|
Nebakenezzer posted:Whilst we're here, is there a name for the blue used to paint cockpits? "Cockpit Blue" as a search doesn't seem to turn up much of use. Is there a real name for it, and what are the reasons behind its use? I figure it's easy on the eyes and reduces fatigue? meltie fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Mar 16, 2010 |
# ? Mar 16, 2010 22:52 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 15:02 |
|
Lusso posted:I saw one of these on final approach to 19R at Dulles one morning and stopped to watch it fly overhead. It was freaking awesome. You saw the only one. ah, who needs school when there is SA! Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Mar 16, 2010 |
# ? Mar 16, 2010 23:01 |
|
Preoptopus posted:You saw the only one. As I learned today, he saw one of like 54. The 6 engine one you're thinking of is even larger than that. e- I saw that one land at Stewart and it's mind boggling.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2010 23:04 |
|
VikingSkull posted:Also I get the A-1 love, but seriously the A-10 is doing that exact job right now. A prop plane might be cheaper, but you're gonna lose a ton of them to rifle fire. How would a prop make a plane more susceptible to rifle fire? The A-1 is an inferior craft compared to the A-10 because it's 20 years older, not because it has a prop. The cruising speed of an A-10 is still well below the limit for prop driven aircraft. A turboprop has a much lower infrared signature than a turbofan, which is good for close ground support where you'll be seeing shoulder fired heat seeking missiles. They are also less susceptible to debris damage, but more likely to kill ground crew.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2010 23:04 |
|
It's not inherently more dangerous because of the speed, more like it's easier to lose a prop and a heavy machine gun can do that easily. Besides, when the A-10 exists and is filling the role already, it's doubtful any prop based program is going to gain traction in the Pentagon. Wouldn't the A-10 carry more weapons and loiter longer than a prop plane that isn't ridiculously big?
|
# ? Mar 16, 2010 23:09 |
|
Phantom LOLbooth posted:I present to you, the de Havilland Venom: While not quite a Venom, you can own your very own Vampire for the price of a decent car.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2010 23:10 |
|
The Antonov used to come in at Toronto/Pearson all the time when I was working there. I then noticed that it had stopped coming, or came at some time real early in the morning. Always a big pleasure to watch those takeoff/land. Also watched an Ilyushin Il-76 takeoff from very closeup. Sorry for the cellphone photo
|
# ? Mar 16, 2010 23:12 |
CmdrSmirnoff posted:While not quite a Venom, you can own your very own Vampire for the price of a decent car. Wow, that's awesome. The Vampire is almost as sweet as the Venom, just a little wimpier in the thrust department.
|
|
# ? Mar 16, 2010 23:28 |
|
VikingSkull posted:It's not inherently more dangerous because of the speed, more like it's easier to lose a prop and a heavy machine gun can do that easily. There are only so many A-10s to go around, and they're getting up there in years/flight hours. We're not going to build more of them, so what's next?
