|
VikingSkull posted:I just found this in my pictures and didn't really know why I saved it, so here's another Skyraider pic!  I had no idea how slow the Skyraider was.# Maximum speed: 322 mph (280 kn, 518 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m) # Cruise speed: 198 mph (172 kn, 319 km/h)
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Going slow is probably an advantage (up to a certain point) in that type of mission.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
It's an advantage up until the point where you're loitering somewhere and get a call to fire and realize that it's going to take a 15 minutes to get your slow rear end halfway across the county.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 19:43
|
|
|
Considering how cheap the Spad would be at this point you could probably throw up enough of them that you could dispense with the speed problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
The plane might be cheap, but the pilots aren't, nor are the ground crews.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 19:46
|
|
|
decahedron posted:Going slow is probably an advantage (up to a certain point) in that type of mission. It's not so much an intentional advantage that the designers went for. The A-1 is a WW2 era design, it was meant to replace the SB2C Helldiver (max speed 295mph) and the TBF Avenger (max speed 270mph). An extra 30mph with the A-1's bomb load was a large improvement for the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 22:05
|
|
|
decahedron posted:People pretty much love the A-10 because of the GAU. Which is sad. It is totally bitchin even without the GAU. Please. OG Thunderbolt was kick rear end.  quote:The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, also known as the "Jug," was the biggest, heaviest, and most expensive fighter aircraft in history to be powered by a single reciprocating engine.[2] It was one of the main United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) fighters of World War II, and served with other Allied air forces. The P-47 was effective in air combat but proved especially adept at ground attack. It had eight .50-caliber machine guns, four per wing. When fully loaded the P-47 could weigh up to eight tons. A modern-day counterpart in that role, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, takes its name from the P-47. "Juggernaut" and began using the longer word as an alternate nickname.[11] Another nickname that was used for the Thunderbolt was "T-bolt".[/quote]quote:The Thunderbolt was the fastest-diving American aircraft of the war—it could reach speeds of 550 mph (480 kn, 885 km/h). Major Robert S. "Bob" Johnson described the experience of diving the big fighter by writing, "the Thunderbolt howled and ran for the earth" Oh yeah, has anyone checked out THE WORLD'S LARGEST SPORTING GOODS STORE® in Sparks NV? I swear to god they have loving racing airplanes in the fucker. I saw it when I was driving by, never been in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
Mr Crucial posted:It's not so much an intentional advantage that the designers went for. The A-1 is a WW2 era design, it was meant to replace the SB2C Helldiver (max speed 295mph) and the TBF Avenger (max speed 270mph). An extra 30mph with the A-1's bomb load was a large improvement for the time. Well right, I'm just saying that going BALLS OUT FAST in your A-1 was not really a priority and I know that people like slow as gently caress aircraft for COIN. I don't think that the designers were like "let's make it slow so it will rule poo poo at COIN missions" I think that after it was hanging around people said "man that thing is slow and can loiter for hours and can carry a gently caress ton of bombs, that will rule poo poo at COIN."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 00:40
|
|
|
Cmdr Will Riker posted:Goddamn the A-1 was badass. Anybody who loves the A-10 (which seems to be pretty much everybody in this thread) should love the A-1. You're drat right. In some respects they should love it more because in Vietnam it arguably played a more important role than the A-10, namely as the "Sandy" designation we're all familiar with. Rescuing downed airmen, of which they did exponentially more times than the A-10 ever has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 00:41
|
|
|
A-10 pilots are often Sandys as well. Some F-16 pilots are qualified, but it's almost always an A-10. Edit: Obviously the A-1 did it more, because we had a lot more downed airmen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 03:14
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:You're drat right. In some respects they should love it more because in Vietnam it arguably played a more important role than the A-10, namely as the "Sandy" designation we're all familiar with. Rescuing downed airmen, of which they did exponentially more times than the A-10 ever has. How do you rescue people on the ground from a fixed-wing aircraft? I'm picturing project Skyhook but I can't believe that they would actually do something that cool. [e] damnit, Skyhook was a bunch of weather balloons. What was the name of the CIA project to extract agents where they'd release a balloon on a long line and a C-130 would fly over and catch the line and haul them into the air? They showed some comic-book version of it in the new Batman movie. [e2] I don't know if they ever actually did that with humans, but they did do a similar thing with the first spy satellites. Before they had reliable, secure datalinks to transmit electronic images, the satellite would literally eject a canister with the exposed film inside, which would parachute down over the ocean. A plane would fly by at exactly the right time and ensnare it in midair, carrying it home for retrieval. If they missed and the canister hit the water, it would float for a few minutes to let a boat possibly pick it up, then sink to prevent it falling into enemy hands. orange lime fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Apr 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 03:31
|
|
|
orange lime posted:How do you rescue people on the ground from a fixed-wing aircraft? You rescue people on the ground with fixed wing aircraft by shooting everybody that gets there before the helicopters do. This is what you were after, I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Apr 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
does anyone else miss fighter ace 2? i spent alot of time in 109's and yak 9's. oh my teenage years...
