worked with a guy who did VW repair on the side, who was also building one of these in his garage.
So what should the next thread title be?
Staying relevant, have a P-51 with a turboprop.
So what should the next thread title be?
Staying relevant, have a P-51 with a turboprop.
or the A-6 Intruder?
(https://www.flight-manuals-online.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/A-6-photo.jpg)
Thread of the Intruder has a nice ring to it :DI dig this thread title as well.
Thread of the Intruder has a nice ring to it :D