|
# ? Mar 16, 2010 23:38 |
|
VikingSkull posted:It's not inherently more dangerous because of the speed, more like it's easier to lose a prop and a heavy machine gun can do that easily. I've never heard of an airplane getting it's propeller shot off. The closest I could find was a B-17 that had a prop come apart on landing after taking a flak hit. The argument is moot because they're already planning on using the f-35 as a replacement for the A-10. It will be worse at the job in basically every way and cost several times more to buy and operate.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2010 23:42 |
|
Fortunately that's 15 years away, maybe more.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2010 23:49 |
|
Godholio posted:There are only so many A-10s to go around, and they're getting up there in years/flight hours. We're not going to build more of them, so what's next? Not a prop plane, I'd imagine. Unless it's a drone. Yeah though, we better get used to the F-35. e- Really though, in a low level insurgency what's needed out of a CAS aircraft? If the F-35 is going to be the main strike aircraft, what capabilities would be lost outside of loiter and strafing runs? It (supposedly) drops bombs fine. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Mar 17, 2010 |
# ? Mar 16, 2010 23:54 |
|
Why not one of those Embraer Super Tucanos or whatever they're called? They make an armed version that would be perfect for close range ground support. Fake edit: wiki says the Air Force and the Navy are (were?) both evaluating the aircraft for this exact purpose.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 00:00 |
|
Forum Hussy posted:Why not one of those Embraer Super Tucanos or whatever they're called? They make an armed version that would be perfect for close range ground support. Gunships pretty much do this job but better already.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 00:05 |
|
The DeHavilland Comet, which probably marks the start of the jet age as most people know it. Sure, it may not have had the best safety record, but with those faired-in engines, it certainly looked the part, and has passed its DNA down to the RAF's current Nimrod. During the an early flight, a plane was detected coming over the channel, and the RAF base running an exercise at the time asked if the pilot would mind being the subject of chase practice for the fighters. He obliged, waited until they were neatly arrayed behind him, then opened the taps and just walked away from them.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 00:08 |
|
Pretty Little Rainbow posted:Gunships pretty much do this job but better already. When they're available. Fake edit; Unless you're talking about helicopter gunships, not AC-130s...which you probably are. Considering how readily people call for air support, I'd expect everyone to be on board with having more assets. Nobody's going to clamp down on the guys who call for help and tell them to be more judicious. In the meantime, assets are being tasked and are now unavailable for others, plus all the fuel wasted, etc etc. Affordable airframes capable of supplementing organic air support and current Air Force/Navy CAS assets is a GOOD thing. Real edit: Not to say that plane's the perfect solution, but the days of the AF getting the funding it needs are long gone. We'll take what we can get.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 00:28 |
|
The Comet is beautiful forever.VikingSkull posted:As I learned today, he saw one of like 54. The 6 engine one you're thinking of is even larger than that. To expand on this, picture the AN-124. Now add fuselage sections, wing root extensions, longer wingspan, beefed-up suspension, twin vertical stabilizers, and remove the rear door and ramp. BAM! An-225. And I'm not exaggerating, that's literally what Antonov did for the 225, they stuck the required mods into the 124's blueprints, handed it to the engineers and said "Build this." One was built, deactivated after Buran's cancellation, then reactivated in 2001 for ultra-heavy-lift duty; another was half finished when the first was mothballed, then brought out to be finished in 06, a project which seems to have been abandoned.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 00:49 |
|
InitialDave posted:
We were lucky enough to be buzzed by a Nimrod from RAF Kinloss, just ahead of the Scotland v England rugby match on Saturday. Fair rattled the rafters. vid here, no sound sadly http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Nimrod-joins-the-wings-at.6150889.jp Certainly fired up the ranks just before kick-off, and scared the crap out of the neds in the council flats down the road. On the subject of have some Eurofighter Typhoon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POje7FFz5yg She's pretty, she's got care-free handling, and will do .5 past lightspeed edit: Best cheesy promotional video ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvEDSI1nf3E&NR=1 Heid the Ball fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Mar 17, 2010 |
# ? Mar 17, 2010 00:52 |
|
So I've seen the Super Guppy flying over the city tons of times, but I saw it make one hell of a weird landing the other day when it came skirting over the mountains then dove and banked hard to the left in order to line up with a runway, levevling out far lower than usual. I've seen the T-38s, Tornadoes, and Gulfstream jets do that, but never the Guppy. When I first saw it banked hard to the side and still diving toward the base I thought it was going down until it leveled out at the last moment.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 01:05 |
|
Forum Hussy posted:Why not one of those Embraer Super Tucanos or whatever they're called? They make an armed version that would be perfect for close range ground support. I really think that the Super Tucano is a beautiful, badass looking little airplane - maybe it's that P-51 tail.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 01:35 |
|
I've been putting off this post since the thread was formed, as you all know I have the tendency to megapost - well, here's a megapost of my favorite aircraft. I have a lot of favorite aircraft. BV-141 Do-335A An-2 Colt "A note from the pilot's handbook reads: "If the engine quits in instrument conditions (blind flying when you can't see the ground) or at night, the pilot should pull the control column full aft (it won't stall) and keep the wings level. The leading-edge slats will snap out at about 64 km/h (40 mph), and when the airplane slows to a forward speed of about 40 km/h (25 mph), the airplane will sink at about a parachute descent rate until the aircraft hits the ground." gently caress everyone, I like Fairey Fireflies and Gannets Beech Staggerwing. I've been lucky enough to spend quite a long time in one of these. My favorite WWII fighter, the Seafury. Yak-9. Really classy little airplane with a beautiful wing shape. The Gloster Meteor is another gorgeous early jet fighter: Click here for the full 1024x768 image. I'm also partial to SAAB designs. I love the Tunnan The Drakken The SAAB B-17. Click here for the full 1024x695 image. The SAAB B-18 Click here for the full 1023x666 image. The SAAB A/J-21 Click here for the full 1024x768 image. Oh and of course the Viggen, Gripen and all that other newfangled gobledegook. If you don't love the F-7 Tigercat, throw yourself into a lake because you're a loving retard and we all hate you. Click here for the full 1980x1323 image. Click here for the full 1546x1546 image. Things I will post soon. B-25 Mitchell, B-24 Libby, A-26 Invader, XF-12 Rainbow, etc.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 02:12 |
|
Neat picture of Neil Armstrong next to an X-15. You can kinda see the skid marks where he landed(?).
