|
Nebakenezzer posted:NICE. I found myself playing "identify the aircraft." Those "stout looking jets" are in fact North American(Rockwell) T-2 Buckeyes, a basic jet trainer used by the US Navy. These were replaced in 2008 by T-45 Goshawks. Nebakenezzer posted:
The big piston twins on the right look like Grumman S-2 Trackers, and the business jets on the right appear to be Dassault HU-25 Guardians (Falcon 20 business jets used by the Coast Guard). The business jets on the left appear to be North American T-39 Sabreliners (used as pilot, navigator and ECM trainers by both the USAF and the Navy), and the two prop aircraft on the right are likely variants of the Grumman OV-1 Mohawk.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Granted, the XB-70 was a nuclear bomber (or at least, was supposed to be), went Mach 3, and had a vaugely F-15ish twin vertical - certainly not a Navy plane, but maybe that's where the confusion comes from? I just realized, there are villages smaller than this plane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
Phy posted:I just realized, there are villages smaller than this plane. And there are cities that use less fuel per hour. But isn't it goddamn gorgeous?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 23:56
|
|
|
Nothus posted:B-1B's I think. Didn't the B-1A have a more pronounced dorsal spine? It makes sense that they're being scrapped. They weren't that all that great for what they were designed for, and we wasted quite a lot of money building them. The B-52 holds more bombs and the B-2 is better at penetration.  The B1B can carry almost twice as many bombs than a B-52, 125,000 lbs vs. 70,000 lbs.  It was also designed to use a Rotary Cruise Missile Launcher, and I think the B-52 may also be able to use this. This is when I realized what the cold war was about :  8 nuke-tipped cruise missiles in each bay, three bays on a B-1. The front winglets that look like whiskers are completely computer controlled and are there to keep the plane stable in the turbulent low altitude air. It was designed to fly supersonic at only a few hundred feet.  It basically was designed to do the Wild Weasel's job on its way to its primary target. It had a highly advanced ground following radar to accomplish this mission.  It had a crew escape capsule to ensure the crew's safety if they had to eject at over Mach 2.   It is also a monstrous aircraft, it actually makes a B-52 look kinda petite (in person). 
NathanScottPhillips fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Mar 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:I've always liked these SR71 stories. jandrese posted:You can't talk about the SR-71 without talking about Bill Weaver's account of high altitude breakup of an early SR-71. Fine, I have yet to hear an SR-71 story that I DIDN'T like. I would love reading Sled Driver, but I don't want to pay $300. I should check the libraries in the area (It's likely in a section that doesn't allow the book to leave the building). I saw the SR-71 at the Smithsonian's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center a year or two ago, and my god, that plane is short. I was expecting something more massive than what I saw, but no, it's just s slender goddess. I think out of all the pictures I took that day (a few hundred), I took the most of the SR-71 than any other airframe. FullMetalJacket posted:i love how each time we do an aviation thread it usually dissolves into banter about the sr71 and or the f14. Maker Of Shoes posted:For anyone not familiar with AMARC here's a satalite shot of the "bone yard". It's unreal. Maker Of Shoes posted:I'd give anything to just walk that yard for a few days with a camera. So much history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Definitely never had anything that went mach 3 -- there are only two air-breathing aircraft that ever did that, the XB-70 and the SR-71, and both were designed as pretty much the opposite of what you need for carrier operations. The MiG-25 could theoretically reach Mach 3.2 as well, and it had a twin tail and I guess could carry a nuke, but it was a suicide mission because doing so would destroy the engines. No, I was just confused. The Vigilante and the Hustler are all planes I read about 15 years ago in those "aircraft of the world" books, and I was just getting them muddled together. NathanScottPhillips posted:Cool, highly informative post on the B-1b Given all this, I'm now slightly confused as to why there are so many B-52s still around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Given all this, I'm now slightly confused as to why there are so many B-52s still around. Strategic bombers back then were expensive and it's a rugged airframe. Plus we have a ton so why trash them? I think we still have a few battleships in mothballs, just in case. America is fun like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
You put WHAT on your aircraft carrier? Yes, that's a C-130. And it seems that a U-2 can do the same trick. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:And it seems that a U-2 can do the same trick. I'd love to see them try and land it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 01:34
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:This capsule was used to develop the Space Shuttle's escape pod.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 01:53
|
|
|
Frosty- posted:Which is a thing no shuttle has.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 02:06
|
|
|
Puddin posted:I'd love to see them try and land it. Easy they fly headfirst into a cyclone duh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 02:09