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 04:56
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:This is what you were after, I think: Well I just don't know what to say about this, quote:Fulton first used instrumented dummies as he prepared for a live pickup. He next used a pig, as pigs have nervous systems close to humans. Lifted off the ground, the pig began to spin as it flew through the air at 125 mph (200 km/h). It arrived on board uninjured but in a disoriented state. Once it recovered, it attacked the crew. other than 
orange lime fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Apr 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
orange lime posted:How do you rescue people on the ground from a fixed-wing aircraft? This is actually incredibly relevant, since it was even a Skyraider. :iamafag: Bernard Fisher is loving awesome. I met him when I was ROTC, he was the guest speaker at our dining in. The guy wore his Medal of Honor, and a leopard-print jacket cut kind of similar to the mess dress jacket, which his wife made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 05:57
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:does anyone else miss fighter ace 2? Fighter Ace 3 was the poo poo, although personally I was more a fan of the La-7. God damned American planes with their spray and pray machine guns with a million billion rounds...
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 14:05
|
|
|
I loving hate the La-7 in Aces High II. I'm trying to vulture players taking off and some wiseass could always get those little fuckers up to kill me. I just wanted to strafe the ground crews, leave me alone!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
orange lime posted:They drop off on takeoff. Landing is accomplished by having a high-powered chase car (Buick Wildcats back in the 60s and 70s) follow the plane along the runway and maneuver under one wing. The pilot drops the wing and it latches onto the roof of the car until the pogos can be reinstalled. The chase cars do not catch the wing. The wing tips have skids, and are designed to drag the short distance the plane travels between when it looses aileron authority and stopped. Once stopped, they then reinstall the wing gear. The chase cars are there because the pilot has no real view of the ground, so the people in the chase cars talk them down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 19:28
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:little fuckers I don't know if you meant this literally or not, but the La-7 was almost identical in size to, say, a P-51. Alot better looking, too.  The REAL little fucker was the I-16.  Hand-cranked landing gear, in WWII. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
Little compared to the Bf-110 I was flying. It was like hyenas on a water buffalo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
The only reason the I-16 was around in WWII was because the Russians were idiots. It was obsolete by '38.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:The chase cars are there because the pilot has no real view of the ground, so the people in the chase cars talk them down. The pilot has just as much view of the ground as other limited-visibility planes that don't require chase cars. The chase cars are there because the plane just doesn't want to loving descend once it's in ground effect. There's a lot of phenomena going on, each of which can trick a pilot into nosing the aircraft right into the runway. So the chase cars follow behind and tell the pilot exactly how far off the ground he is. One thing I never got is why the plane even has flaps. It's got a 400 foot flap-less takeoff roll for gently caress's sake, it doesn't need any extra lift on landing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
decahedron posted:The only reason the I-16 was around in WWII was because the Russians were idiots. It was obsolete by '38. The only thing it was ever good for in FA3 was dogfights with 109E's and Zeros. I've always had a soft spot for the little guy though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:
Flaps actually serve two purposes. As you mentioned, they alter the shape of the wing to reduce stall speeds and increase lift, but they serve a second purpose as well. When flaps are extended past a certain point, they allow a steeper decent angle to be flown on approach without the airspeed increasing. This steeper glidepath gives the pilot a better view of the runway through most of the approach, which useful for U-2 pilots. On the subject of strange landings, the B-52 has a pretty interesting way of dealing with crosswinds. Normally, large aircraft are landed in a crosswind by pointing the nose into the wind through most of the approach, followed by using rudder to swing the nose of the aircraft to point down the runway just as the wheels touch down during the flare. Here's some footage of the "crab method" being used by a 747 and 777 in some really heavy crosswinds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljOxo0s33sI Because of how the B-52 is landed (the aircraft approaches with the nose low and is basically flown onto the runway), the crab method wouldn't be feasible, so Boeing came up with a pretty clever solution to the problem. The four main gear trucks on the B-52 can be deflected up to 20 degrees either side of center during approaches, which allows the aircraft to land with the nose deflected into the wind, while the landing gear are pointed straight down the runway. This leads to the aircraft trundling down the runway sideways, which is incredibly bizarre to see. I couldn't find a video of a crosswind landing in a B-52, so here's a couple separate ones to demonstrate the point. A normal B-52 landing, complete with braking parachute. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JxFMIGRNb4 A B-52 demonstrating the crosswind landing gear on the ground (and taking out some runway lights in the process). http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress-Airline_USA_-_Air_Force_Aviation_Video-4875.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 21:46
|
|
|