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 02:13 |
|
VikingSkull posted:Also I get the A-1 love, but seriously the A-10 is doing that exact job right now. For the Americans and the Russians, this is correct. But I'm a Canadian, so I was thinking about other nations who don't have close support planes, and that really, they are pretty cheap and low tech combat aircraft. Easy to make, even though I suspect you'd end up with something like a A-10. I mean, they used the A-1 in Vietnam when it was a post war prop design, and the original gunship was just a WW2 vintage Dakota loaded up with miniguns. Also, I'm sorry if I implied that this cheap attack plane *had* to be a prop plane; I was thinking that there are lots of late WW2 designs that you could just put back in the frontline, since the basic job is still the same. There was a variant of the B-25 in WW2 that mounted 6 50 cal machine guns on it's nose, which was used to machine gun merchant ships to death. Granted, it's a obsolete design today, but against guys who live in Caves and don't exactly have a fleet of MiGs at their back and call, I don't think it matters much. Fucknag posted:To expand on this, picture the AN-124. Now add fuselage sections, wing root extensions, longer wingspan, beefed-up suspension, twin vertical stabilizers, and remove the rear door and ramp. BAM! An-225. And I'm not exaggerating, that's literally what Antonov did for the 225, they stuck the required mods into the 124's blueprints, handed it to the engineers and said "Build this." Neat, I didn't know they got rid of the rear cargo doors on the An-225. I love the scale of the An-225; it looks like something out of science fiction more then it does a real life airplane. A special AI picture for scale:
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 02:16 |
|
ursa_minor posted:ursa_minor posted:Wow. That thing looks all kinds of . I don't think I've ever seen double-folded wings before either. Nuevo fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Mar 17, 2010 |
# ? Mar 17, 2010 02:34 |
|
Boat posted:Weren't those things really really difficult to land? It's definitely a goofy looking little aircraft. I like to think that third bubble canopy was just a joke some engineer pulled as they were submitting their final blueprints.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 02:44 |
|
orange lime posted:Yep. Up here in Tempe, you'd think that you get used to the sound of jet engines from the one airliner every 90 seconds landing at Sky Harbor...and then some of the F/A-18s come in off training or whatever and you remember what a turbine REALLY sounds like. You gotta hang out at the Petro in Las Vegas, it's by the speedway AND the airbase. Top fuel dragsters AND jets givin' it some stick? gently caress yeah!