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:You put WHAT on your aircraft carrier? Yes, that's a C-130. That's impressive and all, but I think the Credible Sport YMC-130 is even more impressive - with it's ability to operate (almost) out of a 300 foot runway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFjhWw4DNo quote:The XFC-130H aircraft were modified by the installation of 30 rockets in multiple sets: eight forward-pointed ASROC rocket motors mounted around the forward fuselage to stop the aircraft, eight downward-pointed Shrike rockets fuselage-mounted above the wheel wells to brake its descent, eight rearward-pointed MK-56 rockets (from the US Navy's RIM-66 Standard Missile) mounted on the lower rear fuselage for takeoff assist, two Shrikes mounted in pairs on wing pylons to correct yaw during takeoff transition, and two ASROCs mounted at the rear of the tail to prevent it from striking the ground from over-rotation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 02:33
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Mostly, it's because the B-52's are paid for, they're reliable, and the airframes can be adapted to do basically anything. The B-52 is apparently more reliable than the B-1 or B-2. As of 2001, the B-52 fleet averaged an 80% readiness rate, versus 53% for the B-1 and only 26% for the B-2. For conflicts like Afghanistan (and Iraq after the initial invasion), heavy bombers get used mostly in an "on call" role, which they weren't really designed for. Normally, the bomber will simply orbit at high altitude until given a target, at which point they'll release one or two precision guided bombs onto whatever needs to disappear, after which point the aircraft goes back to orbiting until given other targets or going home. During the 1960's, SAC B-52's maintained a 24 hour airborne alert at various points near the USSR, and the qualities that made the B-52 suitable for that mission happen to dovetail with the smaller conflicts the US gets involved in now. In areas where there's no real anti-air threat, the B-52's ability to loiter at altitude makes it a more economical choice than something originally designed for high-speed penetration at low altitude. The fact that the B-52 has a longer range than the B-1 means it can loiter longer without refueling, and on missions where the bombers probably won't engage many targets, the B-1's larger bombload doesn't really matter much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 02:39
|
|
|
Puddin posted:I'd love to see them try and land it. They did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:They did. Balls. Of. Steel. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:There are also several F-16's sitting out there that were supposed to be sold to Iran before the Shah was overthrown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 05:28
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
ApathyGifted posted:They did. It's like watching someone try to land a rocket powered unicycle from 50 feet in the air.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 06:48
|
|
|
An An-124 offroad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6bKCsJd2K0
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 09:39
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:They did. God drat, it just jumps into the air on takeoff. Cat? Who needs a cat? Just sail into the wind, won't even need the engines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 09:49
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:NICE. I found myself playing "identify the aircraft." 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 14:05
|
|
|
PurpleFender posted:Quoting from a while back... That top row are P-3 Orions. I used to live on a Navy base where they still flew those. Bonus content, that base was home for this beast, the USS Macon. And Hangar One in the background is absolutely retardedly huge. Mythbusters uses it a lot. I believe Lead Balloon was tested in that Hangar. I posed his pic back on page 3, but I'll post it again cuz I think it's awesome:  Here are some paintings my grandfather had.  The First of the Flying Tankers   The Race that Never Was   Requiem for the Daughter of the Skies   The Day the Navy Sunk Itself 
NathanScottPhillips fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Mar 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
Late last week I made an inter-library loan request with my university library for Sled Driver. Yesterday I got an email from the library saying they received it. All excited, I made my way there today to pick it up. I get home, open the first few pages and find this: Click here for the full 1382x1843 image.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 04:45
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:
That goes beyond balls of steel to outright insanity. Who in the world thought this was a good idea? Edit: It's a wonder the refueling guy isn't smoking a cigarette while doing this. jandrese fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Mar 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 05:00
|
|
|
amtrak450 posted:Late last week I made an inter-library loan request with my university library for Sled Driver. Yesterday I got an email from the library saying they received it. All excited, I made my way there today to pick it up. I get home, open the first few pages and find this: Holy poo poo. That's loving awesome!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 05:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Given all this, I'm now slightly confused as to why there are so many B-52s still around. The B-1 is insanely difficult to keep flying. It's pretty much the definition of a hanger queen. The B-52 is ancient, but still easier to maintain and cheaper. And I think it carries a wider assortment of weapons. Puddin posted:
I know I've been beaten by video, but how do you think it got there in the first place? amtrak450 posted:Late last week I made an inter-library loan request with my university library for Sled Driver. Yesterday I got an email from the library saying they received it. All excited, I made my way there today to pick it up. I get home, open the first few pages and find this: That's amazing. I wonder if Sen Glenn knows the library stole his book?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 05:38