For extra hilarity, try watching a C-5 do that in an ice storm. I worked briefly in an airplane restoration shop at Stewart, and had no idea that C-5s landed in crosswinds like that. All I saw was a C-5 pointing at our hanger, so I took off running. Once I got outside and I saw it keep going down the runway, I got to walk in and face the jeers of the old timers. I have to admit, it was loving funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:The four main gear trucks on the B-52 can be deflected up to 20 degrees either side of center during approaches, which allows the aircraft to land with the nose deflected into the wind, while the landing gear are pointed straight down the runway. This leads to the aircraft trundling down the runway sideways, which is incredibly bizarre to see. It's more bizarre to be in one doing it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtnL4KYVtDE I wish the hadn't retired that airport, half the fun of living there was landing at Kai Tak or watching planes land in storms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
Someone on another forum I read just posted these quite amazing shots, taken today over Scotland:  Can anyone identify the two planes? Edit: I'm guessing the grey plane is a USAF KC-135 tanker JingleBells fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Apr 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
KC-135 refueling a run of the mill transport? The second plane is definitely a Boeing design.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
^^^ To hell with you. ^^^ KC-135 and an E6 or something? They're both based on the same airframe. Frosty- fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Apr 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:KC-135 refueling a run of the mill transport? The second plane is definitely a Boeing design. Frosty- posted:^^^ To hell with you. ^^^ Do they refuel just about everything these days? I had this romantic idea of them only refuelling jets/bombers on important missions 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 23:56
|
|
|
Basically, yeah. If it's military, it probably is capable of mid-air refueling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Basically, yeah. If it's military, it probably is capable of mid-air refueling. About the only military aircraft I can think of without mid-air refueling capability is the U-2/TR-1. The CIA experimented with fitting a few U-2's with refueling capability in the early 1960's, and although the aircraft could stay aloft in excess of 14 hours, pilots became dangerously fatigued under those conditions and the idea was eventually scrapped.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
Frosty- posted:^^^ To hell with you. ^^^ It's a KC-135, and the receiver is some flavor of 707. It's not an E-6, it has the wrong engines. I'm wondering if it might be a JSTARS? The resolution might not be good enough to show the radome. But the paint scheme is weird...honestly I don't know of anything that has the forward portion of the engine cowlings painted different from the rest; that bright white portion is really making me wonder. I don't THINK it's a JSTARS, but the US just doesn't have many 707 airframes anymore. E-3, E-6, E-8, RC-135, KC-135...that's all that comes to mind right now. Edit: It's an OC-135 Open Skies! I've actually seen these before, too. Duh. Godholio fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Apr 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 01:32
|
|
Godholio posted:It's a KC-135, and the receiver is some flavor of 707. It's not an E-6, it has the wrong engines. I'm wondering if it might be a JSTARS? The resolution might not be good enough to show the radome. But the paint scheme is weird...honestly I don't know of anything that has the forward portion of the engine cowlings painted different from the rest; that bright white portion is really making me wonder. I don't THINK it's a JSTARS, but the US just doesn't have many 707 airframes anymore. E-3, E-6, E-8, RC-135, KC-135...that's all that comes to mind right now. Sure as hell is an OC-135... what was it doing over Scotland then? 
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 15:00
|
|
|
Breaky posted:Sure as hell is an OC-135... what was it doing over Scotland then? The UK is a signatory of the Treaty on Open Skies. Chances are that jet was TDY to somewhere in Europe, and was getting gas either shortly after takeoff (if they were based in England) or on their way to/from the US. My question is how the hell did somebody get a photo that zoomed in and that clear of an AAR operation...those planes are probably well above 20,000 ft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 15:36
|
|
|
Godholio posted:My question is how the hell did somebody get a photo that zoomed in and that clear of an AAR operation...those planes are probably well above 20,000 ft. Clear sky conditions and either a fairly large telephoto lens or a reasonably sized telescope would be my guess. Remember, there are a lot of people for whom aviation photography is their passion, and they'll go to any extreme just to get the perfect shot. I was talking with a guy at the airport a couple weeks ago, and even though he was purely an amateur photographer interested solely in taking pictures of airplanes, he probably had almost $100k of gear with him. MrChips fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Apr 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Clear sky conditions and either a fairly large telephoto lens This is what the person who posted the pics said: Some Scots bloke posted:I was up in high hills of Skirtland today to do some photography with my new camera. Whilst taking a break, my dad pointed out some planes at what looked like close to cruising altitude crossing a flawless blue sky - nothing unusual about that. As I stood watching, it looked like one of the planes had more trails than it should have done. I said to my old man "that looks like two planes" to which he said "naaaaaah can't be". I put on the tele zoom to get a closer look, and was indeed two planes - 747 sized machines flying right beside / below one another. On closer inspection of the shots, it looks like it's getting refuled? But what sort of plane is it, and why is it being refulled in the airspace above the Scottish Highlands? Anyone have any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 17:52
|
|
|
That's pretty awesome. Make sure you pass on what they are, that's pretty cool he got that shot. There are only 2 OC-135s in service.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I was talking with a guy at the airport a couple weeks ago, and even though he was purely an amateur photographer interested solely in taking pictures of airplanes, he probably had almost $100k of gear with him. Jesus! It utterly blows my mind how much some people are willing to spend on a hobby.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Jesus! Might as well spend it on the things that bring you joy, you can't take it with you when you go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 19:45
|
|