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 03:19 |
|
Still nothing about the Flying Boxcar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-24_Liberator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tidal_Wave quote:Operation Tidal Wave was a strategic bombing mission executed by the American Air Forces in August 1943, during World War II intended to put nine Romanian oil refineries around Ploiesti "out of action." The mission was unsuccessful in that it resulted in "no curtailment of overall product output". My grandfather said it took lots of cranking to get the gear down when the poo poo got shot out of it, which happened alot I guess.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 03:36 |
|
I've always thought Dragonflies were pretty cool.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 03:55 |
|
leica posted:I've always thought Dragonflies were pretty cool. It was my dream to own one of these things, because it seemed like the perfect 2-seater jet. Small engines, straight wings, 2 tandem seats, carries all kinds of stuff under the wings in pods. Then I learned that the engines make a constant shrieking noise that's probably second only to the Thunderscreech in terms of sheer ability to infuriate.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 04:31 |
|
orange lime posted:It was my dream to own one of these things, because it seemed like the perfect 2-seater jet. Small engines, straight wings, 2 tandem seats, carries all kinds of stuff under the wings in pods. Then I learned that the engines make a constant shrieking noise that's probably second only to the Thunderscreech in terms of sheer ability to infuriate. Yes they are very loud. I used to camp at a campground that was near a Guard base that had them flying around all the time. I thought they were awesome, I wonder if anyone is still flying them around. [edit] now that I think about it, they where nowhere near the infuriating sound that the A6 was, I hated those things. Applebees Appetizer fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Mar 17, 2010 |
# ? Mar 17, 2010 04:40 |
|
quote:This thing just seems like it would be extremely difficult to fly.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 04:44 |
|
meltie posted:Whilst we're here, is there a name for the blue used to paint cockpits? "Cockpit Blue" as a search doesn't seem to turn up much of use. Is there a real name for it, and what are the reasons behind its use? I figure it's easy on the eyes and reduces fatigue? I didn't see anyone else answer this, but I might've just missed it, forgive me if I'm repeating anything. A light blue like that has been proven to be a very, very calming color as well as reducing fatigue like you said. There's some city where they use blue lights at a subway station because it tends to reduce violence, it calms people down so much. quote:Psychology of Color: Blue http://www.precisionintermedia.com/color.html copy of a fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Mar 17, 2010 |
# ? Mar 17, 2010 04:46 |
Brits sure know how to make em pretty. The Hawker Hunter Unfortunately it doesn't have a great service record. That Works fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Mar 17, 2010 |
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 05:09 |
|
silversiren posted:http://www.precisionintermedia.com/color.html Pseudo-psychology of color.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 05:22 |
|
silversiren posted:This thing just seems like it would be extremely difficult to fly. quote:It would seem that the displacement of lift vs weight, and thrust vs drag, would have induced tendencies to yaw and roll requiring continual trimming to control, but the aircraft proved very stable and maneuverable. Indeed, Dr. Vogt had calculated that the greater weight on one side of the aircraft could be cancelled out by the torque of the propeller. The odd balance actually counteracted the torque steer.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 05:58 |
|
For an amazing noise, how about the Vulcan Howl: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqA6bgFPGWI I'm guessing its something to do with the shape of the inlets?
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 06:00 |
|
God its like watching a manta ray swim... in the sky
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 07:23 |
|
I've always liked these SR71 stories.quote:
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 18:00 |
|
OptimusMatrix posted:I've always liked these SR71 stories. There are some interesting stories involving operating the SR-71 over the lower 48 as well. Early in the program, an SR-71 was hit with a series of problems that resulted in an engine failure over the southwestern US. Since the SR-71 couldn't stay at speed and altitude on one engine, the crew was forced to make a supersonic descent somewhere over Utah while trying to get the engine running again. Eventually, they got the engine restarted, just in time to sonic-boom the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City. On another occasion, an SR-71 overflew Lyndon Johnson's Texas ranch and blew out his picture windows with the sonic boom, which resulted in the training routes being altered to avoid pissing LBJ off. During another training mission, an SR-71 experienced an autopilot and navigation failure over the US southwest. The pilot decided to try and hand-fly the flight plan at Mach 3, but mistimed a turn over Arizona by a few seconds, which resulted in the aircraft ending up somewhere over Mexico by the time the turn finished up. As the pilot later remarked, "You haven't been lost 'till you've been lost at Mach 3."
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 18:22 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 15:02 |
|
It's stuff like that that makes me think all SR-71 pilots fly around like this all day
|
# ? Mar 17, 2010 18:27 |