|
|
|
Are the Japanese capable of manufacturing their Mitsubishi F-2 F16 derivative on their own? I thought that they were pretty keen on maintaining that capability(just in case things with America don't go so well in the future  ).If so, America can just import Japanese F16s if they needed a bunch of them in a hurry. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 05:41
|
|
|
The F-2 isn't a direct copy. The wings are completely different, and even portions of the frame itself. The whole airplane is actually bigger than the F-16. They can't just up and build them completely on their own, but I'm sure they could reverse-engineer those portions that are US-made. The technology is not too advanced by any means, they'd just have to figure out the tooling requirements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 05:55
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:There are also several F-16's sitting out there that were supposed to be sold to Iran before the Shah was overthrown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
I'll probably be setting up shop in this thread for the next... I dunno, forever.NathanScottPhillips posted:Also at the museum is Luke's X-Wing: Er, sorry. That is actually a 3/4 scale model originally built for promo purposes in Japan (get it because they are short?), but was bought and is currently being "rebuilt" by the local 501st Star Wars Costume Club. I plan on having a replica car show inside that museum one of these days. Cars always look awesome when they are inside hangars. One of my life goals is to see (and hopefully touch) every single SR-71 on display. This includes YF-12 and A-11s. My first was in Seattle, with the D-21 drone. I hopped that railing and just gently touched the metal. Totally a weird spiritual experience. I was 12, I think. I've visited the Blackbird at the SAC museum twice...  Seen, the one at the USAF museum in Dayton. The YF-12 there doesn't have any kind of barrier whatsoever and you can peer into pretty much every part of it.  I've seen the Blackbird in San Diego, and I need to spend a few days tooling around L.A. and the 100 miles around it, there are about six in that area, I think. When we re-do our 4,000 mile roadtrip this fall, we'll see six Blackbirds between Ohio, New York, D.C., and Kansas. Strangely enough, whenever I encounter one of these "awesome airplane poo poo" threads, no one ever posts the Boeing Bird of Prey.   Also, this is terrifically Automotively AND Aeornautically Insane!  
Boomerjinks fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Mar 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 06:17
|
|
|
PurpleFender posted:Quoting from a while back... That top row are P-3 Orions. I used to live on a Navy base where they still flew those. I lived on the Sunnyvale/Mt. View border for ten years, not far from Moffet Field and you could hear those P3 Orions about a hundred miles away in the middle of the night, they'd just kinda drone away FOREVER before they actually landed there. I got used to it, the noise was sorta comforting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:Holy poo poo. That's loving awesome!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 08:09
|
|
|
I'm impressed John Glenn donated his unused books to the library. Good for him. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 13:57
|
|
|
If any of you want to talk to Brian Shul, he seems to have posted his telephone number in the amazon review of his book...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 14:45
|
|
|
jandrese posted:That goes beyond balls of steel to outright insanity. Who in the world thought this was a good idea? Boomerjinks posted:Er, sorry. That is actually a 3/4 scale model originally built for promo purposes in Japan (get it because they are short?), but was bought and is currently being "rebuilt" by the local 501st Star Wars Costume Club.  Oh well, that museum is staffed by the oldest people I know so it probably figures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 15:13
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Indeed. God, the temptation to "lose" that copy and buy the library system a replacement one... You haven't "lost" it already?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Granted, the XB-70 was a nuclear bomber (or at least, was supposed to be), went Mach 3, and had a vaugely F-15ish twin vertical - certainly not a Navy plane, but maybe that's where the confusion comes from? Make sure you get there early though. We arrived at 11 am and missed the last bus going to that part of the museum (since it's on the active duty bit of the AFB or something).
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
Anyone ever been to the Museum @ Hill AFB in Salt Lake City? Supposedly they have the SR71C there and I'm darn tempted to make the 10 hour drive just to see that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Anyone ever been to the Museum @ Hill AFB in Salt Lake City? Supposedly they have the SR71C there and I'm darn tempted to make the 10 hour drive just to see that. Wiki posted:Serial number Model Location or fate
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:30% Loss Rate Wow, I wouldn't have wanted to be an SR-71 pilot in the late 60's. They only lost 4 of the birds after 1970, but lost 8 during the space race. Inlet unstarts are a bitch. Actually, scratch that. Who the gently caress WOULDN'T want to be an SR-71 driver, regardless of likelyhood of death, personal cost or the requirement for complete secrecy? "HI MOM, I'M FLYING MACH 3 WITH MY HAIR ON FIRE AND IT'S GREA--- [static]"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 20:01
|
|